Huh: Study Finds Lots Of Sexual Assault On Liberal College Campuses

By William Teach January 22, 2016 – 5:41 pm

The hell you say!

New BJS study finds high rates of campus sexual assault

The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a new study Wednesday that offers some insight on the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses.

During the 2014 to 2015 school year alone, the study found that 10.3 percent of female undergraduates had been the victim of a sexual assault, which they defined as rape or sexual violence. The BJS surveyed 23,000 students from nine different universities for the comprehensive report — 15,000 female and 8,000 male.

The findings also showed that across the nine schools, rates of sexual assault were “significantly higher among nonheterosexual than heterosexual female students.”

In a statement provided to Yahoo News, Scott Berkowitz, president and founder of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network or RAINN, called the findings “alarming,” and pointed out the “huge variation in rates of sexual violence” between schools.

Interesting (not in a good way). Here you have institutions of higher learning which are administered mostly by people who lean politically to the left, staffed by the same, and have the same type of teachers. The students themselves tend to be left leaners, and learn to be even further to the left from the teachers, administrators, and staff.

Berkowitz also said the study’s results “show the importance of Congress passing the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, which will ensure that every campus implements a consistent annual survey.”

Here’s a better idea: people who lean politically to the left should stop all their sexual assault and rape.

Read: Huh: Study Finds Lots Of Sexual Assault On Liberal College Campuses »

Posted in Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 22, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fuels gas pump filling up an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on National Review dedicating an entire issue to exposing Trump as a liberal.

Read: If All You See… »

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

California Looks To Persecute Climate Skeptics

By William Teach January 22, 2016 – 10:48 am

Of course they are. This is what happens to modern day heretics, per the Daily Signal’s Hans Von Spakovsky

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute Exxon Mobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what Exxon Mobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”

Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing – which amounts to trying to censor or restrict speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they don’t want to just stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties.  As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.

Warmists have long called for criminalizing dissent from the approved doctrine of anthropogenic climate change (also, straight jailing Skeptics and/or killing them), and this is a ready made issue for them. At one time Exxon was concerned, then they did more research and realized that the concern of doom from CO2 was vastly overstated. But, the latter is Wrongthink

These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics.  Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.

Let’s not forget that a US Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, wants to “bring climate deniers to justice”. This is all a threat to Free Speech and liberty, as well as unfettered scientific investigation. It goes with the calls that “the debate is over.” They did this stuff in two other countries in Europe in the 1930’s and early 1940’s, as well.

Read: California Looks To Persecute Climate Skeptics »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: We Can’t Find Aliens Because Climate Change Killed Them

By William Teach January 22, 2016 – 6:28 am

This is how we take scientific musings, which make sense, and turn them into a clarion call for the Cult of Climastrology

Why Can’t We Find Aliens? Climate Change Killed Them

Fresh on the heels of the recent news surrounding the increasingly dire climate forecast for our planet, comes a possible warning from the cosmos: climate change in extraterrestrial environments is inevitable and, should life on hypothetically habitable worlds not act as a stabilizer for their environments, it serves as a “sell-by” date for all burgeoning lifeforms.

In new research published in the journal Astrobiology, astronomers of The Australian National University (ANU) pondered this scenario and realized that young habitable planets can become unstable very quickly. What once was a life-giving oasis becomes a hellish hothouse or frozen wasteland very quickly.

It’s worth hitting the link to read the whole thing, but, the upshot here is that some planets that produce life do not have the chance to see the climate stabilize to a point that intelligent life can develop. You get planets like Venus with a runaway greenhouse effect and Mars with its thin atmosphere. Obviously, stabilizing is a relative term, considering what has gone one with Earth’s atmosphere, such as very hot and multiple “snowball Earth” events, along with ice ages, mass volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and other events that caused mass extinctions. But, the atmosphere has been with a certain range allowing higher life forms to develop, thrive, and gain intelligence.

Chopra and Lineweaver suggest their new research provides some answer to this paradox and call it the “Gaian Bottleneck.” If life isn’t given a chance to stabilize its biosphere, then it’s doomed. (snip)

But now we have an intelligent lifeform that emerged as a dominant force, interrupting and exploiting our planet’s natural cycles. Humanity has inadvertently created a new bottleneck — let’s call it the “Industrial Bottleneck” — by causing irreversible changes to our delicate biosphere. Now, we’re seeing rapid impacts on our civilization as the balance in our climate is knocked off-kilter by the inexorable rise of greenhouse gases from industrial processes and energy needs.

Are these bottlenecks common throughout the cosmos? If an extraterrestrial lifeform “makes the grade” and survives the Gaian Bottleneck, does it then face another existential threat from their evolution into a industrial civilization?

Discovery took a sound bit of scientific inquiry and turned it into a whine about Mankind developing, forgetting that they wouldn’t be able to publish this screed on the Internet, nor broadcast their shows on television without that industrial revolution.

For now, this is all speculation, but what’s clear from observations of our own planet, is that the mother of all existential self-inflicted bottlenecks is on the horizon and, unless we find a way of reversing the damage we’ve caused to our environment, it seems we’ll quickly become just another lifeform that didn’t make the grade.

Read: Bummer: We Can’t Find Aliens Because Climate Change Killed Them »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Science | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll Shows Just 28% Of Americans Think Their Lives Have Gotten Better Under Obama

By William Teach January 22, 2016 – 6:11 am

This is a brutal poll in the final year of the Age of Obama. Of course, the Huffington Post positions this as being utterly partisan, with a subhead that reads “Republicans and Democrats may as well have been living in different countries for the past eight years”. The obvious inference, considering it’s the HuffPost, is that the problem is the Republicans

When President Barack Obama delivered his final State of the Union address last week, he was speaking to two very different countries.

One of them he leaves happier and better off than it was when he started his tenure in the White House nearly eight years ago, with an improving economy and a dominant international position. The other is, by almost every measure, worse.

Call them the “liberal America” and the “conservative America” that he decried in his 2004 keynote DNC address as the creation of political pundits.

A majority of Democrats in a new HuffPost/YouGov poll say that since Obama took office, their own lives have improved, the economy has gotten better and the United States has retained its role as the most powerful nation on Earth.

Republicans disagree on all three points.

Darned Republicans. Oh, wait a second

Only 51% of Dems think their lives have gotten better. Only 23% of Independents. The article writer, Ariel Andrews-Levy tries to pain this in as “lockstep partisanship”, before delving into an attempt to say things are not all that bad with the Independents. 41% say their lives have gotten worse, which includes 45% of independents. with 26% saying their lives are the same (25% I).

On the question of on the economy improving, just 40% agreed (71D, 15R, 33I). 41% say the economy has declined. 47% of Independents agreed with that.

Almost no one thinks the relationship between the parties has improved. 69% says it has gotten worse.

Another big deal question, on the US has become stronger internationally, sees 19% disagreeing. Only 45% of Democrats see the US becoming stronger internationally, with just 10% of Independents feeling the same. 21% say it has stayed the same, while 50% say the US has become weaker, with 53% of Independents agreeing to that statement.

Welcome to the Age of Obama.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Poll Shows Just 28% Of Americans Think Their Lives Have Gotten Better Under Obama »

Posted in Barry Obama | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Handy Dandy Cruz Vs Trump Comparison

By William Teach January 21, 2016 – 3:33 pm

This comes via Doug Ross, who put it together, and has all the links to support it at the link

Doug goes on to write

I would vote for Donald Trump over the Democrat nominee in the event he is the GOP candidate. Because I would vote for a Sesame Street character over the Democrat. But remember: you will get what you pay for.

At this point, so would I, in terms of voting for a Democrat vs a Republican. I’d vote for Jeb! before any Democrat. Doesn’t mean I won’t hold my nose and “pull the lever” for the less of two evils wankers. Would that be “wankerette” for Hillary? Eh. She’ll be under indictment soon. Of course, Democrats will still vote for her. But, anyhow, perhaps the folks supporting Trump who say they are Conservatives will start getting a clue. If this pisses people off, I won’t apologize. I know I’ve already had several Trump acolytes block me on Twitter.

Read: Your Handy Dandy Cruz Vs Trump Comparison »

Posted in GOP | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 21, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turned to desert from other people driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on not being able to change Trump’s record.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: It’s All YOUR Fault If Paris Agreement Fails

By William Teach January 21, 2016 – 10:15 am

Why don’t we start with all members of the Cult of Climastrology giving up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, especially all the big shots and other folks who put out enormous amounts if carbon pollution to attend the yearly COPs, along with other climate marches, demonstrations, and conferences? Heck, let’s just cancel all future COPs and the rest, in order to save Gaia from immolating

It’s Your Fault If The Paris Climate Agreement Fails

In Paris, world leaders debated how much global CO2 emissions could be reduced, who would pay for it and how could they trust each other to follow through.

This top-down, regulatory approach to addressing a highly distributed problem is a necessary but insufficient step to make a dent in rising global temperatures. In a recent peer-reviewed research paper, Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center suggests all the carbon-cutting promises countries committed to ahead of Paris would cut global temperatures by just 0.05°C (0.09°F) by 2100.

Top down, eh? This rather illuminates what I’ve been saying for a long, long time, that this is all about centralized government control.

While the Paris Climate Agreement is historic and gives reason to celebrate, without follow-through by the collective populations of those countries, any goal is unattainable. Top-down policy can be swayed and derailed by a presidential election, as we’ve seen in Australia and the U.K. in recent years. But a groundswell of individual and community action has the momentum to persist.

It goes on to say that this all rests on your shoulders, Mr. and Mrs and Miss middle and lower class peons, who just need to give up your modern lives for the sake of a worldwide cult.

“Dirty energy” must similarly become a social stigma if we are going to truly limit the effects of climate change. For us to successfully address such an existential challenge, every person needs to take pause and give a second thought before using energy from unsustainable sources. Every person must be given a choice to either use dirty energy or choose to avoid it.

Cult.

The power to follow through on the Paris climate talks rests more in our hands than we realize. We can use technology, our collective action and the power of the Internet to hackclimate change. All it takes is the will to do so.

Well, considering few Warmists actually match their lives with their talking points, I guess we’re “doomed”.

Read: Good News: It’s All YOUR Fault If Paris Agreement Fails »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

AP Tries To Fact Check Ted Cruz On Climate Change, Fails Miserably

By William Teach January 21, 2016 – 7:12 am

Nothing like having the news media to protect your cult. Even the headline itself highlights that this is politics, not science

Cruz worlds apart from the scientific consensus that Earth is warming due to human activity

Consensus is not science. Hard facts obtained through observation and applying the Scientific Method would be proof. Perhaps the AP could explain why the data is constantly changing. If a year is registered as 55.08F in 2010, then changes to 54.32 in 2012, and is now 54.23 then are these facts? Or just things to modify to fit a narrative? Even the base period has been lowered down by .04 in order to make the current warming look higher than the base period.

CRUZ: “The satellites that actually measure the temperature, that we’ve launched into the air to measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.”

THE FACTS: Scientists, including those who work with the very satellite measuring system that Cruz refers to, say he’s misusing the satellite data. They do show warming, albeit relatively little over the period Cruz cites, says Carl Mears, senior scientist for Remote Sensing Systems, which produces the data that Cruz refers to.

But by starting his comparison period in 1997, Cruz has selected a time when temperatures spiked because of an El Nino weather pattern. Starting at an artificially high point minimizes the rate of increase since then, Mears said, adding, “If you start riding your bike at the top of a big hill, you always go downhill, at least for a while.”

Would it surprise you that this “fact check” is co-written by Seth Borenstein, an uber-Warmist, meaning he is less than a neutral “fact checker”? Who then goes on to do the exact type of cherry picking that he accused Cruz of doing?

The long-term trend that Mears’ satellites show is about 0.7-degree warming since 1979, when satellites started measuring temperature. Ground-based monitors show a warming of about 1 degree during the same period. And 1979 was not among the top five hottest or coldest years in the 36 years of records.

Then we get

CRUZ: “John Kerry said in 2009 the polar ice caps will be entirely melted by 2013. … Has anyone noticed the polar ice caps are still there? In fact, there was an expedition that went down to Antarctica to prove that the polar ice caps were melting … (the ship) got stuck in the ice because in fact the polar ice caps have increased. They are larger than they were. So not only was Kerry incorrect, he was spectacularly absolutely opposite the facts.”

THE FACTS: Kerry was talking about the ice cap at the North Pole, and it’s true that it hasn’t melted as he predicted. But in pointing that out, Cruz distorts the facts by referring to a ship that got stuck in Antarctic ice a world away near the South Pole.

Scientists do say it’s only a matter of decades before the sea ice around the North Pole will be melted during the summer months, and some countries’ navies are already exploring the area for quicker sea routes. Scientific measurements in Antarctica — where thick ice sheets sit atop land, not floating on the ocean as in the Arctic — show the ice sheets are diminishing on one side while growing on the other. But the fact that a ship got stuck in ice in the Antarctica doesn’t tell us anything about the phenomenon.

First, said fact checkers try to obfuscate. They were apparently separate comments regarding Kerry and the ship. But, it is cute that Borenstein has now shifted the goalposts of a doomed North Pole to several decades from now. Nor does he mention that science is showing that the melt in a port of Antarctica seems to be coming from underneath, most likely from volcanic activity, rather than someone using a gas stove.

CRUZ: “If you’re a big-government politician, if you want more power, climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory … because it can never, ever, ever be disproven.”

THE FACTS: Far from being pseudo-science, climate change is the consensus view among real scientists.

Again, consensus is not science. And, those who are believers have set up a system where their beliefs cannot be disproven. And, warming is not proof of anthropogenic causation: just warming. Which happens. The Cult of Climastrology needs to prove their hypothesis through science, not talking points and failed computer models, especially when the satellite records disagree with the surface records. Let’s not forget that NASA stated that “Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.” Now that the satellite data disagrees, Warmists hate them. They’d prefer to use the land based measurements, which include tons of improperly sited stations, stations that over-estimate warming, and, rather than lower their values for smoothing, they increase the values on properly sited stations which refuse to cooperate with the talking points.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: AP Tries To Fact Check Ted Cruz On Climate Change, Fails Miserably »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Coulter: Calling Trump Anything Other Than Awesome Is Mean

By William Teach January 21, 2016 – 6:45 am

Ann Coulter continues her love affair with non-Conservative Donald Trump, and has seemingly given up on even caring that he is not a conservative

Ann Coulter: Liberal and Conservative Media Unite Against Trump

We have never had total war against a candidate like we’re seeing with Donald Trump. All elements of national media are uniting to stop him.

Look for a fake Trump scandal to break — probably from a conservative news outlet — right before the Iowa caucus.

Perhaps Conservative media outlets have noticed something Ann has missed, or is ignoring: Trump is not a Conservative. He’s a middle of the road Republican, much less a conservative than Mitt Romney is. Remember the freakout from Conservatives over Mitt? Let’s note that Ann supported Mitt, as well, which made a bit more sense.

The attacks on Trump from the “conservative” media calling him a socialist, a Democrat, a flip-flopper, a fake conservative are just name-calling. I notice that the accusers never include examples, not true ones, anyway. Here are some examples of how Trump has always been for Americans first. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who likes us more than he likes foreigners — and the rich donors who employ them?

How about that Trump supports a “pathway to citizenship” for illegals, otherwise known as amnesty? How about all his donations to Democrats, occurring not that long ago. His support of an assault weapons ban and increasing the waiting period for purchase? His support for abortion on demand, and late term abortion, which suddenly changed when he decided to run as a Republican? He was a registered Democrat till 2009. He’s for taking private property through eminent domain to give to another private entity. Is that enough, Ann?

Trump’s business is real estate, and real estate can’t be outsourced. His flag is planted in this country. If America goes down, his empire goes down.

Is Ann saying Trump wants to be president to simply keep his empire going? She had stated that he was running due to love of country. That is something no one on the right is really questioning, so, Ann created her own little strawman (strawwoman?) to cover the fact that Trump is not a conservative, and, despite Trump’s claims that he wants to secure the border, he wants amnesty. Ann has argued against amnesty many times. She wasn’t even that big a supporter of a border fence, saying there are better ways, ones that force illegals to leave the country because, if you go after employers, schools that host students who overstay their visas, make it illegal to rent to illegals, refuse to give them ID, and others, they’ll leave.

Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless viewers that Trump is not a “real Republican.” They seem not to grasp that most viewers are saying, That’s fantastic! Thanks for reminding me. (I look forward to conservative talk show hosts 20 years hence billing themselves as “Trump Republicans.”)

Is Trump a Republican? He has some conservative/Republican ideas, and fits in perfectly with the squishy GOP. That’s not the argument. He’s not a conservative, and he’s building a cult of personality the same as Obama did. But, Ann cannot argue his bonafides, because they are mostly squishy, so she must insult those who refuse to drink Trump’s kool aid. Which has led to a brutal comment fight at Breitbart. One has to wonder, would Andrew Breitbart support Trump, or, would he recognize that Trump is just another squishy Republican?

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin had a little hissy fit on the trail for Trump (would it be snarky to explain to Trump that Palin might quit halfway through?)

Palin called Trump “a redhead from the big red Apple” and turned her attention to Republicans attacking their own frontrunner. “They’re saying we’re not red enough, we’re not conservative enough. And I say, what the heck do they know about conservatism?”

I know Conservatives do not support amnesty, late term abortion, gun restrictions, and eminent domain for private use. Nor give tons of money to Democratic candidates, some very recently.

Read: Coulter: Calling Trump Anything Other Than Awesome Is Mean »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove