Bad News: There’s No Climate Change Impact In Port Angeles, But, Total Doom In The Future

By William Teach August 19, 2016 – 4:32 pm

This is what goes for science in the Cult of Climastrology

Weather expert: Little climate change effect on Peninsula — so far
University of Washington professor Cliff Mass predicts the state will warm by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Climate change has had little effect so far on the North Olympic Peninsula, a prominent scientist told a Port Angeles audience this week.

That will change later this century when the impacts of anthropogenic, or human-caused global warming become profound, said Cliff Mass, University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor and Northwest weather expert.

“It’s going to happen and we’ve got to get ready for it,” Mass said in a Wednesday lecture at the Port Angeles library.

Even without any influence of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, Mass said there is “no doubt” that anthropogenic climate change has already hit the Northwest.

Examples of human-caused climate change include irrigation in Eastern Washington, which cooled the area by 1 to 4 degrees, and the growth of cities like Seattle that have warmed low-level temperatures by 2 to 10 degrees because of combustion, the buildings and concrete.

Jets and fossil fuel-burning ships leave trails of clouds that affect the weather.

Those would be examples of UHI/land use, not global. But, in all fairness, if you read the article you will note that Mass does take into consideration natural variation and is less unhinged about CO2 than most. Nor is he a big fan of hyperbole about future doom. Despite stating that we are looking at future doom. Which is what Warmists so often do when their prognostications aren’t working out now.

Read: Bad News: There’s No Climate Change Impact In Port Angeles, But, Total Doom In The Future »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 19, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world that will see palm trees growing in Australia due to so much heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on Trump going to Louisiana while Obama vacations and Hillary sleeps.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist Karen Heller Doesn’t Need AC Nor Do You

By William Teach August 19, 2016 – 10:30 am

My first thought on this is that she should spread awareness at the Washington Post and advocate, nay, demand that the WP do away with their AC at their corporate building. My second thought is that I’m amused that this sciencey missive is in the Lifestyle section. My third is “bugger off, you annoying little preachy cult member”

I don’t need air conditioning, and neither do you

…

Our house in Philadelphia was built in the 1920s, when people were tough and resourceful. For most of the year, the house is cool and pleasant, as long as there isn’t a mash-up of continuously scorching days and epic humidity, when the air is putrid, stagnant, and, if it were a color, would definitely be mustard.

Which would be this summer. Which, so far, is the fourth hottest summer on record in the Washington area. Emphasis on so far. NASA reports that July was the Earth’s hottest in recorded history. Cheer up, people say to those of us without air conditioning, September’s coming. Except people forget that most of September is still summer.

So, we’ve established that this is partly a whine about ‘climate change.’ There’s also some whining about other things, like aesthetics.

There are positive aspects of going without. Fewer house guests. More dinner invitations. That humble-bragging business. Showers. I can’t tell you how rewarding showers feel. And ice cream tastes way better.

Whoa, there, sparkella: showers and ice cream are bad for ‘climate change’.

Air conditioning made Americans greedy and silly. Once the country got hooked on central air, strange things materialized: windows that don’t open, the office sweater in August, summer colds, Las Vegas, football in Phoenix.

So, to assuage her Special Snowflake Syndrome, she wants everyone to give up their AC. You know this would be preferable by government fiat.

Living without affords its own strange luxuries. True, life is harder, but also more sensual. Stern loves the freedom that heat bestows to reclaim summer as a slower season. “If you’re living without air conditioning, you can’t do stuff,” she says. “It’s enforced relaxation and stupefaction.”

See? It’s also the perfect excuse.

It also dovetails nicely into the Warmist notion that Other People shouldn’t travel, because that creates carbon pollution. These people are nuts all around.

Read: Warmist Karen Heller Doesn’t Need AC Nor Do You »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Did Donald Trump Finally Pivot, And, Is It Too Late?

By William Teach August 19, 2016 – 7:05 am

Donald Trump has actually been making some fantastic speeches over the past week, ones that stay away from the typical over-the-top rhetoric and wackiness we’d been seeing previously. This should be obvious by the limited coverage his speeches are garnering from the Credentialed Media. Wouldn’t want to see Trump in a good light, right? Maybe that has changed?

Regretful Trump pivots 107 days late
The Republican nominee delivers one of the most comprehensive, on-message rationales for his candidacy to date.

Three and a half months after sealing the Republican nomination, Donald Trump pivoted to contest the general election on Thursday night, expressing regret for his past failures to “choose the right words” and delivering one of the most comprehensive, on-message rationales for his candidacy to date.

Speaking from prepared remarks on the heels of another staffing shakeup, Trump positioned himself as the champion of voiceless Americans against a corrupt and incompetent elite and the leader of an inclusive movement who repeatedly condemned “bigotry.”

His address, delivered at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, presented the sort of message Republican leaders have been waiting months to hear. But with 82 days left until the election and early voting only weeks away, even a flawless sprint to the finish line may be too little too late for Trump to salvage his flailing campaign.

This may seem like typical liberal media spin, but, it is a good point: is it too late? His speeches have been pretty cogent, responsible, and provided excellent policy choices, while also imploring blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others to stop voting for the party which has been pandering to them while keeping them down, namely, the Democrats.

Can it work? He seems much more focused on policy and attacking Hillary and the Democrats while asking for the votes of citizens (not Conservatives, at least not yet. Maybe he will?). Will he stay focused in this manner? Time will tell.

Read: Did Donald Trump Finally Pivot, And, Is It Too Late? »

Posted in Donald Trump | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Krugman: Obamacare’s Doing Great, But, Say, What About A Public Option?

By William Teach August 19, 2016 – 6:45 am

Excitable Paul Krugman has decided to chime on on Aetna mostly pulling out of the Obamacare exchanges, something many other health insurance providers have done, which is just a bump in the road, you know. So much so that we should institute government run insurance

(NY Times) More than two and a half years have gone by since the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, went fully into effect. Most of the news about health reform since then has been good, defying the dire predictions of right-wing doomsayers. But this week has brought some genuine bad news: The giant insurer Aetna announced that it would be pulling out of many of the “exchanges,” the special insurance markets the law established.

This doesn’t mean that the reform is about to collapse. But some real problems are cropping up. They’re problems that would be relatively easy to fix in a normal political system, one in which parties can compromise to make government work. But they won’t get resolved if we elect a clueless president (although he’d turn to terrific people, the best people, for advice, believe me. Not.). And they’ll be difficult to resolve even with a knowledgeable, competent president if she faces scorched-earth opposition from a hostile Congress.

Paul seems to forget that this law is the sole possession of Democrats. No Republicans voted for it, none wanted it. The majority of the public did not want it, and still don’t.

Meanwhile, the bad things that were supposed to happen didn’t. Health reform didn’t cause the budget deficit to soar; it didn’t kill private-sector jobs, which have actually grown more rapidly since Obamacare went into effect than at any time since the 1990s. Evidence also is growing that the law has meant a significant improvement in both health and financial security for millions, probably tens of millions, of Americans.

It’s artificially increased premiums and deductibles, caused tens of millions to lose the coverage plan they liked, and, yes, it did kill private sector jobs. Heck, in deep Blue New York, there was a reduction in hiring, not too mention what has been happening all over the place, which is hours being reduced, and full time positions replaced with part time ones.

Anyhow, after some interesting blamestorming, we get to something that we were told was not something that liberals were actually advocating for (but seems to keep cropping up)

Beyond all that, what about the public option?

The idea of allowing the government to offer a health plan directly to families was blocked in 2010 because private insurers didn’t want to face the competition. But if those insurers aren’t actually interested in providing insurance, why not let the government step in (as Hillary Clinton is in fact proposing)?

No, it was blocked because Democrats weren’t quite ready to bring their even bigger Big Government plans to the table. The citizens were already quite vocal about the massive expansion Democrats were pushing against the wishes of the citizens, who would have preferred dealing with the economy, and didn’t want the Democrats mucking around with their health insurance and health care.

That said, there may still be room for action at the executive level. And I’m hearing suggestions that states may be able to offer their own public options; if these proved successful, they might gradually become the norm.

Just remember, saying that Democrats want to replace Ocare with single payer is just a crazy conspiracy theory, according to Democrats.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Typo as Dana pointed out fixed.

Read: Krugman: Obamacare’s Doing Great, But, Say, What About A Public Option? »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Yet Again: Warmists Wonder If Other People Should Be Having Kids

By William Teach August 18, 2016 – 4:33 pm

This comes via the publicly funded (read: confiscatory taxation) NPR (which is also having a hissy fit over not have the type of diverse comments they want) as they listen to a teacher at a publicly funded higher baby sitting service education center

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe. (snip)

Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.

Interestingly, he has at least one child. This may seem like a cheap shot, but, Warmists rarely practice what they preach.

Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be “largely uninhabitable for humans.”

“It’s gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time,” he says.

The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad. One says he appreciated the talk but found it terrifying, and hadn’t planned on being so shaken before heading off to start the weekend. (snip)

Conceivable Future targets climate activists immersed in scary data. There’s already a term for how some feel: climate trauma.

It’s no wonder kids are mental basketcases and unable to deal with Real Life when they’re taught this, well, let’s just call it “crap”.

And since you asked, yes, the insanity does keep going on and on and on with this article. Have fun.

Read: Yet Again: Warmists Wonder If Other People Should Be Having Kids »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 18, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a lake that will either dry up or flood, maybe both! from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Michelle Obama’s Mirror, with a post on Obama playing through while America burns.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Crazy Bill McKibbon: We Literally Need To Mobilize Like WWIII Against Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach August 18, 2016 – 10:30 am

There’s crazy, then there’s Crazy

We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.

In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”

Day after day, week after week, saboteurs behind our lines are unleashing a series of brilliant and overwhelming attacks. In the past few months alone, our foes have used a firestorm to force the total evacuation of a city of 90,000 in Canada, drought to ravage crops to the point where southern Africans are literally eating their seed corn, and floods to threaten the priceless repository of art in the Louvre. The enemy is even deploying biological weapons to spread psychological terror: The Zika virus, loaded like a bomb into a growing army of mosquitoes, has shrunk the heads of newborn babies across an entire continent; panicked health ministers in seven countries are now urging women not to get pregnant. And as in all conflicts, millions of refugeesare fleeing the horrors of war, their numbers swelling daily as they’re forced to abandon their homes to escape famine and desolation and disease.

World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.

It doesn’t get any saner as it goes on

We’re used to war as metaphor: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on cancer. Usually this is just a rhetorical device, a way of saying, “We need to focus our attention and marshal our forces to fix something we don’t like.” But this is no metaphor. By most of the ways we measure wars, climate change is the real deal: Carbon and methane are seizing physical territory, sowing havoc and panic, racking up casualties, and even destabilizing governments. (Over the past few years, record-setting droughts have helped undermine the brutal strongman of Syria and fuel the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria.) It’s not that global warming is like a world war. It is a world war. Its first victims, ironically, are those who have done the least to cause the crisis. But it’s a world war aimed at us all. And if we lose, we will be as decimated and helpless as the losers in every conflict–except that this time, there will be no winners, and no end to the planetwide occupation that follows.

It even dives into Obama appeasing Iran Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, saying there should be no appeasement here, no looking away or ignoring the problem. We have to Do Something! And even the Paris climate accord is not good enough, being compared to Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.”

Anyway, we need WWII style construction of solar panels and wind turbines essentially covering most of the world

Building these factories doesn’t require any new technology. In fact, the effort would be much the same as the one that Solomon oversaw at Intel’s semiconductor factory in New Mexico: Pick a site with good roads and a good technical school nearby to supply the workforce; find trained local contractors who can deal with everything from rebar to HVAC; get the local permits; order long-lead-time items like I-beam steel; level the ground and excavate; lay foundations and floors; build walls, columns, and a roof; “facilitate each of the stations for factory machine tooling with plumbing, piping, and electrical wiring”; and train a workforce of 1,500. To match the flow of panels needed to meet the Stanford targets, in the most intense years of construction we need to erect 30 of these solar panel factories a year, plus another 15 for making wind turbines. “It’s at the upper end of what I could possibly imagine,” Solomon says.

Of course, where’s the energy coming from to build these? Fossil fuels, perhaps?

Anyhow, it’s all over-the top nutty, pure batsh*t insane, and, unshockingly, requires massive, huge Government to make it happen. Why are the solutions always big, dominating, controlling government with the Cult of Climastrology? They wouldn’t have an ulterior motive, would they?

Read: Crazy Bill McKibbon: We Literally Need To Mobilize Like WWIII Against Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Gun Control Is Totally On The Ballot In Four States Or Something

By William Teach August 18, 2016 – 8:26 am

There are many things Leftist become utterly hysterical over. The fake anthropogenic climate change. Abortion on demand. And, of course, gun control, with Think Progress’ Kira Lerner highlighting 4 ballot initiatives

While Congress has repeatedly failed to act on gun safety legislation, voters in four states will take the issue into their own hands this November.

In California, voters will decide on a ballot measure to ban large-capacity magazines. In Nevada and Maine, they’ll decide whether to expand background checks. And in Washington, they can decide to take guns off the hands of potentially dangerous people.

The four ballot measures constitute just one, but potentially the most effective, manner in which gun safety advocates are pushing their agenda this November. Gun safety groups have also said they will target vulnerable, pro-gun members of Congress and hold them accountable for their votes against what they call “common sense” gun legislation.

Of course, these are mostly minor measures that do not encompass the true gun banning that Leftists would like to see occur. They are nickle and diming it. But, remember, add up a bunch of small steps, and suddenly you’ll realize that Democrats have severely restricted your Constitutional rights. This is what they do when they can’t get their big “comprehensive” packages through.

Reading further, we see that California’s ballot initiative is about a bit more than just restricting magazine size, which are already restricted to 10 rounds or less, but will ban all grandfathered ownership. It attempts to place a tax on ammunition purchases, as well as requiring background checks on all purchases, which will drive Californians to head to other states to purchase, putting money in those states’ hands. It also, shockingly, goes after people who are felons and shouldn’t possess guns…wait, criminals obtain and possess guns? Don’t they know the law? It will also make it easier for The State to disqualify people from owning guns. Wink wink.

Voters in Nevada will decide on a measure that has been repeatedly voted down in Congress — closing the background check loophole and requiring background checks for private gun sales.

The majority of Nevada’s sheriffs and the attorney general oppose this, which is also being funded by Michael Bloomberg and out of state interests, who have already destroyed their own leftist states.

Maine is seeing the same as Nevada.

In Washington, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility proposed and collected signatures for Initiative 1491, which would take guns out of the hands of people who are considered threats.

Concerned family members, partners, housemates, or law enforcement officials would be able to file an affidavit listing the concern — mental illness or domestic violence. If a judge determines that the person is a threat to themselves or others, his guns would be taken away and he would be prevented from purchasing weapons for up to a year.

Find the right judge, and it is easy peasy to restrict the Constitutional Rights of any citizen. It’s also interesting that the text of the bill mentions the often misused 30,000 gun deaths a year, hinting at those who commit suicide by gun, when Washington has a “Death With Dignity” law, which is about assisted suicide.

Now, it’s not necessarily a bad idea to at least temporarily restrict people who could be a significant danger from having easy access to weapon, right? But, with leftists, the devil is always in the details. Are you drinking too much or doing drugs (again, weird, considering marijuana is legal in the state)? A petition can be made to take your guns away. Been charged, but never convicted, of a felony? Take your guns away. What if it was for insider trading or something else non-violent? Doesn’t matter. Take your guns away.

Recently bought a gun? Correct. Take your guns away.

File an order falsely? That’s just a misdemeanor. But, there are no penalties, either civil or criminal, for doing this. So go ahead and falsely accuse because someone else having a gun makes you shaky. No problems for you.

We’ll see how these go. You know if they fail leftists will freak and then try to over-ride the will of the voters by passing legislation.

Read: Gun Control Is Totally On The Ballot In Four States Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | Comments Off on Gun Control Is Totally On The Ballot In Four States Or Something | Trackback URL

Trump Goes After Low Stamina Hillary

By William Teach August 18, 2016 – 7:52 am

If Donald Trump wants to hit people on the campaign trail, he should focus on Hillary and Democrats, minimizing the attacks on the media and stopping attacks altogether on Republicans. Hit Hillary. And, make it a bit outrageous so that the in-the-bag media highlights it, rather than glosses over it. You want it showing up on the major networks and in the pages of newspapers. Things like this

(Politico) Donald Trump stepped up his effort to sow doubts about Hillary Clinton’s physical capacity to be president, questioning her work ethic on the campaign trail during an interview recorded Tuesday and aired on Wednesday.

Speaking at a Fox News town hall special hosted by Sean Hannity, an open supporter of the Republican nominee, Trump said, “She doesn’t really do that much. She’ll give a speech on a teleprompter and then she’ll disappear. I don’t know if she goes home [and] goes to sleep. I think she sleeps. I guess she takes a lot of weekends off. She takes a lot of time off. And you know that’s, frankly — frankly, it’s really not fair.”

Of course, since this is Politico, the actual thrust of the article is meant to show Team Hillary slamming Trump

The Clinton campaign issued a statement Tuesday night slamming Trump for pushing “deranged conspiracy theories” after he said in a speech Monday that Clinton “lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS.”

“While it is dismaying to see the Republican nominee for president push deranged conspiracy theories in a foreign policy speech, it’s no longer surprising,” wrote Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton’s communications director.

Unsubstantiated rumors about Clinton’s health failing have been circulating on right-wing media sites for months, with the influential Drudge Report bannering images of Clinton being helped up stairs and sitting on pillows. Clinton’s doctor pronounced her health “excellent” last year in a letter released by her campaign.

So, Team Trump and their supporters get the story out there. Team Hillary responds. But, what people will see initially is Trump saying Hillary is essentially low energy, and people will wonder about how fragile is her health, regardless of the media spin. Smart, especially if people start talking about it.

For good or bad, this worked well for Trump during the primaries. He needs to start hitting her on this with actual commercials.

The Hill covered this as well, and, here’s how it went beyond the initial comment

Trump also resurfaced an old Clinton campaign ad, in which Clinton promised she’d be up in the middle of the night to answer the White House phone, to poke at her physical capacity for the job.

“Who do you want to be at that phone at 3 in the morning?” Trump asked. “I’ll be up, I will tell you that.”

“She wasn’t there,” Trump said in reference to the Benghazi attacks.

“This was 4 in the afternoon,” Hannity noted.

Trump this week has attacked Clinton’s “stamina,” a line of attack pushed forward by conservative media. Clinton’s campaign slammed Trump on Tuesday night for the tactic.

If Trump wants to win this thing, there are really three things he has to do. First is expand the tent. Do this by keeping the crazy down while reaching out to Republicans and Conservatives for their votes. Give great policy focused speeches. If you listened to his speech from Milwaukee, well, it was damned good. Finally, hit Hillary, and hit her hard. Paint her as low energy. Highlight her physical capacity and stamina. Discuss her server issues. Put them on the defensive.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Goes After Low Stamina Hillary »

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove