Latest CoC Talking Point: Deniers Hate Children

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 10:07 am

Not mentioned is how the best way to lift people out of poverty is reliable, affordable energy

Conservatives against children

Some will scoff.  Some will send me e-mails full of expletives and hate.  That’s normal.  Some will become incensed as they rant and rail.  But it is a fact.  There is one interest group actively working against all efforts to prevent our planet from passing a threshold of dangerous climate change.

That interest group is money.  Big money.  The biggest money on the planet.  The biggest money there ever was.  Big oil.  Big coal.  Big stupid money.  And the political party they long ago bought and paid for.  Republicans.  And their little sister, the Tea Party.  They will do whatever big money asks.  And I mean whatever.

Forget truth, science, morality, democracy, even Christianity.  Big money and big power rules.  And if you are a conservative, you must shrink your heart, kiss the ring and bow low.

On the other side are non-human life, the billions of powerless poor people across the planet and our precious children.

Yeah, nothing like the power and money of Government along with interest groups and non-governmental groups. Eh. You know the reality. Unless you’re a Warmist. Who complains about fossil fuels usage. By Other People.

It’s simply a typical “won’t someone please think of the children!!!!” argument designed to elicit feelings to deflect from hard facts in order to institute far left progressive policies.

Read: Latest CoC Talking Point: Deniers Hate Children »

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

Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 7:11 am

Obviously, the study author and all those associated will be deemed to be in the pay of Big Fossil Fuels and are all Evil Deniers who want to end all life on earth, and probably hate the poor, women, and puppies….well, not puppies, because dogs are Bad For Climate Change, especially puppies

(Daily Caller) Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Why 8,000 years? For one, that is the time period after which the massive climatic changes from the end of the last glacial age smoothed out.

The United Nations’ IPCC claims there’s been 0.85 degrees Celsius of warming since the late 1800s, and concludes that most of this warming is due to human activities– mainly, the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. The IPCC says that “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” have been caused by human activity.

If Lloyd’s results hold, the IPCC may have to revise how much warming it attributes to mankind. In any case, the IPCC’s estimate of man-made and natural warming (0.85 degrees) is still below the standard deviation for the last 8,000, according to Lloyd’s results. This means that warming is not very significant within the context of the Earth’s recent climate history.

Much like the sea rise during that time period, which is simply average for the last 8,000 years. By the way averages work, we should expect much higher sea rise, to offset the lower to possibly negative sea rise during the longer Holocene cool periods.

At the end beginning of the day, Cult of Climastrology members will dismiss this paper out of hand, like they do with virtually ever other paper and scientific investigation, like they do with history, in favor of defending their cult. They won’t defend their cult with facts and science, but with smears and slurs. This is how they operate, because it isn’t about science, but about pushing far left Progressive (nice fascist) policies.

And, of course, those few who acknowledge that the warming isn’t that much now will say that it is coming, that we are doomed by 2100.

Read: Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Latest Idea From Social Justice Warriors: Ban Salary Negotiation

By William Teach May 22, 2015 – 6:59 am

Such is the idea from Laura J. Kray, who stops short of saying that these bans should be enforcement by government. It’s just implied

The best way to way to eliminate the gender pay gap? Ban salary negotiations.

Ellen Pao, interim chief executive of Reddit, announced last month a ban on salary negotiations at the social media company. Her stated goal: to eliminate the persistent disadvantage that women have at the bargaining table.

Her pronouncement came just days after Pao lost a high-profile sex discrimination lawsuit against one of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms. Since then, she has insisted that companies “can’t just hide” from sexism in their workplaces, and must be proactive in counteracting discrimination. Still, while it is true that women earn about 78 cents, on average, for every dollar a man makes for comparable work, Pao’s no-negotiating policy has struck many as absurd.

Why take away an important tool for women to achieve equal pay? Why stop a woman with star qualifications from pushing for as much money as she can get?

Yeah, why? Oh, right. “Social justice”.

In a perfect world, I would agree. Many people in the equal-pay debate argue that inferior negotiating skills are at the root of the gender pay gap. Teaching women to be better negotiators – or getting them to negotiate at all – would fix the issue. But the causes of this problem are more complicated than that. We have two decades of rigorous empirical research on how gender affects contract negotiations and it all points in the same direction. Put simply: As we practice it in the United States, negotiation is a man’s game with men’s rules.

This is followed by all sorts of excuses and Blamestorming and such, in an attempt to softly paint women as hothouse flowers in need of rescue by some sort of Big Entity, because they are always disadvantaged. Sadly, many of the real reasons that women end up on the lower end of the pay raise carrot are never mentioned. Things like men tending to work longer hours, taking less sick and personal days (these days are often taken to take care of the children), time off for maternity, they’re less likely to work weekends, and many other reasons. There is often a time at work disparity.

What’s that? Train women to be better negotiators? Oh, brother, no no no, that’s part of the excusifying. It’s not like anyone could just google “salary negotiation strategies”.

Of course, banning salary negotiation (who is doing the banning?) has its own issues

Such policies do come with some risk. A ban on negotiations leaves a lot of power in the hands of employers, who may not be making equal salary offers to men and women in the first place. The solution is transparency. In an effort to encourage equity and trust, a growing number of companies reveal the salaries of all their employees, sometimes even posting them online. This makes it much harder to hood-wink job candidates and helps eliminate gender discrepancies.

Is Ms. Kray saying that women are too naive to figure it out? Seems rather callous.

Certainly, it would be best if women were judged and treated just as men are when sitting at the negotiating table. But society’s gender biases and discriminating behavior haven’t been overcome in a generation. Pao’s solution of banning salary negotiations is not ideal, but it has the virtue of being grounded in the reality of the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

On one hand, feminists/liberals tell us women are super strong, and in the next breath tell us they need all sorts of super protections (by whom, we are not told in this opinion piece). Which is it? Like anything, negotiating salary is a skill, one that can be learned. Fewer and fewer companies disallow negotiation at most levels: there is one set pay scale. This is all progressivism at its best: punishing those who succeed, rather than elevating those who aren’t by teaching.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Latest Idea From Social Justice Warriors: Ban Salary Negotiation »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on subsidizing dependency, rather than decreasing poverty.

Read: If All You See… »

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

CNN: We Totally Need To Declare War On The Weather!!!!!

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 10:59 am

Totally! So says CNN “national security analyst” (let that sink in for a few) Juliette Keyyem

Declare war on climate change?

We have a tendency to view certain public policy issues as wars. As in “the war on … ” fill in the blank: drugs, cancer, poverty.

It is often a misleading analogy, but it is meant to get the public to respond to a dire need, just as they would in wartime. The terminology, however, is entirely accurate — and literal — when it comes to our need to address the changing environment as “the war on climate change.” (snip)

As someone in homeland security, I am often asked what is my biggest fear: a pandemic, a terrorist, a loose nuke? All are risks, of course, but the one phenomenon that may have the most likely capacity to alter whatever global stability we can muster at any given moment has to do with Mother Nature. Indeed, the argument the President made Wednesday is more sophisticated than the fact that wars often begin because of the fight over limited resources.

(yes, we finally have a Janeway, er, Captain Janeway, facepalm!)

Skeptics of these global seismic shifts are not simply denying science, they are denying safety and security. Until we recognize — with the immediacy we would if a nation launched missiles against our cities — that climate change isn’t something that can be debated, but must be mitigated or, failing that, adapted to, we will not expend the effort or resources to prepare ourselves to the one phenomenon that we know is coming: simply, the waters are rising and this is a war.

BTW, how’s that war on poverty going? If Liberals fight the war on weather climate change in the same manner, the earth probably will burn to a crisp.

Read: CNN: We Totally Need To Declare War On The Weather!!!!! »

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

Good News: Ferguson Plans Permanent Memorial To Criminal

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 8:28 am

Now that the memorial to Michael Brown has been knocked down multiple times, being that it is in the middle of the road, Ferguson has decided to go a different route

(The Hill) The mayor of Ferguson, Mo., announced on Wednesday that his city would construct a permanent memorial to Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager shot and killed by a police officer there last summer.

Mayor James Knowles III said that the tribute would honor Brown’s memory at Canfield Drive, according to the Associated Press.

Will this permanent memorial show the gentle giant stealing cigars, assaulting the clerk, walking in the middle of the road, assaulting an officer of the law, attempting to take his service weapon, running away after a shot was fired, then returning to charge the duly sworn officer? Will it perhaps have a saying such as “he made his bed, now he has to lie in it”?

Only in Liberal World do they celebrate a criminal. Of course, Liberals have taken other criminals and bad actors, such as Mumia, Tookie Williams (who’s been executed, of course), Che Guerra, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Islamists, Stalin, Mao, Castro, illegal aliens, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton (can you imagine the outcry from Liberals if Bill was a Republican, and had been accused of rape and sexual assault?) to heart, embracing them.

Wilson resigned over his role in the incident last November. Neither a St. Louis County grand jury nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued criminal charges against the officer for his actions.

In other words, the both found that Officer Darren Wilson did not break the law. Michael Brown did. They’re going to erect a memorial to a thug and criminal.

Hey, maybe the memorial can feature a picture of Ferguson residents looting their own neighborhoods, stealing hair car products for “justice”.

Read: Good News: Ferguson Plans Permanent Memorial To Criminal »

Posted in Liberal World | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

California Looks To “Necessarily” Skyrocket Electricity Rates, ‘Cause Climate Change

By William Teach May 21, 2015 – 7:57 am

Can you guess who will be hurt by this idea, as being pushed mostly by White Liberals?

(USA Today) How much Californians pay for electricity could soon depend on when they use it — and some could see their summer bills go up substantially.

The California Public Utilities Commission could soon ask Southern California Edison and other utility companies to start designing “time-of-use” residential electricity rates, to take effect in 2019. The rates would make electricity more expensive when demand is high, and less expensive when demand is low.

Some ratepayer advocates and environmental groups support time-varying rates, which they say would help reduce dependence on climate-altering fossil fuels. But at least one consumer watchdog group is worried the rates would have unintended consequences. For instance, the new rates could make electricity much more expensive during the summer, hitting desert residents hard during the many months of air conditioning season.

It will also hit lower and middle class income folks much harder than all the Rich White Liberals in California. Let’s not forget, those who are involved with environmentalism/climate change, particularly the leaders, tend to be rich and white. Funny thing is, the very people who will be hurt the most, poorer minorities, are the ones calling the most for Government to Do Something, to make it a top priority. The RWLs have convinced poor minorities that raising the cost of living is necessary.

As for “unintended consequences”, increasing the cost of energy, which will increase the cost of living, is anything by “unintended”. It should be pointed out that peak demand cost is nothing new; quite a few power companies practice it. What is different here the rate demands, and the why

Many environmental groups see time-varying rates as a smart way to limit fossil fuel-driven climate change.

While the rates wouldn’t be designed to reduce overall energy consumption, they would ideally limit the need for expensive, gas-fired “peaker” plants. Those plants are generally inefficient, spewing more air pollutants and planet-warming greenhouse gases than most energy sources.

They want to use the force of Government to change people’s behavior. Meanwhile, these same Cult Of Climastrology members refuse to give up their own fossil fuels usage. Weird, right?

Here’s the “typical demand profile of an individual household monitored every two 2 minutes” (from here)

And “total California load profile for a hot day in 1999”

Hooray, everyone can do their laundry in the middle of the night! Of course, let’s consider that so many uber-Democrat voters in California are CoC members, and have been calling for all sorts of “climate change” rules, regulations, laws, and initiatives. Well, here they go. They’re getting their wish. It will be amusing when they complain about their cost of living escalating precipitously. Because what they really want is all the penalties and cost increases and bad stuff to be forced on Other People. Now they’ll have the opportunity to be forced to practice what they preach.

It might help if California would actually build new power plants. A few nuclear plants would do wonders. Heck, if the enviroweenies would stop blocking solar farms, even solar could help during peak time.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: California Looks To “Necessarily” Skyrocket Electricity Rates, ‘Cause Climate Change »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Which Cities Are The Most “Hyper-segregated”?

By William Teach May 20, 2015 – 3:43 pm

It’s no longer just segregated. It’s Hypersegregated

Which U.S. cities have become the most ‘hypersegregated?’ | Princeton study

About a third of all black metropolitan residents lived in a “hypersegregated” city as of 2010, according to Princeton University researchers.

“If you look at the cityscape of the United States, hypersegregated cities are the places where our most severe problems of urban poverty, of racial inequality, of racial violence of various sorts are taking the most fervent root,” said Douglas Massey, a sociology and public affairs professor at Princeton University.

Hypersegregated areas are those where black residents experience high levels of various forms of segregation, according to a study published in the journal Demography coauthored by Massey and Princeton graduate student Jonathan Tannen.

Of course, this certainly can’t go to Black people segregating themselves in their own communities, as often happens with other flavors of people by religion, race, nationality, creed, income, or other factors. What they really mean is White People blocking off Blacks in Big Cities while fleeing for the suburbs, to get away from falling social capital, falling property values, failing school systems, increasing crime, and increasing taxation, which, strangely, the survey and article forget to mention that the Big Cities tend to be very Left leaning and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

One of those “hypersegregated” cities is Detroit, which is almost 90% Black, and many of the people get very upset when “gentrification” occurs.

“The places that are hypersegregated today are the nation’s large urban black ghettos — New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Philadelphia,” Massey said. “Although we’ve clearly made progress, the problems in many ways are becoming more intractable because there are now generations of black families in these places that have lived under conditions of hypersegregation and a high concentration of poverty.”

So, Democrat policies have been pretty bad for Blacks?

“Hypersegregation produces high levels of social isolation from mainstream society, but also high concentrations of poverty and disadvantage,” Massey said.

Huh. It’s almost like Rich White Liberal Democrats have created reservations for Black people, reservations of poverty, high crime, poor education, poor property values, and low social and economic capital. Then the RWLDs promise money and stuff, while whipping up the Black people regarding raaaaacism and entitlement, all for votes.

Read: Say, Which Cities Are The Most “Hyper-segregated”? »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 20, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will rise up hundreds of feet because Someone Else refuses to buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on LA approving a $15 minimum wage.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Fossil Fuels Using Sheldon Whitehouse Threatens Of Reckoning On “Climate Change”

By William Teach May 20, 2015 – 10:22 am

How often does Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) take a fossil fueled flight?

(The Hill) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gave the 100th speech in his weekly climate change series on Monday, saying that there will be “a reckoning” on the issue.

“One day there will be a reckoning,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. “If we wake up, if we get this right, if we turn that ponderous balance of destiny in our time, it can be their reckoning. It does not have to be all of ours. It can be their shame; not the shame of our democracy.”

Despite the soft political language, this is clearly a threat to those who refuse to join the Cult Of Climastrology. This is what Progressives (nice fascists) like to do: threaten when they do not get their way. If you read his entire speech, you can see that this is, in fact, a threat, since it comes at the end of the speech where he spent quite a bit of time whining and condemning those who stand opposed to the CoC.

What’s my #1 reason?  Easy.  Rhode Island.  The consequences of carbon pollution for the Ocean State are undeniable.  The tide gauge at Naval Station Newport is up nearly ten inches since the 1930s.  The water in Narragansett Bay is 3-4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the winter than just fifty years ago.

The official tide gauge in Newport shows a trend of 0.9 feet of sea rise over 100 years, being at an average of 2.74mm per year. This is entirely reasonable during a Holocene warm period. In fact, we would actually expect a higher rise, in the range of 16+ inches a year. Nothing he yammers about is proof of anthropogenic causation, just a mostly natural change in climatic conditions.

He doesn’t care: like any good fascist, he will threaten. Yet, he won’t change his own behavior.

Read: Fossil Fuels Using Sheldon Whitehouse Threatens Of Reckoning On “Climate Change” »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove