California Enacts Common Sense Micro-bead Reform

If you ban microbeads, only criminals will have microbeads

(Fox News) Environmentalists are beaming after California Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to sign legislation that bans soap, toothpaste and body wash that contain so-called microbeads — a move that puts added pressure on the industry nationally to phase out the products.

The law, which will be imposed in 2020, bans the tiny exfoliating plastic beads that are common in many hygiene products but also are showing up inside fish and other wildlife. Environmentalists say the beads are easily passing through water filtration systems without disintegrating.

“A recent study found a staggering amount of micro-plastic pollution in the San Francisco Bay but these beads have also been found in the open ocean, rivers and the Great Lakes,” bill sponsor Assembleyman Richard Bloom said in a statement, calling the beads a “pervasive source of plastic pollution.”

Despite the snark in the headline and lead sentence, this is actually a good move by California, and done for purely environmental reasons, rather than mixing ‘climate change’ into the mix, which makes me happy. Personally, I would have like to see the ban a little sooner than four years from now. But, many, many companies are looking to remove them from their products at this time.

California becomes the ninth state to ban the microbeads, with the Michigan legislature also considering a ban, The Detroit Free Press reports. But California is the largest state to do so, and environmental groups hope the policy will be imitated nationwide.

It would be much better if industry would self regulate and remove the microbeads from their products. Johnson and Johnson has promised to remove all microbeads from their products by 2017. Other companies say they’ll do the same.

You might be saying “hey, Teach, isn’t this all a case of Big Government that you hate?” No, it isn’t. Classical Liberalism doctrine boils down to “the government that governs least governs best”, but it also notes that government must get involved from time to time to solve certain issues.

(LA Times) The plastic beads do pose environmental problems. They are not biodegradable, and they can pick up toxins such as insecticides and industrial chemicals. Because wastewater treatment plants can’t easily remove the beads, they flow into waterways, out to sea and into the food chain.

(ENN) For the environment, microbeads pose a problem because many contain harmful chemicals like PCBs along with other fat-soluble compounds known to cling to polyethylene, the plastic used to make them. That’s in addition to estrogen, a hormone that’s perfectly safe at normal levels in many animals, but one that can cause health problems if it builds up in the body. Estrogen-induced health problems can include behavioral changes in male fish along with damage to fish eggs that causes impairments and nonviability. Their size makes the problem even worse, as they look at a glance like fish eggs, a tasty snack enjoyed by many aquatic animals: It’s like setting out a chocolate cake laced with poison.

(CBS News) “By the time the plastic gets downstream towards the ocean, they become these toxic pills,” he said. “Even a small microbead, as it tumbles down stream, is picking up all kinds of industrial chemicals.”

(CBC) “These tiny plastic particles are showing up in the guts of aquatic animals and in our beer.”

I’d say that’s a good reason for government to step in, wouldn’t you? Especially since the microbeads really do not do anything other than provide color and taste.

Read: California Enacts Common Sense Micro-bead Reform »

Washington Post: “Democratic Candidates Vowed To Toughen Restrictions On Gun Owners”

Democrats and their enablers/supporters/defenders in the media constantly tell us that they do not want to restrict lawful gun owner’s Rights, they just want to stop shootings and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Here’s a big Kinsley gaffe

After years of hesitation, Democrats rally around calls for gun control

The Democratic presidential candidates have thrust gun control forward as a dominant issue for the national election, signaling a sea change in the politics of a controversial subject that recent Democratic nominees have often avoided.

After years of deadly mass shootings across the country, and with President Obama voicing deep frustration with inaction by Republicans in Congress, the Democratic candidates led by Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed in a debate here Tuesday night to toughen restrictions on gun owners and gun manufacturers.

Right there is the truth of the matter: Democrats want to toughen control on all gun owners, something we’ve known for years, but never ends up in print. Virtually every piece of legislation Democrats push and every talking point that passes their lips is about restricting the law abiding gun owners, rather than going after the criminals. How has gun control worked in Democratic Party cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Camden, and Chicago, among others?

Bans on “assault weapons”, which are simply scary (well, scary to the gun grabbers) looking weapons that tend to fire lower powered bullets and are lighter than non-scary looking weapons with wood stocks primarily affects those who want to purchase legally for recreation, hunting (not that many), and home defense. Guess who gets hurt the most? Women, for whom the lighter weight makes them ideal.

But Brian Walsh, a GOP consultant and former spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that Clinton will almost certainly tone down her talk on gun control if she makes it to the general election.

“I don’t expect the same rhetoric from Clinton next fall,” Walsh said. “Is she going to go into eastern Ohio and talk to blue-collar Democrats and others in the same exact way on guns? Unlikely.”

Most likely true. Right now Democrats are throwing red meat to their far left base. When the general election time comes, though, their words will surely show up in opposition ads.

It is nice to know exactly what they really want to do, though, wouldn’t you say?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: “Democratic Candidates Vowed To Toughen Restrictions On Gun Owners” »

Cult Of Climastrology Attempts To Take Scalp Of French Weatherman For Dissent

Remember when dissent was patriotic? Dissent against the State approved doctrine of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)? Well, if they can’t get you on RICO charges (or throw you in jail, hang you, stab you with an icicle, etc), they’ll just attempt to get you fired

(UK Telegraph) Every night, France’s chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.

Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement – criticising the world’s top climate change experts.

Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.

In a promotional video, Mr Verdier said: “Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so.”

He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

And just to prove how correct he is….

His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. “I received a letter telling me not to come. I’m in shock,” he told RTL radio. “This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated.”

Definitely, read the rest of the article, but I’ll leave you with this

The book was criticised by French newspaper Le Monde as full of “errors”. “The models used to predict the average rise in temperatures on the surface of the globe have proved to be rather reliable, with the gap between observations and predictions quite small,” it countered.

Those would be the same models that have been shown to be mostly wrong time and time again.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Attempts To Take Scalp Of French Weatherman For Dissent »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful greenspace in the middle of a wonder Progressive urban area, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on those wacky moderate Muslims in Indonesia.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Could Maybe Possibly Knock Internet Offline

Once again, Warmists just can’t help themselves.

Flooding the system: Climate change could knock the Internet offline

(Yammering about losing contact during Hurricane Katrina)

The Internet may not be a true necessity like food or shelter, but Brown’s story illustrates how important a decent connection is in the event of a disaster. While the global Internet seems a genuine model of resilience, events like Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012 have shown how quickly it can break down on a local level. With climate change set to increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather, there is a fear that extreme events could unpredictably wreak havoc on parts of the Internet.

Yet, it hasn’t. We’ve been hearing this for decades, yet, there has been no increase in intensity nor frequency. The weather is always doing things, anway.

The Internet depends on buildings, wires, servers and conduits. And that physical infrastructure is just as vulnerable as any other. That has government, industry and nonprofits all working to build sturdier infrastructure before the next catastrophic storm hits.

With temperatures rising and sea levels mounting, storms like Katrina will become both more common and more dangerous, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment. A stretch of the East Coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts will be especially vulnerable to storm surge — a wall of ocean water pushed onto shore — as it experiences considerably greater sea level rise than the worldwide average, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study. Other parts of the country will continue to see increases in flooding, droughts and wildfires, detrimentally affecting critical infrastructure.

Again, this hasn’t happened, and, even if it did, there is no proof that it would be mostly/solely caused by human activities (other than tampering with the raw data, that is)

After Hurricane Sandy, New York City moved to assert greater regulatory control over telecom companies that operate in the city. It’s pushing for greater oversight at the federal and state levels too. The city is working with telecom companies to receive more information about outages — a major blind spot during Sandy.

Huh. More government control of private industry and the means people use to communicate. Huh. Imagine that.

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Could Maybe Possibly Knock Internet Offline »

People Who Took Fossil Fueled Trips To Vegas Yammer On About “Climate Change”

Say, I wonder what the carbon footprint is for a presidential campaign? Hillary’s aides said her campaign will be carbon neutral. Not by actually doing anything, of course. They’re going to have carbon offsets. They just won’t say how. Anyway, the Dem debate featured a whopping 22 mentions of “climate”, per the Washington Post transcript. The five candidates are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. I’m not going to excerpt all 22, as some are little meaningless blurbs, and some come from Anderson Cooper (who took a fossil fueled flight to Vegas, and, hey, how much energy did this debate use?). Bold indicates the start of a new yammering, red is my brief comments

Chafee: I want to address climate change, a real threat to our planet.

O’Malley: And, we must square our shoulders to the great challenge of climate change and make this threat our opportunity. The future is what we make of it. We are all in this together. And, the question in this election is whether you and I still have the ability to give our kids a better future. I believe we do, that is why I am running for president, and I need your help.

Sanders: Today, the scientific community is virtually unanimous: climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and our grandchildren. (then why all the use of fossil fuels, Bernie?)

Clinton: I’ve traveled across our country over the last months listening and learning, and I’ve put forward specific plans about how we’re going to create more good-paying jobs: by investing in infrastructure and clean energy, by making it possible once again to invest in science and research, and taking the opportunity posed by climate change to grow our economy. (huh. That’s quite a bit of fossil fuels, Hils!)

SANDERS: The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis. (Doooooom!)

Then we get to the portion where they are asked what they would do about the doom by a “young person” (again, I won’t excerpt it all)

O’Malley: We can get there as a nation, but it’s going to require presidential leadership. And as president, I intend to sign as my very first order in office the — an order that moves us as a nation and dedicates our resources to solving this problem and moving us to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050. (oh, good, more Big Government wasting taxpayer money for a pipe dream)

Jim Webb gave a somewhat less than insane response, and said he’s a big proponent of nuclear power. Which will surely tick the hardcore Warmists off.

SANDERS: Well, I will tell you this. I believe — and Pope Francis made this point. This is a moral issue. The scientists are telling us that we need to move extremely boldly. (but not moral enough to change your own life to being carbon neutral, eh? Do you also support the Pope’s position on abortion, Bernie?)

I am proud that, along with Senator Barbara Boxer, a few years ago, we introduced the first piece of climate change legislation which called for a tax on carbon. (surprise! A tax)

And let me also tell you that nothing is gonna happen unless we are prepared to deal with campaign finance reform, because the fossil fuel industry is funding the Republican Party, which denies the reality of climate change… (in other words, change things to starve the other party. Rather fascist)

The planet — the future of the planet is at stake. (red meat thrown to idiots who vote D)

CLINTON: Well, that — that’s exactly what I’ve been doing. When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world.

They told us they’d left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, “We’ve been looking all over for you. Let’s sit down and talk about what we need to do.” And we did come up with the first international agreement that China has signed.

Thanks to President Obama’s leadership, it’s now gone much further. (yeah, the Chinese promise to Do Something in 2030. Iran promised to not fire long range missiles, and they’ve already broken that promise. BTW, isn’t Copenhagen considered a complete failure, thanks to Obama?).

And, that’s about it. The Huffington Post grades the candidates, and finds

Clinton: B-
Sanders: B+
O’Malley: A
Webb: C-
Chaffee: B
The Media: D-

Of course, they were long on yammering, short on plans. Then they jumped into their fossil fueled vehicles for trips to their fossil fueled airplanes.

Read: People Who Took Fossil Fueled Trips To Vegas Yammer On About “Climate Change” »

USA Today Offers Advice On How To Make Bernie Sanders And Socialism Less Scary

Did you know that the “S” word, Socialism, is scary to Americans? Which makes Democratic Party presidential candidate scary! Somehow, this whole article is in the news section of USA Today, rather than the opinion section

(USA Today) If Bernie Sanders were to win the Democratic presidential nomination, his chances of actually making it to the White House are somewhere between zero and nothing.

That, at least, is the view of some political observers. One of the reasons for their pessimism is Sanders’ political ideology: He’s a self-described “Democratic Socialist.”

And the S-word frightens a lot of Americans.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in December 2011, shortly after the Occupy Wall Street protests, which highlighted the growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor, found half of all Americans still had a positive view of capitalism, while 60% had a negative perception of socialism.

“Socialism is a far more divisive word (than capitalism), with wide differences of opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines,” Pew said.

“Fully nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats (59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43% among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or more).”

Fortunately, Global Post writer Allison Jackson (the article appeared originally at Global Post) offers 5 ways to make Socialism less scary

  1. Free baby stuff
  2. More than a year of paid parental leave
  3. Generous unemployment benefits
  4. Free healthcare for everyone
  5. Long holidays (that are paid)

Of course, in Reality Land, none of these are free: someone’s paying for it. In pure political theory, Socialism isn’t necessarily scary. The Democratic Model has three cores: the Moral, the Economic, and the Political. For Socialism, the government stays out of our private affairs (Moral). There is massive direct democracy, voting on everything, and virtually everyone can vote (Political). But, for the Economic, though, this is where the government is heavily involved in owning the means of production. They own industries, companies. They dictate in the extreme policies for those that are privately owned.

In practice, this doesn’t work out so well. Socialists very much want to get involved in citizen’s lives. Hence all the “free” stuff, as well as this policy and that policy. The government quite often ignores the votes of the people, as those in charge start establishing a political aristocracy. And getting that heavily involved in the means of production? Here’s a word for you: Greece. As the oft-mentioned quote from Margaret Thatcher goes “the problems with socialism is that eventually run out of other people’s money”. There’s also the problem with rising costs and inflation. The system disincentivizes people from working hard and earning, and drives those who are go getters away.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty writes that America now has an openly Socialist party. But, is it really Socialism, or Progressivism? Sanders may be an openly Socialist guy, per his self-description. Yet, these people mostly seem to be Progressives, which Jonah Goldberg referred to as “nice fascists”, the nice meaning “they’re going to do things for your own good”. It creates an authoritarian regime, one where the Central Government becomes involved in virtually every aspect of the citizen’s lives. This never turns out well. It’s a system in which the people are controlled by the leaders, and every form of government abuses or exceeds it’s legitimate power, sooner or later. Fascism makes it that much quicker.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: USA Today Offers Advice On How To Make Bernie Sanders And Socialism Less Scary »

New Scary Fable: “Climate Change Threatens Vital “Biocrust””

You know that the latest UN IPCC working vacation is coming soon when the number of bat guano hysteria fables increase above normal. Here’s another

Scientists have a new worry about a special group of organisms that protects soil on the Colorado Plateau. They’re called “biocrusts,” and they’re easily destroyed when trampled—but new research shows there’s another menace: climate change.

Biocrust is created by mosses and lichens glued together with photosynthetic bacteria. It forms a kind of bumpy shield on the soil surface.  

Scott Ferrenberg is a research ecologist with the Flagstaff-based Southwest Biological Science Center of the U.S Geological Survey. He collected a decade’s worth of data in Utah on how biocrusts respond to warming temperatures and changes in rainfall.

“My personal expectation was that physical disturbance would be much more dramatic – much more negative – than the climate change effects,” Ferrenberg said. “Sadly and shockingly, we found that they were very much equivalent.”

Of course they did. Sadly, this kind of idiocy takes focus off the real issue of people destroying the Biocrust by trampling on it. A real environmental concern, versus the Biocrust having to survive a tiny increase in heat, which it has multiple times during the Holocene, much less millions of years of history, if not more.

Read: New Scary Fable: “Climate Change Threatens Vital “Biocrust”” »

If All You See…

…is an evil big sugary drink contributing to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on how the EPA puts your tax dollars to work.

Read: If All You See… »

Backrunner Lindsay Graham Challenges Republicans To Tell Him Why They Don’t Back Hotcoldwetdry

Senator Lindsay Graham has made Soros funded Climate Progress very happy

Lindsey Graham Challenges Republicans: ‘Tell Me Why’ You Deny Climate Science

Today, during a convention in New Hampshire hosted by the bipartisan group No Labels, Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took a moment to differentiate himself from the rest of the GOP field by talking about climate change.

As one of the only Republican presidential candidates to repeatedly bring up climate change in the press and during campaign stops, Graham began by asking the audience if anyone there believed climate change was real. Nearly half of the attendees raised their hands and applauded.

“I do, too,” Graham said. “So here’s the trade-off. For those of you who believe climate change is real, you’re gonna have to deal with a guy like me who will push a lower carbon economy over time and in a business friendly way. The great trade-off is energy producers and environmentalists in a room trying to find, over a 50 year period, a way to go to a lower-carbon economy while in the meantime responsibly exploring for fossil fuels that we own and trying to create alternative energy in every sector of the economy.” (snip)

Graham continued by contrasting Democrats who view climate change as a “religion” with Republicans that refuse to accept the mainstream consensus on climate science.

“It is, to me folks, a problem that needs to be solved, not a religion,” Graham said of climate change. “So to my friends on the left who are making this a religion, you’re making a mistake. To my friends on the right who deny the science, tell me why.”

Good question, Lindsay. First off

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/653935113839976448

The link goes to Dr. Roy Spencer’s article that shows that 95% of the computer models have been proven wrong. If they were right, we wouldn’t be seeing a pause/statistically insignificant warming, depending on the measuring source. We wouldn’t be seeing massive discrepancies between satellite and land data measurements. There would be no need for massive “smoothing” of the raw data. There would be no need for ever more scary fables from members, like Lindsay Graham, of the Cult of Climastrology.

We’d also see the majority of Warmists actually practicing what they preach. Yes, it might be tiring reading that point from me again and again and again, yet, it still stands. It’s relevant. As Glenn Reynolds wrote “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who tell us it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis”, meaning, walk the talk.

Furthermore, it’s quite apparent that almost every single policy prescription offered by Warmists jibe nicely with every policy prescription from Progressives: increased taxation, restrictions on individuals and companies, greater and greater control of individuals, private entities, and economies by Government. Everything is about government dominance. Replacing capitalism with a Progressive economic system. Redistribution of (Other People’s) wealth. This is a political movement, not a scientific one.

Read: Backrunner Lindsay Graham Challenges Republicans To Tell Him Why They Don’t Back Hotcoldwetdry »

Pirate's Cove