If All You See…

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil plastic water bottle causing the seas deoxygenate you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on al Qaeda threatening election day attacks.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Why Don’t We Talk About ‘Climate Change’ More?

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 10:09 am

It couldn’t possibly be that no one really cares. Oh, no. Not in Warmist World

(Grist) Why don’t we talk about climate change more?

To find out, Greta Johnson and Tricia Bobeda — hosts of WBEZ’s Nerdette podcast — brought climate scientist Heidi Cullen to talk to 13 Chicago families about climate change and its dangers.

They found that people are scared of climate change — for good reason — and that makes them shut down:

One Loop resident admitted “climate change is important.” But when we asked if he’d think and talk about it more after having Cullen at his kitchen table, he replied, “Nope.”

If he did, he said, he’d just walk around depressed all the time.

So, based on one person, we now know that we generally do not talk about the issue….and what they mean is talk about it to come up with Solutions…. because we’re too scared and we shut down and it makes us depressed. Or something

Still, we persist in avoiding the topic. “In a lot of ways, I think this project affirmed many of my own concerns and fears about climate change,” Johnson told Grist. “I know it’s something I should be concerned about, but it’s also just so overwhelming and theoretical that it’s difficult to contemplate.”

Theoretical. More like prognostication for Madame Zelda at the carnival. This does all show that members of the Cult of Climastrology are all nuts, and are attempting to make everyone else as nutty as they are.

Read: Say, Why Don’t We Talk About ‘Climate Change’ More? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’ You’re On The Wrong Side Of History Or Something

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 8:43 am

I always enjoy a Special Snowflake who hasn’t even entered the Real World yammering on about Important Things

Climate change is real

If you don’t believe in climate change, then you will be on the wrong side of human history. The science and evidence for rising sea levels, arctic ice melting and man-made fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is so unequivocal that it’s baffling a presidential candidate has invalidated the phenomenon. Even though theories on global warming have been around for more than a century, it didn’t become a political issue until recently.

Of course, Leftists love trotting out the wrong side of history thing. Perhaps it’s because their support of the Soviet Union and communism, Islamic radicals, and slavery, among other things, showed they were on the wrong side, so, they’re projecting a bit. As for “unequivocal”? Correlation is not causation, as the saying goes.

Today, in the scientific community, about 97 percent of climate scientists believe there has been anthropogenic climate change.

When someone trots out the 97% falsehood, you can go full stop. Anything after that is a lie, and simply cultish beliefs. Skipping to the end of English Major Ezra Solway’s missive

While the problem is deeply rooted in shortsightedness, there is some reason for optimism. President Obama has made it his last mission in office to help combat climate change by instituting the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. What can you do to help? Instead of taking everything the media shows at face value, go educate yourself. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio recently released a documentary on the crisis called Before the Flood, which elucidates many of the problems our society faces. Let’s be more conscientious and leave this beautiful world intact for many future generations to come.

So, nothing about reducing your own carbon footprint? About giving up fossil fuels? How about beer? College kids love beer. It’s bad for ‘climate change’.

It’ll be interesting to see what these Warmists do when they’re beliefs end up on the trashheep of history.

Read: If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’ You’re On The Wrong Side Of History Or Something »

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

NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary

By William Teach November 4, 2016 – 8:25 am

Seriously, there’s absolultely no reason to consider impeaching Hillary if she wins the White House, right? She’s an angel who does nothing wrong! And no one nor party has ever talked like this during an election season, right?

Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat

Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.

Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.

How dare this occur in politics!  I mean, goodness, certainly Democrats weren’t threatening to investigate and impeach George Bush during the 2004 election season, right?

In a rational world — you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest — this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would “create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis,” raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans’ open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.

It’s so mean!

As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. “Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, they’re already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington,” he told North Carolina voters this week. “How does our democracy function like that?”

Considering Obama’s avoidance of engaging the duly elected legislative branch while using executive orders that are often dubious and blocked by the judiciary branch, Obama’s the last person who should be speaking on democracy.

Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans’ impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can’t gain control of government fairly, they’ll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.

Or, it could be that Republicans see an utterly untrustworthy person who blows off national security for her own “convenience” (we all know that her email server was about much, much more), left Americans to die in Benghazi, consorts with people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, used her position at State to engage in pay for play, enriching herself and her family, sold out US interests to Russia (uranium deal), used her so-called charity to enrich herself, and so much more.

Where was the NY Times Editorial Board when Democrats were working hard to undermine President George W. Bush? Nowhere to be found. They didn’t seem to care about disrespect for democracy then.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary »

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 5:39 pm

Personally, I’d prefer that we just start the whole thing over, but, whatever

(The Hill) A major gambling website says nearly all wagers on the presidential election in the last 48 hours have been on Donald Trump to win.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power on Tuesday said 91 percent of bets on the election in the last two days have been backing Trump, the Republican nominee.

Huh.

“We’re not reaching for the rosary beads just yet but if money talks, and it usually does, it’s telling us that Trump still has a puncher’s chance and he’ll be leaving us with some very expensive egg on our face if he does manage to pull it off,” spokesman Féilim Mac An Iomaire said in a statement.

Of course, I have to wonder if these bets are based on thinking that Trump will really win, or if people are putting down long-shot bets looking for a big reward should he win, like putting a few bucks down a 30-1 horse to win.

Read: Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city which is Concerned with climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Joshuapundit, with a post on what to expect up till election day.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Who’s Up For Ecosexual?

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 10:21 am

Mixing advocacy, gender confusion, and bat guano insanity

(Advocate) Over the past few years, some organizations and publications have added a Q, for queer, to the LGBT acronym — and now there are some who say we should add an E, for ecosexual.

The term has been around for much of the 21st century, although its definition can range from those who want to make environmental activism sexy and fun to those who derive sexual pleasure from interactions with nature. There are people who use sex products made from sustainable materials, enjoy hiking or swimming in the nude, or simply want to date other environmental activists, and others “who roll around in the dirt having an orgasm covered in potting soil” or “fuck trees, or masturbate under a waterfall,” Amanda Morgan, an ecosexual activist who teaches at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Vice recently.

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Read: Who’s Up For Ecosexual? »

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

Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 8:01 am

In science, what do you do when the data fails to conform to your hypothesis? Correct, you rethink your hypothesis.

What do you do when you’re a member of the Cult of Climastrology? You change the data

Scientists Say We Underestimated How Much Sea Levels Have Risen

Scientists say in a new study that previous measurements of rising sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century were wrong—it’s actually worse than we thought. They say we have been underestimating rising sea levels by 5 to 28 percent depending on the location in the world.

Crucial to the work was use of “ice melt fingerprints,” a tool originally used in 2001 to help scientists determine why melting ice in say, Antarctica, is different from melting ice in Alaska. Using the fingerprints, scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa closely analyzed various ice centers of the planet for a look at how they’ve been melting. Greenland was estimated to have been wrong by 28 percent off, while the melting Alps were off by 5 percent. The variations in individual ice centers give scientists reason to ratchet up the amount sea levels on the whole actually rose in the 20th century.

“The investigation concludes that it is highly unlikely that global average sea level rose less than” 5.5 inches, the previously widely accepted number, says the discovery’s lead author Phillip Thompson of the University of Hawai’i in a statement. The most likely amount was closer to 6.7 inches, they say.

So, even if they are correct, and it is 6.7 inches (there are already numerous studies that show the 20th Century sea rise was 7 inches), that provides absolutely no need for panic, as the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years, a time picked due to it being after the great sea rise from the end of the glacial age, is 6-8 inches per century. During a Holocene warm period, one would expect much higher sea rise, as they have been shorter than the cool periods, which would have much lower to even negative sea rise. This is how averages are calculated.

“This is the frontier in sea level science right now,” Thompson said. “We care about human timescale planning, decisions we’re going to make in the next 10 to 20 or 30 years.”

In that time frame, there will be little sea rise. Nothing to be concerned about, and certainly not anthropogenic. The point here, though, is to position things as Much Worse than previously thought, so, Government must be involved in central planning.

Read: Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Lays Out How Trump Can Win

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 7:49 am

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seems Very Concerned over how Donald Trump can win the election, and here’s their response

The only way Trump can win

AS THE 2016 presidential campaign draws to a close, Donald Trump is airing commercials that present him as a change agent who will shake up Washington. Not a mainstream politician, exactly, but nothing to be afraid of, either. This appeal seems to be having some success, as Mr. Trump pulls even with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in some national polls and surpasses her in likely voters’ judgment on who is more trustworthy.

Ultimately, though, this appeal can succeed only if voters succumb to last-minute distractions and ignore or forget Mr. Trump’s record. Allow us to offer a few reminders.

You didn’t think this was going to be a positive editorial, did you?

“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”

This lie is emblematic, for two reasons. First, Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters; every major-party nominee of the modern era has respected this basic norm of transparency.

Uh huh

  • “I’ve never received nor sent any material that was marked classified”
  • “At this point, what difference does it make?”
  • “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. ” (blaming the video for the Benghazi attack in public while telling her daughter in private it was a terrorist attack)

Then

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

They often aren’t sending their best. The crime reports show this. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to bring in 10’s of thousands of people from the Middle East who cannot be vetted, won’t be vetted, and resettle them over the objections of US citizens. We’ve seen how well this has worked out in Europe.

“You’d be in jail.”

American democracy survives the passions and animus stirred up every four years because its leaders always have accepted this rule: The loser acknowledges the winner, and the winner leaves the loser in peace. Mr. Trump disavows both sides of that time-tested formula.

She would be in jail if her name wasn’t Hillary Clinton. And the WPEB would cheer this if she was a Republican.

“I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Mr. Trump’s celebration of torture provides one answer to that question. His vow to kill the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists offers another. A commander in chief in the U.S. system has vast powers, often beyond the reach of Congress or the courts to check. Mr. Trump could in fact order the CIA to resume waterboarding suspects — and worse — to the immense discredit of the country.

Why such a concern over terrorists who would be happy to slit the throats of the members of the WPEB?

“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think he’s a strong leader, he’s a powerful leader.”

Remember when Hillary trotted out her “reset button”? And called Bashar Assad a reformer? When she pledged support and said how great Mohamed Morsi was, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization?

Some addition whining from the WPEB continues, till we get to the end

“Make America great again.”

It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.

Of course, he doesn’t have contempt. I dislike defending Trump, but, poll after poll show that people think the economy is not doing well. Really, though, this has nothing to do with anything the WPEB highlights, it’s the phrase itself: liberals hate America and all it stands for, and would like to tear it down.

We believe, as we have said, that Ms. Clinton is well-prepared to serve as president. But even voters who disagree — who believe that Ms. Clinton is unqualified or ethically distasteful — cannot realistically argue that she represents a danger to the republic.

Mr. Trump is such a danger. Only by forgetting or ignoring what he has told us could Americans decide otherwise.

Uh huh. A woman who put her convenience over national security. A woman who intentionally attempted to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of rape. A woman who used her position as Secretary of State as a means to enrich herself and her family through pay for play to her so-called charitable foundation, and used her charitable foundation to enrich herself while spending a whopping 6% on actual charity. She puts herself over country. That’s a danger.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Lays Out How Trump Can Win »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 176 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is Totally Worried About Hillary’s Male Tormentors

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 3:57 pm

Because, apparently, in Frank Bruni’s world, Hillary is just so darned strong that she needs protection from Men. Doesn’t say much for her ability to serve in the most powerful position in the world

Hillary’s Male Tormentors

Weiner or no Weiner, Hillary Clinton is likely to be our next president.

But she can’t seem to escape insatiable men.

She married one — for better, for “bimbo eruptions,” for two terms in the White House, for impeachment.

She’s in the climactic week of a grotesque battle with another. If she prevails, his boasts of sexual aggression will partly be why.

And if she fails? Again there’s a priapic protagonist. The F.B.I. wouldn’t be examining Anthony Weiner’s laptop if he hadn’t invited so many strangers to examine his lap, and her fate is enmeshed once more with the wanton misdeeds of the weaker sex.

Over so many of her travails hangs a cloud of testosterone.

Oh, noes, testosterone. One has to wonder if Frank has turned in his ManCard yet.

But, much like Hillary’s server problems, she owns this. She decided to stick with a man who was credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, a guy who received oral sex in the White House while president. Hillary had to know what kind of person he was.

She hitched her wagon to Huma Abedin, who was in a relationship with Weiner, and decided to stick around after the first sexual allegations. Hillary let her stick around. Seriously, if Hillary can’t take the heat in the rough and tumble world of politics, perhaps she should get out. Much of this sounds like the old “she can dish it out, but she can’t take it” recipe.

Oh, and of course, this lays the foundation for calling all opposition to Hillary, should she win the presidency, as sexxxxxist, just like we’ve had almost 8 years of calling all opposition to Obama as raaaaacist.

Read: NY Times Is Totally Worried About Hillary’s Male Tormentors »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Hillary Clinton | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove