If All You See…

By William Teach May 27, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world parched from too much carbon pollution that also floods in certain places, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Trump beginning to court Muslims.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Famous Heritage Sites Under Threat From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach May 27, 2016 – 7:16 am

Every once in a while, the Cult of Climastrology will trot out some doomsaying regarding special places around the world. And like a bad penny (weird saying), it’s back

Statue of Liberty and Venice among sites at risk from climate change, says UN
‘Urgent and clear need’ to limit temperature rises to protect key sites from warming, rising seas and harsher weather

Climate change now poses the single biggest threat to the world’s most famous heritage sites – including the Galápagos islands, the Statue of Liberty, Easter Island and Venice – according to a UN sponsored report.

The researchers looked at 31 natural and cultural world heritage sites in 29 countries that are vulnerable to increasing temperatures, melting glaciers, rising seas, more intense weather, worsening droughts and longer wildfire seasons. They believe this number is the tip of the iceberg.

There is an urgent and clear need to limit temperature rises to protect key heritage, the study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the UN heritage body Unesco and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concludes.

So, doom, unless everyone follows the prescriptions of the Paris Climate Accords and lives like its 1499

The Statue of Liberty in New York is one of the sites at risk from rising sea levels and storms, illustrated by the devastating Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Global warming is raising sea levels and increasing the risk of floods, droughts and potentially fiercer storms, all of which can cause severe damage. The Galápagos islands, where Charles Darwin gained insights into evolution, and monuments and natural wonders from the port of Cartagena in Colombia to the Shiretoko national park in Japan, were also named as being under threat.

Sea rise around the Statue Of Liberty is around average, measuring just 2.84mm a year, equivalent to .93 feet of sea rise over 100 years. It’ll take quite a bit of time for it to just get to the top of the sea wall itself. As for the Galapagos? They’ve see warmer periods than today, the same for other parks.

Scientists involved in the report said it was vital to limit global warming to no more than 2C, regarded by experts as the limit of safety beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Governments agreed at a landmark climate conference last December that they would cut greenhouse gas emissions to the level needed to prevent temperatures rising that high.

“Now, more than ever, we need countries to back up with action the promises they made in Paris,” said Markham, in a conference call with journalists on Thursday.

And that’s what this is about: propping up the Paris deal. With lots and lots of money and Government. Warmists can do their part by giving up their own use of fossil fuels and going completely carbon neutral.

Read: Famous Heritage Sites Under Threat From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Hillary Is Pretty Much A Liar On Her Email Server, Eh?

By William Teach May 27, 2016 – 6:48 am

The NY Times Editorial Board has finally chimed in on the State Department’s report on Hillary’s illegal email server, and finds her to be as secretive and lying as always, which is interesting, considering the same NY Times EB has been rather supportive of Hillary and dismissive of her detractors, regarding her email issues

(NY Times) Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Significant? I’d say so, as noted at the Washington Free Beacon

Voters most associate the words “liar,” “not trustworthy,” and “scandals” with Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, according to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Kornacki also described how only 19 percent of voters believe Clinton is honest and straightforward, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Trump hits 35%. Oh, and the FBI investigation? They aren’t just looking into whether there were any breaches: they’re investigating whether laws were broken by Clinton and her cohorts, including the Espionage Act. Back to the Times

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.

Donald Trump, her Republican rival, will be merciless in swinging the inspector general’s report like a cudgel. Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton now faces a measurably greater challenge in proving that she is the well-qualified politician her supporters know her to be, based on her varied career as a senator, secretary of state and first lady deeply involved in public life. This is a challenge to be faced not with a contrived campaign makeover, but with a far greater investment of candor before the public.

Two points. First, don’t expect candor. A Zebra cannot change its stripes, and the comments of Hillary and her surrogates since the report was released show they are attempting to spin it away. Second, we’re still waiting to hear exactly what her accomplishments were.

Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest.

They aren’t mishaps: they break the law. If you were a private citizen using an outside server in an attempt to keep your corporate email conversations separate from the company, you could easily be in civil and criminal trouble. It’s those pesky records keeping laws, and the government has them for the government, as well. Oh, plus all those criminal laws about protecting national security material, for which others have been prosecuted, and convicted, over much less. Trump hasn’t broken the law.

But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.

Interesting: we’re suddenly supposed to ignore trustworthy as a measure of leadership.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Say, Hillary Is Pretty Much A Liar On Her Email Server, Eh? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Ecosexual Students Marry The Ocean Or Something

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 4:00 pm

At least transgenders are simply confused, and a bit of therapy would help out. These people are just bat guano insane, and nothing can be done except to isolate them from sane people

(Campus Reform) Earlier this month, a professor at Santa Monica College led students in an ‘EcoSexual Sextravaganza’ in which participants ‘married the ocean.’

Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor who helped organize the May 14 event, explained to Campus Reform that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a deeper love for the planet through “ecocentric passion and even lust.”

The ceremony began with Bruce Cartier, a former SMC student, proclaiming to those gathered at Santa Monica Beach that “today we stand upon this holy earth and in this sacred space to witness the rite of matrimony between the sea and us all.”

California taxpayers subsidize the tuition of each in-state student by around $7000 per semester. BTW, there is video at the link

One attendee of the event—who identified herself only as “Serenity”—spoke about the importance of gaining consent from the earth before proceeding with a physical relationship.

“Back when I would hug trees in Santa Cruz, I would sort of ask the tree if it was okay if I hugged it and I would feel their spirit or energy or something give a response back, and then proceed accordingly,” she told The Corsair. “Consent is definitely important. Do you think the Earth would consent to fracking and pollution? Probably not”.

 

Read: Ecosexual Students Marry The Ocean Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle causing carbon pollution which causes extreme rain and a muddy world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Western Hero, with a post on being careful what you ask for.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmists Really Need To Stop Calling It “Climate Science”

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 10:30 am

Why? Good question

The Truth Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About The Climate Models

The global warming alarmists tell us to trust the science. But when it comes to climate studies, there’s less science and more accounting going on there.

Computer models have an important place in science. They are useful in helping us understand our world, but models themselves aren’t science. Encyclopaedia Britannica says “scientific models at best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent,” but “they are not exact replicas.” In the case of climate models, they are not even close to being approximate replicas.

“There can be too much of a good thing,” scholars Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick wrote last week in a Cato At Liberty blog post about climate models. And in climate science, the “good thing” has become the dominant thing.

Michaels and Wojick did a little digging and what they learned was “that modeling completely dominates climate change research.” In other words, climate scientists put greater faith in results produced more by math calculations than solid science.

Of course, Warmists will complain about the messenger, rather than the notion that what they call climate science is really climate modeling. 55% of all modeling in scientific research is done by Warmists, while climate science accounts for just 4% of all science. Think about this in reverse: 96% of other scientific endeavors accounts for just 45% of the modeling. And the models from Warmists are consistently wrong. 95% failed to predict the Pause. They failed to predict the greening of the earth. They even fail in reverse, being unable to replicate the actual climate, both at the local level and world level.

Yet the modeling template marches on, even as, Michaels and Wojick note, “the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models.”

Get that? Climate scientists are spending more energy and resources trying to upgrade their flawed models than they are trying to understand the climate itself. And it’s a good bet that what most climate scientists will consider improved modeling will be programs that predict even greater warmth.

The models will give out exactly what the Warmist “scientists” want them to give out. When in doubt, change the data and the model to conform to the preconceived notions. This is what modeling does: allows wild, incoherent prognostications of doom, while also creating “data” out of nothing.

Read: Warmists Really Need To Stop Calling It “Climate Science” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 61 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: California’s Cap And Trade Auction Fails Miserably

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 8:22 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology keep telling us that one of the great methods to stop the Earth from burning to a cinder from a marginal greenhouse gas increasing marginally is a cap and trade scheme. How’s that working out in California? Well, you surely read the headline, so

(LA Times) The latest auction in California’s cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases fell sharply below expectations, as buyers purchased just 2% of the carbon credits whose sale funds a variety of state programs — notably, the proposed high-speed rail project.

The quarterly auction, conducted May 18 and announced Wednesday, will provide just $10 million for state programs, including $2.5 million for the bullet train. The rail authority had been expecting about $150 million.

The reason is unclear, but state officials and outside experts pointed to several possible causes: less need for the credits, pending litigation that may overturn the entire system and volatility spawned by speculators in a secondary trading market.

Whatever prompted the lack of buyers, the auction is a stark example of the uncertainty and risk of relying on actively-traded carbon credits to build the bullet train, a problem highlighted in recent legislative testimony by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and a peer-review panel for the $64-billion high-speed rail.

That’s the bullet train that is unpopular, doesn’t really go where people want to go, is close to the San Andreas Fault, and is vastly over budget. But, hey, I wonder if the costs of the permits are as low as all the other trading markets around the world

Buyers at the auction took just 785,000 of the 43 million allowances offered, each of which allow the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide. All the permits were bought at the floor price of $12.73.

But there is a secondary market, where the private parties who own the credits trade them daily. Those credits were recently priced at $12.34, well below the state floor in the auctions. It means that any company needing a credit could buy it more cheaply on the secondary market than in the auction.

For some reason, the California Warmists, many of them employed by the government, think that companies, forced to be part of this scheme, will gladly pay out the nose for permits, rather than seeking the lowest cost possible. This same thing has been seen around the world in these CO2 permit markets. What we further see is that these forced markets are really just schemes to raise money for other projects. Anyone who thinks that government will return money directly back to citizens to offset their rising costs of living is a fool.

Read: Surprise: California’s Cap And Trade Auction Fails Miserably »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming, Government | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Eleven States File Suit Against Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 8:05 am

For some reason, parents and elected officials have a problem with penis being shown in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to their underage daughters

(NY Times) The Obama administration on Wednesday faced the first major court challenge to its guidance about the civil rights of transgender students in public schools, as officials from 11 states filed a lawsuit testing both the scope of federal anti-discrimination law and the government’s sweeping interpretation of it.

The officials, in states from Arizona to Georgia to Texas to Wisconsin, brought the case in Federal District Court in Wichita Falls, Tex., and said that the Obama administration had “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over common-sense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”

Wednesday’s litigation fed into the nation’s intensifying, and suddenly fast-moving, debate about the rights of transgender people and, in particular, whether the administration has exceeded the scope of current laws defining discrimination in the United States.

Not mentioned anywhere in the NY Times article is that the lawsuit states that the guidance “has no basis in law” and could cause “seismic changes in the operations of the nation’s school districts”

(Washington Post) “There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement when the letter was released. “This guidance gives administrators, teachers, and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies.”

In that letter, the two agencies cited Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination at educational facilities that receive federal funding, and said that this extended to how schools treat transgender students. The lawsuit filed Wednesday argues that the Obama administration was “officially foisting its new version of federal law” on schools and accuses federal officials of seeking “to rewrite Title IX by executive fiat.”

Of course, in a sane world, telling a biological boy or girl to use the bathroom that conforms to their actual biological sex is not discrimination. Psychologists and those involved with behavioral studies will tell you that the mass number of young people who have these wacky feelings that they should be the opposite biological sex grow out of that as they grow into adulthood. The slightly saner option would be for those who are gender confused to accept compromises, like using single sex bathrooms and having separate showers and changing rooms. The TG community, along with their lawyers and such, refuse to allow this. They want penis being exposed to Other People’s underage daughters. And so does the Obama administration.

Which attempted to create law out of thin air.

“While the department will review the complaint, the federal government has strong legal foundations to uphold the civil rights of transgender Americans,” the Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night.

What about the civil rights of women and girls to not have to be in bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms with males who are confused and think they are women, as well as males who are taking advantage of these idiotic Progressive policies to, at a minimum, cop a cheap peak at naked women and girls? What about their rights?

Texas is joined in this latest lawsuit by Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the Arizona Department of Education and Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R). In addition, the Harrold school district and another small district in Arizona were included.

North Carolina has its own suit against Los Federales over HB2.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Eleven States File Suit Against Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy »

Posted in Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Oberlin Special Snowflakes Have A Sad, Are Dropping Out

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 4:48 pm

Let’s go with something different than the gender confused. We’ll go with the educationally confused (via Ace)

(Reason) Oberlin College’s activist community is ready to call it quits. Progressive students are dropping out of college, citing academic and emotional difficulties stemming from their mental health problems and overall disgust with the toxic culture on campus.

That’s according to a fascinating piece for The New Yorker by Nathan Heller, who interviewed a number of exhausted activists at Oberlin. They perceive that other students, faculty members, and the administration are completely against them, and have made it impossible for them to live on campus. Some are dropping out.

Of course, some of these students probably feel unsupported because their impractical demands were not realized. Two examples: activist students not only wanted to abolish all grades below a ‘C,’ they also thought faculty members should proactively offer them alternatives to taking a written, in-class midterm exam.

I suspect that the other students aren’t against them; they just don’t care beyond mushy mouthed platitudes. Most are there for an education, something of value for the almost $50,000 per year in just tuition fees. They also, like most college kids, want to have some fun, do some partying, hook up, and all the other things. They aren’t interested in being semi-professional agitators.

The article features lots of woe-is-me’s from the Special Snowflakes, who’ve made the choice to be activists rather than take advantage of the learning offered by the people who are there to teach.

Oh, who am I kidding

(Time) A transgender rights organization is calling out Hillary Clinton for failing to complete a trans-focused questionnaire it distributed to the presidential candidates.

Trans United Fund, the first tax-exempt political advocacy group to focus specifically on transgender issues, announced Monday that both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had committed to completing the survey, but that only Sanders’ campaign had filled it out.

Does it matter? Trans United is already backing Hillary. And she knows it. The Queen need not fill out a questionnaire. Then there’s this

(Dallas Morning News) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is expected to announce a legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s directive instructing school districts to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The attorney general has scheduled a 2 p.m. news conference Wednesday in Austin. WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported Tuesday evening that Paxton would announce the legal challenge then.

Liberals won’t care. They throw actual biological women under the bus in heartbeat when there’s a special interest group to pander to.

Read: Oberlin Special Snowflakes Have A Sad, Are Dropping Out »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil fossil fueled machine causing a flooded, muddy world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on Hillary hating fracking in NY but loving it in other countries.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove