Republican AGs Ask Judge To Shut Down Climate Change Witch Hunt

By William Teach May 19, 2016 – 5:47 pm

Warmists have been using the legal system to abuse Exxon and other fossil fuels companies, as well as other private organizations that profess climate skepticism. The Warmists care little whether their science is right: they just want to shut down debate

(Fox News) Two Republican attorneys general have come out fighting against a sweeping investigation into whether ExxonMobil misled the public on global warming, asking a judge to block a subpoena that they call an abuse of power — and a threat to First Amendment rights.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange asked a Texas state judge Monday to put an end to the investigation being pursued by Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker.

Walker, an independent, issued a subpoena in March seeking 40 years’ worth of Exxon communications with 90 conservative groups “and any other organizations engaged in research or advocacy concerning Climate Change or policies.” Walker claims the company misled the public on climate change by downplaying the risks.

But Paxton called the subpoena against the Texas-based company “a fishing expedition of the worst kind.”

Warmists are engaged in lawfare, and in their world, no one is allowed to profess dissent from the Approved Doctrine. Using the power of Government to go after these companies is abusive and violates Free Speech rights, among other rights.

Read: Republican AGs Ask Judge To Shut Down Climate Change Witch Hunt »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are evil fossil fueled vehicles, and wonder why emergency trucks can’t be all electric or drawn by horses, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post blowing out the talking point about the Alberta fires being ‘climate change.’

Read: If All You See… »

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

Real Woman Told To Wait To Use Bathroom As Man Uses Women’s Room

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

Here’s what the liberal’s idiotic notions result in

(Daily Caller) Lisa Stickles was shopping at her local Ross store when she saw a man who was dressed like a man, complete with a five o’clock shadow, in the women’s dressing room. When she informed the store manager she was told company policy allowed customers to use whichever dressing room they identified with, CBS DFW reports.

Stickles was informed by the manager the man “was representing himself as a woman today,” and the store could do nothing about it.

“What about me? Or my feelings?” she asked. “(The manager) told me that if I felt uncomfortable in the dressing room with him there … I’d have to wait until he’s finished.”

A rep for Ross said they do not discriminate against the gender confused. In this case

“He was in no way dressed as a woman,” Sickles said. “He had on jeans, a t-shirt, 5 o’clock shadow, very deep voice. He was a man.”

He just felt like using the women’s room, violating the privacy of real biologically women. In North Texas, at least, women who would prefer not having men taking advantage of idiocy should avoid Ross, along with TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and, of course, Target. Because women come last in this debate in Liberal World.

Read: Real Woman Told To Wait To Use Bathroom As Man Uses Women’s Room »

Posted in Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Skeptics Won’t Like This Study Or Something

By William Teach May 19, 2016 – 8:19 am

Rather than providing rock solid studies, backed using actual data and the Scientific Method, members of the Cult of Climastrology have depended on computer models, massaged data, prognostications unable to be proven by Science, and spin machine studies. This one is part of the latter

Climate change doubters really aren’t going to like this study

Researchers have designed an inventive test suggesting that the arguments commonly used by climate change contrarians don’t add up, not only according to climate scientists (we know what they think already) but also in the view of unbiased experts from other fields.

The trick? Disguising the data — and its interpretation — as if it was part of an argument about something else entirely.

I’d prefer they offer up scientific proof that clearly shows that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the warming since 1850. Since that is clearly impossible, they’ll pull this kind of non-scientific stunt. Said stunt is propagated by Stephan Lewandowsky, long known as pushing shady science and pop climate psychology. The study itself is slammed by many who understand how studies are supposed to work. How does this one work?

First of all, consider that climate doubters (like scientists) often use objective data to back up their claims. They just tend to represent it in ways that scientists have long found objectionable.

Here’s an example: Data indicate that in the long run — over many decades — global temperatures have been rising. But over shorter periods, temperatures might fluctuate up and down quite a bit. Climate contrarians might exploit this fact by pointing to a small block of data from a short-term period when temperatures were on the downswing, or weren’t rising, and use it to suggest that global warming isn’t actually happening. It’s a tactic known as “cherry-picking” — selecting only data that suit one’s purposes, instead of data that reflect the whole story.

They Warmist scientists find it objectionable because it exposes exactly what the problem with Warmist science is. We’ll get to that in a minute. As far as cherry picking goes, Warmists are yammering about the hottest year ever, and the hottest month ever. Is that not cherry picking? How about when they look at the temperature data from 1980-today: is that not cherry picking? What Skeptics are saying is that Warmist models predicted ever rising doomy temperatures, yet, 95% of the models failed to predict the Pause. Furthermore, the models cannot even predict what happened in the past, for instance, the cooling from the 1940’s to 1979.

They found a way to let an unbiased group of expert scientists judge for themselves how sound climate-doubting arguments are by presenting them with real climate data — but labeling these data as something else. For instance, they presented data on trends in Arctic sea ice extent, but relabeled as data on the profits of a fictitious company. And they re-cast numbers on global sea-level rise as stats on world lithium production.

“So instead of saying, there’s a recovery of Arctic ice, we would say, there’s a recovery of our share prices,” Lewandowsky said.

There’s one thing missing in all this: the central argument. Anyone who tells you there has been no warming since around 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, is wrong. There has been warming. Even taking away all the massaged, falsified, improperly gathered, and even created out of nothing data, there has still been warming. It matters not at all, because the central argument is not on warming, it is on causation. What is causing the warming. Warmists like Lewandowsky say it is mostly/solely the fault of mankind (yet won’t reduce their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral.) Skeptics say it is mostly/solely natural.

At the end of the day, Warmists have made a hypothesis: it is up to them to prove it. They can’t, so they rely on silly things like this Lewandowski “study”. Along with all the scaremongering, of course.

Read: Washington Post: Skeptics Won’t Like This Study Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Refers To Hillary’s Husband’s Sexual Indiscretions As Rape

By William Teach May 19, 2016 – 7:42 am

Donald Trump and the Clintons may have been buddy buddy at one point. I think we can easily say those days are formally over

(Fox News) Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the word “rape” Wednesday evening to describe alleged sexual misconduct by former President Bill Clinton.

Trump made the comment during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. The real estate mogul was answering questions about an unflattering story published this past weekend by The New York Times involving his relationships with women when he turned his attention to Bill Clinton.

“By the way, you know, it’s not like the worst things, OK,” Trump said. “You look at what Clinton’s gone through with all of the problems and all of the things that he’s done.”

Hannity went on to question whether the newspaper would interview women including Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. All three have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct.

“In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will,” Hannity said.

“And rape,” Trump responded.

We know what will happen: liberals will circle the wagons around Hillary and Bill. They typically make a major deal out of any rape allegations, even deeming a stolen kiss and consensual sex as sexual assault and rape. Politico is also covering this, and provides this deflection quote

“Trump is doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run that’s his choice. Hillary Clinton is running a campaign to be president for all of America. It’s not surprising that after a week of still refusing to release his taxes and likening Oakland and Ferguson to the dangers in Iraq, of course he wants to change the subject. So while he licks his wounds, we’ll continue to focus on improving the lives of the American people.”

The Clinton’s refuse to discuss any of the allegations, and, if they think this will get Trump to drop the subject like with most Republicans, they have another thing coming. Trump doesn’t drop attack lines. He’ll keep using them again and again and again, much in the way Democrats refuse to ever drop a talking point. Trump will make sure everyone knows about Bill’s treatment of women and the way Hillary has enabled this conduct. He’s like an alligator with it’s teeth prey: he won’t let go, and he’s looking to make a death roll.

Meanwhile, Juanita Broaddrick says the NY Times should try interviewing Bill Clinton’s female victims.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Refers To Hillary’s Husband’s Sexual Indiscretions As Rape »

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Whew! Colorado School Protected From 5 Year Old With A Gun

By William Teach May 18, 2016 – 2:40 pm

Our long national nightmare is over

(KDVR) A 5 year-old girl was suspended from kindergarten on Monday for bringing a gun to Southeast Elementary School.

It sounds alarming, but the weapon was a bubble gun, a popular plastic toy sold at stores across Colorado.

The girl’s mother, who goes by Emma, said she was shocked when she got a call from the school telling her she needed to pick up her daughter and take her home.

“If they had contacted me and said can you make sure this doesn’t happen again, we just want you to be aware, I think that would have been a more appropriate way to handle the situation. Could we have a warning? It blows bubbles,” she said.

If you’re thinking that the school defended this idiotic policy, you’d be correct. They released a Statement. Because bubble guns and nerf guns and stuff are Bad, you guys. And if you think that the mother thinks common sense should be applied, you would be correct. And if you think the child was very upset and didn’t want to go back to school, you’d be correct.

Read: Whew! Colorado School Protected From 5 Year Old With A Gun »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is the flag of an evil carbon polluting nation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Barbara Walters, er, Megyn Kelly interviewing Donald Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Let’s Watch Hillary Lie For 13 Minutes

By William Teach May 18, 2016 – 10:39 am

The Washington Post’s uber-squishy resident Republican, Kathleen Parker, calls this Hillary’s viral nightmare

You could say that it all depends on how you define “lie.” Or, perhaps, that it’s hell to have a public record.

Either way, Hillary Clinton’s vast résumé of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.

To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.

Most of the highlights will be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video , inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around.

The video isn’t exactly new, having been uploaded on January 29th of this year, but, it has gone viral. Let’s watch (if your stomach can take it)

Read: Let’s Watch Hillary Lie For 13 Minutes »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Team Obama Finalizing Rules On Expanding Overtime Rules

By William Teach May 18, 2016 – 8:40 am

It’s laudable that Team Obama is attempting to increase wages for workers. Too bad they have no idea what they’re doing, because most of them, including O, have never worked in the private sector and never had to balance a spreadsheet, have never had to pay workers, never looked at a profit/loss sheet

(Money) If you’re a salaried worker making under $47,000 a year, you could be in luck: A new rule could make you eligible for overtime pay.

The new rule, expected to be passed by the Labor Department as early as this week, would make some management, administrative and professional employees eligible for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours a week, USA Today reported. Currently, such workers who earn more than $26,660 a year are exempt from getting overtime, but a new rule proposed by the department last summer would raise that threshold to $50,400.

However, some legal experts say the final version of the regulation likely places the threshold closer to a salary of $47,000—meaning that 5 million salaried workers are expected to be eligible for overtime under the rule. The change would most directly affect the service industry, particularly workers in hotels and restaurants, Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clarkson University, told Marketplace.

Here’s the thing: if you accept a management position, one which is salaried, companies usually expect you to work more than 40 hours a week with no OT. That’s just the nature of business. I certainly agree with the rule on those making under $26,660, because that is clearly an attempt by businesses to get a lot of work out of a low wage worker without paying them properly. If you’re salary is $45,000 a year? That’s a bit different

Indeed, there could be a raise on the horizon for the approximately 1.2 million Americans that the Labor Department estimates will receive increased wages or a higher base salary as a result of the rule change. However, the bad news is a large number of small businesses are expected to instruct their employees to work no more than 40 hours a week because they can’t handle the additional costs.

To account for the productivity loss, these companies will likely hire part-time workers or cut the base pay of affected employees. Others will switch salaried workers to hourly employees and ask them to track their hours, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

There are consequences to mucking around with the private sector, making Governmental demands, and they so often do not turn out well for the workers the rules are supposed to help.

Read: Team Obama Finalizing Rules On Expanding Overtime Rules »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Is Team Trump Backsliding On His ‘Climate Change’ Skepticism?

By William Teach May 18, 2016 – 8:17 am

One of the few things I like about Donald Trump is that he has consistently shown that he is not a believe in anthropogenic climate change. I think he’s foolish to blame it on some Chinese conspiracy.

Um. No. He doesn’t buy into every weather event being ‘climate change’.  He told the Washington Post Editorial Board

I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not — I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room — but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

But, what if his populism streak shines through?

(UK Guardian) Donald Trump will have a climate plan and it will be ugly. For now, the Republican frontrunner is pedaling the kind of denialism his party loves, having called global warming everything from a “hoax” to a “con job” to a Chinese plot. But an interview with his energy adviser late last week hinted that – before too long – Trump might endeavor to Make Atmospheric Carbon Levels Great Again. For those interested in a livable and more equal future, that’s not a good thing.

“My advice would be, while I’m a skeptic as well”, Trump energy honcho Kevin Cramer told ClimateWire last week, “he is a product of political populism, and political populism believes that there needs [to be] some addressing of climate change”. (snip)

Cramer has not had a climate epiphany. He probably just looked at the data.

Nearly half of Republicans – and 72% of independents – say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who thinks climate change is a hoax. A Monmouth University poll found that two-thirds of Americans want to see their government take action on emissions. Today’s populism, it seems, includes a concern for the planet.

Trump has been willing to pander and backslide and change his positions like the wind. There are seemingly no principles involved. Might he change on this one, too? The rest of the Guardian article is unenthusiastic as to what Trump might do. What if he sides with Obama on the Clean Power Plan? What if he decides to implement a carbon tax or cap and trade scheme nationally, as Democrats and a few Republicans want? What if this is more than just a Trump advisor speaking out?

(Reuters) Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would renegotiate America’s role in the U.N. global climate accord, spelling potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming.

“I will be looking at that very, very seriously, and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else,” the New York real estate mogul said in an interview with Reuters.

“But those agreements are one-sided agreements and they are bad for the United States.”

Trump said he did not believe China, the world’s top emitter of the carbon dioxide gas that many scientists believe is contributing to global climate change, would adhere to its pledge under the Paris deal.

“Not a big fan because other countries don’t adhere to it, and China doesn’t adhere to it, and China’s spewing into the atmosphere,” he said.

What if this doesn’t spell doom for the Paris Accord, but simply means placing tougher measures on China? At one point, Trump wanted to get rid of the Paris Accord, and “described President Obama’s speech to the Paris climate summit last December as “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard.” Now, renegotiation.

Last August, Climate Progress’ Joe Romm said that there is probably nothing to worry about, that a President Trump would likely honor the Paris Accord and O’s Clean Power Plan. He might be right.

So, I tell you, even on this subject, I can no longer trust Trump.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is Team Trump Backsliding On His ‘Climate Change’ Skepticism? »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove