If All You See…

By William Teach June 30, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an awesome field of what may be corn, but, regardless, let’s turn it into biofuel, you might just be a Warmist

Th blog of the day is Lady Liberty 1885, with a post on a mugshot WRAL missed.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Shaming Is Totally Acceptable If It’s For Climate Change

By William Teach June 30, 2015 – 11:30 am

Remember, we aren’t allowed to Shame people because of their body, their sexuality, or anything else. Unless you refuse to accept the political belief in anthropogenic global warming/climate change

Does shame have a place in the climate fight? Jennifer Jacquet thinks so

Jennifer Jacquet thinks we all need more shame in our lives.

At least, that‘s the premise of her pointedly titled book Is Shame Necessary?: New Uses for an Old Tool, in which she describes the troubling lack of chagrin demonstrated by the corporations and governments who have been busily trashing the environment for decades, nay, centuries. Meanwhile, the more sensitive among us (i.e. anyone who has ever Asked Umbra) are wracked with guilt about what untold horrors our lint rollers and beach reads and unweeded gardens might wreak on the climate.

To roughly paraphrase Jacquet: Chill, y’all! No one is going to make or break the planet on one anxiety-ridden trip to Whole Foods, so stop acting like it. Your time would be much better spent wagging a finger at the 90 companies responsible for the bulk of historical emissions.

Gotta love it. Warmists who refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and big carbon footprints shouldn’t be shamed, only those Big Big Companies should! Of course, it’s not one trip. It’s trip after trip after trip. It’s constant use of things that supposedly contribute to AGW. Often made by Big Big Corporations.

Read: Shaming Is Totally Acceptable If It’s For Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

National Geographic: Yeah, Climate Change Part Of Reason For NC Shark Attacks

By William Teach June 30, 2015 – 7:40 am

Most experts on shark behavior are saying that it is hard to pinpoint the cause of the shark attacks here in North Carolina over the past few weeks. National Geographic knows exactly the reasons

North Carolina’s “Perfect Storm” for Shark Attacks

There have been six shark attacks in North Carolina this year, all of them in June.

This is already more than last year, when the state saw four attacks. In the previous decade, there were only 25 shark attacks in North Carolina. And there have been just 55 documented shark attacks in the state between 1905 and 2014.

So what’s going on this year?

They provide 5 reasons.

  1. Warmer weather: they mean warmer water, which is something not unusual in NC, nor does it prove anthropogenic causation. Temps are up about 8F over average (remember, average is created by various temp levels)
  2. Higher salinity: this yammers on about drought. The coastal region is not in drought, and the central part is only in mild drought. Doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.
  3. A bloom of bait fish: this makes a bit more sense. Also, add in more people chumming from the piers.
  4. Fishing near swimmers: bingo.

Then

5. Global warming
Although Frank J. Schwartz, a shark biologist with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, says there’s too much natural variability in weather cycles to blame the recent shark attacks on global warming, Burgess says the link is plausible.

“Clearly global climate change is a reality and it has resulted in warmer temperatures in certain places at certain times,” says Burgess.

As warming is expected to increase, it will likely bring more sharks farther north and entice more people to get into the water, which will lead to more bites.

So, all your people driving your fossil fueled vehicles to the beach are Responsible for the attacks, you are to blame. Of course, this doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation, either. But, hey, the Cult of Climastrology must always find a way to bring their pet political cause into almost any event.

Read: National Geographic: Yeah, Climate Change Part Of Reason For NC Shark Attacks »

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

NYC Group Plans To Burn American Flag, Calls For Disarming Police

By William Teach June 30, 2015 – 6:54 am

The only thing standing between lots of crime and a total breakdown of society in their neighborhoods are armed police officers

(The Blaze) A group calling for the immediate disarmament of the New York Police Department plans to burn American flags in a Brooklyn park on Wednesday, just days before the Fourth of July holiday.

“Disarm NYPD” announced the “Burn the American Flags” event on Facebook, inviting individuals to join the organization at Fort Greene Park to “set fire to this symbol of oppression.

Organizers said accused Charleston shooter Dylann Roof wasn’t an “isolated actor,” but a “product of a consistent pattern of state-sponsored terrorism and radicalized dehumanization in America.” The event originally was aimed at burning the Confederate flag, but later changed to focus on the stars and stripes.

“There will be no peace until we tear down this system of oppression,” the group wrote on Facebook. “It isn’t enough to take the flag down; we must put an end to white supremacy once and for all.”

“We find it a sign of the times that people can care so much about a piece of cloth, while at the same time be so quiet about black churches being burned all over the country,” a post on Facebook said. “Perhaps this is the great difference between us and the so-called ‘patriots’. While they express their loyalty to symbols, we express our loyalty to the lives of the oppressed.”

If it wasn’t for armed police officers, their neighborhoods would look like a war zone. Perhaps they should care more about why there is so much crime, both the violent type along with property crime, in their neighborhoods. Worry why their kids are doing their best to avoid an education. Why their neighborhoods are very poor, with huge amounts of citizens on government assistance. Armed cops aren’t in the neighborhoods and schools because the want to oppress.

It continued, “We do not believe the ideals of America are anything to be revered. We are building something that will be much better than America. While the so-called patriots yell that we should just leave, we instead choose to dream. We dream of what real freedom looks like: freedom from paramilitaries occupying our communities, beating and killing our sons and daughters; freedom from our communities being destroyed by the speculative capital of gentrification; freedom from mass surveillance; and freedom from systemic racism.”

Let’s see: they have no problem with members of their own communities beating and killing their sons and daughters. And then they go racist by complaining about gentrification, before complaining about racism.

According to the “Disarm NYPD” Facebook page, the group’s mission is to “take away power from the powers that be.” The group calls for the immediate disarmament of the NYPD and demands the “demobilization of the police form our neighborhoods.”

I say the NYPD agrees to their terms and refuses to patrol the neighborhoods. They would be nuts to enter without weapons.  Then they put up checkpoints for all those leaving the neighborhoods, checking for guns, weapons, and drugs. Leave the Disarm NYPD to its own devices, let them provide, or attempt to provide, law and order, see how that works out.

If they want to do away with what is oppressive, shouldn’t they want to discontinue the welfare and other government programs, since they do nothing but keep people tied to a gov’t that views them not as people but commodities? Shouldn’t they want to do away with the Democratic Party, which treats them as simply a voting block rather than individuals? A Party which has utterly failed them?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NYC Group Plans To Burn American Flag, Calls For Disarming Police »

Posted in Liberal World | 44 Comments | Trackback URL

EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule

By William Teach June 29, 2015 – 1:12 pm

Chalk one up for the good guys, even if the media is trying to portray the rule as being all about “pollution”

(The Hill)  The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.

The case, Michigan v. EPA, centers on the EPA’s first limits on mercury, arsenic and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants, known as mercury and air toxics (MATS). Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Business, say it’s among the costliest regulations ever issued.

The EPA estimated its rule, which took effect for some plants in April, would cost $9.6 billion, produce between $37 billion and $90 billion in benefits and prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma cases annually.

But the agency concluded that its regulatory impact analysis should have “no bearing on” the determination of whether regulations are appropriate, as set forth in the Clean Air Act.

In the majority ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.”

While the agency is afforded a certain level of power to interpret the law, the court wrote, “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.”

The reality of the EPA regulation is that it was about reigning in, and eliminating, coal power plants and stopping “climate change”, not any sort of real protection from real pollutants (funny thing is, these same Warmists aren’t concerned with mercury poisoning from Compact Fluorescent Lighbulbs). The EPA has become an advocacy group for the Cult of Climastrology, and is more interested in accumulating, and using, power for their narrow agenda, rather than any real concern over the environment. The pollutants are important to remove, but, the EPA has to follow the law in designing them, so, this SCOTUS ruling gives the EPA a chance to come up with the rules in a proper manner, rather than a targeted political one.

There’s some serious liberal hand-wringing and insanity going on at the Washington Post, as well as other leftist outlets. See, they are allowed to get upset over a ruling they disagree with. Conservatives, on the other hand, are just supposed to accept ruling not in our favor as “settled.” Wait till the Warmists lose when the 30% reduction in greenhouse gases rules are knocked down. Then they’ll really be upset.

Read: EPA Rules Against EPA Power Plant Rule »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 29, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible rubber wheel made with fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on calling it on Greece.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Salon: Catholics Reject Pope On Hotcoldwetdry As They Now Worship The Free Economy

By William Teach June 29, 2015 – 10:24 am

Funny, cause Warmists reject the Pope because he doesn’t support abortion on demand, which was also mentioned in the same position paper in which Pope Francis yammered on about “climate change”. The same one which also told people they essentially needed to give up fossil fuels and go carbon neutral, otherwise they were immoral.

Why Catholic Americans are rejecting the Pope: They worship the free market now

…

Why are white Catholics rejecting the climate consensus even as they have become increasingly progressive on other hot-button issues like same-sex marriage? As this graph from evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education shows, it’s not a simple matter of Catholics rejecting science like Evangelicals. Rosenau plotted various religious groups’ support for environmental regulations against their support for evolution based on data from the Pew Research Center. In general, he found that “groups that support evolution also support environmental action.” Catholics, however, fall somewhere in the middle of the science and environmental regulation-supporting Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and liberal Protestants, and the conservative Evangelical and Black churches that largely reject both evolution and climate change regulation.

A 2013 study from Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues offers some insight in the particular Catholic rejection of climate change. They found that religious individuals with a strong belief in a free-market ideology were likely to reject “scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues.”

In other words, white Catholics don’t accept the scientific consensus on climate change because it clashes with their other god: the free market.

First, so many of Lewandosky’s papers have been debunked and delinked as the perfection of junk science. Second, is Warmist Patricia Miller at Salon telling us that climate change belief and free markets are incompatible? Of course she is. Members of the Cult of Climastrology are against free markets. Well, for Everyone Else except themselves, of course. Consider that the Pope has recruited Naomi Klein, a “ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism”, to “shift the debate on climate change”. Klein is one of the few Warmists who actually tells the truth, namely that one of the goals is to create a far left economic system, doing away with capitalism and free markets.

Oh, and Patricia Miller is the author of “Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Church”, a book which is about the pro-choice movement towards the Catholic Church. So, she’s ignoring what the Pope has said on abortion.

Read: Salon: Catholics Reject Pope On Hotcoldwetdry As They Now Worship The Free Economy »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Deal Would Eliminate Inspection Of Iranian Nuclear Sites

By William Teach June 29, 2015 – 8:29 am

Trust but verify cross your fingers

(Israel National News) The P5+1 countries led by the United States under Barack Obama have caved in to Iranian demands and will not insist on inspections of nuclear installations as part of a deal on Iran;s nuclear weapons program, Channel 1 reported Sunday.

The channel’s Arab affairs correspondent reported that the June 30 – Tuesday night – deadline for the talks has been set back to an unspecified date but that the negotiations are good natured and the feeling is that the deal is nearly done.

Capitulation to a hardcore Islamist regime, hell bent on developing nuclear weapons and controlling the Middle East.

Obama wanted a deal no matter what, no matter how bad it is for the West and Israel, so he could say “I got a deal!” The terms have been dictated by the Iranians, and the only country that had held tough was France (think on that one!). If there are to be no inspections, what, exactly, is the point of any deal?

Read: Surprise: Deal Would Eliminate Inspection Of Iranian Nuclear Sites »

Posted in Barry Obama, Iran | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Where Will The Gay Marriage Agenda End?

By William Teach June 29, 2015 – 7:58 am

The same sex marriage social justice warriors will tell us that religious folks have absolutely nothing to worry about! That a decrease of religious liberty will never happen!

Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay marriage ruling

Now that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, religious conservatives are focusing on preserving their right to object. Their concerns are for the thousands of faith-based charities, colleges and hospitals that want to hire, fire, serve and set policy according to their religious beliefs, notably that gay relationships are morally wrong.

The Republican Party’s 2016 presidential candidates are already campaigning on the issue. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is urging President Barack Obama and the nation’s governors “to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.”

The religious liberty fight isn’t about what happens inside the sanctuary. First Amendment protections for worship and clergy are clear. Potential conflicts could arise, however, over religious organizations with some business in the public arena. That category ranges from small religious associations that rent reception halls to the public, to the nation’s massive network of faith-based social service agencies that receive millions of dollars in government grants. Some groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also want protections for individual business owners who consider it immoral to provide benefits for the same-sex spouse of an employee or cater gay weddings.

Are 1st Amendment protections that clear? It sure doesn’t seem so. Could there be a law passed and/or a court ruling that forces churches to marry gays? The Danes passed a law in 2012 requiring all churches to perform gay marriages, though the priests/pastors can refuse to perform the ceremony themselves. The church must find a replacement to perform the ceremony if they do object, though.

In 2014, a uber-rich gay couple sued to force their church to perform a marriage ceremony for them. I’m not finding a ruling on the suit yet, but, consider these lines

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. While same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.K. after a bill cleared Parliament earlier this year, the legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

Churches can opt out of performing same sex marriages, while other religious groups cannot. They want to change that, and force churches to perform the ceremonies, because they aren’t getting what they want. They feel they ” have the right as parishioners in our village to utilise the church we attend to get married.” What the church feels is obviously of no consequence. But, hey, that’s England and Denmark. They don’t have the same protections as we do, right?

In Canada, “Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, was questioned about instances when religious liberty and homosexual “rights” conflict.  She stated that she would have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Right now, people of belief can be forced to give up their religious liberty to accommodate the gay agenda. Baking cakes, catering gay weddings, even performing them if not a fully recognized church can be forced compliance. Or, deal with legal penalties, including from the government.

But in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted a clash ahead between religious freedom and same-sex marriage. He specifically noted the dilemma for religious colleges that provide married student housing, and adoption agencies that won’t place children with gay couples.

“There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court,” Roberts wrote.

Yes, they will. The agenda will never end. Forced compliance under penalty of law for those with religious conviction, because the SSM crowd can’t just accept their win gracefully. They always want more.

Alito noted the high court’s 1983 decision to revoke the tax-exemption of Bob Jones University in South Carolina because it barred interracial dating. Alito asked if the government would take such action against religiously affiliated schools that oppose same-sex marriage. Verrilli said, “It is certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that.”

Liberals are already very upset over the tax free status of churches, and will be coming after it, as well as anything else that stands for religious liberty. You will be made to care. And comply.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Where Will The Gay Marriage Agenda End? »

Posted in Current Affairs | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Warmists Can Now Confess Their Climate Sins

By William Teach June 28, 2015 – 7:27 pm

It’s much less expensive than simply purchasing carbon offsets to assuage their guilty consciences. And really, really cheaper than changing their lives to match their beliefs

(Grist) You know the feeling of Climate Guilt: When you know what you’re about to do (or, more likely, have already done) is wrong, and you just can’t help yourself. Or even if you don’t know if it’s wrong, you strongly suspect that it is — after all, every breath you take is a carbon emission.

You order that burger. You board the flight to Italy. You toss your water bottle in the trash can because you cannot, for the life of you, find a goddamn recycling bin in your supposedly progressive city. But who’s counting?

The planet is, you asshole.

That wasn’t helpful, I’m sure! But this is: A place to safely confess your transgressions, and be absolved. The Adaptors, a podcast showcasing the weird tales of climate change adaptation, have your back:

YOU ARE NOT ALONE. YOU WILL NOT BE JUDGED. THE CLIMATE CONFESSIONS HOTLINE IS A CHANCE TO EASE YOUR CONSCIENCE. PICK UP THE PHONE. GET THE ISOLATING FEELINGS OFF YOUR CHEST. (snip)

Get right with the Mother (Earth) … or at least make yourself feel a teensy bit better. Call the hotline.

Read: Good News: Warmists Can Now Confess Their Climate Sins »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove