If All You See…

By William Teach August 25, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a place that would be perfect for showing Al Gore’s climate change movie, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on Hillary being a “victim”.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Could The California Drought Be The New Normal?

By William Teach August 25, 2015 – 10:57 am

Members of the Cult of Climastology love trotting out phrases such as “the new normal”. They’ve used it for many issues, such as after the big hurricane season of 2005, where they predicted it would be the new normal, and then landfalling hurricane activity fell to the floor. They claimed that the drought in Australia would be the new normal. Then said that the flood conditions would be the new normal, when Australia started seeing lots of rain.

Editorial: California drought could be the new normal

Reports of California’s demise are as predictable as they are exaggerated whenever the Golden State endures one of its regular disasters.

Earthquakes, fires, floods, the Great Recession and more strike, and we survive. But two reports on the drought last week ought to give us pause about how we use and misuse water, even as a third in the journal Geophysical Research Letters drives home the bad news about global warming, estimating that climate change has worsened California’s drought by up to 20 percent.

The Public Policy Institute of California raised the what-if possibility that the drought could persist. If so, more wells will run dry, leaving the low-income rural San Joaquin Valley dependent on emergency supplies.

Eighteen species of fish face extinction, including trout and salmon. Birds are threatened as Pacific Flyway wetlands wither. Wildfires are fiercer; some conifer forests could be lost forever. And even if a drenching El Niño comes to pass, the PPIC predicts a new, dryer, normal.

“The combination of low flows and high temperatures make this a ‘drought of the future’ – the type of drought California is increasingly likely to experience as the region’s climate warms,” the report says.

Expect California to soon go to flood conditions as Warmists push this meme.

And there’s still no hard, scientific proof that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Read: Say, Could The California Drought Be The New Normal? »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Latest Pro-Iran Deal Argument: It Makes It Easier To Bomb Iran!

By William Teach August 25, 2015 – 7:06 am

Has it come to this?

The ultimate argument in favor of the Iran deal
The agreement would make it easier to bomb Iran, administration officials have told lawmakers.

Want to bomb Iran? Then support the nuclear deal.

That’s the provocative argument coming from Obama administration officials and other backers of the deal as they promote it before a crucial vote in Congress next month.

In meetings on Capitol Hill and with influential policy analysts, administration officials argue that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the deal will reveal important details that can be used for better targeting should the U.S. decide to attack Iran.

Oh, it will be totally easier when the US inspects the Iranian sites. Except for the military one, which is in the secret side deal and Iran will “self report”. If the US is actually even allowed to be involved with any inspections

On Monday, Iran’s deputy foreign minister said that Iran’s intelligence service would have to approve any IAEA inspectors seeking access the country. The nuclear deal already states that Iran “will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran,” apparently excluding Americans from the IAEA team.

So, mostly we’ll have access to 2nd hand information, since it seems Iran won’t allow American inspectors.

If supporters are trotting out this argument, they must know how bad the deal is and how bad they are losing the argument.

Read: Latest Pro-Iran Deal Argument: It Makes It Easier To Bomb Iran! »

Posted in Iran, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

“Fiesty” Obama Calls GOP “Crazies”, Attacks Koch Brothers

By William Teach August 25, 2015 – 6:52 am

Is it any wonder I call Obama “not my president”? Has there ever been a US president who has attacked his political opponents in such a personal and degrading manner? Has Obama ever considered that people find no reason to work with him when he attacks them in such a manner? Of course, it is interesting that he refuses to attack enemies, such as Iran and its leaders, in such a manner

(AP) President Barack Obama is putting people on notice: He’s back from vacation feeling “refreshed, renewed, recharged” — and “a little feisty.”

He immediately showed his feisty side.

At a Democratic fundraiser Monday night in Nevada, Obama declared himself ready for the challenges he faces this fall in dealing with a Republican Congress that disagrees with him on the budget, energy policy, education and much more.

Obama said that as he’d ridden to the fundraiser with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, they’d done some reminiscing and spent some time “figuring out how we are going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems.”

He spent quite a bit of time attacking the GOP, especially the duly elected majority in Congress. Great way to entice them to work with Obama, wouldn’t you say?

But Obama spoke at length about his differences with the GOP Congress. And he lamented that “too often, our political debates are not about what’s best for the country but what’s best for the next election.”

Self-awareness fail: he was at a Democratic fundraiser. Neither Obama nor Reid are running for re-election, yet, they seem to be thinking about what’s best for the next election, rather than what’s best for the country.

He also attacked, yet again, the Koch Brothers, private citizens both

(Fox News) President Obama accused critics of his energy policies of trying to restrict consumers from accessing solar power, wind power and other alternative energy sources at a green energy conference in Las Vegas Monday night.

The president specifically singled out billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who are major donors to Republican political candidates. He accused them, along with “big fossil fuel interests” and “conservative think tanks”, of ideological inconsistency, saying that they champion free market solutions except when the free market boosts renewable energy.

“It’s one thing if you’re consistent in being free market,” Obama said. “It’s another thing when you’re free market until it’s solar that’s working and people want to buy and suddenly you’re not for it anymore. That’s a problem.”

I wonder if Obama will attack George Soros, one of the main patrons of the Democratic Party, who just bought quite a bit of stock in several coal companies. As for free market, solar and wind would not survive without massive subsidies and loans and grants and such from Government.

By the way, this fundraiser was also about “clean energy” and “climate change”, yet he fired up fossil fueled Air Force 1 to fly to Las Vegas, along with the typical 18 fossil fueled vehicles motorcade.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: “Fiesty” Obama Calls GOP “Crazies”, Attacks Koch Brothers »

Posted in Barry Obama, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: EPA Chief Admits Obama Power Plan Will Harm Low-Income Folks

By William Teach August 24, 2015 – 2:26 pm

They will be hardest hit

(MRC) While discussing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, administrator Gina McCarthy admitted who would be hit the “hardest” by the federal climate regulations.

“We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit,” McCarthy said.

She prefaced her statement by saying that the cost increases to Americans as a result of the regulations would be, “at most, a gallon of milk a month increase out the gate which tapers off to incredible savings by 2013 (WT note: that’s a typo, she said 2030).”

Ms. McCarthy didn’t explain how she came up with that particular assessment.

No, she didn’t. One estimate from NERA, which opposes Obama’s Clean Power Plan, has energy costs rising 12-17%. The Energy Information Administration estimates a 4% increase by 2030. Remember, any increases in energy costs circulate through the economy. The end user isn’t just paying more for energy at home, but also in the cost of goods and services, as they pay more.

Now, in worse case scenario, this could make the average bill rise $240 a year. Cult of Climastrology members will certainly think this is no big deal, as they sip cocktails at fancy parties, but, for poor people, this is real money. Especially as other costs rise.

(Prospect Magazine) But energy efficiency programs won’t save low- and fixed-income families. While the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-income families spend about 20 cents of every dollar.

It should be noted that, first, things never seem to work out as well as government employees and politicians say they will. How many times has a government program exploded costs? How many times has a project suddenly exploded into cost over-runs? In 1965, Medicare was estimated to cost $9 billion a year by 1990. The actual 1990 cost? $67 billion. All the social net programs, such as Welfare and SNAP (food stamps), had estimates much lower than originally thought. Rarely does a government program, rule, and/or regulation actually end up cost what they estimate, or lower.

Second, it should be noted that much of the CPP plan anticipates that consumers will use much less power. Probably because it will have become much more expensive, not because of efficiency.

Oh, and the overall outcome for this power plan? A supposed global temperature reduction of fifteen one-thousandths of a degree by 2100.

Read: Surprise: EPA Chief Admits Obama Power Plan Will Harm Low-Income Folks »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Energy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 24, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible polluting burger, causing temps to spike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Da Tech Guy, with a post on the contrast between the Iran deal and the Paris train takedown.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bernie Sanders Seems Upset That Other People Use Fossil Fuels

By William Teach August 24, 2015 – 9:28 am

How much in the way of fossil fuels does it take to run a presidential campaign, what with criss-crossing the country on planes and buses, heading to events in vehicles?

If this was enacted, how would politicians like Bernie travel? Oh, right, this doesn’t actually apply to himself. Only Other People.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/635805658760282113

I’m not expecting a reply.

Read: Bernie Sanders Seems Upset That Other People Use Fossil Fuels »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Former State Dept Officials Call Hillary’s Email Defense “Total BS”

By William Teach August 24, 2015 – 7:50 am

Is it in the realm of possibility that the Secretary Of State, a Cabinet level official, never once sent or received classified information in email? Did she require people to hand deliver and/or fax that information? Did she only send and receive info on TV shows and what’s for dinner? No, probably not, and surely not. She most certainly received and sent information about the workings of government, which, while much might not be secret, is certainly sensitive.

(NY Post) Former State Department security officials don’t buy Hillary Clinton’s latest alibi that she couldn’t tell that government e-mails — which she improperly, if not illegally, kept for several years on an unsecured home server — contained top-secret information because they lacked official markings and weren’t classified until later.

Such messages contain sensitive “keywords” distinguishing them from unclassified information, even if the material didn’t bear a classified heading as she claims.

The secretary would have known better, the department ­officials say, because she was trained to understand the difference when she was “read in” on procedures to ID and handle classified information by diplomatic-security officials in 2009.

Clinton also went through a so-called “read-off” when she left ­office in 2013. In that debriefing, security officials reminded her of her duty to return all classified documents, including ones in which the classification status is “uncertain,” which would have included the e-mails stored on her private server — which she only this month turned over to authorities. The read-off would have included her signing a nondisclosure agreement.

“Once she resigned as secretary, she needed to return classified documents and other government-owned documents, which in this case would have included the server,” veteran Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Raymond Fournier said.

Ah, but there’s the question: did she sign the form regarding turning all docs and materials? The State Department cannot find the form, called an OF-109, and is “fairly certain she did not.” Did she sign a non-disclosure form? Did she even participate in a “read-off”?

“I did not receive any material marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is [classified],” she said last week, revising an earlier claim that “there is no classified material.”

“That’s total BS,” said retired Army Col. Larry Mrozinski, who served almost four years as a ­senior military adviser and security manager in the State Department under both Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.

He says Clinton easily would have ID’d the material as classified based on “keywords and phrases” and the fact that the information came from foreign sources.

“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’ ” Mrozinski said. “The sources [of the information] also drive and signal sensitivity.”

Heck, did she even participate in a “read-in”? The super secret material should never be in electronic form, only printed, and never discussed through electronic methods. Yet, several of the emails recovered contained that material. Not that Hillary or her aides cared. Nor did Hillary care that she was using a home-brew server that put sensitive information and the workings of the State Department, and potentially other federal agencies, at risk.

Meanwhile, the Editorial Board of the USA Today takes Hillary to task, reminding her that this is no laughing matter. They note that, at the very least, she was reckless and showed poor judgement. Not qualities needed for POTUS.

Read: Former State Dept Officials Call Hillary’s Email Defense “Total BS” »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Are Suddenly Against A President Trump Using Same Methods Obama Uses

By William Teach August 24, 2015 – 7:14 am

Mr. Obama has been running roughshod over the Constitution and restrictions on the Chief Executive for the majority of his term. He’s show a lack of care for doing things the proper way, instead relying on executive actions and order, complaining that Congress won’t pass legislation that he never crafts and sends over, and just simply doing whatever he wants. But, what if Trump wins? Politico’s Bill Sher tells us what Trump’s first 100 days would look like

Would a Trump presidency be a madcap extension of his reality TV show? Except instead of the guilty pleasure we enjoy while watching the hapless get fired, we would be watching the tragicomic destruction of our international alliances, our economy and our national reputation without the option of changing the channel?

Huh. Liberals haven’t cared too much about those exact things (except the firing part, since almost no one gets fired for incompetence and bad behavior in the Obama admin. They usually get promoted) happening under Obama.

“Mexican, Chinese military officials report unauthorized breach of air space by U.S. F/A-18 fighter jets.” That’s what the Washington Free Beacon predicts will be the news out of the Trump inauguration. Another satirical press release envisages “loser,” “dummy” and “moron” replacing the usual diplomatic language out of the State Department. Former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett imagines it all ending with a “budget crisis, President Trump’s impeachment [and] Vice President Cruz’s inauguration.” Is this really the future that awaits us under president Trump?

Probably not.

As much as Trump likes to project an aura of someone who plays by his own rules and always gets his way, once in the Oval Office he would be just another politician, bound by the laws of political gravity. He may want to break some china, literally and figuratively. But in his first 100 days, the constitutional constraints of the office would become apparent, and the fears of instantaneous disaster would dissipate.

First up, as Politico notes, would be rescinding Obama’s Executive Orders on illegal aliens, stopping, as they put it, “deportation relief”. Also, labeling China a currency manipulator.

Those are actions solely within the purview of the executive branch. What Trump could not do at the point of a finger is undo Obama’s policies established by the formal regulatory process. Trump may think that global warming is a hoax, but he can’t wipe the EPA’s carbon rules off the books without undergoing a laborious regulatory process of his own. Even then he could be stymied by environmentalist lawsuits charging him with violating the Clean Air Act.

Suddenly, Trump is not allowed to use his own Executive Orders. Obama has enacted a raft of “climate change” initiatives via EO: Trump could rescind those. As POTUS, Trump could easily craft his own EO’s directing the EPA to stop enforcing any “climate change” laws, in the exact same manner Obama told them to expand their scope, and the same as with his “deportation relief”.

Liberals will suddenly believe in the “constitutional constraints of the office”, something they’ve utterly ignored during the Obama years, if Trump wins.

People horrified at the prospect of a President Trump can take some solace that our constitutional system of checks and balances constricts his ability to turn America into a gold-plated laughingstock. But those who believe Trump’s bravado is the only way to make Washington work should disabuse themselves of that fantasy. We’ve shocked the world before, only to be shocked to learn that it takes a politician to practice politics.

Interesting. Obama’s entire time in office has been about bravado and doing things his own way, of picking fights with Congress (and going back on deals he agreed to when anything actually gets done), of making demands then issuing EOs. Suddenly this would be Bad for Trump, or, let’s face it, any other Republican. Go figure.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Liberals Are Suddenly Against A President Trump Using Same Methods Obama Uses »

Posted in Barry Obama, GOP, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: We Only Have 100 Days To Save The World

By William Teach August 23, 2015 – 7:38 pm

Extreme hyperbole? Check. Here’s hyper-alarmist John D. Sutter at CNN, which used to be interested in actual news, not fiction

100 days to save the world

…

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, for instance, was signed but never ratified by the United States, and even global sweetheart Canada pulled out and failed to meet its pollution targets. More recently, in 2009,talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, amounted to “a sort of climate wish list,” Elizabeth Kolbert wrote in The New Yorker.

We can’t throw out that frustrating history, of course.

But we can and should do our best to shake it off, Taylor Swift-style.

World leaders are set to meet again 100 days from Saturday. This time in Paris. And, this time, against all odds, there’s ample evidence things finally will be different.

Taylor Swift?

This is supposed to be the World’s Most Serious Problem, and we get a Taylor Swift shake it off mention. What’s not mentioned are the 10,000 or so people who will descend on Paris using fossil fueled travel methods, especially private airplanes and limos.

Here are five reasons for optimism ahead of the talks.

  1. Countries already are pledging major pollution cuts (yeah, they did that with the Kyoto Protocol, then failed to follow through. And CO2 is not a pollutant, no matter how many times Warmists call it that)
  2. China and the United States are playing ball (China is building coal fired power plants willy nilly)
  3. The 2 degrees goal is still in reach (barely) (the plans offered at the Conference on the Parties meetings wouldn’t stop the world from exceeding that magical 2C number)
  4. Hundreds of thousands are demanding action (The other 7 billion aren’t)
  5. The stakes are too high to give up (this is your ultra-doom moment, which you’ll have to read yourself)

And we end thusly

“I’m concerned,” he said, “but not pessimistic.”

Neither am I. We owe it to the planet to remain optimistic.

If we “owe the planet”, shouldn’t every Warmist give up their own fossil fuels usage and go carbon neutral?

Read: Bummer: We Only Have 100 Days To Save The World »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove