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

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
Pirate's Cove