Good News: Seas Are Rising Faster Than They Ever Have In Human History…In The Future

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 10:30 am

We can always could on Warmists to provide hysterical…as in “loony tunes”, not funny…commentary. The original title of this Mashable piece was “Global warming to cause fastest rate of sea level rise in human history.”

Apparently, they thought that might have been too stupid even for the Cult of Climastrology, so they changed it to

Coastal mega-cities could see more than 6 feet of sea level rise by 2100

Which is equally as stupid, being based on reading a crystal ball, er, computer model.

With global climate talks kicking off in Marrakech, Morocco on Monday, a new study provides a sobering warning about what may happen to coastal mega-cities if decisive global emissions cuts are not made soon.

Based on a scenario in which countries fail to sharply rein in emissions of global warming pollutants, coastal cities are likely to see the fastest rate of sea level rise in human history before the end of the current century, the study found.

Could, may, likely. Very scientific. Really, scaremongering.

What’s more striking is that the study shows that more than more than 90 percent of the world’s coastal areas will see more than the global average sea level rise.

Huh? Let’s unpack that. They’re prognosticating that sea rise will be utterly different in some areas, which would be, you guessed it, the areas where they can fear monger the most.

The study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that if global warming pushes past 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels, about 80 percent of the global coastline may see more sea level rise than the global average.

Double huh? Why would sea level rise be drastically different? Oceans don’t work differently along the coasts where liberal cities reside.

“If the Paris Agreement fails and the worst-case scenario comes to pass, South Florida and the boot of Louisiana would not likely survive this century. Many more places, from Boston to Shanghai, would be gravely threatened,” said Ben Strauss, a sea level rise researcher at the nonprofit group Climate Central who is unaffiliated with the new study.

Keep pushing the non-scientific dogma in an attempt to scare people.

If the climate were to warm by 5 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by 2100 — which is roughly the path we’re on now — New York City could see more than a meter, or about 3.6 feet, of sea level rise with an even higher upper limit, when factoring in sources of uncertainty.

What path? We’ve seen a whopping 1.4 Fahrenheit increase since 1850. Never change, Cultists, never change. You provide so much great material to expose insanity.

And, yes, the article does state that this is all based on computer models.

Read: Good News: Seas Are Rising Faster Than They Ever Have In Human History…In The Future »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

This Election Has “Unthinkably High Stakes” For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 7:21 am

For a change, Vox kinda gets something right, in an unhinged hyperventilating manner

The unthinkably high stakes for climate change that we’ve completely ignored this election
The next president will make decisions that will echo for centuries.

This election season has been unusual in a variety of ways. In one way, however, it’s been entirely normal, just like previous elections.

To wit: Climate change didn’t come up.

This fact barely needs explaining. It is pretty much what you’d expect, given various features of US politics and human psychology (which I get into below).

What uber-Warmists David Roberts gets into fails to mention that people really do not care that much, especially when ‘climate change’ is stacked up against real issues. Perhaps they should care, because the issue is not about science, it is, as I mention ad nauseum, about politics. About control. About taxation. Cost of living. Progressivism (nice Fascism).

The stakes involved are almost unthinkably large. We can say, without hyperbole, that the effects of this election will be felt centuries from now. The potential suffering of millions of people is on the line.

Roberts is right. But, not for the reasons he thinks. It’s because electing Hillary would see, at a minimum, implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement. Provided that they aren’t blocked by the courts, as suits are pending. It’s hard to get a reading on Hillary and her ‘climate change’ beliefs. Sure, she talks about it a bit, and it showed up in the Wikileaks leaks, but, does she really care? Does she believe it is a real issue? Would she push the issue as hard as Obama did? Or, would she simply allow her people to do some stuff while she focused on other things? Is she a Believer, or just a hanger on who has to parrot the lines for the sake of her unhinged leftist base? We just don’t know.

Regardless, even if Hillary doesn’t push the subject hard, we’ll certainly see the EPA, headed by whomever she appoints to the agency, push the envelope with crazy regulations. She’d probably let other agencies run wild, as well. Even this hands off approach would cause lots of economic suffering for those lower and middle class citizens who’d pay the price for the cultish beliefs of Warmists in government.

With Donald Trump, he says he wack all those ‘climate change’ initiatives. He’s all for renewables, but, for good reasons, and he doesn’t want to immediately do away with fossil fuels. the CPP would be terminated and he’d end US involvement in the Paris agreement. All the Obama policies would be toast. Here’s the caveat: so Trump says. He could be full of mule fritters. But, it’d be better taking the chance with this horrible, horrible candidate than with the other horrible, horrible, horrible candidate.

Reading the rest of the article highlights just how much these plans need to be killed. They yammer on about science, but, at the end of the day, it’s about that political power, what happens to our taxes, our cost of living, and the power of the Government over our lives.

Read: This Election Has “Unthinkably High Stakes” For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Elections, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

The Swing State Of NC Can Teach Us About Political Polarization Or Something

By William Teach November 8, 2016 – 7:02 am

It’s always enjoyable when uber-liberals, like Kim Soffen, Ted Mellnik, Samuel Granados and John Muyskens at the Washington Post, tell us what’s happening in a Southern state

What one swing state can teach us about political polarization in America
North Carolina’s electorate, facing multiple contentious elections, is starkly divided by race, income and, increasingly, education.

….

For a window into how this polarization is affecting this year’s election, just look at North Carolina. It’s one of the most coveted battlegrounds in the country — RealClearPolitics puts Donald Trump up by just 0.8 points — and it’s facing a number of other contentious electoral battles. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, a supporter of the highly controversial law requiring transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their birth gender, is in a tight reelection battle. So is Sen. Richard Burr, a Republican with a narrow lead in his reelection contest, according to recent polling; his race could determine which party controls the Senate. And that’s not to mention the controversy surrounding the recently struck down voter ID laws.

I’m not sure why keeping fake women out of locker rooms, showers, and changing rooms (among others) of real females is highly controversial. I guess it’s a liberal thing. Right up till a gender confused wants access to those rooms that their underage daughter uses.

Polls indicate there will be shifts in support from demographic groups, with highly educated whites moving toward Hillary Clinton and less-educated and working-class whites moving toward Trump. Between these two factors, there’s a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the election’s outcome.

The article never truly teaches us anything but what Northern liberals assume. Certainly, there is a divide on race. Liberals have used Big Government policies for decades to keep Blacks beholden to government while keeping them stuck in poverty. Which also plays into education and income. The lower teacher pay wasn’t caused by Republicans: Democrats controlled spending for most of the last 50 years. Republicans came in and raised teacher pay, despite the talking points you hear from Dems.

Certainly, education is a divide. But, not what you think. It’s along the lines of the education system being run by Democrats, who use this important job to fill the heads of children with leftist mush.

Finally mentioned in the story is the rural vs urban divide, in which, as you can expect, the WP writers sneer at those rural folks they think are stupid. They forget that country doesn’t mean dumb. How would liberals eat without the rural folks? But, liberals have the notion that rural folks are just dumb hicks, which brings us to a real divide.

That divide would be all the Northern liberals escaping the states they turned into utter messes and moving down South. Having done things like drastically increasing the size and scope of government, not too mention jacking up taxes and the cost of living, oh, and making those states and especially the big cities crime ridden hell holes, Northern liberals leave, looking for something better. Unfortunately, they bring their same stupid ideas which ruined their cities and states with them and vote for the same stupidity. They tell us they don’t like how we do things here, and want us to change.

It’s like moving into your parents house and telling them the way you want things to work. We have an answer. 95 and 85 run north and south. 40 runs west. Pick a direction and leave.

So, it’s funny how liberals rarely want to move from their liberal states to other liberal states. It’s almost like they want to live somewhere nicer with lower taxes, lower crime, and better living conditions. When they move, they should assimilate. They remind us about what we’re seeing in Europe as all the Muslims are brought in and refuse to assimilate, bringing their violent and regressive culture with them.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The Swing State Of NC Can Teach Us About Political Polarization Or Something »

Posted in Liberal World | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: We’re Going To Have To Pay For It If We Want To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach November 7, 2016 – 5:37 pm

Surprise? Now they tell us. And, who’s this we? How about if Warmists pay for their own Beliefs?

If We Want To Stop Climate Change, We’re Going To Have To Pay For It
It’ll be an expensive fight, and time is running out.

Did I mention that it would be expensive?

Hundreds of financial leaders gathered here last week to discuss one of the biggest challenges in the fight against climate change: How do we pay for it?

That answer, it would seem, isn’t terribly complex, at least in theory: invest less money in fossil fuels and more in green technology, before it’s too late.

Say the people who just took long, fossil fueled trips.

But the fight will be long, and it will be expensive.

Addressing climate change is expected to cost the world tens of billions of dollars annually through 2020, in the form of efforts to curb emissions and adaptations to changes that are already underway. A recent report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that local and national governments and large banks will need to invest up to $90 trillion by 2050 to keep the planet from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius, the level at which scientists say the worst effects of climate change take hold.

Of course, this will require soaking lots of people, especially through carbon taxes and such, and all those investments in this and that and the other Warmists want? Those mean more taxes.

Surprise!

Read: Surprise: We’re Going To Have To Pay For It If We Want To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 7, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a carbon pollution sucking tree that was cut down to make a table, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on ethics for little people.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: ‘Climate Change’ Is Intergenerational Theft!

By William Teach November 7, 2016 – 10:36 am

Naomi Klein is back. She despises capitalism, and has advocated for a totally new economic system for the entire world. Of course, this system is for Other People, as she travels around the world on fossil fueled vehicles, and hangs out on expensive sailboats (as the photo at the article shows). She’s also dragging her son into her cultish world

Climate change is intergenerational theft. That’s why my son is part of this story

The short film I’ve made with the Guardian stars my son, Toma, aged four years and five months. That’s a little scary for me to write, since, up until this moment, my husband, Avi, and I have been pretty careful about protecting him from public exposure. No matter how damn cute we think he’s being, absolutely no tweeting is allowed.

But, now they’re willing to use him as a prop for the Cult of Climastrology.

All that information is important, of course. But I have started to worry that, by being so calm and clinical, we may be tacitly sending the message that this isn’t really an existential emergency after all. If it were, wouldn’t the people raising the alarm sound more … alarmed? Wouldn’t we share more of our own emotions?

Nah, what sends that message is Warmists refusing to practice what they preach. What’s the carbon footprint of a fossil fueled trip to Australia? She was already planning a trip when the UK Guardian asked her to document it. She initially refused, then reconsidered.

A few days later, the Guardian asked again. And I started thinking: maybe this was a chance to get at aspects of climate disruption that scientific reports and political arguments just can’t convey. Perhaps it could communicate, in a visceral way, the intergenerational theft at the heart of this crisis.

There is no question that the strongest emotions I have about the climate crisis have to do with Toma and his peers. I have flashes of sheer panic about the extreme weather we have already locked in for them. But even more intense than this fear is the sadness about what they won’t ever know. These kids are growing up in a mass extinction, robbed of the cacophonous company of being surrounded by so many fast-disappearing life forms.

In the eyes of Warmists like Klein, wouldn’t it be intergenerational theft to use lots of fossil fuels which, in their minds, are the main cause of this Holocene warm period? Oh, right, no, Other People should be forced to engage in the beliefs of the CoC. And, yes, she did write at the beginning of the year that everyone should make this the year that we all go fossil fuels free.

For that kind of rapid change to happen, however, we are all going to have to stop being so impeccably calm and reasonable. We’re going to have to find that part of ourselves that feels this threat in our hearts, as well as our heads.

Right. Because the CoC has been so calm and reasonable. Kinda like the way Klein advocates for killing off capitalism and replacing it with a government controlled economic system. And she’ll use her son and other kids as props along the way.

Read: Good News: ‘Climate Change’ Is Intergenerational Theft! »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Hillary Is Amply Qualified For President Or Something

By William Teach November 7, 2016 – 7:22 am

I usually ignore the ramblings of left wing news outlets, meaning most of them, who will obviously back virtually all, if not all, of the Democrats running for office. Since the WP began endorsing for President back in 1976, they have never endorsed a Republican. And almost never endorsed any Republican. And, of course, they failed to break with tradition in endorsing Hillary. Now the Editorial Board tells us humorously

Hillary Clinton is amply qualified to be president

….

We have written a lot in recent months about why Mr. Trump is manifestly unqualified — by experience, temperament and outlook — for the Oval Office. We agree that attention paid to his unfitness is to Ms. Clinton’s benefit. But we also believe that fair examination of Ms. Clinton in her own right provides convincing evidence that she is well prepared and fully capable to succeed as president of the United States.

So, what’s that evidence?

Not only has Ms. Clinton sketched out a thoughtful and ambitious policy agenda but she has run an impressive campaign, including her choice of running mate and her nimble mastery of three debates.

So, she ran a good campaign? That’s evidence?

We are not alone in our recommendation. Most newspapers — including conservative newspapers that never before supported a Democrat for president — have endorsed Ms. Clinton, as have publications that broke decades-long traditions of not choosing sides. She has been backed by an impressive number of officials, former officials and experts from both sides of the aisle, including cabinet secretaries, retired military and Nobel Prize winners. Tellingly, people who worked most closely with her are most enthusiastic. “Prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument,” was the testimonial offered by Michael J. Morell, 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, who has served presidents of both parties and never publicly backed a presidential candidate before. “I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room.”

So, some people back her? That’s evidence?

It is hard to imagine that any other politician subjected to decades of unrelenting conspiracy-mongering, unprecedented scrutiny and outright misogyny would fare as well as she has. Some of the emails from her staff stolen by Russia and released show thoughtless comments and embarrassing political calculations by her staff, but many others reveal a woman with discipline and resilience who thinks thoughtfully about the important issues of the day and pushes for pragmatic solutions. Those are the qualities we hope will result in her being elected president on Nov. 8.

So, because people were mean to her (imagine people being mean in politics. It’s unheard of!!!!) and she stood there, that’s evidence?

What’s missing is “accomplishments”. What has she done in her 30+ years in politics? Is there any substance? She passed no substantive legislation that originated from herself. Things weren’t going particularly well while she was Secretary of State.

How about when she was in the private sector decades ago. Is there anything there? No.

How does any of this make her “amply qualified?”

So, other than squishy things, what evidence is there? In the WPEB piece endorsing Hillary, they mentioned more missteps than accomplishments. This was the same argument made about Obama. Demeanor and campaigning abilities. That hasn’t turned out too well for the country.

Would Trump be better? Who knows? And therein lies a problem with Trump. But, we know how bad Hillary will be.

Read: Washington Post: Hillary Is Amply Qualified For President Or Something »

Posted in Elections, Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

California Woman Facing Jail For Selling Food Online Should Invoke The Comey Exclusion

By William Teach November 7, 2016 – 6:54 am

From the Big Government loving Republik Of California, we see that minor things will get you in big trouble

(Fox News) A Northern California woman is facing potential jail time after she joining a Facebook food group and sold some of the meals she cooked online, which county officials say is illegal.

San Joaquin County officials cited Mariza Reulas, of Stockton, for selling her signature dish ceviche over the internet. Reulas now faces a trial and possible jail time for her sales.

“It was just like unreal that they were saying you could face up to a year in jail,” said Reulas.

According to Fox 40 Sacramento, Reulas joined a Facebook group called 209 Food Spot where people from Stockton can shared recipes, organized potlucks and occasionally sold what they cooked.

This is an America where law enforcement shows up to shut down lemonade stands run by children.

On Dec. 3, 2015, someone contacted Reulas online and asked her for her ceviche. That person turned out to be an undercover San Joaquin County investigator in a sting operation to nab those selling food without special permits. Reulas and around a dozen others were cited for two misdemeanors for “operating a food facility and engaging in business without a permit.”

You read that correctly. The county actually ran a sting on an online food group, apparently having solved all other crime in the county. Ms Reulas refused to take a plea deal which would put her on probation for, get this, 3 years. For selling food.

Now, you can understand the prohibition to a degree, being an attempt to safeguard people. But, up to a year in jail? Seriously? She should plead the Comey Exclusion, in that she might have been extremely careless, but there was no intent.

Let’s put this into perspective. Hillary committed perjury, she transmitted information that ran the gamut from sensitive State Dept information all the way up to the most classified national secrets, she had her maid (with no security clearance) print them out, and her server was most likely hacked. And so much more. Then there’s all the Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

Huma Abedin, a part of all the server and Foundation shenanigans, signed a form saying she turned in all her State Dept. material. Then 650k emails were found on an unsecured computer owned by her pervert husband. No charges.

All the others inside the Clinton circle, who lied and were a part of everything? No charges.

Yet, this peon woman faces a year in jail for selling food. John Edwards was right, there are two Americas. There’s the political aristocracy, which pretty much gets away with everything, and then there’s the rest of us.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Woman Facing Jail For Selling Food Online Should Invoke The Comey Exclusion »

Posted in Current Affairs | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Paris Climate Deal Becomes International Law Or Something

By William Teach November 6, 2016 – 5:46 pm

Warmists the world over are super thrilled by this

(AP)  The Paris Agreement to combat climate change became international law on Friday — a landmark deal about tackling global warming amid growing fears that the world is becoming hotter even faster than scientists expected.

So far, 96 countries, accounting for just over two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have formally joined the accord, which seeks to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. More countries are expected to come aboard in the coming weeks and months.

Secretary General Ban Ki Moon commemorated the event, talking with civil society groups at U.N. headquarters in New York to hear their concerns and visions for the future.

“Today we make history in humankind’s efforts to combat climate change,” Ban said in his opening remarks.

I thought they made history with Kyoto? How’d that work out? Interestingly, most of the people celebrating this refuse to modify their own lives to conform with their ‘climate change’ beliefs. More interestingly, all the people who were responsible for signing the Paris agreement take lots and lots of fossil fueled trips, and will use the agreement to institute more government and taxes and fees and restrictions on citizens.

But scientists and policymakers say the agreement is just the first step of a much longer and complicated process of transitioning away from fossil fuels, which currently supply the bulk of the planet’s energy needs and also are the primary drivers of global warming.

Now that they have a chunk, they want more. Because Progressives (nice Fascists) always want more control.

Sadly, Trump probably blew his chance to blow this plan out with a poor campaign, however, the GOP Congress could put the brakes on this with forceful blocking of funds and slipping legislation in. Will they have the cajones to do that? Because it isn’t law here in the U.S., since the Congress never ratified the agreement.

Read: Paris Climate Deal Becomes International Law Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible room full of things made from trees which save us from climate doom, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Black and Blonde Media, with a post on Obama telling illegal aliens to vote.

It’s book week!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove