Senate Democrats Decide To Explain Snowmaggedon To Deniers

By William Teach January 23, 2016 – 8:23 am

This is the reason I so often refer to ‘climate change’, as in, the belief that all changes in the climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, as Hotocoldwetdry. They Cult of Climastrology has created a tautology, whereby everything can either be directly blamed on ‘climate change’ or linked to it in a negative fashion. Witness

Doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation, just warming.

Got that? Heat causes more snow. Must have been super hot during the last glacial age.

First, since records only go back so far, we do not know that. Second, it’s rather disturbing that elected officials use a derogatory term intended to equate non-belief with AGW to Holocaust denial, in effect slurring fellow American citizens they are supposed to represent for Wrongthink.

Hotcoldwetdry. Heat causes more snow. These people really are nuts.

That linked article does nothing to prove anthropogenic climate change. Belief is not causation. Nor are talking points along with unhinged pronouncements. Causation is the argument, one for which Warmists cannot provide rock solid scientific evidence. But, they do not feel the need to provide that evidence, because this is about Belief, and creating more government dominance.

Read: Senate Democrats Decide To Explain Snowmaggedon To Deniers »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Joe Klein: Democrats Are Stumbling Towards Socialism

By William Teach January 23, 2016 – 8:09 am

When I first saw the headline to this Time piece by Joe Klein (The Democrats Stumble Toward 50 Shades of Socialism), I figured I was going to be leading with “au, contraire, Joe, they are moving towards Progressivism, also known as “nice fascism”, but, he somewhat mentions this

A specter is haunting the Democratic Party–the specter of socialism. A question is being asked, mostly by Republicans, but also by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? Debbie Wasserman Schultz got it last July and, ever the robotic partisan, answered by saying the more important difference was between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Chuck Schumer said it depended on how you define the two, and then refused to define the two. And, most significantly, Hillary Clinton said, “Well, I can tell you what I am … I’m a progressive Democrat.”

Now this is not a difficult question to answer. Webster’s says socialism is “a social system or theory in which the government owns and controls the means of production.” Democrats tend to believe in free enterprise. They think government should regulate the means of production, not own it. They have taken great pains to separate themselves from socialism, which has always been a poison word in American politics. And yet, according to a recent Des Moines Register poll, 43% of Iowa Democrats describe themselves as socialists. What gives?

What gives is that, first, it’s interesting that Joe refers to “free enterprise”, rather than Capitalism. Because, more and more, Democrats are looking for more and more governmental control of the economic system, along with quiet calls for replacing the capitalist system. Second, the means of production thing covers just one of the 3 cores of Democratic political theory, which determines whether it is a Socialist, Liberal, or Conservative type system. American conservatives are more akin to Classic Liberalism, not true conservatism. For socialism, the moral core has the government staying the heck out of our private lives even more than Classic Liberalism. Does anyone see that happening? Democrats want government involved in all facets of our lives. Then there’s the political core, where virtually everything is up for a vote and almost no one is excluded. They do like this, except when they lose.

Klein goes on to note that they are not really Socialists, but more “European-style social democrats, who believe in a robust redistribution of wealth and government control of some of the means of production–like the health care system.” He goes on to describe what Hillary and Sanders are pushing, finally noting that

But each of those ideas is more “progressive” than “socialist.”

In that, he’s correct. Democrats really shouldn’t be put on the political scale to the Left: they are actually way to the Right, close to Fascism. It is an Authoritarian political system, which also deals with Absolutism, meaning the government, particularly the central government, is in charge of everything. Everything is dominated by the central government. It believes in the use of force and coercion to keep the citizenry in line. It requires Belief in the primacy of Government, replacing religion as the measure of faith and worship. It’s descended from Fascism, but, doesn’t share all traits. Basically, modern Progressives mix and match their beliefs, all for the good of the Government. While they yammer about being against “oppression”, they like to oppress those who do not hold the correct thoughts, and they want Government to force compliance, for instance.

Indeed, the Democrats should worry about their attachment to big government, which, in America, has come to mean more unaccountable bureaucracy, like the Department of Veterans Affairs; more inefficiency, like the weird tangle of federal job-training programs, each more irrelevant than the last; and more perverse incentives, like welfare programs that ask for nothing–no personal responsibility–in return from their recipients.

But, that is exactly what the Progressives want, at least in terms of a very strong central government. They don’t seem to notice, or, at times, even care, about the problems that come with Big Government, nor that this same BG can reach out and make their lives miserable.

If it was just the political theory of Socialism that we were facing, that could be beaten back, because at least it would include unfettered access to the ballot box and government staying out of our lives. Progressives refuse to accept when they lose at the ballot box, and, again, want heavy control of our lives by Government. Their control of so many facets of American life, particularly the education system, ensures that more and more believe in the primacy of government.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Joe Klein: Democrats Are Stumbling Towards Socialism »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove