The Great Pause Hits 18 Years, 7 Months

By William Teach August 7, 2015 – 11:28 am

Members of the Cult of Climastrology like to throw out talking points stating that 2014 was the hottest year ever! Satellite data doesn’t support that. Sure, if we use ground data that has been massage to death, we can arrive at that point. The raw data, and the satellite data, fails to support the “we’re doomed” prognostications. Here’s Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, who will be roundly attacked, as usual

For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

The Pause has now drawn blood. In the run-up to the world-government “climate” conference in Paris this December, the failure of the world to warm at all for well over half the satellite record has provoked the climate extremists to resort to desperate measures to try to do away with the Pause.

Obviously, you should read the entire article, with all the facts and figures and charts.

Does this invalidate warming? No. Lord Monckton will tell you that, and has told you that, just as I have, and will, tell you that. The Earth is currently in a low level Holocene warm period, and has been since around 1850. The debate is not on warming, but causation. Cult of Climastrology members will tell you that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, yet, for all their caterwauling, they refuse to change their own lives and use of fossil fuels to match their beliefs set.

This in no way means that warming may not restart: there have been several periods where the warming flatlined, and one where it dipped (late 1940’s to late 1970’s), before warming resumed. There has been a meager 1.4F increase in global temperatures since 1850, making this a low level warming period.

What this does do is highlight the utter failure of the computer models that the CoC relies on to make unhinged prognostications and politicians and interest groups use to push Government dominated rules, regulations, and laws, which provide massive government control of our lives, private entities, and economies. If the computer models failed to predict the Pause, and CoC members have to tro out over 70 excuses, one might wonder if their prognostications for the future might well be completely worthless.

Read: The Great Pause Hits 18 Years, 7 Months »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Chuck Schumer Comes Out Against Obama’s Terrible Iran Deal

By William Teach August 7, 2015 – 7:02 am

People have been wondering whether Schumer will or won’t support the Iran deal, and his support or opposition is big. He’s one of the biggest Democrats in the Senate and his opinion matters

(USA Today) Sen. Chuck Schumer came out against the Iran nuclear agreement Thursday night, making him the most prominent Democrat to oppose one of the biggest foreign policy initiatives of the Obama presidency.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., came out against the deal shortly afterward. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee.

“Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement,” Schumer said in an essay on the web site Medium. “To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.”

Schumer writes

In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) — the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

He notes the problems with the inspections, with the so-called “snapbacks” of sanctions, and notes that the deal fails after ten years, leaving Iran in a better financial position to fund terrorism and build nuclear weapons.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal — nuclear restrictions for the first ten years — that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

That’s a direct slap in the face at Obama using political speak. It’s like when an elected official says “my esteemed colleague from X” in the heat of a debate: they really mean “the a-hole from X”.

Will this opposition give cover to other elected Democrats in not just the Senate, but the House? They have to remember than Obama is gone come January 20, 2017, but quite a few will still be in office, and many want to still be there. Do they really want to be on the hook for their vote when Iran starts cheating and nothing can be done? Do they want to be on the hook when Iran is using all those extra funds for even more terrorism?

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

He understands it’s not just a choice between this bad deal and war, a disingenuous line Obama likes to throw out. We can get a better deal, one which doesn’t give the house away to the hardcore Iranian regime.

Read: Chuck Schumer Comes Out Against Obama’s Terrible Iran Deal »

Posted in Democrats, Iran | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Carly Fiorina Easily Wins “Happy Hour” Debate

By William Teach August 7, 2015 – 6:43 am

Think back to last year’s Super Bowl: Seattle took it 43-8. Seattle won it going away. It wasn’t even competitive. Carly Fiorina was the Seahawks. Don’t just ask me, ask the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza

Carly Fiorina won the ‘Happy Hour’ debate. By a lot.

Carly Fiorina was the only woman on stage at the so-called “Happy Hour” debate on Thursday night. She was also the only one of the seven candidates who made clear that she deserves more attention — and a more prime spot in the debates — as the campaign continues.

From the start, Fiorina was poised and confident. She followed a halting and seemingly nervous answer by Texas Gov. Rick Perry with a fluid riff on why she was running and how she was best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton. And, she closed that first answer with this quotable (and good) line: “The highest calling of leadership is to challenge the status quo and unlock the potential of others. We need a leader who will lead the resurgence of this great nation and unlock its potential once again.”

That poised and confident answer was a sign of things to come for Fiorina. As people like Perry (still not a good debater), South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (why was he so sad???) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (angry much?) struggled, Fiorina shined. She repeatedly hit on her knowledge of the world and foreign policy and, smartly for this Republican audience, went after Clinton on Benghazi.

And The Hill’s Cristina Marcos

Google reported that Fiorina was the most searched candidate during the early debate, and she also received the most Twitter chatter.

Pundits also gave her good reviews, with Washington Post columnist George Will saying she “stood out with precision and fluency,” and Fox News host Chris Wallace also praising her.

Fox News pundit Charles Krauthammer said she won the debate “going away.”

She went after Trump and Jeb! without getting truly nasty. She was scathing when it came to Obama and Hillary’s policies. She destroyed the Obama/Kerry #IranDeal. And did it in a way that showed leadership, rather than petulance and narcissism.

During the night time debate, some where good, some where wishy washy. The question here is, will Carly’s performance give her a boost? There’s a long way to go, and anything can happen.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Carly Fiorina Easily Wins “Happy Hour” Debate »

Posted in GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

16 States Ask EPA To Hold Off On Climate Regs Until Legality Is Challenged

By William Teach August 6, 2015 – 4:09 pm

This is simply the first step, politely asking prior to going to court for a restraining order

(AP) The campaign to stop President Barack Obama’s sweeping emissions limits on power plants began taking shape Wednesday, as 16 states asked the government to put the rules on hold while a Senate panel moved to block them.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is leading the charge against the rules, banded together with 15 other state attorneys general in a letter to Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy requesting that the agency temporarily suspend the rules while they challenge their legality in court. The letter called for the EPA to respond by Friday.

The EPA and the White House both said they believe the limits are legal and have no plans to put them on hold. But by submitting the formal request anyway, the attorneys general are laying the groundwork to ask the courts to suspend the emissions limits instead.

“These regulations, if allowed to proceed, will do serious harm to West Virginia and the U.S. economy,” Morrisey said. “That is why we are taking quick action to bring this process to a halt.”

One thing the EPA and Obama administration will have to prove is that they took economic conditions and costs into account, having just lost a case at the Supreme Court in a similar fashion. The EPA will have to prove that the plan is not destructive to the American economy, as well as to low and middle class Americans, and they will not be able to do so.

(American Thinker) According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, President Obama’s “Clean Energy Plan” would  take 33% of productive electrical capacity off the grid by 2020.  And the Washington Free Beacon notes that another report shows that the plan would close 48% of all coal-fired plants in the country.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, this plan is “regulation without representation.”  The president’s rules would usurp the traditional role of states in managing their own electrical generation and saddle the economy with enormous costs while empowering the EPA to control vast swaths of the American economy.

There’s no possible way to replace that lost electricity with solar and wind, even if they were competitive with coal costs. Provided that construction wasn’t blocked by hardcore environmentalists. Hydrothermal and nuclear will be blocked, as will natural gas. Hence, energy costs will rise. Period. Which means the cost of virtually everything else will rise. Anyone who doesn’t see this is completely deluded.

Meanwhile, the same people who support Obama’s plan refuse to give up their own big carbon footprints.

Read: 16 States Ask EPA To Hold Off On Climate Regs Until Legality Is Challenged »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on 16 States Ask EPA To Hold Off On Climate Regs Until Legality Is Challenged | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a coral reef that will totally be bleached from making Someone Else’s use of fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on a Nigerian humans rights activist blasting Obama.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Baltimore Sees More Murders And Shootings After “Take Back Our Streets” Day

By William Teach August 6, 2015 – 10:03 am

On Tuesday, Baltimore, along with many other Democratic Party run cities with heavy crime, held the “National Night Out” in an attempt to take back their streets. How’s that working out?

(ABC2) Two people were killed in a shooting in east Baltimore Thursday morning and police are investigating.

Baltimore Police roped off two crime scenes on E. Monument Street, one between Aisquith Street and N. Central Avenue and the other a few blocks away between Eden and Caroline streets.

These are parts of Baltimore that have crime after crime after crime. Another man was shot in the ankle.

Let’s remember that Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said

“Too many in our community know who the perpetrators are,” Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said. “We know who is perpetrating the violence. We have to speak up, we can’t be silent. That’s what National Night Out is about, to say we’re going to come forward and reclaim our streets.”

Obviously, the criminals aren’t listening. Perhaps she should start arresting them, instead of coddling them.

Read: Baltimore Sees More Murders And Shootings After “Take Back Our Streets” Day »

Posted in Democrats | Comments Off on Baltimore Sees More Murders And Shootings After “Take Back Our Streets” Day | Trackback URL

One Great Thing About Donald Trump, He’s Totally A Climate Skeptic

By William Teach August 6, 2015 – 8:11 am

Tonight’s the night for the first GOP debate. At 5pm the lower polling candidates, 7 in all, will rumble, followed by a 9pm debate between the 10 top tier candidates. Will this be an attack forum or a policy forum? Time will tell. Will candidates go after some of Trump’s past Democrat leaning positions?

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said Trump’s past positions — once describing himself as pro-choice, donating to the Clinton Foundation and other actions — indeed provide an opening to his primary opponents.

“The other Republicans on stage have an opportunity to challenge his conservative credentials,” Bonjean told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.”

Again, I’m not big fan of Donald Trump when it comes to politics, because of those leanings, but, his current positions, and willingness to attack, then turn the counter-attacks from the compliant liberal media around, rather than retreating as elected Republicans almost always do, is refreshing, and making me think more positively about Trump. Oh, and then there’s this position, which has Vox’s David Roberts freaking out

Since President Trump is inevitable, let’s look at his views on climate and en…oh god why

Donald Trump is apparently a thing. He will appear in the first Republican primary debate tomorrow, and journalists are starting to take him seriously.

Given that Trump’s chances of winning the Republican nomination have been upgraded from “impossible” to “surely still impossible, right? guys?” I thought I’d take a quick look at his thoughts on the issues of climate change and clean energy.

But when it comes to climate and energy, Trump has mostly confined himself to stray comments here and there. Mostly on Twitter.

Let’s start with climate change. Long story short: Trump’s not buying it. A chronological account:

This is followed by multiple tweets from Trump proclaiming his skepticism on human caused “climate change”.

He offered this more nuanced take to the Palin Update radio show:

The real climate change is going to be nuclear climate change if we’re not smart and tough and very, very careful because that’s a big danger and that’s a real danger. I think Obama just said that the biggest threat that we have on the planet today is climate change, and a lot of people are saying, did he really say that? We have people chopping off heads and he’s talking about climate change. I call it weather. I call it weather. You know, the weather changes.

You look back and they were calling it global cooling and global warming and global everything, but if you look back and the biggest tornados were in the 1890s, the biggest hurricanes were in the 1860s and 1870s. It’s weather. You’re going to have bad weather. So often I watch the evening newscasts and every time there is a rainstorm some place, and then they wonder why they don’t do well, they say, ‘It’s raining here and it’s raining there,’ usually leading the program. I call it weather. Maybe there’s a little bit of change, I don’t happen to believe it’s manmade.

The Donald is a big fan of fracking and nuclear energy. He’s not a big fan of solar panels, he thinks Canada has better leadership, vis a vis the Keystone XL pipeline, he’s against creating massive wildspaces destroying wind farms, calling them “environmental disasters”, and is not a big fan of the EPA (let me note that the EPA has a place in society and government, they’ve just overstepped their original mandate tremendously and in a political manner).

As far as Trump goes, I can’t find anything that shows he has flipped on the subject, from being a Warmist to a true Skeptic. So, at least when it comes to this political issue, and “climate change” is a political issue, not a scientific one, Donald Trump should be more than acceptable.

Romney was very much a believer, he just promised that he wouldn’t implement any policies. For the current crop, those who are Warmists are: Lindsay Graham, John Kasich, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush (the article mischaracterizes Carly Fiorina’s position). Marco Rubio has flipped on the issue, having even voted for a bill regulating greenhouse gases. Add that to his immigration bill, and he’s really not a guy you can trust. Mike Huckabee has flipped on the issue, even calling for a cap and trade system back in 2007.

The rest mostly agree that the world has warmed, but, they argue causation, stating that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Another bright side for Trump is that he does believe in a clean environment, and divorces real environmental concerns from the silly “climate change” push. Let’s not forget, the watermelons have folded almost every real environmental concern under the banner of their cult. So, good for Trump. He’s slowly earning my vote.

Read: One Great Thing About Donald Trump, He’s Totally A Climate Skeptic »

Posted in Global Warming, GOP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Proclaims There Are No “Secret Deals” Regarding Iran

By William Teach August 6, 2015 – 7:40 am

Let’s start off noting that Obama went completely off the rails during his Wednesday speech defending his horrible Iran deal. Powerline’s John Hinderaker wonders if this is Obama’s lowest moment yet

Today President Obama gave a speech at American University, urging acceptance of his nuclear deal with Iran. It was the usual exercise in deception and demagoguery, and he skated up to the edge of accusing opponents of the deal–a majority of Americans, apparently–of treason.

It was an exercise in strawmen, Blamestorming (including Blaming Bush), and lies

No doubt the worst portion of Obama’s speech is the one that has gotten the most attention. Note how Obama walks right up to the line of accusing Republicans in Congress of treason:

Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)

No, but it is what Iran’s rulers believe. Iran’s Supreme Leader frequently leads mobs in chants of “Death to America.” Does Obama think he is kidding?

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)

It is also delusional. Iran’s hardliners are the regime in power. The mullahs are not aligning themselves with Republicans; on the contrary, they are trumpeting the fact that they got everything they wanted in their negotiations with John Kerry and Barack Obama. But Obama can’t, and won’t, confront that reality. He will just go on slandering his political opponents and lying to the American people.

Hinderaker notes that Obama is a bad president, but a worse man. This is exactly the kind of thing that made me write years ago that he is no longer my president. This kind of talk may be aimed at pushing recalcient Democrats to vote for the deal, but, this is insulting to the majority of Republicans and Independents, along with a small portion of Democrats, who are against this terrible deal. Say what you will about George W. Bush, he pretty much never attacked political opponents. He kept it presidential, unlike Obama, who acts more like the president of Media Matters.

He even admitted that “some” of the cash that will return to Iran will be used to fund terrorism. One thing he won’t admit to are the side deals

(The Hill)President Obama hit back at Republican opponents of his Iran nuclear deal on Twitter Wednesday.

The president denied suggestions there are secret terms to the deal that haven’t been shared with Congress and said rejecting the agreement would bolster Iran’s nuclear program.

“Important detail – there are no secret deals,” Obama wrote about the agreement, responding to a tweet from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

“My staff can brief you on any question about any part of the deal,” he added.

“Mr. President, Americans deserve to know the details about the secret side deals,” Scalise had tweeted earlier Wednesday morning with the hashtag #IranDeal.

Perhaps NMP Obama should check with Secretary of State John Kerry, who admitted there are secret side deals to Congress, and that they can’t be shared with Congress and the American people. The man is a serial liar, putting the needs and wants of the hardcore Iranian regime over the needs and wants of the people he is Constitutionally bound to serve.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Proclaims There Are No “Secret Deals” Regarding Iran »

Posted in Barry Obama, Iran, Unhinged Tools | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

“Climate Change” Could Make San Francisco Feel Like San Diego Or Something

By William Teach August 5, 2015 – 4:34 pm

Today’s scary story, though, how having the gorgeous weather of San Diego is scary, I’m not sure, but, hey, we aren’t actually supposed to ask those kinds of questions

Climate change could give San Francisco the climate of San Diego, scientists say

…..

In addition to a broad look at heating and cooling needs around the country, Petri and Caldeira also zeroed in on 25 major U.S. cities to see how some of the country’s most populous places could change in the future. They found that, as of now, San Diego is the most “comfortable” city temperature-wise, meaning it has the lowest number of combined heating and cooling degree days. Residents of Minneapolis are less lucky — their city is the least comfortable.

And, in fact, projections indicate that Minneapolis will stay the city with the greatest number of heating and cooling degree days. But San Diego, on the other hand, will lose its title to another California city if nothing is done about climate change. Under a business-as-usual trajectory, the researchers found that San Francisco will become the city with the least number of heating and cooling degree days in the country. “The fact that future San Francisco will be quite similar to San Diego is really quite interesting,” Petri says, as present-day San Francisco is known for having a much cooler climate overall.

So, this would be a bad thing? Really? Of course, it would mean that the average temperature for San Fran would have to rise about 6-7 degrees Fahrenheit to match San Diego. Give it 600-700 years, and that could happen, what with the average global temperature rising a measly 1.4F since 1850.

Under the same scenario, Los Angeles would heat up enough to match the number of cooling degree days currently experienced by Jacksonville, Fla. And New York City’s combined number of heating and cooling degree days will match that of present-day Oklahoma City, as it will both lose heating days and gain cooling days.

Hooray for computer models!

Read: “Climate Change” Could Make San Francisco Feel Like San Diego Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a fish that lives around reefs dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on Going Mussolini.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove