If All You See…

By William Teach December 23, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible piece of candy causing massive obesity which is only Bad for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on diseased Syrian refugees.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Your Holiday Meal Is Worse Than A Long Haul Flight

By William Teach December 23, 2015 – 8:10 am

If so, what does this say about the tens of thousands of Paris climate change meeting attendees who took tons of long haul flights and ate festive meals?

This is from hyper-Warmist George Monbiot

The figures were so astounding that I refused to believe them. I found themburied in a footnote, and assumed at first that they must have been a misprint. So I checked the source, wrote to the person who first published them, and followed the citations. To my amazement, they appear to stand up.

A kilogramme of beef protein reared on a British hill farm can generate the equivalent of 643kg of carbon dioxide. A kilogramme of lamb protein produced in the same place can generate 749kg. One kilo of protein from either source, in other words, causes more greenhouse gas emissions than a passenger flying from London to New York.

This is the worst case, and the figure comes from a farm whose soils have a high carbon content. But the numbers uncovered by a wider study are hardly reassuring: you could exchange your flight to New York for an average of 3kg of lamb protein from hill farms in England and Wales. You’d have to eat 300kg of soy protein to create the same impact.

Obviously, George is thinking of one holiday in particular

In choosing our Christmas dinner – or making any other choice – we appear to take informed and rational decisions. But what looks and feels right is sometimes anything but. In this case, the very features we have been led to see as virtuous (animals wandering freely across the mountains tended by horny-handed shepherds, no concrete and steel monstrosities or any of the other ugliness of modern intensive farming) generate astonishing impacts.

What does he recommend?

This, above all, means swapping most of the animal protein we eat for vegetable protein. It’s not painful, unless we make it so. Many British people used to eat dhal every day. They called it pease pudding, pease pottage or pea soup. As in South Asia, its ingredients varied from place to place and season to season. It’s just one component of a diet that offers plenty of variety – without trashing the great variety of life.

I’m not suggesting that you eat no meat or other animal products. I am suggesting that we should all eat far less. Save the splurge for Christmas. And even then, choose carefully.

Will members of the Cult of Climastrology comply? Is that a rhetorical question? Because we know that the majority of Warmists have no intention of walking the talk. Why would they? This is a political issue, not a scientific one, all designed to push for far left Progressive policies enacted by Government, with the intention to increase the size and scope of government over our lives, private entities, the energy sector, and economies.

Read: Bummer: Your Holiday Meal Is Worse Than A Long Haul Flight »

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

Typical: Washington Post Uber-Liberal Attacks Ted Cruz’s Children

By William Teach December 23, 2015 – 7:58 am

Leftists will do anything to uphold their dogma, and will rationalize it any way possible

(Breitbart) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a 2016 GOP presidential candidate who’s currently surging in polls six weeks ahead of the first primary contests, fired back at a Washington Post cartoonist for mocking his daughters Caroline and Catherine.

“Classy,” Cruz tweeted in response, obviously sarcastically.

Telnaes–who won the Pulitzer Prize drawing cartoons mocking Republicans during the 2000 presidential election recount controversy–wrote a lengthy diatribe attempting to explain why she abandoned journalistic norms to attack Caroline, 7, and Catherine, 5.

“There is an unspoken rule in editorial cartooning that a politician’s children are off-limits,” Telnaes admits. “People don’t get to choose their family members so obviously it’s unfair to ridicule kids for their parent’s behavior while in office or on the campaign trail- besides, they’re children. There are plenty of adults in the political world who act childish, so there is no need for an editorial cartoonist to target actual children.”

At that point, she tried explaining why she was breaking the rules. Her argument centers around the belief that Cruz–the senator and candidate–includes his daughters on the campaign trail and in some videos from his campaign.

You can see the cartoon at the Breitbart link, because, surprise!, the Washington Post has pulled it, and left in it’s place

Editor’s note from Fred Hiatt: It’s generally been the policy of our editorial section to leave children out of it. I failed to look at this cartoon before it was published. I understand why Ann thought an exception to the policy was warranted in this case, but I do not agree.

No apology, no “we’re sorry”. Typical. And Ann has deleted her tweet with the cartoon. But, she did tweet about Ted featuring his kids in political adds, one in which he’s reading to them. You know, like all candidates do, at least those who claim they are family oriented. Obviously, she thought this gave her license to draw them as monkeys, because Leftists have no moral filters. And, then, out of the blue, she decides to tweet about D.C. organ grinders

No worries: Leftists will find other inventive ways to play in the slime.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Typical: Washington Post Uber-Liberal Attacks Ted Cruz’s Children »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal World | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: A Tiny Increase in CO2 Is Killing Off Trees Or Something

By William Teach December 22, 2015 – 4:28 pm

If only trees would figure out a way to take CO2 and use it for food. Anyhow, here’s the apocalyptic headline from an article by the Huffington Post’s Nadya Agrawai

Climate Change Killing Trees Off At Alarming Rates

Oh, noes, complete and utter doom…..hey. Wait a minute. What does the subhead say?

A study projects evergreen trees in the Southwest could almost disappear in the next century.

The subhead matches the original permalink, which would be close to what the original headline would have been, because that’s the way the software for publishing essentially works in these cases. If I hit publish with the above headline, then change it to “Bat Guano Insane Warmists Freaking Think Trees Will Disappear”, the permalink will stay the same, unless I manually go in to change it.

A recent study has determined that if global warming continues unchecked at its current projected pace, we could see nearly all needleleaf evergreen trees die in the Southwest U.S. within the next hundred years.

The University of Delaware published its study, a product of five years of field research, today in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study projects a “72 percent loss of needleleaf evergreens by 2050” and “almost 100 percent by 2100” due to climate change.

So, it’s not actually happening now, but, doom could mayby possibly sorta come in the future, if Everyone Else would just accept massive government control of their lives.

They used global warming simulation models, regional predictions and field results to reach their ultimate conclusion: Climate change is ushering in a mass tree die-off.

When I play Duke Nukem 3D, there are lots of mass die-offs. And, like this study, it’s not real.

Seriously, how did these trees survive during previous warm periods? Seriously, it’s hard to take these nutjobs seriously. Of course, while you shouldn’t take their science seriously in the least, you should take their intentions seriously, based on their need for Progressivism, ie, nice fascism.

Read: Bummer: A Tiny Increase in CO2 Is Killing Off Trees Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 22, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is evil consumerism and energy use, which should be restricted for Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on snotty college Leftists.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Virginia’s Democrat AG Decides To Make Women With Concealed Carry Permits Less Safe When Passing Through

By William Teach December 22, 2015 – 10:58 am

Gotta love when Democrats simply decide to change the law

(Daily Caller)  Virginia’s Democrat Attorney General announced Tuesday that the state will no longer honor reciprocity privileges for out-of-state concealed carry permit holders from 25 other states.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring made the announcement Tuesday after a months-long audit of reciprocating states that found the states’ concealed carry qualifications didn’t meet the minimum requirements in Virginia, the Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

The audit, conducted jointly by the attorney general’s office and the Virginia State Police, found that the requirements to acquire a concealed carry permit in 25 of the 30 states currently recognized by Virginia weren’t strong enough to keep a person from obtaining a permit who would be disqualified under Virginia law.

Those who would be disqualified in Virginia include people convicted of a felony, domestic abuse, or drunk driving. Mentally ill people and those dishonorably discharged from the military are also barred from carrying handguns in Virginia.

Most of those people aren’t eligible to own a handgun in the first place. But, what this will do is make it illegal for women who have concealed carry permits who are traveling through Virginia to carry their weapon, putting them in more danger. Why do Democrats want to stop women from defending themselves?

In a statement to The Washington Post, Herring said the move to block reciprocity with the states that don’t meet Virginia standards is a “common sense step” that will keep Virginians safer.

Really? Any evidence?

Read: Virginia’s Democrat AG Decides To Make Women With Concealed Carry Permits Less Safe When Passing Through »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Burning Fossil Fuels Cools The Planet, Says….NASA?

By William Teach December 22, 2015 – 7:16 am

Well, um, this is certainly interesting. Perhaps this is why, despite all their hysteria and apoplexy regarding fossil fuels, most members of the Cult of Climastrology refuse to give up their own usage of fossil fuels, with some leading Warmists using way more than the average person. As you’re reading this, and popping over to the link, think about the reason for the publication for this study

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

Interestingly, most of the places which tend to have heavy concentrations of industry and fossil fuels usage are typically urbanized areas, which tend to be run mostly by Democrats in the U.S. and left-leaning political parties in other nations, who all tend to make up the bulk of the True Believers in anthropogenic climate change/global warming.

Of course, what is this really about? We note that the article is essentially saying that industry, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation is masking ACC/AGW

But, rather than being good news, NASA has concluded the lack of taking these factors into account means existing climate change models have underestimated at the future impact on global temperatures will be. (snip)

But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).

TCR is the short term prognostication, up to a century out, saying what will happen with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. At its heart, this is all about creating yet another excuse for the Pause, and saying that Doom Is Coming very soon.

Read: Burning Fossil Fuels Cools The Planet, Says….NASA? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post To Obama: A No Fly Zone Could Have Saved 300,000 Syrian Lives

By William Teach December 22, 2015 – 6:35 am

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen has a few salient figures for Mr. Obama as he crowed about staying out of Syria

No, Mr. President, staying out of Syria didn’t save lives. It cost them.

By his own estimation, Barack Obama may have finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking to a small gathering of journalists last week, the president said that by not sending ground forces to the Middle East over the last few years, he had saved 100 lives per month and many billions of dollars. The math is odd, but as long as he’s at it, let me cite the casualty that’s in plain sight: the straw man he slayed.

Almost no one ever proposed that U.S. troops be deployed in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. I say “almost” because there is no accounting for Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), but as for the rest of the government, nobody of consequence ever publicly proposed putting substantial numbers of U.S. service members in the Middle East.

Huh. A bit of truth from the media. Not that Mr. Obama cares, because he had a Narrative, and said Narrative was about finding ways to shift blame to other people.

What was widely proposed was something else — establishing a no-fly zone to ground Bashar al-Assad’s gunships and maybe taking a shot or two at a key government installation. Had that been done early on, then a number Obama did not mention might have been avoided: upward of 300,000 Syrian deaths, not to mention a refugee crisis of such magnitude (4 million people) that it has stirred the sleeping dog of European fascism.

Those are some serious numbers. But, again, Mr. Obama won’t care. He barely cares about anything internationally, except where it can feed his narcissistic tendencies, and doing something substantive in Syria apparently was not within those calculations.

As for “European fascism”, these so-called Syrian refugees, mostly comprised of young men from all over the Middle East, have brought crime, violence, and rape

A course manual sets out a simple rule that all asylum seekers need to learn and follow: “To force someone into sex is not permitted in Norway, even when you are married to that person.”…

The first such program to teach immigrants about local norms and how to avoid misreading social signals was initiated in Stavanger, the center of Norway’s oil industry and a magnet for migrants, after a series of rapes from 2009 to 2011.

Henry Ove Berg, who was Stavanger’s police chief during the spike in rape cases, said he supported providing migrants sex education because “people from some parts of the world have never seen a girl in a miniskirt, only in a burqa.” When they get to Norway, he added, “something happens in their heads.”…

“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” [Muslim refugee Abdu Osman] Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.

Norway has long been a haven for Muslims. Good thing they’re now going to be treated to completely voluntary classes on treating women with respect and not raping them at will.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post To Obama: A No Fly Zone Could Have Saved 300,000 Syrian Lives »

Posted in Barry Obama | Comments Off on Washington Post To Obama: A No Fly Zone Could Have Saved 300,000 Syrian Lives | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology: Liberals Totally Support Expanded Government That “Deliver Concrete Results”

By William Teach December 21, 2015 – 3:09 pm

I can’t decide whether this article by hyper-Progressive and Warmist Jonathan Chait highlights the idiocy of the Cult of Climastrology or liberals overall, so, let’s go with both

People Who Were Certain Climate Change Is Fake Are Now Certain That Paris Can’t Stop It

The most unintentionally revealing commentary on the Paris climate agreement came from National Review senior editor David Pryce-Jones. “I know next to nothing about the technicalities of the subject, but caught on television news bulletins great wafts of hot air,” he confessed. “It was highly enjoyable to hear President Obama claiming to be saving the planet that his foreign policy has done much to endanger … You don’t have to be a cynic to think that most countries, China and India in the lead, are never going to do anything that might harm their economic development, nor will rich countries commit economic suicide.” This was a real-time window into the conservative mind processing the Paris climate agreement, beginning from a point of frank incomprehension of (and lack of interest in) any specifics of the issue, and proceeding immediately to the conviction that the deal would fail.

The problem, to start off, particularly the headline, is that this is a falsehood: Skeptics do not say that climate change is fake. Au contraire, we understand that the climate is always going to change. What we are debating is the causation. The world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. Heck, there are even some skeptics called luke warmers who think that Mankind is responsible for at least 51% of the warming, but that we are in no way doomed. And, I’ll argue with anyone who says there has been no warming since 1850. And called them pure idiots.

But, let’s not forget that there are many Warmists, such as James Hansen, who say that the Paris agreement won’t stop ‘climate change’.

Then we jump into politics overall, and this is a real hoot

Conservative economic thought is structurally different from liberal thought. Liberal support for expanded government is based entirely in practical expectation that new programs can deliver concrete results — cleaner air, healthier children, higher wages for low-income workers, and so on. Conservative antipathy to expanded government is based ultimately on philosophical opposition. For that reason, data can change liberal economic thinking in a way it can’t change conservative economic thinking. Liberals would abandon, say, new environmental regulations if evidence persuaded them the program was not actually improving the environment, because bigger government is merely the means to an end. No evidence could persuade conservatives to support new environmental regulations, because conservatives consider small government a worthy end for itself. (As Milton Friedman once put it, “Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself.”)

Obviously, we know what he writes about why liberals support bigger government is a lie, as is the lie about concrete results. The only programs liberals want to do away with are national security ones, which actually show concrete results, unlike the majority of programs liberals want.

Liberals have been given endless facts, particularly, in this case, on ‘climate change’, and they refuse to change their minds. They can’t even prove their own theories on climate change as hard facts, yet still refuse to change their minds. Instead, they just change the data/results.

Of course, ‘climate change’ has nothing to do with the environment. Give us fact based reasons, and we’ll support them. The thing is, we do not trust the motivations of Leftists pushing them. I bet support for universal background checks for gun purchases would poll near 100% amongst Conservatives. We know we’ll pass them. But, we also know that they are just a death by 1000 papercuts step for what Leftists want regarding banning private ownership of guns. The Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, and other similar laws are supported by Conservatives (oh, BTW, let’s not forget which side leaves the grounds around demonstrations cleaner than when they got there and which one leaves it an utter mess). We’re concerned with mission creep. Leftists always want a little bit more government power and control.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology: Liberals Totally Support Expanded Government That “Deliver Concrete Results” »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 21, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is carbon pollution created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post noting ISIS stole tens of thousands of blank passports.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove