College Kids Are Making Hotcoldwetdry A Moral Issue, And That Totally Scares People Or Something

By William Teach April 30, 2015 – 3:17 pm

Remember, these same college kids have the highest support of abortion of any age group. They also support “post-birth abortion“. They are less likely to be religious, and more likely to really know what the hell is happening in the world. To get idiot drunk and/or do drugs and have sex. In comes Vox

College students are making global warming a moral issue. Here’s why that scares people.

The Pope plans on delivering an encyclical on climate change this summer, and it has American conservatives freaking out. The Heartland Institute, a leading anti-environmental “think tank,” has even dispatched a crack team of deniers to Rome to dissuade His Holiness.

Why the agita from the right? After all, similar statements of climate concern have been issued by virtually every major government, international development organization, and national science council in the world. It’s not like the Pope is spilling the beans on a well-kept secret.

But as Heartland clearly recognizes, the Pope’s statement carries unique significance for the simple reason that he has unquestioned moral authority for millions of people. He threatens to situate the fight against climate change as a deeply moral issue, a matter of God’s work on earth. Once it is so situated, it will slowly and inexorably drag culture and politics along in its wake.

Say, where’s the part about college students?

Especially among young greens, that technocratic attitude is on the wane, especially in the wake of the 2010 cap-and-trade defeat, a decisive failure for the top-down, technocratic approach. Nowadays, activists are trying to put the plodding moralism back in, particularly through the fossil fuel divestment movement, which calls on institutions to cease all investments in the fossil fuel sector.

That’s about it, folks. The article is very much about divestment from fossil fuels (by Other People, of course), which is something that is rampant on college campuses. So, that’s about it. But we do get this

But the climate movement’s message, despite back-to-the-land stereotypes still floating around, is not that humanity ought to return to a pastoral, pre-modern, low-energy lifestyle, or that the global poor ought to remain poor. It’s that a better world is possible — clean, high-tech, prosperous, and just — and that fossil fuel companies are using their enormous legacy wealth and power to prevent the transition to that better world. Doing so is immoral, as is supporting the enterprise with investment dollars. It is that narrative behind which activists are seeking to brand fossil fuel companies as social pariahs.

In other words, Warmists are 1) very unhappy that their agenda of turning the clock back half a millennia (for Other People, of course) has been exposed, and 2) they’re trying to excuse their own hypocritical behavior.

Read: College Kids Are Making Hotcoldwetdry A Moral Issue, And That Totally Scares People Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach April 30, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is wonderful wonderful fruit which keeps people thin which is super great for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with post on who else is engaging in a war on Christians.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Homeowners Find That “Green” Heating Units Fail In The Cold

By William Teach April 30, 2015 – 9:18 am

But, hey, that means that these people are even more Hotcoldwetdry responsible, since they aren’t wasting energy!

(WRAL) During February’s bitter chill, some Chapel Hill homeowners found that the homes they bought with the environment in mind could not keep up. Their brand-new heating systems suddenly stopped working when it got too cold!

At first the complaints were a trickle, but 5 On Your Side discovered the problem could end up affecting thousands of homeowners.

The “green” furnaces called 90 percent energy efficient are installed in most new homes and are a top choice for those who are replacing their furnace. They’ve become a big problem for some homebuyers in the Triangle’s largest all-green community, Chatham County’s Briar Chapel.

The units essentially froze. The solution was to pour hot water on the pipes, per the builders. And other crazy things. Yet, the units still froze up. It gets totally wonky in the article, which you should read.

Of course, it could be that the units were not installed properly, rather than being pieces of “green” garbage. We can also thank the politicians who force these types of “green” homes.

Read: Bummer: Homeowners Find That “Green” Heating Units Fail In The Cold »

Posted in Energy, Enviroweenies | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Interesting: Carly Fiorina Must Defend Her Time As HP Head

By William Teach April 30, 2015 – 7:48 am

One has to wonder when the same will be applied to Hillary Clinton, and all her myriad issues, going all the way back to White Water

Fiorina defends rocky tenure as HP CEO

Carly Fiorina’s political future depends on whether she can defend her record as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

The likely GOP presidential candidate is aiming to do just that in her new book Rising to the Challenge, set to be released May 5, a day after the expected launch of her 2016 campaign. Fiorina now claims the company’s decision to fire her in 2005, after a turbulent six-year tenure, was a result of a dysfunctional board of directors and not her leadership.

In an interview with The Hill, Fiorina said members of her own board leaked confidential information to the media to undermine her decisions, though she stopped short of alleging outright sexism. She was the first female CEO of a Fortune 20 company.

“Men understand other men’s need for respect, but they don’t always understand women’s need for respect,” Fiorina said. “The situation that transpired in the boardroom was all about certain board members wanting to protect their position when they felt threatened, because their behavior was against the code of conduct, and they knew that I as a leader would not tolerate that conduct.”

When asked again if she thought underlying sexism contributed to her firing, she said, “There’s no question that women in positions of authority are scrutinized differently, criticized differently and characterized different.”

It’s interesting that she has to prove herself in a manner that Clinton doesn’t. This same media is not demanding that Hillary answer questions. They are barely wondering exactly what Clinton accomplished during her time as Secretary of State. They aren’t demanding that Hillary explain what she did as Sec of State. Of course, we can all see that she essentially was a failure. Nor are the media asking her questions about Benghazi, nor did they really spend time questioning her in the immediate aftermath of Benghazi. Some are investigating the Clinton Foundation, but not like sharks smelling blood in the water, as would happen were Hillary named, say, Sarah Palin.

If this article was written about a Democrat woman, it would be immediately deemed sexist, let’s be clear on that.

But her business record has resurfaced as she’s stepped back into the media limelight. Earlier this month, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski confronted Fiorina about her business record during a contentious appearance.

“You had a tenure at Hewlett-Packard that a lot of people describe as extremely rocky, destroying jobs and destroying the company’s reputation. Are you really the right person to be criticizing Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments or lack thereof?” Brzezinski asked.

Interstingly, Mika has failed to ask Hillary similar tough questions, and has been a defender of Hillary. Of course, Hillary won’t actually give Mika, or any other news media folks, the chance.

There’s no doubt that Fiorina should be asked tough questions, and should have to answer them. The same with all the other Republicans running. The same standard should be applied to all the Democrats running, especially front-runner Hillary Clinton. But, we know it won’t.

Read: Interesting: Carly Fiorina Must Defend Her Time As HP Head »

Posted in GOP, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Kristoff: Boy, These Liberal Cities Like Baltimore Sure Are A Mess And Very Bad For Blacks

By William Teach April 30, 2015 – 7:17 am

Obviously, what is going on in Baltimore is cause for a National Conversation. Of course, what gets left out of that Nation Conversation are realities and root causes. Instead, we get excuses and hand wringing each and every time. The Washington Post is reporting that Freddie Gray was attempting to injure himself in the police van (this doesn’t excuse the slow response time by the police). Other media sources have heard the same information. But, hey, National Conversation. The NY Times features many National Conversations. Nicholas Kristof’s highlights just how bad liberal cities are

When Baltimore Burned

Conservatives have sometimes been too quick to excuse police violence. And liberals have sometimes been too quick to excuse rioter violence.

Point of fact: Conservatives aren’t excusing unwarranted police violence.

It’s outrageous when officers use excessive force against young, unarmed African-American men, who are 21 times as likely to be shot dead by the police as young white men. It’s also outrageous when rioters loot shops or attack officers.

In reality, Black males aged 15-19, which is the study group, are only killed 2.3 times more than for Whites. Because they are also 9 times more likely to commit murder. We also learn from that article

Can we still conclude that police singles out black teenagers?  As ProPublica acknowledges, the data on justifiable police killings are “terribly incomplete,” and “vast numbers of the country’s 17,000 police departments don’t file fatal police shooting reports at all.”

But there is an additional problem.  The numbers aren’t random.  It so happens that urban areas, that are 50 percent more heavily black than the rest of the US, are the ones that report justifiable police killings. That means police probably kill whites more often than these incomplete statistics indicate.

Huh. Strange how Kristof throws out a statistic that is “terribly incomplete”.

Yet as Obama, Anthony and other leaders also noted, there are crucial underlying inequities that demand attention. The rioting distracts from those inequities, which are the far larger burden on America’s cities.

That also represents a failure on our part in the American news media. We focus television cameras on the drama of a burning CVS store but ignore the systemic catastrophe of broken schools, joblessness, fatherless kids, heroin, oppressive policing — and, maybe the worst kind of poverty of all, hopelessness.

Well, that’s strange. Here you have a majority-minority city (65% Black) which is overwhelmingly Democrat, and has been for quite some time (the last Republican mayor served 1963-1967), and it has lots and lots of problems, and then you add in that the media, which also seems to be largely White and liberal, ignores the problems.

In Gray’s neighborhood, one-third of adults lack a high school degree. A majority of those aged 16 to 64 are unemployed.

Hooray for Democrat policies!

And Baltimore’s African-American residents have often encountered not only crime and insecurity but also law enforcement that is unjust and racist. Michael A. Fletcher, an African-American reporter who lived for many years in the city, wrote in The Washington Post that when his wife’s car was stolen, a Baltimore policeman bluntly explained the department’s strategy for recovering vehicles: “If we see a group of young black guys in a car, we pull them over.”

Eric Holder famously scolded America, saying we were cowards when it comes to discussing race. Well, here’s the ugly truth: cops go where the crime is. They see patterns. They are often familiar with the players in neighborhoods. And if a city is majority-minority, Blacks are going to see the police a lot more. And, another ugly truth is that crime is going to be much more rampant within a Black city than a white one. Often thanks the very same Liberal policies that keep them “poor, fatherless, uneducated, and hopeless”, all while liberals wring their hands and patronize Blacks. The very very liberal city of Portland, Oregon, which is 70% white, has a crime rate of 6.09, with a 1 in 164 chance of being a crime victim (Portland is often ranked very high in the best places to live). Baltimore has a crime rate of 14.28, with a 1 in 70 chance of being a crime victim. If we want to take Eric Holder up, we have to wonder exactly what the differences are between the two cities, and why Baltimore spends huge sums of their budget on law enforcement and the criminal justice system, and Portland instead has large sums to piss away on “climate change” initiatives

Likewise, the Baltimore jail was notorious for corruption and gang rule. A federal investigation found that one gang leader in the jail fathered five children by four female guards.

Again, this is all very strange that this happens in the Very Liberal City Of Baltimore.

We’ve had months of police incidents touching on a delicate subtext of race, but it’s not clear that we’re learning lessons. Once again, I suggest that it’s time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to step back and explore racial inequity in America.

Yes, let’s do that. I doubt Liberals will be very happy with the realities it would expose, such as liberal cities being Very Bad for Blacks.

The real crisis isn’t one night of young men in the street rioting. It’s something perhaps even more inexcusable — our own complacency at the systematic long-term denial of equal opportunity to people based on their skin color and ZIP code.

Liberal cities.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Kristoff: Boy, These Liberal Cities Like Baltimore Sure Are A Mess And Very Bad For Blacks »

Posted in Liberal World | Comments Off on Kristoff: Boy, These Liberal Cities Like Baltimore Sure Are A Mess And Very Bad For Blacks | Trackback URL

New Study Totally Links “Extreme Weather” To “Climate Change”

By William Teach April 29, 2015 – 3:42 pm

Of course it does. And, of course, it links it to you driving a fossil fueled vehicle and living a modern lifestyle

New Study Links Weather Extremes to Global Warming

The moderate global warming that has already occurred as a result of human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes since the Industrial Revolution, scientists reported Monday, and they warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in such heat blasts.

In other words, this is not a scientific report, it is a political report. It simply declares that Mankind is at fault. Notice that they are scare-mongering over what “could” happen in the future. Prognostication, not science.

The planetary warming has had a more moderate effect on intense rainstorms, the scientists said, driving up their frequency by 22 percent since the 19th century. Yet such heavy rains could more than double later this century if emissions continue at a high level, they said.

“People can argue that we had these kinds of extremes well before human influence on the climate — we had them centuries ago,” said Erich M. Fischer, lead author of a study published Monday by the journal Nature Climate Change. “And that’s correct. But the odds have changed, and we get more of them.”

Politics, not science. This has all happened before, but, hey, this time it is totally different! Because we say so! Based on computer models!

For their paper, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Knutti focused on more common heat and precipitation extremes. Using computer analyses of what the climate would be like if the Industrial Revolution had never happened, they focused on the sort of weather extremes that would be likely to occur in any given location on the earth about once in 1,000 days, or a little less than three years. (snip)

Since the 19th century, the earth has warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Computer models suggest that has driven up heat extremes four- to fivefold, according to the new study.

What caused the previous Holocene warm periods? If that is not discussed, then the paper is worthless.

This whole “extreme weather” think has been debunked numerous times. There really has been no increase in heat waves, precipitation events, tropical cyclones, etc. Heck, an NOAA report debunked it. And there is no factual, real world evidence that any events are anthropogenic from global warming versus simply natural. That is not to say that there aren’t any anthropogenic causation, but this goes more towards land use and the Urban Heat Island Effect than a global causation. Localized.

“The bottom line is that things are not that complicated,” Dr. Knutti said. “You make the world a degree or two warmer, and there will be more hot days. There will be more moisture in the atmosphere, so that must come down somewhere.”

First, the world warming doesn’t prove global anthropogenic causation. Second, there were certainly heat waves in the earlier warm periods, were there not? Hey, they have to keep the money train going, so, scary stories it is.

Can they explain the 18+ year Pause?

Read: New Study Totally Links “Extreme Weather” To “Climate Change” »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach April 29, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is wonderful, wonderful salad, which Everyone Else should be forced to eat instead of meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on Clinton Foundation transparency.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Scientists And Religious Leaders Discuss Cult Of Climastrology At Vatican

By William Teach April 29, 2015 – 9:14 am

I’ve discussed the intersection of “climate change” and organized religion multiple times over the past year or so, as churches and such have become more interested in this mostly political issue, which is based on pushing far Left Progressive doctrine. I haven’t as of yet, dove in to the issue of the Pope coming out as a total Warmist (head to Climate Depot for lots of discussion on the subject at the moment), which is his personal perogative, though, I would think there are other, real world issues that should concern the Pontiff a bit more. That said, this NY Times article caught my attention

Scientists and Religious Leaders Discuss Climate Change at Vatican

The headline simply screams out that this is not a science issue, but a political and pseudo-religious one, more akin to a cult.

For a 2,000-year-old institution hardly known for its mutability, there was a sense of urgency at the Vatican on Tuesday when scientists, diplomats and religious and political leaders discussed climate change and its impact on the world’s poor.

“We are the first generation that can end poverty, and the last generation that can avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations said at an international symposium on climate change organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The event presaged a keenly anticipated papal letter on the environment that Pope Francis is expected to issue in June.

Funny. How did all these people get to the Vatican? Riding bicycles? Just think about how many poor people could be fed and lifted out of poverty if we weren’t spending huge amounts of time, effort, and money on Hotcoldwetdry idiocy. Think how many could be lifted if these fools weren’t blocking the use of proven energy source, like coal and oil, even nuclear and hydrothermal (dams. Yes, envirowackos block dam construction, and even want existing ones torn down).

Mr. Ban met with the pope ahead of the one-day conference here and told reporters afterward that the pope’s message in his scheduled papal teaching, known as an encyclical, would come at “a critical time,” one that “demanded a collective action.”

“Climate change is approaching much faster than one may think,” he said.

Except for that pesky 18+ year Pause.

“I count on his (the Pope’s) moral voice, his moral leadership,” said Mr. Ban, who is leading efforts to come to an agreement on limiting human contributions to global warming, which will be discussed at a climate summit meeting in Paris in December.

Funny how these same Progressives don’t listen when it comes to abortion on demand and gay marriage.But, this is a great article highlighting that it’s not science, it’s a “moral” issue, on of Leftist politics.

If you think that my assertion might be a little over the top, Leftists have spent decades taking over so many sectors, such as education, unions, entertainment, the news media, and others. They’ve had a hatred on for the military and religion for the past 40 years. They spent time trying to destroy them from the outside. Now they are working from the inside to change them. Oh, and then there’s this

EPA To Study What Faith-Based Groups Can Do For Climate Change

The Environmental Protection Agency will be spending $84,000 so churches may be studied to determine how they can help in fighting climate change.

Why destroy what you can co-opt?

Read: Scientists And Religious Leaders Discuss Cult Of Climastrology At Vatican »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on Scientists And Religious Leaders Discuss Cult Of Climastrology At Vatican | Trackback URL

CNN Anchor Knows Who’s Really To Blame For #BaltimoreRiots: Veterans

By William Teach April 29, 2015 – 7:10 am

Perhaps she was “just wondering”

(Daily Caller) While conducting an interview with Democratic Maryland Representative Elijiah Cummings, CNN host Brooke Baldwin questioned whether the violence in Baltimore had something to do with the amount of military veterans in the police department.

“Another thing that has to be done here, is we’ve really got to look at our police department,” Cummings began.

“But in what sense?” Baldwin asked. “We talk about training, we talk about having officers — I was talking to the city councilman here last week. He said, ‘Brooke, these people have to live in the communities… or there’s a lack of emotional investment.’”

“And a lot of these young people — I’ve been talking about this so much. A lot of young people — and I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

There’s no doubt that the Baltimore PD has some serious issues. It takes a true Leftist, though, to attempt to shift the blame to veterans, rather than considering that so many of the problems can be linked directly to Leftist dogma. Look at Detroit. It was once called the “Paris of the West”. Now it is called the “Mogadishu of the Great Lakes”. Like Detroit, Baltimore has been primarily run by Democrats. The last Republican mayor was Theodore McKeldin, 1963-1967. We rarely ever see the same problems in cities run by Republicans.

The NY Times Editorial Board has a long discussion regarding the problems with the Baltimore PD and justice system, and these problems should not be ignored or poo-poo’d just because the NYTEB brings them up. They end with this

Mr. Obama was right on the mark when he observed on Tuesday that tensions with law enforcement had simmered in African-American communities for decades and now seemed to be bursting into view once a week.

“This has been a slow-rolling crisis,” he said. “This has been going on for a long time. This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”

He also said that addressing the problem would require not only new police tactics but new policies aimed at helping communities where jobs have disappeared, improving education and helping ex-offenders find jobs. The big mistake, he said, is that we tend to focus on these communities only when buildings are burning down.

If we want to assign blame, let’s look at the systems put in place and allowed to fester by Democrats, who run the city, not veterans.

Read: CNN Anchor Knows Who’s Really To Blame For #BaltimoreRiots: Veterans »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmist Makes Interesting Proposal: Remove All Energy Sector Subsidies

By William Teach April 29, 2015 – 6:53 am

Over at far, far, far Left Washington Monthly, Jeffrey Leonard makes an interesting proposal

Get the Energy Sector off the Dole
Why ending all government subsidies for fuel production will lead to a cleaner energy future—and why Obama has a rare chance to make it happen.

Last September, President Obama promised that the cornerstone of his legislative program for 2011 would be to set an energy policy “that helps us grow at the same time as it deals with climate change in a serious way.”

Today, the president might seem to stand a better chance of refreezing the melting Arctic ice caps. After all, he’s up against a House Republican majority rife with members who openly deny that humans contribute to global warming, as well as members of his own party who are beholden to domestic fossil fuel industries. In November, West Virginia’s new Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, boasted to his constituents that he had secured Harry Reid’s assurance “that cap and trade is dead.”

But not all is lost. If President Obama wants to set us on a path to a sustainable energy future—and a green one, too—he should propose a very simple solution to the current mess: eliminate all energy subsidies. Yes, eliminate them all—for oil, coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, even for wind and solar. It will be better for national security, the balance of payments, the budget deficit, and even, believe it or not, the environment. Indeed, because wind, solar, and other green energy sources get only the tiniest sliver of the overall subsidy pie, they’ll have a competitive advantage in the long term if all subsidies, including the huge ones for fossil fuels, are eliminated. And with anti-pork Tea Partiers loose in Washington and deficit cutting in the air, it’s not as politically inconceivable as you might think.

I agree with this proposal. Let’s eliminate all subsidies. Most of the energy sector actually receives mostly tax breaks, not subsidies, so this wouldn’t effect most energy other than the “alternatives.” This article from 2012 highlights the reality of energy sector subsidies, with $16 billion going to “alternatives” and energy efficiency, and $2.5 billion going to fossil fuels. Without the subsidies, a huge chunk of the “alternative” energy sector would collapse.

What Mr. Leonard is thinking of are really tax breaks (read on in the article for confirmation), most of which are the same types every other company can take advantage of, like percentage depletion allowance, foreign tax credits, domestic manufacturing deductions, R&D, equipment depreciation, etc and so on.

In fact, Heritage called for an end to actual subsidies, without touching the tax breaks, years ago, some of which overlaps Mr. Leonard’s article. Mr. Leonard also is very supportive of nuclear and natural gas. Huh. Personally, I support alternatives, but, as I’ve written time and time again, they need to be competitive without being truly subsidized by government (this applies to most things government throws taxpayer money at, but that’s a separate conversation).

American consumers will feel the pain. But as was evident during the last (albeit short-term) run-up in petroleum prices, which drove gasoline prices over four dollars a gallon in 2008, Americans will respond to higher prices with countless adjustments—in the cars they buy and in their daily routines—that in turn will move the whole economy toward more efficient energy use.

Removing subsidies from the fossil fuels sector will not cause much pain. It would virtually kill the alternatives sector. Removing all tax breaks would cause pain. It would also violate the Constitution regarding equal treatment under the law if it was only applied to energy companies.

The real question to ask is not whether some energy companies, and indeed whole industries focused on certain “protected” or government-favored technologies or fuels, would survive in their current form if we did slash energy subsidies. Imagine where the American economy would be today if the government had decided to protect and continue to subsidize steam engines or whale oil as sources of energy in past eras. The important question is whether the elimination of energy subsidies would constitute good long-term energy policy for America. Never in my lifetime has it been more important to ask this question.

I’ll admit, hyper-Leftist and Warmist Mr. Leonard makes an interesting, non-moonbat case. Unfortunately for alternatives, he’s making a case that would mostly kill it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Warmist Makes Interesting Proposal: Remove All Energy Sector Subsidies »

Posted in Energy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove