Oops: Washington Post Notes Problems With Solar As Part Of TDS

By William Teach June 22, 2017 – 3:52 pm

One would think that a Warmist outlet like the Washington Post would approve of solar power on Trump’s wall, if the wall has to be built. Alas, Trump Derangement Syndrome

WaPo Points Out Flaws With Solar Power After Trump Suggests Putting Panels On The Border Wall

The Washington Post is very skeptical of President Donald Trump’s proposal to cover the U.S.-Mexico border wall he’s promised to build with solar panels.

The paper was quick to point to past reporting on the pitfalls of using solar panels to help pay for a border wall. It’s a big turn from WaPo’s usually positive stance on solar panels as a way to fight global warming.

They’re super supportive, but not to the point of putting solar panels on its own office building and trying to rely solely on it

WaPo’s Dino Grandoni wrote that “experts who have taken the solar-paneled border wall proposal seriously say such a structure would have significant issues.”

“Vertically fixed panels could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent,” Grandoni wrote, referring to a Financial Times article from February.

Grandoni also pointed to a past WaPo report by Sophie Yeo, which noted that “solar panels degrade over time” and the “requirements dictated by the security aspects of the border wall — bricks and spray paint, for example — could further reduce efficiency.”

You know, if Trump would spend lots of time talking about how much he supports solar and wind power you could bet that all of a sudden the Cult of Climastrology would find reasons to be against solar and wind. Heck, if he stated that the Paris Climate Agreement was awesome, all the supporters of the PCA would come out against it.

Read: Oops: Washington Post Notes Problems With Solar As Part Of TDS »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 22, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an angry sea that will rise up in righteous indignation because some people won’t accept carbon taxes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on what it’s like living in an Avacado Republic.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Claim: 30% Of World Population Could Be Under Threat From Dying From The Heat

By William Teach June 22, 2017 – 11:12 am

Another day, another bit of cultish insanity

Dying Of Heat Could Soon Be A Reality For 30% Of The Population

If “dying of heat” was just an expression before, it has now become a sad reality due to the acceleration of climate change.

A team of researchers at the University of Hawaii in Manoa has examined the scientific literature and identified 783 cases of death due to extreme heat throughout the globe from 1980 to 2014.

People have always died from the heat. 783 cases over 24 years doesn’t seem like much.

They then analyzed the data using various weather parameters recorded during the heat waves, such as air temperature, humidity, and wind speed.

They deduced that high temperatures coupled with humidity were the determining factor in making a heat wave potentially deadly because it affects our body’s ability to regulate temperature.

The researchers determined that based on the temperature and humidity levels that can be deadly, about 13% of the world’s continental surface area is at risk, and that area contains about 30% of the world’s population.

Welcome to planet earth. But, this is not about that, of course: it’s about Hotcoldwetdry

According to the authors, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, three-fourths of the world’s population will be at risk of potentially deadly heat waves by 2100.

In the worst-case scenario, which is if we don’t get a hold on climate change, global warming will increase by 38 degrees in 2100, putting 47% of the world’s countries and 74% of the population at risk.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/bandwagon/52197-Picard-facepalm-gif-ubif_zpsz5zxfmue.gif

Um, what? 38 degrees? I’m assuming that’s a typo, and it should be 3 degrees, but, this is the Cult of Climastrology, so, you never know.

In the best-case scenario, supposing we can reduce our emissions to 1 degree, the potentially deadly heat zone would still affect 27% of the globe, and about half the world’s population by the end of the century. At this point, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but we can certainly minimize the impact.

So a minor 1 degree (doesn’t specify whether C or F) could mean that 50% of the world’s population could be under threat from dying? Nutjobs. Pure and simple, nutjobs.

Read: Claim: 30% Of World Population Could Be Under Threat From Dying From The Heat »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Healthcare Bill Seems Less Repeal And More Tinker

By William Teach June 22, 2017 – 9:23 am

The Washington Post got it’s hands on a draft copy, and, while there are a few interesting and good things in, it is far, far, far away from an actual repeal and replace

(Washington Post) Senate leaders on Wednesday were putting the final touches on legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system by dramatically rolling back Medicaid while easing the impact on Americans who stand to lose coverage under a new bill.

A discussion draft circulating Wednesday afternoon among aides and lobbyists would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s taxes, phase down its Medicaid expansion, rejigger its subsidies, give states wider latitude in opting out of its regulations and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes aimed at pleasing moderates. While the House legislation tied federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income, as the ACA does. The Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill,\ but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also removes language restricting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.

There’s not a lot more that you need to know. It appears to mostly mimic the House bill, with a few changes, and said House bill was not a repeal and replace, more of a tinker here and there. Getting rid of all the taxes? Great. The rest? Well, it doesn’t really get the government out of the way when it comes to healthcare, it doesn’t empower the relationship between doctors and their patients, it doesn’t make it easier for people to obtain lower cost and usable health insurance, and it still has a penalty/mandate, among others. It doesn’t empower the states that much, and it doesn’t allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. It really doesn’t do much.

Perhaps when we see the actual bill we will see the words “H.R. 3590, also known as as Public Law 111 – 148, ie, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is hereby repealed”, and have it replaced with the ideas Republicans have been saying for years, rather than the stupidity of the House bill. Don’t hold your breath.

Read: Senate Healthcare Bill Seems Less Repeal And More Tinker »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Are Democrats Finally Realizing That Their Non-stop Russia Bleat Is Failing?

By William Teach June 22, 2017 – 8:59 am

If you turn on certain channels or head to their websites, there has been a constant plethora of stories about Russia and Trump. Literally, there could be big breaking news, such as the big terrorist attack in London, and those stations would mention it briefly then go back to Russia, Trump, collusion, stolen election, etc. A few Democrats are finally getting a clue

(Daily Caller) Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan criticized his fellow Democrats Wednesday night for being “obsessed” with President Trump and not focusing on the issues that actually matter to working people.

CNN’s Don Lemon asked Ryan to explain his statement earlier that day that the Democratic party brand is “toxic” to many Americans.

“Well, it happens to be true. We all have a lot of anger towards what Donald Trump is doing, but we’ve had four special elections, and Donald Trump, four, Democrats, zero,” Ryan said. “I hate to admit that. It hurts. It’s painful, but we’ve got to get our act together because there’s a lot of people relying on us.

“I worry sometimes that we get so obsessed and angered by Donald Trump, which is okay, but you can’t hold on to it because it takes your eye off the ball. We’re not focusing on the economic messages. People in Ohio, Don, aren’t really talking about Russia or Michael Flynn or Putin or anything else,” Ryan said.

“They’re worried about paying the bills, what’s happening with our pension, how much does it cost to send a kid to school, what’s our energy bill like. Real bread and butter stuff.”

I’d suggest that most of the average Democratic Party voter probably doesn’t care about the Russia thing, either. You know, the thing that they’ve found zero evidence of when it comes to President Trump himself. It’s mostly the media, party bigwigs, and the unhinged activists who care, because they have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This follows on the heals of another Democrat getting wise after the loss of carpetbagger from another district John Ossoff’s loss

Of course, as Twitchy points out, Murphy himself has been part of that distraction, yammering on about Russia and Trump on Twitter and the networks, particularly MSDNC, for months now.

Really, what hurts Democrats is their message overall. When they deign to tell us in those few occasions, it’s about abortion on demand, gun confiscation, being pro-illegal alien, tax increases for Everyone Else, gender confused men in the girl’s locker rooms, and bigger and more controlling centralized government. It’s no wonder they don’t want to talk about what they stand for.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Are Democrats Finally Realizing That Their Non-stop Russia Bleat Is Failing? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Carbon Taxes Aren’t Punitive Or Something

By William Teach June 21, 2017 – 5:10 pm

Carbon taxes are apparently about changing your behavior – as written by people who refuse to change their own (via Watts Up With That?)

Are Carbon Taxes The Solution To Global Warming?

There is a belief that taxes (such as carbon taxes) are punitive or punishing, hence the misconception that carbon taxes aren’t part of the solution set useful for climate change.

This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion.

Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior, along with regulations. In behavioral economics, there’s something referred to as induced demand. This is a directly observable behavioral trait of groups. If something is cheap, people will figure out how to use it and more of it will be used. You can see this with building new roads which become congested almost immediately and you can see it with dumping sewage into rivers instead of treating it where that is allowed by lack of regulation and penalty.

Yet, taxes are not meant to be either punitive or for modifying the behavior of the citizenry. At least not in the American system. But, this is what Progressivism is about. Using Government to force compliance. They should remember one thing: what goes around comes around. What happens if Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, decide to impose a tax that is meant to modify the behavior of liberals? One that, say, taxes green energy projects in Democrat cities and states? Or lays a higher tax on mass transit? Who will this affect the most? Or, how about a moving tax for people who move from Blue states to Red states?

A couple are considering the purchase of a car, the second largest single expense most people have after their home. They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like. The price of gasoline and projected future price of gasoline is part of the conversation. A 20 mile per gallon car might cost a couple close to $1,600 in annual gas bills at $2.40 a gallon. A carbon tax might raise that to $3.00 a gallon which would increase their annual gas costs to perhaps $2,000, about $400 more. Meanwhile, a 50 mpg PHEV or a full electric car could drop their annual gas expenditure substantially. Filling up with electricity is half as expensive as filling up with gas at $2.40 a gallon on average in the USA, and closer to a third as expensive at $3.00. That means that buying an electric car might save them $800 without a carbon tax or up to $1,200 with a carbon tax. $1,200 is $100 a month. For most couples that’s material. They’re more likely to make a decision to buy a Chevy Bolt or a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3 instead of a gas car. They have a choice and are incentivized to make one choice over the other. This doesn’t penalize them, but it does shift behaviors to preferential ones.

This is Government forcing people to behave in a certain manner for essentially Wrongthink. This is why we have a 10th Amendment, and a Constitution that restricts the actions of the federal government. And, don’t forget that “what goes around comes around.”

Read: Carbon Taxes Aren’t Punitive Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | Comments Off on Carbon Taxes Aren’t Punitive Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 21, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an area that is drying out from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on CNN having a case of the sads over the Ossoff loss.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Funniest Fallout From Georgia Special Election: Democrats Live With Their Parents

By William Teach June 21, 2017 – 10:30 am

And the get out the votes folks had a bit of a problem

(Daily Caller) A precinct captain for Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff’s congressional campaign complained recently that many of his constituents are hard to reach because they still live at home with their parents.

“Those were the angriest people,” Jessica Zeigler told Slate, referring to the Republican parents of the young Democrats. “When you are targeting their child, or heaven forbid their child might not think the same way as them, it becomes ugly.”

Ziegler, who has been quoted in a number of Slate articles and a NYTimes piece, added that the police had even been called on Ossoff volunteers on a number of occasions.

One would think these young people who are stuck living with their parents because they cannot get jobs (while sitting on tons of college loan debt) allowing them to do the whole Adulting thing would be tired of the Democratic Party policies that helped put them in this position, but, they’ve been indoctrinated into caring about things that are stupid.

Then there’s this

Read: Funniest Fallout From Georgia Special Election: Democrats Live With Their Parents »

Posted in Democrats | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

We Have A Winner In The “Tropical Storm Cindy Is Climate Change” Sweepstakes

By William Teach June 21, 2017 – 7:59 am

Remember when members of the Cult of Climastrology would tell us that weather was not climate? Of course, that was before the CoC manufactured a talking point that allowed them to blame all winter weather on warming and CO2, which allows them to now screech “this is what climate change looks like! Yeaaaaaaargh!” Hence, we have Warmists Eric Holthaus pulling the normal Warmist schtick

TROPICAL STORM CINDY COULD BECOME AMERICA’S LATEST FLOODING NIGHTMARE
The Gulf Coast is preparing for the sort of rainstorm that is supposed to come only once in a lifetime.

…..

As with virtually every weather event at this point, there’s a clear link between Cindy and climate change. Since a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor (thanks to enhanced evaporation and other factors), rainfall rates during extreme events have become more intense. To prove the point, this morning, the atmosphere over New Orleans was the wettest it has ever been for the date. The one-in-200-year or one-in-500-year calculations include only historical rainfall data and don’t take into account changing trends resulting from climate change. Weird rainstorms are happening more often now.

With pronouncements like that, I and other Skeptics are fully empowered to call Warmists (or whatever your refer to them as) members of a cult. And what Holthaus means by climate change is anthropogenic, where “carbon pollution” from mankind is causing all these changes. Except for the Great Pause, of course, where nature was the driver.

As you can guess, there are plenty of Warmist droppings regarding #Cindy all over Twitter

https://twitter.com/DaveRuede/status/877229412403621888

https://twitter.com/akridenour/status/877382502121443328

But, here’s my favorite

That’s funny.

Read: We Have A Winner In The “Tropical Storm Cindy Is Climate Change” Sweepstakes »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Admits There’s Pretty Much No Evidence Against Trump Over Collusion

By William Teach June 21, 2017 – 7:38 am

At least one NY Times employee has come to a soul sucking conclusion

(Daily Caller) NYTimes columnist David Brooks challenged the paper’s dominant narrative in a Tuesday op-ed in which he cautioned critics of President Donald Trump to show restraint in light of the absence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians,” Brooks wrote.

There may be a giant revelation, but it is highly doubtful. After all this time, after all these talking points, after all these investigations in Congress and by the same media which mostly refused to investigate Obama and his team, if it hasn’t shown up yet, we can bet with confidence that there isn’t any evidence for a giant, or even tiny, revelation.

Brooks’ explicit admission that there is no evidence to suggest the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 presidential election represents a significant departure from what has been the NYTimes editorial position since the multiple ongoing investigations began.

This is because there never was any “there there.” This was all a Democratic Party freakout that started even before he won the GOP primary, around the time he was gaining steam and winning primary elections, and exploded when he won the general election, and outcome that the Democrats just cannot accept.

Brooks examines one of the central arguments that Trump’s critics, his own NYTimes colleagues among them, have introduced in an effort to implicate him in nefarious activity and quickly dismisses it.

“There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians,” Brooks wrote. “But so far no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin. And so far nothing we know of these meetings proves or even indicates collusion.”

Was there Russian interference, or at least attempted interference? 100% yes. Nations muck around in other nation’s elections all the time. The United States certainly does it. What would you call Obama taking the side of the Remain group during the Brexit vote, and even backing Macron during the recent French elections, among others? Sure, on the latter Obama was out of office, but, he’s still an ex-president with a lot of sway. One report states that the Russia interference was about being anti-Hillary, not pro-Trump. It was payback for her actions against Russia, and they would have done the same thing regardless of who the GOP chose.

Brooks concludes by suggesting Trump may be vindicated in his criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

“Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary,” Brooks wrote referring to Trump’s tweet.

It’s time to end this charade, and leave Democrats to their conspiracy theories. The Republicans need to shut this down and move on to their agenda. And have the fortitude to call the Democrats out, take control of the narrative. Which, we have to admit, is pretty difficult for Republicans. They’re not real good at that.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Admits There’s Pretty Much No Evidence Against Trump Over Collusion »

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on NY Times Admits There’s Pretty Much No Evidence Against Trump Over Collusion | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove