Vox Offers 6 Reasons Conservatives Should Totally Take Hotcoldwetdry Seriously

By William Teach May 14, 2015 – 11:39 am

You’ll be shocked to learn that not one of them has anything to do with science, and, instead, are pretty much all about politics

(Vox) Jerry Taylor worked at the libertarian Cato institute for decades; for most of that time, he was a climate skeptic himself. But five or six years ago, a series of discussions convinced him that climate change is a serious problem and that conservatives need a policy answer. Now he’s heading up a new libertarian organization, the Niskanen Center, and has released a policy brief arguing “the conservative case for a carbon tax.” I interviewed him last week about right-leaning opinion on climate change, his tax proposal, and the political road forward. (Part 1; part 2.)

You should read the whole thing! But here are the top six takeaways.

They are

  1. Financial markets deal with risks like climate change all the time.
  2. The right’s thought leaders are beginning to shift away from the GOP’s denialism.
  3. Most Republicans are already on board with climate action.
  4. All that’s needed now is some Republican leadership.
  5. The proper level of carbon tax is likely beyond what politics can currently bear …
  6. … but wouldn’t take a very high carbon tax to do better than the status quo.

So, all politics, no science. Surprise!

As to 2 through 4, unlike Lefties, those on the Right don’t blindly follow the crowd, and we expect our elected officials to listen to us, not have the elected officials dictating the way we should think.

For the last two, what in the world makes Vox and the other Warmists think that a carbon tax in any way is a reason Conservatives should believe in “climate change”?

Read: Vox Offers 6 Reasons Conservatives Should Totally Take Hotcoldwetdry Seriously »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Interesting: First Solar Energy Road Doing Better Than Anticipated

By William Teach May 14, 2015 – 9:40 am

I actually almost find myself in total agreement with this Climate Progress article

In its first six months of existence, the world’s first solar road is performing even better than developers thought.

The road, which opened in the Netherlands in November of last year, has produced more than 3,000 kilowatt-hours of energy — enough to power a single small household for one year, according to Al-Jazeera America.

“If we translate this to an annual yield, we expect more than the 70kwh per square meter per year,” Sten de Wit, a spokesman for the project — dubbed SolaRoad — told Al Jazeera America. “We predicted [this] as an upper limit in the laboratory stage. We can therefore conclude that it was a successful first half year.” (big snip)

Though the Netherlands’ solar road seems to be going as planned, solar roads overall typically aren’t as effective at producing energy as solar arrays on a house or in a field. That’s because the panels in solar roads can’t be tilted to face the sun, so they don’t get as much direct sunlight as panels that are able to be tilted. However, solar roads don’t take up vast tracts of land, like some major solar arrays do, and they can be installed in heavily-populated areas.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I think these kinds of projects are great ideas, and should be supported. Not for “climate change”, but simply for the reason that we should take advantage of “free” energy, such as solar energy, and use it. In this case, the energy should be used to provide lighting for the bike roadway. Paving helps create the Urban Heat Island Effect: why not offset it by using the roadway to produce energy?

The energy produced is rather low for solar panels, yet, the point of using roadways is still a good one. Of course, the cost needs to come down quite a bit. It supposedly cost $3.3 million to create this half mile of bike roadway. You could power quite a few homes for that chunk of change.

There are other projects out there to produce energy from roadways, both by turning them into solar receptors and from driving over the roadways. IMO, these projects should be supported if they show promise.

Read: Interesting: First Solar Energy Road Doing Better Than Anticipated »

Posted in Energy, Environment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Columbia U Snowflakes Want Trigger Warnings For Greek Mythology

By William Teach May 14, 2015 – 8:00 am

The cost to attend Columbia University is over $60,000 a year, including the required fees beyond tuition. Not to mention the cost of food, books, etc. This is what parents are getting for their money

Columbia students claim Greek mythology needs a trigger warning

“Not far from the walls of Enna, there is a deep pool,” begins Ovid’s version of the rape of Persephone. “While [Persephone] was playing in this glade, and gathering violets or radiant lilies, while with girlish fondness she filled the folds of her gown, and her basket, trying to outdo her companions in her picking, [Pluto], almost in a moment, saw her, prized her, took her: so swift as this, is love.”

The Greek myth has been recounted for thousands of years in hundreds of languages, scores of countries and countless works of art. It’s considered a cultural touchstone for Western civilization: a parable about power, lust and grief.

Now, however, it could be getting a treatment it’s never had before: a trigger warning.

In an op-ed in the student newspaper, four Columbia University undergrads have called on the school to implement trigger warnings — alerts about potentially distressing material — even for classics like Greek mythology or Roman poetry.

Sadly, this is not a joke. This is not a hoax. They are Completely Serious.

In their op-ed, the Columbia undergrads — all women of color — recount the story of another female student.

“During the week spent on Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses,’ the class was instructed to read the myths of Persephone and Daphne, both of which include vivid depictions of rape and sexual assault,” they write. “As a survivor of sexual assault, the student described being triggered while reading such detailed accounts of rape throughout the work. However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class. When she approached her professor after class, the student said she was essentially dismissed, and her concerns were ignored.”

The students then call on Columbia to “issue a letter to faculty about potential trigger warnings and suggestions for how to support triggered students” and institute “a mechanism for students to communicate their concerns to professors anonymously, as well as a mediation mechanism for students who have identity-based disagreements with professors.”

I think we call all empathize, but, this is fiction. And, seeing as how “trigger warnings” have been vastly overused (read the full WP article for a discussion on that) and seem to be a way to simply shut down any and all discussion/material/displays that people, 99.99% of whom are Liberals, do not like, it is very difficult to take seriously. I find that opinion pieces at the Washington Post and NY Times (and most Liberal news outlets) “trigger” me. Yet, I do not want them shut down or to come with warnings. Because I’m an adult. But, perhaps Rep. Alan Grayson should come with trigger warnings.

What we’re doing is creating a huge segment of the population that is completely unable to deal with anything that makes them a little bothered. These snowflakes want to live in a bubble world, and, if you upset them, they get angry and/or upset and need to retreat to “safe room” with coloring books like 3 year old, and want “warnings”. And will possibly sue

“The hyperbolic language of trauma that’s used! Sheesh,” wrote Elizabeth Nolan Brown in Reason. “Apparently this discussion of Ovid was so threatening it was a matter of self-preservation to ignore it. If that’s really true—if the mere discussion of rape causes this student to feel panicked and physically unsafe—than she needs help treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder, not a f—— trigger warning.”

“Op-eds like this are a call for academic vandalism, defacing culture and history with the ugly graffiti of modern class, race, and sex-war politics,” John Hayward wrote in a Breitbart blog titled “Campus special snowflakes melt upon contact with Greek mythology.”

In the case of the Columbia students, however, they say they want more discussion, not less. A trigger warning on Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” might help a student who has suffered sexual assault stay engaged by offering her a chance to discuss the brutality in the text — not just its beauty.

No, what they really want is to shift all the material away from the core material and to all their gripes, which would mean just dropping the material altogether, which is the point. Anything that Offends must be discarded. This is a generation of fragile snowflakes, who demand they be coddled. Do we need to put a “trigger warning” on life itself? How will these snowflakes survive when they hit the Real World? Businesses do not feature “safe spaces”. These special snowflakes won’t be allowed to hang in the back with their coloring books and soft dolls when the boss gets on them for failing to do the job.

From the comments

We are talking the same colleges where the likelihood of experiencing sexual assault and drunken, debauched behavior makes the ancients pale in comparison, right?

I believe there should be trigger warnings… on the college application forms, that the potential student will encounter new and potentially disturbing ideas, themes, memes, depictions, and practices… all from fellow students.

Meanwhile, at the University Of Colorado Boulder, officials have told students to report any “hurtful statements”. Special snowflakes. Which could be illegal and an invasion of privacy.

Read: Columbia U Snowflakes Want Trigger Warnings For Greek Mythology »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Editorial Board: Pour More Money Into Infrastructure To Prevent Next Train Tragedy

By William Teach May 14, 2015 – 7:29 am

You might be aware of Liberals blaming a supposed lack of infrastructure spending for the crash of the AMTRAK train in Philly (say, whatever happened to the $800 billion Stimulus, as well as all the smaller stimulus packages during the first few years of Obama’s reign?), as well as attempting to blame Republicans in multiple ways (many easy examples at Twitchy, including here, here, and here). We even know the actual cause. The Washington Post knows the actual cause. Heck, even the Washington Post Editorial Board knows the cause, and they still drive to the corner of Disgraceful Road and Bat Guano Insane Lane

Prevent the next train tragedy
The Philadelphia train crash is a reminder of the need to invest more in U.S. infrastructure. (WT note: that subhead is from the WP front page)

IT’S NOT yet clear why Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 derailed Tuesday night, killing seven and wounding more than 200. The National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday afternoon that the train was traveling more than 100 mph in a 50 mph zone in North Philadelphia, where the tracks take a sharp turn.

So, everyone knows that the train was going double the speed limit, including the WPEB, but the WPEB is unsure what caused the crash? Would this be considered Amtrak Trutherism? It’s certainly a way for the WPEB to push Talking Points

At first glance, in other words, this would appear to be a story of human failure. But no matter what the investigation yields, there almost certainly will be lessons about the United States’ negligent stewardship of its roads, rails, bridges and tunnels.

There’s no doubt we could do more for the road. Funny how the Liberal push to mandate better fuel economy, hybrids, and electric vehicles has reduced the available money via gas taxes. Say, whatever happened to all the Stimulus money? Oh, right, repaving roads that didn’t need repaving, painting bridges instead of fixing them, money wasted on signs talking up the Stimulus, and general mismanagement. Has anyone asked Joe Biden, who was nominally in charge of the Stimulus money?

Amtrak long ago should have installed automatic safeguards against reckless driving on a route like the Northeast Corridor, which is heavily trafficked and passes through dense urban centers. The technology exists. But Amtrak hasn’t finished installing its “positive train control” system, even along its busiest line.

Go that? It’s the fault of those who haven’t finished installing the system, not the people/person who had the train going double the speed limit into a curve.

Their most basic task is to put the transportation budget on sound footing, which Congress has failed to do, year after year. The Highway Trust Fund relies on the federal gasoline tax to finance all sorts of transportation needs, but the revenue stream hasn’t covered the country’s spending requirements for years. The obvious solution is to raise the gas tax, which has been at the same level since 1993. But neither President Obama nor Congress has the courage to say this aloud. Legislators are poised to patch together several billion dollars to keep the fund solvent for a short while longer, while they continue to debate second-best solutions. Instead, they should fix the problem now. Congress also should reduce the time and hassle it takes to get infrastructure projects approved.

Interesting. Didn’t I just mention the gas tax issue? In all honesty, I hadn’t even read to this part of the editorial when I wrote about the gas tax above. Anyhow, it was government which created the loss of revenue, as mentioned by me, and the WPEB has ignored that “why”, so the obvious solution is to raise the tax, which is almost always the solution for everything in Liberal World. Strange how they never recommend that the money raised should be spent wisely and responsibly.

They go on to recommend more “investment” in the Northeast Corridor train service. Fine. Great. All these mostly Democrat states should spend the money for the service that is primarily used in their own states. They even complain at Obama for pissing away money on high speed rail in a mish mash manner (the complaint is surely raaaaacist, since any complaint aimed at O is raaaaacist). This is a great argument for the reduction of the power of the federal government when it comes to spending, putting that power back into the hands of the States, along with the money. People closer to the issues know (generally) how to better spend the money on the projects needed most.

Such steps would not lessen the burden of Tuesday night’s tragedy. They might prevent others, however.

In other words, the WPEB is simply taking advantage of a tragedy to push their politics. Shameful.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Editorial Board: Pour More Money Into Infrastructure To Prevent Next Train Tragedy »

Posted in Journalistic Malpractice, Unhinged Tools | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Thank Goodness: We Can Now Listen To 133 Years Of Climate Chang In Song

By William Teach May 13, 2015 – 2:30 pm

We’re saved or something

(Treehugger) While charts and maps are great ways of communicating how humans are changing the global temperature, there are other avenues to help people connect with climate science and understand its findings.

Daniel Crawford, an undergraduate student at the University of Minnesota, has created a particularly evocative way of connecting people with climate data through music. He collaborated with geography professor Scott St. George to turn climate data from four latitudinal regions of the globe into a musical composition for a sting quartet.

Anything to avoid actually living the carbon neutral lifestyle embedded in Cult of Climastrology talking points.

Interesting music, though.

Read: Thank Goodness: We Can Now Listen To 133 Years Of Climate Chang In Song »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 13, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That?, with a post on 22 very inconvenient truths.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Is Totally A Climate Change Denier

By William Teach May 13, 2015 – 10:14 am

So says the unhinged 350.org’s Bill McKibben (who takes all sorts of fossil fueled plane and vehicle trips all over the world)

Obama’s Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial

THE Obama administration’s decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change. Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.

Incuding those who take lots of fossil fueled trips to whine about fossil fuels.

No, what’s most extreme here is the irresponsibility of Shell, now abetted by the White House. A quarter century ago, scientists warned that if we kept burning fossil fuel at current rates we’d melt the Arctic. The fossil fuel industry (and most everyone else in power) ignored those warnings, and what do you know: The Arctic is melting, to the extent that people now are planning to race yachts through the Northwest Passage, which until very recently required an icebreaker to navigate.

Do we have to get into a discussion about the failed ice free arctic prognostications, and the growth of Arctic ice? Nah, let’s just

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

And yet Mr. Obama — acting on his own, since these are all executive actions requiring nothing from Congress — has opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining. He’s still studying whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, though the country’s leading climate scientists have all told him it would be a disaster. And now he’s given Shell the green light, meaning that, as with Keystone, it will be up to the environmental movement to block the plan (“kayaktivists” plan to gather this weekend in Seattle’s harbor, trying to prevent Shell from basing its Arctic rigs there).

This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real. This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.

There’s something I never thought I’d read: Barack Obama, climate change denier. This really goes to show how far out of the mainstream, how bat guano insane, how loony tunes the Cult Of Climastrology actually is.

PS: can you believe that this twice today that I’ve sorta defended Obama?

Read: Obama Is Totally A Climate Change Denier »

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

Ruth Marcus: Carly Fiorina’s Candidacy Offends Me

By William Teach May 13, 2015 – 7:30 am

And, apparently, the only reason her candidacy is still going is sexism. A bit of CDS (Carly Derangement Syndrome) from Ruth

The sexism that propels Carly Fiorina’s candidacy

How depressing is it that, out of the more than a dozen announced or prospective Republican candidates for president in 2016, only one, Carly Fiorina, is a woman. Even more depressing: that Fiorina, as long-shot as her candidacy is, would not be taken even semi-seriously were it not for her gender.

That is a tough and controversial thing to say, but it requires saying. I would love to see a female president, of either party, and I expect I will — if not in 2016, then in an election to come. But the female president I would love to see is one who is fully qualified to be president — qualified by dint of experience, not of chromosomes. Carly Fiorina is not that woman.

That assessment has everything to do with biography and nothing to do with ideology. (If South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte chose to run for president, you might find me disagreeing with their positions but not questioning their qualifications.) In my view, Fiorina’s background simply does not prepare her to be president.

No, Marcus would come up with any excuse to slam and slur any Republican woman. Hey, remember when Ruth slammed Obama for having done nothing other than getting elected to State office then to the US Senate? Me neither.

For the record, I would say precisely the same about retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Politics isn’t brain surgery, but being a brain surgeon doesn’t prepare you for high-level politics, and Carson isn’t prepared. I’m writing about Fiorina because, frankly, as a woman, her candidacy offends me.

Ruth then goes on to note that Hillary has pretty much done nothing but be a coattail for Bill (“Yes, Clinton’s path to power came through her husband”), before moving to

But back to Fiorina: She has a checkered, to put it charitably (failed, to put it more bluntly), business career and no political career whatsoever, having lost her previous run for elective office. It is the height of chutzpah to imagine that she is remotely qualified to be president. Or, since it’s the more likely endgame, for vice president either.

Let’s see: started out as an AT&T sales rep, moved up to being named the most powerful woman in American business by Fortune magazine. Eh, there’s no point in pointing out all of Carly’s business experience, mostly successful, sometimes not (just like life. Weird, eh?) Experience of which Barack had zero, and Hillary hasn’t had since her Whitewater days. Unless you count the graft involved at the Clinton Foundation.

Notice, though, the other big complaint: Carly hasn’t been elected previously. This goes straight to the heart of the notion of a political aristocracy, something the Founders were very concerned with. There’s no requirement for previous political experience in the Constitution. In fact, the original idea of the Founders was of citizen politicians, who would serve a short time then return back to private life, rather than people who make being an elected official their career. Ruth continues in this vein, then drops in a jaw dropper

I would have serious qualms about any candidate who seeks the presidency without government experience, no matter how much value he or she produced for shareholders. Business demands different skills than politics; the presidency isn’t the place for on-the-job training.

Um, what? Refer back to Captain Sisko above.

It’s not sexist to criticize Fiorina for being unqualified. What would be sexist is to hold her to a lower standard than a man with similarly paltry credentials.

It was considered racist to point out that Obama had no actual experience, other than winning a few elections and making a few speeches, that made him qualified to be president. Ruth can write this, but, if Fiorina was running as a Democrat, you can bet the farm Hollywood McMansion that her tune would be 100% different.

Read: Ruth Marcus: Carly Fiorina’s Candidacy Offends Me »

Posted in GOP, Wonky Media | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Accused Of Sexism Towards Elizabeth Warren

By William Teach May 13, 2015 – 7:01 am

Barack is learning about the kind of treatment Conservatives/Republicans typically receive from Liberals

(The Hill) National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill on Wednesday called President Obama’s critique of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sexist.

O’Neill told The Hill she took issue with Obama calling Warren by her first name during an interview with Yahoo News published Saturday.

“Yes, I think it is sexist,” O’Neill said. “I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren’s concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way.”

Obama told Yahoo that Warren was opposing his trade agenda to further her own political brand.

“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else. And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that,” Obama told Yahoo.

O’Neill said Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.”

Senator Sherrod Brown also accused Obama of sexism

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) on Tuesday suggested that some of President Obama’s remarks criticizing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) were sexist.

Obama and Warren have been in a public fight over the president’s trade agenda, which Warren opposes.

Brown said Obama had spoken disrespectfully of Warren and suggested the president wouldn’t have made the same comments about a male senator.

He specifically criticized Obama for publicly referring to Warren as “Elizabeth” when responding to her comments.

More on Brown at Twitchy.

This is not the first time the claim has been made that using a woman’s first name is sexist. It’s now sexist to call Hillary Clinton Hillary. Even though Hillary (whoops, that’s sexist) is using Hillary all over her Hillary campaign website, Twitter feed, and Facebook, simply referring to her as Hillary, using the H as a logo, #Hillary2016, and so on. There are even guidelines which state that using a woman’s first name is sexist.

Of course, Barack is constantly referring to others by their first names. For instance, John McCain and John Boehner are often referred to simply as John. He refers to Mitch McConnell as both Mitch and Senator McConnell. Eric Holder is mostly “Eric”. Obama sometimes uses the first name, sometimes the last name with a title of Mr./Mrs./Ms or political title. Far be it for me to defend The Worst President Ever, but this is simply a silly attack on him. I doubt he even thinks about it in the least when he is referring to people by their first names or by their titles. It a big “nothing burger”.

But, it is amusing that Barack is learning how Conservatives are often treated, namely, being accused of sexism (or, is that seeeeexism?) for silly stuff. Of course, no matter what a man does, he’s sexist.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Accused Of Sexism Towards Elizabeth Warren »

Posted in Barry Obama | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bloomberg Backed Anti-Gun Group Takes On NC Gun Law They Don’t Understand

By William Teach May 12, 2015 – 7:50 pm

I’ve been remiss in covering the latest Freak Out by the anti-gunnites here in North Carolina, which extends to the Typical Liberal Media here in Raleigh, in Charlotte, and other news outlets. Let’s see what this is really, really about

(Breitbart) Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety is fighting the repeal of a law that requires North Carolinians to acquire a permit to purchase a handgun before they can actually purchase one. They are doing this by equating the permit to purchase with background checks and suggesting that if the permits are repealed, background checks will be repealed as well.

But repealing a state-issued permit to purchase has nothing to do with federal background checks.

In North Carolina’s present system, potential handgun purchasers have to acquire a permit to purchase from a local sheriff before they are allowed to go buy a handgun. State Reps. Jacqueline Shaffer (R-Mecklenburg) and John Faircloth (R-Guilford) believe a streamlined system—where North Carolinians don’t have to get a permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights—is a better approach, so they have put forward House Bill 562.

HB 562 would get the state government out of the way so North Carolinians can buy handguns without first asking the state for permission via the permit to purchase requirement. And HB 562 would in no way impact federal background checks, which every North Carolinian will still have to pass every time they buy a handgun from a retail outlet.

Background checks will still be required. Period. But, instead of going down to the sheriff’s office, waiting in line, then finally getting that permit (I’ve had to do this myself twice), and possibly getting denied because they said so, this streamlines the process of exercising our 2nd Amendment Right. If liberals do not like that, then they should attempt to get the 2nd changed or repealed.

Bob Owens notes something interesting

The pistol permit was introduced into North Carolina law in the Jim Crow-era South, when the NC Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan were one in the same.

The intent of the permitting process was brutal and simple: Klansmen didn’t want to get shot while cross-burning and lynching, and so they wanted to ensure that blacks in Jim Crow North Carolina didn’t have the legal right to own handguns. The permits had to be applied for in person so that local sheriffs could deny permits based on race.

That this same permitting scheme still applies in 2015 is a travesty of justice.

Nothing is done with said permits after they are processed. Are liberal anti-gunnites, including Bloomberg’s group, against making it easier for law abiding Blacks to obtain a firearm?

Read: Bloomberg Backed Anti-Gun Group Takes On NC Gun Law They Don’t Understand »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, NC News | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove