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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach August 2, 2015 – 9:17 am

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous day in the best nation on Earth. The sun is shining, birds are singing, NFL training camps are open. I’m not sure who did this contemporary pinup. Patriotic Cat is added, of course

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Right Scoop notes that the Garland Texas shooter had a Fast and Furious gun
  2. Wizbang says the Black Panthers marker must come down in NC
  3. Theodore’s World notes a Navy member possibly being punished for stopping the Chattanooga shooter
  4. Doug Powers features Hillary’s evil cackle. Oh, and her silly business plan
  5. The Other McCain wonders why Obama hates babies
  6. The Last Tradition notes all the peace in DeBlasio’s Central Park
  7. The Gateway Pundit notes the joys of socialism in Venezuela
  8. Sweetness and Light notes more Planned Parenthood evil
  9. Raised On Hoecakes has interesting information on people who use recyclable grocery bags
  10. Powerline discusses “Black Flight”
  11. Neo-neocon features a great speech by Carly Fiorina
  12. Moonbattery features a crazy woman caught on tape
  13. Legal Insurrection notes a judge citing the SCOTUS gay marrage ruling in chimp freedom case
  14. Fire Andrea Mitchell has photos from Stone Mountain pro-Confederate flag rally
  15. And last, but not least, Dakota Voice covers the new battle lines, Elitists vs Us

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama To Unveil New Energy Cost Skyrocketing “Climate Change” Regulations

By William Teach August 2, 2015 – 7:40 am

Somehow, Mr. Barack “Largest Carbon Footprint In The World” Obama believes that slapping tons of new regulations on power plants will cause energy bills to decline, in the same manner he said that passing Obamacare would reduced medical costs

Obama to unveil ‘biggest step ever’ in climate fight

President Barack Obama will Monday unveil what he called the “biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken” to fight climate change, a sensitive issue central to his legacy.

The White House will release the final version of America’s Clean Power Plan, a set of environmental rules and regulations that will home in on the pollution from the nation’s power plants, setting limits on power-plant carbon emissions.

Laying out how climate change was a threat to the health, wellbeing and security of millions of Americans, and adding that time was of the essence, Obama said in a video released early Sunday: “Climate change is not a problem for another generation. Not anymore.”

Really? Here’s the photo run at the story

That’s just one of the dozen plus vehicles that accompany Obama around whenever he goes somewhere, a massive fossil fuels hog. If Obama is worried about “the kids”, perhaps he should start acting like it’s a crisis

“Power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change,” added Obama, who made the battle against climate change a core promise of his 2008 election campaign.

“But until now there have been no federal limits to the amount of that pollution that those plants can dump into the air.”

That’s something that should be passed by the Legislative Branch. He had the chance when Democrats had full control of Congress during Obama’s first two years, yet didn’t bother. The big question is, has prior legislation given the Executive Branch the statutory authority to make these rules? Legislation is often so big and generalized, rather than focused and specific, that it might. You can bet lawsuits will be filed by the end of the week.

He added that without imposing limits, “existing power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of harmful carbon pollution into the air weekly.

“For the sake of our kids, for the health and safety of all Americans, that’s about to change.”

So, this same guy who’s super worried about “the kids” took a fossil fueled convoy to play golf, then jumped in a fossil fueled helicopter for a quick trip over to boarding his massive fossil fueled airplane. Notice that he’s wearing the same outfit as in the top photo.

Obama argued that the plans will lead to lower energy bills for everyday Americans and create jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Yeah. Sure they will. How often do huge, restrictive regulations like this cause consumer prices to ever decrease? Never. Getting beyond the massive spin from the White House, EPA, and Cult of Climastrology groups, those who live in the real world understand that power plant regulations tend to be all economic cost, no benefit, including absolutely no benefit in “stopping climate change”.

Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court just shot down the EPA’s 2012 power plant regulations, stating that they didn’t account the cost of regulations. What’s the over/under on these set to be announced regulations failing to consider costs?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To Unveil New Energy Cost Skyrocketing “Climate Change” Regulations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible rising sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on the anemic economic growth.

How could I not end jogging week with Bo?

Read: If All You See… »

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

Surprise: Jeb Bush Starts Showing His Cult Of Climastrology Membership

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 10:50 am

We’ve long known that Jeb Bush is a “climate change” believer, and, much like Newt Gingrich, is a fan of government solutions. He lets this slip a bit

(IBT) Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said in an interview published Thursday that humans contribute to climate change. Bush, in a departure from recent comments, said that the United States should adapt and make changes to stop climate change, while keeping the country’s finances in mind.

“I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg BNA. “I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it.”

He goes on to equivocate a bit with not wanting to damage the economy, but what he’s really advocating are central government rules and regulations.

Read: Surprise: Jeb Bush Starts Showing His Cult Of Climastrology Membership »

Posted in Global Warming, GOP | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

French Official Reportedly Stated That Killing Iran Deal Would Lead To Better Deal

By William Teach August 1, 2015 – 7:36 am

Of course, almost any deal could be better than this turd sandwich

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal

Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us.” But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

His analysis is already having an effect on how members of Congress, especially House Democrats, are thinking about the deal.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.

“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”

This is followed by a blurb about the French embassy and Audibert denying the comments, but, the congress critters cited, as well as a few others, both Republican and Democrat, stand by their claim as to what Audibert said.

Audibert’s comments as recounted by the lawmakers are a direct rebuttal to Kerry, who in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations on July 24 said that if Congress voted down the deal, there would no chance to restart negotiations in search of a tougher pact. Kerry also said that Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would erode the U.S. credibility to strike any type of international agreement in the future. “Do you think the Ayatollah is going to come back to the table if Congress refuses this and negotiate again? Do you think that they’re going to sit there and other people in the world are going to say, hey, let’s go negotiate with the United States, they have 535 secretaries of State?” Kerry said. “I mean, please.”

That’s a rather Authoritarian comment, wouldn’t you say? Last time I checked, the Constitution enabled the election of citizens to represent the interests of the nation’s citizens.

That was retweeted by the White House and Josh Earnest (Press Secretary), among others.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/627139635114823681

Every poll has the deal underwater. But, hey, good news, China is thrilled by this deal

As members of Congress debate whether to back the deal over Iran’s nuclear program, one source of support seems guaranteed — China. It’s one of the biggest winners in the agreement, with the lifting of sanctions as Iran pulls back key elements of its enrichment program set to allow Beijing to deepen its historic partnership with Tehran. While China is undoubtedly eyeing the potential economic benefits, Beijing also likely sees an opportunity to challenge U.S. influence in the Middle East.

Russia would likewise see more money and influence in the region. Syria and many terrorist groups would see more support from an Iran flush with cash. Iran would have more influence and control of the region. And could restart their nuclear program in just eight years. What, exactly, is the benefit for the interests of the United States, the nation Kerry and Obama are supposed to represent?

Read: French Official Reportedly Stated That Killing Iran Deal Would Lead To Better Deal »

Posted in Iran | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove