If All You See…

By William Teach December 12, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a glacier melting from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on how many Muslims want a caliphate.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Doom: ‘Climate Change” Is Slowing The Earth, Making It Wobble

By William Teach December 12, 2015 – 7:59 am

All because tens of thousands of people took fossil fueled trips from all over the world to Paris to yammer on about how bad fossil fuels are and force their far left redistribution plans down your throat you drove a fossil fueled vehicle

Climate change means days are getting longer, scientists find
Duration of day has lengthened by a millisecond over the past 100 years as water from shrinking glaciers slows Earth’s rotation and shifts position of poles

…

Harvard University researchers have provided an answer to a long-held conundrum over how shrinking glaciers are affecting the rotation and axis of the Earth, calculating that the duration of a day has lengthened by a millisecond over the past 100 years.

The brakes will be more sharply applied to the Earth’s rotation as glaciers melt at an ever faster rate, meaning that at least five milliseconds will be added to each day over the course of the 21st century. The axis of the Earth will shift too, with the north pole set to move position by about 1cm (o.4in) during this century.

The research, published in Science Advances, apparently solved a scientific puzzle known as “Munk’s enigma”, which came from a 2002 researcher paper by oceanographer Walter Munk, examining how the melting of glaciers had altered the Earth’s rotation and axis.

Oh, dear Lord, a whole millisecond! We’re doomed! Nothing like this has ever happened before, surely! Unsurprisingly, this is based on lots and lots of assumptions and computer models. And, the article and study mostly avoids doing the blame game on fossil fuels. Not so over at Take Part

As pollution from burning fossil fuels continues to heat the atmosphere, the world’s glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate. Scientists widely agree that this meltwater has been a major factor in raising global sea levels about seven inches over the 20th century.

The movement of all that water is affecting the Earth’s rotation, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

“If you are melting glaciers from high latitudes—in Alaska, Greenland, or Iceland—you move mass away from the pole, toward the equator, which slows the Earth down,” said Jerry Mitrovica, the study’s lead author and a Harvard geophysicist who specializes in studying sea level change. “The change in the distribution of the mass from the poles to lower latitudes also causes the rotation to wobble slightly, because it’s being redistributed unequally.”

Huh. A wobble because you took a fossil fueled trip to visit Grandma over Christmas. And, of course, they’re all saying that the Earth will slow down even more. It could be a couple milliseconds! It could throw everything out of whack!

But, um, remember when the Cult of Climastrology was claiming that Hotcoldwetdry was making the Earth speed up? So, which is it? Eh, it doesn’t matter. This is all about attempting to scare people, so, consistency of talking points is unnecessary. I’m just shocked that life on Earth survived all these millisecond changes during previous warm and cool periods.

Read: Doom: ‘Climate Change” Is Slowing The Earth, Making It Wobble »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Anti-gun Activist Get’s Concealed Carry Permit To Prove He’s Not A Responsible Gun Owner

By William Teach December 12, 2015 – 7:38 am

Anti-gunnites are so cute when they’re proving the wrong point. Here we Zachary Stone, a senior at the University of Texas at Austin and a founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus in the NY Times

I’m a Responsible Gun Owner? Seriously?

“WHAT are you doing?

I had just shot a gun for the first time. The instructor was yelling at me because he couldn’t understand how a 22-year-old missed a target some four feet tall and two feet wide, standing only nine feet away. But he was completely at ease when, 10 minutes later, he certified me for a concealed handgun license application.

In late May, after school let out, the Texas Legislature passed a bill that, among other things, authorized individuals with concealed handgun licenses to carry firearms in most college buildings. “Campus carry” was a hard-fought victory for Republicans. My school — the University of Texas at Austin — continues to largely oppose the law. Administrators, the student government and the faculty council have all publicly regretted our legal reality. We don’t like it that students 21 or older can get a license, buy a gun and bring that gun to class. One clever undergraduate’s protest involves students bringing sex toys to school because, unlike guns, they are not allowed on campus.

Stone’s idea here was to prove how darned easy it is to get a permit to carry on campus. And, he has zero knowledge of guns, didn’t bother to read the instructions that came with the gun, and the instructors supposedly made it super duper easy for him to pass. They had to sit through a six hour class, but the instructor gave them the answers for the test right before the test, making sure the attendees understood what is right and what is wrong. That was apparently Bad in Stone’s world. But, hey, he knows what to do and what not to do! The instructor helped him with the basics of shooting, such as looking through the sights and releasing a magazine.

And, after this instruction, he scored pretty well on shooting targets, 216, with 175 needed to pass. Looks like Stone soaked up the instruction.

Now, this whole exercise was about trying to punk the Republicans during a debate he was moderating between Dems and Republicans. I’m wondering if he did anything to attempt to stymie Democrats? Anyhow

After almost zero training and a 10-minute test, the State of Texas considers me responsible to carry a gun. Once my background check clears, I’ll have the license. I am not an outlier. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, 99.7 percent of applicants in 2014 received their license.

Hosting the university debate, I did my best to remain impartial. But the Republicans got the toughest question after I told this story to a crowded auditorium.

“Given that the system allows me — lacking firearm experience — to get a license, would you be comfortable if we sat with each other in class, upon learning I’m secretly carrying a gun?”

What’s missing is the notion of personal responsibility. The class is there to help people pass and use their Constitutional and legal rights. It’s expected that gun owners will continue exercising personal responsibility through the use of firing ranges, and keeping up with the law regarding where it is legal to use the concealed carry permit. Liberals, unfortunately, have little in the way of personal responsibility, instead relying almost solely on Government dominance.

Much like driving a motor vehicle, carry a firearm is a responsibility. How many times do you see someone and wonder “how the heck did they get a license? Why does no one pull their license? They need a remedial driving course.”

To answer his question, the answer is yes. Stone obviously learned to use the weapon. He has a legal right to carry it on campus. And, if he’s sitting next to me and freezes during a situation where he should pull it, I’ll take it and use it properly. Of course, there is a lot lower chance that anyone hell bent on doing something bad will do it in a Gun Carry Zone. Active shooters do not like going places where people might shoot back quickly. Hence, the reason why the majority of shooter situations occur in No Gun Zones.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Anti-gun Activist Get’s Concealed Carry Permit To Prove He’s Not A Responsible Gun Owner »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Did You Just Throw Food At Me?

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 8:26 pm

The dog looks scandalized.

Read: Did You Just Throw Food At Me? »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | Comments Off on Did You Just Throw Food At Me? | Trackback URL

There Are Two Key Points Skeptics Miss Or Something

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 4:02 pm

This comes to us via Vox’s David Roberts, who, though a long confirmed Warmist, who I thoroughly enjoyed over at Grist, is not one of the nasty and/or offensive types. Deluded? Yes. Nasty? No

The two key points that climate skeptics miss

….

1) Climate science represents a convergence of evidence

Why do so many scientists and scientific organizations accept that climate change is real, human-caused, and dangerous?

It’s not because of any single line of evidence or any one prediction. Rather, says Shermer, “there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry — pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase — that all converge to a singular conclusion.” Scientists call this sort of convergence of independent lines of evidence “consilience.” Biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a very good book about it.

Climate denialists — indeed, most people — do not fully grasp the implications of consilience…

Of course, all the Warmists BS boils down to flawed computer models and consensus. If the computer models are failing, then it’s time to look back and find why, adjusting the results and expectations, not changing the data to reflect the desired results. Furthermore, consensus is not hard science.

2) Climate “skepticism” does not

Writes Shermer:

For [climate] skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. … This they have not done.

I’m not sure the disengaged public understands this: Climate skepticism is not an alternative theory. The climate skeptic community is a hodgepodge, a farrago of theories and conspiracies that range all over the map, from sunspots to adjustments in particular temperature data sets to hoaxes by scientists greedy for grant money. There’s no shared alternative framework, just a fixed certainty that the consensus must be wrong.

What’s missing here is that we do not need to disprove anything. It’s up to Warmists to prove the validity of their hypotheses, which they have failed to do. Yes, the world is in a warm phase. Yes, there have been several periods of spiking warmth. Yes, the world has warmed a bit over .8C since 1850. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But, what the Warmists have failed to do is prove this is mostly/solely caused by Human activities, particularly from “carbon pollution”.

“Because we say so” is not evidence.

Read: There Are Two Key Points Skeptics Miss Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 45 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 1:00 pm

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

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on the Greenpeace founder ratting to the FBI.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Precious Snowflake Sues Art Museum Over Baby Jesus

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 10:50 am

Someone really needs a Time Out in a corner to contemplate just where his life too a turn down Crazy Lane

(NY Post) A Manhattan man is suing the Met, claiming it’s committing sacrilege by depicting Jesus as a blond.

“Racist” paintings portraying Christ as an “Aryan” male should be removed from the walls of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Justin Renel Joseph argues in his Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit.

The masterpieces are “offensive aesthetic whitewashing” of the reality that the Savior, as a native of the Middle Eastern region, had “black hair like wool and skin of bronze color,” says Joseph, 33, who is acting as his own lawyer.

He says he suffered “personal stress” after viewing “The Holy Family with Angels” by Sebastiano Ricci; “The Resurrection” by Perugino; “The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes” by Tintoretto; and “The Crucifixion” by Francesco Granacci.

The Met responded by telling to to go (dirty word starting with F) himself and to get a life, and that there are plenty of other places he can visit other than the Met, and why is he trying to ruin it for everyone else? Just kidding. That would be a sane world answer

“When they were painted, it was typical for artists to depict subjects with the same identity as the local audience. This phenomenon occurs in many other cultures, as well,” said Met spokeswoman Elyse Topalian.

I’m betting there were lots of “is he f’ing kiddings?” and “what the hell is the matter with this guys” when the employees learned of this suit, which, get this, based on saying the “Civil Rights Act of 1964 can’t discriminate on a protected basis.” I’ve been to lots of museums and art places in my life, including the Met. I love the Smithsonian art museum in D.C. And they all have similar style Christian paintings which reflect the “same identity.” Anyhow, welcome to the United States Of the Offended.

Read: Precious Snowflake Sues Art Museum Over Baby Jesus »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Gun Salesman Of The Decade Looks To Do Gun Control By Executive Action

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 7:13 am

People often call Barack H. Obama the gun salesman of the year. At this point, no one has done more this decade to increase gun sales than Mr. Obama, and, it looks like he has the need to create even more sales. Someone should check his portfolio and see if he has stock in gun and ammunition companies

(Fox News) Advisers to President Barack Obama reportedly are finalizing a proposal to expand background checks on would-be gun buyers without congressional approval.

The Associated Press reported that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told a Wednesday night vigil for victims of the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. that Obama had asked his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review “in short order.”

After October’s mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., Obama said his team was looking for ways to tighten gun laws without a vote in Congress. White House officials have said they’re exploring closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.

Of course, this is all just foolishness designed to say “we’re Doing Something!” The vast majority of gun buyers who obtain weapons via gun shows and online are required to go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, because the majority of sellers at gun shows and online are federally registered gun dealers. A 2001 Justice Department survey found just 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show. The question not answered was how many purchased them legally and were able to pass a background check.

I’ve been to the gun shows here in Raleigh at the State Fairgrounds multiple times over the years since I moved here in 1994. Most of the sellers are federally licensed dealers, who do background checks. Most of the others tend to sell collectible pieces, not weapons that are typically going to be used for crime. Or even self defense.

Perhaps Mr. Obama could release actual, hard figures on how many guns were used in crimes that were purchased without a background check, online or at gun shows.

The FBI said last week that it processed a record number of firearms background checks on Black Friday, the busy shopping time the day after Thanksgiving. The agency processed 185,345 background checks. roughly two per second.

When you have a big, nationally televised rampage by criminals/terrorists, and Obama and the Democrats call for restricting guns from law abiding citizens, law abiding citizens go out and purchase guns. Smith and Wesson, Glock, Winchester, and all other gun and ammo companies must love this guy.

Read: Gun Salesman Of The Decade Looks To Do Gun Control By Executive Action »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Special Snowflakes Demand All Police Be Defunded

By William Teach December 11, 2015 – 6:47 am

I say “go for it, at least in certain areas, see how that works out”

(Mediaite) One of the leaders of the Chicago protests said on MSNBC Thursday that one of their main goals was to defund the police department.

“So getting Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign is definitely not the main goal of the movement right now,” Breanna Champion, leader of the Black Youth Project. “In Chicago, police receive 40% of our city’s budget to remain operational. That is completely unheard of and unacceptable.”

Actually, in big cities, spending that much on law enforcement, including the courts and prison system, is not unheard of. Many big, Democratic run cities spend more.

“One of our major demands is that police be defunded and that that money used to fund police be used to fund black futures, and be used to fund our communities and things that we need,” she said.

In the organization’s online manifesto, the group also demands “reparations for chattel slavery, Jim Crow and mass incarceration” and “a guaranteed income for all.”

Checking the manifesto, we see

We demand all local, state and federal budgets to defund the police and invest those dollars and resources in Black futures.

And when crime spikes to unheard of and unacceptable levels (not that it already isn’t rather bad in these areas), what will these Special Snowflakes say and do? That’s right, they’ll complain that no one is Doing Anything. Do they think that the police will work for free? What happened in Baltimore when the police started avoiding much of the crime? That’s right, it spiked (it’s not the only reason, mind you).

They also demand “a federal jobs program” and “investments in Black communities that promote economic sustainability”. Interestingly, as we see from their About page, they have no programs to train Black youths for actual jobs.  They do “train young black activists in direct action grassroots organizing skills, so they can build the power we need to transform our communities.” Perhaps a program teaching them things like STEM and economics, or other job skills that actually allow people to get hired for jobs other than minimum wage ones.

BTW, imagine a bunch of white youth creating a group like this. Would it not be considered racist? Why is this group, advocating separatism and supremacy, not considered racist?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Special Snowflakes Demand All Police Be Defunded »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

New Republic: Let’s Ban All Guns

By William Teach December 10, 2015 – 4:56 pm

The masks worn by the political Left are slipping. They talked a good game of wanting “common sense gun reform”, but told us that they weren’t looking for confiscation or overall bans. Then, a few, including Hillary, Obama, and the NY Times, yammered about the “Australian solution”, which was overall confiscation. We’ve seen a few call for bans and confiscation, especially the more unhinged far left. Here we have Phoebe Maltz Bovy writing what the Left really thinks

From the article

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them. (snip)

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

Gotta love those “national conversations.” Of course, we aren’t allowed to have one when it comes to radical jihad, that 50% of the US shootings are performed by a group that comprises less than 14% of the population, or that crime has actually gone down as gun ownership has gone up.

Oh, and then there’s this guy, Governor of Connecticut, who’s looking to use executive action to violate constitutional rights

Read: New Republic: Let’s Ban All Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove