Bummer: World To End Tomorrow

By William Teach October 6, 2015 – 6:12 pm

Seriously, that’s just wrong. I just ordered a new remote for my car stereo (the old one is somewhat worn out), the Dodgers start their series against the Mets on Friday, and the Devils start their season off against Winnipeg on Friday, as well.

(Gizmodo)  Chris McCann, the founder of the fringe Christian group eBible Fellowship, says the world is going to end on October 7, 2015. He confidently claims that the Earth will be completely “annihilated.” Could he be right?

I bet you thought this was going to be about ‘climate change’, didn’t you? Nope.

According to McCann, God “shut the door to heaven” on May 21, 2011. And ever since, He has just been preparing to blow up our puny little planet. But that doesn’t mean McCann isn’t hedging his bets.

“There’s a strong likelihood that this will happen,” McCann told The Guardian. “Which means there’s an unlikely possibility that it will not.”

But, it does sound rather like what the Cult of Climastrology yammers on about, generally hedging their bets with ifs, mights, coulds, maybees, mights.

Read: Bummer: World To End Tomorrow »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post wondering when Hillary was last in a grocery store.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach October 6, 2015 – 7:19 am

But, of course it is. In Warmist World, everything must be linked to Hotcoldwetdry. As Bernie Sanders blasts Obama’s TPP as “disastrous”, claiming that “Wall Street and other big corporations have won again,” Samantha Page at George Soros funded Think Progress yammers on about ‘climate change’

Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement Is A Disaster For Climate Change

After years of meetings, months of Congressional debates, and days of around-the-clock negotiations, the United States and 11 other countries reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Trade agreement (TPP) on Monday.

If adopted, the TPP will eliminate or reduce tariffs between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. But while it specifically addresses some environmental concerns — such as trade of illegally harvested resources or wildlife trafficking — climate change activists saw Monday’s announcement as the culmination of a long-watched train wreck.

“It’s still the same disaster for climate change it was three months ago,” 350.org’s Karthik Ganapathy told ThinkProgress.

Why?

His organization, as well as many others, say the TPP protects multinational corporations that profit from fossil fuels. Some have argued that under the TPP — as with the North American Free Trade Agreement — companies will be able to sue countries that enact laws to limit fossil fuel extraction or carbon emissions, if it interferes with profits. The deal also will lead to the rubber-stamping of export facilities for natural gas from fracking and will prevent the U.S. Trade Representative from ever including climate change action in trade deals, Ganapathy said.

Say, have all the groups and their members…..350.org, WWF, etc…who are complaining given up their own use of fossil fuels? Yeah, a rhetorical question, because we know they haven’t.

Congress has 90 days to review the deal, and we can expect continued Democratic Party opposition, but, it seems likely to emerge out of Congress, and Obama will sign it. It’s his baby, after all.

“The compromises that [were] struck will further enrage environmentalists and other progressive opposition, and threatens to undermine the razor thin majority that gave President Obama Fast Track trade authority,” Erich Pica, President of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. “Friends of the Earth urges our members and members of Congress to oppose this bad deal.”

Of course, this really has nothing to do with the environment: the ‘climate change’ movement is about politics, pushed by people who refuse to live their own talking points. In fact, when it comes to the environment

All countries agreed to cut down on wildlife trafficking, especially elephants, rhinoceroses, and marine species. It prevents environmental abuses, such as unsustainable logging and fishing. Those that don’t will face trade penalties.

There are plenty of pros and cons surrounding the TPP. Climate change isn’t one of them.

Read: Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama To Meet With UCC Shooting Families – Still No Contact With Kate Steinle’s Family

By William Teach October 6, 2015 – 6:56 am

As Mr. Obama is preparing for more executive action on guns, which will surely only affect the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals who use guns (hey, how are things in your hometown of Chicago, PBO?), he’s going to use the families of those killed by Christopher Harper-Mercer as political props

(Breitbart) President Barack Obama will travel to Oregon this week to visit privately with families of the victims of last week’s shooting at a community college.

Obama will visit Roseburg on Friday as he opens a four-day trip to the West Coast. No additional details about his visit were immediately available.

First of all, we will see how serious Obama is about this by the number of fundraisers he attends, which are surely the primary reason for this West coast swing. Rarely is a big trip like this a last minute thing. He’s simply adding the visits in serendipitously.

Second, for all his bluster, he never called or visited the family of Kate Steinle, murdered with a gun by an 5 time deported illegal alien, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who was also convicted previously of 7 felonies. Interestingly, the gun used was stolen from a federal agent’s car, not purchased at a “gun show” using the “loophope”.

Nor has Obama ever visited with the families of others killed by illegal aliens. Nor the families of the doctors killed by a US airstrike in Afghanistan by military members under the control of…wait for it…the Obama administration.

Obama has renewed his call for stricter gun laws following the shooting and has expressed exasperation at the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S.

It’s interesting how most of these have happened while he was president. Say, where were all the visits and comments on all the people, including US federal agents and Mexican children, killed by the guns members of his administration “walked” into Mexico?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To Meet With UCC Shooting Families – Still No Contact With Kate Steinle’s Family »

Posted in Barry Obama | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

Who Knew “Sweat-shaming” Was A Real Thing?

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 6:45 pm

This is actually written by a self described liberal/progressive, who wants the ginned up victimization to stop

(UK Telegraph) Ms Roe had been for a long run, prior to entering Starbucks and was sweaty. Someone else in the queue commented on this. She felt a bit awkward. End of story, right? Not a bit of it. A few minutes later, when she got into her car, she realised that this was no ordinary social interaction:

“Eventually the caffeine kicked in and it hit me: I’d been sweat-shamed. Sweat-shaming is when someone points out your sweatiness as a way to signal disapproval. Like its counterparts, slut-shaming and fat-shaming, sweat-shaming is aimed mainly at women, who are actually not supposed to sweat at all.”

I know, me too. Let’s start with the sheer solipsistic ridiculousness of this. Going into a Starbucks drenched in sweat is yucky. You created the problem. The other person in the queue was probably a bit grossed out. Perhaps they were a little bit rude. Perhaps you were a little bit sensitive. I don’t know. But what I do know is that, if anyone, male or female, was drenched in sweat next to me in a coffee queue, my natural reaction would be “eww”. Most people shower after exercise. It’s one of those social things, like using deodorant or brushing your teeth.

But actually this had me thinking. I’m pretty sure I’ve been called out for having BO before. I’ve certainly been called out for farting. Back then, I took it on the chin and admitted liability. I’d farted. My bad. But now I realise that I was the victim. I’d been fart-shamed. Of course, if I were a woman, it would be a hundred times worse because women are not supposed to fart at all…

At this point, I’m just going to say “hit the link and read the whole thing”.

Read: Who Knew “Sweat-shaming” Was A Real Thing? »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Hey, Let’s All Eat Bugs To Stop Climate Change!

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 3:01 pm

Tell you what, Warmists: you first. Give up your own meat intake

Two Degrees: Does eating bugs help fight climate change?

Earlier this week, I wrote a column for CNN Opinion about the climate cost of beef production — arguing we have to cut back on steak and hamburgers to avoid dangerous warming.

In response, Torben Ørvad Jensen, a reader in Denmark, asked why we don’t substitute a fairly unconventional protein source — grasshoppers — for cattle.

Would that help reduce human contributions to global warming?

“How can we get the governments around the world to see, that one of the the answer to both famine and climate change, is breeding new kinds of livestock like grasshoppers?” he asked.

“Insects are not the answer to everything,” he added, “but its one of the great changes that could be fundamental to fighting climate change in the long run.”

Read: Hey, Let’s All Eat Bugs To Stop Climate Change! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on Hillary being advised to lawyer up.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hillary Offers Up Stale, Tired Ideas On Gun Control

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 10:11 am

Please explain how any of these ideas will stop criminals from killing. Oh, and when is Hillary going to give up her armed security?

(Bloomberg) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Monday began detailing new proposals aimed at closing gun sale loopholes and holding accountable those who sell guns for violence committed with those weapons.

Oh, wait, actually that last one would refer to former US Attorney General Eric Holder, whose subordinates in various DOJ departments ran guns via straw purchase to criminals, mostly in Mexico, which were used to kill and injure hundreds of people, including US federal agents and Mexican children.

Oh, and as Jim Geraghty point out “Almost no mass shooters buy their guns at gun shows! Very few criminals buy their guns at gun shows!”

Seizing the moment following last week’s mass shooting in Oregon, Clinton planned to call for the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which gives legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers whose guns are used for criminal activity, said a campaign official, who asked not to be named, previewing the announcement Clinton was set to make on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

This could open a massive can of worms, as this could be applied to a wide variety of products. Lawyers would love it. Family member killed by a drunk driver? Sue the auto and alcohol makers. Slip in the bathtub? Sue the bathtub maker.

Geraghty, working off the NBC News article, notes that Clinton’s call for enacting laws on straw purchases is idiotic, since there already is law on this. Hence the reason gun dealers who were forced to sell guns as straw purchases to federal agents during Operation Fast and Furious demanded written waivers.

Exactly how would any of this take guns out of the hands of criminals intent on criminality? It can never be said enough: Democratic Party run cities with heavy restrictions on gun ownership still experience large amounts of criminal use of guns.

Hillary is constantly surrounded by security agents with guns, and has been for decades. If she’s entitled to protection, why shouldn’t ordinary Americans?

Read: Hillary Offers Up Stale, Tired Ideas On Gun Control »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Hillary Clinton | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Models “Over-Estimate Future Warming By As Much As 10 Times”

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 8:09 am

I know you’re utterly shocked that there are vast problems with the Cult of Climastrology’s computer models

(Perth Now) A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

It’s rather surprising that this is such small news. Why is this not being shouted by the news media?

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Oh. That’s why. The CoC doesn’t want to admit that the hysteria and doomsaying they’ve engaged in for almost 30 years has been based on a lie, and, really, they do not care a whit about the science, because this is about implementing a far left Progressive (nice fascist) agenda.

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Time will tell. If Dr. Evans is correct, we can expect the CoC to admit they were wrong, right? For governments to finally say “enough. Just stop”, right?

Na. The CoC will once again find creative Excuses which will still allow them to blame Mankind’s “carbon pollution” output, and say that the future is rather doomy from heat.

Read: Climate Models “Over-Estimate Future Warming By As Much As 10 Times” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Let’s Make America A Gun Free Society

By William Teach October 5, 2015 – 7:38 am

The anti-gunnites are becoming more and more brazen in the wake of the Oregon UCC shooting. Which occurred in a mostly gun free zone. Yes, the UCC campus is a gun free zone, no matter what liberals try and tell you. The only exception is for those with Concealed Carry Permits, who still cannot bring them in buildings on campus. Mr. Obama brought up the “Australian solution”, namely, declaring most gun ownership illegal, making it law, implementing gun buy-backs/confiscation. That his given license to the anti-gunnites to more openly declare their true intentions. Here’s Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt

A gun-free society

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

It sounds like punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals, while leaving the law abiding at the mercy of criminals who won’t follow the law and give up their guns.

Maybe we should enact a prohibition on Democrats, who helped create a narcissistic society and for being soft on crime. Maybe we should ban miniskirts, which lead to rape. Maybe we should ban alcohol

Every day, about 30 people are killed in the U.S. in gun homicides or gun accidents (not counting gun suicides or self-inflicted accidental shootings). And every day, likely about 30 people are killed in homicides where the killer was under the influence of alcohol, plus alcohol-related drunk driving accidents and alcohol-related accidents where the driver wasn’t drunk but the alcohol was likely a factor (again not including those who died in accidents caused by their own alcohol consumption).

Oh, right, we tried that. Then repealed it. Despite all the deaths, all the crime, all the health issues. Back to Fred

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Interestingly, a goodly chunk of those deaths from what is termed “Black in origin” crime, meaning Black on Black (the majority of Black shootings were by other Blacks) occur in Democratic Party run cities with heavy gun restrictions. Anyone think the criminals would give up their guns?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

The Supreme Court certainly didn’t misread the 2nd Amendment, based on the writings of the Founding Fathers, who advocated for private ownership of guns for the possibility of forming state/local militias when necessary. Nor that the 2nd doesn’t give people a Right, it protects people from Government. It tells Government what it cannot do.

But, he’s right, liberals should speak more honestly about their intentions, namely, banning private ownership of guns. And all those who believe this should give up their own.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Let’s Make America A Gun Free Society »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove