Bummer: We Now Have To Look Forward To Doom From Killer Robots Along With ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 5, 2016 – 5:57 pm

First the robots take all the jobs from the minimum wage earners, who then have to suffer out in the scorching heat and bitter cold from too much heat trapping carbon pollution, then the robots rise up and wipe us all out.

Pandemics, killer robots and climate change ‘urgent’ security fears

Killer robots, cyber attacks, Islamic fundamentalism, pandemics and climate change are among the major threats facing modern life.

Those are some of the conclusions in an 80-page report published ahead of the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of top military thinkers, academics and politicians.

“The conflicts and crises that most preoccupy the world transcend and put into question borders and boundaries to a stunning extent,” write the report’s authors.

Prolonged droughts or fierce storms linked to a warming world are likely to exacerbate instability across Africa, the Middle East and in small island states, they argue.

And then the robots kill everyone. Unless the “extreme weather” makes them all rust. Or they get stuck in the rising seas. Or maybe the totally acidified oceans melt the robots.

I do love how they say things are going to be worse in areas of the world that are typically shitholes because of Hotcoldwetdry. This is the MO of Warmists: everything is either caused by or linked to anthropogenic climate change. I’d recommend reading this article on Sir Karl Popper and the line between science and pseudoscience. I’ll leave you with this one snippet

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory.

OK, one more, regarding whether something is scientific or not

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

I wonder what he would think of ‘climate change’?

Read: Bummer: We Now Have To Look Forward To Doom From Killer Robots Along With ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is coffee which will be decimated by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post noting Hillary lied about her Goldman-Sachs speaking fees.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, What’s Happening With Cimate Change In Super Bowl States?

By William Teach February 5, 2016 – 11:15 am

It’s axiom that almost any occurrence will lead the Cult of Climastrology to interject their idiocy into said subject. In this case, the Super Bowl

(WKYC) How is climate change impacting the home states of Super Bowl teams Broncos and Panthers?

On Sunday, February 7, the Carolina Panthers and the Denver Broncos will hit the field at Levi’s Stadium to go head-to-head in the Super Bowl.

While one of these teams will take home the big trophy, there’s no winner when it comes to the climate change impacts each state is experiencing. Colorado, the home state of the Denver Broncos, is experiencing increases in droughts and wildfires, and decreases in snowpack. North Carolina, the home state of the Carolina Panthers, is experiencing increases in sea level rise, extreme heat, and flooding.

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Let’s be clear: there’s no scientific proof that any of those things are happening due to the activities of mankind. For North Carolina, it was a rather boring summer, with only 1 day above 100 here in the Raleigh area, where the average is 5-6. Flooding was less than normal. The only NOAA station with long term data is in Wilmington, which shows 2.1mm per year, which equates to .69 feet over 100 years, less than is expected during a Holocene warm period.

But, Warmists just can’t help themselves.

Read: Say, What’s Happening With Cimate Change In Super Bowl States? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Say, What’s Happening With Cimate Change In Super Bowl States? | Trackback URL

Trump: Those Who Came To America Legally Are The Backbone Of The Nation

By William Teach February 5, 2016 – 7:06 am

I’m still not a supporter of Donald Trump, and he still hasn’t rescinded his plan for a so-called “touchback” amnesty plan, namely, where illegals would have to briefly leave the USA before coming back for immediate legalization. The first part would probably not happen, the second part would. But, this is a fantastic answer to an illegal alien supporter

(The Hill) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday drew a stark distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, saying it was legal immigrants who made America great.

Trump responded after a questioner at an Exeter, N.H., rally said illegal immigrants are the “backbone” of America.

“Oh, illegal immigrants are the backbone of our country? I don’t think so, darling,” Trump replied. “I don’t think so. I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. They’re not the backbone.

“Let me just tell you something. Let me just tell you something,” he added. “You know what the backbone of our country [is]? People that came here, and they came here legally — people that came here to this country legally, and they worked their ass off, and they made this country great.”

Trump went on to claim that the woman might be a plant from the Sanders campaign, per the article (and many others) and, a little context is needed. A woman claimed she was from Southern California, and knew lots of people who came to the US illegally. She was questioning Trump’s hardline approach to illegals. She’s the one he accused of being a Sanders plant, and asked if she was a liberal Democrat. It was a second woman, one Lucy Weller, who then said illegal were the backbone of the country. Watch

Read: Trump: Those Who Came To America Legally Are The Backbone Of The Nation »

Posted in GOP, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Super Excited To Add A $10 A Barrel Oil Tax

By William Teach February 5, 2016 – 6:50 am

Mr. Obama wants to raise the cost of gasoline, which will negatively affect middle and lower class citizens, in order to fund “green” transportation

(Fox News) President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday — although Republicans were quick to declare the plan “dead on arrival” in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

“Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans. (snip)

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

Paul Ryan and other Republican lawmakers should ask Obama why he uses so much fossil fuels in his own life, fuels which he really doesn’t pay for himself. Why does it always seem that “green” energy cannot be developed without generous subsidies, loans that rarely get paid off, straight taxpayer cash giveaways, and regressive taxes? As Eric Worrall notes

Why does the green version of “encouragement” always seem to involve beating ordinary people with price hikes until they comply?

The American Petroleum Institute released a statement, which includes

The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader.” He continued,”On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.

As noted, this lame-duck proposal from a massive user of fossil fuels will go exactly nowhere, and probably won’t even get a debate. I’d be surprised if Obama sends over more than a short plan on a sticky note to Congress.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Super Excited To Add A $10 A Barrel Oil Tax »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

No Dissent Allowed: Democrats Introduce Resolution Against Fossil Fuels Companies

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 5:35 pm

Do I need to reiterate once again that these same Democrats use vast amounts of fossil fuels in their own lives? Desmog Blog, a hotbed of unhinged Warmism, brings us the story

Democratic U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA) and Brian Schatz (HI) introduced an amendment into the energy bill yesterday intended to express Congress’s disapproval of the use of industry-funded think tanks and misinformation tactics aimed at sowing doubt about climate change science.

The amendment evokes the history of notorious anti-science efforts by the tobacco and lead industries to avoid accountability for the damage caused by their products, focusing similar ire on the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long climate cover-up.

Although it doesn’t name specific companies, the amendment is surely inspired by recent revelations about ExxonMobil’s early and advanced knowledge of the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change — which was followed by the company’s subsequent, unconscionable climate science denial efforts.

Or, it could be that Exxon, along with other fossil fuels companies, did further research which came to the conclusion that it was wrong. What Whitehouse, Markey, et all are upset about is that anyone else dares to have a separete conclusion, and they are very upset that anyone would dare diverge from the Cult of Climastrology’s pseudo-scientific prognostications, computer models, and dogma. While not naming names, they take shots at organizations and individuals, using the tired old trope about them being funded. Heck, I’d love some of that fossil fuels money.

Of course, this will go absolutely nowhere. I’d love to see any Republican in the Senate ask these Democrats for the Senate record on the Senate floor if they have given up use of fossil fuels in their own lives, and if they have divested all their own holding from fossil fuels companies.

Oh, and then you have David Suzuki wanting to jail Canadian Stephen Harper, who served as Prime Minister till November 2015, for daring to block action on Hotcoldwetdry. Warmists are not very tolerant when people block their Cult.

Read: No Dissent Allowed: Democrats Introduce Resolution Against Fossil Fuels Companies »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an appliance plugged creating vampire electricity, which causes the seas to rise hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on the arrest of yet another Muslim convert who intended to kill Americans.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Why Was Obama Criticized For Visiting A Mosque When Bush Wasn’t?

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 10:44 am

This is one of those Important Questions that the media likes to delve into, in order to create a Narrative.

Why Obama’s mosque visit is criticized — in a way George W. Bush’s wasn’t

The same day President Obama visited a mosque for the first time as president, the Pew Research Center showed why many Americans likely objected to his even setting foot there.

That sentiment was pretty well expressed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who cast Obama’s suggestion that the United States discriminates against Muslims as Obama pitting Americans “against each other.”

There are certainly a few difference. Bush was attempting to highlight that the U.S. wasn’t at war with Islam. Al Qaeda most definitely wanted a religious war against the U.S., but Bush refused to give it to them. Said mosque also didn’t have the links to radical Islam like the one Obama visited. It was a much different time. Fifteen years makes a big difference. Fifteen years of people being exposed to the true nature of radical Islam.

Furthermore, Bush attempted to bring people together. Obama used his occasion to divide people. But, hey, you know the real reason why there is such a different tone, right?

Others criticized Obama for the specific mosque he chose and its ties. And late Wednesday night, Donald Trump said perhaps Obama “feels comfortable there” — a comment thick with innuendo from a man who championed conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace.

Innudendo is, of course, raaaaacism.

Anyhow, one commentor makes an interesting point

We could learn a lot from Islam when it comes to tolerance. Just look at how the Sunnis and Shia treat each other. The Saudis and Kuwaitis are the best when it comes to their loving generosity care and concern for their Muslim brother refugees from Syria.

Huh.

Read: Say, Why Was Obama Criticized For Visiting A Mosque When Bush Wasn’t? »

Posted in RoP, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Naomi Klein: We Need To Change Everything To Solve ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 9:13 am

High-ranking leader in the Cult of Climastrology Naomi Klein is the one you need to listen to, if you want to really know what this whole issue of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is really all about. The article is an interview by Michael Winship of Klein, and has the headline

Naomi Klein: Climate Change “Not Just About Things Getting Hotter… It’s About Things Getting Meaner”

This is also available at the Huffington Post, and the “meaner” part refers to something later in the interview

So climate change is an accelerant. We often talk about how when you interview a climate scientist like Michael Mann or James Hansen and you say, “Well, did climate change cause this storm?” They won’t say that. “No, it didn’t cause it, but it loaded the dice. So we were going to have the storm anyway but because of climate change you’ve got this super storm.” So what I would say is climate change does that but not just with the weather. If you’ve got a racist society, if you’ve got a problem of racism in your society and then you add climate change to it, then it goes crazy. If you’ve got a problem with inequality and then you add climate change to it, then it becomes sci-fi. So what brings me to this is that I’m not just worried about things getting hotter, and this is what I think that I wish more environmentalists would wrap their heads around: This is not just about things getting hotter and wetter, it’s about things getting meaner. And that’s why we have to talk about values and who we want to be in the face of this crisis.

Go that? It’s a new one, that Hotcoldwetdry means things get “meaner”. Anyhow, let’s get back to the beginning of the interview

Naomi Klein: So the ‘this’ in This Changes Everything is climate change. And the argument that I make in the book is that we find ourselves in this moment where there are no non-radical options left before us. Change or be changed, right? And what we mean by that is that climate change, if we don’t change course, if we don’t change our political and economic system, is going to change everything about our physical world. And that is what climate scientists are telling us when they say business as usual leads to three to four degrees Celsius of warming. That’s the road we are on. We can get off that road, but we’re now so far along it, we’ve put off the crucial policies for so long, that now we can’t do it gradually. We have to swerve, right? And swerving requires such a radical departure from the kind of political and economic system we have right now that we pretty much have to change everything.

We have to change the kind of free trade deals we sign. We would have to change the absolutely central role of frenetic consumption in our culture. We would have to change the role of money in politics and our political system. We would have to change our attitude towards regulating corporations. We would have to change our guiding ideology.

Klein is the honest voice of the CoC, saying that this whole thing, especially their policy prescriptions, are about doing away with capitalism, changing the political system away from democracy, and having Big Government controls of our lives, private entities, and economies. They want to “build a better society”, which is a direct quote from Klein regarding her book. What they want is an authoritarian society. Klein talks about throwing ‘climate change’ in the blender with virtually every issue, be it jobs, economies, transportation, you name it, because this is what it’s all about: Progressive ideology, a Big Government dominance over all things.

Read: Warmist Naomi Klein: We Need To Change Everything To Solve ‘Climate Change’ »

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

Cruz Coins A New Word: Trumpertantrum

By William Teach February 4, 2016 – 8:52 am

Donald Trump likes to be the only bully in the room. He doesn’t like it when people best him

(The Hill) Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Wednesday afternoon took to Twitter to respond to voter fraud allegations made against him by rival Donald Trump, dismissing the comments as a “Trumper tantrum.”

“Yet another #Trumpertantrum,” Cruz tweeted. “@realDonaldTrump very angry w/the people of Iowa. They actually looked at his record.”

Earlier Wednesday, Trump used social media to accuse the Texas senator of committing fraudin order to win Monday night’s Iowa caucuses.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it,” the real estate mogul told his followers. “That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!”

Someone should call a Waaaambulance for Trump, who’s complaining that Cruz stole Hawkeye Cauci, that he cheated, and there should be a do-0ver. Sounds much like a grade school student government election complaint. Or Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Via Patterico, we read a full comment by Cruz (video available)

CRUZ: I think they’re very funny. I think Donald — I wake up every day and laugh at the latest thing Donald has tweeted. Because he’s losing it. Look, we need a Commander in Chief, not a Twitterer in Chief. We need someone with the judgment and the temperament to keep this country safe. I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we’re liable to wake up one morning, and Donald, if he were President, would have nuked Denmark. That’s not the temperament of a leader to keep this country safe.

Meanwhile, the Star Ledger, one of New Jersey’s premier papers, which provides most of the original content on NJ.com, and which is utterly in the bag for Hillary, deeming her server issues a big nothing-burger through a series of disingenuous machinations of semantics and conscious ignorance of certain material and the law, provides the case to vote for Ted Cruz.

If he reached the White House, Cruz would “repeal every word of Obamacare,” on the basis that it is “the biggest job-killer in this country,” and has forced “millions into part-time jobs.”

Cruz would be the Commander in Chief that tears up the Iran nuclear deal, and issues orders with a macho blather that makes military people cringe. The most cited example is his repeated pledge to “carpet bomb” ISIS, which our top commander had to explain is “Indiscriminate bombing, where we don’t care if we are killing innocents,” and is “inconsistent with our values.”

President Cruz vows to abolish marriage equality, because the Supreme Court ruling that allowed it is “fundamentally illegitimate, lawless, and unconstitutional.” In fact, he’s calling for a Constitutional amendment that would subject Justices “to periodic judicial retention elections.”

And a Cruz presidency would abolish the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Energy, and four other federal agencies; introduce another amendment that would end birthright citizenship; defund Planned Parenthood; privatize Social Security for future retirees; and push for a 10-percent flat tax, which the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says would cost the government $768 billion over 10 years.

They refer to him in the headline as America’s Worst Nightmare. Sounds like he’s America’s best bet to reign in the ever expanding Big Government, while looking towards prosperity for the middle class and protection against our enemies.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Cruz Coins A New Word: Trumpertantrum »

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