Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”?

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 8:16 am

In other words, are we set for more preachy movies about Hotcoldwetdry?

Can Hollywood save us from climate catastrophe?

By taking on the link between football and brain injuries, the recently released movie“Concussion” reminds us of the potential for Hollywood to shape attitudes and beliefs about controversial topics through entertainment.

The film has put America’s most popular sport under a microscope and sparked a dialogue about children participating in contact sports and the role of the National Football League in preventing injuries to its players.

Would this be the movie that bombed? And made even less money this past weekend. And isn’t even being mentioned at major sports sites like Fox Sports, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN, among others. While an important issue, no one is talking about it. So, I’m not sure if this is the best example.

Certainly, there is the potential for a similar movie to be made about climate change — one that builds on “An Inconvenient Truth” and speaks to a new generation.

Let’s hope so, because it’s amusing when Hollywood makes a preachy movie and it tanks. People do not want preachy at the movies: they want to be entertained.

Some from the scientific community argue that interjecting Hollywood into the climate debate may be a bad thing, as it could further blur the lines between fact and fiction, especially with a public that remains skeptical of science.

But, with a public that holds views on climate change that largely align with political affiliation, Hollywood might offer a rare opportunity to cut across these lines with a message that is both entertaining and eye-opening. Indeed, there is already evidence that movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” can change consumer attitudes and beliefs about climate change.

Funny part is, The Day After Tomorrow is more about a coming ice age than “global warming”.

As scientists learn more about the potential impacts of climate change, more stories are emerging that easily could be spun to read like nightmarish sci-fi movies. Here are a few examples:

  • Ancient bacteria brought back to life as glacier ice melts cause pandemic
  • Global food stocks collapse from widespread drought, ocean acidification that dissolves shellfish and the spread of neurotoxins in fish, unraveling social order and leading to war, or worse, nuclear confrontation
  • Rising temperatures shut down photosynthesis by phytoplankton, the source of most breathable oxygen on earth, suffocating all life

They would bomb. And bomb badly. The old 50’s monster movies did well because there was concern, legitimate, real concern, over a real issue: nuclear weapons. They were new, and scary, and movie makers used them to great effect to create monsters, such as Godzilla and giant tarantulas, to entertain without preaching.

Hey, I have a great idea: perhaps the Cult of Climastrology could produce rock solid evidence, based on the Scientific Model, that proves that mankind’s release of CO2 is mostly/solely responsible for climatic changes.

Read: Say, Can Hollywood Save Us From “Climate Catastrophe”? »

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

Semi-Retired President Gets Weepy Over Mostly-Ineffectual Gun Rules

By William Teach January 6, 2016 – 7:51 am

I noted yesterday that Obama’s new “gun control” regime would pretty much have a statistically insignificant effect on “gun violence”. Ed Morrissey called them a “restatement of existing law”, and that they “aren’t exercises in executive power; they’re admissions of incompetent governance.” Allahpundit notes they are empty gestures, and points to Charles W. Cooke, who writes

1) In order to make his actions appear meaningful, Obama is going to have to pretend that they represent serious change. If he does that, though, he’ll permit his opponents to say, “look, we just did big gun control by executive order, we have other things to do, and we’re not doing it again.” That matters. The Left makes great hay out of the “we never do anything” line, and its more effective advocates use our present inertia to justify the need for experimentation. Insofar as there is any, Obama has slowed the momentum for further gun-control. This is not how you win the argument.

For the most part, that’s all these actions are: appearances. And, we get this

President Barack Obama grew emotional Tuesday as he made a passionate call for a national “sense of urgency” to limit gun violence.

He was introduced by Mark Barden, whose son Daniel was killed in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Obama circled back to that shooting in the final moments of his speech.

“Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad,” Obama said, pausing to wipe away tears.

He added: “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day,” referring to his hometown where he began his political career.

Yes, it does happen on the streets of Chicago every day (he should talk to his buddy Rahm Emanuel). And in Baltimore. Detroit. Newark. And many other mostly Democratic Party run cities. And these empty gestures will have zero effect on these events. Does anyone think that criminals will say “oh, goodness, I have to have a background check for online purchases, where I’m not purchasing guns anyhow?” They don’t care about laws regarding murder, attempted murder, theft, assault, dealing drugs, etc.

And all those Democratic cities have draconian gun control. California is a liberal gun grabbers wet dream.

But, really, this is what Obama gets weepy about? What about other things

Does anyone remember Obama getting weepy when he made his brief statement, from the golf course, over the beheading of James Foley, then went right back to the golf course?

How about when Baltimore was breaking records for murder in 2015? He didn’t get weepy over San Bernardino, when Islamists killed Americans. Nor Fort Hood. Sarah Palin wonders

America is forced to weep over Obama’s release of violent criminals into our communities – like the 121 illegal aliens who committed murders after they were released from custody by the Obama administration instead of being deported. And that doesn’t take into account the others we don’t know about.

The whole world weeps waiting for American leadership in these troubled times as Islamic savages commit genocide against the Christians of the Middle East and terrorize innocent people in cities across the globe.

Heck, how about some weeping for the record number of people who have dropped out of the work force in despair

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Semi-Retired President Gets Weepy Over Mostly-Ineffectual Gun Rules »

Posted in Barry Obama | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Special Snowflake Warmist Isn’t Impressed With Old Gray Hair Warmists

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 2:39 pm

Thankfully, we now have the opinion of Clara Nevins, a “high school activist, dancer, and writer” (strange, she doesn’t want to be a STEM major?), who isn’t impressed with all those old fogey Warmists when she took a long fossil fueled trip to the Paris Hotcoldwetdry conference

A Millennial’s Take on Climate Activism

….

Paris was abuzz. At the Chamber of Commerce, 200 adults in business suits, wearied by two hours of oil companies’ execu-speak, slammed coffee at the 11 am break. There I was, a 5-foot-3 15 year old in a ponytail in a room full of blue suits and gray hair. I felt so out of place.

The next speakers were equally ancient-looking oil industry CEOs again throwing around terms like API, KBD, and NGL. I tried my best to follow but I could not comprehend all the acronyms, and I certainly couldn’t imagine seeing my friends in the audience trying to understand.

The next day I hoped I might feel more at home at the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network conference. My mom and I arrived at a tired conference hall filled to the brim with women my mom’s age. One woman was standing up, swaying to the bongos played by two indigenous women while another woman tried to get everyone’s attention.

“Ladies, before we start the day off, I want to welcome the oceans and the rivers into this room,” the woman at the podium began. At that moment, I felt like I was in the 70s Coke commercial, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.” This way of rallying felt so antiquated. Again, I felt so out of place.

Rather ageist, wouldn’t you say? Even sneering. And she totally wasn’t inspired, and wants to find a way to get all the other Special Snowflakes involved. Heck, they might as well, because, thanks to the economic and other policies from the people and political parties they support, the jobs market stinks.

When older people with flowy hair or business suits speak about climate change, it doesn’t have an urgency that seems like ours when in fact, this issue is more ours than any single cause.

So, obviously, she has Big Ideas to solve this who issue of a minor 0.8C increase in global temperatures over 166 years, right? A plan to stop the prognosticated doom of a 1.2C rise by 2100?

I realized I shouldn’t dismiss or have disdain for the people who created the movement and have led us to this point, but now, we must take it from here, make it our own, and transition it with language and stakes that will have meaning for my millennial peers. So my fellow millennials, rise up, show up and make noise to send a message. Buy conscientiously and sustainably and forcefully encourage your parents and friends to do the same. This issue needs fresh and innovative ideas so use your vote, use your wallet and use your force because the power is in our hands.

She may not have gray hair and be her mom’s age or ancient-looking or antiquated. She’s not banging on bongos, acting like the hippies who started all this, but, her ideas are exactly the same. Spreading awareness and a token change in consumerism. Just with more energy!

Read: Special Snowflake Warmist Isn’t Impressed With Old Gray Hair Warmists »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

The Deal In Oregon: My Take

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 10:30 am

Jeffrey asked yesterday why I wasn’t writing about the “standoff” in Oregon. Well, let’s see. First off, I really do not care all that much. These are some foolish people trying to make a point, yet the people they are supposedly making a point over want them to stop. There’s no doubt that there are some harsh, and seemingly inconsistent, penalties being placed on the Hammonds. There’s no doubt that it should disturb everyone how much land out west the federal government owns. There’s no doubt that federal agencies like BLM have always ruled with a heavy hand. The feds are constantly adding new rules and regulations and penalties, taking more land, causing problems for the folks who live out west.

But, these “militia” who took over the building could have done it better. Leave the guns at home. That’s not to say that they can’t have them, or that there’s anything wrong with them, but the optics of having them guaranteed that the focus of the leftist media would be on the guns, rather than on the complaints.

That said, are they engaged in the 1st Amendment right to “protest peaceably”? They took over an unused building in the middle of nowhere. No one is making threats. No one is trashing the place. Or damaging it. IMO, the best thing would be to simply ignore them. No big police presence. No standoffs. Leave them along and they’ll go away. the White House wisely calls this a “local matter”.

My only real interest in this is the double standard as pushed by the liberal media and Leftists. Consider how the media and leftists portrayed protests in Wisconsin. Did they highlight the millions in damage to the State house? Or the filth? The feces? No, it was pretty much fawning coverage and support, all while these protesters interrupted state business.

How about in Ferguson? The most folks on the left could do was give a little “tsk, tsk” as the “protesters” became violent, looting stores, burning buildings, firing guns, fighting, assaulting police officers. Made threats. We saw something similar in Baltimore and other places.

How about the entire Occupy movement? The main demonstration in NYC featured the need for safe spaces within the park to protect women from being raped. There were murders, stabbings, and assaults. Fighting. People defecating on police cars and people’s doorsteps. Damaging property. In other areas, Occupiers were charged with violence, including intention to blow up a bridge. Were they called out on this by the same people who are calling the militia in Oregon “terrorists”? Saying they should be shot and killed? Blown up? Of course not.

Look at the USA Today Editorial Board

Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy proclaimed Monday to a crowd of TV cameras and reporters that he and a small group of armed followers had taken over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon to “restore and defend the Constitution.”

The trouble with Bundy’s patriotic sounding claim is that the Constitution stands for the rule of law — which Bundy and his crew are breaking. They have no right to take over the federally owned Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The protesters, some armed, show their blatant disregard not just for the nation’s laws but also for the danger they have created.

Interestingly, the Founders rather did the same thing. Took up arms against the Government. And used them. These guys aren’t using them.

But, it’s instructive how suddenly we’re supposed to Follow The Law when it’s a protest that doesn’t follow the Leftist Narrative. Perhaps a Leftist could explain this double standard?

Read: The Deal In Oregon: My Take »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Change Killed Off The Real King Kong!

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 7:20 am

Seriously, how could our ancestors do this? Driving fossil fueled vehicles and refusing to buy local and using air conditioning. Bad humans! This is an AFP article being pimped by ultra-leftist Raw Story in order to push The Narrative about how evil climate change is

Climate change starved the Earth’s ‘real King Kong’ into extinction: researchers

The largest ape to roam Earth died out 100,000 years ago because it failed to tuck into savannah grass after climate change hit its preferred diet of forest fruit, scientists suggest.

Gigantopithecus — the closest Nature ever came to producing a real King Kong — weighed five times as much as an adult man and probably stood three meters (nine feet) tall, according to sketchy estimates.

In its heyday a million years ago, it inhabited semi-tropical forests in southern China and mainland Southeast Asia. (snip)

These narrow preferences (of food) did not pose a problem for Gigantopithecus until Earth was struck by a massive ice age during the Pleistocene Epoch, which stretched from about 2.6 million to 12,000 years ago.

That’s right, it died out long ago. What would be an interesting bit of science on things that happened in history is being used to promote an agenda regarding climate change today. It was global cooling, an actual ice age, that seemingly helped kill off the giant apes. The article, with its prolific use of the phrase climate change, is supposed to make people think of the current climatic changes (without mentioning that the current warm period isn’t even as warm as previous warm periods) and worry about DOOM.

Now, if only today’s Warmism would die out. Of course, it will be around for quite some time, regardless of what real science says, and regardless of what actual events show, because this is about pushing a hardcore Leftist political agenda.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Killed Off The Real King Kong! »

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

Obama Releases His Bland EO On Guns, Which Won’t Change A Thing

By William Teach January 5, 2016 – 6:59 am

As I wrote yesterday, this is box checking by Obama, some red meat thrown to his gun grabby base. It really ends up being very little adoo over nothing, a 1 ounce bit of steak when Progressives expected a 16oz T-bone

(White House) Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to address these horrible tragedies.

The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:

Feel free to read through it. At best, it might stop a few bad guys/gals from purchasing a firearm. There is an expansion of requiring background checks at gun shows and the Internet by gun sellers. Does it cover individuals selling a few guns yearly? We don’t quite know.

(Mother Jones) But as my colleague Mark Follman wrote Monday, that clarification won’t be enough: “Expanding background checks through a broader interpretation of current federal law still won’t close the so-called gun show loophole; hundreds of thousands of firearms will continue to be bought and sold with minimal regulation, both online and in person. Only an act of Congress could change that comprehensively.”

Huh. Anyhow, he wants 200 new ATF agents to “enforce gun laws.” You know, the same folks who ran rifles obtained through straw-purchases and ran them to Mexico, then lost track of them, leading to hundreds of deaths and injuries.

He includes a bit about increasing mental health reporting. This may violate patient confidentiality.

And, he wants research on smart gun technology. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. If someone could come up with a reliable method that would allow a weapon to be fired when it needed to be fired, without a lot of fuss, but secured when it should be secured, they’d make a lot of money. The current crop of “smart guns” are not particularly reliable, and are of low caliber.

Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Congress should pass a bill requiring all presidential protection to only carry one the few available smart guns. If it’s the guns that are dangerous, well, we want to protect the POTUS and his family correctly, don’t we?

Personally, I really do not have much in the way of pushback on this. It really will have little effect overall, and it won’t affect people who want to purchase a gun legally.

What it won’t do is have any affect on the people who want to use firearms for nefarious purposes. It won’t change the dynamic of turning Democratic Party run cities like, say, Chicago, into safe areas. It does nothing to get guns out of the hands of bad guys, except one or two a year.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Releases His Bland EO On Guns, Which Won’t Change A Thing »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Man Surrounded By Lots Of Folks With Guns Trots Out Worthless Gun Control

By William Teach January 4, 2016 – 3:19 pm

Let’s remember, Mr. Obama is constantly surrounded by armed men and women, many of whom are carrying weapons that the average citizen is not legally allowed to own without a super deluxe permit from the US Government, and most people who want that permit will be denied (automatic weapons). Yet, he wants to deny you protection…..oh, heck, really, right now, it’s all about the optics, because nothing he’s proposing will alleviate “gun violence” in the least. It will, though, make those who sell firearms jumping for joy happy, because there’s sure to be a spike in gun sales once again. Has anyone checked Obama’s stocks or see if he owns a firearms store?

(Politico)  President Barack Obama launches an aggressive rollout strategy this week meant to contain the political fallout from upcoming executive actions on gun control and to cast himself as the voice of common sense in a raging culture war.

The imagery could not be better for the White House. His Monday afternoon meeting with his top law enforcement officials could split-screen with images illustrating some of the problems caused by the proliferation of guns as the president sees it: Texans strapped with AK-47s at a deli counter and armed ranchers occupying a federal refuge in Oregon.

Of course, there’s no picture of a Texan carrying a semi-automatic AK-47 in the article…seriously, what self respecting Texan would buy and carry a Ruski designed weapon? You know what would be great optics? Pictures of gang bangers running around Chicago shooting the place up. You know, that Democratic Party run city with draconian gun control measures. Or, we can show San Bernardino, in a state with all the gun control measures liberals have been advocating for.

The rest is all about the politics and optics, which, really, is all that Obama has.

(AP) At the top of the list is an effort to expand background checks on gun sales by forcing more sellers to register as federally licensed gun dealers. The changes would be aimed at some unregistered sellers who skirt the background check laws by selling at gun shows, online or informal settings. Other moves being considered include improving reporting of lost and stolen weapons and beefing up inspections of licensed dealers, according to a person familiar with the plans who would not be named discussing proposals before they are finalized.

None of this will do anything to stop all the massive gun-play mostly occurring in Democratic Party run cities. Hence, it is simply a Doing Something measure. It would only affect a tiny portion of private and gun show sales. The question is, what kinds of orders will they be? Because, much like with his “amnesty” type orders, these could quickly create federal lawsuits. Like the kind he lost over his amnesty orders.

If guns are so dangerous, why is Obama surrounded by them? Especially ones which are automatic, have suppressors, are high caliber (there are .50cal on the roof of the White House and snipers who protect him when he travels use them), have large capacity magazines, and are those evil “assault weapon” looking types that only the military is supposed to have.

Read: Man Surrounded By Lots Of Folks With Guns Trots Out Worthless Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 4, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising sea in a world turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Refuge, with a post explaining what is going on in the Oregon standoff.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Sue Mass. Over Failing To Reduce Emissions

By William Teach January 4, 2016 – 10:30 am

This one caught my eye, because it always seems to be about Big Government solutions with this crowd

(Boston Globe) At a Beacon Hill hearing in November, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton was asked whether the state, if it continues current policies without taking new action, would meet its legal obligation to make substantial cuts to its carbon emissions by the end of the decade.

“Not a chance,” he told members of the state Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change, even as he stressed that the administration supports new steps, such as importing hydroelectric power, to reduce emissions.

That answer, which alarmed some lawmakers, has been cited as evidence in briefs to the Supreme Judicial Court that the state has failed to take sufficient action to comply with the state’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires the state to cut its greenhouse gases 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

This week, lawyers for the Conservation Law Foundation will argue before the state’s top court that the administrations of Governor Charlie Baker and former governor Deval Patrick have violated the law by not enacting policies that would result in the required emissions reductions. The challenge of making those cuts, they note, will be greater with Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station — the state’s largest provider of clean power — set to close as early as next year.

Interestingly, much of the rest of the article notes how difficult, and expensive!, it is to comply with the law these fools in Massachusetts passed. And that they seem to be putting quite a bit of their eggs in the hydropower basket, much of which would need to come from other states. We even get a quote from Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Warmism) yammering about the need for “political will to move forward”.

That said, is it just me, or does anyone else find it interesting that the solution always seems to be “More and bigger government” rather than “say, I believe in this, so, what can I change in my own life to help”? It’s almost like this is about politics, not science.

Read: Warmists Sue Mass. Over Failing To Reduce Emissions »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Making People Consider Their Legacy Is The Secret To Making People Care About Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach January 4, 2016 – 7:46 am

More psychological claptrap from the Cult of Climastrology, as explained by two youngsters

Here’s the secret to making people care about climate change
Make them think about their legacy.

Here’s a depressing statistic if you’re worried about climate change: 63 percent of Americans say they’re concerned about the issue, but only 47 percent think the government should do anything about it.

That divide, known as the “attitude-behavior” gap, isn’t all that uncommon. And activists and politicians have tried all kinds of strategies to address it. They’ve appealed to people’s better nature (“Help save the children!”) and to their self-interest (“You’ll get a tax write-off!”).

Each of these methods can work under certain conditions, but both have their limitations. What if there were a way to combine the best aspects of each — to use an appeal that simultaneously targets self-interest and our desire to help others in need? Our research suggests a promising way to do just that — by encouraging people to consider their own future legacy.

It’s so easy! Why haven’t Warmists been doing this? Oh, right, they have been. For 25+ years they’ve trotted out this position, that we need to Do Something in order to protect the future.

Philosophers, religious figures, and others have long recognized the role that a desire to be remembered positively can play in motivating beneficence and kindness toward others. These self-serving desires are often harnessed to great effect in politics; our research suggests that their reach could be much wider with a little creativity and effort.

Unfortunately for these researchers, a goodly chunk of people will think “my kids and future generations will think I’m an idiot for Doing Something about anthropogenic climate change, damaging the economy, increasing the cost of living, and putting massive restrictions on their lives, all for an issue which was never proven scientifically.”

This dovetails nicely with the recent pushes on how to Make People Care in other ways, because providing actual facts has been a loser, because the facts are less than reality, and all the future DOOmmongering has failed.

Read: Making People Consider Their Legacy Is The Secret To Making People Care About Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove