Warmists Totally Enthused To Deny Cheap Power To World’s Poor

By William Teach November 8, 2015 – 7:23 am

When it comes to ‘climate change’, as in the tiny 1.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since 1850 being mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), what Warmists call “carbon pollution”, this is a movement that is mostly ensconced within 1st World left leaning citizens, along with 2nd and 3rd world big-shots, all of who already have access to inexpensive, reliable energy. Nowhere within the Cult of Climastrology is the notion to deny the world’s poor the same access more prevelnt than within the mostly Caucasian 1st world Warmists. Seems rather racist. Here we have Annie Gowen, the Washington Post’s New Delhi bureau chief, and about as lilly white as one could get

India’s huge need for electricity is a problem for the planet
POWER PLAY | Cheap electricity, a changing climate This is part of a series exploring how the world’s hunger for cheap electricity is complicating efforts to combat climate change.

Got that? Cheap, reliable electricity is a problem, nowhere more so than for India’s poor.

Of the world’s 1.3 billion people who live without access to power, a quarter — about 300 million — live in rural India in states such as Bihar. Nighttime satellite images of the sprawling subcontinent show the story: Vast swaths of the country still lie in darkness.

India, the third-largest emitter of greenhouses gases after China and the United States, has taken steps to address climate change in advance of the global talks in Paris this year — pledging a steep increase in renewable energy by 2030.

But India’s leaders say that the huge challenge of extending electric service to its citizens means a hard reality — that the country must continue to increase its fossil fuel consumption, at least in the near term, on a path that could mean a threefold increase in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, according to some estimates.

There’s an obvious answer: nuclear power. But, the hardcore Left is against the use of nuclear because, well, really irrational, uninformed and exaggerated reasons. Of course, they are super enthused over the idea of alternatives, which aren’t cheap, but so often stop the construction of actual solar, wind, and hydrothermal power plants.

Also, natural gas, which provides enormous power output for low cost without despoiling the surrounding region? Warmists aren’t happy with that, either. Well, at least not for Other People, especially poor non-white people in other countries.

Although 300 million Indians have no access to power, millions more in the country of 1.2 billion people live with spotty supplies of electricity from the country’s unreliable power grid. The grid failed spectacularly in 2012, plunging more than 600 million people into total blackout.

In the country’s high-tech capital of Bangalore, for example, residents have recently had to endure hours of power outages each day after repairs and a bad monsoon season prevented the state’s hydro­electric and wind power plants from generating enough electricity.

Shocking! Alternatives failing!

Led by Modi, an early proponent of solar technology, India is in the midst of a huge drive to expand its solar and wind capacity, with plans for dozens of mega-parks that the government hopes will move the country closer to its goal of 100 gigawatts of solar-generating capacity by 2022, plus 75 gigawatts of other renewable energy, predominantly wind. The government wants to expand its hydroelectric and nuclear power capacity as well.

They also plan to double their use of coal. But, hey, this is all a problem for people who have nothing better to worry about but tiny changes in the global temperature, entirely consistent with the Holocene pattern of warm and cool periods. It all seems very racist and shows a profound hatred for the poor of the world, for people Liberals see as inferior.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Warmists Totally Enthused To Deny Cheap Power To World’s Poor »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach November 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled boat causing the sees to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Adrienne’s Corner, with a post wondering of Obama called the family of Tanya Chamberlain.

Had to end with something featuring the best Bond ever.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist Admits Persecuting Exxon Mobile Is “Just A Tactic”

By William Teach November 7, 2015 – 11:06 am

Thanks to Junk Science for finding this tidbit, as Professor Brendan Nyhan admits the truth in the NY Times

For years, activists and scholars have contended that groups who reject the scientific consensus on climate change are employing tactics once used to create doubt about the dangers of smoking.

Now environmentalists are taking a page from tobacco opponents by suggesting oil companies misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change. The first step toward a legal inquiry came Wednesday evening when the New York attorney general subpoenaed records from Exxon Mobil.

While this tactic helped tobacco opponents win over regulators and the public, it may be a less effective approach to addressing political opposition to climate change — an issue on which both elites and the public are deeply divided.

All this division shows that it is a political issue. Make sure to read the rest, as we head to the last paragraph

The risk for environmentalists is that this legal strategy may play out differently in a polarized age. With the issue and Congress more divided, lawsuits and investigations could provoke further conflict between liberals who distrust oil companies and conservatives who are skeptical of interventions in the free market. Though investigating Exxon is a creative tactic, it may end up reinforcing polarization on climate change rather than removing it.

Here’s the thing: they aren’t environmentalists, most seem to care little about the damage they themselves do to the environment. They are hardcore leftists. And, this is simply a tactic to push their far left political policies.

Read: Warmist Admits Persecuting Exxon Mobile Is “Just A Tactic” »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Things Get A Bit Awkward During MSNBC Democratic Forum

By William Teach November 7, 2015 – 7:38 am

Did you know that the Democratic Party candidates were part of a forum Friday night?

(Slate) The three candidates running for the Democratic nomination gathered in Rock Hill, S.C., on Friday night for a we-swear-it’s-not-a-debate forum hosted by MSNBC. The night didn’t provide much in the way of drama—or hard news per se—but it was sharp, well-produced, and generally informative for any voters who haven’t been paying close attention to the race to date.

It also had a lightning round of “stupid” questions (Rachel Maddow’s word, not mine) that were welcome moments of brevity and levity in conversations that (rightly) focused on serious issues like climate change, U.S. military intervention abroad, and the death penalty. Perhaps more surprisingly, all three candidates charmed—in their own particular way—in segments that might otherwise have been cringe-worthy.

So, softball questions from one of the most hardcore far left progressives in the “news” media held by a network that pretty much admits it is in the bag for the Democratic Party. That’s not the best part. This is, via Mediaite (which also has video)

That sign is from the Media Research Center. Newsbusters, a project of MRC, highlights several other times they managed to get it on TV.

Read: Things Get A Bit Awkward During MSNBC Democratic Forum »

Posted in Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Editorial Board: Rejecting Keystone XL Is Also A Moral Decision Or Something

By William Teach November 7, 2015 – 7:25 am

You have to love a newspaper which yammers on about morality, when they are 100% in the bag for all abortion on demand, including late term for no reason. Oh, and a paper which whines about fossil fuels yet uses vast amounts itself to distribute their paper edition using fossil fueled vehicles. And their decomposing papers release greenhouse gases, not too mention all the trees killed. And let’s not forget that ‘climate change’ is bad for minorities, women, and the poor, and the NYTEB is composed primarily of rich white people

No to Keystone, Yes to the Planet

Nearly every mainstream climate scientist has said that a big portion of the fossil fuels now in the ground must remain there if the world is to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. That simple fact lay at the heart of President Obama’s decision on Friday to say no to the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.

The decision, which ends seven years of legal and political wrangling, was correct, on moral as well as scientific grounds. The pipeline, when completed, would have carried about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Of course, this just means Canada will build a pipeline to their west coast, and send the oil to China. Or build a pipeline to the east. And the United States will not see the economic activity out of it. It’s great that the Times is taking the position of the extreme “climate scientists” and climate activists, who want all fossil fuels left in the ground now. How will the Times distribute its papers? How will all those on the Editorial Board travel from their McMansions to their jobs?

In the grand scheme of things, this would add little to a global output that now exceeds 90 million barrels a day. But the cumulative impact could be huge: The tar sands contain 170 billion barrels of oil recoverable with today’s technology and perhaps 10 times that amount in potential resources. Because the proposed pipeline was seen as crucial to the exploitation of these resources, allowing it to go forward would have put the United States in the position of enabling a project that, over time, would add significantly to already dangerous levels of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

We were told that anything about 350ppm meant doom for the planet. Then we were told the number was 400ppm. Yet, there’s nary a difference between the early part of the 20th Century and now.

So Mr. Obama chose to draw a line. As he put it, “Ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”

Does anyone notice the hypocrisy? This from a guy who uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to jet to the West Coast, what with the helicopter to the airport, the 2 jumbo jets, the Air Force fighter jets which protect Air Force 1, and the massive almost 20 car convoy, all for typically a quick government event (due to campaign repayment costs) followed by golf and several fundraisers.

Obama, like most Warmists, is scientifically illiterate: CO2 is not a pollutant.

Rejecting the Keystone pipeline should further enhance his credibility and that of the United States on this issue. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” he said. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.”

And there it is: it’s all about Mr. Obama’s street cred, rather than anything that could help American as a whole. Like everything else he does. He’s happy to help, or at least (mostly) patronize certain interest groups, but, he’s doing this for Himself.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Editorial Board: Rejecting Keystone XL Is Also A Moral Decision Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Energy | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Goodly Chunk Of 1st World Not Too Concerned About Climate Change

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 4:41 pm

This is the result of 30+ years of spreading awareness, along with all the apocolyptic doomsaying, especially over the past 15 or so

Only 1 in 2 Canadians believe climate change is a serious issue: survey

Climate change is on the world’s radar as a significant issue, but a new survey has found a large difference in levels of concern depending which nation you ask.

A Pew Research Centre survey of 40 nations found a global median of 54 per cent consider climate change a very serious problem.

Break that down by nation and you’ll find a wild range: China came in at just 18 per cent agreeing, while an overwhelming 86 per cent of Brazil respondents agreed. Canada fell in the middle, with 51 per cent agreeing global climate change is a very serious problem.

For the U.S., just 45% saw climate change as a serious issue. The median internationally is just 54%. Congratulations on so much success, Warmists! All those hundreds of billions of dollars, both private and government (taxpayer) spent for this.

Here’s the question asked: Q32. In your view, is global climate change a very serious problem, somewhat serious, not too serious or not a problem?

I’d answer somewhat serious, because, regardless of the causation, weather/climate changes can have both positive and negative impacts, as it always has. UHI and land use seem to have more of an effect on us personally.

Obviously, poor countries are jumping on the bandwagon to get some of that sweet, sweet climate cash.

Don’t worry, the Cult of Climastrology, which refusing to make substantive changes in their own lives, will continue to beat this drum beyond when it’s broken in order to push their far far left Progressive (nice fascist) policies. Right up to the point where the average Warmist realizes that these policies actually hurt their own lives.

Read: Bummer: Goodly Chunk Of 1st World Not Too Concerned About Climate Change »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Goodly Chunk Of 1st World Not Too Concerned About Climate Change | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that were cut down to build a giant McMansion, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Hockey Schtick, with a post on the “lukewarmer” position.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Illegal Aliens Trot Out Their “Bill Of Rights”

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 10:23 am

Instead of being humble and telling us how much they want to be part of this great nation, they make more demands. The article is also available over at the Washington Times, except there are zero links

(WND) The pro-amnesty “United We Stay” nonprofit has created a “Bill of Rights for Undocumented Americans” demanding the country read and agree to its list of 10 demands, which are all based on the presumptive claim of all – even illegals – are human and therefore entitled to citizenship.

The group’s Marcelino Jose writes: “Since Congress refuses to act, it’s time we take matters into our own hands. Our Undocumented Americans’ Bill of Rights is a good start. Instead of making impregnable border security the beginning and end of all immigration discussions, let’s find a real roadmap forward.”

What do they want?

Among the group’s list of 10 demands:

The first: “Acknowledgment that we are already here, that we are human beings with a right to be, that our mere presence cannot be deemed illegal or our existence alien.”

Another: “Affirmation that we are to be treated with dignity and respect, not just because of who we are, but who you are – historic beneficiaries of immigrant struggles for the freedom to be.”

And another: “Recognition of our right to be presented with a path to citizenship/residency as the first priority of future immigration policy combined with interim deferment of all law-abiding Undocumented Americans against detention and deportation.

And a fourth: “Guarantee of wage equality with a legal right to petition for wage theft or workplace mistreatment without jeopardizing our immigration status.”

And another: “Assurance of humanitarian treatment, including medical care.”

It boils down to “gimmee!!!!!!!”

From the Washington Times article

The list of rights begins with a protest against the terms “illegal” and “alien.” Immigrant-rights advocates say both terms are dehumanizing, and have offered “undocumented workers” or, in the case of United We Stand, “Undocumented Americans,” as their preferred term.

Well, if they do not want to be called a “dehumanizing term, they should go back to their home country and apply for citizenship like so many other people do. It’s really simple. The very fact is if they weren’t so obnoxious and demanding, if they would respect America and Americans, if they would learn to speak English, if they’d stop wanting everything given to them on a silver platter, things might be different.

Read: Illegal Aliens Trot Out Their “Bill Of Rights” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

New Jersey Democrats Look To Force Gun Shops To Carry Smart Guns

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 7:09 am

Nothing says “free market” like government forcing privately owned businesses to sell a specific product

(NJ.com) More than a dozen years after passing a “smart gun” law that is now blamed for stopping them from being sold across the country, state Senate Democrats on Thursday said they want to revamp the law and force gun dealers in New Jersey to carry the high-tech weapons.

State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said she is introducing a bill Thursday to roll back the state’s 13-year old smart gun law that she said Second Amendment advocates have blocked from taking effect.

That law required New Jersey firearms dealers to sell only smart guns — which can only be fired by their owners — three years after they are available on the market.

But the 2002 law, aimed at preventing accidental shootings by children, had the unintended consequence of holding up its proliferation.

Smart guns would be a great alternative for some gun owners, if they actually worked correctly and did not have so many associated problems

The new bill would replace the mandate that only smart guns be sold with a requirement that dealers carry at least one smart gun in their inventory.

The state law boosted investment in developing smart gun technology, but the guns still are not available anywhere in the country.

“What gun owner wouldn’t want a gun that only they could shoot? A gun that if it somehow got into the hand of a child would be rendered inoperable?” Weinberg said.

Well, gun owners who have one for protection might not want it

Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, called Weinberg’s repeal and replace effort “another desperate attempt to replace failed policy with more failed policy.”

The gun are expensive, unreliable and the demand that Weinberg is convinced of doesn’t exist, he said. The bill itself, he added, invades the free market and Second Amendment.

“No one in their right mind would want to spend over $2,000 on a pistol that also has a massive failure rate,” he said. “When you’re in a self-defense situation and you pull the trigger and the firearm goes click instead of bang… who’s going to be liable for that?

Some research shows a failure rate of as high as 20%. Most seem to see a failure rate of 1 in 10. The idea of a smart gun is worthwhile, but they aren’t even close to being ready for market. There are just too many problems. What if the batteries die? What if the computer chip controller needs to be rebooted? What if the required watch doesn’t communicate correctly or you have to re-enter the PIN number? What if the fingerprint doesn’t work or work in a timely manner? Let me tell you, as someone who uses a KeyTrack system with a fingerprint reader on a daily basis, the thing is glitchy, and doesn’t like when your finger is moist or cold. For those who use fingerprint unlock on their smartphone, how often do you have to reswipe?

(Endgadget) While the idea of a gun that can’t be turned on its owner seems like an obvious win for everyone involved, there are a number of problems with the concept. Chief among those worries: the safety mechanism will fail when it’s needed most. If you’re relying on a weapon for defense, the last thing you want is another point of failure. Electronics aren’t perfect. Sometimes cameras can’t autofocus. Cable boxes freeze up when browsing the channel guide. The equivalent, seemingly small glitch in a smart gun could be the difference between life and death.

How often do you restart your smartphone, tablet, and computer?

…Many of these systems claim they can read a fingerprint or other biometric and properly unlock the firearm 99.9 percent of the time — but when it comes to matters of life and death, even 0.1 percent chance of failure is considered too high. And then there’s always the worry that these weapons could be hacked or jammed remotely. Which is terrifying.

New Jersey’s initial law impeded the implementation of smart gun technology, as no one wanted to sell them. Could this latest attempt be a bait and switch? Well, first, the bill would have to pass the General Assembly then be signed into law by Governor Christie. If he vetoes it, you can bet they’ll try again when NJ next has a Democrat governor.

Would you want a balky, unreliable “smart” fire extinguisher? Anyhow, Republicans should add a rider to the bill requiring all government security to be required to carry only these types of guns, especially the security for the General Assembly. And tell the Democrats who vote for it to prove that they only have a smart gun, if they are a gun owner. See how the Dems like that.

Read: New Jersey Democrats Look To Force Gun Shops To Carry Smart Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Having Nothing Important To Do, NY State To Investigate Exxon Mobile Over ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 6, 2015 – 6:46 am

Perhaps they should worry about the crime problem in the seat of state government, Albany, which is the eighth most dangerous city in NY State, #14 when property crimes are thrown in to the mix. Perhaps they should worry about the lackluster economic conditions, unemployment rate, cost of living, and high taxation. Or all the illegal aliens present in the state. Na, ‘climate change’!

(NY Times) The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

Well, this is a cute little way to attack a fossil fuels company, and NY is determining whether they want to go after other fossil fuels companies at the same time. This is using the power of the Government to go after a company over position papers, mostly published in the 1970’s, that the company disagreed with, over a science that is anything but settled.

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.

In other words, investigating over Free Speech and opinion. Liberals have never been shy about looking to prosecute people over opinions and speech they do not like.

“This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet.”

Except, ‘climate change’, even if mostly/solely Manmade, isn’t dangerous to health. It’s just a condition that the Earth has always gone through, and humanity adapts.

Any civil and/or criminal suit could be interesting, because Exxon Mobile could point out that government scientists were super concerned with global cooling in the 1970’s. They could point highlight the way in which 95% of the models have diverged from the actual temperature trend. They could highlight the apocalyptic doomsaying of Warmists. They could highlight how their research has shown discrepancies. And, they have very good lawyers on staff.

Most likely, this will end up in a shakedown attempt, because the Cult of Climastrology has lost in court almost every time, because the science is anything but settled.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Having Nothing Important To Do, NY State To Investigate Exxon Mobile Over ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove