Obama: Climate Change Is More Important Than Putin

So much so that Obama will continuously take lots of fossil fueled travel to fundraisers and golf outings

(WND) President Obama said during a nationally televised interview on “60 Minutes” on CBS News he didn’t think Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a threat to America’s security – that she simply made a mistake.

He also made somewhat shocking statements about his perception of climate change and its importance on the international stage when compared to Russia’s aggression into Syria. (snip)

Obama also spoke briefly of Russia and Syria. When CBS host Steve Kroft questioned Obama about Russia president Vladimir Putin, the topic quickly turned to climate change.

“He’s challenging your leadership, Mr. President,” Kroft said, of Putin.

And Obama’s reply: “I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change and [an] international accord that potentially would get in Paris.”

The delusion of Obama is truly amazing.

Read: Obama: Climate Change Is More Important Than Putin »

Washington Post Totally Enthused For Incremental Executive Action On Gun Control

Remember when the liberal media was very upset over President Bush’s use of executive orders, calling him a unilateral executive? Good times, good times. Now, they’re all in for any possible gun control, no matter how little of a difference it will make in restricting people with ill intent from having a gun

What the president can do on gun laws

GUN CONTROL is being debated again. After the latest mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., several Democrats in Congress renewed their push for legislation to tighten gun sale regulation and crack down on gun traffickers. Separately, the Democrat with the best shot at striking a bipartisan deal, Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), has also signaled interest in reviving his efforts. Hillary Clinton proposed reforms also: shoring up the background check system to cover gun transfers that now occur off the books, extending the time limits placed on background check investigations and barring domestic abusers from owning guns, among other things.

In a more rational Washington, these proposals would be on Congress’s agenda. So would requiring gunmakers to install “smart” technology that would allow only authorized users to shoot. If your iPhone can require your thumbprint, so could your pistol. Reality hasn’t changed, however: A GOP Congress isn’t likely to approve any gun control bill any time soon.

Any domestic abuser convicted of a felony is already barred. If you want this for those convicted of misdemeanors, the law itself would have to be changed. Or, would it? Even Think Progress notes that “restraining orders and misdemeanor abuse convictions bar gun ownership in federal background checks,” though “some 35 states don’t enforce their own laws against these major categories of abusers, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.” Oh, look, law that was passed in 1996.

Your iPhone doesn’t “require your thumbprint”: it is a feature that can be turned on and off at the will of the user. Besides, the so called smart guns are not reliant on a thumbprint, but a watch that has to be near the gun. At least now. Smartphones can be hacked. Surprisingly, by criminals. Tests show 1 in 10 shots fail. Your gun would be dependent by a battery. What happens when a women pulls the gun to defend herself and the battery is dead? Why do Democrat gun grabbers hate women? Furthermore, this dramatically increases the cost of purchasing a gun. And, what if the tech goes bad? More costly repairs or purchases. This isn’t to say we should not look into technology solutions: we should. We shouldn’t simply require things that may not work and certainly aren’t ready.

Anyhow, the Washington Post Editorial Board really wants Obama to push to close the “gun show loophole” and restrict small dealers and family members from transferring/selling guns below a certain threshold

The Post’s Greg Sargent reports that the Obama administration has been considering this sort of move but hasn’t figured out how to make it work — for example, how many guns can one sell before it becomes a “regular course of trade”? Yet that’s no excuse not to try.

It would, like most of the other notions, require new law. Why not write something up and submit it to Congress? Why not convene a meeting with Congress to hammer out some measures that would pass?

Ms. Clinton’s administrative action would at best offer incremental improvement, and even that would be limited without giving ATF more resources for enforcement. But while working for broader change, the country shouldn’t turn up its nose at incremental progress.

By “incremental”, they mean this will barely be a drop in the bucket, if it makes any difference at all. It is the appearance of Doing Something, rather than actually doing something. And this mostly effects those not intent on using the guns for crime. How about some ideas that would effect the criminals?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Totally Enthused For Incremental Executive Action On Gun Control »

Cult Of Climastrology Wouldn’t Look To Actually Ban “Climate Denial”, Would They?

There’s a reason Jonah Goldberg referred to Progressivism as “nice fascism”: you will be forced to comply. For your own good. And Warmists are primarily Progressives

(UK Telegraph)  We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage.

Last week I mentioned that the Prince of Wales had sent a message to this conference calling for the UN’s forthcoming climate meeting in Paris to agree on “a Magna Carta for the Earth”. But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (onNofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended). (snip)

The purpose of this strange get-together was outlined in a keynote speech (visible on YouTube) by Philippe Sands, a QC from Cherie Blair’s Matrix Chambers and professor of law at University College, London. Since it is now unlikely that the world will agree in Paris to a legally binding treaty to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law. (snip)

“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.

No one should be surprised by this in the least, being the logical extension of the whole “the science is settled” screeching from members of the Cult of Climastrology (who they themselves refused to practice what they preach). Warmists demand that the only science to be taught in schools is one sided, being more akin to indoctrination than scientific inquiry. They refuse to follow the Scientific Model. They band together and assail any scientist who refuses to bow to the CoC. They yammer on about getting the US Department of Justice to file RICO (Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, originally designed to prosecute the Mafia) charges against non-believers. They call for jail and death for Skeptics. Simply outlawing Skepticism is fully and wholly believable, and something that Warmists very much want to do.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Wouldn’t Look To Actually Ban “Climate Denial”, Would They? »

If All You See…

…is a world scorching from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on Obama’s BFF Iran threatening Israel again.

It’s skating week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in America, there’s a little bit of that fall nip in the air. And the Giants will be smacking around the 49ers tonight. This pinup is by Emile Noordeloos, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Allen B. West says there’s a wee bit of a problem with California’s new automatic voter registration law
  2. Independent Sentinel has great news for workers at Urban Outfitters
  3. Vox Popoli says feminism is a losers game
  4. This ain’t Hell… has some thoughts on the feckless Iran deal
  5. The Other McCain takes a stroll through feminist tumblr
  6. The Last Tradition wonders about Hillary having a big meltdown
  7. The Diary of Daedalus notes that supporting the 2nd Amendment is now racist
  8. The Daley Gator notes who’s increasing crime in Germany
  9. Raised On Hoecakes covers an American flag hating principal
  10. Pamela Geller notes another great former Gitmo inmate
  11. neo-neocon covers wonky NY Times editorials
  12. Moonbattery discovers another fake hate hoax
  13. Legal Insurrection wants a headline correction
  14. Flopping Aces notes another unconstitutional Obama program
  15. And last, but not least, Fire Andrea Mitchell covers the thuggish black lives matter protest

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Washington Post: Why Don’t People Listen To Gun Owners Who Support Restrictions?

Nothing will stop the gun haters from propagating their ideas which do not work, and will only effect the law abiding citizens

Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.

Gun owners who favor tighter restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.

The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.

Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show that the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new ­background-check requirements for high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.

This is all about being a hit piece on the NRA and those who aren’t for increasing the background checks. Note: I’m not a member of the NRA. I’ve never felt the need. I don’t agree with everything they do. But, they do work hard to protect our Constitutional right from what the gun grabbers want to do

Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

Most law abiding gun owners are fine with background checks. I certainly am. Those I know with guns are. We’re certainly for prohibiting ownership to domestic abusers and those with mental illness that makes them a danger. But, let’s consider why the NRA and other gun lobbies oppose the “universal background checks” idea

Gun control supporters initially opposed NICS. However, once they recognized that NICS was inevitable, they began advocating steps aimed at incrementally transforming it into a national registry of guns. At first, they wanted background checks required on all private (i.e., non-licensee) sales, trades and gifts of handguns. Then they wanted background checks on private transfers of all firearms at gun shows. Now, they demand background checks on all private transfers of all firearms, regardless of location, and they want the FBI to retain, for an indefinite period, records on people who pass NICS checks to acquire firearms.

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.

As we can see, the anti-gunnites have incrementally pushed for more and more, and want this registry, which is government keeping track of private ownership of guns. As the recent IRS issue shows, not too mention all the hackings of federal government agencies, we can’t trust our information in government hands.

Second, increasing this won’t actually do anything for those engaged in wrong-doing with guns. Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, also stated that the system is not working, since the roughly 250,000 prohibited people have never been prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm. The NRA used to support universal background checks, meaning everyone who purchases, regardless of where, but, the system is broken. Illegal purchases/attempted purchases are not prosecuted. Mental health information is very often not entered in the system.

BTW, why no mention that 64% want more armed security in schools, a notion gun grabbers are very much against? Same survey.

Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.

Except, these “high-powered assault rifles” are anything but. One can purchase much more powerful rifles. The .223 isn’t exactly the most powerful bullet out there. And all they mean is “scary looking weapon”.

Really, though, the fallacy of the survey is shown in that 58% favor banning semi-automatic weapons. That just shows that most do not understand what different types of guns are. Semi-auto means pull the trigger, one bullet exits the barrel, and one bullet moves from the magazine into firing position. But, the gun will not fire again till the trigger is pulled. Heck, we could almost say a revolver is semi-automatic. Do the gun grabbers want only guns which fire the same as they did during the War for Independence?

This is all stale rhetoric, which won’t take guns out of the hands of bad actors. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet, they continue to see high levels of gun-play and murders. Same with D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, and other Democratic Party run cities. Lets look for ways to get the guns out of their hands, while significantly increasing penalties for those who use weapons for crime. How about re-instituting hard time? How about chain-gangs out working on roads? Let’s stop restricting those who want guns for self-defense and can pass a background check, and start going after the bad actors.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: Why Don’t People Listen To Gun Owners Who Support Restrictions? »

UK Clean Energy Firms Go Belly Up

I wonder why (via Paul Homewood)

Two clean energy firms go bust within hours ‘because of Tory U-turn on energy policy’

Two of the UK’s leading clean energy companies have gone into administration on the same day, blaming the Government’s U-turn on energy policy.

Nearly 1,000 staff were laid off in Leicester yesterday as home insulation and solar panel provider, Mark Group, fell into administration.

Within hours Climate Energy, which describes itself as “the UK’s largest provider of energy efficiency solutions” had also closed down, announcing the news on their website.

Mark Group blamed the closure on the government’s recent turnaround on energy policy including the removal of subsidies to renewables.

Huh. So, as Paul Homewood points out “Take away the subsidies and see what happens.” We aren’t talking tax breaks, we’re talking direct government monetary input

Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Air America, liberals version of talk radio, couldn’t survive without direct and massive input of rich liberals money. They couldn’t survive otherwise. Their advertising revenue was minuscule. The same applies to a goodly chunk of these “green energy” companies, which cannot survive without government, ie, taxpayer, money.

Read: UK Clean Energy Firms Go Belly Up »

If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert because Someone Else refused to go carbon neutral, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Protein Wisdom, with a post on tacos being culturally offensive.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: USGS Blows Up SC 1000 Year Flood Meme, Denies ‘Climate Change’ Link

Many, many hyperventilating news outlets yammered on about the “1000 year flood” after the days and days and days of rain in in the Carolinas, especially South Carolina (I was supposed to join my parents in Hilton Head next week. They cancelled the vacation due to the extreme detours necessary to get there). Super-Warmists Eric Holthaus even took it up a notch and called the floods “Biblical”

“Biblical” Flooding Devastates South Carolina

…..

Sadly, this is exactly the type of event we can expect to see more of as the planet warms. One of the most straightforward responses to climate change is a quickening of the hydrologic cycle: Warmer air speeds evaporation and can cause rain to fall with greater intensity. This supercharges the atmosphere, and boosts the likelihood of devastating floods. What’s less clear is how many of these events it will take—major floods also hit China, France, and Guatemala over the last week, with more than 100 dead—before we start bending the global emissions curve away from a worst-case climate scenario.

Biblical! And, of course, blamed on ‘climate change’, and he, like the rest, mean mostly/solely the fault of Mankind.

What does the United States Geological Survey say?

Is this flooding in South Carolina truly a 1000-year flood?

While this certainly was a catastrophic flood with lots of damage and tragic loss of life, USGS provisional data and preliminary analysis show NO indication that a 1000-year flood discharge occurred at any USGS streamgages. However, based on that analysis, it does appear that the USGS streamgage on the Black River at Kingstree, SC and the one on the Smith Branch at Columbia, SC both measured peak floods in the neighborhood of a 500-year flood. Currently, there appear to be a few more streamgages experiencing a 25-year to 50-year flood, but the majority of USGS streamgages had flood peaks that were less than 10-year floods. USGS will have more accurate estimates of the flood probabilities out in the coming months, as the engineers and scientists in South Carolina take time to do more careful analysis of the statistics.

Oops. Look, even if it was, it doesn’t mean that this is all your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle, purchasing Chilean Sea Bass, keeping your AC at 72, using a hair dryer and ice maker, etc and so on. Weather events happen. And the climate changes over time. That’s the nature of the Earth.

Is this flood due to climate change?

USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.

A much bigger impact on flooding, though, is land use change. Without proper mitigation, urbanization of watersheds increases flooding. Moreover, encroachment into the floodplain by homes and businesses leads to greater economic losses and potential loss of life, with more encroachment leading to greater losses.

Double oops. Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in the climate (remember, climate is simply the long term averages of weather) might not mean lots and lots of flooding in specific areas in the future. But, this doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. And, that is what the debate is about: causation.

Notice the second paragraph: land use. I’ve noted time and time again that Mankind does, in fact, have an effect on the climate. A small effect, but an effect nonetheless. A tiny influence through greenhouse gases, including CO2 and Methane. But, CO2 is not the “temperature knob”, and is not the main cause of all changes. I’ve noted the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI). And I’ve noted land use. Land use can cause what was normal to change. Cut down a forest and the winds and humidity change. Even Al Gore’s Climate Reality had to admit, in their own Cult of Climastrology manner

Some scientists believe the retreat of Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier can be attributed in part to a reduction in snow caused by deforestation or land-use change. Cutting down forests allows winds to sweep up the mountain, which in turn can affect cloud formation, and therefore the amount of rainfall. But more research is required to assess the extent to which deforestation is affecting Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier.

In fact, most scientists have said “it’s the deforestation“. And when the forests were replanted, the glaciers grew.

But it seems like the 100-year flood is getting larger through time at a site near me, so you are saying that this is not necessarily from climate or land-use change?

Climate variability (dry cycles to wet cycles) plays a large role. There is a large amount of uncertainty around the flood quantile estimates (the value of discharge corresponding to the 100-year flood), particularly if there isn’t a long record of observed data at a stream location. For example, if there is only 25 years of data and a statistical analysis was done on that data to estimate the 100-year flood, uncertainty around the estimate would be quite large. It can look like flooding at that particular location is getting worse if there are 2 or 3 floods in a short period that exceed that estimate of the 100-year flood. However, if there were 700 years of data, it might show that what had been called a 100-year flood when there was only 25 years of data was really only a 10-year flood.

In other words, the Cult of Climastrology needs to ease up on their apoplexy and doomsaying.

Read: Bummer: USGS Blows Up SC 1000 Year Flood Meme, Denies ‘Climate Change’ Link »

Obama Considers Issuing Executive Order On Gun Purchases That Would Solve Nothing

Liberals have never met a gun control idea that they don’t like, as long as it is one that only affects those who are law abiding citizens who do not use their guns in a criminal manner. Going after those who actually use guns criminally or may use them criminally? Please. Any sort of law enforcement methods will be trampled in the rush to protect the criminals. Obama, who said he wasn’t visiting Oregon to be political, decided to trot out another idea yesterday that would do absolutely nothing

(Washington Post) In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.

Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers. (snip)

The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

The gist of this is that there are dealers who sell a small amount of guns each year and are not required to perform background checks. These are dealers, really, average citizens, who engage in buying and selling “as a hobby”. Many of them are selling antique guns and hunting rifles. The change being considered would consider that anyone selling more than so many guns yearly (they haven’t decided on a number yet, though 50 or 100 is being bandied) would need to be licensed.

What’s not stated or known is how many criminals actually purchase their guns in this manner. Can any crime be linked to these types of hobby dealers? This is simply an “I’m doing something!!!!!!!” or, better, “I’m thinking of doing something!!!!!” idea that won’t make a difference in the least. Think about how well gun control is working in Chicago

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/652590872312328192

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Considers Issuing Executive Order On Gun Purchases That Would Solve Nothing »

Pirate's Cove