City Known For Witch Hunts Is Taking On ‘Climate Change’ or Something

By William Teach January 13, 2017 – 11:09 am

The Cult of Climastrology has long been linked to witches. First, they act like witches in thinking that dancing around (and taxing Everyone Else) will change the weather. Second, and more important, they act like witch hunters, look to take an ounce of flesh from those they deem witches, otherwise known as “skeptics.” They’ve been involved in numerous hunts, such as going after Exxon Mobile. Heck, they’ve even claimed the original medieval witch hunts were influenced by climate change. If only those wild women hadn’t been driving SUVs in the mid-1500’s.

Anyhow, Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll and Jesse Mermell, president for the Alliance For Business Leadership, are uber concerned

Salem is taking on climate change
For coastal cities, it’s a matter of urgency

THE MORE THINGS change, the more they stay the same. For centuries now the economic health of the city of Salem has been tied to the ocean.

In the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution and into the 1800s, ships from Salem took to the seas and returned with tea, spices, and silks that turned the port community into the wealthiest city per capita in the new nation. Later, Salem Harbor became home to a major coal depot, where ships dropped off coal on its way to fuel regional factories and, later, a large coal-powered power plant on the waterfront itself. Much has changed with the city today, but the ocean remains central to its economic prosperity. In this day and age that can only mean one thing: For Salem to survive and thrive, we must tackle the issue of climate change.

Modern-day Salem is a bustling city on the rise. Between tourism, health care, and higher education, the city’s economy has transformed from the days of importing tea from China. But it will never move on from its connection to the ocean. With a new natural gas power plant opening up acres of waterfront land, Salem has the opportunity to sustainably develop an area that will link oceanfront resources to economic development.

It seems tourism from the long ago witch hunts plays pretty big, but, whatever

With this vital opportunity looming, addressing climate change is an economic imperative for Salem. The city’s 2014 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan outlines serious challenges that may be in store for the coastal community by 2050: a sea level rise of more than four feet, storm surges of more than 13 feet by the year 2100, a 30 percent increase in the likelihood of a “100-year storm,” and a 157 percent increase in the number of days over 90 degrees.

Interesting. According to actual factual data from the closest measuring station in Boston, we learn “The mean sea level trend is 2.79 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.16 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1921 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.92 feet in 100 years.” So, the scaremongering talking points is off by quite a bit, a factor of over 8.

BTW, did they realize that natural gas is a big no-no for the Cult of Climastrology?

Read: City Known For Witch Hunts Is Taking On ‘Climate Change’ or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Senator Who Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flights Grills Pompeo On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach January 13, 2017 – 7:55 am

Things that are important in Liberal World

(Washington Examiner) Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., grilled CIA director Mike Pompeo on whether climate change was a leading national security threat during his Senate confirmation hearings Thursday. (WT note: he’s up for the position, he’s not the CIA Director yet)

“CIA Director Brennan, who has spent a 25-year career at the CIA as an analyst, a senior manager and station chief in the field, has that when ‘CIA analysts look for deeper causes of rising instability in the world, one of the causes those CIA analysts see is the impact of climate change,'” Harris began. “Do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of those CIA analysts?”

Pompeo, a Republican congressman from Kansas, replied that he was unfamiliar with the material Harris was referencing but that the CIA would gather information on all threats to American security, including any that stem from climatic activity, and present them to policymakers.

This loony tunes actually brought up the utterly discredited 97% consensus meme

Pompeo defended his positions on climate change and said, “Frankly, as director of CIA, I’d prefer […] not to get into the details of climate debate and science… My role is going to be so different and unique from that, it is going to be to work alongside warriors keeping Americans safe.”

In other words, he’s not going to be an Activist, he’s not going to be Spreading Awareness, he’s there to safeguard the United States against real foreign enemies, and provide the President and lawmakers with actual information.

Harris also questioned Pompeo about his past opposition to gay marriage and how that would affect his treatment of CIA employees if confirmed.

Pompeo should have asked her how she arrived in D.C. Did she take a long fossil fueled flight? Is she currently traveling around D.C. in a fossil fueled vehicle? Will she be flying back and forth to California on a fossil fueled airplane? I know Warmists really do not like those sorts of questions, and like to deflect and yammer on that we all need to Do Something, but, they very much go to how hypocritical members of the Cult of Climastrology are.

Let’s not forget, she was part of the group of Attorney’s General that wants to prosecute climate skeptics for having Wrongthink, including fossil fuels companies and private thinktanks and citizens.

Read: Senator Who Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flights Grills Pompeo On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Will GOP Repeal And Replace Obamacare At Same Time?

By William Teach January 13, 2017 – 7:03 am

According to Paul Ryan, the answer is yes

(CNN) House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday Republicans plan to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law at the same time they approve a GOP replacement plan.

“We want to do this at the same time, and in some cases in the same bill,” Ryan said during a town hall in Washington sponsored by CNN and moderated by Jake Tapper. “So we want to advance repealing this law with its replacement at the same time.”

Ryan said Republicans are moving “as quickly as they can” to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but said he doesn’t yet have a date, and it will take “a little bit of time” to do so.

“We’re working on this as fast as possible,” he said, adding that the GOP will act “definitely within these first 100 days” of Trump’s presidency.

Democrats do have a point: after all these years, where is the one plan? In fact, there are numerous plans, some rather fleshed out, some more in the outline phase. Trump says he has one. Certainly, any plan must take into account the changes in Ocare caused by circumstances and changing rules from Team Obama. But there should be A Plan. Perhaps there is one and the GOP has just kept it under wraps to avoid the caterwauling that will emanate from Democrats and their news media compatriots?

“I clearly think there’s a role for the government in health care, no doubt about it,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

He added that he supports elements of the health care law — including that “people with pre-existing conditions, no matter how much money they make,” should have access to insurance.

But, he said, “The law is collapsing, and so we’ve got to rescue people.”

There is a role for government, especially as we’ve had a long time with government involved. There’s nothing wrong with using the government to help out some citizens. The problem becomes apparent when Government becomes heavily involved in the health insurance and health care of all of the citizens, which is what Obamacare did. The law was meant to collapse, though. That’s baked in. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. And it was meant to push a public option, followed by Single Payer.

But, that’s not going to happen. Democrats probably did not count on Ocare being so unpopular overall that they’d lose enormous numbers of seats in Congress, and finally losing the White House.

Now it’s time to see what the plan actually is.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Will GOP Repeal And Replace Obamacare At Same Time? »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | Comments Off on Will GOP Repeal And Replace Obamacare At Same Time? | Trackback URL

Bad News: Binge Watching Is Causing The Earth To Burn

By William Teach January 12, 2017 – 3:15 pm

Do you binge watch? I do. Lately, what with the weather closing and such, I’ve been binge watching the heck out of a bunch of shows. Masterchef Canada, Hell’s Kitchen season 11 and 12. As such, I’m Evil for carbon pollution

(Huffington Post)  Our video streaming addiction might be affecting the world outside our living rooms more than we thought.

Greenpeace released a report on Monday rating video streaming companies by carbon footprint, and a couple big ones, including Netflix and Hulu, didn’t fare too well.

That’s because all those “Stranger Things” and “Gilmore Girls” episodes are delivered to our phones, laptops and TVs via massive servers that use up a lot of energy, which can come from renewable sources or nonrenewable ones, like coal.

Although the company has made bold claims about its energy efficiency in the past ― stating that watching Netflix is greener than breathing ― it received an overall D grade. Hulu fared even worse with an F, while Amazon Prime received a C. Out of streaming companies included, YouTube (owned by Google, whose energy use the organization praises) earned the best grade ― an A. Greenpeace evaluated companies on factors including energy mix, commitments to renewable energy, transparency on energy sources and advocacy for clean energy.

Oh, hey, that’s great! I’ve been doing it on Youtube, so, I don’t need to be sent to a re-education camp! Hooray! I might have to write a Knowledge Report on my mom and a few friends, who stream the others.

These people are nags.

Read: Bad News: Binge Watching Is Causing The Earth To Burn »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 12, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible water sucking golf course which should be restricted for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on how Trump might improve your lives.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Senate One Step Closer To Repealing Obamacare

By William Teach January 12, 2017 – 7:55 am

It appears as if the repeal is going to be piecemeal, rather than simply toasting the entire thing as on

(Washington Post) The Senate voted 51 to 48 early Thursday to approve a budget resolution instructing House and Senate committees to begin work on legislation to repeal major portions of the Affordable Care Act. The House is expected to take up the legislation Friday.

Senate Democrats made a late-night show of resistance against gutting the Affordable Care Act by forcing Republicans to take politically charged votes against protecting Medicare, Medicaid and other health-care programs. The measure narrowly passed without the support of any Democrats.

The hours-long act of protest culminated in the early hours of Thursday when Democrats made a dramatic display of rising to speak out against the repeal measure as they cast their votes. The Democrats continued to record their opposition over their objections of Senate Republicans.

Funny, they didn’t stand up for it when it counted, namely, during election season. Only a handful of Democrats campaigned on it in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Most wanted nothing to do with discussing it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also voted no, in part over concerns that GOP leaders have not committed to a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act after it is repealed.

He is correct. There needs to be a replacement plan. But, what if the GOP votes to repeal certain portions, such as the Mandate? How would Democrats vote, putting themselves on the record?

Republicans blocked six amendments from Democrats within the first several hours of voting. Among the failed measures was an attempt to prevent any changes to Medicare or Medicaid, or to reduce the number of people enrolled in private health insurance.

Democrats tracked how Republicans voted throughout the night — information that could be used during coming election campaigns, according to Democratic leadership aides who would not speak on the record to divulge internal party strategy.

Well, that’s interesting. Why did they not do that during the previous election seasons? Sure, Leftist groups campaigned on it a bit, but not Democrats up for election.

Republicans have at least a dozen plans for replacement. Trump says he has a very specific one of his own. Let’s get the details down before going ahead. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Read: Senate One Step Closer To Repealing Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Republicans Passed The Most Dangerous Bill, To Reform Abusive US Regulations

By William Teach January 12, 2017 – 7:35 am

The Republican controlled Congress took an interesting step Wednesday

(Reuters)  Republicans on Wednesday passed a bill in the House of Representatives that touched on nearly every step U.S. agencies take in creating and applying new rules, continuing their blitz to radically reform “abusive” federal regulation of areas from the environment to the workplace.

In a 238-183 vote, the House passed the “Regulatory Accountability Act,” which combined eight bills aimed at changing how the vast government bureaucracy runs. Only five Democrats voted for it.

The legislation would give President-elect Donald Trump tools “to wipe out abusive regulation,” said Bob Goodlatte, the Judiciary Committee chairman who is among the many House leaders calling for lighter regulation and saying the costs to comply with federal rules are too high.

Republicans say there is little accountability for regulations that apply to almost every aspect of American life because they are created by appointed officials and not elected representatives. Federal agencies operate either independently or under the president’s authority.

Democrats are very much against any reform, part of which is slowing down the Executive Office rule making from unaccountable bureaucrats, leading to this bit of nuttiness from EcoWatch’s Carl Pope

The Most Dangerous Bill You’ve Never Heard of Just Passed the House

Last, week, under the cover of a media bliss-out except among Koch funded right-wing channels, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would effectively repeal future standard setting under every important environmental, public health, consumer protection, labor standards, occupational safety and civil rights law on the books.

The bill, called the REINS Act, requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency—say a new toxic chemical standard required by the recently enacted Chemical Safety Act, or a new consumer protection rule about some innovative but untested kind of food additive—must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.

Mention of Koch? Check. Anyhow, what is wrong with requiring the duly elected Legislative branch to approve or disapprove of major and minor rules (focusing mostly on major ones) that have an impact on the lives of Americans? We didn’t elect those bureaucrats, now, did we? Which is more “dangerous”: involving Congress, or letting unelected partisans run roughshod over the public?

To give a sense of the scale of this road-block, in 2015 there were 43 such major federal regulations passed to protect the public; among them were food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances.

And those are exactly why the REINS Act is needed. The CPP will raise consumer costs. Net neutrality increases government involvement in our browsing. Energy efficiency raises our costs because it was about greenhouse gases, nothing else.

It’s time—past time—for a massive mobilization to make clear to Congress and the new President that a wholesale repeal of 40 years of progress in environmental protection, civil rights, labor standards, health and safety and consumer protection is a third rail, and that pretending that the REINS act increases accountability is a fig-leaf that public scrutiny must shred.

Ask your favorite public interest organization what it is doing today to stop the REINS Act in the Senate.

If Democrats are protesting this much, the bill must be a good one. The summary of the REINS Act starts out

The bill revises provisions relating to congressional review of agency rulemaking. A federal agency promulgating a rule must publish information about the rule in the Federal Register and include in its report to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office: (1) a classification of the rule as a major or non-major rule, and (2) a copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule that includes an analysis of any jobs added or lost.

A “major rule” is any rule that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget finds results in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

That seems a pretty darned good rationale for the Legislative Branch to have input, does it not? Of course, if Congress would stop passing laws that are overly broad and allow so much rule making, that would certainly be a bonus.

Of course, this has to make it through the Senate, and Democrats will surely object to involving themselves in rules that have a heavy impact on Citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Republicans Passed The Most Dangerous Bill, To Reform Abusive US Regulations »

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Republicans Passed The Most Dangerous Bill, To Reform Abusive US Regulations | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 11, 2017 – 1:08 pm

…is a sea rising because Other People drove fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on intolerance in Liberal Berkeley land.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Guardian Unintentionally Admits That Democrat Policies Are Bad For Blacks

By William Teach January 11, 2017 – 10:55 am

The UK Guardian, a hotbed of leftist politics, thinks they have something in an article on “gun violence.” They four authors, who probably did all their research online rather than heading into the actual dangerous areas, say that to fix it, you have to go local. And here’s what we get

The map of America’s gun violence epidemic can seem overwhelming. There were more than 13,000 gun homicides in the US in 2015, across nearly 3,500 cities and towns. But the toll of this gun violence was not distributed equally.

Half of America’s gun homicides in 2015 were clustered in just 127 cities and towns, according to a new geographic analysis by the Guardian, even though they contain less than a quarter of the nation’s population.

Even within those cities, violence is further concentrated in the tiny neighborhood areas that saw two or more gun homicide incidents in a single year.

Four and a half million Americans live in areas of these cities with the highest numbers of gun homicide, which are marked by intense poverty, low levels of education, and racial segregation. Geographically, these neighborhood areas are small: a total of about 1,200 neighborhood census tracts, which, laid side by side, would fit into an area just 42 miles wide by 42 miles long.

The problem they face is devastating. Though these neighborhood areas contain just 1.5% of the country’s population, they saw 26% of America’s total gun homicides.

I would highly recommend reading the entire article and viewing the accompanying graphics. Here’s just one of them for illustration

They highlight city after city, conveniently forgetting who runs the majority of these cities. That would be the Democratic Party. And the graphics show that the Democratic Party has left Blacks in poverty, low education, and violence.

BTW, the article itself is much better than the standard Guardian fare, well researched, attempting to take a somewhat unbiased view. Check it out.

Read: Guardian Unintentionally Admits That Democrat Policies Are Bad For Blacks »

Posted in Current Affairs | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Did You Know There Are Republicans Who Want To Fight ‘Climate Change,’ But Aren’t Allowed?

By William Teach January 11, 2017 – 9:10 am

But, most of them are secret, so we learn from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been leading the charge in assaulting people for their beliefs that ‘climate change’ is not a danger and that “carbon pollution” is not the primary cause of the current warm period

Republicans want to fight climate change, but fossil-fuel bullies won’t let them

Talking to my Senate Republican colleagues about climate change is like talking to prisoners about escaping. The conversations are often private, even furtive. One told me, “Let’s keep talking, but you can’t let my staff know.”

The dirty secret is that climate change is not really a partisan issue in Congress. Its history has not been partisan, with Republican senators such as John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Lindsey O. Graham and Jeff Flake (as a House member) having introduced climate bills in the past. Climate change became partisan in 2010, shortly after the five Republican-appointed justices of the Supreme Court upended a century of law and precedent to issue the Citizens United decision, which rejected limits on corporate spending on political campaigns. The timing is not a coincidence.

I like the way he works Citizens United in to the mix. Of course, the reality is that opposition to the Hotcoldwetdry push had been growing since the late 1990’s, but really started gaining steam around 2004, with so many people being able to truly get information out to the masses via blogs and New Media and such. No longer were people dependent on simply the majority leftist media. No longer were people reliant on one sided sources, who had skin in the game in the form of government grants and their own political beliefs. People could now read varying views and sciences. They could see the links between the far left and ‘climate science’ from the leading organizations (let’s acknowledge that not all climate scientists are Warmists. Most try and leave the politics out of it, hence, you rarely hear their names), which meant they could see that this whole push was about enacting Progressive (nice fascist) policies of greater taxation and greater government control over everything, including our lives. They could see that this meant higher costs of living and lower standards for our lives.

Big-business interests, particularly the fossil-fuel industry, led the charge. That industry’s annual U.S. subsidy is $700 billion, according to the International Monetary Fund. With stakes that high, the incentive to protect the subsidy and the amount that the fossil-fuel industry can afford to spend on political influence are enormous, so the restraints of campaign finance and disclosure rules were particularly galling.

Uggggg. This subsidy thing again. Tax breaks which pretty much every company gets are not subsidies. Sigh.

The justices allowed the fossil-fuel industry to roll heavy artillery out onto the political field, not just its previous musketry. Industry operatives brag about putting hundreds of millions of dollars into each federal election cycle, though undisclosed “dark money” and identity-laundering pass-throughs make this increasingly hard to track. Most recklessly, the five justices missed the point — or didn’t care — that anyone who is allowed to spend unlimited political money necessarily can threaten to spend unlimited political money. This atmosphere has quashed any Republican effort on climate change, silenced serious climate debate in Congress and ended progress, as desired and directed by the fossil-fuel industry.

Sheldon forgets a few things. First, no one really cares about ‘climate change.’ As has been mentioned time and again, it is a bottom end issue when stacked up with other issues. Even most Warmists aren’t willing to spend much of their own money to Do Something. The people who care the most are those who want more power.

Second, most people want inexpensive fossil fuels so they can drive to work, drive to play, drive wherever, take flights, and provide energy for their homes. People like their cars. Apparently, Sheldon likes fossil fuels, too, since he refuses to give them up in his own life. Weird, right?

Republicans aren’t cowards. Many will take the side of climate principle in a fair fight. But it is asking a lot of them to take a principled stand on climate when they don’t see one corporate friend ready to help them. That’s the climate battle’s other dirty secret: In Congress, on climate, corporate America is not even trying. That’s why the fossil-fuel bullies own the place.

Got that? Unless you stand up for more government and taxation and such, you’re a coward and unprincipled. What does this say about people who refuse to give up their own fossil fuels addiction and make their own lives carbon neutral?

Read: Hey, Did You Know There Are Republicans Who Want To Fight ‘Climate Change,’ But Aren’t Allowed? »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove