‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Mean More War Or Something

By William Teach April 1, 2016 – 4:43 pm

Nope, this is not a joke article, because every day in Warmist World is April Fool’s Day

One Dire Potential Consequence Of Climate Change That Nobody Ever Talks About

Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of physics and co-founder of Berkeley Earth, on Quora:

War.

Climate change could, in principle, affect the productivity of many nations, shifting it from one region to another. It is plausible that changes in climate played a major role in the expansion of the Roman Empire , in the Vikings excursions into France, in the 100-years war.

Let’s consider: the Roman Empire expanded during a period of warmth, and collapsed as a cool period came about, with even more warfare. The Vikings were during that same cool period. The 100 Years war occurred during the start of the Little Ice Age period. While there is certainly violence and war during warm periods, because, heck, we’re humans, and Darwinism discusses survival of the fittest and conflict (a notion Warmists throw out the window in thinking Hotcoldwetdry will kill us all), things seem to be worse during the cool periods overall.

I am not predicting war. Climate change, so far, has been quite mild (1.5C in 250 years), but it is likely to accelerate, and that could bring about economic disruption. Some people argue that climate change will be good; up in Canada I have frequently seen bumper-stickers “Canadian For Climate Change”. But even if good for some regions, it is just as likely to be bad for others.  In Silicon Valley, “disruptive” can be great for the right investor, and disastrous for another.

Notice how Professor Muller drops the “1.5C in 250 years” talking point. Roughly 90 years of that was the tail end of the Little Ice Age, where temps started increasing as it ended. We’ve really only had about .8C to, at most (using the worst measuring points) 1C since 1850, the end of the LIA. This is simply a method to dupe people into thinking it is worse than it is, while also proclaiming future doom. This is the worst of cultish action.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Totally Mean More War Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil dog sucking up earth’s resources causing the oceans to rise

The blog of the day is This Ain’t Hell…, with a post on women not being interested in combat jobs.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Gender Confused Bathroom Issue: We Now Have A List Of Which Businesses To Avoid

By William Teach April 1, 2016 – 10:52 am

The confused people who support gender confused people who want to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers established for the biological opposite gender have created a map of private organizations who support the gender confused, and even require an oath

(WNCN) Dozens of business owners across the state have named their businesses as “safe bathrooms” in response to House Bill 2.

Emily Waggoner, the creator of a Google map listing businesses, started the project because she has loved ones who “are directly affected by this legislation.”

How are they affected? Obviously, private organizations can legally allow their bathrooms to be used by the gender confused. This was made quite clear in the legislation as passed.

She said the map is for businesses who have publicly stated their bathrooms are safe for transgender people.

Just not safe for those who aren’t. I’m wondering how many of these bathrooms being designated are single stall.

“Our initial idea was for this to be a resource for our friends in North Carolina, but it has turned into a platform for people to band together, raise their voices, and fight. “

Fight? Really? Over bathrooms?

Business owners are required to submit documentation showing their stance before being added to the map.

They must take a pledge. One wonders how soon it will be before these confused people who support gender confused people will start making demands of private organizations who do not support transgendered bathrooms. When they will start protesting, demonizing them, insulting them, even attempting to shake them down or shut them down. Because, this is the typical end result of the oh-so-tolerant diversity loving Progressives.

Read: Gender Confused Bathroom Issue: We Now Have A List Of Which Businesses To Avoid »

Posted in NC News, Unhinged Tools | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Washington Post Totally Worried About The Earth Becoming A Swamp World

By William Teach April 1, 2016 – 7:09 am

And no, this is not an April Fool’s Day joke, the Editorial Board is dead serious

Shocking new study foresees a swamped planet as the GOP revels in illogic

“I JUST think we have much bigger risks,” Donald Trump told us last week. We had asked the Republican presidential candidate about human-caused climate change, a phenomenon in which he said he is “not a big believer.” Don’t good business leaders hedge against risks, spending something now to avoid potentially negative outcomes later? “I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons,” he responded.

Mr. Trump is not alone among Republicans in citing other scary problems to illogically ignore the danger of a warming world. Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich both mention terrorism — “the real problem that faces us today,” Mr. Kasich said — when criticizing President Obama’s efforts to slow climate change.

Meanwhile, in the world of facts, evidence and science, the dangers of climate change look ever more frightening.

This is pimping the new study about how the melting in western Antarctica portends future doom

The interlocking effects of the Earth’s various systems remain complex and difficult to predict. What is beyond question is that we face significant risk. The prudent response would be to mitigate the threat, instead of waiting to discover that scientists’ warnings were on target — or even understated — after the damage has been done.

Why are they not taking Obama to task? He just said nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous problem in the world. But, hey, if the prudent response is to mitigate the threat, then all Warmists should get off their duffs, give up their own use of fossil fuels, and make their lives carbon neutral, because things are so dire that they cannot afford to wait.

The NY Times Editorial Board is also very upset about the study. They should stop using fossil fuels to produce the content for their newspaper and to spread their newspaper around the country and world. Every little bit helps!

Every day in Warmist World is a combination of Halloween and April Fool’s Day.

Read: Bummer: Washington Post Totally Worried About The Earth Becoming A Swamp World »

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

Excitable Paul Krugman Thinks Obama’s “Successes” Are April Fools Day Jokes

By William Teach April 1, 2016 – 6:53 am

David Brooks is off today at the NY Times, so, Paul Krugman steps in with a howler, because Obama is totally a success, so much so that people don’t really know it. Because there is a media that votes 90% Democrat to let us know, and we can totally learn from Obama

Learning From Obama

(A blurb about Obama’s supposed rising poll numbers to start off)

Well, one answer is that voters have lately been given a taste of what really bad leaders look like. But I’d like to think that the public is also starting to realize just how successful the Obama administration has been in addressing America’s problems. And there are lessons from that success for those willing to learn.

I know that it’s hard for many people on both sides to wrap their minds around the notion of Obama-as-success. On the left, those caught up in the enthusiasms of 2008 feel let down by the prosaic reality of governing in a deeply polarized political system. Meanwhile, conservative ideology predicts disaster from any attempt to tax the rich, help the less fortunate and rein in the excesses of the market; and what are you going to believe, the ideology or your own lying eyes?

But the successes are there for all to see.

For all to see! What are they?

Start with the economy. You might argue that presidents don’t have as much effect on economic performance as voters seem to imagine — especially presidents facing scorched-earth opposition from Congress for most of their time in office. But that misses the point: Republicans have spent the past seven years claiming incessantly that Mr. Obama’s policies are a “job killing” disaster, destroying business incentives, so it’s important news if the economy has performed well.

And it has: We’ve gained 10 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Obama took office, and unemployment is below 5 percent. True, there are still some areas of disappointment — low labor force participation, weak wage growth. But just imagine the boasting we’d be hearing if Mitt Romney occupied the White House.

So, except for the 92 million who’ve dropped out of the labor force, quite a few in despair, and huge number who can only get low wage service industry jobs, many of which are part time (which we were told were bad jobs when Bush was president, and I bet a search would unveil Krugman complaining about them), and wage growth stinking up the joint like a corpse plant, everything is awesome!

Then there’s health reform, which has (don’t tell anyone) been meeting its goals.

He gives more to it, but, let’s consider that the one purpose was to cover the 40-45 million without health insurance. Ocare obtained less than that. Another part was to make it affordable. It’s there in the name of the act. Yet, it’s too expensive deductible wise for a goodly chunk to use it. And, it is not revenue neutral. And, people lost the plans and doctors they liked.

Krugman goes on to discuss financial reform, which is a success in that it hasn’t caused an implosion in the financial markets and banks, but, is still rather toothless, as well as Obama’s tyranical executive orders, such as the Clean Power Plant order, which will cause financial harm to the middle and lower classes. But, is Krugman kidding about this all?

All in all, it’s quite a record. Assuming Democrats hold the presidency, Mr. Obama will emerge as a hugely consequential president — more than Reagan. And I’m sure Republicans will learn a lot from his achievements.

April fools!

Yes, Obama is an April Fools joke. And so is attempting to defend his poor record. But, hey, if you’re a super rich guy like Krugman, things are fine.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Excitable Paul Krugman Thinks Obama’s “Successes” Are April Fools Day Jokes »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 31, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful field that would be perfect for taxpayer funded solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on the potluck dinner police.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Mayor Of City With Extreme Gun Violence Worried About Gender Confused Bathroom Law

By William Teach March 31, 2016 – 10:00 am

And he’s so upset about the law that he’s thinking of Doing Something

(News And Observer)  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he will try to poach businesses and conventions from North Carolina because of a law eliminating anti-discrimination protections for lesbians, gays and bisexuals.

Emanuel also says he will he ban the use of city funds for nonessential travel to the state.

The law also prohibits transgender people from using washrooms that do not match the gender they had at birth.

He can try to poach all he wants, but, how businesses want to move to an area know for lots and lots of causal gun-play, lots of murders, lots of crime, and a police force that has been keeping secret detention facilities? The law, HB2, doesn’t eliminate any anti-discrimination protections, highlighting the bias of the Raleigh News and Observer, nor does it prohibit that bathroom use at private entities (I have a post on this later today).

Notice, though, that Rahm hasn’t actually gotten around to doing any of this as of yet. But, good for him to institute some fiscal responsibility, so he can use that money to deal with the extreme gun violence in his Democratic Party run city.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/715506171138932736

Furthermore, all state travel to Vermont (which instituted their non-essential travel ban) should be banned, as we should be concerned about our state employees traveling to the heroin capital of the USA. San Francisco? Definitely a worry over disease. NYC? Increasing crime. Seattle? Escalating crime from the large number of illegal aliens.

Read: Mayor Of City With Extreme Gun Violence Worried About Gender Confused Bathroom Law »

Posted in NC News, Unhinged Tools | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Uh Oh: Computer Models Predict Maybe Doom From Antarctic Melting

By William Teach March 31, 2016 – 7:12 am

Many media outlets are having meltdowns (sic) over a report. Let’s go to hyper-Warmist Justin Gillis at the NY Times for the hysteria

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly

Everything you need to know is in the headline. Garbage in garbage out computer models, which have continuously failed.

For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet, a remnant of the last ice age, as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization.

The great ice sheet, larger than Mexico, is thought to be potentially vulnerable to disintegration from a relatively small amount of global warming, and capable of raising the sea level by 12 feet or more should it break up. But researchers long assumed the worst effects would take hundreds — if not thousands — of years to occur.

Now, new research suggests the disaster scenario could play out much sooner.

Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century.

Oh, but don’t think the doom of sea rise ends there, because their computer models predict things will get even worse

The situation would grow far worse beyond 2100, the researchers found, with the rise of the sea exceeding a pace of a foot per decade by the middle of the 22nd century. Scientists had documented such rates of increase in the geologic past, when far larger ice sheets were collapsing, but most of them had long assumed it would be impossible to reach rates so extreme with the smaller ice sheets of today.

And they’re able to prognosticate this using the same failed computer models that have failed to predict anything else. If you had a calculator that kept giving you the wrong answers, would you continue to listen to its answers? But, hey, good news, this is a maybe might could possibly we’re not sure prediction

“We are not saying this is definitely going to happen,” said David Pollard, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author of the new paper. “But I think we are pointing out that there’s a danger, and it should receive a lot more attention.”

In other words, doomsaying to obtain more taxpayer funding for more studies.

Of course, nothing in the paper seems to take into account the scientific research, not computer models, mind you, into the volcanic activity occurring under Western Antarctica. They simply blame it on Mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, “The answer the scientists got is described in their paper in the dry language of science, but it could easily serve as the plot device of a Hollywood disaster movie.” Nowhere in the NY Times article, nor others I’ve perused on the paper, even mention volcanic activity.

Oh, BTW, here’s how the article ends

But the recent climate deal negotiated in Paris would not reduce emissions nearly enough to achieve that goal. That deal is to be formally signed by world leaders in a ceremony in New York next month, in a United Nations building that stands directly by the rising water.

Huh. So the “historic”, as it has been deemed, climate deal really does nothing.

Read: Uh Oh: Computer Models Predict Maybe Doom From Antarctic Melting »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Working To Stop World’s Most Dangerous Threat Of Nuclear Weapons

By William Teach March 31, 2016 – 6:54 am

It’s a lofty goal, and one worth persuing. He tells us all about it in the Washington Post

Of all the threats to global security and peace, the most dangerous is the proliferation and potential use of nuclear weapons. That’s why, seven years ago in Prague, I committed the United States to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and to seeking a world without them. This vision builds on the policies of presidents before me, Democrat and Republican, including Ronald Reagan, who said “we seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

Wait, I thought the most dangerous threat was ‘climate change’? He’s told us it’s more dangerous than terrorism at least 22 times. He told us that ‘climate change’ is the world’s most dangerous threat in his 2015 State of the Union. The same when he unveiled his screw the middle and lower classes energy plan, er, Clean Power Plan, last summer.

Anyhow, he made this commitment 7 years ago. Has he done anything to build on this vision?

Thursday in Washington, I’ll welcome more than 50 world leaders to our fourth Nuclear Security Summit to advance a central pillar of our Prague Agenda: preventing terrorists from obtaining and using a nuclear weapon. We’ll review our progress, such as successfully ridding more than a dozen countries of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Nations, including the United States, will make new commitments, and we’ll continue strengthening the international treaties and institutions that underpin nuclear security.

So, he and others have supposedly done a little bit.

First, we’re taking concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia remain on track to meet our New START Treaty obligations so that by 2018 the number of deployed American and Russian nuclear warheads will be at their lowest levels since the 1950s. Even as the United States maintains a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversary and ensure the security of our allies, I’ve reduced the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. I also have ruled out developing new nuclear warheads and narrowed the contingencies under which the United States would ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

Raise your hand if you think Russia is cheating. Here’s where it becomes an absolute joke

Second, we’re strengthening the global regime — including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — that prevents the spread of nuclear weapons. We’ve succeeded in uniting the international community against the spread of nuclear weapons, notably in Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have constituted an unacceptable threat to our national security and that of our allies and partners. It could have triggered a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and begun to unravel the global nonproliferation regime.

In fact, it is triggering a nuclear arms race, as other Middle Eastern nations are looking to develop their own weapons, since the Iran deal simply limits Iran to not develop nuclear weapons for 8-10 years. The deal kicks the can down the road for Other People to deal with, and, really, Iran hasn’t seemed to care much about sticking with either the deal nor the U.N. sanctions, even as the deal was being signed.

He ends thusly (after admitting that Russia is cheating)

We’re clear-eyed about the high hurdles ahead, but I believe that we must never resign ourselves to the fatalism that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable. Even as we deal with the realities of the world as it is, we must continue to strive for our vision of the world as it ought to be.

Which begs the question: why did he sign a deal that doesn’t stop Iran’s nuclear weapons threat, just postpones it, if he is so worried? He should be lauded for having this vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and even attempting to act on it, even though the “genie is out of the bottle”. Reducing and even eliminating proliferation is a worthwhile goal. Yet, he helped out his buddies in Iran in so many ways, and has made the world more dangerous.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Working To Stop World’s Most Dangerous Threat Of Nuclear Weapons »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Thank Goodness, We Now Know The Best Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

By William Teach March 30, 2016 – 3:29 pm

It’s so utterly easy, according to Warmist Andrew Eil. Of course, it’s not what you’re thinking, namely, that Warmists should practice what they preach and give up their own use of fossil fuels

This Is the Easiest and Least Costly Way to Fight Climate Change

Everyone knows that reducing carbon emissions is hard. Republicans like former presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (with little evidence) contend that acting on climate “would be devastating for economy.” Even more reasonable, less apocalyptic opinions on the subject recognize that reducing emissions–particularly fairly quickly–isn’t easy. Why else would it have taken 23 years after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and the creation of the UN’s climate change body in 1992 to get all countries to advance plans to reduce emissions?

We’ve all heard the doom and gloom story. But you might not have heard that for many countries, there is a secret trap door and chute to lower emissions: eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the goodies and discounts that governments worldwide dole out to the oil, gas, coal, and petroleum fuels value chain, and especially to consumers. And the best part: eliminating subsidies, 1and even raising fossil fuel taxes, might not even raise costs much if at all for consumers.

Of course, they aren’t subsidies, they are tax breaks, the type of tax breaks that are offered to any company. We’ve had this discussion numerous times, but, of course, you cannot separate a deluded left winger from their talking points once they take hold. Ever. Warmists are entirely too rigid in their dogma.

But it turns out delivering on promises to remove fossil fuel subsidies is not easy. It’s often the middle class that gets hit first and hardest when fuel prices rise. Many countries, particularly in the developing world, have been hit by waves of protests when governments have eliminated or rolled back subsidies, as in Nigeria andIndonesia in 2012. In many cases, governments have beaten a hasty retreat and re-imposed fuel subsidies in the face of political pressure and public unrest.

Oh, wait, I thought it was easy and would mean barely a blip in the cost for consumers? No? Here’s how this is defended

The elephant in the room, from the climate standpoint, is not only eliminating subsidies, but actively pricing carbon in fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Roughly three dozen countries do this, as do California and nine U.S. states in the Northeast. None has seen its economy tank as a result; most have flourished, while those that haven’t can hardly show the carbon price is to blame. In fact, raising prices on fossil fuels by removing subsidies and imposing taxes, as most European countries have done, can actually be good for consumers: rising prices lowers demand, which over time helps push prices back down. Furthermore, higher prices condition consumers to seek alternatives so that they are less vulnerable when price spikes hit. Ask the Europeans how much harder their lives were when oil was $100 per barrel of oil than now, with cheap oil. Answer: not much.

Except, the cost of living is higher in those areas, as is the base cost of energy. Furthermore, the carbon markets are failing, and are basically at junk bond status. But, hey, it’s good for consumers, because things are so expensive they they cannot afford to purchase them. Which doesn’t mean prices will fall to meet consumer demand, not when that would mean selling the produce for a loss. It means jobs go away, and companies fail.

When will Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels?

Read: Thank Goodness, We Now Know The Best Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove