Cult of Climastrology: Aviation Is “a continued pattern of privilege for the very few”

By William Teach January 13, 2016 – 8:32 am

People, meaning Warmists, scoff when I note that ‘climate change” is almost solely about far left politics, and not science. Yet, virtually everything surrounding this “issue” relates to Leftist policies, and most of the Believers are Leftists. People such as those at the New Internationalist Blog, who are very much a smattering of Progressives, Marxists, and Socialists (the Soviet Union/China types, who are really authoritarians, versus the textbook definition). These are people who want “social ownership” of the energy sector, meaning, 100% government control. Quite frankly, there are so many wacky Leftist phrases in this article and the excerpts that almost the whole thing would need to be placed in bold

Stop Aviation, Stop Co2lonialism

….

Though the particular effects of projects such as the tar sands pipelines may only have been a threat in recent years, the drivers behind these projects have much deeper roots. The reason that the negative impacts of climate chaos are distributed in the way they are is linked to three intersecting processes: capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy. Not only are these systems are premised on massive inequality that take hierarchy, be it based on wealth, race or gender, as a necessary condition to function, but they have an insidious way of trying to convince us that this oppression is the natural order of things and that ‘there is no alternative’.

Capitalism, with its need for never ending economic growth, requires ever increasing amounts of natural resources and energy, which always leads to increasing pollution and waste. That is why the only time in recent history CO2 emissions have decreased globally is during the financial crisis. Capitalism relies on exploitation. Exploitation of labour and of nature. Colonialism was a key driver of the shift to capitalism, with much of industrialization being made possible due to slavery. Similarly, as Siliva Federici shows, the evolution of patriarchy was key in in the expansion of capitalism and colonialism. This happened in various ways: from relegating women to the domestic sphere, which allowed for men’s labour to be exploited in industry; to taking away women’s power over their reproduction, meaning birth rates could be controlled for the good of state and capital; to the horrific violence that occurred to hundreds of thousands of women through the burning of ‘witches’. All of this oppression reinforced the power of the state and capital, and the techniques for doing so – for example torture and burning of witches – were often put on trial in one setting e.g. the colonies and then brought back to Europe – and vice versa.

Anyone get the idea that these people hate capitalism? Interestingly, capitalism allowed these folks to create a blog, using software and a platform (web hosting) created by capitalism, all while they use capitalism to advertise their wares, such as the New Internationalist web-shop. Are they giving the merchandise away free, or at least selling the products to consumers, er, comrades, at prices the comrades can afford individually?

It’s in this context that the climate justice movement, including the fight against aviation expansion, needs to stand in solidarity with those most affected by climate change. And with the big NGOs clearly needing to decolonize themselves, with organizations like AVAAZ forcefully attempting to silence the Wretched of the Earth bloc at the most recent climate march in London, it’s down to the grassroots to show real solidarity.

The links between aviation and continued co2lonialism couldn’t be clearer. Not only is aviation the fastest growing source of CO2 in Brittan, which means more and more extraction, but the gulf between those who do and don’t fly couldn’t be wider. Globally, a mere 5 per cent of the population has ever taken a flight. So those arguing for expansion are doing so for the benefit of a tiny elite. Even within the Brittan, 70 per cent of flights are taken by just 15 per cent of the population. Aviation is a clear example of the North-South divide. Communities in the global South suffer twice: first from extraction and then from the effects of climate change, whilst the global North primarily uses aviation as a form of leisure or to expand processes of capital accumulation.

And, if you fly, you are one of the Big Shots with Privilege, and should stop it right now. Or, better, yet, be forced by Government to stop it right now. That’s what they really want, along with a destruction of capitalism. Even though they practice it themselves.

For all you Warmists, you’ve been warned. If you fly, you’re part of the problem. Stop flying now.

BTW, what the heck is “Brittan?” It wasn’t a typo. It’s written that way 5 times.

Read: Cult of Climastrology: Aviation Is “a continued pattern of privilege for the very few” »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

The Best And Worst Of Obama’s SOTU

By William Teach January 13, 2016 – 7:57 am

No, I did not watch the State Of The Union. NJ Devils hockey was on. If it wasn’t, I would have watched Masterchef Canada. And don’t you dare tell me who won! I did not watch all of Bush’s, either. But, no matter what, I had no intention of watching a snippy man lecture the American public, nor sneer and look down his nose, nor tell falsehoods, give use cherry picked facts, nor listen to his strawmen.

The number 1 best? It’s his last one. Breitbart offers up ten lies, which include

2. “Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”With that line, Obama took a shot at his would-be Democratic successors, as well as his Republican critics. But the truth is that despite the slow recovery–the slowest since World War II–labor force participation is the lowest it has been in decades. Wages are stagnant, household incomes still have not recovered from the recession, and young people see a bleak future.

Worst. These are the same policies that Hillary or Bernie would continue, and even make worse.

6. “Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results.” It is laughable that Obama would claim his failed clean energy spending–think Solyndra–led to the fracking-fed energy boom we have enjoyed for the past several years, especially when the administration did all it could to stop oil and gas development. He also nixed the Keystone pipeline and started a plan to kill coal plants.

Worst. Obama could have made real investments in alternatives, pushing for research and projects that would work, rather than rewarding campaign donors who had projects of a dubious nature. He could have pushed for next generation nuclear. He could have put the USA on a true path to renewable energy. Sadly, no.

7. “No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.” Of all the lies in Obama’s speech, this was undoubtedly the worst, coming hours after Iran seized two U.S. Navy boats and ten sailors. Obama did not even mention those Americans in captivity at any point in his speech, declining the chance to reassure the nation that they would come home safely. It is an omission that will define this address in history.

Worst. Iran released those sailors and the boats at 4am EST, long after Obama’s silly remarks. Perhaps Obama has forgotten about Russia’s territorial gains in Crimea. Of course, not us or our allies, but they thumbed their nose at the world, including Obama. Or how Russia told US forces to get the hell out of the way in Syria.

9. “We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria [from Islamic State].” The Obama administration’s attempt to train and arm Syrian rebels has been a disaster. Belatedly, the administration has helped Kurdish peshmerga forces, and the Iraqi military has made gains lately, but Obama has not made a serious effort to defeat the Islamic State, and is even giving up on regime change in Syria.

Worst. He’s, at best, made half-hearted attempts to deal with them. Perhaps he can think back to when he attack Libya, then walked away, leaving the eastern half a mess, run by Islamic radicals linked to ISIS. Switching over to a Fox News article

“Let me tell you something, the United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period,” Obama said, to those who say America is getting weaker.

Best and worst. Best because we are, worst because Obama doesn’t seem to believe that, and he has worked to weaken America. Remember his red lines schtick, among others?

“Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages, they pose an enormous danger to civilians. They have to be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence,” Obama said. “That is the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.”

Best. He’s sorta right on that, in that they do not threaten our national existence. At this time. They do need to be stopped. Who thought little Germany would be such a threat in 1935? In ISIS, one must consider that if just 1% of Muslims are the hardcore violent ones, that’s 16 million worldwide. If 10%-25% of Muslims believe in the hardcore tenets of Islam, the regressive version based on the life and teachings of Mohammad, that’s an upward number of 400 million.

He also dug in on what effectively is an administration policy of not referring to the terror threat as radical Islam. He urged against “echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world’s largest religions,” and said: “We just need to call them what they are – killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.”

Worst. To defeat something, you must name that something in order to understand. They are Islamic. They represent Islam.

He also began, and closed, his address with a call for bipartisan cooperation on key issues, saying Washington “might surprise the cynics.” On issues ranging from criminal justice reform to prescription drug abuse, Obama suggested both parties can find common ground.

Best and worst. Best because we do need cooperation on some issues. Worst, because, for one thing, Obama is the largest enabler of strife in Washington. For another, Democrats have shown that, on big issues, they refuse to cooperate.

He also yammered on about Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and issue he’s been mostly impotent on, despite him signing a statement to close it down as his first act in office. Yammered about gun control, while having armed security protecting him in the Congressional chamber. Raising the minimum wage. Free college. Climate change. There was a strawman about immigrants, where he blamed stagnant wages on “boardrooms”. A brief mention of refugees (I expected more, but, perhaps he didn’t want to put this issue back in the minds of Americans). Obamacare.

All in all, a silly speech from a silly man. The question now is, how much more will he check out from his job?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The Best And Worst Of Obama’s SOTU »

Posted in Barry Obama | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Means More Fear, Less Fun For Middle Class

By William Teach January 12, 2016 – 5:40 pm

A doomy prognostication for a sunny Monday from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate change means more fear, less fun for global middle class: UBS

The erosion of wealth among the world’s middle class due to climate change is a threat to economic and social stability which could spur its 1 billion members to push for action on global warming, Swiss bank UBS Group AG said.

In a study of middle-class consumption in 215 cities around the world, UBS analysts found spending priorities were noticeably different in cities most at risk from climate change such as Los Angeles, Tokyo and Shanghai.

In those top-risk cities, the middle class spent between 0.6 and 0.8 percent more on housing compared to the national average, and less on luxuries, entertainment and durable goods.

The report said middle-class households are already changing their lifestyles in the cities most exposed to hotter temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather such as storms and floods.

“More fear, less fun is how we might sum it up,” said the study https://www.ubs.com/microsites/climatechange/en/home.html.

In places with high risks of climate-related shocks, people spend more on the upkeep of their properties. And homes may decrease in value if certain places become less appealing to live, eating into wealth, the report said.

Huh. Imagine that. People spending money on the upkeep of their homes. That never happened before, right? Could it also be that costs are higher in these leftist areas, what with their higher taxation, policies that increase costs, and, hey, could part of it be “climate change” policies that increase costs, and force homeowners to spend more for upkeep, repair, and replacement?

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Means More Fear, Less Fun For Middle Class »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Means More Fear, Less Fun For Middle Class | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 12, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising sea which means you have to tattoo yourself with the CO2 level of your birth year, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on rising Obamacare premiums.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Celebrity President Thinks A Donald Trump Presidency Would Be A “Saturday Night Live” Skit

By William Teach January 12, 2016 – 10:22 am

This coming from a guy whose presidency has been all about himself and his celebrity, what with the constant social media appearances, going on talk shows numerous times, giving interviews to non-serious news folks. Heck, remember the Greek columns during his coronation as Democratic Party nominee in 2008?

(Newsmax) President Barack Obama says Donald Trump is waging a White House campaign based on “simplistic solutions and scapegoating.”

In an interview Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, Obama says Trump “is putting out a message that has had adherents through history.”

He said Trump is appealing to people’s fears and uncertainty about the future. Asked how seriously Trump should be taken, Obama says, “Talk to me if he wins.”

When asked what he thinks about when he ponders the prospect of a Trump presidency, Obama replies, “I can imagine it in a Saturday night skit.”But Obama concedes the country is more divided than he promised. When asked if he felt responsible for that, he said, “It’s a regret.” But he said he “could not be prouder” of his accomplishments.

It’s not that I don’t necessarily disagree with Obama on the SNL thing, but, it’s kinda silly for President Celebrity to yammering in this way. His presidency has been a clown show, and not always the funny type.

Read: Celebrity President Thinks A Donald Trump Presidency Would Be A “Saturday Night Live” Skit »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology Members Now Tattooing Themselves With Their Birth Year CO2 Level

By William Teach January 12, 2016 – 8:26 am

We learn about this from Warmist Morgan Curtis, who learned about this new fad after taking a long fossil fueled flight to Europe, before engaging in Climate Journey, ending up in Paris

Why I left the Paris Climate Summit with an activist tattoo

I never imagined I would get a tattoo during the U.N. Climate Summit in Paris. Yet here it is, newly healed and permanently inked on the inside of my right wrist.

The tattoo is three numbers and a symbol: “355<” in 25-point font, styled as if from a typewriter. It’s my commitment to the people of the climate movement, to listening to and sharing their stories of climate justice.

When I was born in October 1991, the concentration of carbon dioxide — the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity — in our atmosphere was 355 parts per million. In the early 20th century, we topped 300 ppm for the first time in 800,000 years, beginning the destabilization of our climate and society through rising planetary temperatures.

I never knew these exact numbers before, but now that they’re printed on my wrist, I will never forget.

She was in one of the typical Warmist workshops, learning about how to force everyone else to live the life Warmists refuse to live themselves, how to tax Other People, the typical Cultist stuff, in this case, a “sustainable activism” workshop, when she learned of what is called Birthmark, whereby idiots tattoo themselves with the CO2 level of their birth year.

To be honest, I’ve seen dumber tattoos, as I’m sure you have. Of course, having a tattoo like this means that those Warmists will be certain to want to explain it to everyone, much like the joke about Vegans having to tell everyone they are a vegan.

I originally wasn’t sure where on my body to get the tattoo, until I remembered the action I was committing to. My tattoo provokes stories, visible each time I shake the hand of someone new, or share a cup of tea with a friend. Christian decided the same. I had tears in my eyes

In other words, a reason to preach and screech at everyone.

This comes via Steven Milloy, who calls this the latest in climate idiocy. One of the people in his comments notes

Instead of using trendy fads, why don’t you find some real proof of any problem and tattoo that on your self – would mean much more to be a positive human than a sheeple! (IMHO)

Better yet, Warmists should live the life they expect the Government to force Everyone Else to live if they think this issue is so real and dangerous. Show us the way. Because if they refuse to do all this, why should we believe them?

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Members Now Tattooing Themselves With Their Birth Year CO2 Level »

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

Liz Mair To Ann Coulter: “You’re In No Way A Conservative”

By William Teach January 12, 2016 – 8:04 am

An epic showdown between two politico wonks. On one side, you have Ann Coulter, who has seemed to relish going way over the line over the past few years, and has lost much of her charm among Conservatives. On the other, you have Liz Mair, Republican media consultant, who, let’s face it, has been attached to multiple losing Republicans (McCain/Palin, Romney, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker (presidential bid)). She’s also a big Libertarian. It made for good TV, for at least the few who watch MSNBC (video available at the link)

(Mediaite) Ann Coulter and Liz Mair fought on MSNBC tonight over Donald Trump‘s conservative credentials… and at one point, Coulter’s own credentials.

Mair repeatedly told Chris Matthews that Trump is a liberal who is to the left of Hillary Clinton on some issues, but said many conservatives only like him because of his immigration stance.

Ann mostly argued the exact same thing, except that Trump’s liberal leanings do not matter, because he’s talking about immigration, and wants to do something about it. I guess it doesn’t matter to Ann that Trump has also talked about amnesty once a wall is built, or that he doesn’t talk about other measures that would limit illegal immigration. I can almost understand Ann’s attachment to Trump, because she has been such a big supporter of stopping illegal immigration. But, he has many leanings to the left of Hillary. And, a lot that are Republican/Conservative.

They also differed on the question of whether Cruz is a natural-born citizen. Mair said yes, while Coulter said it’s a problem. Mair pointed out that Coulter was on the other side of this issue three years ago. Coulter’s response? “I changed my mind.”

Coulter stated ““Natural born … means you have to be born within the country,” she said.” Via Twitter we see

The fight got even better, when Ann said her dream ticket would be Trump/Romney

Mair concluded, “That is the proof right there that you are in no way conservative and no way interested in conservative policy.”

Let’s not forget that Ann was a major Chris Christie supporter. You can see Donald Trump’s positions here, many of which, as stated, are Conservative. But, he’s also, as mentioned, discussed amnesty. Other than just building a wall and deportations, he has a few ideas, some of which are good, some won’t make much of a difference. He was pro-choice, then he switched to pro-life. Maybe he’s legitimate, maybe not. He’s yammered on about wanting Canada’s universal health care system. He’s favored a ban on “assault weapons”. Many of his economic policies are very much liberal. He approves of taking private property for government to give to other private entities.

Say what you will, Trump is pumping up a lot of liberals and moderates, with a smattering of libertarians and conservatives. His support is not eroding. Would he be better than any Democrat running? You bet. Would I prefer him over Rubio or Cruz? Heck no.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Liz Mair To Ann Coulter: “You’re In No Way A Conservative” »

Posted in Conservativism, GOP | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 11, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…are plants which will wither away from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pamela Geller, with a post on yet another refugee rape coverup in Sweden.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Nope, 2015 Was Not Hottest Year On Record

By William Teach January 11, 2016 – 12:05 pm

Not according to UAH

(Examiner) Since 1978, satellites have been measuring the Earth’s temperature and have given us a snapshot of2015‘s overall temperature: it’s not a record breaker. Not even close. In fact, 2015 didn’t even come close to breaking any all-time records, the Daily Caller reported yesterday. Culling data from weather satellites that have been orbiting the Earth since 1978, climate scientists at the University of Alabama/Huntsville (UAH) reported that 2015 has only been the third-warmest year since satellite tracking began.

As for 2015, the temperature was .44 degrees Celsius above the 1981 to 2010 time-frame, it’s above-average warmth owed in large part to a naturally occurring El Niño event occurring in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The last time an El Niño of this magnitude occurred was in 1998, the warmest year in the satellite record. But this current El Niño still ranks third when compared to the ones that occurred since 1950, when recordkeeping began.

Remember, Warmists used to say that satellite data was very, very important in understanding global warming/climate change. Here’s what it looks like

Of course, Warmists will say “look, warming!!!!!!” Here’s the thing: it doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. It simply proves warming. Which has occurred multiple times during the Holocene.

Whether 2016 will be a record year is mostly dependent on El Nino. Not you driving your fossil fueled vehicle.

…the upper atmosphere isn’t warming up as predicted by the theory of global warming (aka the greenhouse effect). This is an enormous failure and should send climatologists back to the drawing board. If the theory says the upper atmosphere will warm up first, with the surface warming later, it fails. What the satellites are telling us is that the upper atmosphere isn’t warming up anywhere near as fast or close to what land-based measurements are telling us.

Might there be other reasons for the land surface readings being above the others? Land use, UHI, improperly sited and compromised measuring stations, and, yes, mucking around with the data.

Read: Nope, 2015 Was Not Hottest Year On Record »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

We Need To Focus On Illegal Guns Says….Charles Blow

By William Teach January 11, 2016 – 8:25 am

Typically, the left-leaning gun grabbers focus on how to restrict gun ownership to law abiding citizens (while often refusing to give up their own guns). The NY Times’ Charles Blow, not usually known for being reasonable, has taken a different common sense tactic.

Focus on Illegal Guns

…(discussion of shooting of Philadelphia police officer)

But the episode also highlighted something else that does not get enough discussion: the use of stolen guns in crimes.

You see, the gun used in the Philadelphia attack had been stolen, from a police officer no less, in 2013.

Our current discussion about increasing gun regulations often centers on efforts that would mostly affect people who legally buy firearms. Many of them make sense, in theory, but the truth is that they would not be likely to have a huge impact on criminal gun violence, because many of those criminals obtain their weapons illegally.

So, when the gun lobby and gun owners make this case, we must admit that they have a point.

Mr. Blow then spends some time discussing studies that show where criminals get their weapons. Quite a few are stolen. Up to half a million guns are stolen each year. One article Charles cites mentions

If we can determine which source is the most important, lawmakers can design policies to help keep weapons out of criminals’ hands.

Those sources could be a very small percentage of gun dealers who traffic in stolen guns. Gangs and social networks. Theft. And, of course, if you were expecting Charles’ op-ed to break down into more restrictions and such on law abiding citizens, congratulations, here it comes.

If we want to truly put a dent in gun violence, we must take some incredibly unpopular steps in some pockets. Safety features — including smart guns that can only be fired by the owner — are going to have to be added to the market. That will be hard to sell because no one wants a gun to fail to because it lacks a charge or due to a technology glitch. One of benefits of traditional guns is that, technologically, they are simple and ancient. There are no batteries or chips.

We are also likely to have to register guns and require insurance. This would be almost impossible, given the gun lobby’s and many gun owners’ current stance and the paranoid fears of confiscation, a fear some liberals feed.

Unpopular doesn’t even begin to cover it. Let’s not forget that guns are also stolen from law enforcement. The gun that an illegal alien used to kill Kate Steinle was stolen from an agent of the BLM. A US Secret Service agent had their gun (and badge) stolen. And, the gun used in the Philadelphia attempted assassination was stolen, as Mr. Blow mentioned. Does anyone think law enforcement wants to replace their guns with “smart guns”? For one thing, they are, currently low caliber. Second, if a gun messes up, it’s usually due to shoddy maintenance or a bullet jam. With a smart gun, a lot can go wrong, including taking a long time to make the electronic connection that allows it to be fired.

Typically, if your car is stolen, you are not responsible for any damages if the criminal hits someone. But, you better report it stolen. Likewise, why would a gun owner be held responsible when their weapon is stolen?

Here’s one idea: rather than an overall smart gun solution, why not implement some method which could lock the firearm remotely, much like with smartphones? If someone steals mine, or I lose it, I can remotely lock it, and do it easily. Laws on when Government can step in and do this would have to be carefully crafted.

At the end of the day, though, Charles goes down a typical route and places the burden on law abiding citizens. But, it is worth considering that a goodly chunk of illegally owned firearms are stolen. How do we reduce this?

Read: We Need To Focus On Illegal Guns Says….Charles Blow »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove