James Hansen: Government Has To Make People Care About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 10:30 am

James Hansen, who takes lots and lots of fossil fueled trips, really loves the thought of a carbon tax that will hurt the middle and lower classes. And he’s legendary!

Legendary Climate Scientist Likes a GOP Proposal on Global Warming

Pres. Donald Trump issued a major executive order last week that, if successful, could undercut the nation’s fight against global warming. In particular, the order kicks off an attempt to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from the power sector. While Trump’s move represents a big blow to U.S. climate efforts, the renowned scientist James Hansen sees a different—and, he argues, better—way forward on global warming. “The problem is the Clean Power Plan is really not that effective,” says Hansen, former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, who brought climate change to the U.S. public’s attention in his famed 1988 congressional testimony. “It’s a tragedy that [the Obama administration] continued to pursue a regulatory approach.”

I’m getting the feeling Hansen doesn’t care for the CPP. Anyhow, Hansen goes on to say how much he loves the notion of a carbon tax, which he won’t call a tax, but a fee, one which would see refunds back to the citizens. Which would barely happen, but, would also make people more dependent on Government. He likes that silly plan some silly Republicans came up with a few months back. And this would totally stimulate the economy!!!!!! Because we’ve seen how well this works in other countries.

Here’s where it gets fun, as Hansen responds to a question (first paragraph)

You’ve been focusing your energy on helping people understand the urgency of global warming. Are you hopeful that the public will demand major action from the government soon?

Climate change is not going to register on the public’s list of priorities, so we need the help of an intelligent government system. Even though the fossil fuel industry money has been able to distort the climate science in Congress, the judicial branch can come into play. That’s why I’m a plaintiff along with 21 young people in a lawsuit against the federal government [suing it for having taken—and continuing to take—actions that support fossil fuel production and create greenhouse gas emissions].* We now have a really bulletproof case, which I think will win even with a conservative Supreme Court.

In other words, you stupid people are being stupid, so, Government must force you to care.

It’s going to be a combination of using the judiciary branch of the government and then using the democratic process to shape the policy that’s accepted. Between those two, I’m optimistic we could get on a path that would then influence the world.

And using the courts to force you to care. Because, obviously, their 25+ years of spreading awareness and scaremongering hasn’t worked out so well. But, then, this isn’t about saving Gaia or the environment or anything, it’s about applying Progressive political power, which includes more government and control over people and private entities.

Read: James Hansen: Government Has To Make People Care About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

“Experts” Warn Border Wall Will Harm 800 Species

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 7:20 am

Today’s fear-mongering is provided by an interesting source, which surely has a stake in making sure that Mexican citizens are allowed to enter the United States unlawfully whenever they want

Experts warn 800 species, many endangered, affected by border wall

A study by Mexico’s top university has revealed that at least 800 species of wildlife will be adversely affected by President Trump’s planned 2,000-mile border wall with Mexico.

Huh.

Research published by ecologists from the Mexican National Autonomous University has shown that an impassable physical barrier placed into ecosystems inhabited by jaguars, black bears and bighorn sheep will so disrupt patterns of migration as to cause a “natural catastrophe.”

“The U.S.-Mexico border is made up of mountains, jungle, coastline and many other diverse ecosystems,” Professor Gerardo Ceballos, who led the investigation published last week, told Fox News. “Wildlife has populated these regions for millions of years, and has always had freedom of movement to hunt, reproduce and migrate. To make these animals suffer as a result of man’s political agenda is entirely immoral.”

Sounds more like a political study and statement rather than a research paper, does it not?

Let’s consider jaguars

Environmental groups are now voicing opposition to President Trump’s proposed border wall because they say it could interfere with jaguar migration between Mexico and the United States.

On an entirely unrelated note, please raise your hand if you live in Arizona and have ever seen a jaguar. No? ‘Kay.

In a move that smacks of its anti-oil efforts to “save” the lesser prairie chicken, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually proposed the creation of a critical habitat zone for jaguars across parts of Arizona and New Mexico back in 2012. But, seeing as jaguars aren’t known to inhabit the area, the Arizona Game and Fish Department pushed back, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch.

“[The] habitat essential to the conservation of the jaguar as a species does not exist in either Arizona or New Mexico under any scientifically credible definition of that term,” Arizona argued in their response.

“Occurrence records for recent history (i.e. post 1850s) fail to show that AZ or NM has never been occupied by a jaguar ‘population,’” the department added.

So, no jaguars. Back to the original story

Of the 800 species that will be affected by President Trump’s border wall, 140 are in danger of extinction, including the bald eagle, grey wolf, armadillo and jaguar, a big cat of which remain only 10 in the highlands of the Sonora Desert that straddle Arizona. Those animals whose range will be halved by the border wall’s construction will be impeded in their ability to reproduce with other members of their species, thereby creating a shallower gene pool and heightening the chance of inbreeding.

Eagles can, get this, fly. For the most part, grey wolves barely inhabit the border area. What this is really all about is fear-mongering, which has been pushed with an environmental idea for months now.

Leonora Esquivel is the founder of AnimaNaturalis, Mexico’s leading animal rights organization, which recently succeeded in banning the use of animals for performance in circuses throughout the country. She says her organization will fight the process of construction at the border wall should U.S. Congress approve it in the federal spending bill this month.

“Animals have no concept of political boundaries created by humans, and to impose a physical barrier that impedes their movement is entirely wrong,” she told Fox News.

Stop sending your people illegally across the border, and we won’t need a wall.

Read: “Experts” Warn Border Wall Will Harm 800 Species »

Posted in Enviroweenies, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

TDS: Cable TV President Launches Cable TV War Or Something

By William Teach April 11, 2017 – 6:58 am

Hey, remember the days when opinion writers at America’s news outlets complained about our previous celebrity president was constantly on talk shows, cable shows, going Between Two Ferns, chatting with a Youtube personality who does shows bathtubs full of milk and cereal, all while discussing policy and even launching air strikes and starting wars? Remember when they complained about our golfer-in-chief briefly making a statement about a U.S. citizen being beheaded by ISIS before heading back for some fun? Or any of the numerous things Mr. Obama did? No? Huh.

You can bet that the Philadelphia Enquirer’s Inquirer’s Excitable Will Bunch doesn’t remember, either

Cable TV president launches cable TV war — and the reviews are boffo!

Sometimes in America, the rocket’s red glare is all the proof through the night that you really need.

The folks over at the Pentagon understand that well, which is why — even as the flames from 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that struck a Syrian airstrip were still smoldering on Thursday night — the military brass made sure all of the TV networks were rapidly supplied with video of the Xbox-perfect launches from Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea. The  reddish streaks of combustible fuel gave instant light and clarity to the muddled darkness of an Arabian night, and so they played over and over again on cable TV networks thirsty for pictures to illuminate the drama and importance of President Trump’s most high-profile miltary adventure since taking office.

So, news outlets were supposed to ignore the strike? Bunch does understand he’s slamming his employer, as well, which had plenty of ink about the strikes, along with the pictures, right? And that he’s slamming the U.S. Navy in an attempt to be the #Resistance to Trump, right?

Did Will have complaints about the photo op of Obama sitting around while our Special Ops folks where taking out Bin Laden? Or when we got all the pictures of Obama being Serious and Involved when we struck back against Islamic jihadis in Benghazi? Oh, wait, right. My Bad.

The pictures were beautiful, but the policy was a mess. No one understood exactly why the most politically inexperienced and most truth-challenged president in American history had just pulled a complete flip-flop in the world’s most volatile civil war. No one could explain on what legal authority Trump had launched the deadly missiles, whether our allies knew this was coming — or what happens next. There were no pictures showing the seven people said to be killed when those “fearsome armaments” slammed into the al-Shayrat airfield, the part of the video game we rarely see.

It’s not hard to understand, and I’d bet the majority, even unhinged liberals get it: Syria used Sarin on its citizens, Trump and his people said “can’t cross that red line without consequences”, and he put Assad on notice that the use of chemical weapons will get a quick response. It doesn’t have to be anything more. There doesn’t have to be a deep meaning, nor a change in the overall policy of Stand Off, which was set by Team Obama.

Three days later, it’s impossible to say how history books will view the U.S. missile strike on Syria — as a strange blip in a six-year civil war that’s killed 500,000 people and created millions of refugees, as just another nocturnal emission of cruise missiles from a nation that’s fired off more than 1,000 from Iraq to Libya to Somalia since 2001…or, less likely, as the Archduke Ferdinand moment of the 21st Century.

I think the history books will have more than enough time to discuss Obama’s fecklessness in regards to Syria rather than discussing Trump’s missile strike. Then again, if Assad never uses chemical weapons again, well, then, I wonder if Bunch will be happy to write “you know, that strike Made A Difference”?

But in the broader context of humanity — and this strange and sometimes, yes, beautiful world that we’ve created after millions of years of evolution — I believe that what we witnessed on April 6, 2017, marked a dangerous turning point. Vital decisions of war and peace, life and death, have been sucked into our vortex of around-the-clock entertainment.

And now the true derangement starts, and continues on for quite some time. Entirely too much to excerpt. But, let’s put it in context: can you imagine this derangement towards Obama? Or if Hillary Clinton, who thought there should be quick strikes against Syria for the use of chemical weapons, and approved of the strike, was president and did it herself?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: TDS: Cable TV President Launches Cable TV War Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 3:00 pm

I’m choosing to ignore the Internet Rules, I believe it is Rule 1004.6, that states “Or Something may only be used once per calendar day” or something for this one

While America Launches Missiles, China Quietly Leads On Climate Change

Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday for his first face-to-face meeting with President Trump, including a two-day summit and formal dinner. By the end of the trip, the two are set to discuss the North Korean threat and trade, before the Trump team retreated to launch Tomahawk missiles at Syrian airfields. Climate change isn’t on the agenda, which is unfortunate—if not surprising—because the two nations are now taking precisely opposite approaches to the global crisis.

Joe Flintosh (@jflintosh) asked if they were kidding. Sometimes, I have to wonder if this kind of bat guano insanity is really just Expert Level Trolling, because one would think this was too insane.

Read: China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Special Snowflake Syndrome | Comments Off on China’s Leading On Climate While America Launches Cruise Missiles Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…are evil fossil fueled motor engines which cause the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on an illegal Obama let stay.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: In The Dumps EPA Staff Turning To Alcohol ‘Cause Trump

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 10:45 am

Another day, another report of EPA employees having meltdowns

(Heartland) EPA lifers are “in the dumps” about life at the agency under President Trump. The level of anxiety is so high that alcoholism may be on the rise among climate-alarmist lifers, according to one staffer quoted in The Washington Post. If that is true, that’s very good news, because it means the EPA will be getting back to its original — and largely accomplished mission — of cleaning up America’s air, land, and water.

The Washington Post article is about Mike Cox quitting the EPA, and devolves into

“It is pretty bleak,” one staffer, an environmental engineer, said about employee morale.

“It’s in the dumps,” said another.

“Pretty much everybody is updating their resumes. It’s grim,” added a third.

Awwwwwww, too bad. Have fun in the private sector.

Black humor and burying themselves in a project’s scientific minutia will work for some.

“For the rest of us,” added one longtime regional staffer, “there probably will be a significant rise in alcoholism.”

Well, I hope not. Alcohol is bad for the climate, especially beer, which releases CO2. And wine and other alcohols require lots of water and land, and require lots of fossil fuels to take to market.

Read: Bummer: In The Dumps EPA Staff Turning To Alcohol ‘Cause Trump »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Sanctuary Cities Have Much Higher Crime Rate Than Non-Sanctuary Cities

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 8:06 am

Would would have thought it?

(WND) Surprise! Sanctuary cities do, indeed, experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities, an in-depth WND analysis of the most recent study of the question reveals.

An August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics, WND has found.

The study, published last fall by researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, is frequently cited by proponents of “sanctuary cities” who ignore or downplay one important detail – the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model.

An analysis of the data by WND reveals that non-sanctuary cities comparable in population, size and demographics consistently – year over year – experience and report lower percentages of violent crime as well as lower percentages of property crimes.

There may be lots of illegal aliens who aren’t violent criminals, however, there are still lots who are. They tend to congregate in certain cities, particularly those which call themselves sanctuary cities, because they know law enforcement will be hands off.

The researchers examined 54 cities in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia – cities listed by the National Immigration Law Center that implemented sanctuary ordinances post-9/11, during or after 2002. Using city-level crime data compiled by the FBI, they assessed crime rates at the city level immediately following the implementation of a sanctuary policy.

They then matched each sanctuary city to a similarly situated non-sanctuary city – based on relevant census and political variables, creating a scenario where the two cities are as similar as possible with the exception of the sanctuary policy.

The researchers claim, in conclusion, that their study shows designating a city as a sanctuary has no statistically significant effect on crime.

But, no

Data gathered in the study, however, overwhelmingly contradict the conclusions of the authors.

Violent crime rates are, in fact, drastically higher in sanctuary cities than their non-sanctuary counterparts, as is evidenced by the chart the authors used to delineate their conclusion.

The violent crime rate in sanctuary cities, as indicated above, dramatically increased after sanctuary city policy was enacted, and even doubled in some cases. The researchers found “similar results for property crime property crime and rape.”

So, in reality, higher crime due to the presence of illegal aliens in cities which ignore their lawlessness.

The original paper is available here. It reads like a leftist position paper from MoveOn.org, The Center For American Progress, or any of the hardcore Progressive think tanks out there. Their preconceived hypothesis and expectation (page 12) is that there would be no difference between the cities. And, of course, that’s what they determined. Despite the data not bearing that conclusion.

One thing to consider, though, is that all the cities involved are heavily Democratic Party voting cities, run by Democrats, so, they are going to have higher crime rates to start with, so, it could be that it isn’t the illegals, it’s just Democrats. Food for thought.

Then there’s this

One of the mantras of the pro-sanctuary movement has been that the policies of non-enforcement and non-reporting of immigration violations to federal authorities would have the effect of fostering cooperation between police and city officials in matters of crime reporting and finding witnesses for prosecutions.

No data has ever been collected to suggest illegal immigrants are offering such cooperation in preventing and fighting crime in these jurisdictions. Concurrently, there is no study, scientific or anecdotal, to suggest illegal immigrants cooperate in fighting crime in these jurisdictions. At the same time, data shows criminal aliens being released by sanctuary jurisdictions commit more crimes when they get out than do non-aliens.

That brings a good question: can illegal aliens prove that their assertion that leaving illegal aliens alone leads to better policing?

Read: Surprise: Sanctuary Cities Have Much Higher Crime Rate Than Non-Sanctuary Cities »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Obama’s Never Implemented Syria Strike Plan Was Much Bigger Than Trump’s Or Something

By William Teach April 10, 2017 – 7:29 am

Hardcore leftist and Obama supporting Washington Post writer Josh Rogin attempts a bit of “our guy’s is bigger than your guy’s” when it comes to Syria, ending with a big wif

Obama’s Syria strike plan was much bigger than Trump’s

The Trump administration’s strike on one of Bashar al-Assad’s air bases was similar in style and objectives to the strike plan that President Barack Obama prepared in 2013 — except that Obama’s attacks were to be several times bigger than President Trump’s. At the time, leading Republicans mocked the Obama administration for what it called “pinprick” strikes, calling them ineffective. Today they praise Trump’s smaller strikes as perfectly calculated.

“What we had in mind in 2013 had many more targets and was much more expansive,” a senior Obama administration official involved in those discussions told me.

What they had in mind they never actually did. So, that would make Trump’s strike 100% bigger than Obama’s, wouldn’t you say? The idea here, though, is to say that Obama was a bigger thinker than Trump, and an attempt to take down Trump for this one strike.

“This is different chemical weapons attack and a different president, and the difference is that this president took action,” the [Trump] official said. “It’s more likely to change Assad’s behavior than no action on the part of President Obama.”

Exactly. This was in direct response to a chemical attack by Assad. Will it change Assad’s behavior? Time will tell.

As for Republicans mocking the Obama admin over pinprick strikes? There’s a reason for that

Several of the leading Republicans who praised Trump’s Syria strike had previously said that Obama’s 2013 plan would have been too insignificant to matter. Their criticism was in response to then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry promising that the strikes would be “unbelievably small,” and would not lead to a larger U.S. military involvement in Syria.

Kerry opened up the plan for mocking. Quotes from both Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio referring to the never-implemented plan as pinprick strikes are provided in the opinion piece, but, context matters. Trump’s strike was meant to send a message of “don’t do it again, because we won’t dither and debate next time, we’ll strike quickly.” Obama’s was meant to be incredibly small and not do much of anything.

Trump administration officials have said they are “ready to do more.” And if Assad does use chemical weapons again, there are already plans they can use — the ones Obama and his team drew up and that Republicans criticized years ago.

Or, Trump can do something different, meant to send an even stronger message that red lines shall not be crossed, rather than incredibly small strikes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Obama’s Never Implemented Syria Strike Plan Was Much Bigger Than Trump’s Or Something »

Posted in Barry Obama, Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising ocean encroaching on the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Knuckledraggin My Life Away, with a post on always reading the fine print.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach April 9, 2017 – 8:57 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the fish are biting, and it’s a great time to get outdoors. This pinup is by Tatiana Doronino, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Daley Gator features yet another crazy feminist
  2. 357 Magnum discusses the German bureaucratic failures that led to the Christmas market attack
  3. America’s Watchtower covers nutty conspiracy theories on MSNBC
  4. American Lens notes a bit of irony for the Seattle mayor who wanted to boycott NC over HB2
  5. Chicks On The Right covers what real female empowerment looks like
  6. Creeping Sharia covers yet another honor killing
  7. Flopping Aces discusses Syria’s use of chemical weapons as it relates to Obama’s Iran deal
  8. Gay Patriot notes the Left’s love of transgressive art
  9. The Geller Report notes San Diego making safe spaces for Muslims while requiring non-Muslims to learn about Islam (say, where’s the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion folks?)
  10. House Of Eratosthenes discusses the crackpot history of liberalism
  11. Jihad Watch notes what Muslims in Sweden did as a jihad attack suspect was arrested
  12. Moonbattery covers what Target’s moonbattery has been costing them
  13. Raised On Hoecakes has thoughts on the Syrian strike
  14. The Last Refuge covers a big manhunt for a serious leftist wackadoodle who threatened Trump
  15. And last, but not least, The Lid notes another leftist professor calling for killing Trump and executing Republicans

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove