Washington Post Very Concerned About A Potential Government Wide Questioning Of “Climate Science” Or Something

By William Teach July 2, 2017 – 8:31 am

This Washington Post article is less about ‘climate change’ than about shoddy journalism using zero named sources – they’re all anonymous – to have a conniption fit about the government questioning the “consensus” of climate science. But, hey, wait till we get the money quote

EPA chief pushing governmentwide effort to question climate change science

The Trump administration is debating whether to launch a governmentwide effort to question the science of climate change, an effort that critics say is an attempt to undermine the long-established consensus human activity is fueling the Earth’s rising temperatures.

The move, driven by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, has sparked a debate among top Trump administration officials over whether to pursue such a strategy.

A senior White House official, who asked for anonymity because no final decision has been made, said that while Pruitt has expressed interest in the idea, “there are no formal plans within the administration to do anything about it at this time.”

Consensus is not science, and the senior official is probably a cook for all we know.

But officials are discussing whether the initiative would stretch across numerous federal agencies that rely on such science, according to multiple Trump administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement has been made.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who once described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess,” also is involved in the effort, two officials said.

Writers Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis throw in a few names in an attempt to make this all look legitimate, instead of a whisper campaign and journalism that looks more like something from a conspiracy theory website. We’ve already seen the huge number of articles that have turned out to be false or wrong. How do we trust something based 100% on anonymous sources?

Here’s the money quote

The idea, according to one senior administration official, is “to get other federal agencies involved in this exercise on the state of climate science” to examine “what we know, where there are holes, and what we actually don’t know.”

OH MY GOD!!!!!! They might do a scientific investigation into what we do and don’t know!!!!!!! Science doesn’t work this way!!!! Science is all about declaring a belief, manufacturing data to support it, and then saying the science is settled!!!! Don’t these people know that that is the Scientific Method? That science is never questioned? We’re doooooooomed!!!!! Because consensus science has never been proven wrong!!!!

A plethora of scientific assessments over the years have concluded that human activity — such as the burning of fossil fuels — is driving climate change, and it poses grave risks both to the environment and to human health. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is “extremely likely” that, since the 1950s, humans and their greenhouse gas emissions have been the “dominant cause” of the planet’s warming trend.

And a plethora of assessments have stated that human activity is not the dominant cause. Everyone knew that frogs gave you warts, until someone did Science. Everyone knew that world was flat, until someone questioned the science. Cracking your knuckles doesn’t give you arthritis. Lightning does strike twice. Even Einstein has had his theories questioned, and even superceded. And Newtonian Gravity? Yes, that was questioned, and superceded by general relativity.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Very Concerned About A Potential Government Wide Questioning Of “Climate Science” Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice, New Climate Deniers | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

NYC Subway As A Stand-in For Socialized Medicine

By William Teach July 1, 2017 – 2:57 pm

The same people who run the New York City transit system are the same ones who want to run America’s healthcare system

Closures, overcrowding, rats: New York City commuters face ‘summer of hell’
The city’s aging subway has been declared ‘a state of emergency’. Combined with closures on other rail lines, riders are bracing for the worst

There was a time – somewhere between the 1990s exorcism of violent crime from much of New York City and Thursday, when a “state of emergency” was declared for the city’s transit system – when a nightmare scenario on the subway meant a rat crawling up your leg, over your chest and nearly into your hoody.

That remains a vividly awful prospect. But in the summer of 2017, rats are competing with a ballooning number of alternative potential torments for commuters (the term is used optimistically) who venture into the city’s aging underground.

Dangerously overcrowded platforms. Chronically delayed trains. Terrifying and injurious derailments. Tunnel strandings. Signal malfunctions. Fisticuffs. Electrical outages. Garbled announcements. Knockout stenches. Non-rat wildlife. Stairs, shoulders, backups, backpacks, bad attitudes and bad breath.

A particularly unlucky group of rush hour F-train riders last month were stuck inside overheating train cars for so long that video of their desperate fingers prizing open fogged-up doors looked not so much like the scene from a commute as footage from a zombie movie.

Democratic Party control sounds great, especially when combined with a far, far left mayor high on being a Social Justice Warrior. Good ole Bill is more concerned with Other People being forced to comply with climate change BS and virtue signaling on the Paris Climate Agreement.

Then we look over the Atlantic, and see that parents were denied the ability to take their child out of the hospital and bring him to the U.S. for treatment, and now

Leftists love this stuff. Right up till it punches them in the face

Read: NYC Subway As A Stand-in For Socialized Medicine »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 1, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is sunlight made stronger by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a new German law on “hate speech.”

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Pretty Upset That EPA Would Allow People With Other Views To Present Them

By William Teach July 1, 2017 – 8:14 am

Science in Liberal World is like everything else in Liberal World: one view allowed, no dissension allowed, Wrongthink must be shut down

E.P.A. to Give Dissenters a Voice on Climate, No Matter the Consensus

Once you’ve mentioned consensus, you’ve admitted this is not about science, but politics.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, plans to convene a team of researchers to test the scientific premise of human-caused climate change, he told coal industry executives on Thursday.

Speaking at a board meeting of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group for coal companies and their industry allies, Mr. Pruitt said his staff had already begun preparations for a “red team-blue team” exercise to challenge mainstream climate science, according to two people who attended the meeting but were not authorized to speak about it publicly.

What’s the problem? Allowing different views sounds like good science, right? Oh, no, not in Warmist World

The initiative, first reported by E&E News, is the latest in a series of moves at the E.P.A. that critics say is undermining the role of academic research at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health.

In other words, people who get a lot of research money in academia are upset that their highly partisan, cultish research might be undermined by actual science. They do not like that the different teams would provide and debate. They’re very concerned with the debate part

Many mainstream climate scientists say the proposal would make a mockery of scientific research, which already relies on an extensive process of peer review to weed out flawed analyses.

Those scientists worry that Mr. Pruitt’s exercise will not be conducted in good faith, and will only create a platform for marginal views that have already been disproved in the normal course of scientific debate.

And this is the problem in a nutshell for Warmists: they would have to actually prove their hypotheses and findings in a public forum against scientists who disagree. They’ve gotten used to being the only fish in the pond, and not truly having to prove what they say.

“The key will be to see who they get to staff the teams,” Dr. Dessler said. “I can’t imagine mainstream scientists rushing to sign up for a process which is clearly a waste of time. My guess is that, in the end, many of the participants will have dubious credentials.”

That is the key: will Warmist scientists be willing to debate and defend their Beliefs on anthropogenic climate change? For the most part, they have been unwilling to do so in a public forum. Most of the big time leading Warmists have been unwilling to debate. Because, on the few occasions they do, they lose badly.

The article is essentially saying that “the science is settled”, and no one should be allowed to debate. Why are Warmists so scared to put debate and defend?

Read: NY Times Seems Pretty Upset That EPA Would Allow People With Other Views To Present Them »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Some People Are Losing Their Minds Over GOP Immigration Bills

By William Teach July 1, 2017 – 7:19 am

What is so wrong with trying to control who is entering the United States, and attempting to make sure they are doing it legally? What is wrong with attempting to make sure that jurisdictions are not intentionally sheltering people who are unlawfully present? Most other countries do this. Let’s start off with Scott Shackford at libertarian leaning Reason

GOP Pushes Bad, Punitive Anti-Federalist Immigration Bills Through the House

House Republicans overwhelmingly voted in favor of two bad immigration-focused bills yesterday that potentially punish those in the United States illegally with new harsh prison sentences and attempts to push cities into helping federal authorities deport people.

I’m failing to see the problem.

The first bill, popularly known as “Kate’s Law,” adds new criminal penalties and federal prison sentences to any immigrant who returns to the United States after being deported for criminal behavior. But it also threatens up to 10 years in federal prison for illegal immigrants who repeatedly return to the United States after being deported, even if they’ve committed no other crimes. It also forbids the immigrant from challenging the legitimacy of any prior removal orders.

The great thing about Kate’s Law is that it is really meant to deter illegal alien absconders from recrossing the border. We don’t want to actually throw them in jail unless the illegals force the issue. We’d rather they not come back. Shackford spends little time in trying to say bad things about a law named after a woman murdered by an illegal alien who had recrossed the border after being deported 5 times. He’s not that brave.

But, he does spend a lot of time whining about the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act, especially since Rep. Justin Amash whiningly voted against it, along with Kate’s Law.

What the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” does is forbid municipalities from stopping local law enforcement officials from helping federal immigration officials by complying with detainer orders. In areas of immigration enforcement, it overrules the ability of cities to control the behavior of their own law enforcement officers.

And that’s part of the “anti-federalist” argument. However, Los Federales are tasked by the Constitution with enforcing immigration. Are local officers allowed to ignored a kidnapper from another state because federal law enforcement wants them caught and demands they be held? All ICE asks is that an illegal alien be held for 48 hours. That’s it. If they do not pick the illegal up, they can be released. The problem is ICE’s at that point.

These bills represent attacks on immigrants that aren’t backed up by data. There is little evidence that illegal immigrants are a source of crime that justifies new, harsher federal criminal penalties and the data suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it’s utterly inappropriate for the federal government to try to overrule a state or city’s control over its own law enforcement officers.

Not in this case. Some on the Right who support illegals go through just as many contortions as those on the Left.

Not to be outdone, Cleveland.com runs an op-ed by Kok-Leong Seow, pithily entitled And then they came for me. He forgets to mention that his parents brought him to the country when they came here unlawfully. But, he thinks all these dealing with illegal aliens is totally like the book 1984, and then dives down an Insanity Hole

It’s that dramatic. It’s happening. It’s history repeating itself.

We are a country of laws. But law does not equal morality. The world has a history of implementing and enforcing laws that aren’t just. North Koreans are executed for having a different opinion than the regime. Blacks were counted as 60 percent of a person. Cherokee people were forced to Oklahoma. Japanese were put in internment camps. Jews were gassed in chambers. Stalin starved all of Ukraine. There are many more examples. All were part of law. All seemed justified at the time. But all were regrettable and shameful events in history.

You read that right. This illegal alien presumes to dictate the immigration laws of the United States because he and his family came illegally, and then compares enforcing existing law with the mass murder of Jews. Are we supposed to take this seriously at this point? Then end point of these pieces, along with many others, is that they want the enforcement to stop and amnesty to occur. Surprise?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Some People Are Losing Their Minds Over GOP Immigration Bills »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists “Correct” Satellite Data To Accord With Their Beliefs

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 3:00 pm

For a long time now, there has a been a massive discrepancy between the satellite data and Warmist models and “ground data”. Well, obviously, that was a big issue for the Cult of Climastrology. So they did what they do best: modify the data

Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

Climate change deniers and sceptics have long pointed to satellite data showing lower temperatures than those recorded on the ground.

However, new research has found an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature.

Using information from the satellites, the scientists, Dr Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research company, developed a new method of correcting for the changes.

Obviously, they found something startling

And what they found was startling.

The rate of warming was about a third higher at 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade between 1976 and 2016, compared to 0.134C per decade.

Is anyone surprised that massaging and adjusting the data with a “new method” suddenly gave them not only an outcome that accords with the Warmist’s talking points, but is even worse than thought?

Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset.

Of course it did.

BTW, this still wouldn’t prove that the warming is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Oh, and I wrote this in the morning for posting in the p.m., ran across this

https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/880756744447774720

Read: Surprise: Warmists “Correct” Satellite Data To Accord With Their Beliefs »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that has risen because evil people kill trees to read books, you might juts be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the battle between Marie Bartiroma and John Podesta over his Russia links.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 10:50 am

Fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(ABC News)  The Trump administration plans to arrest parents and other relatives who authorities believe smuggled their children into the United States, a move immigrant advocates said would send a wave of fear through vulnerable communities.

A new “surge initiative” aims to dismantle human smuggling operations, including identifying and arresting the adult sponsors of unaccompanied minors who paid coyotes or other smugglers to bring the children across the U.S. border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed Thursday.

That marks a sharp departure from policies in place under President Barack Obama’s administration, during which time tens of thousands of young people fleeing gang and drug violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador crossed the border and were placed with sponsors in communities nationwide. Sponsors — typically parents, close relatives or family friends — have been expected to care for the minors while they go to school and seek legal status in immigration court.

“Arresting those who come forward to sponsor unaccompanied children during their immigration proceedings, often parents, is unimaginably cruel,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that has matched thousands of unaccompanied minors with pro bono attorneys in the last eight years. “Without caregivers to come forward, many of these children will languish in costly detention centers or be placed in foster care at great expense to states.”

The idea here is exactly to stoke fear, which will drastically reduce the number of minors being sent across the border to come live with people who are unlawfully present in the U.S. themselves.

Children whose sponsors were arrested would be placed with another verified relative or guardian, or under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the federal agency that takes custody of unaccompanied minors, said ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez.

“ICE aims to disrupt and dismantle end-to-end the illicit pathways used by transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling facilitators,” Rodriguez said. “The sponsors who have placed children directly into harm’s way by entrusting them to violent criminal organizations will be held accountable.”

They should arrest Democrats who enable and embolden this behavior by constantly coming out in favor of illegal aliens, and end up putting children in harm’s way.

Read: Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally | Trackback URL

Study Finds That Southeast And Midwest Will Suffer Most From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 7:14 am

Where do you find the most pro-science skepticism when it comes to anthropogenic climate change? The Southeast and Midwest. Republican leaning states. So, shockingly, guess which areas are targeted in this new “study”?

As Climate Changes, Southern States Will Suffer More Than Others

As the United States confronts global warming in the decades ahead, not all states will suffer equally. Maine may benefit from milder winters. Florida, by contrast, could face major losses, as deadly heat waves flare up in the summer and rising sea levels eat away at valuable coastal properties.

In a new study in the journal Science, researchers analyzed the economic harm that climate change could inflict on the United States in the coming century. They found that the impacts could prove highly unequal: states in the Northeast and West would fare relatively well, while parts of the Midwest and Southeast would be especially hard hit.

In all, the researchers estimate that the nation could face damages worth 0.7 percent of gross domestic product per year by the 2080s for every 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature. But that overall number obscures wide variations: The worst-hit counties — mainly in states that already have warm climates, like Arizona or Texas — could see losses worth 10 to 20 percent of G.D.P. or more if emissions continue to rise unchecked.

Since 1850, there has only been a mild 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase. Will 1 more degree Fahrenheit really be noticeable? Only in Warmist World. The notion here is to attempt to scaremonger aimed at the areas with the most skeptics, all in order to get them to accept more taxes, fees, a higher cost of living, higher energy costs, and more centralized governmental control of their lives.

Previous economic models have been relatively crude, focusing on broad global impacts. The new study, led by the Climate Impact Lab, a group of scientists, economists and computational experts, took advantage of a wealth of recent research on how high temperatures can cripple the economy. And the researchers harnessed advances in computing to scale global climate models down to individual counties in the United States.

Who’s shocked by the use of computer models? Raise your hands.

There are still limitations to the study. It relies heavily on research showing how hot weather has caused economic losses in the past. But society and technology will change a lot over the next 80 years, and people may find novel ways to adapt to steadily rising temperatures, said Robert S. Pindyck, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved with this study.

Limitations? The heck you say. People survived Holocene warm periods that were warmer than today, we’ll survive this one.

Read: Study Finds That Southeast And Midwest Will Suffer Most From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

House Passes Kate’s Law Along With Anti-Sanctuary City Bill On Mostly Party Line Votes

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 6:57 am

Unsurprisingly, most Democrats voted against both bills

(CNN) House Republicans joined President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon in declaring war on sanctuary cities — passing legislation targeting the cities’ funding while hammering a message of the dangers posed by undocumented immigrants.

“Kate’s Law” is named for Kate Steinle, a young woman murdered on a busy walkway in San Francisco two years ago allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who was deported multiple times. It would increase maximum penalties for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the country illegally after deportation, especially with criminal records. It passed 257-167.

The “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” would expand what is required of cities regarding federal immigrant enforcement and allow the government to deny jurisdictions federal law enforcement funds if they don’t comply. It passed 228-195.

CNN forgets to mention that for the No Sanctuary bill, 188 of the 195 no votes were from Democrats. Only 3 Dems voted for the bill. For Republicans, Amash, Curbelo, Diaz-Balart, Donovan, King (NY), Reichert, and Ros-Lehtinen need to be targeted for being primaried.

For Kate’s Law, only 24 Democrats decided that it was a good idea to increase the penalties on criminal aliens who came back into the country after being deported. 166 voted against a law named for an American citizen murdered by a 5 time deported alien with a long criminal background. Justin Amash was the lone Republican to vote against it.

Democrats also slammed what they alleged was an effort to vilify undocumented immigrants, despite studies showing they are no more likely to commit crimes than the general population.

“This bill perpetuates the ugly myth that immigrants are more dangerous and more likely to commit crimes than native Americans,” New York Rep. Jerry Nadler said on the House floor. “This bill demonizes immigrants, punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and law enforcement and allows indefinite detention, … all while making us less safe.”

The “undocumented” are committing a crime by being in the nation to start with. Why would law enforcement, tasked with, get this, enforcing law and stopping criminals, want to bond with a criminal element? As for indefinite detention, if Democrats would stop caterwauling about deporting people who shouldn’t be in the United States, the illegals would be held a short time and then sent packing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: House Passes Kate’s Law Along With Anti-Sanctuary City Bill On Mostly Party Line Votes »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove