Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 8:18 am

When most think of something that’s environmentally friendly, they think that it doesn’t pollute, doesn’t hurt wildlife, and doesn’t damage the environment. When members of the Cult of Climastrology think of the environment, they think only of “carbon pollution”, an unscientific way to say carbon dioxide. Let’s see this in action

(Daily Caller) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released video footage showing how the intense heat generated by the Ivanpah solar plant incinerates thousands of birds and bats.

“At Ivanpah, evidence of flying animals impacted by intense heat near the solar towers had been observed,” according to new USGS research. “The new study showed that although birds and bats were occasionally seen near the towers at Ivanpah, most observations involved insects.”

Ivanpah is a federally-backed solar power plant that uses more than 170,000 mirrored heliostats to direct sunlight at tall boilers towers to generate electricity in California. The concentrated sunlight creates an intense field of heat, called a solar flux, around the facility that’s “enough to cause injury or death” to birds or anything else that flies through it.

Ivanpah reportedly incinerated over 6,000 birds in 2015. Warmists will say “yeah, but fossil fuels kill more!!!!!”, forgetting that solar plants are positioned as being environmentally friendly. It’s not environmentally friendly if it is incinerating birds and insects.

Interestingly enough, most Warmists do not want solar projects near where they live. Same for wind. Go figure.

Read: Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects »

Posted in Environment, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Elections Today: Trump Says Might Have Stopped 9/11, People Don’t Trust Hillary On Emails

By William Teach August 4, 2016 – 8:01 am

From the “For the love of all that’s Holy, just stop ad-libbing and stay on message” files

(The Hill) Donald Trump argued Wednesday that his immigration policies could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by keeping the hijackers from entering America in the first place.

The GOP presidential nominee brought up the issue at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla., while rehashing a series of controversies that plagued his primary bid, specifically when he said Muslims were “dancing on the streets and the rooftops” in New Jersey celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center.

“By the way, those people who knocked down the World Trade Center, most likely under the Trump policy wouldn’t have been here to knock down the World Trade Center,” he said.

Trump has called for a ban on all immigration from countries with a history of terrorist activity, but hasn’t specifically laid out which countries would qualify. That policy amounted to a shift from his earlier call to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration.

The majority of the 9/11 attackers originally arrived on tourist or business visas. Several of them asked to have those visas changed to longer visas. Most of them blew the visas off. Mohammed Atta came in via Germany. Would Trump attempt to ban all people coming in to US from all Muslim countries? Or would there be any nuance? On one hand, most of the hijackers weren’t on any watch list. On the other, do we ban all visits because they came from a Muslim nation? Regardless, this is simply stupid messaging from Trump. Which has been a big problem from him lately. Ad-libbing things that make people go “wait, what? What the heck is he yammering on about now?”

Stay on message. Stop making unforced errors. Go after Hillary, not after other Republicans, and stop with this type of foolishness. Ben Carson just stated on MSNBC that Trump won’t allow others to drag him into the bushes. First of, he has. Second, he does a great job of that himself

As for Hillary

(Gallup) Voters are very suspicious about the 30,000 e-mails Hillary Clinton and her staff chose to delete and not turn over to the FBI and aren’t all together sure it would be a bad thing if Russia returned those e-mails to investigators here.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is likely Clinton and her staff deleted those e-mails to hide something incriminating from the FBI, with 45% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s unlikely they were trying to hide anything, but that includes only 15% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

So, most think she’s a criminal. It gets better

Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump suggested last week that if the Russians have the missing 30,000 Clinton e-mails, they should turn them over to the FBI. Just 34% of voters feel it would be bad for U.S.-Russia relations if the Russians had obtained Clinton’s e-mail through cyberspying and now turned them over to the FBI. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say such a move would be good for relations between the two countries, while 26% think it would have no impact. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

So, while Democrats were caterwauling over what Trump said, most think there’s no problem with Russia giving up those emails. If they have them.

Message to Donald: hit Hillary.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Elections Today: Trump Says Might Have Stopped 9/11, People Don’t Trust Hillary On Emails »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Most “Refugees” In Europe Are Not Women And Children

By William Teach August 3, 2016 – 3:18 pm

Well, gee, color me shocked

(Daily Caller)  Pew’s research shows that four out of 10 refugees in Europe are young men, aged 18 to 34. Approximately three-fourths (73 percent) of refugees entering Europe in total were male, while 53 percent of all refugees were young adults between the ages of 18 and 34. Individuals hailing from war-torn countries making up a large portion of all refugees were also overwhelmingly male. Syrian refugees were 71 percent male, Iraqi refugees were slightly higher at 75 percent, while Afghan refugees were a remarkable 80 percent male. Refugees from these three countries made up over half of Europe’s refugees in 2015.

Research found that young male refugees make up a large portion of asylum applicants in certain countries. Italy’s applicants were heavily young and male, at 74 percent. Germany, which fell victim to a spat of terror attacks committed by refugees last month, saw 39 percent of asylum applications come from young men. Germany has seen the most applications for resettlement, with 442,000– or 33 percent of all applications in Europe. (snip)

Obama lambasted Republican politicians who opposed allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. after the Paris attacks last November, claiming they were “scared of widows and orphans.” He also accused several former Republican presidential candidates of engaging in rhetoric that serves as a “potent recruitment tool” for the Islamic State.

Obama’s trying to sell snake oil. The question is, why does he want so many fighting age males to be imported from war torn Islamist areas? We can see the problems in Europe easily.

Read: Surprise: Most “Refugees” In Europe Are Not Women And Children »

Posted in Barry Obama | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a waterpark which has a big carbon footprint, and no one should be allowed to go to one, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post saying that yes, Hillary is the devil.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove