Semi-retired President With Massive Carbon Footprint Forces All Federal Agencies To Consider ‘Climate Change

By William Teach August 3, 2016 – 10:30 am

I suggest that the White House reduce their carbon footprint to zero. Not through carbon offsets, but by giving up all use of electricity that doesn’t come from solar and wind. Stop using fossil fueled vehicles. Only eat locally grown food. Handwash clothes. And a raft of other measures. Of course, they won’t. Obama has golfing and parties to attend. And fundraisers on the other side of the country. And vacations. They aren’t worried about what all these regulations will do to your cost of living

(Washington Post) In the past several weeks alone, the Obama administration has made multiple new moves to fight climate change. The administration announced new steps to help fill U.S. roadways with electric vehicles. It ruled that greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger human health and welfare. And on the international stage, it moved the world closer to a deal to phase out super-polluting HFCs, chemicals in refrigerants and other industrial substances that warm the climate.

But as Obama’s term dwindles, the act isn’t over — on Tuesday the White House released yet another policy to fight climate change, one with potentially far-reaching consequences. The White House’s chief environmental office, the Council on Environmental Quality, finalized a six-year process of shaping how the government’s agencies, across the board, will factor climate change into their decisions. (snip)

And now, the new guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality will ask agencies to not only include climate change in these considerations but actually quantify the climate impacts of their decisions, when possible, in the context of the environmental reviews that are already required by NEPA. It will also ask them to consider how to do things differently, in a way that could help prepare the U.S. better for a warming climate.

If this forced federal agencies to actually practice what they preach, it would actually be good, because it would limit their travel and reach. Instead

When it comes to quantification, the new guidance suggests trying to calculate how many carbon dioxide emissions a new project, permit, or other agency action would cause — or, alternatively, how much carbon it may sequester. Replanting trees or other land use changes affecting agriculture, for instance, could lead to more storage of carbon in the U.S.’s soils and its vegetation, rather than in the atmosphere.

So, you the taxpayer will be ponying up for the costs of these offsets, all while paying more for projects and environmental climate change impact reviews.

Will the VA have to consider ‘climate change’ in treating veterans? Will the Border Patrol have to reduce their use of helicopters, ATVs, and trucks to patrol the border? Will the military have to use carbon neutral weapons and ammunition? Will the FBI have to consider the carbon footprint of investigating kidnappings?

This is all just plain stupid, and further shows that this has nothing to do with science, but government.

Read: Semi-retired President With Massive Carbon Footprint Forces All Federal Agencies To Consider ‘Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Suddenly, ‘Climate Change’ Groups Are Against A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax

By William Teach August 3, 2016 – 8:54 am

For several years now, many ‘climate change’ groups and individuals have been calling for revenue neutral carbon taxes, whereby citizens are reimbursed to cover the cost of living increases caused by the carbon taxes – you know, that cost if living increase which they said wouldn’t happen due to carbon taxes. Such big wig members of the Cult of Climastrology as James Hansen and Michael Mann have called for revenue neutral carbon taxes. What happens when someone tries to actually pass one? Well…

In twist, environmentalists fight proposed carbon tax – because it doesn’t grow gov’t

On paper, it looks like a big win for environmentalists: a ballot initiative in Washington state to make it the first in the nation to impose a tax on all carbon emissions.

Yet green groups are united almost in lockstep against the proposal – all because it includes tax cuts, to offset the tax hike.

Yoram Bauman, who authored Initiative 732 and generally sides with environmental groups that have claimed for years that greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change, now says he’s shocked at the pushback he’s facing from these same organizations.

Huh. How about that

The turn of events has highlighted a curious aspect of the environmentalist coalition in the region: as much as these groups want to fight carbon emissions, they also want to make sure the money from any carbon tax is used primarily to boost the government’s clean-energy programs.

In other words, they really want the money funneled back to their own groups as well as increasing government control of the energy sector.

The tax would start out at $25 per ton and rise each year until hitting a cap of $100 a ton. Initially, it is projected to add 25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline, increase air fares and raise utility bills — costing $2 billion a year. But this would be offset by cutting the state’s sales tax by 1 percent, lowering taxes for 400,000 working-class families and eliminating a tax on businesses that manufacture in Washington.

So, doing it this way would offset for citizens and small businesses, reducing economic harm. But

“It’s not only about reducing carbon,” said Rich Stolz of One America, a group that advocates for poor minorities. “It’s how we do it, and developing the kind of clean-energy economy we need.”

Stolz said he would have backed I-732 if it were a tax increase, funding government programs and new regulations on polluters.

So, wait, it’s not about reducing “carbon emissions”? It’s all about growing government? Well, that’s strange. If only someone had been writing about this.

Read: Suddenly, ‘Climate Change’ Groups Are Against A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Black Lives Matter Releases Six Demands

By William Teach August 3, 2016 – 8:36 am

Much like with Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter has gone well beyond its original meaning, an is now delving into all sorts of other interests

(NY Times)More than 60 organizations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement have released a series of demands on Monday, including for reparations.

The list of six platform demands is aimed at furthering their goals as the presidential campaign heads into the homestretch.

The release of the six demands comes a few days before the second anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., which set off months of protests and led to a national conversation about police killings of blacks.

Yeah, supporting a guy who assaulted and robbed, was walking in the middle of the street, assaulted a police officer in his car, attempted to take his gun, ran away, then came back for more. That’s who they’re supporting. They still trot out the “hands up don’t shoot” lie. But, anyhow, let’s take a look at those demands

  • END THE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE: they’re demanding that bail be done away with, end capital punishment, stop deporting Black illegal aliens, taking police out of mostly Black schools (which need them because they are violent and dangerous), and pretty much stop holding Black kids who break the law responsible.
  • REPARATIONS: They want all sorts of money, such as free education for life, a guaranteed minimum living wage (for no work, of course), and others
  • INVEST-DIVEST: What do they want? More money for nothing. Oh, and expunging all records of drug and prostitution crimes. Universal health care. Divestment from fossil fuels (good grief). Cutting the military budget and putting it into black communities.
  • ECONOMIC JUSTICE: A progressive tax structure. Federal and state jobs programs (we have these. Most are ignored in the deep black communities as being “white people things”). Environmental justice. An end to the trans Pacific partnership. Union organization. Starting to sound pretty much like the Democratic Party platform.

Here’s where it gets even more fun

COMMUNITY CONTROL: We demand a world where those most impacted in our communities control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve us – from our schools to our local budgets, economies, police departments, and our land – while recognizing that the rights and histories of our Indigenous family must also be respected.

So, run for the school board. Run for the city council. Run for state and federal positions. In fact, in many of these areas, Blacks make up most of the government. That’s what happened in Detroit. But, hey, that’s not good enough for Black Lives Matter. They want to be Black Lives Separate From Everyone Else. Fine. Let them pay for it. Oh, wait, they want to be utterly separate but want Other People to pay for it. Well, let’s remove the police they hate so much.

POLITICAL POWER: We demand independent Black political power and Black self-determination in all areas of society. We envision a remaking of the current U.S. political system in order to create a real democracy where Black people and all marginalized people can effectively exercise full political power.

Fine, let’s remove all the police officers. See how that goes. But, much of this also reads like a Democratic Party platform. Here’s where it gets cute:

  1. An end to the criminalization of Black political activity including the immediate release of all political prisoners and an end to the repression of political parties.

They want things like the “Removal of Assata Shakur from international terrorist lists.” Who’s that? Well, she shot two NJ State Troopers, killing one. She was convicted of 1st degree murder and seven other felonies from the shootings. She escaped prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba. BLM calls her a political prisoner, and want the bounty removed from her head. The fact they they support a murderer like this should tell you quite a bit about these people.

Powerline notes about the overall tone of these demands

The larger lie behind the Black Lives Matter movement is that American police officers are“executing” Black men. The evidence does not support this slander. Indeed, the evidence apparently doesn’t even support the more plausible claim that police officers, as a result of overreaction to perceived threats, are killing more Blacks than a completely race-neutral response would cause them to.

But the biggest lie of all is that the Black Lives Matter movement is a reaction to the loss of Black lives at the hands of the police. This was pretty evident from the outset. As a longtime observer of, and one time participant in, left-wing protests, the unrest in Ferguson seemed to me to have all the markings of generalized left-wing agitation opportunistically grafting on to the understandable protest over an unfortunate event.

What’s most interesting is how black communities in Democratic Party run cities tend to be hotbeds of violence, crime, urban blight, collapsed property values, high unemployment, and high murder rates. Yet, BLM wants to drastically increase these policies. That should work out well.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Black Lives Matter Releases Six Demands »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: NBC To Broadcast Olympics Opening Ceremonies On Delay

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 3:35 pm

Something a bit different, but, it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I despise that NBC is showing so much of the Olympics taped. Sports are live, baby, live! Some highlights are fine. But, good grief, if you are going to cover these every-4-year games, and spend a lot on them, show them too us live as much as possible!

Instead, they spend 20 minutes on human interest stories and all sorts of other things, and then, if we’re lucky, 2 minutes on the actual events. Sometimes live, more often taped. Excepting certain events, like soccer, basketball, and hockey, mostly. Too be honest, I’m not that interested in the summer games that much, I love the winter more. And I like to actually watch it live. Not bits and pieces. But, there is also the problem that so many of the summer games never make it to TV. I’d watch beach volleyball, especially the ladies. Did you know there were BMX and mountain biking events? I didn’t till I looked it up. Sailing? Judo? Wouldn’t mind watching. But, the coverage is terrible, going all the way back to when NBC put the Olympics on pay per view and had their “rock and roll highlights” on the regular station. Awful.

Anyhow

(Washington Post)  Ah, Rio. The sand. The sun. The competition. The broadcast delay.

Thanks, NBC.

The Peacock Network plans to show the Opening Ceremonies of the Rio Olympic Games on Friday night with a one-hour delay. And viewers who live in the western U.S. will find their telecast delayed even longer.

NBC will start its broadcast at 8 p.m. ET, although the Opening Ceremonies in Rio, which is one hour ahead of the Eastern time zone, will begin at 7 p.m. ET.

Why? NBC offers this excuse

“We think it’s important to give context to the show,” Mark Lazarus, the chairman of NBC Sports Group, said earlier this month. “These Opening Ceremonies will be a celebration of Brazilian culture, of Rio, of the pageantry, of the excitement, of the flair this beautiful nation has. We think it’s important that we are able to put that in context for the viewer so that it’s not just a flash of color.”

Context? How about just showing the Opening Ceremonies live and letting viewers see it? Why can’t “context” be provided at 7pm ET? Besides, we do we need context? If they were honest, they’d talk about the filth, polluted waters, crime, forced child prostitution, and all those who live in such extreme poverty that it can’t even be called poverty. Need a deeper word.

Those in other time zones will see later delays.

“The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey,” John Miller, NBC’s Olympics chief marketing officer, told reporters recently. “It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.”

You know, I don’t often trot out the sexist label, but, that is rather sexist. No, that is pure sexist. They might like different events than men, but, they can be brutal on those competing in the more women type competitions, and get damned upset when the outcome is not what they want.

OK, rant over. Till the 2018 Winter Games. What are your thoughts?

Read: Good News: NBC To Broadcast Olympics Opening Ceremonies On Delay »

Posted in Sports | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a raft that will be soon needed to get to work due to massive sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theo Spark, with a post on fake numbers, real BS.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: On ‘Climate Change’, Millennials Find No Difference Between Trump And Hillary

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 7:22 am

Of course, this all probably matters little, because the Little Climateflakes will still vote Democrat. Here’s Newsweek dragging an article from the climate extremist site Grist into the mainstream

MANY MILLENNIALS THINK HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP ARE THE SAME ON CLIMATE CHANGE

One presidential candidate says scientists who work on climate change are “practically calling it a hoax” and wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. The other calls climate change “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” And yet about four out of 10 millennials in battleground states think there is no difference between those candidates’ views on the issue.

Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate group released polling at the Democratic National Convention last week focused on millennials in 11 battleground states, conducted by Global Strategy Group in June and early July.

Not mentioned is that Tom Steyer’s group wants massive climate action, so, of course the poll is going to find a way to recommend that Democrats yammer about ‘climate change’ and offer tons of Big Government solutions. Anyway, the poll finds that 21% of Millennials are Sanders supporters, you know, the guy what wants to “bring climate deniers to justice”, treating Wrongthink as criminal, and

Young voters are one of the more unpredictable factors in the 2016 election, because they’re more likely than other age groups to support Sanders and less likely to vote in general. Democrats run the risk of losing Sanders holdouts to a third-party candidate. Nearly seven out of 10 Sanders supporters believe there’s no daylight between Trump and Clinton on the issues they care about.

Huh. How about that. Included in the article is a graphic, which shows that a big position in gaining support from the Millennials is switching from “dirty fossil fuels to clean energy….” 55% say they are “much more likely” to vote for that candidate, with 20% “more likely.” Doing away with the EPA polls even higher with Millennials, with 73% saying less likely to vote for them, and 46% saying would never vote for them.

Then there’s this, which should give Hillary a sad

But this may not help Clinton much because young voters don’t recognize how different she is from Trump. Forty-four percent say there’s no distinction between the two candidates on transitioning away from fossil fuels, and 43 percent say there’s no distinction on protecting air and water.

Hillary only mentioned Hotcoldwetdry in passing during her big convention speech. She barely mentions it at all during her tiny campaign appearances, and, since she really holds no press conferences, she can’t be asked about it.

Even if Clinton isn’t going to be heavily focused on climate, Steyer and his group plan to press the issue on her behalf. NextGen is putting $25 million into efforts to turn out young voters who are concerned about climate change, including at more than 200 college campuses. The group’s hope is that young voters will understand that the stakes are so high for climate change that they will vote for Clinton even if they don’t love her.

Millennials are fools, falling for snake oil salesmen, but, then, they’ve been indoctrinated to think this way. Their job prospects are terrible under Democratic Party policies, and their earnings potential are similarly terrible. Climate change policies will further hurt their economic opportunities and lives, yet, they do not seem concerned about those.

Read: Bummer: On ‘Climate Change’, Millennials Find No Difference Between Trump And Hillary »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming, Hillary Clinton | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Is Now Playing The “I Could Lose Because The Election Is Rigged” Game

By William Teach August 2, 2016 – 6:57 am

It’s really not a good thing when a candidate is signaling that he’ll lose at just under 100 days to the general election

Did you catch that?

(Politico) Donald Trump empathized with Bernie Sanders supporters on Monday, saying the Vermont senator lost the Democratic primary because the election was rigged, and said he feared the general election would be rigged as well.

“First of all, it’s rigged and I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, to be honest. I have to be honest because I think my side was rigged,” Trump said at a campaign event in Columbus, Ohio.

Is the election rigged? Well, you can say it’s “rigged” in terms of knowing that the majority of the media will do all they can to portray Trump negatively. Even when he is not making unforced errors. When he’s not throwing the ball into triple coverage. When he’s passing the puck back to the goalie who’s already left the net. But, is it really rigged? No. Who’s going to rig it? This isn’t like the DNC where the party big shots made sure Hillary was the nominee, and the emails showed it.

Duane Patterson notes

Now I have long stated that I don’t think the outcome of the election this fall is in much doubt. Hillary could technically find a way to lose, and events could happen that cause the electorate to turn Trump’s direction, but the Trump campaign itself is just not taking the steps and staying disciplined enough on message to be a viable, winning campaign against the Democrats in November. This clip is just the latest example of that lack of messaging.

If you’re still 95 days out from the election, can someone please explain to me how justifying you’re impending loss is a winning strategy? Does he, or anyone else really believe that a ‘vote for me to stick it to the media and the establishment’ message counts as a reason, and at this point, really about the only reason, to vote for a candidate?

It seems that Trump is working to shrink his electoral wins map, rather than expanding it. If you want just one reason to vote Trump, it’s the Supreme Court. Hugh Hewitt, who’s been very much been against Trump, explains. To go with this, lower federal court appointees. But, Trump is making it oh so hard to think voting for him even matters, when he makes huge mistakes, and then starts in on conspiracy theories.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Is Now Playing The “I Could Lose Because The Election Is Rigged” Game »

Posted in Donald Trump | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

The NRA Used To Totally Support Gun Restrictions They Oppose Now. Or Something

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 4:33 pm

No, really, they did. But they’re big meanies now for not. Time Magazine says so!

When the NRA Supported Gun Control

….

The NRA’s opposition to gun control, however, is only a few decades , according to Adam Winkler author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Historically,” writes Winkler, “the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine.”

Not only did the NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and co-authored gun control legislation. (snip)

In the 1920s, the National Revolver Association, the arm of the NRA responsible for handgun training, proposed regulations later adopted by nine states, requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, five years additional prison time if the gun was used in a crime, a ban on gun sales to non-citizens, a one day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun, and that records of gun sales be made available to police.

The NRA still backs concealed carry permits. They still approve of additional prison time. And bans on gun sales to non-citizens. They are fine with reasonable waiting periods. And they do not freak if the police have a record. So, nothing has changed.

Anyway, supposedly this all changed in the 70’s

For much of the 20th century, the NRA had lobbied and co-authored legislation that was similar to the modern legislative measures the association now characterizes as unconstitutional. But by the 1970s the NRA came to view attempts to enact gun-control laws as threats to the Second Amendment, a viewpoint strongly articulated at last week’s Republican National Convention by current NRA leader Chris Cox. Today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black Panther Party 40 years earlier: “the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.”

What’s missing from all of this is the Democrats view of gun control, which is to essentially ban the private ownership of guns. Not just automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, and silencers, all three of which are mentioned in the article as bans the NRA approved of back in the 30’s. Most would agree they have no problem with this. Also, there really is no thing as a silencer, except in poorly written TV shows, books, and movies. They are suppressors. Regardless, the Democrats want more and more restrictions on private ownership of guns while at the same time they coddle actual criminals, creating a situation where law abiding citizens need weapons to protect themselves from criminality that Democrat policies have created.

A nationwide registry of owned guns? Dems can position it however they want, this is simply a way for them to know who has what as they implement confiscatory policies. It’s not paranoia when this is what they want to do. To Other People, of course. They don’t want to give up their own guns.

An assault weapons ban? The last one made no difference, and they are simply “scary” looking versions of other rifles.

Everything is aimed at the law abiding citizen, rather than criminals. If the left was serious, their “comprehensive” gun reform would go heavy on criminals. Instead, it attempts to turn law abiding citizens into criminals and/or someone with a mental issue that requires taking their guns away.

Finally, there was a point where we were not concerned with the growing power of the federal government. To quote V For Vendetta, a movie leftists love (also, a lot of the rest of us, good flick!) “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” Or, better yet, Thomas Jefferson “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” The people who most want to disarm citizens are the same ones trying to monumentally increase the power of government. Go figure. I mean, really, we should not infer an agenda, right? Right?

Read: The NRA Used To Totally Support Gun Restrictions They Oppose Now. Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a public pool needed to keep people cool when temperatures suddenly spike dozens of degrees, but is also bad in causing climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is NoTricksZone, with a post on four new papers that show no detectable sea level rise signal.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions

By William Teach August 1, 2016 – 11:40 am

Yesterday, we had the Washington Post being all concerned with too much executive action. But, only if Trump wins. Not really that Obama has gone hog wild with them. Today, James Surowiecki at the New Yorker is a bit concerned

THE PERILS OF EXECUTIVE ACTION
Obama used the power of the pen to make policy. What would Trump do?

Huh. Nothing on what Hillary would do? Anyhow, it does start out with Obama’s increased unilateral power grab (which is defended later in the article), then we get

Donald Trump has made it clear that he sees Obama as having “led the way” in using executive action aggressively and that, if elected, he intends to do the same. “I’m going to do a lot of right things,” he has said, and he’s pledged to reverse many of Obama’s executive orders and memorandums “within two minutes” of taking office. Most concretely, he has promised to use his power to restrict entry to the U.S. in order to curb immigration from any country “compromised by terrorism.” In Trump’s view, that includes Germany and France. He’s also likely to step up deportation of undocumented immigrants, resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline, declare China a currency manipulator, and reopen coal leases on federal land.

Not everything Obama has done with his executive power will be as easy for Trump to overturn. Regulations that have gone through a formal rulemaking process, such as the Clean Power Plan, typically can’t just be discarded by a new incumbent. That’s why Obama’s executive agencies, like those of his predecessors, spent the final year of the Administration hurriedly initiating a host of regulatory proposals—so that the proposals could make it through the rulemaking process before Obama leaves office.

Still, were Trump to win, many of Obama’s accomplishments would be under threat. Even rules that can’t be rescinded can be left unenforced. Trump, who says that global warming is “bullshit,” has vowed to cancel the Paris Agreement. Technically, he can’t, but the deal has no enforcement mechanism, so he’d be free to just ignore the Paris goals and do nothing about greenhouse-gas emissions. And what Trump can’t reverse with his pen he can mitigate with executive-branch appointments, as Ronald Reagan did when he named the rabid anti-environmentalist James Watt to head the Department of the Interior.

And there’s the rub of the matter: what Democrats are really upset over is that Trump could use executive actions to roll back Obama’s big government actions, along with simply refusing to enforce previous rule making. They don’t care whether Hillary would continue to use lots of unilateral executive actions, because they would be helpful to their cause.

Random thought: I will never understand why Progressives/Statists/Democrats think increasing the power of the central government, along with the President and the Executive Branch, is a good idea. They never stop to think that all the negative aspects will effect themselves. They think it’s all lollipops and unicorns, and the Bad Things will happen to Other People.

Read: Oops: Suddenly, The New Yorker Is A Bit Concerned Over Executive Actions »

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