…is a horrible puppy which will use too many resources which causes tornadoes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on not being someone till you’re listed by the SPLC.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a horrible puppy which will use too many resources which causes tornadoes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on not being someone till you’re listed by the SPLC.
Read: If All You See… »
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
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
…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… »
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.