If All You See…

By William Teach August 4, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…are coral reefs being bleached from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Allen B. West, with a post on a comment that should make the DHS chief resign.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

North Carolina To Fight Obama’s Silly Climate Change Plan

By William Teach August 4, 2015 – 10:00 am

And this is one the big reasons why we elect Republicans

(News and Observer) But resistance to the plan is hardening in Raleigh. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources says the EPA misinterpreted the federal Clean Air Act. The state will file a legal challenge.

“Not only will these new federal rules raise electricity rates,” Gov. Pat McCrory said in a statement, “they have the potential to jeopardize the success we’ve made in making North Carolina’s air the cleanest it’s been since we began tracking air quality back in the 1970s.”

McCrory said the state is already on track to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030 without federal intrusion.

States are supposed to file compliance plans by September 2016, although they can get two-year extensions. A federal plan will serve as a backstop for states that don’t craft their own plans.

The North Carolina Senate will take up a measure Tuesday that prohibits the state from filing a compliance plan until legal challenges are resolved.

Expect more states to file suit as well as refuse to participate in this silly plan. And, it is very silly, as Jo Nova points out

This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that  Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100. (snip)

NERA Economic consulting estimates US electricity prices will rise 12 -17%. The Heritage Foundation estimates that rising energy costs will have an economy wide effect and the  US will lose $2.5 trillion  in GDP.  Choosing expensive electricity as a form of global climate control will cost more than one million jobs.[2]

She goes on to note all the coming legal battles.

Read: North Carolina To Fight Obama’s Silly Climate Change Plan »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Amy Schumer Joins Chuck Schumer In Pushing Gun Control, Protecting White People

By William Teach August 4, 2015 – 8:17 am

Liberal gun grabbers never stop, and, all of a sudden, Amy Schumer is Concerned

(GMA) Comedian Amy Schumer is joining forces with her cousin, Sen. Chuck Schumer, to push for new gun control legislation on Capitol Hill.

The “Trainwreck” star appeared with the New York senator this morning at a news conference with a sign saying “Enough Is Enough” by their side.

“Amy may have started out as a comedian but this subject is really serious,” the senator said, adding, “I have a lot of press conferences but I almost never get this many people.”

For Amy Schumer, the subject of gun violence and mass shootings became “extremely personal” last month, when John Russell Houser opened fire in a movie theater in Lafayette during a screening of her film “Trainwreck,” killing two people and injuring nine others.

Her only link was that this occurred during a screening of her movie, which was random. I wonder how she and Chuck would respond to legislation requiring government to check and see if any Muslim applicant has links to hardcore Islam?

She called the three-pronged plan Sen. Schumer is putting forward in Congress “sensible measures.”

The senator wants to compel states to share information about felons, spousal abusers and the adjudicated mentally ill with the federal government for the national background check system; to survey all 50 states on their standards for involuntary commitment for the mentally ill and put forward national best practices; and to get Congress to fully fund mental health and substance abuse programs.

“No one wants to live in a country where a felon, the mentally ill or other dangerous people can get their hands on a gun with such ease,” his star cousin said.

These are all generally White People problems. In the ghettos in primarily Democratic Party run cities, most of those guns are not legally purchased, and Blacks are shooting and killing other Blacks in huge numbers, even record numbers (see Baltimore). Why is there so little concern from Liberals over Blacks shooting Blacks? Most of the big news events surrounding shootings tend to occur where White People gather, and the shooters are either White or Islamists (though, the link to radical Islam is usually downplayed). The news, run mostly by White Liberals, tends to mostly ignore the huge gun crime problem in Black urban areas that Democrats run.

Why are White Liberals not concerned about Blacks shooting Blacks? Why don’t they have a plan that will reduce what is termed “Black in origin” crime?

Interestingly, Democrats have worked hard to make it harder for citizens to obtain handguns, which would protect them from felons, adjudicated mentally ill people, and spousal abusers.

Read: Amy Schumer Joins Chuck Schumer In Pushing Gun Control, Protecting White People »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Largest Carbon Footprint In The World Says There’s No Plan B On Climate Change

By William Teach August 4, 2015 – 8:00 am

Let’s remember, this is a guy who took a big fossil fueled auto convoy to Andrews to play a round of golf, then jumped in a fossil fueled helicopter to get to a fossil fueled plane. This was just this past weekend. This is a guy who has taken separate flights from his family for vacations. A guy who flew in his dog on a separate plane. A guy who had to be browbeat to put solar panels up on the White House. A guy who is known for keeping the White House extra toasty (using lots of energy). A guy who takes lots and lots of fossil fueled flights across the country for short official speeches, followed by multiple fundraisers, all of which require huge fossil fueled auto convoys

(The Hill) President Obama on Monday rolled out a historic rule that imposes the first-ever federal limits on greenhouse gas pollution from power plants.

An emotional Obama argued climate change already affects the “reality we’re living with every day,” adding that it would be “shameful” if the U.S. waited any longer to address its causes.

“We only get one home. We only get one planet. There is no plan B,” he said at the White House. “I don’t want my grandkids to not be able to swim in Hawaii, or not to be able to climb a mountain and see a glacier, because we didn’t do something about it.”

So, Plan A is to implement rules that will drastically increase energy costs, will which increase the cost of almost everything else, which will harm the lower and middle classes, all while doing nothing for the climate. Even the NY Times had to admit that this will accomplish nothing, unless all the other countries in the world do the same.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulation demands that power producers cut their carbon emissions 32 percent below what they were a decade ago by 2030, and is designed to encourage use of cleaner alternatives.

But Republicans and industry groups have vowed to fight the rule in Congress and the courts, arguing that it could kill jobs in coal-producing areas, drive up power bills and cause the electric grid to become unreliable.

The NY Times’s Editorial Board notes that this Plan A will shut down hundreds of coal fired power plants: there is no possible way, at least in Reality Land, that this can lead to lowering the cost of energy.

Obama announced he will be the first president to travel to the Alaskan Arctic, where he will highlight the negative effects of climate change. He’ll also promote clean energy sources during an event this month in Las Vegas.

So, he’s going to take a very long fossil fueled flight, accompanied by a backup plan, plus all the fossil fueled vehicles that travel with him, to highlight the dangers of “climate change”? It really doesn’t get much more hypocritical.

He assailed “the special interests and their allies in Congress” who claim the rule will “cost jobs, kill jobs, destroy the coal industry, and hurt low-income and minority community.”

What of the special interests pushing this job killing plan that will hurt the low-income and minority community? In fact, the majority of the people in these groups are lilly-White liberals. It is a very non-diverse movement.

“We’ve heard these same stale arguments before,” he said. “Every time America has made progress, it has been despite these kinds of claims.”

“If you care about low-income and minority communities, start by protecting the air that they breathe,” he added.

400ppm (parts per million) of CO2 is absolutely no threat to anyone, except in the fevered minds of Cult of Climastrology members. Most raw data shows that, despite the rise in CO2, the earth is not warming or has only warmed in a statistically insignificant manner since the last big El Nino in 1998.

Unsurprisingly, this plan gives the federal government massive new power and control over the energy sector and states. And that, right there, is the main point. Expect lots and lots of lawsuits.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Man With Largest Carbon Footprint In The World Says There’s No Plan B On Climate Change »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

#BlueLivesMatter: Black Man Kills White Cop

By William Teach August 3, 2015 – 3:30 pm

Whenever a Black is killed, harmed, shot, heck, even detained with force (because the person was resisting and/or aggressive, such as in the Texas pool incident), the Credentialed Liberal Media is quick to highlight that the cop was White. Or, in other instances, they’ll just make things up like calling George Zimmerman a “White Hispanic”. What of when a Black shoots a White police officer? Race is barely mentioned, like this CNN article

Memphis police identified 29-year-old Tremaine Wilbourn as the suspect in a weekend shooting of an officer.

Wilbourn is at large and considered armed and dangerous, Memphis Police Director Toney Armstrong told reporters late Sunday.

“You can be assured that we will continue to pursue this suspect, and we will exhaust all means until he is in custody,” he said.

Officer Sean Bolton, 33, was shot multiple times Saturday night. He was taken to a hospital in critical condition but later pronounced dead.

The article doesn’t mention that Bolton is White and Wilbourn is Black, though the accompanying pictures and video do show their race. Had the situation been reversed, their would be a harsh media and liberal (but, I repeat myself) outcry over a White cop shooting a Black man, even though Wilbourn has a long criminal rapsheet, including felonies.

Nor are most other media outlets highlighting race, as they’ve been doing in the reverse. The bias is immense.

Read: #BlueLivesMatter: Black Man Kills White Cop »

Posted in Current Affairs, Journalistic Malpractice | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful coral island that will be swamped because Someone Else uses air conditioning, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on the Left hiding the truth on #BlackLivesMatter.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

How Big Is The Climate Change Industry? How About $1.5 Trillion

By William Teach August 3, 2015 – 11:05 am

This comes via Jo Nova

Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.

The special thing about this industry is that it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for an assumption about relative humidity that is probably wrong. As such, it’s the only major industry in the world dependent on consumer and voter ignorance. This is not just another vested interest in a political debate; it’s vested-on-steroids, a mere opinion poll away from extinction. You can almost hear the captains of climate industry bellowing: “Keep ‘em ignorant and believing, or the money goes away!”.

To state the obvious:

Policy, or the anticipation of new policy, has been one of the biggest drivers of the industry, the report shows.

 Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants. They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes. They are always one prime-time documentary away from disaster. What if the public saw that thermometers were next to industrial exhaust vents? What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would?

As Ms. Nova notes, Warmists have a vested interest in keeping the whole boondoggle going. They want voters kept stupid, and they want to scare them in order to enact their Big Government solutions, which would further feed more money into the Progressive coffers, as well as increasing Progressive power.

Read: How Big Is The Climate Change Industry? How About $1.5 Trillion »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Will Chuck Schumer Oppose The Iran Deal?

By William Teach August 3, 2015 – 7:20 am

Politic thinks there are growing signs that he will

Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September. The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against it? (snip)

“I haven’t made up my mind,” said Schumer, who is in line to be the first Jewish Senate leader next Congress. “There are expectations all over the lot. I’m doing what I’m always doing when I have a very difficult decision: Learning it carefully and giving it my best shot, doing what I think is right. I’m not going to let pressure or politics or party get in the way of that.”

Will Chuck put the concerns of the United States above the “legacy” of Obama? Schumer will surely still be in office when the true failure of this deal becomes apparent in practice, while Obama will be gone and making millions on the lecture circuit. Will Schumer listen to his constituents and be a “no” vote? We will see. If he votes no, though, it makes it quite a bit easier for other Democrats to vote no.

Sen. Chris Coons, who was personally lobbied by President Barack Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice to back the deal during a trip to Africa in July, said the view of the accord was about evenly split in his home state of Delaware in the first few days after the announcement. But the Democrat now says telephone calls against the deal outnumber those in favor by 10-to-1 in his state, an avalanche of opposition he has no choice but to listen to.

Go figure, most are against this deal. Many, many Democrats are “carefully considering” the deal, which means they understand that it is a really bad deal, and they’re trying to figure out how to oppose Obama on it.

Meanwhile, the NY Post’s Michael Goodwin thinks Schumer will be a “yes” vote, and makes a good point

Imagine an alternative scenario. Instead of Barack Obama in the White House, it is a Republican president who negotiated the Iran deal and now demands Sen. Chuck Schumer’s support.

What would Schumer do?

The answer is obvious — he’d say no, the deal stinks. Unfortunately, that scenario makes it just as obvious what Schumer will do in reality.

Tip O’Neill was wrong. All politics are not local. All politics are personal.

The career of Democrat Schumer is best served by standing with Democrat Obama. That is what he will do. Everything else is detail.

He is the party’s anointed leader in the Senate, and breaking with a Democratic president on a signature, legacy issue would be so huge as to jeopardize the position he has craved and earned. Obama would see the act as unforgivable treason and demand a replacement.

Two good points, especially about if this deal was struck under a Republican president. Of course, really, what has Obama done for Democrats? He has presided over 3 straight losses for Democrats in Congress, some at historic levels. He’s mostly been unwanted on the campaign trail by Democratic Party contenders, even in safe states/precincts.

I guess we’ll see.

Read: Will Chuck Schumer Oppose The Iran Deal? »

Posted in Democrats, Iran | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Who Wins And Who Loses Under Obama’s “Climate Change” Plan?

By William Teach August 3, 2015 – 6:59 am

Unsurprisingly, the Associated Press finds that the majority of Americans will be losers

(WRAL) President Barack Obama is mandating even steeper greenhouse gas cuts from U.S. power plants than previously expected, while granting states more time and broader options to comply.

The tweaks to Obama’s unprecedented emissions limits on power plants, to be unveiled at the White House on Monday, aim to address a bevy of concerns raised by both environmentalist and the energy industry. The Environmental Protection Agency received more than 4 million public comments after Obama announced the proposed version last year, and opponents of the plan attempted unsuccessfully to stop it in Congress and in the courts.

The AP notes that some states will be assigned much more stringent targets than others. Say, doesn’t that violate the Constitutional provision of equal protection under the law? Bah, when has Obama and his out of control EPA actually cared about that silly document?

The AP goes on to note the potential winners and losers. Here are the winners

ENVIRONMENTALISTS (this is pretty much a feel good “look what we did” moment, because the Enviro groups which back this will soon learn that it costs a whole lot more to run their orgs and fund-raise, as energy prices will skyrocket)

PROCRASTINATING STATES (those which have blown off Obama’s previous targets will have a few extra years)

RENEWABLE ENERGY (Of course, the same environmentalists will file lawsuits to stop the construction of many renewable energy projects, just like they’ve been doing. But, the big money Democrats will see more federal money in their pockets from “loans” and grants)

How about the losers?

YOUR POWER BILL: Although the administration predicts the plan will actually lower the average U.S. energy bill by almost $85 in 2030, companies that produce and distribute electricity aren’t buying it. The savings come from increased use of wind, power and hydro plants, which operate at a cost of close to zero after they’re installed. But acquiring and constructing renewable power sources is still very costly, making it less cost effective in many circumstances. (WT note: if they really operated at close to zero the cost of solar and wind would be much, much less. As for hydro, enviros not only block all new construction, they want existing plants torn down)

The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the National Mining Association, the American Energy Alliance and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association all predicted the rule would drive electricity bills up.

Really, this is the only one that truly matters. Those who will feel the pain the most are all the lower and middle class Americans, ones who’ve already been suffering during this economic malaise of a Presidential administration. Furthermore, as power prices rise, so will the cost of most consumer goods. Adding a few pennies here, a few dollars there, and soon your cost of living goes up dramatically. It’s very simple economic reality.

Natural gas is also a loser, because the plan looks to disallow the growth of this sector.

Not mentioned are all the birds which will be losers, as they are killed in droves by solar and wind projects. But, overall, it will be you and me that will suffer, all while Obama continues to use vast amounts of fossil fuels himself.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Who Wins And Who Loses Under Obama’s “Climate Change” Plan? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 2, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a reef that will be bleached because your evil neighbor refuses to give up his fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Air Vent, with a post on lining up your brown-outs.

Read: If All You See… »

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