Good Grief: Warmists Now Blame Difficulty In Predicting Storm Tracks On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 8:25 am

Let’s review: after the huge storm season of 2005, members of the Cult of Climastrology said it would be the new normal. Then, landfalling storms (tropical depressions, tropical storms, and full hurricanes) dried up almost immediately. They then stated that storms would be fewer but stronger. There’s been zero category 3 hurricanes to make landfall in the U.S. since October, 2005, and few in the Caribbean and Mexico. So then we were told that anthropogenic climate change was causing this, but doom is right around the corner! They blamed Superstorm Sandy on AGW, and said there would be more coming. Nope. It’s always a prognostication followed by excuses as to why it failed, further followed by a prognostication of future doom. They haven’t been particularly good on this prediction, eh?

They’ve further stated that ‘climate change’ will cause all sorts of different weather in different places. More flooding, more drought, tornadoes, snow, etc and so on. Their predictions have been less than stellar. Remember all the calls that snow will be a thing of the past? That droughts will be the new normal, which are then soon replaced by a return to the normal weather or even wetter?

Which leads to

Climate change ‘tug of war’ keeps scientists guessing on storm tracks

Storm tracks—regions where storms travel from west to east across oceans and continents driven by the prevailing jet stream—determine weather and climate in middle-latitude places like Chicago and New York.

“Changes in the position of storm tracks in response to anthropogenic climate change depend on how the equator-to-pole temperature gradient will change, and among the various factors affecting this gradient, cloud changes stand out as one of the important pieces of the puzzle,” said Tiffany S. Shaw, assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago. She is the lead author of “Storm track processes and the opposing influences of climate change,” a review of the latest research and current knowledge that was published Aug. 29 in Nature Geoscience.

In idealized and comprehensive climate model simulations, warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere leads the clouds in high latitudes to reflect more solar radiation, thereby cooling the earth’s surface in those regions and increasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. In insolation (the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface) this would lead to a poleward shift of the storm tracks. Meanwhile, those same clouds tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, thereby warming the Earth’s surface in those same regions and decreasing the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, producing an opposite shift (also, in insolation).

Ah. Computer models. They’ve worked so well. But, hey, let me ask: how have weather predictions worked out for, basically, forever? How often are meteorologists wrong? Take a look at your 10 day forecast, and see how it matches up with what actually happens. While it’s certainly better than 50 years ago, it’s certainly not perfect. Heck, look at predictions of tropical storms. Yesterday, the center track for Hermine put in on a line to go just east of Raleigh. That was around 6pm. Now, the centerline has it going through Wilmington, North Carolina. That’s a big shift. Remember, no one was really sure where Hurricane Katrina would land just 48 to 24 hours out.

But, of course, the CoC is telling us that because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle, predictions will get more difficult. Sounds more like they’re creating excuses as to why their current prognostications will fail in the future.

The most important message of this paper is that scientists are currently unable to satisfactorily project the response of storm tracks to anthropogenic climate change, said Edwin Gerber, associate professor of mathematics and atmosphere ocean science at New York University’s Courant Institute, who was not involved in the Nature Geoscience review.

See?

“This paper nicely sets forth the ‘state of the art’ in our knowledge of storm tracks, as well as some of our most promising ideas for making progress in the future,” Gerber said. “We need to know how the global circulation will change if we want to make accurate regional climate change predictions.

“I don’t like throwing the dice when it comes to my children’s future,” he added.

Yet, Warmists refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels, which are explicitly blamed in the article, and go carbon neutral. Weird, eh? it’s almost like they don’t actually believe the stated causes are meaningful, and that there’s something else at play.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Good Grief: Warmists Now Blame Difficulty In Predicting Storm Tracks On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump

By William Teach September 1, 2016 – 8:23 am

Wednesday, Donald Trump spent the day doing his whole illegal immigration schtick. First with a visit to Mexico to talk with their president, then with a big speech on illegal immigration, one which made sure people understood that he was not backsliding on deportations (until he backslides again, because he has long held the position of allowing non-criminal illegals the ability to have “touchback” amnesty). The speech itself was very good, and well worth the read. He laid out a 10 point plan, which also delved into stopping legal visa holders from dangerous areas who hold ideas incompatible with American society. Many parts of the speech stick out. Here’s one of them

We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.

Meanwhile, the New York Times allows David Malpas, a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign (yeah, I was kinda shocked that he had one, too), to write an op-ed, which received Internet front page status, all of which is rather unusual for the Fish Wrap

Why This Economy Needs Donald Trump

This year, the media has been focused largely on the election process — campaign managers, speaking styles, every slip and misstep. That’s been entertaining, but the policy differences between the two sides are much more important, and the most crucial difference may be over economic policy.

Donald J. Trump has campaigned very clearly for change — a policy upheaval to promote faster growth, repair the economic stagnation and end the corrupt pay-to-play system that favors the well heeled. Hillary Clinton has pledged to extend and build on the policies of the Obama administration.

There is no doubt who has the better plan. Our economy is growing at only 1.1 percent per year, a fraction of our average rate, and the Congressional Budget Office forecasts just 2 percent annual growth (in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product) for the next 10 years.

Yes, we went through a deep recession, but it ended in 2009. The recovery has been the weakest in decades, and the first that has actually pushed median incomes down. Business investment and profits are lower now than a year ago. Counterproductive federal policies squash small businesses with inane regulatory sprawl that affects hiring, taxes, credit and medical care.

All great points. Many have recommended that Trump spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, and bread and butter issues. He’s still spending more time on illegal immigration, though, which, outside of his base (which wants a wall and deportation) and the far left Dem base (which wants amnesty), it is a low ranking issue.

To restart growth, Mr. Trump would immediately lower tax rates, including for middle-income voters, and simplify the tax code. Americans would be able to exempt average child-care expenses from taxes, and Mr. Trump’s administration would eliminate the death tax, which falls especially hard on some small businesses and farmers.

To help create a flood of new business investment and jobs, the Trump plan would reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent while eliminating or capping many tax deductions. This would simplify the tax system, making us much more competitive with countries and a magnet for new jobs.

Mrs. Clinton wants to go in the opposite direction, depressing job growth with an uncompetitive corporate tax rate, higher taxes on estates and short-term capital gains, and a 4 percent surtax on the most successful individuals.

For all the complaints one might make about corporations, many of whom get sweetheart tax deals from both Republican and Democrat state administrations, many do not want to have their main headquarters in the U.S. because of our high tax rate (39%), the highest in the 1st World. There’s a reason they love going to places like Ireland (12.5 corporate tax rate). Lower rates equals more jobs and more taxes, because 39% of zero is zero (if we’re doing real math, not Common Core).

And, yes, Hillary would be more of the same that has made the American people think that the recession has not ended.

Critics of tax cuts say the government can’t afford his plan. But what the economy can’t afford is the current inept tax system, slow growth and Mrs. Clinton’s $1.1 trillion in tax hikes.

Government should learn to live within their means, much as successful businesses do. Much as families do. When they don’t they shut down or go into bankruptcy. Furthermore, when more people are working and more companies are making a profit, they actually pay more in taxes, and there are more being taxed. So more money heads to the state and federal treasuries. Wild how that works, right? People not working/companies not making money equals no taxes. Huh. Which is better? You can’t pull blood from a stone.

The scant economic gains in the past eight years are even weaker for most Americans than the G.D.P. data indicates because federal policy favored gains for the haves, not the have-nots. Your prosperity is increasing if you work in finance, issuing bonds or trading currencies, or you lobby or arrange government contracts. If not, you’ve most likely gone backward financially.

Wages are stagnant if not down. But the cost of living has mostly gone up. This is the reality for average citizens, who do not get to jet around on luxurious jumbo jets to attend fundraisers and play golf with celebrities and sports stars.

Voters will have an opportunity to decide for or against a government that’s failing on health care, taxes, trade, cost control and regulation. One candidate wants higher tax rates. The other would lower them. One candidate thinks the economic recovery has been successful whereas the other thinks it left millions of Americans out. One candidate has spent her lifetime seeking the presidency. Mr. Trump hasn’t.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” It’s time for one now.

There certainly could have been more detail, but the op-ed makes the point: Hillary is for more government intervention, more regulation, more taxes. Trump says he’s against those. He’s for freeing the economy. She’s for micromanaging it. It’s a good message.

Trump should spend his time on this message.

Read: NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump »

Posted in Donald Trump, Economy, Hillary Clinton | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Obamacare Creates More ER Patients, Reduces ER Specialists

By William Teach August 31, 2016 – 3:48 pm

Well, damnitall, if only someone had gotten off their behinds and warned us that this could happen!

(Science Daily) The average monthly emergency department visit increased by 5.7 percent in Illinois after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), although the population remained essentially flat. In Massachusetts, while visits to emergency departments climbed steadily between 2005 and 2014, availability of on-call specialists (surgeons, psychiatrists and other specialists) declined “significantly.” The results of two state-specific studies were published online last Thursday in Annals of Emergency Medicine (“Increased Emergency Department Use in Illinois After Implementation of the Affordable Care Act” and “Decline in Consultant Availability in Massachusetts Emergency Departments: 2005 to 2014”).

Now, in all fairness

“Emergency departments continue to be squeezed by pressures inside and outside the hospital,” said Scott Dresden, MD, MS, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Ill., the lead author of the Illinois paper. “A large post-ACA increase in Medicaid visits and a modest increase in privately insured visits outpaced a large reduction in emergency department visits by uninsured patients. We still don’t know if these results represent longer-term changes in health services use or a temporary spike in emergency department use due to pent up demand.”

Long term or short term? That’s the question. Will this be the same for on-call ER specialists? The study uses the term of 2005-2015, so, it can’t all be blamed on Ocare. Remember, though, Massachusetts passed their health law, Romneycare, in 2006, so, we do have a better idea of the long term results of government run health care.

We were told that Ocare would reduce ER visits. Well, this is not the first study to show an increase in ER visits, along with a reduction in ER personnel.

The Chicago Tribune chimes in on the study

One of the goals of expanding coverage to all was to reduce the use of pricey services, such as emergency department visits, which can sometimes be a last resort for people who don’t see doctors regularly, according to the study.

But the study’s authors noted that the spike in visits in Illinois “runs contrary” to that goal.

It’s unknown whether the surge will persist, or if was a temporary result of people with long-untreated conditions flocking to emergency rooms once they got insurance, the study said.

Do you know what happens when expensive ER visits rise? That’s right, overall costs for premiums, deductibles, and visits go up up up. Wasn’t Ocare supposed to decrease costs?

Read: Surprise: Obamacare Creates More ER Patients, Reduces ER Specialists »

Posted in Healthcare | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 31, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is land that is collapsing from carbon pollution sink holes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on the questions Hillary is required to answer under oath by September 29.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Humans Can’t Grasp ‘Climate Change’ Because Of Our Puny Brains

By William Teach August 31, 2016 – 10:09 am

It couldn’t possibly be that the evidence is missing, could it? It couldn’t be that they believe consensus is actually science, could it? It couldn’t be that they have to change data match their preconceptions, could it? Or that they are mostly climahypocrites? Nope. It has to be some other Excuse

Why people can’t grasp climate change

These are facts: Global warming is real, and almost entirely caused by human activities. Natural variability in temperature is minor compared with what we’re doing. This increase in temperature is causing the climate to change, in many ways that are not only predictable but actually observed. This in turn is causing other effects, like Arctic and Antarctic ice loss, sea level rise, coral bleaching, more extreme weather, and much, much more.

Again: Those are facts. The vast majority of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate agree on this.

And yet a small but vocal minority of people won’t accept that. Why? Some are sponsored by fossil fuel companies, the same ones who for decades have pumped money into disinformation campaigns, as well as politicians’ pockets. And of course some are ideologically inclined to dismiss science, or progressive politics (which has nothing to do with the science).

Still, some people honestly question the existence of global warming and its effects on the climate. Given all these facts, why do they do so?

Part of the problem — outside the general atmosphere of denial the media helps promote — is the scope and scale of climate change itself coupled with our puny brains trying to deal with it.

See? It’s so simple. But, what can we do about it

What can we do? We can charge companies that put carbon into the air. We can rely on more renewable energies (solar and wind, of course, but we can also reopen the books on nuclear).

And the most important thing? We can vote.

So, practicing what you preach is not an answer?

Read: Bummer: Humans Can’t Grasp ‘Climate Change’ Because Of Our Puny Brains »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Will Make Speech On American Exceptionalism Or Something

By William Teach August 31, 2016 – 8:23 am

Well, on the bright side, neither she nor Bill have yammered on about being proud of America for the first time in their adult lives simply because Hillary was nominated, nor have either really slammed America like the Obama’s and so many liberals. But, does she really believe in American exceptionalism? And will her unhinged leftist base be mad, because they tend to hate America?

(ABC News) Hillary Clinton plans to stress her support for American exceptionalism during a speech in the battleground state of Ohio, while arguing that Donald Trump has rejected the concept.

Clinton’s midday address at the American Legion’s annual convention in Cincinnati Wednesday comes as Trump ponders a last-minute trip to Mexico in advance of a long-awaited speech on immigration. A Clinton campaign official said the Democratic nominee plans to use her first public event in days to portray her Republican opponent as a questionable leader who would “walk away from our allies, undermine our values, insult our military — and has explicitly rejected the idea of American exceptionalism.”

This should be interesting. For all the things one might slam Trump on, even the full on #NeverTrump-ers wouldn’t say Trump doesn’t think America is exceptional. I certainly wouldn’t. Nothing Trump has said or done would make me think “he really doesn’t love America.” He certainly wants to see America strengthened.

Hillary, on the other hand, would see much of America’s sovereignty handed over to international law and the U.N. She sees American exceptionalism as belief in centralized government. She is a globalist, make no mistake about that.

In contrast, the official said Clinton “will make the case for American exceptionalism and call for maintaining America’s military and diplomatic leadership in the world.”

To bolster her argument, Clinton will talk about her experience, including serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee and as secretary of state. She will also emphasize the growing list of Republicans who have backed her campaign.

That’s a hoot, considering how bad things have been under the Obama presidency, and how bad things were while she was Secretary of State. She didn’t support American exceptionalism while Obama was decrying it. Where was she when Obama was “leading from behind”? Where was she when Obama was damaging our relationships with our international friends while reaching out to our enemies?

Does she believe in American exceptionalism? Certainly more than Obama. But, only from a hardcore leftist view. Her version of American exceptionalism is a strong centralized government. She doesn’t believe in the People. She doesn’t believe in the private sector. We’ll see what she has to say.

Read: Hillary Will Make Speech On American Exceptionalism Or Something »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Hannity Has Utter Meltdown On Those Who Don’t Support Trump

By William Teach August 31, 2016 – 7:55 am

For quite a few Republican/Conservative voters, it is hard enough to offer support to vote Trump, even as a protest vote against Hillary. Much like with Obamacare, we didn’t vote for him, he really doesn’t seem to understand our values, we don’t really trust him, and we said he probably wouldn’t be able to win. Is Hillary worse? You bet. How much worse on individual issues? Well, that’s the question, because Trump says one thing, which is sometimes contradicted by previous actions and/or quote, and we just don’t have trust in him. We’re just supposed to trust him. Even though what he seems to be pushing is Big Central Government nationalism.

He has no idea what American conservatism is, and said he doesn’t need us. He’d rather have Bernie supporters. He’s never really made a play for our votes, never really tried to earn them, other than a list of Supreme Court judges that he immediately backtracked on. And, for those who still are willing to put on the gas mask, his Barking Moonbat core base doesn’t help

(Daily Caller) Sean Hannity has had it with those who say they will never vote for Donald Trump and let them have it on his radio show.

“So here’s what I say to all of you Never Trumpers — Glenn Beck, I hope you’re listening,” the conservative radio host said on Tuesday and then proceeded to attack conservatives who vow to never vote for Trump, according to Business Insider.

“You own Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments,” Hannity said. “You own it! You are doing everything you can do to cast doubt in people’s minds!”

“You own the jobs that illegal immigrants will take from the 95 million Americans out of the labor force,” he added. “You own Obamacare, which is a disaster for this country. You own education because she is beholden to the NEA [National Education Association].”

He went specifically after John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Jonah Goldberg and Ted Cruz, to go with Beck, along with members of the conservative media. He’s been whining about Cruz for a long time, in regards to the pledge to vote for the eventual GOP nominee. Cruz won’t offer his support. Hannity refuses to answer the question as to whether he would support a person who smeared and slurred his wife and father. I got through to the screener one day and said I wanted to ask that question, and was dumped. Surprise!

“So here’s what I say to all of you Never Trumpers — Glenn Beck, I hope you’re listening. You own Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments. You own it! You are doing everything you can do to cast doubt in people’s minds! Trump gave us a list. You own her Supreme Court nominees, you own her un-vetted refugees and the 550% increase she will bring into this country. You own the jobs that illegal immigrants will take from the 95 million Americans out of the labor force. You own Obamacare, which is a disaster for this country. You own education because she is beholden to the NEA [National Education Association]. And if we don’t improve the lives of 95 million Americans out of the labor force, I blame you for that, too!

“Because you’re helping elect her. And I’m also saying that, hey, we have a $4,100 increase in healthcare payments since Obama has been president. It’s only going to go higher. You get responsibility for that, too! We have got 12 million more Americans on food stamps. If that increases, I’m going to blame you! We have 46 million total. Eight million more Americans living in poverty. Fifty million Americans in poverty. If that gets worse, I’m blaming you! You know, we have the worst home ownership in 51 years. If that gets worse, guess who I’m blaming? I’m blaming all of you!

There’s more to that blowing a gasket moonbattery from Hannity at the Business Insider link, and ended with

“And you are going to say, ‘Hannity, we blame you. You gave Donald Trump time on your show.’ And I gave every other candidate time. His agenda is infinitely better than hers. And if you can’t see that, then that’s your problem. You own it. You own her. You own every dumb thing she’s about to do. I blame you. Got it? I am going to name names regularly if she wins.”

He stated again that if Trump wins and backslides on what he said he’d do, Hannity would take responsibility. The very fact that there is a big concern that Trump won’t keep his promises is one of the things that gives so many pause. He talks about giving Trump time on his show. Nah, that’s not it. It’s about being so utterly in the bag for Trump that it reminds me more of how lefty sites like Think Progress, Daily Kos, Media Matters, CNN, etc, throw their support behind Hillary. Totally off the rails.

Those Republicans who plan on voting Hillary are deluded and fools. Most of us, though, refuse to vote for either candidate. Most aren’t supporting Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein, either. We’d like for Hillary to not be elected. Nutters like Hannity, who I cannot even listen to anymore, make it really difficult to give our vote against Hillary.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hannity Has Utter Meltdown On Those Who Don’t Support Trump »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, How Healthy Are Hillary And Donald?

By William Teach August 30, 2016 – 3:32 pm

The editorial board of the USA Today thinks it would be a good idea for both candidates to release their full medical records. This is obviously aimed as a barb at Trump, of course

Donald Trump has adopted the same standards for disclosing his medical records as he has for his tax returns: The less the voters know, the better. And voters know very little about the health of the 70-year-old GOP nominee, who, if elected, would be the oldest president ever to take office.

Trump, in typical fashion, has handled the issue with schoolyard taunts. On Sunday, he tweeted that both candidates should release medical records. “I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?” Trump will release “all of his medical records” when Clinton releases hers, a spokesman says.

If Trump has no problem, he ought to disclose something more than a preposterous four-paragraph letter from his New York doctor, who told NBC News he wrote the letter in five minutes while a Trump limo waited outside his office to collect it.

It is interesting that NBC News went digging on Trump, but did not do the same for Hillary. Regardless of your opinion of Trump, this is one of those things that really highlight the media bias towards Democrats. Few of them are interested in knowing whether Hillary is in good health. Most of them are doing all they can to protect her from allegations of poor health.

Meanwhile, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Trump supporter, has said that Clinton looks “tired’ and “sick,” adding that the evidence can be found on that font of all wisdom and  accuracy — the Internet. “Go online and … take a look at the videos for yourself,” Giuliani urged on a recent Fox News Sunday. One video shows Clinton coughing; another shows a couple of doctors who’ve never examined Clinton diagnosing her for Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Giuliani, once a high-ranking federal prosecutor and Justice Department official, should know better than to make charges based on flimsy, hearsay evidence. But, hey, who needs facts when innuendo works so well?

The media had no problem running with innuendo when it came to John McCain’s health, nor Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, did they? They have no problem running with innuendo about Trump’s mental health, do they? In fact, USA Today ran a story about David Plouffe calling Trump a psychopath.

Guess they didn’t need facts on that one.

Clinton, 68, would become the second oldest president to take office. She released a two-page letter from her doctor last year with actual medical data in it. Even so, based on her 2012 concussion, voters deserve a report from specialists who treated her and a full 2016 update.

The USA Today editorial board must be full of conspiracy theorists!

Voters should not have to decipher a bizarrely effusive doctor’s letter, rely on conspiratorial Internet rumors, or guess at the health of presidential candidates. Anyone seeking the most powerful job in the world ought to hand out credible, full medical records for all voters to see.

Exactly. Both should release their full records. If Trump was smart and knew what he was doing (snicker), he’d release all his and say “Hillary? We’re waiting.”

Read: Say, How Healthy Are Hillary And Donald? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 30, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible evil climate killing water bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is DaTechGuy, with a post wondering if Bill Clinton is a blackmail risk.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Gender Confused Superhero Has Worst Super Powers Ever

By William Teach August 30, 2016 – 10:00 am

Seriously, if someone is going to go to the lengths to create a gender confused Transgender superhero (heroine?), the least they can do is give them better powers than minor vandalism

(WFMY)  A Triad-based comic book shop will debut a new comic series that features a transgender superhero next month.

In protest of House Bill 2, Ssalefish Comics in Winston-Salem is introducing ‘Alters,’ where a costumed transgender vigilante named Chalice rips down bathroom signs in public places, replacing them with unisex signs. Chalice is the alias of Charlie Young, a male college student who is transitioning to female.

Here’s a view of Chalice engaging her super powers

Read: Gender Confused Superhero Has Worst Super Powers Ever »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove