…is a beach soon to be flooded by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on Veterans Day.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a beach soon to be flooded by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on Veterans Day.
Read: If All You See… »
What is one of the best ways to help the lower and middle class? Cheap, reliable, affordable energy. Why is the Cult of Climastrology against this? Here’s Lydia Millet in the NY Times
Obama Should Let Fossil Fuels Lie
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S rejection of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline last week had the ring of a great victory for the environment. But even as he declared the United States a “global leader†in the transition to cleaner energy, he revealed a challenge that neither he nor his administration has confronted: “If we’re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes,†the president said, “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.â€
The logic is clear. If we don’t extract them, we can’t burn them. Even better, this is a change the president can actually make, without the approval of Congress. With the climate summit meeting in Paris near, and the Keystone decision fresh, the United States can truly take the lead on these fuels by stemming their production, not just their consumption.
Most climate debates have focused on cutting the use of fossil fuels. But besides a few high-profile scuffles over fuel extraction in vulnerable wild places like the offshore Arctic, political leaders have ignored fossil fuel production as a necessary piece of climate strategy.
Globally, we will have to use far less of our already proven reserves of oil, gas and coal in the next 35 years if we are to even have a shot at avoiding the most disastrous warming effects. Some say we need to keep a third of the earth’s oil reserves, half its gas and 80 percent of its coal unused. We need to lock up those fuels that would push us past the tipping point. And the most logical place for the United States to start is on our public lands.
This is the extremist view of the CoC. What happens when energy costs skyrocket? Who gets hurt? Not the very rich. What happens when people can no longer afford to drive to work? Who gets hurt? Not the rich.
Secretary Jewell’s circular argument won’t get us anywhere we need to go. No one in the “Keep It in the Ground†movement was suggesting the immediate cessation of fossil fuel extraction — merely an end to new leases on federal public lands. Existing leases, stretching decades into the future in some cases, already cover some 67 million acres of public land and ocean — 55 times bigger than Grand Canyon National Park — whose fuels contain the potential for up to the equivalent of 43 billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution.
Actually, some are. And those who aren’t now, will be if they get Obama to deny any new leases. That’s what they do. Ask for an inch, take a mile, then come back for another inch. This is being pushed by 350.org, the extremist ‘climate change’ group, which does indeed want to stop all fossil fuels extraction on federal lands and offshore.
Who gets hurt? Not that Warmists seem to care in the least. Progressive revolutionaries aren’t worried about that.
Read: Warmist Wants Obama To Stop All Oil Production On Public Lands »
Ted Cruz had one of the best answers during the Tuesday night debate
(Breitbart) During the November 10 Republican presidential debate, Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested that reporters and news anchors who do not see illegal immigration as a threat would change their tunes if the people crossing the Rio Grande had journalism degrees and threatened to destroy the financial livelihood of those who work in the mainstream press.
He observed: “When the mainstream media covers illegal immigration they do not see it as an economic issue, but I can tell that for millions of Americans watching this [debate] at home it is a very personal economic issue.â€
He said, “I will say, the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande. Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press, then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation.â€
Cruz added, “And I will say for those who believe people ought to come to this country legally and [that] we should enforce the law, we’re tired of being told [that that position] is anti-immigrant.†He said “it’s offensive†to be told upholding legal immigration and enforcing the law is somehow “anti-immigrant.â€
Illegal immigrants are helping deflate wages for American citizens. They commit crimes like rape and murder. Many are involved in identity theft. By one report, illegal aliens cost the United States #113 billion per year, with an annual cost of $1,117 per legal born citizen. Roughly $52 billion is spent on education for illegals, money that could be spent for the education of US citizen children. And, let’s face it, most illegals do not pay income tax, and the few who do receive refunds to zero their costs out.
John Kasich had the worst, playing the “think of the children” card
“Think about the families; think about the children,†Mr. Kasich said. “Come on, folks, we know you can’t pick them up and ship them across the border. It’s a silly argument. It’s not an adult argument.â€
How about thinking about the children of those who are here legally, who are citizens? They come first.
On the economy, Rubio had one of the best lines
The debate was also a prime opportunity for the Republicans to distinguish themselves as economic thinkers with new ideas to create jobs or lower the national debt, $18 trillion and counting. But few of them left powerful impressions. Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson staked out their opposition to a $15 minimum wage but offered no new proposals to help poor and working-class people. Mr. Rubio agreed with them on the minimum wage but argued that higher education and vocational training must become more accessible and be aimed specifically at increasing wages.
“Welders make more money than philosophers,†Mr. Rubio said. “We need more welders and less philosophers.â€
Too many are spending tens of thousands of dollars to receive 4 year college degrees in soft disciplines, degrees akin to the mythical “basket weaving” degree. However, at least a basket weaving degree has value. You’ve learned a marketable skill. You can make very nice baskets which can be sold for money. What do people do with anything ending in “studies”? Hiring managers will see those degrees and say “humm, that looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Time to send out the “thank you for applying, but we’ve gone a different direction” email.” It’s nice that everyone is being pushed to get an education, but, maybe they should be pushed to learn something that will get them a job.
Jeb! was halfway decent, and the debate avoided the typical attacking each other that was featured in the previous debates. Chris Christie wisely spent quite a bit of time attacking Hillary during the undercard debate, doing himself a big favor. Overall, it was a much better debate, focused on the issues, rather than personalities and gotchas.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Ted Cruz: Journalists Wouldn’t Be So Blase’ On Illegal Immigration If Their Jobs Were Being Taken »
Hmm, does this look familiar? Here’s Mark Landsbaum writing in the OC Register
Expect global warming rhetoric to heat up
Let’s be blunt. Forty years of global warming hysteria never has been about the globe getting warmer, or saving the planet. It’s always been about control and money. Their control. Your money. If you need to be told who “they†are, you haven’t been paying attention.
They are a cabal of intertwined common interests that include government regulators who stand to gain power, financial opportunists who stand to profit and ideologues whose mission is to separate you from your money, and from control over your lives. They are socialists or progressives. They like to be called “environmentalists,†tarring the reputation of an otherwise well-intentioned group. (snip)
A compliant mainstream media, which never views a progressive movement with a critical eye, is about to treat us to another furious round of headlines as the real alarmists gather this month in Paris to concoct a scheme to “save†you from global warming. Scratch the surface of this international divide-up-the-booty gathering, and you will see that, even if all their schemes, regulations, taxes, penalties and wealth redistributions are enacted, there’s no guarantee the Earth’s temperature will be affected at all. That’s a pretty costly gamble.
It’s good to see that more and more people are recognizing what the ‘climate change’ movement is all about, and writing about it.
As Christopher Booker of the U.K.’s Sunday Telegraph reports, schemers convening in Paris have three goals: 1) to collectively reduce emissions worldwide by imposing costly regulations and banning cost-effective alternatives (aka big government); 2) to take money from some to give to others to pay for this (aka socialism); and 3) to impose costs on those unwilling to pay up, which is to say, big government and socialism. (I assume Landsbaum is referring to this piece)
People often ask me why I do not focus that much on the actual science of climate change. Well, I actually do: it’s just a different type of science. Political science. Sociology. What are referred to as ‘soft sciences”. Because that’s what this is really all about. Every policy prescription to “solve” anthropogenic global warming/climate change matches perfectly with every other far left policy prescription, those which are noted in the cited article, so I won’t repeat them again (at least in this post. You can bet you’ll see them again and again, lather, rinse, repeat).
…is an ocean that has totally swamped every Florida from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Red State, with a post on “Four Reasons the Missouri Football Strikers are Cowardly Liberal Lazy Douchebags.”
Read: If All You See… »
The Editorial Board of USA Today says “He shouldn’t be immune from tough scrutiny or be able to play fast and loose with the facts.” Not how they set the vetting process up
Ben Carson has much to commend him. He was raised in poverty by a single mother and rose to the pinnacle of medicine, becoming an accomplished pediatric neurosurgeon. He and his wife have established a scholarship fund for needy kids. And his low-key way of speaking is a pleasant change from some of the loudmouths who are seeking the Republican presidential nomination and other political offices.
But none of this means that Carson, who heads into Tuesday night’s GOP debate in first or second place in national polls, is either immune from tough scrutiny or entitled to play fast and loose with the facts.
Because Carson, like Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, has no prior experience in government but now seeks the nation’s highest office, the need for careful vetting is even greater for him than for someone who has long been in the political arena. While politics is not as technical as medicine, there is something to the argument that handing the White House to a political neophyte is like being operated on by an untrained surgeon.
Political neophyte, eh? I know what you’re thinking. We’ll get to that in a minute
Carson has a habit of saying things that are outrageous (such as that Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery), weird (Egypt’s pyramids were actually built for grain storage) or just plain wrong (his claim that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, which he in fact never applied to).
The USATEB should probably get out more, because that Politico story on West Point has already been destroyed.
It’s entirely appropriate for journalists, competitors and voters to examine the record carefully and determine whether Ben Carson — and everyone else seeking the world’s most powerful position — tells the truth, makes decisions based on facts and has the right experience for the job.
OK, then, we eagerly await the vetting of Hillary. We’ll await the belated vetting of Barack Obama, which the USA Today, like most media outlets, refused to do, and still refuses to do. Obama was given a pass on almost everything, and when some issues, like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, arose, and media outlets were forced into covering them, they were either dismissed or the news outlets provided cover for Obama.
Will the USA Today provide deep detail on previous Clinton scandals (personally, I do think the Vince Foster issue is a true conspiracy theory, yet, if this was linked to a Republican, the media would be digging as deep as they did into Sarah Palin’s emails)? Will they dig deep into the dealings of the Clinton Foundation, and what Hillary may have done while serving as Secretary of State, a cabinet level position? Will they change up and start looking into Benghazi and her emails, rather than mostly providing cover? Her spotty resume? The spectacular greed? All the women she helped destroy who had accused Bill of sexual assault and/or rape?
We eagerly await the USA Today doing in-depth reporting on these subjects.
Read: USA Today: It’s Totally Appropriate To Vet Presidential Candidates Named Ben Carson »
…is the shimmering, hazy world of of heat waves from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moe Lane, with a post on Dems quietly trying to kill the Cadillac tax.
BTW, this pic was a dare from a friend, who said “try and find a link to AGW without referencing the woman.”
Read: If All You See… »