Guardian Provides Reasons To Be Sad And Gloomy Over Paris Climahysteric Agreement

By William Teach December 16, 2015 – 9:26 am

This just goes to show, Warmists are never satisfied, and second, that this agreement is idiotic, not “historic”

Climate change deal: five reasons to be glad, five to be gloomy

Why we should be glad
1 If temperatures can be held to a rise of 1.5C, catastrophe may be averted (these people sound like the same who stand on corners with “Repent: the end is nigh” signs)

2 Targets are set, and governments can be held to account (alas, no, as this is non-binding with no force of law)

3 Air pollution and the importance of preserving forests are now under the spotlight (sadly, they’re more worried about “carbon pollution” rather than real air pollutants. Furthermore, “green” initiatives have increased the use of wood for heating, particularly in Europe)

4 Much greater investment in renewable technology is promised (this would be great, if it wasn’t being used to reward political donors, who rarely seem to create anything new and/or usable)

5 Vulnerable countries will get $100bn a year to help adapt to climate change (essentially, this is a redistribution scheme. But, hey, maybe the US can stop being the provider of money round the world now)

Then we have

Why we should be gloomy
1 Countries will wriggle out of their commitments (again, non-binding, voluntary, no force of law, and countries can give a 1 year notice that they are pulling out. Not that Kyoto worked in the least previously)

2 The agreement buys us time, but will it be enough? (the agreement actually does nothing to get to 2C number that was picked out of a hat)

3 Most agreements benefit big business over small landholders (Surprise!!!! Politicians favoring their donor class)

4 Climate change assistance may be funded by diverting aid (taking from useful programs to fund this politically motivated boondoggle)

5 There is no legal responsibility for rich countries to help poorer ones with adapting to climate change (there’s no legal responsibility whatsoever. But, the US has done more to help people in other countries than any other country since the end of WWII, and all we get is hatred)

At the end of the day, what we see is a political document that does nothing, is unworkable, is non-binding, voluntary, has no force of law, but, it does allow a bunch of politicians to say they’re Doing Something with their sound-bites. Meanwhile, there are real environmental and other issues out there in the world. Poverty, terrorism, horrendous treatment of women in many countries, Islamic extremism, slavery, child labor, the list goes on an on. And these morons are worried about a tiny increase in global temperatures in over 160, which, whether it’s mostly/solely anthropogenic or mostly/solely natural, should be of little concern. But, Warmists are concerned because they are part of the overall Progressive movement (nice fascism), designed to put more and more power in the hands of these same people, along with higher and higher taxes.

Read: Guardian Provides Reasons To Be Sad And Gloomy Over Paris Climahysteric Agreement »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Poll Shows Collapsing Support For Gun Bans

By William Teach December 16, 2015 – 8:56 am

The WP’s Scott Clement highlights a few other things in the poll prior to the information on guns

Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop “lone wolf” terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Despite widespread doubts about security, the poll finds fears of a family member being a victim of terrorism have not risen since a shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., killed 14 and attacks in Paris last month that left 130 people dead.

An interesting dichotomy. As to the first, when citizens learn that the Department Of Homeland Security refuses to actually vet people coming to the U.S. via their social media accounts because it might Offend them and other silly notions, including people from areas known to be hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, they realize that the government is full of politically correct idiots, led by an overall idiot. Doesn’t inspire much confidence in stopping terrorists. As to the second, perhaps it’s because more citizens are armed?

President Obama, who addressed the nation in a rare Oval Office speech following the shootings, continues to receive negative marks for handling terrorism and dealing with Islamic State militants. Despite his call for greater gun restrictions aimed at keeping high-powered guns out of terrorist hands, the Post-ABC poll finds record high opposition to a ban on assault weapons.

The poll finds that 51% disapprove of Obama’s overall handling of his job, along with 53% disapproving of his handling of terrorism and 59% against his handling of ISIS. Then we get

That’s right, more want citizens to be armed. We can’t quite dig into the numbers, as it seems those questions have been embargoed for the moment in the poll data.

On a specific policy, 53 percent of Americans now oppose a national ban on assault weapons, with opposition rising 11 percentage points from 2013 to its highest level in Post-ABC polling since 1994.

Huh. Democrats have been yammering for more and more gun control, and citizen support against Democrat proposals keeps rising.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Poll Shows Collapsing Support For Gun Bans »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climahysteric Weenies Are Totally Just Warming Up

By William Teach December 15, 2015 – 2:45 pm

The Paris agreement is so historic and meaningful that Warmists are going to continue spreading awareness

(LA Times) Even as it became clear that a historic climate agreement could be reached in France, activists were organizing protests deep into next year, some liberal political leaders were pledging to go beyond whatever goals the agreement might yield and diplomats, scientists and consultants were planning the next global summit.

In the final days of COP21, as the 21st Conference of Parties came to be called, a hashtag briefly came to life on Twitter: #COP22.

That would be the 22nd Conference of Parties, scheduled for next November in Morocco. (snip)

While many questions remain about the agreement — Will it truly help solve the problem? Will nations honor their commitments? Will investors move away from fossil fuels? — it appears to include at least one guarantee: The century ahead will be filled with more conflict, progress, protests, ambition and intransigence about climate change.

And more conferences.

Huh. Sounds more like a political movement rather than anything based on science. I’d be impressed if these climactivists were pushing others to walk the talk, and doing so themselves.

Read: Climahysteric Weenies Are Totally Just Warming Up »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 15, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fuels sucking truck, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on the EPA breaking the law.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Gizmodo Bravely Stands Up For Hardcore Islam

By William Teach December 15, 2015 – 7:15 am

This comes via James Taranto

From the article

The State Department’s anti-ISIS social media campaign, Think Again Turn Away, took its inept hearts and minds mission a step further in the wrong direction this morning by promoting an anti-Islam advocate as a human rights hero.

In honor of #HumanRightsDay, Think Again Turn Away tweeted this fact sheet highlighting the accomplishments of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://twitter.com/ThinkAgain_DOS/status/676386846486765571

It looks like Ms. Ali went through quite a rough patch as a member of Islam, and stands against the worst segments of Islam. Obviously, Gizmodo, like the good little Progressive drone it is, as written by Kate Knibbs, has a problem with standing against hardcore Islam.

The problem? Ayaan Hirsi Ali espouses a worldview where Islam is different from other religions, in that it is an inherently violent “cult of death.” She supports the proposed ban of face veils in France, and of minarets in Switzerland. In 2007, she called for the West to defeat Islam using military force.

She also stands against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, marrying off girls as young as 6, stoning women for being raped, not allowing women to drive, not allowing women out of the house without a male family member, and treating women like 2nd class citizens, among others. One would think Kate, as a woman, would have a problem with the way women are treated in hardcore Islam. Negative. The Narrative about Islam comes before women. It’s amazing that Progressives, who say they’re all for Women, would go after Ali, among others, for standing up for women’s rights

By highlighting Ali, the State Department is highlighting the belief that radicalism and violence are woven into Islam, and that “good” Muslims must open their eyes and reject many of the underpinnings of their beliefs. Instead of excoriating ISIS for perverting Islam, the stance treats ISIS as a natural extension of the religion.

ISIS is an extension of Islam. They’re practicing it as Mohammad did. Radicalism and violence are woven into political Islam. If the violence and radicalism is rejected, this would be a rejection of Mohammad, the “perfect man”. If liberals are standing against people like Ms. Ali, doesn’t this mean, going by liberal absolutist talking points, that liberals are standing for the way women are treated in Islam?

Read: Gizmodo Bravely Stands Up For Hardcore Islam »

Posted in Liberal World, RoP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Newtown Police Chief Calls For Other Gun Owners To Be Forced To Carry Smart Guns

By William Teach December 15, 2015 – 6:52 am

When not attempting to force outright bans on guns and gun ownership, anti-gunnites attempt to force stealth bans. Forcing the use of technology that barely works, and makes guns about as useful as a paperweight when needed for self defense is a stealth ban

(Breitbart) On December 14, Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe said police departments and the various branches of the military need to use the leverage of purchase contracts to pressure firearm makers into building smart guns.

Kehoe did not say his officers would carry smart guns nor did he express an opinion that military personnel should carry them. But he believes gun manufacturers should be making such weapons.

His officers would rebel if he attempted to make them carry smart guns, first, because they are all low caliber, and second, because they very often do not work correctly. Some reports have the failure rate up to 20%. They can be slow in reading your fingerprints or connecting with the watch. Sounds exactly what LEOs need when facing a crazed nutjob charging with a knife, right?

Some tests show them failing just 1% of the time: do you want to bet your life or that of your family on that 1%? If your smartphone failed 1% of the time when trying to unlock it, you’d return it. Of course, rarely is a smartphone involved in life or death situations. Think about how slow using the fingerprint to unlock it can be.

According to CNN’s Deborah Feyerick, Kehoe suggests we “leverage gun buying power” to force gun manufacturers to fall in line. She said Kehoe believes this is possible “because the biggest consumers of U.S. firearms are the U.S. military, U.S. law enforcement, along with civilians.”

Neither would ever use the technology. Will Chief Kehoe carry one himself?

Breitbart News reported Washington state Sheriff John Urquhart’s January 28 contention that smart guns are still too dumb to be trusted. According to the Homeland Security News Wire, Urquhart told attendees at the Washington Technology Industry Association that “[Smart gun technology] is not ready for my officers yet.” He added, “If it worked 110 percent of the time, I’d be interested.” But as it stands right now, he is not.

Smart guns will one day be perfected, where they are manufactured in higher calibers, and not only work 100% of the time, but work as immediately as a standard gun. That time is not now.

This doesn’t even address all the other issues, such as having the electronic pairing signal blocked, the ability of the computer processor to being hacked, government shutting off the gun, government tracking the gun (ya think?), criminals stealing the gun and the watch, criminals stealing the gun and hacking the biometric reader, and others.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Newtown Police Chief Calls For Other Gun Owners To Be Forced To Carry Smart Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Precious MSNBC Snowflake MHP: Star Wars Is Racist Or Something

By William Teach December 14, 2015 – 7:59 pm

This comes via Hot Air’s Taylor Millard (who says he’s not a Star Wars geek, but brings up some rather insider geeky names)

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. Sometimes a great voice is a great voice. Sometimes a Special Snowflake needs not open their mouth and tell us how much of a Special Snowflake they are.

Read: Precious MSNBC Snowflake MHP: Star Wars Is Racist Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Paris Deal Could Cost New Zealanders $100 A Year

By William Teach December 14, 2015 – 4:50 pm

You don’t say

(Stuff) Kiwi households will pay about $100 extra a year as part of New Zealand efforts to meet an ambitious new climate change target, Prime Minister John Key says. (Snip)

Treasury advice was that each New Zealand household would pay an extra $1350 over 15 years, or just under $100 a year, in increased petrol, electricity and energy costs to help the country meet its target.

Of course, Warmists will poo-poo this as a minimal cost to keep the world from immolating from tiny amounts of CO2, but, what’s not included are the increased costs from others seeing their cost of doing business rising, along with this all being a static number based on future prognostications. Hey, maybe the cost will be much less. Based on the history of the last 20 years, the cost of these green initiatives has been much, much more, including loss of jobs, increased energy costs, increased cost of living, and so forth.

Who does this hurt the most? The lower and middle classes. Not that Progressives care in the least. Until their own costs rise.

Read: Paris Deal Could Cost New Zealanders $100 A Year »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 14, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an eeeeeevil fossil fueled truck causing desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Reaganite Republican, with a post on support for gun laws collapsing.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Scroogy Principle Bans Santa Claus, Christmas, Thanksgiving

By William Teach December 14, 2015 – 10:21 am

Vegas odds are running 1-1 that she’s a hardcore liberal, and loves to ruin it for the kids

(NY Post) Santa Claus is banned. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited. “Harvest festival” has replaced Thanksgiving, and “winter celebrations” substitute for Christmas parties.

New principal Eujin Jaela Kim has given PS 169 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, a politically correct scrub-down, to the dismay of teachers and parents.

If mostly left leaning teachers are dismayed, Ms. Kim must be a real piece of work.

“We definitely can’t say Christmas, nothing with Christmas on it, nothing with Santa,” PTA president Mimi Ferrer said administrators told her. “No angels. We can’t even have a star because it can represent a religious system, like the Star of David.”

Kim, 33, did not return a call or email seeking comment.

A memo last month from assistant principal Jose Chaparro suggested a “harvest festival instead of Thanksgiving or a winter celebration instead of a Christmas party.” He urged staff to “be sensitive of the diversity of our families. Not all children celebrate the same holidays.”

So, instead of being diverse, and using these holidays to be inclusive, the principle just wants to ruin it for everyone. Liberalism in a nutshell: they preach about tolerance, but must eliminate anything that bothers them.

Read: Scroogy Principle Bans Santa Claus, Christmas, Thanksgiving »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove