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

Man Who Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flights To Play Golf To Lecture On Climate Change At Coast Guard Graduation

By William Teach May 20, 2015 – 8:28 am

He’ll also be taking a long, fossil fueled flight, followed by a fossil fueled trip in a limo, part of a large fossil fueled caravan, in order to give this speech that proclaims “climate change” a national security threat

(USA Today) President Obama will use a commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Wednesday to argue ever more forcefully that climate change is a threat to America’s national defense.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune,” Obama will say, according to advance excerpts of his speech released by the White House. “So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.” (snip)

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us,” Obama’s prepared speech says. “Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long term.”

Obviously, it would be too much for Obama to give an uplifting commencement speech to the Coast Guard graduates, nope, it’s more whining about “climate change”, a means to institute more Big Government.

Then Obama will hop in his fossil fueled limo and head to the airport in a big fossil fueled vehicle convoy, and proceed to fly in his fossil fueled jumbo jet with a backup jumbo jet and several military fighter jets off to….surprise! A DNC fundraiser at a private home in New York. Then fly back to Washington, what with all the fossil fueled planes and vehicles. As Glenn Reynolds always says “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis — instead of just filling their pockets, and their egos, at the expense of others.”

Hey, I wonder if “climate change” just took down Yemen and Ramadi?

Read: Man Who Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flights To Play Golf To Lecture On Climate Change At Coast Guard Graduation »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Moderate Biker Totally Feels Compelled To Condemn Biker Violence

By William Teach May 20, 2015 – 8:02 am

There’s actually a bit of misdirection in this NY Times op-ed. Let’s see if you quickly pick it up. Clue: the writer’s name is Wajahat Ali, a journalist at Al Jazeera America

I’m a Moderate Biker Gang Member Compelled to Condemn This Violence

On Sunday, a biker gang meeting at the Twin Peaks Restaurant in Waco, Tex., erupted in violence that claimed the lives of nine people and injured 18. This tragedy stemmed from the criminal actions of a fringe minority that does not represent the democracy-loving values of the majority of tolerant biker gangs devoted to freedom, denim, mutual understanding and leather accessories.

As a moderate biker gang member, who has never met the suspects, visited Texas or even seen the TV series “Twin Peaks,” I offer a full-throated condemnation of, and apology for, their violent acts.

Unfortunately, Sunday’s violence, which led to about 170 people being charged with involvement in organized crime linked to capital murder, has created an opportunity to demonize our biker gang communities as vicious thugs. In a familiar pattern of rhetorical retribution, people are demanding: When will moderate bikers take responsibility for crimes committed by these violent extremists?

But when did I become responsible for the criminal actions of a handful of deluded fanatics just because I ride a motorcycle, sport facial hair and have tattoos? Americans are as much at risk of being killed by falling vending machines as by domestic terrorist attacks, but do we indict Coke and Pepsi?

The Department of Justice claims that we represent a “serious national domestic threat,” but the moderate bikers I mix with represent no threat when we meet to discuss biker issues. In no way are our gang names — such as the Bandidos, the Cossacks and the Scimitars — intended to intimidate the public or law enforcement officials.

At this point, you’re probably starting to say “hey, wait a minute…..”

Yet, potential presidential candidates cynically exploit the issue with anti-biker memes like “biker gangs are at war with the West” and “the biker gang world needs a reformation.” One prominent governor has accused bikers of belonging to “communities of people that don’t want to integrate” into America, while cable TV news pundits warn of “no go zones” in towns and cities allegedly infiltrated by radical biker gangs. Recently, in Texas, a radical liberal blogger held a provocative competition for cartoons lampooning Hells Angels.

To make matters worse, our community is now in the spotlight in Congress, with a special hearing on the “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Biker Gang Community and That Community’s Response.” Another congressional panel will investigate “Biker Gangs and Their Culture of Violence.”

By this point, you’ve certainly figured out that Mr. Ali is actually engaged in a bit of misdirection in order to use the biker gang melee to make a point about radical Islam and how the so-called moderates are always asked to condemn the actions of the extremists. It’s a cute way of doing this. Of course, groups like the Cossacks, Bandidos, Hell’s Angels, and many other biker gangs are gangs, as much as the Bloods, Crips, Texas Syndicate, Surenos, Mexican Mafia, MS13, Aryan Brotherhood, Zoe Pound, Triad, and so on. They can be dangerous (mostly to other biker gangs), and are heavily into drug production and distribution, as well as money laundering, among other crimes. Many of these mostly white biker gangs are as racists and bigoted as the Black, Latin, and Chinese gangs.

No one is asking “moderate” Muslims to apologize for the actions of their fellow religionists. Yes, they are often asked to condemn the actions. Of course, it is interesting that many get upset about this, when the extremists tend to kill more Muslims than any other race, creed, religion, or nationality. Not all Muslims are bad people, just like not all bikers are criminal gang members. It’s often said that only 1% of Muslims are hardcores. If only 1% of bikers association members are gang-bangers, that’s only what, 44,000 biker gang members (according to a 2011 FBI assessment)? If we’re talking hardcore Islam, that’s 16 million (1% of 1.6 billion worldwide). A number which continues to grow monthly. A number that doesn’t cover those who agree with the hardcore Islamist goals and beliefs, but aren’t taking action themselves. Those who believe in hardcore Sharia law, in hanging gays, treating women like chattel, stoning women who have been raped. You know the hit parade.

Law enforcement has engaged in mass surveillance of biker gang communities, sending F.B.I. agents in fake mustaches to roadhouses and blanketing Texas’ Harley-Davidson shops, Jiffy Lubes and multiplexes playing “Mad Max: Fury Road.”

Actually, law enforcement at all levels have engaged in mass surveillance of biker gangs, and have even taken a look at those who are not criminal enterprises, just to make sure.

We refuse to be demonized as a criminal, violent community — an ugly stereotype abused by politicians and members of the mainstream media for profit and ideological gain. We urge peace-loving citizens to reject this worrying trend of Bikerphobic bigotry.

If a small number of Tea Party members, Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, do something wrong, all members are blamed and Told To Apologize and Condemn. Unfortunately, it’s the way the world works now. Of course, a big difference is that radical Islam, Extremist Islam, hardcore Islam, is continuing to grow and spread. One would think that those who aren’t Islamists might be concerned with this.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Moderate Biker Totally Feels Compelled To Condemn Biker Violence »

Posted in Islamification, RoP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Blacks, Hispanics Unethusiastic About Obama’s Climate Change Schtick

By William Teach May 19, 2015 – 7:03 pm

For some reason they feel that all these draconian rules and regs will jack of the cost of living and hurt the poor

(Washington Times) The very same voters who helped put Barack Obama in the White House increasingly are turning against the president’s climate change agenda, with influential black and Hispanic leaders warning that stiff regulations to limit carbon emissions will have a devastating effect on the poor and will further stifle economic opportunity for minorities.

Some of Mr. Obama’s most ardent supporters say they simply cannot go along with the administration’s increasingly ambitious program to combat global warming. They argue that, contrary to the Environmental Protection Agency’s claims, the carbon regulations will drive up utility bills for poor households and will stunt economic growth in low-income areas.

The mounting wave of criticism shows that for many minority leaders who backed the president’s election bids and support him on a host of other issues, Mr. Obama’s environmental agenda runs counter to their chief concern: protecting the poor and ensuring that they can afford to keep their lights on.

Well, really, the Obama/Dem agenda is mostly bad for the poor, especially minorities. The “climate change” insanity is an easy one to recognize, as it directly affects real world costs, often in real time. Of course, the rich white Dems who run the party do not care in the least. Minorities are just interest groups to use and abuse.

Read: Blacks, Hispanics Unethusiastic About Obama’s Climate Change Schtick »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 19, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful food production field that will be ruined by too much hotcoldwetdry, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post saying goodbye to donuts and other fun treats.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Latest Pause Excuse: Earth Is Absorbing More CO2, Hence Less Warming Per Models

By William Teach May 19, 2015 – 10:37 am

Or, it could be that the Cult of Climastrology is mostly/solely wrong about “climate change”

Earth wins time as land and seas absorb more carbon
Climate change has intensified more slowly than scientists had expected because the continents and oceans are absorbing more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Half of all the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere. The good news is that only half remain in the atmosphere, while the rest have been taken up by the living world and then absorbed into the land, and the ocean. That is, as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen, so also has the planet’s capacity to soak up atmospheric carbon.

The implication is that what engineers call “positive feedback” – in which global warming triggers the release of yet more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to accelerate yet further warming – doesn’t seem to be at work yet.

OK. So, what does this all mean?

The implication, too, is that the world’s governments still have time to launch determined programmes to sharply reduce fossil fuel use, and switch to wind, solar and other renewable energy sources before climate change disrupts the planet’s food security and exacts what could be a devastating toll on the biosphere.

Surprise! More Big Government!

Of course, it’s not surprising that plant life is taking up more CO2. They love that stuff like kids love cookies. But, really, this is simply Excusifying in a manner set up to say DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!! in the future while calling for more Government.

Read: Latest Pause Excuse: Earth Is Absorbing More CO2, Hence Less Warming Per Models »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Editorial Board Blames Fall Of Ramadi On Obama’s Weak Policy

By William Teach May 19, 2015 – 7:16 am

But, they attempt to soft-pedal the blame

The fall of Ramadi exposes Obama’s weak Islamic State strategy

IT HAS been apparent for some time that the United States lacks a strategy to fulfill President Obama’s pledge to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State since it has no plan to root out the terrorists’ base in Syria. There was hope, though, that Mr. Obama’s half-measures might be enough to blunt the Islamic State’s advances in Iraq, leaving the Syria problem for the next U.S. president. With the stunning fall of Ramadi on Sunday, even that modest optimism is questionable.

Good news, though: Obama officially joined Twitter (despite that @WhiteHouse account, ya know) again. And played golf Saturday. Again. As for hope, from whom?

“ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose,” Mr. Obama declared on Feb. 11, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “We’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause.” The Iraqi army’s capture of Tikrit the following month seemed to provide confirmation.

That hasn’t worked out too well, since the half measures, really, some airstrikes and a few targeted ground operations by special operations groups.

Beginning almost a year ago, the Islamic State carved out, across large swaths of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist state of sorts that Mr. Obama deemed intolerable. He said in September that it is a threat to “the broader Middle East,” including U.S. citizens and facilities, and “if left unchecked . . . could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.” Yet he refuses to commit the Special Forces and military assistance that could meet that threat, portraying any alternative to his minimalist policy as being “dragged back into another prolonged ground war.” In fact, Sunni allies in the region will be reluctant to work with the United States until it has a Syria policy, and Sunni tribes in Iraq will not confront the Islamic State unless they believe the United States will stand by them. Every conflict will have ups and downs, as administration spokesmen said Monday. But it is Mr. Obama’s unwillingness to match means to strategy that threatens to prolong this war.

Mr. Obama doesn’t really care what happens in the rest of the world unless it helps his personal agenda. The continued rise of hardcore Islam doesn’t seem to bother him in the least. He prefers to whine about the Crusades, almost 1000 years ago, rather than acknowledge the danger from radical Islam as a whole, while giving lip service to the threat from ISIS/ISIL.

The question goes to “what is to be done?” Even some Republican presidential contenders do not want boots on the ground. I suspect that most of us do not want boots on the ground. Do we let the whole Middle East go? Which will then lead to IS exporting jihadis around the Western world even more? Notice that they are mostly leaving Egypt and Israel alone, choosing to currently operate in areas where they can fight, particularly Libya, Syria, and Iraq, and surely have links to the groups in other areas, such as Yemen and north-eastern Africa. They do not want Egypt nor Israel jumping in with both feet. Nor do they want a full response from Saudi Arabia. Will the U.S. be forced to fight later?

Read: Washington Post Editorial Board Blames Fall Of Ramadi On Obama’s Weak Policy »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: Obama Admin Knew Benghazi Attack Was Pre-Planned

By William Teach May 19, 2015 – 6:52 am

Hillary would say “at this point, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference, when the President, his staff, and those who he appointed (Hillary Clinton) straight up lied to the American People. Worse, they came up with an Official Story, and went after a US citizens for making a (crummy) movie

(Judicial Watch) Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts.  The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria.  The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria. (snip)

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.”  The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council.  The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).”  The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings. (snip)

From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant).  At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:

Yet, they still sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday talk shows to proclaim that this was all about a video that no one had seen. Let’s not forget, there where all sorts of anti-American protests going on within the Muslim world on 9/11/12, including the attacks on our Egyptian embassy in Cairo. The video may been a subtext, but, it was not the reason for the attacks. The reason was to kill Americans on September 11th.

We also learn from the documents about the heavy transfer of weapons from Libyan stockpiles, flowing through eastern Libya, where Benghazi resides, along with an ever growing jihadi presence at the time, through the ports and to Syria.

Judicial Watch sums up

“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.  If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president.  “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

However, the major media will refuse to cover this, except in a manner to protect Obama and Hillary.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Obama Admin Knew Benghazi Attack Was Pre-Planned »

Posted in Barry Obama, Hillary Clinton, War On Terrorism | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Did The Climate Models Really Fail 95% Of The Time?

By William Teach May 18, 2015 – 4:06 pm

Alex Sen Gupta has dove into the fact that 95% of the computer models have failed, taking yet another stab from the Cult of Climastrology to protect their models in order to keep pushing their politics. Interestingly, the reviewer is John Cook, he of the utterly failed and debunked 97% consensus paper. This comes in rebuttal to Maurice Newman, AC, Chair of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, writing in The Australian newspaper, May 8, 2015.

FactCheck: Are 95% of models linking human COâ‚‚ emissions and global warming in error?

…..

There is a saying in science that “all models are wrong, but some models are useful”. In simulating any complex system, any model will fail to reproduce all facets of the system perfectly.

Mathematical models may be imperfect but they are extremely helpful to predict the weather, design aeroplanes and even test new vaccines. They are essential to modern life. A major part of scientific research is not only developing models, but determining how they are best employed.

When asked for a data source to substantiate his 95% claim, Mr Newman referred The Conversation to research by a range of scientists including Professor Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Professor John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Mr Newman said these researchers had identified errors in climate modelling.

True, not all models are perfect. That said, CoC members are asking Government to pass all sorts of laws, rules, regulations, and restrictions based on the models as released by “climate scientists” and their computers. We’re supposed to change out lives, our economies, our businesses, and give up lots and lots of Freedom based on these models.

What Mr Newman described as a “well-kept secret” has actually been the subject of numerous scientific papers

These papers show that the recent discrepancy between projections and recorded temperatures is very likely due to random fluctuations in the climate system. The “problem” is clearly seen in this graph showing that modelled surface temperatures have generally tracked above observed temperatures over recent years.

Two points: first, this shows that the models fail in hindsight. They had the data, plugged it in, and the models still failed.

Second, if random fluctuations in the climate system, ie, natural variation, are causing problems with the models, why can’t those same “random fluctuations” be responsible for most, if not all, of the warming during the Modern Warm Period?

Oh, and a third problem: there were no satellites during the majority of that time period. So, how are they getting that data and labeling them?

The article then jumps into all sorts of mea culpas, moving towards the latest CoC talking point

Rather than relying on surface temperature to keep track of global warming, it is far more reliable to look at total ocean heat content or its twin, ocean sea level (which reflects ocean heat content plus land ice melt).

These metrics are far less sensitive to random fluctuations as they don’t suffer from the complications of heat redistribution. Moreover, over 90% of the additional heat from anthropogenic warming goes into the ocean, with only a small fraction going to raising surface temperatures.

So, hey, ignore all the land and air measurements (should we ignore Michael Mann’s tree rings, too?), just look at ocean temps!!!!!!

Based on these more representative metrics, there is no “pause” in either the observations or in the climate models. Indeed, both indicate increasing rates of change over time.

So, isn’t this 100% saying that the models have been utter failures? Don’t forget, again, that Governments are being told to make policy based on those models. This also goes to the whole “the oceans ate my warming” meme.

However, long-term climate simulations do not and likely never will reproduce the timing of shorter-term random fluctuations, like the recent slowdown in surface temperatures. In the long run, this fluctuation, like many before, will just be noise on a gradually increasing temperature signal.

This is just another in a long line of excuses for the Pause, categorically stating that we’re DOOMED in the future. So, ignore that the models have failed now, because they are like, you know, totally going to be right in the future, you guys!

Read: Say, Did The Climate Models Really Fail 95% Of The Time? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 18, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful green space that is turning into a desert from carbon pollution, you may just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Obama’s DHS Blamestorming over approving amnesty applications.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove