Good Grief: 200 Million Americans To Suffer From CRAP

By William Teach December 29, 2015 – 5:17 pm

Climate Related Anxiety Psychopathy

In America, 200 Million People Will Suffer ‘Psychological Distress’ From Climate Change

A report published by the National Wildlife Foundation finds that the majority of Americans can expect to suffer mental health problems as a result of global warming and warns that our mental health system is not equipped to handle it.

“The interplay between the climate realities we likely face and the potential psychological fallout from them was the subject of a conference convened in Washington D.C., in March 2009,” write Lise van Susteren, MD, and Kevin J. Doyle, JD, introducing their work. “A highly respected group of experts offered insights. Their thoughts, recommendations and supporting evidence are presented in this report.”

“The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States,” examines the hitherto undiscussed effects of increasingly prevalent extreme weather, sea level rise, drought and other impacts of climate change on mental health. How will we cope with a changing world?

Doesn’t even deserve a facepalm.

Read: Good Grief: 200 Million Americans To Suffer From CRAP »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 29, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a clock fortelling the coming 6th mass extinction, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on the silliness of the State department.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Six Moments That Could Haunt Hillary Or Something

By William Teach December 29, 2015 – 10:30 am

I thought this might actually be a random act of journalism from Annie Karni at Politico, alas, no

6 moments that could haunt Hillary Clinton
A few choice remarks and positions from 2015 could damage Clinton’s prospects next year.

What are they?

1) “We now finally are where we need to be” on ISIL: Defending herself against attacks from her Democratic rivals on the debate stage earlier this month, Clinton gave those eager to paint the “Obama-Clinton foreign policy” as weak on terrorism some catnip. “We now finally are where we need to be,” Clinton said of fighting ISIL. “We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS which is a danger to us as well as the region.”

2) Republicans are my enemies: Clinton often talks about reaching across the aisle in the Senate and working with Republicans after the attacks of September 11. But during the first Democratic debate when asked which “enemy are you most proud of,” she smiled, and added to a litany of foes like the National Rifle Association and drug companies, “probably the Republicans.”

3) “What, like with a cloth or something? (her silly and unserious comment about a very serious issue)

4) Guns (she once pitched herself as a gun and 2nd Amendment supporter, now she wants to placate the base with massive gun control, which won’t help win moderates during a general election)

5) Charter schools (she’s all over the place on this one, but must placate the teacher’s unions)

6) Not My Abuela (look, this one is much ado about nothing)

Hillary is going to be dealing with a lot more than just those remarks if, well, when, she earns the Dem nomination. Not only standing up for Bill’s sexual predatory nature, but going after the victims. The lax security and the subsequent fallout in Benghazi, including blaming it publicly on a video no one had seen. No real accomplishments as either a Senator or Secretary of State. Blowing off the Arab Spring and the Iranian Green Revolution. Calling Assad a “reformer”. Declining relations with friends and foes around the world. The list goes on and on. And, you can bet she is going to answer for it. The leading GOP candidates will not be shy, like McCain and Romney, in going after her record hard.

Read: Six Moments That Could Haunt Hillary Or Something »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Scientists Devolve Into Crying Jags Over “The End Of The World”

By William Teach December 29, 2015 – 7:28 am

I know that other Warmists will comiserate with this article, having been brainwashed by all the doom and gloom prognosticated by other members of the Cult of Climastrology. Me? This article first made me roll my eyes, then facepalm, then loosen a morning laugh, it’s just that absurd

IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD — HOW DO YOU FEEL?

Terry Root often goes to sleep at night wondering how she’ll be able to get up the next morning and do it all over again. Then the sun comes up and she forces herself out of bed. She might go for a run to release the pent-up anxiety. Sometimes she cries. Or she’ll commiserate with colleagues, sharing in and validating each other’s angst. What keeps Terry up at night aren’t the usual ailments; it’s not a tyrant boss or broken heart.

The diagnosis: global warming.

A senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, Root has spent the past two decades unraveling the thread between climate change and the eventual mass extinctions of countless species of plants, animals — and, yes, humans. “That’s a tough, tough thing to cope with,” Root says in a weary, jagged voice. There’s more. When the gray-haired bird watcher shares her End of Days findings, she’s often met with personal attacks; naysayers hurl their disagreement and disdain, complete with name-calling and threats from politicians. But the absolute worst part of her job? We’re not listening. “It’s harder than hell to carry that,” says Root.

Armageddon aside for a moment, that an acclaimed scientist will say h-e-l-l to a reporter and use words like cope is a sign of changing times. Not only are we living on a warming planet but a progressively emotive one. It started with parents coddling their kids (no more advice to “just suck it up”), then it was emojis (punctuation isn’t enough) and now it’s climatologists tweeting “we’re f’d” and field researchers speaking up about climate depression — or even pretraumatic stress disorder.

They’ve basically brought this upon themselves. Their constant proclamations of future doom and gloom based on political talking points and failed computer models has fed their own anxieties, creating “pretraumatic stress disorder”, another way of say “they’ve made themselves mental wrecks over something that isn’t happening.”

And now there’s the website Is This How You Feel?, which publishes handwritten letters from climate scientists expressing their frustrations, fears and hopes. One professor writes, “It’s probably the first time I have ever been asked to say what I feel rather than what I think.” Another scrawls, “I feel exasperation and despair. … I feel vulnerable that by writing this letter I will expose myself to trolling and vitriol.” Joe Duggan, the mohawked Aussie with a nose ring and master’s degree in the growing field of science communications who manages the site, says he’s been shocked at how many responses he’s gotten in the mail: “There is a movement of scientists looking for new ways to connect; they’re emoting in ways they never have before,” he says.

Ooooooh, I’m going to have to check that one out. Sounds like a hoot. And these people are all nuts.

Read: Climate Scientists Devolve Into Crying Jags Over “The End Of The World” »

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

Tamir Rice Shooting: Can You Pick Out Which Is A Real Gun?

By William Teach December 29, 2015 – 7:14 am

Did you catch this yesterday?

(ABC News) An Ohio Grand Jury has declined to indict two police officers in the death of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was shot dead by a Cleveland police officer last year, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty said today. (snip)

Tamir was holding a toy gun when he was shot by officer Timothy Loehmann at a Cleveland playground in November 2014. The grand jury was hearing evidence to determine if any charges would be brought against Loehmann or his partner, Frank Garmback. (snip)

Matthew Meyer, chief prosecutor of Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s public corruption unit, said the officer who shot Tamir was “tragically mistaken” and didn’t know until it was too late that Tamir posed no threat to the officers or the community.

Meyer said the shooting was the result of a “tragic confluence of events”: Tamir appeared much older and larger than 12 years old; officers believed it was a real gun; the rec center security monitors were kept in a locked room and were not monitored by the on-duty guard.

What did the gun look like?

A photo released today by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office shows what it says is a real gun next to the replica gun 12-year-old Tamir Rice had the day he was shot dead by a Cleveland, Ohio, police officer.

Can you tell? I suppose if you are a big gun enthusiast. Maybe if you look long enough, you’ll be able to correctly guess. The officers didn’t. They had seconds.

The report said that an orange tip that would normally be on the fake gun was removed along with its laser sight in Tamir’s case. Typically there is a warning on the packaging indicating that removing the orange tip of the gun “is dangerous, may cause confusion, may be mistaken to be a real firearm by law enforcement officers or others and may be a crime.”

“Although there is evidence that on the day of the incident, at least two people warned Tamir about the dangerousness of using the gun in a public place, there is no evidence that Tamir ever saw any warnings from the gun’s packaging,” the report said.

Rather changes the dynamics of the situation, wouldn’t you say?

Ace, though, at Ace of Spades HQ, makes an interesting point about the officers rolling up and not really leaving themselves the proper time to make a judgement call, and that the grand jury decision is a pretty tough call either way. And that, perhaps, we don’t need trigger happy cops on the streets. Also

And What If the Gun Had Been Real? I don’t mean that as an exculpatory hypothetical — I mean, if the gun had been real, why would someone carrying a gun be shot so quickly in an Open Carry state?

An interesting point. The officers claim that Rice reached into his waistband and pulled the gun out upon them pulling up. A man who called 911 about Rice, resulting in the officers being dispatched, said he feared for his life and that Tamir had point the gun at a woman’s face. He did tell 911 that the gun was probably fake, but, he didn’t know for sure. And that he had been pulling it out of his pants a lot and pointing it.

So, yes, it’s a tragic confluence of events.

But, it’s not about racism.

Oh, and which gun is fake? The top one.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Tamir Rice Shooting: Can You Pick Out Which Is A Real Gun? »

Posted in Current Affairs | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

George Soros: Stop Being Afraid Of Radical Islamsts Or Something

By William Teach December 28, 2015 – 7:23 pm

When George Soros makes a statement, you should understand that it’s necessary to do exactly the opposite

The terrorists and demagogues want us to be scared. We mustn’t give in

What he means are you people giving in to fear of people who want to kill you, your friends, your loved ones, your coworkers, and your fellow citizens. He makes a long case about fear, that this is what the jihadis want (mostly, they want to kill infidels), so we need his big idea of the Open Society!

How can it be stopped and reversed? Abandoning the values and principles underlying open societies and giving in to an anti-Muslim impulse dictated by fear certainly is not the answer, though it may be difficult to resist the temptation. I experienced this personally when I watched the last Republican presidential debate; I could stop myself only by remembering that it must be irrational to follow the wishes of your enemies.

See? You shouldn’t do anything to fight back! He irrationally equates the fight instinct with fear.

To remove the danger posed by jihadi terrorism, abstract arguments are not enough; we need a strategy for defeating it. The challenge is underscored by the fact that the jihadi phenomenon has been with us for more than a generation. Indeed, gaining a proper understanding of it may be impossible. But the attempt must be made.

And that strategy would be? He’s a little vague on this point. OK, well, he offers nothing but his Open Society, which means, surprise, letting all the “Syrian” refugees in. Which is easy in his world, because he has a massive security component protecting him, whether he’s at one of his numerous homes, on one of his planes, or out and about. Think they aren’t armed? Remember, he wants to take your guns away.

Oh, and as The Last Refuge points out, Soros seems to be afraid of Donald Trump.

Read: George Soros: Stop Being Afraid Of Radical Islamsts Or Something »

Posted in Progressive Goals | Comments Off on George Soros: Stop Being Afraid Of Radical Islamsts Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 28, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Betsy’s Page, with a post cruising the web.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: Snow Totally Means ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach December 28, 2015 – 1:00 pm

Warmists have been blaming the current unseasonable warmth in the East on ‘climate change’, despite even climate scientists noting that it is really El Nino. And something that has happened several times prior. But, what about snow?

Why, yes, that UK Guardian article does blame the early 2015 snowmageddons on ‘climate change’. It also blames it for drought, floods, hot, cold, a lack of tornadoes. Hotcoldwetdry. But, what of the current snow?

Read More »

Read: Good News: Snow Totally Means ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Good News: Snow Totally Means ‘Climate Change’ | Trackback URL

2015 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

By William Teach December 28, 2015 – 12:49 pm

Thank you to Doug Ross, it’s an honor. And congratulations to all the other winners.

Read: 2015 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards »

Posted in Weblogs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Is The Paris Climate Agreement As Toothless As It Appears?

By William Teach December 28, 2015 – 7:46 am

I’ve blogged and tweeted numerous times that the Paris agreement is essentially non-binding, voluntary, and has no force of law. I’ve even had Warmists retweet that, because they are upset that it is non-bonding, voluntary, and provides no mechanisms to force legal compliance. Marlon Lewis at GlobalWarming.org argues that the agreement is not a paper tiger, though

Summary: The Paris climate agreement is “non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable,” as one conservative commentator put it. However, Paris is a “paper tiger” only on paper. The treaty’s core purpose is not to impose legal obligations but to establish the multi-decade framework for a global political pressure campaign. The pressure will be directed chiefly at those who oppose EPA’s unlawful Clean Power Plan and other elements of the President’s climate agenda. Republicans will get rolled unless GOP leaders organize a political counter-offensive centered around a Byrd-Hagel 2.0 resolution. Key message point: Contrary to President Obama, the Paris agreement is a treaty, hence it is not a policy of the United States until the Senate ratifies it.

Dismissing the Paris Climate Agreement as a paper tiger because America’s emission-reduction and foreign-aid commitments are not “legally binding” is whistling past the graveyard. The Paris agreement is first and foremost a device for mobilizing political pressure against U.S. opponents of President Obama’s climate policies. Those would be Republicans and their fossil-fuel industry allies.

Mr. Lewis makes the case that, while not legally binding, it is “politically binding”. “Commitments are to be enforced via political pressure (“naming and shaming”) rather than through international tribunals or economic sanctions.”

The absence of formal sanctions does not mean Paris has no teeth. Suppose, for example, the next president, future Congresses, or even courts try to upend any part of Obama’s climate agenda. Thanks to Paris, 190 foreign heads of state, hundreds of Democratic pols, scores of green advocacy groups, and legions of liberal pundits will be primed to denounce Republicans for breaking “America’s promises” and sacrificing mankind’s future on the altar of corporate greed.

Think about how George Bush was vilified by Warmists and their compliant media for “taking the US out of the Kyoto Protocol”, despite never having joined it formally. The Senate voted 95-0 against it. Bill Clinton signed it, and, but, it had no force of law without Senate confirmation, since it was a treaty. Al Gore symbolically signing it had no force of law in the least.

The Obama administration spins the Paris agreement as a non-treaty exempt from Senate review so that U.S. and global greens can more efficiently organize political pressure to defend and promote the Clean Power Plan, other regulatory assaults on affordable energy, and EPA’s unlawful reign as the nation’s climate legislator.

Mr. Lewis makes a compelling argument, which should be read in full. The agreement is a mechanism to browbeat those who refuse to comply with the push to enact “green” initiatives, which are really just mechanisms to control citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and economies.

Read: Is The Paris Climate Agreement As Toothless As It Appears? »

Posted in Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove