Surprise: Warmists Links Hiroshima And “Climate Change”

By William Teach August 8, 2015 – 11:32 am

Thursday was the 70th anniversary of the United States dropping the first ever nuclear weapon on Hiroshima. Many, many, well, let’s call them, charitably, idiots, wanted to re-litigate this, failing to understand what was happening at the time, and going plain stupid. Here’s one thing to consider in Reality Land

This is the casualty estimate for an invasion of mainland Japan. Those are just our casualties…Based on the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese military casualties would have been about 20% higher, and the civilian casualties would have been 2 to 3 times as high.

The most telling statement in that passage is this: “Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[60] There were so many left that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field.”

People can argue all day about the predicted numbers but the logistics experts make their decisions based on reality and their data showed they needed 500,000 purple hearts. Thats an incredible number of expected casualties.

Compare that to the top estimates for the casualties for both bombs: 246,000.

Read that again, especially about the Purple Hearts. We were at war, a war we did not start nor want. In war, you should try and win, and that means destroying the enemy. None of these same idiots are complaining about the carpet bombing of Nazi Germany, which did more damage.

But, of all the idiocy, this one leads the pack, from Laura Turner Seydel (daughter of Ted Turner) at Eco Watch, who gets Climatourettes

Remembering Hiroshima: The Threat of Nuclear War and Climate Change

Exactly 70 years ago today, at 8:15 a.m. Japanese time, the world changed forever. The Enola Gay dropped the first nuclear weapon used in war on the citizens of Hiroshima. From that moment on the face of the world and the future of humanity became unrecognizable.

According to experts even though the Cold War is long over, in the short term, nuclear weapons remain the single greatest threat to humanity and the future of our planet. (snip)

Nuclear threat and climate change are the single biggest threats to civilization and are intrinsically linked. Beyond the physical destruction of the bomb and the resulting radiation, the impact of even a small nuclear disturbance could be profound, leading to serious issues of food scarcity.

Had she left “climate change” out (climate change that would cause cooling from the use of nuclear weapons), it would have been a decent article about the threat of nuclear war. Instead, it was just stupid. Warmists just can’t write something without bringing in this silliness.

That said, her points on causing cooling are valid, according to research. But, were they really necessary?

Read: Surprise: Warmists Links Hiroshima And “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Iranian Quds Force Commander Breaks Sanctions And Heads To Moscow To Talk Weapons Weapons Shipments

By William Teach August 8, 2015 – 7:50 am

But, hey, we can totally trust Iran to uphold the terms of the #IranDeal. Fortunately, Team Obama is Very Concerned

(Fox News) Iranian officials confirmed Friday that General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month and was conducting weapons deals, including discussion of the S-300 missile system, according to Reuters.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said Friday the U.S. is very concerned about the development.

“Qassem Soleimani is subject to a UN travel ban and this travel ban requires all states to prohibit Qassem Soleimani from traveling to their nation and the only exception to that is if the Iran sanctions committee grants an exemption,” she said at UN headquarters in New York.

The White House did not specifically blame the Russians for hosting the Iranian general.

“I can’t confirm these specific reports but it is an indication of our ongoing concerns with Iran and their behavior,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday at the daily press briefing.

Iran is most likely thinking about all that extra cash in their coffers that will come with the dropping of sanctions with the really bad deal Obama is pushing. And it just goes to show that they care little about sanctions now, and won’t care a whit about upholding the terms of the nuclear weapons deal.

Meanwhile, a Jewish magazine has accused Obama of anti-semitism (via Breitbart)

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

It just goes to show the ant-semitism of Obama and liberals, and that Obama and his base are willing to throw Israel under the bus in favor of Iran. And that they are simply nasty, nasty people.

Read: Iranian Quds Force Commander Breaks Sanctions And Heads To Moscow To Talk Weapons Weapons Shipments »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Iran | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Totally Worried About GOP Pushing Away Women On Abortion

By William Teach August 8, 2015 – 7:34 am

It goes to show that Democrats think that women are only concerned with abortion, and are simply an interest group to be coddled and patronized

Fear That Debate Could Hurt G.O.P. in Women’s Eyes

After Senator Marco Rubio of Florida insisted at the Republican presidential debate that rape and incest victims should carry pregnancies to term, aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton could barely contain their delight at his unyielding stance, rushing to tell reporters at her headquarters that those remarks would hurt Mr. Rubio with female voters.

When Donald J. Trump chose on Friday to stand by his slights against women during the debate, saying the Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly “behaved very badly” as a moderator — and then promoting a Twitter message calling her a “bimbo” — feminists were not the only ones outraged: the chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party accused Mr. Trump of chauvinism.

OK, so, one Republican. A few others felt Trump was simply being a jerk (such as Red State’s Erick Erickson). Democrats, though, think women are hothouse flowers in need of protection by the big strong men in Government

And in response to multiple male candidates saying they would shut down the federal government over financing for Planned Parenthood, the Democratic National Committee emailed talking points to allies within an hour saying that among the losers at the debate were “American women, who were attacked at every turn.”

In other words, they are vastly concerned that women might have to go elsewhere to get abortions, and that citizen tax money funneled to PP won’t be funneled back to the Democratic Party.

Here’s a big money quote

Democrats were gleeful at the tone of the debate, already imagining future campaign advertisements featuring debate cutaways with Mr. Rubio saying that future Americans will “call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies.”

Read that again. And a third time. Democrats are gleeful over the possibility of running ads against a candidate who is taking a stance against the murder of babies. That’s the moral state of the Democratic Party.

Much of the rest of the article is all about abortion, and Republicans who stand against it. Here’s a cute bit near the end, a complete misread of the undercard debate

When Rick Perry was answering a question about Iran, he said that he would prefer to have “Carly Fiorina over there doing our negotiation than John Kerry,” apparently an insinuation that she would be subordinate to a president.

It was not the first time Ms. Fiorina has been the subject of that kind of backhanded compliment. When asked what woman should be on the $10 bill at a candidates’ forum on Monday, Rick Santorum answered, “Carly is a pretty good choice.”

Did the two male writers of the article, Patrick Healy and Jeremy W. Peters, actually watch the debate? Or, at least, read the transcript? Because, in context, it was a big compliment from Perry to Carly! (since Jeb is going by Jeb!, why can’t we have it as Carly!, because she’s awesome).

As for Santorum, the two writers completely failed, because he said she would be a great choice on the $20 bill, not the $10 bill, due to her great success. Such is the deep research from the NY Times.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Totally Worried About GOP Pushing Away Women On Abortion »

Posted in GOP, Journalistic Malpractice | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NC BCBS Looks For 35% Rate Increase For Obamacare Plans

By William Teach August 7, 2015 – 3:29 pm

Cost are much higher than anticipated or something

(WRAL)  North Carolina’s largest health insurer says higher-than-anticipated costs after two years of selling federally subsidized coverage has forced it to seek premium increases even greater than it thought would be necessary two months ago.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina said Thursday that it now seeks an average 34.6 percent higher premium for insurance sold under President Barack Obama’s health insurance overhaul law. The company said in June that it wanted to raise rates by an average of almost 26 percent starting in January, compared with this year’s allowed 13.5 percent increase.

Blue Cross vice president Patrick Getzen says the program has not met expectations that healthier customers would enroll in the second year and that costs would level out after people who avoided doctors for years got treatment.

“Based on our data, neither expectation is proving true. Our claims and expenses are higher than our premiums and we need to take steps now to protect the sustainability of plans for our customer over the long-term,” Getzen said.

Imagine that, costs are much higher. My goodness, if only someone could have anticipated this. Of course, this doesn’t even address the high deductibles, nor the limitations with doctors and medical facilities and such built into Ocare.

Hey, remember these quotes from Obama?

  1. “We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums…” (1)
  2. “I will sign a universal health-care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” (2)
  3. “You’re going to be able to purchase high-quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cell phone bill.”(3)

Those are just a portion of his lies about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in this case about cost. Calling it “affordable” starts it all.

Read: NC BCBS Looks For 35% Rate Increase For Obamacare Plans »

Posted in Barry Obama, Healthcare | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 7, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a coral atoll being destroyed by hundreds of feet of future sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on people needing government assistance to eat cheese.

Read: If All You See… »

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

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
Pirate's Cove