All Climate Change Is Local Or Something

By William Teach October 8, 2015 – 3:01 pm

Seeing as how US Secretary of State John Kerry has solved all the ills in the world…no more fighting in Syria, Libya is now a hive of peace, ISIS, al Qaeda, and other Islamist groups have renounced violence, Palestinians are no longer attacking Israeli civilians, etc…he’s joined with high flying uber-rich guy (I thought Lefties hated The Rich?) to tell us that All Climate Change Is Local

When world leaders (take long fossil fueled flights followed by fossil fueled limos to venues where they eat fancy shmancy foods flown in from around the world and) gather in Paris in December to negotiate a global agreement on climate change, they will have a powerful ally standing behind them and urging them onward: mayors. In fact, mayors have already helped set the stage for success in Paris, by establishing models of cooperation that provide a strong foundation for the negotiations.

Through international coalitions like the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and the Compact of Mayors, cities around the world have been committing to major reductions in carbon emissions, while adopting a common measurement system and public reporting process to ensure that they can be held accountable. In other words: Many cities are already doing what the United Nations is urging national governments to do.

Are these the same Leftist mayors running Leftist cities who are dealing with large amounts of property and violent crime? The same ones who’ve instituted lots and lots of Big Government progressive solutions to crime, and seen it continue to escalate? The ones who complain about how women and minorities (mostly meaning Blacks) will be negatively affected by Hotcoldwetdry, yet, like to disarm women, leaving them vulnerable to violent crime, and don’t seem to care that the majority of homicides in their cities are minorities (mostly Blacks) who were killed mostly by minorities (mostly Blacks)? Those mayors?

Mayors have had good reason to take a leading role in this work. Urban centers are now home to half of the global population, and are responsible for an estimated 70 percent of annual greenhouse-gas emissions. Cities are not only a big part of the cause of climate change — they will also bear the brunt of the effects. Ninety percent of cities are built along rivers and coastal plains, which are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise and extreme weather, both of which are byproducts of climate change.

So, cities are mostly at fault? We should Ban Cities.

As mayors lead on climate change, they are taking an additional step that is multiplying their impact: They are sharing their experiences and lessons learned with other mayors, and spreading the best ideas around the world.

Hopefully, they’re not sharing their experiences in how to reduce violent crime with each other. That’s like dividing by zero.

Read: All Climate Change Is Local Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on All Climate Change Is Local Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 8, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a tree dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on when seconds count.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Pumpkin Pie May Be Missing From Christmas Due To Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach October 8, 2015 – 10:42 am

Because ‘climate change’ causes everything. In one breath we’re told that it will increase drought. In the next, increase flooding. We used to call this “weather”. Now it’s a political movement. One has to wonder why Warmists, part of the far left movement, care about Christmas in the first place. So many of them are God/religion haters, especially the Christian religion. They yammer on about a “separation between Church and State.” Why are they celebrating Christmas? Why aren’t they at work?

Pumpkin pie may be missing by Christmas, thanks to climate change

Crop yields are down by half in the midwestern fields that produce the bulk of pumpkins for pies, threatening to deprive many Americans of the custardy dessert this Christmas – although Thanksgiving will probably be all right.

The town that produces 85% of the world’s canned pumpkins, Morton, Illinois, has experienced increasing rainfall in the past few decades, especially during the spring planting season, something state meteorologists attribute to climate change.

“We’ve just had these more widespread wet conditions from these big rain events,” said James Angel, who has been state climatologist of Illinois for the past 18 years, and has worked with the state water survey for 31 years.

Strange. We’ve had a pause in the tiny increase in global temperatures for the last 18 years. Hence, Christmas may be ruined.

Like most lone weather events, however, tying this year’s pumpkin shortage directly to climate change is difficult. But if heavy spring precipitation in the area continues as expected, it certainly could embattle farmers in the “pumpkin capital of the world”.

It may be difficult, but they’ll do it anyway, and, they do not mean climate change caused mostly/solely by nature. They mean mostly/solely caused by Mankind. And, of course, it’s never too early for alarmism. They usually wait till December for Christmastime freakouts.

Read: Bummer: Pumpkin Pie May Be Missing From Christmas Due To Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

What Does Gun Control Look Like In France?

By William Teach October 8, 2015 – 9:12 am

It looks extremely draconian

America’s Gun Madness, as Seen From Europe

…..

Viewed from France, everything about the United States looms large. Still, the numbers the newscasters ticked off — more than 300 million guns in circulation, mass shootings occurring at a rate of nearly one per day, thousands of victims of gun-related deaths — were shocking in their magnitude.

I agree. Why won’t Democratic Party run cities do something about all the casual gun-play within their borders?

Guns are highly regulated in France. Hunting is a popular sport, but a hunting license is required before a rifle can be purchased. Guns can be bought for use at firing ranges, but only after an application has been filed and approved by the police. All gun buyers must provide a medical certificate of mental and physical fitness to own a weapon, and all guns must be registered. It is illegal to possess military-grade weapons. That the Oregon shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, was equipped with five handguns, an assault rifle and several magazines of ammunition — all purchased legally — is unimaginable here.

One needs a hunting license to hunt in the US. Background checks are required to purchase a goodly chunk of guns, most often being approved by the police, typically the Sheriff’s office. It’s also illegal to possess military-grade weapons in the US, ones that are fully automatic. One can also purchase rifles that are much more powerful than these so-called “military-grade” weapons (they mean that they are scary looking) in both France and the U.S.

AR-15 and other MSR style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

In fact, many people use rifles that are exactly the same as these “military-grade weapons”, except for the way they look, but no one freaks and tries to ban them

The top one is much lighter, making it much easier for women to use it to defend themselves. Why do liberals want to make it harder for women to defend themselves? They must hate women.

Terrorists in Europe typically obtain their weapons illegally, and arms trafficking, a serious problem, is growing worse. In 2012, France increased fines and jail terms for possession and trafficking of illegal guns, but it’s unclear if that has had much effect. Recently, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve vowed that he would present a new “aggressive” plan to fight illegal arms possession and trafficking. He said the authorities had seized nearly 6,000 weapons from criminal groups every year since 2013, of which 1,200 were military-grade weapons, numbers that pale in comparison to the number of similar weapons in circulation in the United States.

In September in Marseilles, 1 was killed and 5 shot by a supposed “9mm automatic weapon”. I have to wonder whether that was just anti-gun hysteria or they actually had an automatic weapon. We don’t see that kind of thing happen here.

I do like the idea of going after the illegal guns, though, rather than after those who legally possess them. If only Democrats had the willpower to go after the criminals who illegally possess them in their Democratic Party run cities. Oh, right, when they crack down on crime they are accused of raaaaacism, and immediately retreat.

But my mother also has enough common sense to favor reasonable gun control, and she’s sick of the violence. “I’m sure there’ll be another shooting soon,” she said, despairingly. And if the toll is big enough, I’m sure it will make the news in France.

So, what does the author propose? No idea, that’s the last paragraph. The Washington Post Editorial Board seems to know, once they get done whining about Republicans

Up to a point they are right, of course; the government will never prevent all violence. But it’s also perfectly obvious that the government could take steps that would reduce the incidence of mass shootings, suicides, domestic homicides, children shooting children and other gun violence. Bad people exist in other countries; mentally ill people exist in other countries; young, disturbed men play violent video games in other countries. Some of them even grow up without fathers. But countries that do not allow so many guns to circulate so freely lose many, many fewer of their citizens to gun crimes or accidents. Republican candidates are increasingly tying themselves in knots on this issue, because there’s no logical way to refute that one, clear truth.

Interesting. Apparently, violent video games cause this, as does growing up without fathers. Remind me which Party has worked to break up the family and extolled the single parent household, and I’m not talking because of divorce, where the father is still part of the children’s lives.

What they’re really getting at is banning private ownership of guns, which would only affect law abiding citizens, oh, and leave women more vulnerable to the lawless hooligans, particularly in violent laden Democratic Party run cities.

Read: What Does Gun Control Look Like In France? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Putin Forcing Obama To Act Or Yield In Syria

By William Teach October 8, 2015 – 8:29 am

I wonder which way Obama will jump?

Russia’s Syria intervention may force choice on Obama: Act or yield

Russia’s military moves in Syria are fundamentally changing the face of the country’s civil war, putting President Bashar al-Assad back on his feet, and may complicate the Obama administration’s plans to expand its air operations against the Islamic State.

So far, the administration has not budged in its twofold strategy — direct airstrikes against the Islamic State and significant aid for those fighting against it, and a push for negotiations to end what has been the largely separate Syrian civil war.

Senior administration officials acknowledge that Russia has already made some tactical gains in the civil war, even as they insist President Vladi­mir Putin will ultimately pay for what they describe as a strategic blunder that will undercut his already tenuous reputation in the world and encourage the spread of the militants.

How will he pay? He’ll have secured his puppet state of Syria while increasing his influence in the Middle East along with his buddies in Iran. Already, other nations are reaching out. More on that in a bit.

But others within the administration, and many outside experts, are increasingly worried that if President Obama does not take decisive action — such as quickly moving to claim the airspace over northwestern Syria and the Turkish border, where Russian jets are already operating — it is the United States that will suffer significant damage to both its reputation and its foreign policy and counterterrorism goals.

He refused to take “decisive action” when Assad crossed the “red lines” Obama imposed. Why would he do anything now? He’s talked a lot, and blustered a lot. The airstrikes have been called ineffective, the training by our advisors has been a failure, and while the fighting went on, ISIS grew in power. One has to wonder what this is all about. Could there be more than just Russia flexing its muscles and looking to increase its influence? Here’s Richard Fernandez of PJ Media

Paul Richter and Brian Bennett of the Los Angeles Times argue that the Russian strongman is doing something very peculiar in modern history. He is engaging in single combat with the Leader of the Free World.  Putin is tearing down one man and not as one would expect, the entire system of a rival nation state in order to gain success. They write, “Putin is using his Syria gambit to disparage Obama”. (snip)

Even the New York Times senses the Russian’s agenda.  ”Is Vladimir Putin Trying to Teach the West a Lesson in Syria?” Ivan Krastev asks.  He can’t figure out the logic behind Russia’s military moves. “But what does this spoiling power actually want? Is Russia in Syria simply for the sport of watching a humiliated President Obama?”

That is because the logic is less military than psychological. Putin is in Syria to humiliate president Obama for sound strategic reasons.  Putin appears to be the darling of the hour. Radio Free Europe reports that Afghanistan’s “First Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum is seeking help from an old ally — Russia.” Iraqi Shi’ite politicians, caught up in the madness of strongman adulation, have called on Putin to bomb Iraq.

Putin surely knows there is no stomach in America to confront the USSR, er, Russia over Syria. And Obama surely doesn’t want to do anything that could scuttle his awful Iran deal, even as Iran is metaphorically peeing on Obama. Putin gets a twofer: more influence within the ME while reducing America’s influence while making a chump out of Obama. So much for that “more flexibility”, eh?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Putin Forcing Obama To Act Or Yield In Syria »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go: Nature Is Masking Anthropogenic Warming

By William Teach October 7, 2015 – 5:34 pm

Do you know why? Because the models did not take nature into account!

Recent Slowdown in Warming Makes Sense

Dr. Kevin Cowtan, who is a senior research fellow from the University of York (UK) made an excellent short video earlier this year explaining why the recent slowdown in global warming actually makes sense.

I highly recommend watching this short video. Courtesy of the University of Queensland (AU) and YouTube. (you can watch it at that link)

Cowtan explains that climate models do not take into account the shorter term natural phenomena such as ENSO, volcanic eruptions, air pollution and solar output.

So, he’s saying that a) the models have pretty much been as worthless as a broken shovel, and b) Excuse-storming. I have to ask, if nature can stop the warming, why can’t it be mostly responsible for the warming?

During the most recent slow-down a majority of these phenomena had a cooling influence on the planet.

Cowtan explains that if these known natural phenomena were added into the models that the re-forecasts of the climate models are pretty close to the actual observations during the recent slowdown.

Huh. So, the models were/are garbage. But, hey, Cowtan goes on to yammer that we should not focus on the short term, but, instead think of the long term where we’re all doomed (according to the same models that he just said have failed).

Some skeptics also like to point out that that if man-made global warming is occurring the global temperature trend should run in tandem with the increase in atmospheric CO2. Cowtan explains that climate scientists have never claimed that CO2 is the only thing that is controlling the changes in global temperature.

Oh, really? They haven’t? All these “climate scientists” have yammered on about “carbon pollution” and how we have to give up fossil fuels and meat and buy local and stuff or the earth is totally doomed from heat, which has then been aped by politicians and policy wonks and people taking fossil fueled vehicles to climate change speeches and demonstrations.

But, yes, some do talk of other things. Methane, ozone, other greenhouse gases get a mention, but Warmists claim that CO2 is the primary “temperature knob”. Except when the temperature record is inconvenient, then they’ll have some sort of excuse.

Did I mention that Cowtan is saying that the models are garbage?

Read: Here We Go: Nature Is Masking Anthropogenic Warming »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a rising ocean from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on idiot John Kasich.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Motley Crue’s Nikki Sixx Calls For More Gun Control

By William Teach October 7, 2015 – 10:22 am

Bear with me here. Twitchy has a post up about this subject

Sixx also tweeted that he is a gun owner, and is not a tree hugging liberal. As you can see at Twitchy, both with responses to Sixx and in the comments, he was assaulted for this position.

Here’s the thing: he’s sorta right. Why can’t we have an actual conversation and look for solutions that may work in reducing “gun crime” without infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners? Why not engage in a conversation and offer up policies that would help? Liberals keep offering the same solutions again and again, and are now even hinting at the Australian solution, which would be taking away almost all private ownership rights of citizens, using gun buybacks and confiscation. Meaning the same criminals would still have guns while citizens would be disarmed.

Let’s get ahead of the conversation. It’s almost 2016: there may be some sort of technological solution out there. Twitchy ran a post a few days ago about Valerie Jarrett getting trolled over using microchips in guns that can remotely disable the gun. Why is this a bad idea? Why not start with embedded tracking chips under the control of the owner, that way if the gun is stolen, it can be tracked, much like a mobile phone? Yes, there would necessarily be a law requiring the owner to report the theft as soon as they know, and provide the tracking info to law enforcement. The laws would have to be very, very specific in order to safeguard privacy of legal gun owners. But, a lot are stolen (especially in Dem run cities).

What if we could take this a step further and have a way to shut the gun down with these chips? Think about where computer tech has come since 1990. And mobile phones. The first iPhone wasn’t released until 2007. Same with Amazon’s Kindle. Not that long ago. Look where we are now.

I can tell you one reason why gun supporters do not want to engage: if you give Leftists and inch, they will take the proverbial mile. Then demand another couple inches, and take more miles. Why not pre-empt this? Take the lead?

Read: Motley Crue’s Nikki Sixx Calls For More Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Musings | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Ted Cruz To Sierra Club Head: What Would It Take To Change Your Mind On ‘Climate Change’?

By William Teach October 7, 2015 – 8:03 am

This exchange is very illuminating when it comes to the Cult of Climastrology

(The Blaze) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) repeatedly grilled Sierra Club President Aaron Mair Tuesday, asking whether his organization would issue a formal retraction if evidence contrary to his global warming testimony were provided to the environmental group.

Mair had testified during a Senate hearing that “our planet is cooking and heating up and warming.”

Cruz, who said that recent satellite data did not show a warming trend, asked Mair whether he would retract his statement if the data were given to him.

“Is it the Sierra Club’s position as you just testified, that the Earth is cooking up and heating and warming right now? Is that the Sierra Club’s position?” Cruz asked.

“Global temperatures are on the rise sir,” Mair replied.

“And I assume that the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts?” Cruz asked. “That the data are precisely as I described. That over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming. And indeed that is why global alarmists invented the term ‘the pause’ to explain what they call the pause in global arming because the data demonstrate what you just said that the Earth is cooking and warming is not backed up by the data.”

“We are concurring with 97 percent of the scientists that say the exact opposite, sir,” Mair replied.

As you can see in the video, and read at the link, Senator Cruz continued to ask questions to elicit any response in which Mr. Mair would repudiated his beliefs in anthropogenic climate change if provided with proof that ACC is a bunch of mule fritters. Mair would not say it. Cruz ended with

“You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that for a policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you are not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data,” Cruz said. “That undermines the credibility of any organization.”

That’s ‘climate change’ belief in a nutshell: there is nothing that will convince 97% of Warmists that they’re beliefs are wrong. If, as some scientists suggest, the Earth goes into a slight cooling phase, similar to the 40’s through 70’s (which resulted in news magazines wondering if the Earth was headed for a new ice age), members of the Cult of Climastrology will have plenty of excuses, while at the same time blaming Mankind for the cooling while still claiming that destructive warming is coming soon. If the Earth went into an typical Holocene cool period, ala the Little Ice Age, or even a new glacial period, they would do the same.

Nothing will ever change their minds because this is not about science, but political belief.

Read: Ted Cruz To Sierra Club Head: What Would It Take To Change Your Mind On ‘Climate Change’? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Totally Wants To Take The 2nd Amendment Back From NRA

By William Teach October 7, 2015 – 7:48 am

Yes, this woman who has been surrounded by security with guns for decades wants a new group

(Huffington Post) While promoting her new proposals to limit the availability of firearms, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested at a town hall in New Hampshire Monday that “responsible gun owners” should join together to create an alternative to the National Rifle Association.

Clinton’s plan includes a repeal of the legal immunity gun manufacturers and dealers received under a law passed by Congress in 2005, something the NRA and other groups would be sure to fight against. But one way to defeat the NRA, Clinton argued, would be to counteract the group’s political power with a new organization for gun owners who would be open to more restrictions on firearms.

“Ideally, what I would love to see is gun owners, responsible gun owners, hunters, form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from these extremists,” she said.

The NRA protects legal gun owners from gun grabbers like Hillary. Because there is an organization for gun owners: it’s called “The Government”. And it does a great job in restricting private citizens who want guns for personal protection from obtaining them. See Chicago, Detroit, D.C., St. Louis, NYC, New Jersey, etc. The Government has plenty of its own guns, yet, doesn’t want others to have them, and cannot protect private citizens from the gun-play occurring in their streets by those who do not obey the laws, nor would they obey any new laws.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hillary Totally Wants To Take The 2nd Amendment Back From NRA »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Hillary Clinton | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove