Vox: Game Of Thrones Is Like Secretly About “Climate Change”, Ya Know!

By William Teach June 4, 2015 – 12:30 pm

This isn’t the first time that a member of the Cult of Climastrology has linked Game Of Thrones to Hotcoldwetdry. Many, many wackadoodle Warmists have played this game. Here we have Voxers Christophe Haubursin and Zack Beauchamp trying to Voxsplain

Game of Thrones is secretly all about climate change

Did you know that Game of Thrones is secretly about the world’s terrible failure to stop climate change? Well, it is, and this video explains why: (you’re welcome to hit the link and watch the very sad video, which probably breaks a bunch of copyright laws)

The show’s much more entertaining stand-in for climate change is the White Walkers, the north-of-the-Wall monsters that command a gigantic zombie army.

The White Walkers are a threat to all humanity: their zombie minions are equally happy to rip apart people of all nations and noble houses. Yet instead of uniting to combat the shared threat to human existence itself, the noble houses in the show spend basically all their time on their own petty disagreements and struggle for power. White Walkers are generally ignored; some nobles deny their existence outright.

Swap climate change for White Walkers and “countries” for noble houses, and it starts to sound a lot like the real world. (snip)

The big wars in Game of Thrones — the Baratheon-Targaryen-Stark-Tyrell-Lannister free-for-all — are basically supposed to stand-in for these complications. All of these noble houses are focused on their short-term interests, but pursuing them is blocking the real problem: stopping White Walkers and their zombie army. Likewise, CO2 emissions skyrocketed in the past 100 years — with potentially catastrophic consequences for the human race.

BTW, here’s what the writer of Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin, had to say on the subject

Finally, in a stunning revelation, when an audience member put the ridiculous question, “JRR Tolkien strenuously denied that his books were in any way an allegory for World War II, have you ever been accused of writing about climate change by proxy? You know, it being a bit of a thing in your works, the long Winter?” George replied, “No, I haven’t, not until now,” and continued, “Like Tolkien I do not write allegory, at least not intentionally. Obviously you live in the world and you’re affected by the world around you, so some things sink in on some level, but, if I really wanted to write about climate change in the 21st century I’d write a novel about climate change in the 21st century.

So, no, it’s not about “climate change”, but, reality has never stopped the CoC.

Read: Vox: Game Of Thrones Is Like Secretly About “Climate Change”, Ya Know! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Want Private Sector To Pony Up For Climate Change Redistribution Policy

By William Teach June 4, 2015 – 8:09 am

How dare I and other Skeptics say that the “climate change” movement is all about far left Progressive (nice fascist) policies! We’re just crazy in thinking there’s a link

Private sector must pay more into $100bn global climate fund, says report
World Resources Institute advises businesses as well as governments to increase funding to enable poor countries to cut emissions and rebuild infrastructure

The global target of directing $100bn to poor countries to help them cope with climate change is likely to be missed unless private sector finance is ramped up significantly, a new analysis has found.

In other words, more fees and taxation on the private sector, pushed by people who aren’t giving their own money, and take lots and lots of fossil fueled trips with their own over-size carbon footprints.

Rich countries will also have to find more money from taxpayers to fund developing countries, enabling them to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and rebuild their infrastructure to adapt to the likely effects of global warming.

See? More taxes and fees. This is all just a money transfer scheme, as pushed by these “developing nations”, and, really, what have previous schemes accomplished? Most of these poor countries are still poor, are still 3rd world sh*tholes. But, the dictators seems to do very well. It also fits very well with the guilt Warmists feel for living a good life in 1st World nations.

The analysis, seen by the Guardian, is a critical part of the runup to the UN climate change conference, starting on 30 November in Paris. Poor countries were promised finance flows of $100bn a year from developed countries by 2020, as part of the deal reached at the climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.

But finance has fallen well short of that target so far, and poor countries are concerned they will not receive the promised money. They are demanding that the target be reached, as a prerequisite for any agreement in Paris.

This is a great way for poor countries to extort money from countries that actually succeed.

Fantastic comment at the Guardian (say, has the Guardian pledged their own money, and have they divested from fossil fuels yet?)

If the threat from C02 is so dangerous, why isn’t the vast sums spent on conferences at 5 star venues, private jet travel, first class air tickets and huge convoys of limos used to fund research into scrubbing emissions from coal fired power stations, cars, planes etc. It seems that there is also a huge amount spent by climate scientists , swanning around the world doing research to prove that the climate is changing and the world is getting warmer. One has to question why they continue to do this, when we are constantly told that “the science is settled.” It would seem to be rather stupid and obtuse to scream hysterically that existing energy sources must be shut down and replaced with what is quaintly called “sustainable” energy, when the blindly obvious solution is to put these scientist chaps to work to find efficient ways to scrub C02 from emissions. Maybe though, it’s more fun and more financially rewarding to travel around, funded by tax payers saying the same thing over and over again. One suspects that mere pennies are being spent on scrubbing CO2 from emissions against the billions spent on climate research.

What he/she said.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Want Private Sector To Pony Up For Climate Change Redistribution Policy »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers, Progressive Goals | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Not Impressed By Obama’s “Trust Me” Approach To Trade Deal

By William Teach June 4, 2015 – 7:58 am

Huh. Democrats suddenly understand what Republicans have been dealing with for over six years, when it comes to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) legislation

(The Hill) President Obama’s argument that Democrats should trust his vision on trade is falling flat on Capitol Hill.

Democrats — even some of Obama’s closest allies — say it’s not enough for the president to pronounce his trade agenda the most progressive in history.

The lawmakers want assurances that the agreements under negotiation, particularly a huge deal being finalized with Pacific Rim nations, will protect U.S. jobs — assurances many say they simply haven’t gotten.

“I take the president at his word that he believes … the argument he’s making, but I think he’s wrong,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said Wednesday.

“The analysis I’ve done comes to a very different conclusion,” he added. “It’s clear that this will, in the long term, not result in the growth of American jobs and an increase in wages.”

There quite a few similar quotes from Democrats within the article, and have a long list of concerns. Legitimate concerns. More and more Democrats, particularly in the House, are leaning towards or saying specifically that they are a “Nay” vote. Republican House leaders are pushing the pact hard, but rank and file are not all falling in line.

Obama is offering his full support to Democrats who back him on trade and face blowback from unions and liberal groups in primary elections.

“Those who are concerned about it, I think, do take a lot of solace in knowing that they can count on the support of President Barack Obama in a Democratic primary if they need it,” Earnest said, noting that surveys show the president is “the most popular, influential and well-liked figure in Democratic politics.”

And that little bit of back scratching has many House Democrats upset, even livid. They’ve had his back on most things for over six years, and now he’s essentially doing a carrot and stick schtick. Back this, and I’ll help you. Don’t back me on this, and I’ll forget your name, and, hey, maybe I’ll back a Democrat to primary you.

The question is, is this a good trade bill? I’ll be the first to admit that I do not know enough to determine this. There are pros and cons, and an interesting con from Senator Bernie Sanders down in the links comments (hey, just because he’s a Socialist Democrat doesn’t mean he’s automatically wrong). There’s a long list of “wait a minutes” from Sanders, which should provide concern by all political/economic persuasions, while also noting that previous free trade pacts have seen American jobs and money flow out of the country. Put aside the name, Party, and political leanings of the Sanders, and read it as if a staunch Conservative wrote it, and see what you think.

Anyhow, it’s amusing that Democrats are finding out what Republicans have known for a long time: you can’t, and shouldn’t, simply take Obama’s word for it. Because he has broken that word time and time and time again.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Democrats Not Impressed By Obama’s “Trust Me” Approach To Trade Deal »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Salon: We Totally Need To Continue NSA Program ‘Cause White Privilege

By William Teach June 3, 2015 – 4:22 pm

I’m typically loathe to like to any Alex Jones run website, in this case, InfoWars, but, they caught a good one

An article featured in leftist outlet Salon is calling for the continuation of illegal domestic bulk data collection in order to battle the “white privilege” of Rand Paul and other Americans.

Written by former FBI double agent Naveed Jamali, the article, entitled “What if Rand Paul were Muslim? The white, privileged assumptions behind his Patriot Act ‘principles,’” claims that Paul’s opposition to illegal spying is rooted in his skin color, not in his values and principles.

Arguing that bulk collection will deter the intelligence community from targeting people based on their “background or heritage,” Jamali suggests that only white Americans are concerned with domestic surveillance.

This is a new tactic. It used to be that Muslims, particularly those involved in the hardcore Islamist movement, wanted all surveillance ended, because they were upset that their hardcore movement was being uncovered. Now they want everyone under government surveillance, like in their hardcore Islamist nations, which will make it harder to see what the Islamists are doing. Using the silly Leftist “white privilege” mantra.

Read: Salon: We Totally Need To Continue NSA Program ‘Cause White Privilege »

Posted in War On Terrorism | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are wonderful trees being choked by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on the coming Ocare price increases.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: EPA Looks To Increase Cost Of Airplane Tickets To Save Us From Climate Change

By William Teach June 3, 2015 – 10:23 am

Those who are taking long fossil fueled flights from the U.S. to Paris for this years Conference on the Parties hardest hit

(NY Times) The Obama administration is set to announce that it will require new rules to cut emissions from airplanes, expanding a quest to tackle climate change that has included a string of significant regulations on cars, trucks and power plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to report as early as Friday its conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes endanger human health because they significantly contribute to global warming, although people familiar with the agency’s plans said the announcement could slip into next week.

That announcement, known in legal parlance as an endangerment finding, will prompt a requirement under the Clean Air Act for the agency to issue new regulations to reduce airplane emissions. The agency is expected to limit the rule to commercial aircraft, leaving out small craft and military planes.

Nowhere is it mentioned within the article that this will artificially drive up the cost to the consumer. Will the definition of commercial aircraft include just passenger planes, or will it include planes used to ferry freight as well? If the latter, not only will the cost of taking a plane trip increase, it will increase virtually everything else that comes by plane. Shipping costs will increase, and this could mean that more packages will be sent via truck, putting more vehicles on the road. All for a fake issue pushed by a cult.

Warmists will say “hey, it’s just a tiny increase”. It always is. A tiny increase here, a tiny increase there, more tiny increases. Throw your pennies in a jar and pretty soon you have a nice chunk of change. But, all these tiny increases add as they flow through the entire economy, so those tiny increases become bigger increases, which add to all the increases from all the other “climate change” fees, rules, regs, and laws.

Read: Good News: EPA Looks To Increase Cost Of Airplane Tickets To Save Us From Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Economy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Feminist Insanity Leads To Arrests For “Manspreading”

By William Teach June 3, 2015 – 8:20 am

Manspreading, ie, men sitting with their legs spread in a public setting, has become a Serious Issue to hardcore feminists, as explained over at National Review, which pulls the relevant complaints from feminists. If you manspread, you’re a part of the evil patriarchy, you’re exhibiting male dominance, blah blah blah. They always need something to complain about.

Manspreading arrests: the long arm of the law just invaded our personal space
As two men are arrested for ‘manspreading’ on the New York metro, Joel Snape argues that we should all take a bit of responsibility rather than making anti-social behaviour illegal

Bad news, tall men with a poor sense of boundaries: the NYPD have had enough of your nonsense. Yes, after op–eds in the New York Times (£), a popular crowdshaming Tumblr campaign and a series of public service ads from the Metropolitan Transport Authority, ‘manspreading’, or ‘sitting with your legs slightly too far apart’, as it used to be known, has apparently become a criminal offence.

According to a recent report from the Police Reform Organising Project, at least two men have been arrested and charged on grounds of the M–word, “presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other riders”. Rather than simply throwing out the charges, the judge issued an order that only guarantees that the men won’t suffer further repercussions if they avoid getting arrested again in the near future. It’s all part of a numbers driven crackdown on subway behaviour that’s also seen arrests for break dancing, walking between the cars and – collective air punch – people putting their feet on the seats. Nobody’s been arrested for playing dubstep on audio–leaking headphones yet, but it’s surely only a matter of time.

The two men were arrested in NYC. Think about that. Arrested for sitting with your legs spread out, taking up more than one seat. People can be fined $50 for taking up more than one seat if it interferes with the comfort of other passengers.

No, the main problem with arresting people for anti–social behaviour is that anti-social behaviour shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

Criminal acts have clear boundaries, as in the case of murder, tax evasion, or torrenting episodes of Game Of Thrones; sitting with your legs too wide on a subway seat does not. Every commuter instinctively knows the difference between a man who’s tall enough to need a bit of extra room and someone who’s just being an arse, but in order to effectively prosecute it you’d need some sort of complex formula to determine guilt, which included variables like limb–length, testicular size, the number of other commuters on the train during the time of the offence and the always important willingness–to–be–accommodating–when–the–carriage–gets–crowded matrix.

What the feminists are attempting to do is make behaviour they do not like illegal. Men sit with their legs spread, when they aren’t crossed. Some sit with their legs spread more than others, and men will spread out when they can. It’s comfortable for us. That’s the way we roll. It’s not dominance, we aren’t trying to show how big are balls are, nor anything else the wacky feminists screech about.

That said, there is a time an place for everything. Going for the ultra-spread on the subway is a no no. But, there shouldn’t be any penalties, any more than people being on crowded public transportation taking up too much space.

There are lots of great comments at the article. Here’s my favorite

Manspreading will land you in jail but looting and rioting will gain you the respect of 47% of the American population. Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense in Liberal World.

Read: Feminist Insanity Leads To Arrests For “Manspreading” »

Posted in Liberal World | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, What If Every Other Country Put A Tariff On Imports From Non “Climate Club” Countries?

By William Teach June 3, 2015 – 7:46 am

In a thinly veiled opinion piece, which appears in the business section, not the science section, writer Eduardo Porter is all about using a big stick on countries, especially the United States, which refuse to implement massive CO2 restrictions

Climate Deal Badly Needs a Big Stick

…..

Perhaps the word failure fits, however. More than a quarter-century of fruitless efforts to induce the world’s major greenhouse gas polluters like China and the United States to significantly cut their emissions suggests the entire approach may be fundamentally flawed.

Perhaps it does, considering that the majority of Kyoto Protocol signatories failed to meet their targets, all while implementing lots of restrictions and taxes/fees.

What if every other advanced nation, as a way to encourage energy efficiency and spur investments in alternatives to fossil fuels, agreed to put a price of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere? As a tax, that would add some 22 cents to the price of a gallon of gas, something few American politicians — fearing public anger — are yet ready to consider.

That would mean the price of almost everything, not just gasoline, would rise, causing lots of pain to lower and middle class Americans. This is what Eduardo is advocating, and you can bet that most other members of the Cult of Climastrology are right with him, not realizing that this would cause pain in their own lives. Eduardo probably hasn’t considered that the cost of doing business for the NY Times would rise, as they use fossil fueled vehicles to deliver their papers. Twenty two cents might not seem like much, but, it adds up for filling up your own vehicle, and for everyone else filling up theirs.

But if the other advanced nations had a stick — a tariff of 4 percent on the imports from countries not in the “climate club” — the cost-benefit calculation for the United States would flip. Not participating in the club would cost Americans $44 billion a year.

Here we have Eduard and the NY Times advocating for other countries (which will surely fail to meet their own goals) to harm the United States and its citizens, all for the mythical, un-scientific, and nonsensical cultish beliefs of Warmists.

This sort of approach offers perhaps the best chance of preventing a climatic upheaval.

How cute, a new term.

In an article published in April in The American Economic Review, Professor Nordhaus proposed just such a climate club, in which countries committed to reducing carbon emissions would impose a uniform tariff on imports from nonmembers.

Notice, countries that are committed, not ones which are actually succeeding.

“The issue is not whether we will have disastrous effects,” Professor Weitzman told me, “but when climate change will have disastrous effects.”

Given the dearth of alternatives, Professor Nordhaus’s scheme, draconian as it may sound, looks like the only game in town.

It’s interesting that virtually every “solution” from the Cult of Climastrology, a subset of the Progressive (nice fascist) political movement, involves taxation, fees, an artificial cost of living increase, and lots of pain, all based on prognostication that something might possibly maybe happen.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Say, What If Every Other Country Put A Tariff On Imports From Non “Climate Club” Countries? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Economy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

We Need A “Radical Transition” Of Economy To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach June 2, 2015 – 3:39 pm

Otherwise we’re doom, or Warmists will run out of taxpayer money

‘Radical transition’ of economy needed to curb climate change: study

Harmful impacts of global warming such as heat waves and sea level rise are mounting and show a need for a “radical transition” to a greener economy, a study presented at U.N. climate talks said on Tuesday.

All sides at the presentation of the report, on the sidelines of June 1-11 talks on the Paris accord, said government promises so far for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions were too weak to stay below the 2C goal.

“Limiting global warming to below 2C necessitates a radical transition … not merely a fine tuning of current trends,” according to the report based on talks between experts and governments.

Such a transition would mean deep cuts in greenhouse gases, shifting from fossil fuels such as coal and oil to renewable energies such as wind, hydro and solar power, it said.

Yup, let’s transition to an economy based on energy sources that do not currently work and/or radical enviros won’t let be built. Really, what they mean is a transition to a hardcore Progressive economy, one run by The Government, and, since this is coming from the United Nations, an economy overseen by the UN.

Read: We Need A “Radical Transition” Of Economy To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful carbon friendly mode of transportation in a drying world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a some Tuesday feel good stories.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove