Study: On ‘Climate Change’, Biofuels Worse Than Gasoline

By William Teach August 25, 2016 – 10:21 am

Well, this is a hell of a thing

(Detroit Free Press) The multi-billion-dollar U.S. biofuels industry — promoted and expanded for over a decade by the federal government — may be built on a false assumption, according to a new University of Michigan study published today that is sure to stir all sides in the contentious debate over the industry.

Despite their purported advantages, biofuels created from crops such as corn or soybeans cause the emission of more climate change-causing carbon dioxide than gasoline, according to the study from U-M Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco.

The study is the latest salvo in the expanding battle over whether biofuels, and the farmland increasingly devoted to them, are actually providing the environmental and climate benefits many expected.

Reading on, once the entire life-cycle of biofuels is factored, it is worse for “carbon emissions” than gasoline. Not discussed is whether any of them actually make much of a difference in causing the current Holocene warm period, but, that is a debate for a different day.

There’s also a handy dandy graphic of where corn is going

Also not discussed in the article is the notion that using food for fuel is a bad idea, something even the NY Times noticed a few years back. Using more and more of it helps increase the costs of other foods. Perhaps it is time that the federal and state governments, along with both Republican and Democratic supporters, jump off the food for fuel bandwagon.

Read: Study: On ‘Climate Change’, Biofuels Worse Than Gasoline »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Cult Of Climastrology Blames Italy Earthquake On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach August 25, 2016 – 8:13 am

One of the hallmarks of a cult is their opposition to independent thought, which the further threat to remove any who question the dogma. Then there’s the group think and cognitive dissonance. A focus on an imagined enemy. And let’s not forget circular logic and magical think where everything is linked to their pet cause

People are searching for answers after an earthquake in Italy left hundreds dead, and naturally people are looking to the Internet for guidance. So, did climate change cause the Italy earthquake? While mainstream science is starting to link climate change with earthquakes, the geophysical feedback mechanisms that are in play in a warming climate aren’t well-understood yet.

Back to those studies linking earthquakes to climate change: most of them focus on how earthquakes can add to the greenhouse gas effect feeding into global warming. For example, methane release can occur if the earthquake takes place in an area with a large amount of methane gas pockets, or in areas where fracking is occurring.

The notion of melting glaciers and land rebound are mentioned, but, of course, the article ends with a “we just don’t know right now” after pretty much implying that it was ‘climate change.’ Then we have this

https://twitter.com/JatikaSpeaks/status/768578291624271872

https://twitter.com/Atmvn/status/768539328964358144

https://twitter.com/Mzcoach/status/768565465534705664

https://twitter.com/Poltics1345/status/768524675387392000

Sigh. There is a plate boundary that runs right through Italy, where the African plate is diving under the European plate. This is why rock from the African plate shows up in the Matterhorn. The plate is creating the Alps. This is the cause of the earthquakes. Hey, don’t ask me, ask a geologist

A geologist in Poland says that the magnitude 6 earthquake in central Italy was caused by the slow but constant under-surface movement of the African Plate toward Europe.

Jerzy Zaba of the Silesian University in Katowice, in southern Poland, said Wednesday that a wedge-shaped front of the African Plate is pressing into the Eurasian Plate in the Adriatic Sea region and pushes into the neighboring regions, like Italy’s Apennine Mountains. The tension that accumulates leads to a sudden release in the form of under-surface rock movement that causes earth tremors.

Zaba told Polish PAP agency that the African Plate is moving northwards at the speed of up to 5 centimeters (2 inches) a year.

Cults like to assign the causes of disasters to the actions of their deities or boogeymen.

Read: Surprise: Cult Of Climastrology Blames Italy Earthquake On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Softens On Illegal Immigration, And His Fans Don’t Care

By William Teach August 25, 2016 – 7:47 am

It’s not amnesty, though. At least no by name. Just like when George Bush and some Republicans tried to pass a not-amnesty? Or the Gang Of 8 pushed a no-amnesty pathway to citizenship?

(Politico) Amid talk that he is softening his stance on illegal immigration, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reassured his supporters Wednesday night that there will be “no amnesty” for those in the United States illegally.

But Trump added that he has grown increasingly sympathetic on the campaign trail to the plight of individuals who have spent years and sometimes decades in the U.S. illegally but have lived otherwise upstanding lives.

Trump was asked by Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview scheduled to air Wednesday night whether he would amend his previous pledge to remove all illegal immigrants from the U.S. to include an exception for undocumented immigrants who have not committed other crimes.

“No citizenship,” Trump responded. “Let me go a step further — they’ll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there’s no amnesty, as such, there’s no amnesty, but we work with them.”

OK, it’s not-amnesty, just a work-with-them. Most of his hardcore supporters don’t seem to care

(Washington Post) Trump has been signaling for days that he might be open to a “softening” of one of his most extreme immigration positions and no longer call for the deportation of an estimated 11 million immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. He and his aides seemed to be testing the waters, setting off alarm bells among some conservatives who have rallied around his hard-line immigration stance.

But judging from many rally-goers here in Tampa on Wednesday and at an event Tuesday in Austin, many rank-and-file voters will give Trump relatively broad latitude to alter the parameters of his immigration policies.

Cruising Twitter Wednesday, most Trumpites didn’t seem to care. As long as he builds a wall, everything is OK. Except for Ann Coulter, who seems to be having a bit of a meltdown over this, and, as Katie Pavlich goes on to note

Trump’s backtracking on tough illegal immigration measures, including mass deportations, shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it was Trump who called Romney’s comments about self-deportation for economic reasons “mean-spirited” and “maniacal.” It’s also Trump who regularly hires immigrant workers to complete his building projects.

I find this all fascinating. I’ve been called a traitor, cuckservative, and Hillary supporter for noting that while Trump wants to be a wall, he has stood for some type of pathway to citizenship for quite some time, at least for certain illegal aliens. I’ve been told I’m full of sh*t. He called for amnesty at CPAC back in 2013. He started out the campaign calling for a wall while also saying he’s in favor of touchback amnesty.

(Politico) As Donald Trump soft-pedals his once-hard-line immigration rhetoric, supporters of his vanquished primary foe Ted Cruz have one message for Republican voters: We told you so.

Cruz spent the final months of his unsuccessful presidential primary run arguing that Trump was a not-so-closeted liberal whose conservative language on immigration was not to be trusted. Now, Trump says he is open to “softening” the approach to some undocumented immigrants already in this country, a departure from his previous calls for a deportation force.

Trump supporters demonized Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush on illegal immigration, as did Trump. They still go after Cruz, Rubio, and Jeb. Guess who was correct?

Still much, much better than Hillary’s plan, though.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Softens On Illegal Immigration, And His Fans Don’t Care »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Seem Rather Upset About This “free speech” Thing On Twitter

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 3:14 pm

There is a reason the headline says “free speech” not “Free Speech”, and it’s about the only thing correct in this unhinged Slate article by Special Snowflake Kate Klonick

https://twitter.com/LilMissRightie/status/768498006773624833

Early last week, Twitter announced that it would be using new tools to curb hate speech and harassment on its site. The news came on the heels of atell-all report on BuzzFeed that chronicled how 10 years of dogmatic commitment to “free speech” combined with persistent mismanagement led to the popular social media app becoming “a honeypot for assholes.” Twitter’s former head of news, Vivian Schiller, told BuzzFeed, “The whole ‘free speech wing of the free speech party’ thing — that’s not a slogan, that’s deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company.” That ethos made it all the more difficult to regulate abuse on the site.

But absent from discussion is a more fundamental question: Should we be using the notion of “free speech” to understand online speech at all?

As a general matter, it’s important not to confuse the First Amendment with the broader notion of free speech. Free speech policy is about the First Amendment kind of like how Cheez Whiz is about dairy products: They are related, but fundamentally different. The First Amendment protects “free speech” by saying that the government cannot (with certain important exceptions) prevent you from speaking. But private individuals or corporations, like Twitter, are not covered by the First Amendment and can curate or even censor speech without violating the law. In fact, some have argued that a platform’s right to keep up and take down what’s posted there is its own free speech right. Others have pointed out that not policing for abuse has a chilling effect on speech.

Typically, liberals will tell us that if we don’t like what’s on TV, then change the channel. Don’t like the movie? Don’t go. Of course, when they do not like what’s on talk radio, which is dominated by Conservatives, then it needs to be restricted. Twitter and other social media? Forget blocking and muting, anything that might upset the littler darlings must be shut down. Even though they are engaged typically in political discussions. They just don’t like to have anyone argue back.

Sure, it can get nasty. Ignore them. Mute them. Block them.

One of the main forces governing speech online is the same thing that governs Walter’s speech in his local diner: societal norms. Norms are customary standards for behavior that are shared in a community. They can be self-enforced by a person’s desire to fit in with the group and conform, and they can also be externally enforced by the group when an individual violates the norm. Speaking at a lower volume in a public place is one kind of norm and shaming a person who yells loudly is a way that norm is enforced.

Which is a hoot, considering liberals are working overtime to destroy societal norms, such as allowing confused boys in the girls room, for one.

You know that this is all about shutting down opposing voices. Of course, liberals should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.

Read: Liberals Seem Rather Upset About This “free speech” Thing On Twitter »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on yet another Allahu Akbar attack.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Literature Needs To Encompass ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 11:15 am

Essentially, what we have here is a professor calling for all books to include Hotcoldwetdry, as brought to us by Dan Bloom, who I assume is the same one who follows me and I follow him on Twitter, and he’s a big proponent of climate fiction, otherwise known as CliFi. Seems to be a nice guy, had convos with him

(Global Issues) A literature professor at Cornell University in upstate New York, Nick Admussen, has recently published an online literary essay about writing novels in the Anthropocene Age.

Titled “Six proposals for the reform of literature in the age of climate change,” the 1500-word essay will change the way you think about how modern novelists need to change they ways they try to tackle climate change themes.

Admussen is an assistant professor of Chinese literature and culture at Cornell and has an MFA degree in poetry. In the essay, which has reached a larger audience of literary critics and writers worldwide via social media, Admussen uses the negative poetics of an an early 20th century Chinese writer to outline some habits he feels that fiction writers need to break in order to make culture more responsive to climate change. It might be one of the most important literary essays of the 21st century, and whether you agree with all his six proposals or not, Admussen’s piece deserves an international readership.

Basically, he wants all novels to discuss ‘climate change’, and further position it as doomworthy.

Oh, and unsurprisingly, he rails against corporations and powerful people. He loves the idea of redistributing Other People’s money. Giving those who had no involvement with developing industry and such a full share in it. And, of course, demands that others do as they are told.

Read: Literature Needs To Encompass ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

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

Should Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Health Be Off Limits?

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 8:52 am

Should we not have questions about the health of a presidential candidate along with their fitness to serve? Liberals were very concerned about George Bush’s past alcoholism. With whether John McCain being born in the Panama Canal zone made him ineligible (and don’t forget the false story about him having an affair). With Mitt Romney’s school prank with a haircut, putting a dog on the car room, and “magic underwear.” Oh, and let’s not forget about Bob Doles infirmities. They were all very concerned with McCain’s age. And infirmity from being a POW.

But, now, any legitimate concern over Hillary’s health is Out Of Bounds! It’s also considered sexist. At The Hill, Joe Concha delves into this

Clinton health questions: Off limits or legitimate issue?

Hillary Clinton is 68 years old. She’s been diagnosed with cerebral venous thrombosis; head trauma, pregnancy, cancer, brain infection, autoimmune diseases and inborn clotting abnormalities are all predisposing factors, per The Washington Post. She’s currently taking blood thinners. Four years ago, Clinton fainted, hit her head and suffered a concussion.

She’s also the odds-on favorite to assume one of the most strenuous jobs on the planet as president of the United States.

But lately many in the media have become outraged that Clinton’s health is being broached at all. And what are the primary two words associated when Donald Trump, a Trump surrogate or conservative media bring up Clinton’s medical condition?

“Conspiracy theories.”

While, for the most part, these kinds of attacks are more of a low hanging fruit, the types of attacks that occur during political season – how many times has Team Hillary, Democrats in general, and the media speculated about the mental condition of Donald Trump? – and should not get in the way of actual policy discussions, it is legitimate to wonder whether a candidate could have severe health problems that interfere with their ability to do the job of POTUS. Much like questions on her use of an unsanctioned email server which featured national security violations, along with her pay-for-play schemes via the Clinton Foundation, are legitimate. Who is she serving? Herself? Or We The People?

Concha continues on for quite some time, and even provides links to stories from the Credentialed Media which were concerned with McCain’s age and past health problems. This same media demanded more and more of his health records, and even after he released over 1,100 pages, they wanted more. But, they were good with a 1 pager from Obama.

Her own staff has even said she is “easily confused.” She has had some serious health problems. She might have problems on stairs. She has a persistent cough. She seems to disappear from the campaign trail, and her staff has said she has problems with sleeping in. It’s altogether legitimate to wonder if she’s physically capable of doing the job.

Let’s also not forget that Hillary, her surrogates, and her PACs attacked Bernie Sanders on his age, and wanted all of his health records released.

Read: Should Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Health Be Off Limits? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 95 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Rather Upset By Judges TG School Ruling

By William Teach August 24, 2016 – 8:25 am

If you’ll remember back a few days, a federal judge has placed a block on Obama’s directive that schools allow little boys and girls who feel that they are the opposite sex to use whatever bathroom and locker room they want. The NY Times Editorial Board finally gets around to tell us they are Very Upset

More Attacks On Transgender Rights

Judge O’Connor on Sunday issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits the Education Department from enforcing its guidelines nationwide. In a 38-page order, he barred the federal government from taking enforcement action against discriminatory policies or practices.

The ruling, which the Justice Department is expected to appeal, may lead educators around the country to question whether they need to follow the Education Department’s transgender guidelines as the new school year starts. They would be wrong not to; the rules provide a common-sense approach that makes harassment and stigmatization of transgender students less likely.

These legal assaults on equal protection for transgender Americans are based on bigotry and the specious claim that they pose a threat to the safety of others. The toll exacted on this vulnerable population is heavy and will remain so as these cases and other litigation involving transgender laws move through the courts.

In Liberal World, wanting privacy from being forced to expose your body to people of the opposite biological sex is now considered bigotry. Little girls not wanting to be naked or near naked around biological boys and men is considered bigotry. Funny how Liberals scream about “my body my choice” when it comes to abortion on demand, then turn around and demand that females of all ages be exposed to penis in their bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms with no say in the matter.

See, though, it doesn’t stop there. They demand that the gender confused be allowed to use a chosen pronoun. It’s not just calling boys “her” and girls “him”. Or even “they”. Oh, no, these raving wackjobs have come up with a wide range of terms, like ze, zir, Xe, Xem, hir, and so many more

Seriously, it gets even wackier. I wonder what the policies are at the NY Times building. Do the ladies get very upset when an obvious biological male uses the lady’s room? Is this allowed?

Of course, being Liberal World, the gender confusion doesn’t stop with this stuff

https://twitter.com/APDillon_/status/768411760676118528

This applies to locker rooms, showers, playing on the opposite biological sex sports team, housing, and “other sex-specific activities”. So, anyone can declare they’re gender confused and just head into the showers, etc. of the opposite biological sex for a quick peek and such whenever they want.

We joke about liberalism being a mental disease. That’s coming true, and they’re spreading their insanity and deviancy to everyone, and often by government mandate.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset By Judges TG School Ruling »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that is angry due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on gun control cultists being knuckle dragging morons.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Snap! Single Payer Is Totally Inevitable, You Guys!

By William Teach August 23, 2016 – 10:24 am

As the major structural issues of Obamacare continue to crop up, issues that were exposed even before the law was passed, issues that were said were features, not bugs, ones that would lead to a leftist call for single payer, and we were told “oh, come on, stop with the conspiracies!”, well, the calls for a public option and single payer keep growing. Guess this isn’t so much of a conspiracy

Why A Single-Payer Healthcare System Is Inevitable

The best argument for a single-payer health plan is the recent decision by giant health insurer Aetna to bail out next year from 11 of the 15 states where it sells Obamacare plans.Aetna’s decision follows similar moves by UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, and by Humana, another one of the giants.

All claim they’re not making enough money because too many people with serious health problems are using the Obamacare exchanges, and not enough healthy people are signing up.

The problem isn’t Obamacare per se. It lies in the structure of private markets for health insurance – which creates powerful incentives to avoid sick people and attract healthy ones. Obamacare is just making this structural problem more obvious.

In a nutshell, the more sick people and the fewer healthy people a private for-profit insurer attracts, the less competitive that insurer becomes relative to other insurers that don’t attract as high a percentage of the sick but a higher percentage of the healthy.

Eventually, insurers that take in too many sick and too few healthy people are driven out of business.

Obamacare created a situation where there were more sick people than healthy joining the exchanges, yet, this was all turned around into blame on the insurance providers in order to say “see? We need single payer.” The structure of Ocare was designed to eventually collapse to pave the way to say “see? We need single payer.”

The real choice in the future is either a hugely expensive for-profit oligopoly with the market power to charge high prices even to healthy people and stop insuring sick people.

Or else a government-run single payer system – such as is in place in almost every other advanced economy – dedicated to lower premiums and better care for everyone.

We’re going to have to choose eventually.

Lest you think this is just some barely known or totally unknown crank yammering on at the Huffington Post, alas, no, the writer is Robert Reich, a big time lefty who served under Bill Clinton, and is a major supporter of single payer (for Other People). And he’s been saying virtually the same thing for years, such as in July, 2015.

As the structure of Ocare continues to degrade (in a manner exactly as opponents predicted), Leftists will increase their calls for single payer, putting the health care of over 300 million under the fingers of a tiny number of politicians and unelected bureaucrats.

Read: Snap! Single Payer Is Totally Inevitable, You Guys! »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove