Normal People: We Can Now Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry By Eating Our Dogs

By William Teach June 24, 2015 – 7:44 am

Hey, you know how I link dogs being evil in relation to “climate change” in my If All You See posts? Heck, I did it Tuesday, and I hadn’t even run across this article till several hours after I set the IAYS post to auto-post. Usually, though, the bat-guano insane member of the Cult Of Climastrology isn’t writing at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), as Anna Maria Tremonti does, giving time to a lunatic in print and on the radio

Environmental impact of pets may mean it’s time to ‘eat the dog’

There are about 35 million Canadians… and about 14 million of our best friends, living a fairly pampered existence. But our dogs and cats are cherished companions that are rarely factored in when we talk about what needs to be done to combat climate change.

And certain voices are trying to change that — by calling attention to just how much of an ecological pawprint, those cats and dogs can have.

Robbie Parks is a climate physicist and epidemiologist sounding the alarm. He points out that our pets are methane-producing, meat-eating drags on the planet and the time may have arrived for drastic measures.

In fact, he says, the time may even have arrived to eat the dog.

I’d usually include a facepalm gif, but, at this point, this is beyond the normal unhinged behavior and rants of Warmists.

BTW, make sure to contact the CBC: “Send us an email, find us on Facebook and also on Twitter@TheCurrentCBC.” Let them know how insane this is. But, hey, EPA head Gina McCarthy apparently thinks this is normal behavior

(Daily Caller) EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day,” McCarthy said. “It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

How soon till these “normal human beings” call for eating people? Many have already proclaimed cannibalism is coming due to Hotcoldwetdry.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Normal People: We Can Now Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry By Eating Our Dogs »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If You See Animals In Different Places, It Means “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 3:27 pm

This article actually follows on the heals of the one on bread from this morning

This article is part of Climate for Change, a Fairfax Media series on global warming. Full coverage can be found here. Follow our coverage on Facebook.

Let’s not forget that when the Warmists say climate change, they mean mostly/solely caused by Mankind

(SMH) You’re probably familiar with celebrity selfies, or those posted on Facebook by your friends, but soon the internet will be flooded with nothing less than … animal selfies.

Of course, these animals don’t know they’re being filmed by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s remote-sensing cameras placed in state nature reserves.

Some of these candid moments are sure to go viral now that the office has partnered with the Australian Museum to put the footage online in August so the public can help identify the animal striking a pose.

Projects like WildCount increasingly rely on interested citizens to gather information about their local surroundings. The observations, when collated, can be used to monitor the condition of ecosystems, the movements and behaviour of species and to predict how they might adapt or succumb to climate change.

“One of the features of climate change is that you start to see animals or plants in locations that you wouldn’t have expected previously. By having citizen scientists you’ve got a much better geographic dispersal,” said Kate Wilson, the executive director of science at OEH.

Interesting. Are Warmist positing that animal life has always been static? That life has always been in exactly the same place always? Talk about anti-science folks.

Read: If You See Animals In Different Places, It Means “Climate Change” »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible dog sucking up valuable resources, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Dolezal funny pages.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 10:18 am

Total doom!

What climate change will do to your loaf of bread

If the promise of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more frequent natural disasters doesn’t convince you of the urgent need for the world to act on climate change, maybe this picture above will.

This is what global warming will do to your loaf of bread.

On the right is a loaf made from grain grown in today’s climate conditions. On the left is a loaf made from grain that sprouted in concentrations of carbon dioxide that are expected by mid-century if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced significantly.

So this is 2050 bread. It was baked at the Australian Grains Free Air COâ‚‚ Enrichment facility (AgFace) in Victoria by a research group studying the effect elevated carbon dioxide will have on crops such as wheat, lentils, canola and field pea.

Or, it could be that they’re bad bakers.

AgFace leader Glenn Fitzgerald said the effect of high carbon dioxide on grains is complex. On the one hand, it makes plants such as wheat and canola grow faster and produce greater yields but, on the other hand, they contain less protein. Elevated carbon dioxide also alters the ratio of different types of proteins in wheat, which, in the case of bread, affects the elasticity of dough and how well a loaf rises.

“We don’t understand completely why that’s the case,” said Dr Fitzgerald, a senior research scientist with the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.

Huh. Imagine that.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 8:12 am

Since the Charleston shooting, many people with an axe to grind have decided to Blame the Confederate flag (any version), and Republicans have been quick to comply. As Jazz Shaw wrote Sunday, you will be made to care…about the Confederate Battle Flag, a play on Erik Erickson’s posts about being made to care about gay marriage. Now

(AP) A top Mississippi lawmaker said Monday that the Confederate battle emblem is offensive and needs to be removed from the state flag.

House Speaker Philip Gunn became the first top-tier Republican to call for a change in the flag, which has had the Confederate symbol in the upper left corner since Reconstruction.

“We must always remember our past, but that does not mean we must let it define us,” Gunn, a leader in his local Baptist church, said in a statement. “As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed. We need to begin having conversations about changing Mississippi’s flag.”

Mississippi and Tennessee officials are grappling with whether to retain Old South symbols, even as South Carolina leaders are pushing to remove a Confederate battle flag that flies outside the statehouse there.

Mississippi voters decided by a 2-to-1 margin in 2001 to keep the state flag that has been used since 1894. It features the Confederate battle emblem — a blue X with 13 stars, over a red field.

A couple of points: after deep reflection, I would agree that the Confederate flag should not be flown over government buildings, nor be a part of any official flag. We don’t fly the British flag, do we? Nor should we be flying the flag of any other country on government property. And, certainly, at a government level, the Confederate flag does have part of its background in slavery.

But this will not stop there. Walmart has stated that they will no longer sell the Confederate flag. Certainly, pressure will be placed on any business that sells them. License plates with the flag will be attacked. Because people have been Offended, there will be a push to have the Confederate Flag, in any form, banned.

I wonder how these same Offended people would respond if the Islamic flag, linked to slavery, mass killings, jihad, Sharia law, abuse of women and gays, misogyny, and so much more, was banned?

Should we ban all versions of the Black Power flag, which is about Black supremacy?

For most who fly the Confederate flag in some form, it has nothing to do with slavery, white power, or anything negative. It’s about Southern pride, being proud to be a Southerner, in the same way Liberals are uber-proud to live in big cities. And vote Democratic Party.

Perhaps we should ban the use of the Democratic donkey, which, while not an official symbol of the Democratic Party, has its roots in Northern anti-Civil War Democrats (Copperheads). Since they had that opinion, wouldn’t that make them pro-slavery? So, the Dem donkey is a symbol of white supremacy.

Furthermore, we should ban the Democratic Party, which stood overall for slavery. Democrats were the Party of the South for a long time, until the Reagan revolution (and, no, the Southern Dems didn’t just become Republicans), and were the ones pushing Jim Crow and Segregation. A goodly chunk, both Northern and Southern Dems, were against the various Civil Rights Acts. So, ban the Democrats. Hey, you guys can’t have it both ways.

Read: Surprise: They’re Now Going After Mississippi Flag »

Posted in Current Affairs | 40 Comments | Trackback URL

Politifact: Obama Yammering On Mass Killings “Mostly False”

By William Teach June 23, 2015 – 7:32 am

Does America have more mass killings than other countries, per Obama?

(Politifact) In his June 18, 2015, remarks from the White House, Obama said, “Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.”

A flurry of PolitiFact readers — some of them prompted by articles objecting to Obama’s claim — wrote to us to ask us to check it, so we did.

An important point to make right off the bat is that many of the critics have pointed to the first part of Obama’s claim — that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” As we’ll explain, the critics have a point here — mass violence, including mass shootings, happen in a wide variety of countries.

However, the critics have truncated the quotation, leaving off the next sentence — that “it doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” That’s also not fully correct, but it’s not quite as wrong as the first claim.

They go through some statistics and incidents, and move to

In sum, then, Obama is wrong to say that “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” Clearly it does happen elsewhere, and not in trivial numbers. Seven of the countries saw double-digit numbers of people killed in mass shootings during that period.

By contrast, the second part of Obama’s claim — that “it doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency” — isn’t entirely off-base.

And the verdict?

The data shows that it clearly happens in other countries, and in at least three of them, there’s evidence that the rate of killings in mass-shooting events occurred at a higher per-capita rate than in the United States between 2000 and 2014. The only partial support for Obama’s claim is that the per-capita gun-incident fatality rate in the United States does rank in the top one-third of the list of 11 countries studied. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.

Of course, Obama was also alluding to gun violence overall, and, it’s certain that the U.S. has a good bit. And a goodly bit of it occurs in deep Democrat cities. Obama’s hometown of Chicago sure has a lot, which Obama doesn’t like to talk about, especially the population that is involved with the majority of gun violence.

Of course, this is the same administration that ran guns to Mexico, which has resulted in hundreds dead, and thousands injured, including children. Crime in Mexico spiked after Operation Fast and Furious was implemented.

Of course, it doesn’t seem like these same anti-gun zealots care much about the threat from Islamic terrorists. In Nigeria, 30 are dead after a suicide bombing in Nigeria, the fourth such bombing this month in Maiduguri, the birthplace of Boko Haram. A North Carolina teen is the latest arrested in a plot to kill hundreds for ISIS.

Of course, the Ramadan Score Card has 44 attacks, 9 suicide bombings, and 359 dead, all in the name of the Religion of Peace.

And, finally, of course, none of that matters to the anti-gun zealots, who wish to disarm law abiding citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Politifact: Obama Yammering On Mass Killings “Mostly False” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, RoP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Pakistani Climate Change Minister Calls For Doing Away With Fossil Fuels

By William Teach June 22, 2015 – 4:53 pm

Of course, we’re told that no one is calling for the complete (forced) abandonment of fossil fuels usage

‘Ditching fossil fuels’ essential stablising climate change’

Federal Minister for Climate Change, Senator Mushahidullah Khan, has hailed leading G7 industrial nations for announcing that they will phase out the use of fossil fuels by decarbonising the global economy in the course of this century.

Such move, if actualised, would help control emission of climate altering green house gases (GHGs), which have caused global warming. Eventually, this will lead to stablising climate change and reduction in occurrence of the climate change-induced natural disasters, the minister said in a press statement issued here on Sunday. (Snip)

Mushahidullah Khan said that getting rid of fossil fuels’ use would require energy transition beyond fossil fuels through multiple means, including transport electrification, decommissioning of operating fossil fuel-fired power plants and prevention of the construction of new fossil-fuel-fired power stations in the rich countries.

“Above all, a move to the many forms of renewable energy from solar, wind, water and air is must for shifting away from fossil fuels,” he emphasised.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing available that can replace fossil fuels at this time. It would be great if there was. Warmists, though, want to put the cart before the horse.

Then they jump in their own fossil fueled vehicles.

Read: Pakistani Climate Change Minister Calls For Doing Away With Fossil Fuels »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 22, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded because Someone Else refused to turn their AC up to 85, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Jonathan Gruber’s big influence on Ocare.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Doom: Warmists Proclaim Collapse Of Society By 2040

By William Teach June 22, 2015 – 10:15 am

Bummer. Of course, it’s all based on computer models and Everyone Else being forced to change their behaviors to align with those expressed by the Cult Of Climastrology, behaviors Warmists themselves won’t practice in their own lives

(UK Independent ) A scientific model supported by the Foreign Office has suggested that society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages if policies do not change.

The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute, does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.

However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences.

Dr Aled Jones, the Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, told Insurge Intelligence:  “We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends — that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend.

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Read: Doom: Warmists Proclaim Collapse Of Society By 2040 »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Should The U.S. Apologize For Climate Change?

By William Teach June 22, 2015 – 7:53 am

Alternate headline: Should the United States issue a formal apology for being so darn productive and advanced?

Should the United States Issue a Formal Apology for Climate Change?

It’s 2017 and the newly elected president of the United States is apologizing to the world for its contribution to environmental injustices at home and globally. Could this happen? Should it happen?

There’s a long list of historic environmental injustices that the United States has inflicted upon its own peoples and cultures, and globally. Environmental racism (where environmental laws, policies and practices have differentially affected individuals, groups of communities based on race or colour), the watered-down approach of American companies toward corporate social responsibility, and its significant contribution towards climate change all form part of an embarrassing environmental scorecard.

As a proud and courageous nation, the United States should be honest with itself. It’s time for the damaging and dangerous notions, fantasies, and myths of American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny that continue to influence some elements of the nation’s political ideology to be confined to history.

Uh huh.

So, why apologize?

Over the past few years, there have been a number of political apologies offered by nations for historical and more recent injustices.[2]

As a nation, any empathy toward its neighbours brings with it feelings of shame and guilt for some aspects of its way of life. Through apologizing, that dignity and self-esteem could be restored.[3]

Our fragile planet demands that we renew and focus our energies on the resolution of conflicts, and that it is done in a way that does not simply submerge the resentments that inevitably accompany such conflicts but acknowledges and responds to them. I believe that apologizing can help in that effort.

But apologizing is more than merely an acknowledgment of offences together with an expression of remorse. It is an ongoing commitment to change the nation’s behaviour. It is a process that requires of all parties attitudes of honesty, generosity, humility, commitment, and courage.

Strange. This almost sounds like “climate change” is all part of a greater far, far left Progressive agenda. Of course, mentioning “honesty” in a discussion of “climate change”, considering all the lies Warmists have told, is a hoot.

But, hey, I’ll tell you what, I’ll agree to Mr. Paul Collins’ call for an apology when every member of the Cult of Climastrology proves an apology is needed by giving up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral in their own lives.

Read: Say, Should The U.S. Apologize For Climate Change? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove