If All You See…

By William Teach December 14, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on how to not get it.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause Us To Lose Lots Of Things In 2017

By William Teach December 14, 2016 – 10:30 am

This is perhaps one of the most dishonest pieces you can possibly read from the Cult of Climastrology this year, and that’s saying something considering the entire issue is based on a bedrock of lies and falsehoods

What We’ll Lose to Climate Change in 2017
And you thought 2016 was a bad year.

Climate change has become so severe and so obvious that geologists, who typically deal on timescales of millions of years, have hastily named a new epoch: the Anthropocene. Earth’s human-made sixth mass extinction has altered ecosystems even as other ecosystems have been more directly wiped out. The world has been thrown into fast forward and the whiplash will forever change how our planet functions.

It’s important to reiterate that the fossil fuel consumption that causes much of global warming is hardly the only thing throwing ecological systems into disarray. Humans also cause trouble by cutting down forests to make way for farms and cities, polluting air and water with toxic chemicals, and hunting and fishing animals to the brink of extinction or worse. Climate change is more than a CO2 PPM reading.

These human-caused changes are nothing new — we’ve been sculpting ecosystems for tens of thousands of years. But our population has grown so significantly and so quickly while developing tools of unprecedented power, that we’re altering the landscape at an outrageous speed. And when ecosystems are lost, they stay lost. Whatever we build and however we strategically reverse engineer livable spaces, what’s gone is gone.

Hyper-alarmist, and, apparently professional spinner, Jacqueline Ronson, then provides the things that will be lost

  • Precisely 100 Feet of Alaska’s North Coast (yes, this is possible, but, it’s not anthropogenic)
  • The White Rhino and Thousands of Other Species (the white rhino population was decimated due to hunting, not ‘climate change’. Many other species are in trouble due to mankind, but, again, not to Hotcoldwetdry, so, a falsehood)
  • 1000 Square Miles of Surface Water (this is in reference to the Aral Sea, which she blames on ‘climate change’, even as she mentions the real cause, diversion of water for agriculture. There are other reasons, as well, such as poor management and Soviet policies)
  • 1,000,000,000,000 Square Feet of Arctic Ice (Warmists keep making this claim, and now she’s yammering about the Arctic being ice free by 2045. She even claims “For every metric tonne of Carbon dioxide humans release, 32 square feet of ice is lost.” So, then how is the Antarctic growing?)

The Cult is nothing if not utterly dishonest.

Read: Good News: Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause Us To Lose Lots Of Things In 2017 »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer Has A “Gay Subtext” Or Something

By William Teach December 14, 2016 – 8:07 am

It’s the holiday season, with Christmas looming large. Insane Social Justice Warriors haven’t been particularly interested in attempting to destroy New Year’s Eve nor Hanukkah, but, Christmas has always been their main target (as long as they still continue to get the day off as a paid holiday, of course). So, of course, we end up with bat guano insane things like this

The Gay Subtext of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Thinking back on the children’s Christmas specials of yore with an adult frame of reference can be a little bit dizzying. There is the suffocating consumerist melancholy of A Charlie Brown Christmas, the existential dread of a magical friend’s impending death in Frosty the Snowman, and the political allegory of Heat Miser’s rise to power that is A Year Without a Santa Clause.

But nothing, absolutely nothing, is changed with a close, analytical reading of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the 1964 stop-motion special. I mean, just look at it: Rudolph is totally, absolutely, 100 percent, Neil-Patrick-Harris-French-kissing-Ricky-Martin gay. Anyone who even knows what Queer Theory is can tell you that the subtext of the narrative seems to be a pre-Stonewall contemplation of the power of coming out and embracing sexual minorities into society at large.

If you’re thinking “it can’t possibly go downhill,” nope, sorry!

The film starts in the North Pole, where traditional gender roles are quickly reinforced. Mrs. Claus does all the cooking and nags her husband about not eating enough. The elves, identical in shape and apparel, are at work on Santa’s toys, the boys wearing blue and the girls wearing pink. Rudolph is born to Donner, who immediately hates his son’s red nose and thinks that something so different will keep him from leading a heterosexual life where he pulls Santa’s sleigh and marries a nice doe someday. (snip)

“For a year the Donner family did a good job hiding Rudolph’s — non-conformity,” the narrator tells us, pausing slightly before landing on the right euphemism. This is the closet of Rudolph’s parents devising, which he goes along with thanks to the internalized homophobia that he inherited from both his father and Santa, the superego of the North Pole, who is equally distressed by Rudolph’s difference. Santa even goes so far as to tell Donner that he should be ashamed of his son and try to change him. It’s almost as if Santa is a church elder trying to force Rudolph into conversion therapy.

Of course, Hermey, the elf who wants to be a dentist, is painted as a flaming gay, and

When Hermey and Rudolph run into each other, they reprise their song about being misfits, singing, “seems to us kind of silly that we don’t fit in.” Now that these two young gay men have met each other, they realize that the oppression of sexual conformity they’ve been living under their whole lives is a total sham.

And even Yukon Cornelius is gay, being the first “lumbersexual.”

And the Island of Misfit Toys? That’s right, they’re all part of the LGBT community!

The Abominable Snow Monster? He’s “a fanged embodiment of violent homophobia.”

And Gay Rudolph and company save Christmas because Santa and the rest embrace the differenceness of gayness!

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.

Read: Good Grief: Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer Has A “Gay Subtext” Or Something »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Why Isn’t The DNC Trying To Thwart The Election Results?

By William Teach December 14, 2016 – 7:32 am

Uber-partisan hacks David S. Cohen, a law professor and Hillary supporter, and Dalia Lithwick, a moonbat writer from the always reliably nutball site Slate, really really want the DNC and high ranking Democrats to fight back and deligitimize the election of Donald Trump, overturning the election. At some point, you have to realize that this is the view of the people who work and run the NY Times, as well

Do you like how they used a graphic where the entire country is painted blue for Democrats?

Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans

On Monday, members of the Electoral College will vote in Donald J. Trump as president. Though he lost the election by nearly three million votes and almost daily generates headlines about new scandals, the Democratic Party is doing little to stop him. If you’ve been asking yourself “Where are the Democrats?” you’re not alone.

Since the election, top Democrats have been almost absent on the national stage. Rather, they have been involved largely in internecine warfare about how much to work with Mr. Trump. The Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to encourage a peaceful transition, has gone almost completely dark, with her most notable appearances coming in selfies with strangers. Nobody deserves downtime more than Mrs. Clinton, but while she is decompressing, the country is moving toward its biggest electoral mistake in history.

Then maybe Democrats should have nominated someone better, right?

There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional;

Since when? If that was the case, Democrats would be in big trouble, because what you’d see are lots of electoral votes in states that typically go Democrat splitting those votes, since in places like NY and NJ there are large swaths of non-urban areas that voter Republican. Be careful what you wish for. But, hey, if the shoe was reversed, these same people would be telling us to respect the system.

a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we’ve seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.

Yeah, remember all the riots, violence, and caterwauling from Democrat voters, with Democrats saying nothing to stop them.

Contrast the Democrats’ do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage.

No, Republicans wouldn’t. They would have sucked it up just like they sucked up 8 years of Obama. The partisan hack writers attempt to use Florida 2000 as the rationale, but, the situation was different. But, it did give them a chance to whine about Florida 2000.

As Monday’s Electoral College vote approaches, Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail. Instead, we are once again left with incontrovertible proof that win or lose, Republicans behave as if they won while Democrats behave as if they lost. What this portends for the next four years is truly terrifying.

We did win. The White House, the House, the Senate, a goodly chunk of the state legislatures and executive offices, local races, county races, judge races, sheriff races, and, by extension (well, I guess we’ll see who Trump nominates), the Supreme Court.

Democrats say they love our country and democracy and respect our Constitution, but, the only thing they love is power. And will pull any shenanigans to achieve it. It’s going to be a long 4-8 years with these people writing stuff like this, but, they give great copy for posts, wouldn’t you say?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Say, Why Isn’t The DNC Trying To Thwart The Election Results? »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat, Democrats, Prozac Diaries | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

What Say To Paying For Energy Reliability?

By William Teach December 13, 2016 – 2:30 pm

Would you be up for this?

(UK Guardian) Britain is facing the prospect of an energy supply crisis which will see customers having to pay for a higher level of reliability, it has been reported.

Andrew Wright, a senior partner with energy watchdog Ofgem, is quoted as having warned that communities could be split between those who can afford to keep the lights on and those who cannot.

According to the Telegraph, he said there was much less flexibility for suppliers because Britain had lost fuel capacity due to the closure of coal mines.

Wright said: “In the future, not everyone will be able to use as much electricity as they want and there will be a need to rewrite the rules.

“We are currently all paying broadly the same price but we could be moving away from that and there will be some new features in the market which may see some choose to pay for a higher level of reliability.

“One household may be sitting with their lights on, charging their Tesla electric car, while someone else will be sitting in the dark.”

Now, it has been reported that Wright was speaking for himself, not Ofgem, but, regardless, he hits on a salient point: the Cult of Climastrology has been pushing for the closure of coal mines, reducing the use of natural gas and oil, increasing the use of “alternatives.” The latter is typically unreliable at this point, the others are not. The latter is wildly expensive, the others are not. The same CoC is very much against nuclear, and pitches a fit over the use of hydroelectric. What this all means is that, as a possibility, you could end up with some being able to afford reliable energy (in other words, the moneyed class), while others (those in the middle and lower classes) cannot.

This is the end result of what Warmists have been pushing. Rolling brownouts and blackouts. Some being able to afford electricity easily while others suffer. And they all think that none of the negatives will cause problems in their own lives. Perhaps if you are part of the 1% these same Warmists hate it will be no problem. For the rest? They’re own beliefs will cause big problems.

Read: What Say To Paying For Energy Reliability? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on What Say To Paying For Energy Reliability? | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 13, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an Arctic that is going to soon be totally ice free, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on the meaning of Tillerson for State.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Is Trump’s Twitter Account A National Security Threat (Or Something)?

By William Teach December 13, 2016 – 10:24 am

Politico is digging for a Narrative

Is Trump’s Twitter account a national security threat?
Intelligence and defense specialists fear the president-elect’s prolific tweeting could give foreign adversaries an advantage.

Donald Trump has years of experience launching Twitter wars. But now, as he prepares to take the highest office in the country, there are growing fears that his tweets could spur a genuine national security crisis.

Intelligence and defense specialists believe the president-elect’s use of the popular and powerful social media network is already being used by foreign agencies to analyze his personality, track his habits and detect clues about what to expect from a Trump-led American government.

Because they can’t get all that from his speeches, press releases, policy positions, and people he’s picked.

And that’s just based on what Trump writes on Twitter. It’s not even counting the vulnerabilities that could arise if overseas hackers invade his phone and digital accounts.

The same media was utterly unconcerned with Hillary’s insecure bathroom server.

“We’ve never had a president that’s shared so much of themselves, not just what they’re saying, but their psychological ticks in such an overt manner, and you can be sure that foreign actors are studying that, too,” said P.W. Singer, a defense expert and co-author of “Cybersecurity and Cyberwar.” “We’re beginning to see what excites him, what angers him, what sets him off. We’ve never had this ability to read so much on what a president is thinking.”

Right. Because his decades and decades being in the public eye are irrelevant.

But so far, at least, Twitter has proven one of the purest distillations of Trump around — a raw version of a businessman-turned-politician keen on ignoring the traditional conventions of the presidency.

And there’s the real problem: Trump brings his message directly to The people, rather than going through the media, who filter and spin his message. The MSM does not like this in the least. And, really, no matter what Trump does, the media will find a way to say “this is horrible!” And they’ll go looking for things, just like with Bush.

Read: Say, Is Trump’s Twitter Account A National Security Threat (Or Something)? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Uh Oh, Santa Is Doomed, As His Reindeer Shrink

By William Teach December 13, 2016 – 8:29 am

Yes, it’s that time of the year where members of the Cult of Climastrology use Christmas to push their insane mental meanderings. Even though they tend to be the same types of political people who lose their minds over Nativity scenes in public. They are the people who call it a holiday tree, not a Christmas tree. Eh, you know their hit parade. But, of course, they still want their paid day off for Christmas.

Anyhow

Another ‘no more Santa’ climate study to frighten children

With #Christmas only a few weeks away, a new study says the Svalbard reindeer are getting weaker and asks if Santa will need more muscle to pull his sleigh. So if your child hears about this so-called calamity from #News reports, remind them it doesn’t matter: Santa Claus uses the species ‘saintnicolas magicalus’, or flying reindeer.

With ostensibly warmer winters, the study notes rain is falling on snow and freezing into ice. That makes it difficult for the animals to get at plant food, leading some to go hungry and some females birthing undersized calves. The adults they tracked in the survey have lost 12 percent of their weight when compared to those born in 1994.

The ecologists behind the survey are from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, and the James Hutton Institute. And they’re pointing the finger at #Climate Change.

Of course they are. But, what they mean is not the notion that the climate changes in the long term, such as the flips between warm and cool throughout the Holocene, no, it is that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible. And they’ll take lots of fossil fueled trips to do their research. Or computer models. Whichever.

Anyhow, under the utter threat of doom, the reindeer population on this one little island has almost doubled, from 800-1,400, over the last 20 years.

Unsurprisingly, there are major issues with the prognostication that the shrinking (12% over 16 years) is caused by rain turning to ice and covering the plants. I’ll leave it to you to hit the link and read the flaws in the study. We’ll end on this

Interestingly, the study’s lead author, Prof. Steve Albon, told reporters that in the popular children’s book, “Father Christmas,” it showed Santa’s sled being pulled by two reindeer. He then asked if the animals are smaller and weaker, “will two reindeer be sufficient” to pull St. Nick’s sleigh? Politicizing an animal population survey to frighten children illustrates just one of the many problems with climate research and mainstream media reporting.

Well, of course it’s political. The entire thing is political. It is not science. It pushes an agenda.

Oh, BTW, increasing a population while the resources stay the same can lead to animals “shrinking.” It’s called science.

Read: Uh Oh, Santa Is Doomed, As His Reindeer Shrink »

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

NY Times Aghast At Trump’s State Department Picks

By William Teach December 13, 2016 – 8:04 am

I guess they would have preferred someone who would use their family “charity” to make oodles of money via pay for play decisions while in office, push to bomb a country then leave it in tatters for Islamists to take over, lie about the reason 4 Americans were murdered by Islamists, have cozy relationships with China and Iran, and create a personal server to thwart government rules and law while passing national security material in a manner that allows it to be hacked, much less sharing it with people who did not have the clearances to see it

Flawed Choices for the State Department

Set aside the fact that Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil and Donald Trump’s apparent choice for secretary of state, knows scores of world leaders and is a skilled businessman. Why would Mr. Trump choose as his top diplomat a man whose every decision or action would be tainted by suspicion that he’s capitulating to Russian interests or those of the oil industry, having spent his entire career at Exxon Mobil?

Because he won the election. You lost, NY Times Editorial Board. Get that through your heads. For all the caterwauling about Russian interference, what of the much greater interference from the supposedly non-partisan Credentialed Media, which was incredibly biased against Trump and was essentially pro-Hillary, working to defeat him and elect her? What of all the op-eds masquarading as news articles about the dooooooooom that electing Trump would bring, while they gently chided Hillary for her failings, and even worked to protect her from the allegations of wrongdoing, shady business, even criminal activity?

Mr. Trump seems impervious to ethical standards. By naming Mr. Tillerson, he risks burdening his administration with another appointee likely to ensure endless controversy.

Mr. Tillerson has no background in diplomacy beyond corporate deal making. And his relationship with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian leader, raises serious questions about whether he could manage Russia policy in a way that advances America’s national interests. Mr. Putin even gave him an “Order of Friendship” award in 2013.

Normally, the NYTEB is super-enthused to talk to enemies, even wanting normalized relations, such as with Cuba and Iran. But, that’s when a Democrat is in office.

American-Russian relations are at their worst since the Cold War, a result of Mr. Putin’s annexation of Crimea, the war in eastern Ukraine, his attempts to destabilize countries in Europe, and bombings of civilians in Syria.

So, Mr. Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and current SoS John Kerry have utterly failed? Perhaps we need someone who knows what they hell they’re doing. Did the NYTEB ever think about that? Of course not. This is a typical Leftist knee-jerk reaction. It wouldn’t matter who Trump picked, there would be apoplexy and opposition regardless.

The hit piece goes on to assault John Bolton, who might get the number two position at State. Leftists have long had a burr in their bums over him, ever since he served as Ambassador to the UN under George Bush, so, there’s nothing unusual with the Times assaulting him.

Mr. Trump will soon lead America in facing an increasingly unstable world of complicated and intractable challenges. He needs the best possible advisers at his side. Mr. Bolton does not make that grade, and Mr. Trump will have his work cut out for him in making a convincing case for Mr. Tillerson.

Trump won. He convinced the people he needed to convince in order to win the election as our system is set up. Don’t like it? Win an election.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Aghast At Trump’s State Department Picks »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Wonky Media | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 12, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is snow as predicted by climate models, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on a handy guide to fake news.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 44 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove