If All You See…

By William Teach April 7, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to dirt from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on the appearance of NY Values.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Ten Hotcoldwetdry Facts That You Cannot Ignore Or Something

By William Teach April 7, 2016 – 11:34 am

Trevor Hoyle is pimping his new book The Last Gasp, and provides us with those 10 ‘facts’ at Female First

  1. Planet Earth, our home in space, is warming year on year. Since the birth of the Industrial Revolution the average global temperature has increased by 1 degree C.
  2. Doesn’t sound much, does it? However, climate scientists warn that any rise above 2 degrees will spell disaster on a worldwide scale – and we’re already halfway there. Anything up to 4 degrees C and we’re looking at irreversible mass extinction.
  3. The rise is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in cars, power plants and industry, giving rise to the Greenhouse Effect.
  4. This happens because carbon dioxide molecules allow heat from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere but then block its escape into space, acting just like a greenhouse – hence the name.
  5. As snow and ice melt at both poles, revealing more and more ocean and darker land cover, less sunlight is reflected back and more heat absorbed, leading to an unstoppable runaway effect of spiralling temperatures.
  6. But is the science reliable? 97 per cent of the world’s climatologists are convinced it is, leaving just 3 per cent with doubts and reservations. Ask yourself this question: if I had cancer and 97 per cent of oncologists recommended one course of treatment and 3 per cent another, which group of doctors would I trust and want to treat me?
  7. Some media commentators are vocal in their opposition. They accuse scientists of jumping on the climate bandwagon, chasing after grants to further their careers. But who is funding the sceptics and climate change deniers? The big multi-national energy corporations with vested interests in coal, oil and gas, that’s who – gifting $558 million to 91 climate denial organisations. Draw your own conclusions.
  8. Let’s separate scientific fact from corporate propaganda. Consider this: NASA research shows that 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded. NASA also says that 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. These are facts that even climate change deniers can’t deny.
  9. Finding a way out of this deadly cycle of environmental decline is going to be tough. There are no easy answers. At the heart of it lies our greed and our reliance on fossil fuels, for which we must find alternatives – and soon – if the planet and our species are to survive.
  10. The next thirty years are crucial. What kind of legacy are we prepared to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren, and the descendants that follow? We could be selfish and say, why should I care? I won’t be here. Or we could act as responsible, caring human beings and strive to do something to change it. Now, before it’s too late. It is up to us.

It starts out with a few actual facts then devolves into blaming mankind with zero facts. Typical.

I’m in an all dat seminar, and I bet you can guess as to how I would respond to each of the ten.

Read: Ten Hotcoldwetdry Facts That You Cannot Ignore Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change” Caused Earth To Slow By A Whopping 1.7 Milliseconds In 100 Years

By William Teach April 7, 2016 – 7:18 am

This obviously means total doom is soon coming, because you have your schedule completely thrown off. It’s as bad as a 1.4 increase since 1850!

Climate Change decreased Earth’s Spin Speed – El Paso Daily Science

Scientists are examing histroical changes in sea level in order to make accurate future predictions of this consequence of climate change, and they’re looking down to Earth’s core to do so. “In order to fully understand the sea-level change that has occurred in the past century, we need to understand the dynamics of the flow in Earth’s core”

The connection is through the change in the speed of Earth’s rotation. Melt water from glaciers not only causes sea-level rise, but also shifts mass from the pole to the equator, which slows down the rotation. (Picture the Earth as a spinning figure skater. The skater moves his or her arms in to spin more quickly or out to slow down.) The gravity pull from the Moon also contributes to the slow down, acting a little like a leaver break. However, the combination of these effects is not enough to explain the observations of the slowing down of Earth’s rotation: a contribution from Earth’s core must be added.

One of only a few people in the world investigating changes in Earth rotation, Dumberry contributed his expertise on Earth’s core-mantle coupling to the study. “Over the past 3000 years, the core of the Earth has been speeding up a little, and the mantle-crust on which we stand is slowing down.” As a consequence of Earth rotating more slowly, the length of our days is slowly increasing. In fact, a century from now, the length of a day will increase by 1.7 milliseconds. This may not seem like much, but Dumberry notes that this is a cumulative effect that adds up over time.

That’s the conclusion of a Harvard-led study published today in Science Advances. According to the authors, shrinking glaciers are affecting both the rotation rate and axial tilt of the Earth, by redistributing all that once-frozen water around the world. As water shifts from poles toward the equator, our planet’s midsection is becoming a wee bit wider. And that extra girth is causing the Earth to brake—in the same way that a spinning skater can slow herself down by sticking her arms out.

The study goes on to scaremonger about a potential 5 millisecond increase in your day from the slowdown by 2100. Of course, this is all based on computer models.

Nor does any of it prove anthropogenic causation. Why? Because they can’t. But, they are good at this doomsaying schtick.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change” Caused Earth To Slow By A Whopping 1.7 Milliseconds In 100 Years »

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

Ten Questions That Would Destroy Hillary On Her Server Issues

By William Teach April 7, 2016 – 6:33 am

This is brutal (via Ace)

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams
These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth. The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?

Would you be able to claim negligence?

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general and former intelligence officials saying that indictment is justified.

Others were prosecuted for much, much less. David Patreaus kept a notebook and left it at home (which was wrong). Hillary created a server for her convenience despite being told “no” and all those pesky rules and laws. She sent government business through that server. The laws are quite clear.

Here’s a sample of those questions

  • What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?
  • Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?
  • Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?
  • Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

And this one

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails.

Hillary is supposed to be uber-smart, the smartest lady in the room. She should have known. She signed security clearance and material handling documents, at least going back to her time in the Senate. There’s no way she didn’t know, and certainly her staff would have known (and many would not have had the security clearances to view some of the information).

Who wrote this brutal takedown? That would be Salon. Yes, extreme-left Salon. Who are certainly Bernie supporters.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Ten Questions That Would Destroy Hillary On Her Server Issues »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Special Snowflakes Love Free Speech, As Long As It Doesn’t Offend Them

By William Teach April 6, 2016 – 3:05 pm

It’s going to be quite amusing when all these college kids enter the civilian workforce and find out Things Don’t Work Like They Want

Most College Students Want Free Speech On Campuses — But Not When It’s Hate Speech

College students want free speech on their campuses but want their administrators to intervene when it turns into hate speech, though they disagree on whether college campuses are open environments and on how the media should cover campus protests, according to a new Gallup survey on the First Amendment released Monday.

About 78 percent of students surveyed said that colleges should allow “all types of speech and viewpoints,” while 22 percent noted that “colleges should prohibit biased or offensive speech in the furtherance of a positive learning environment.”

But students understand the limitations of free speech policies, especially with regard to discriminatory and offensive rhetoric. In recent months, many students of color have called on their college administrators to more fully address racism on campuses, arguing that their campuses do not promote openness and diversity.

“Students do appear to distinguish controversial views from what they see as hate speech — and they believe colleges should be allowed to establish policies restricting language and certain behavior that are intentionally offensive to certain groups,” the survey’s organizers wrote.

What that all means is that they consider any speech that they do not agree with as “hate speech”, which should be banned, and even prosecuted. They really aren’t quite up to speed with this whole 1st Amendment thing

While the vast majority of students surveyed said that the press should generally have unrestricted access to campus protests, close to half said that in some cases, there can be reasons to bar the press, like if protesters think that the reporter may be biased, or whether “the people at the protest say they have a right to be left alone.”

You may not like the press, but, hey, 1st Amendment!

The survey indicated that students are also concerned about the use of social media, with many noting that they feel that it can lead to uncivil and hateful discussions and that it can be easy to express opinions anonymously. For example, Yik Yak, a popular social network on college campuses, allows anonymous postings. Many college students have reported seeing hateful Yik Yak posts, increasing pressure on the company to crack down on people who use the app to harass others.

Here’s a cool thing, don’t use them. Conservatives are constantly told that if they don’t like a TV show, change the channel.

The survey, which was not linked in the article, is here.

Read: Special Snowflakes Love Free Speech, As Long As It Doesn’t Offend Them »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Special Snowflake Syndrome | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 6, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on “regret equals rape”.

Cubs have a 66% chance, per the Vegas lines, of making the playoffs.

Read: If All You See… »

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

$15 Minimum Wage Is A Bad Idea, Says Washington Post Editorial Board

By William Teach April 6, 2016 – 7:18 am

A little bit of common sense from the Washington Post Editorial Board, though, one gets the idea that they might be a wee bit upset that this might affect their own operations soon

$15 is the wrong goal for minimum-wage advocates

GOVERNORS OF the nation’s most and fourth-most populous states, California and New York, respectively, have signed a$15-per-hour minimum wage into law. In the District, a judge has just ruled that proponents can try to get a $15 minimum on the ballot in November; Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) supports accomplishing the $15 goal legislatively. What the success of the $15 minimum wage movement shows, in part, is that politics abhors a vacuum. In the absence of action by the Republican-controlled Congress to raise the federal minimum wage, states and cities encompassing about 65 percent of the U.S. population have decided to enact higher minimums, though usually less than $15. Maybe the GOP should have taken President Obama up on his request for a $9 minimum when he offered it back in his 2013 State of the Union address.

Perhaps Obama should have offered an actual plan, rather than a sticky note/box checking bit of a fluff. Furthermore, let’s remember that it was the GOP who raised the minimum wage the last time, as they slipped it into a defense spending bill that virtually every Democrat voted against.

Another lesson, however, is that, when it comes to public policy, popular and wise are not necessarily the same. Stuck on $7.25 per hour since 2009, the federal minimum is due for an increase, especially in light of stagnant wages and income inequality. The magnitude of that increase, however, is a matter for caution, given the widely varying labor-market conditions across the country and the likelihood that sharp mandatory wage hikes would reduce the supply of jobs. Also, the minimum wage is not an especially well-targeted way to help the working poor, because — unlike the earned-income tax credit wage subsidy — it benefit.

It’s simple economics: if you artificially raise the cost of labor, in many cases it will be a 50% to over 100% increase, businesses will have to cut back on the workers or raise costs. Which do you think business owners will choose, especially when it regards low-skilled or un-skilled labor? Sure, the worker might have skills, but they aren’t necessary for the jobs. Of course, proponents of the increase will say that the company should just have lower profits. But, the proponents did not put their lives on the line in opening the business. They aren’t the ones working long hours, and responsible for paying the loans, nor responsible for the operations. The owners could lose it all in a heartbeat.

Even phased in over a few years, $15 would represent a major departure, about which existing economic research offers little solid guidance. This might be why Alan B. Krueger, the minimum-wage expert who formerly headed Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, has written: “A minimum wage set as high as $12 an hour will do more good than harm for low-wage workers, but a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences.” The obvious risks — borne disproportionately by the very-low-income workers whom minimums are meant to help — are apparent even to advocates of the $15 minimum, as the many loopholes and caveats built into the California and New York increases implicitly demonstrate.

Businesses that can move will move. Low wage workers will be let go. Those who were out blowing off work to protest against their own businesses will surely be the first let go, and said businesses will surely look for cause in order to avoid unemployment payments. Many will be replaced with automation. Others will outsource. Part time positions will disappear. We already see this in Seattle, where the unemployment rate has spiked, yet, in the surrounding areas without the minimum wage raise have seen jobs increase.

There’s an old saying about being careful what you wish for, because you might get it. It’s not a positive saying. There will be quite a few people taking one for the team to make this wage happen.

Read: $15 Minimum Wage Is A Bad Idea, Says Washington Post Editorial Board »

Posted in Economy | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Cruz Wins Big In Wisconsin, Trump Takes It As You’d Expect

By William Teach April 6, 2016 – 6:33 am

In Wisconsin, Cruz took 48.3% of the vote to Trump’s 35.1%, with 99% reporting. This made The Donald very upset, and had him reacting in exactly the way that has turned many off, even pushing them into the #NeverTrump camp (I’m not one of them, I’ll still put on a gas mask and vote for him, at least at this time, in the general, because he’s still better than anything the Democrats can put up) with this statement

Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet— he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.

That’s a statement from not a sore loser, but  Sore Loser, and the statement isn’t just attacking Ted Cruz, he’s attacking those Republican/Conservative voters who prefer the message of Ted Cruz over Donald Trump. Trump accuses Cruz and others of illegal activity without a shred of proof. Team Cruz responded

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/717552272377520128

Thing is, Trump didn’t spend all that much time in Wisconsin. He didn’t get out there and shake hands, woo people, work the voters all across the state. Cruz did. No precinct was too small for Ted to hit. Because that’s what people do during elections. Trump shows up and expects people to comply.

Erik Erickson, who post the Trump comment, notes

Trump is classy you guys. Except when he’s not. Which is all the time. But if you think he’s a sore loser, go check out the special group of rabid, frothy-mouthed lunatic fringe fans he has on Twitter. Not the normals. The special ones. It’s a spectacle.

No, not all are like that, and I’d suspect that the majority aren’t like that. What we tend to see is those who are more vocal. Breitbart gets a bit snippy

10:00: Cruz also says that instead of negotiating with terrorists, he will rip to shreds the Iranian deal.

[Cruz is basically giving his stump speech and hardly adding anything new for such an important “turning point” speech.]

And the Trumpites had little meltdowns in the comments

  • I smell rats…. Watching the count at 2%, already a winning projection was made to Cruz? And it kept 20% to 21% apart. Could someone explain to me how it’s possible, without blocking the other candidate’s votes?
  • There were reports at polling stations, that when a vote was cast for Trump, the machine would spit the ballot out of the machine
  • I use to work for a company in Wisconsin and the people up there are kinda weird. No wonder Bernie and Cruz won.
  • Land of liberals.. well known for it..
  • The illegal Canadian migrant has sold his useless soul to the devil, the GOPe.

Just a sampling, and, of course, there are a bunch going with the utterly fake Ted Cruz sex story, plus Cruz birtherism. I’m not even going to go into the insanity of some Trumpites within my Twitter feed.

Trump is doing a great job in dividing the GOP. He doesn’t seem to understand that one shouldn’t go all in in attacking the people people that you need to come out and vote for you in the general election if you win the primaries.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Cruz Wins Big In Wisconsin, Trump Takes It As You’d Expect »

Posted in GOP | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil bat made from cutting down a carbon pollution sucking tree which causes desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on the Obama admin telling landlords they have to rent to hardcore criminals.

My Dodgers started off the season with a 15-0 thrashing of the Padres, the “worst opening day shutout in MLB history“.

Read: If All You See… »

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

A Carbon Tax Is A Conservative Answer To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach April 5, 2016 – 12:04 pm

Here we go again, with a Warmist espousing that carbon taxes are totes Conservative, this time, Bob Inglas, who was a Republican congressman from South Carolina from 1993-99 and 2005-11

Column: A carbon tax is a conservative answer to climate change

When 21 Florida mayors from Miami to Tampa and St. Petersburg beseeched debate moderators to make the presidential candidates talk about climate change, I was cheering for my favorite question: “Can free enterprise solve it?”

And, by free enterprise, he means “government dictates” and taxes.

Too often the question is, “Do you believe in climate change?” What’s there to believe? Climate change is just data. The question is what to do about the data. The question is whether we can rise to full citizenship, full humanity. The question is whether we can own up to full accountability.

I believe in that kind of accountability. I believe that we are the stewards of creation and that accountability brings blessings. I believe that accountability drives the free enterprise system to deliver innovation.

First, Bob, you have to prove that it is caused mostly/solely by the actions of Humanity. Second, government dictates are not part of free enterprise

The mayors’ open letter got right to the heart of the leadership required. They asked what investments candidates will make to protect coastal assets and coastal economies from the growing impacts of sea level rise and climate change; what specific policies they would put in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and what policies they would advance to ensure that America delivers on its international commitments.

That’s not free enterprise, that’s a dictatorial government making demands.

Our atmosphere is the dump for emissions. If we allow people to dump there without paying for the harm their dumping causes, they’ll dump freely. If we make them accountable for the harm their dumping causes, they’ll clean up their smokestacks or lose out to a clean energy competitor who has a smaller smokestack or no smokestack at all.

A carbon tax is a tipping fee for the atmosphere. At republicEn.org we don’t want just any kind of carbon tax, though. We want a carbon tax that’s paired with a dollar-for-dollar cut in existing taxes on income, so there is no growth of government. And we want the carbon tax applied to imports so that our trading partners have every incentive to join us in stopping the free dumping into the atmosphere.

Please explain how government instituting a tax is in any way related to the free market instituting a free market solution.

Of course, since he now directs republicEn, “a group of free enterprise believers committed to action on climate change”, he seems to be super thrilled with any government action that will increase the cash value of the company. Government action is not free enterprise.

Read: A Carbon Tax Is A Conservative Answer To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove