If All You See…

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

…is an evil carbon infused charcoal fire, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on the difference between Hillary and Scientology.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Northeast Has Snowiest Winter Since 1717

By William Teach April 13, 2015 – 9:54 am

A report from the Overheated Planet

(Daily Caller) This past winter broke tons of low temperature records across the eastern seaboard, but would you have guessed the Northeast just had the snowiest winter since the “Little Ice Age”?

“Looking back through accounts of big snows in New England by the late weather historian David Ludlum, it appears for the eastern areas, this winters snowblitz may have delivered the most snow since perhaps 1717,” wrote seasoned meteorologist Joe D’Aleo with Weatherbell Analytics.

I blame you and your refusal to ride your bike to work and keep your heat set to 55F.

Read: Northeast Has Snowiest Winter Since 1717 »

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

Say, How Does Hillary Stack Up When It Comes To “Climate Change”?

By William Teach April 13, 2015 – 7:18 am

This is obviously an Important Question for the Cult of Climastrology

(Climate Progress) The choices the next president will make will decide what sort of climate confronts the world this century….

Clinton is by many definitions a climate hawk. Importantly, she has said the President’s use of the Clean Air Act to rein in carbon pollution from power plants, “must be protected at all costs” during a speech last year to the League of Conservation Voters. She has been critical of fossil fuel subsidies and supported boosting renewables. To her, climate change represents “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”

“The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc,” she said.

That’s interesting. Can she point to any policies, initiatives, etc, that she accomplished during her time as Secretary of State? Or in the Senate? It probably doesn’t help that she notes fossil fueled travel as an accomplishment, having traveled almost a million miles as Sec State.

But in other areas, she falls short of that hawkish moniker. She still advocates for domestic fossil fuel production, specifically natural gas, arguing it is cleaner than coal “with the right safeguards in place.” She said enforcing smart regulations is important, “including deciding not to drill when the risks are too high.” As Secretary of State, Clinton received criticism around the world for advocating global fossil fuel development, specifically fracking for shale gas in eastern Europe. Her successor, climate hawk John Kerry, has stuck with this strategy, viewing natural gas as a tool to use for fighting climate change. Clinton still frustrates greens refuses to comment on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the long and ongoing approval process for which she oversaw at the State Department.

Well, at least she’s not a total hypocrite. Expect her Belief in Hotcoldwetdry to shift during the campaign to pander to the CoC.

The rest of the article is about other potential players in the Democrat primaries, leading to

Taking bold stands on climate change could be one way of getting disillusioned young progressives excited enough about a Clinton campaign to go knock on doors. On Monday, climate activists organized by 350.org Action will be outside Clinton’s campaign office protesting her stance on the Keystone XL pipeline instead.

Yes, the disillusioned young progressives, who have poor job prospects and low paying job prospects, thanks to Liberal policies. Skewed priorities.

Grist also takes on Hillary’s beliefs in “climate change”, and provides 8 important things to know (you’ll have to hit the link for the full details, of course)

  1. She understands the science. (sure she does)
  2. She thinks the politics of climate change are daunting.
  3. She fully supports Obama’s landmark power-plant rules (in other words, making people’s power bills skyrocket, easy for a rich person to not worry about)
  4. She connects climate change to women’s rights (just another Progressive talking point)
  5. She promoted fracking abroad while secretary of state (will she support fracking at home?)
  6. Her family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money (fortunately, she “quit” the foundation. Wink wink)
  7. She has supported offshore oil drilling (expect that to change to patronize Warmists)
  8. She avoids saying anything about Keystone XL (she’s gotta take a stance at some point, since Obama will kick the can to the next POTUS)

What will Hillary focus on during the campaign? I guess we’ll find out.

Read: Say, How Does Hillary Stack Up When It Comes To “Climate Change”? »

Posted in Global Warming, Hillary Clinton | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Op-Ed: Making Fetus’ A Protected Class Is A Big Mistake

By William Teach April 13, 2015 – 6:51 am

Let’s see: liberals make virtually everyone else a protected class. Gays, minorities, women, Blacks, you name it. Well, except white men. They apparently do not want the unborn to have any protections. Here’s Deborah Tuerkheimer, who tries to tell us that the idea to stop making fetus’ a protected class isn’t about abortion rights

How Not to Protect Pregnant Women

IN the wake of a savageattack on a pregnant woman and the removal of her fetus, Colorado lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill that would criminalize fetal homicide. If the bill passes, the state would join nearly 40 others that make fetuses a distinct class of victims. (The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 similarly makes it a crime to kill or injure a fetus in certain circumstances.) (snip)

This type of legislation, however, is not about protecting the rights and well-being of the pregnant woman. Rather the reverse: The risk is that, without statutory reform, the pregnant woman as a category of victim will remain overlooked, while the fetus gets special protection.

Opposition to the creation of fetal victimhood has focused largely on the threat to abortion rights. This is a legitimate concern, but affording victim status to a fetus has implications beyond the erosion of abortion rights. Legally severing a fetus from the pregnant woman has the effect of pitting her interests against the fetus’s. (snip)

Granting personhood to fetuses makes women criminally responsible, not only for the life of the fetus, but also for its well-being. This is a particularly high burden. Pregnancy in our society tends to be idealized and women counted on to provide a perfect uterine environment.

Liberals want Government involved with every facet of Other People’s lives except when it has anything to do with abortion on demand.

Prosecutors could, in theory, use the notion of “prenatal abuse” to pursue pregnant women who consumed too little folic acid; neglected exercise; gained too much or too little weight; continued on a course of anti-depressants; or had a stressful job. Under the mantle of fetal protection, pregnancy could become subject not only to criminal sanction but to pervasive state regulation.

Funny how Liberals all of a sudden espouse Conservative beliefs about Government being too big when abortion is involved, don’t you think?

In reality, those who are targeted by government intervention on behalf of the unborn tend to be the vulnerable and marginalized. In recent decades, hundreds of women, disproportionately low-income and African-American, have been prosecuted or subjected to court orders over behaviors like drug use that are considered a risk to developing fetuses. Often, these women are themselves victims of violence during pregnancy.

Of course, Ms. Tuerkheimer had to throw in some raaaaacism.

Granting fetuses victim status, however, does not address the core harm. When violence is done to a pregnant woman, her reproductive freedom is trampled.

So, it’s all about abortion.

The law should provide a remedy. Reform matters because abuse of pregnant women is so common. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that more than 300,000 pregnant women a year are victims of domestic violence. Unlike headline-grabbing cases like the Colorado attack, violence against pregnant women is usually inflicted not by strangers, but by current or former partners.

What Ms. Tuerkheimer is doing is a headfake. A distraction. By all means, pregnant women should be protected. In fact, if they are assaulted, there are actually laws that make assault illegal. Imagine that. That in no way means that the unborn shouldn’t be protected. What she doesn’t come out and say is that these laws make it typically a murder to cause the death of an unborn baby when the mother is assaulted. Liberals do not like that unborn babies are accorded personhood, which could, theoretically, cause problems with their devotion to abortion on demand.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed: Making Fetus’ A Protected Class Is A Big Mistake »

Posted in Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 12, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid and evil gas grill, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on hate hoaxing to cover murder.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach April 12, 2015 – 10:07 am

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the squirrels are chittering, the bunnies are eating my neighbors flowers. This pinup is by Pearl Frush, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Red State notes that the NY Times thinks political history started in 2008
  2. Chicks On The Right has Obama giving advice to his former self
  3. No Frakking Consensus has the 25 year Al Gore Alarm-o-rama
  4. Da Tech Guy tells us all we need to know about Election 2016
  5. Director Blue notes the feds forcing the use of 9 million gallons of water in Ca to save some fish
  6. Fire Andrea Mitchell has the word of the night: Hillionaire
  7. Flopping Aces covers female jihadis burning their bras
  8. House Of Eratosthenes notes crybabies everywhere
  9. Legal Insurrection wonders if Iran has been caught red handed in Yemen
  10. Pam Geller notes sexism and dhimmitude in Australia
  11. Patterico’s Pontifications wonders about Hillary as a “hottie celebrity”
  12. Powerline wonders whatever happened to the Crusades being in the news
  13. Public Secrets explains why he’s critical of Rand Paul
  14. Raised On Hoecakes discusses good cop, bad cop
  15. And last, but not least, The Astute Bloggers say it’s disrespectful to Neville Chamberlain to compare him to Obama

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Why Does Hillary Want To Be President, Anyhow?

By William Teach April 12, 2015 – 8:22 am

Today’s the day when Hillary plays small ball with her announcement to run for president. At least, we are assuming that she will announce that, rather than saying she is not running. The Washington Post’s Dan Balz has a few questions

When Hillary Rodham Clinton arrives in Iowa next week as a candidate for president in 2016, every statement, gesture, laugh, outfit, facial expression and interaction with voters will be put under a microscope the likes of which few, if any, previous candidates have experienced.

Doubtful. The media were BIG Hillary supporters in 2008, and switched to Obama when he won the nomination. They’ve barely had a negative word to say during her terrible tenure as Secretary of State, in which she accomplished….can anyone say what she accomplished?

Her every step will be analyzed for signs of change or continuity. Has she learned from her loss to then-candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries? If so, what? Does she act entitled or hungry? Has she shifted on foreign policy issues since she was Obama’s secretary of state? Are her economic views the same as Obama’s or Bill Clinton’s or Elizabeth Warren’s? Does she appear to like campaigning or see it as a necessary duty to reach her ultimate goal? Is she rusty or sharp, chilly or warm? The list is endless.

The answers to these questions will be provided helpfully by the Compliant Media.

Two questions above all others hover over her candidacy: Why does she want to be president? And will voters find her honest, authentic and empathetic enough to entrust her with their futures?

The answer to the first should be interesting. Her campaign released a mission statement to aides, which includes

“We are Hillary for America,” declares the document, first reported by Politicoand later obtained by The New York Times.

“Our purpose: To give every family, every small business, and every American a path to lasting prosperity by electing Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States.”

In a sentence freighted with significance, the memo continues: “This campaign is not about Hillary Clinton and not about us — it’s about the everyday Americans who are trying to build a better life for themselves and their families.”

So, Hillary running is not about Hillary. Riiiiiiight.

Anyhow, Maureen Dowd chimes in with a howler

WHEN my brother Michael was a Senate page, he delivered mail to John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who had offices across the hall from each other.

He recalled that Kennedy never looked up or acknowledged his presence, but Nixon would greet him with a huge smile. “Hi, Mike,” he’d say. “How are you doing? How’s the family?”

It seemed a bit counterintuitive, especially since my dad, a D.C. police inspector in charge of Senate security, was a huge Kennedy booster. (The two prominent pictures in our house were of the Mona Lisa and J.F.K.) But after puzzling over it, I finally decided that J.F.K. had the sort of magnetism that could ensorcell big crowds, so he did not need to squander it on mail boys. Nixon, on the other hand, lacked large-scale magnetism, so he needed to work hard to charm people one by one, even mail boys.

Or, it could be that Nixon was just a polite person, and actually interested in people. Something that is actually reinforced in Nixon’s book In The Arena. He was an introverted man in an extroverted arena. Introverts often find ways to play that small ball in asking about other people and greeting them. But, hey, this isn’t about Nixon

As Hillary finally admits the axiomatic — she wants to be president — she will take the Nixon approach, trying to charm people one by one in the early states for 2016, an acknowledgement that she cannot emulate the wholesale allure of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

In this age of Media Everywhere, 24/7 news stations, people able to take and upload videos in a heartbeat, etc and so on, can playing it small and informal, work? I met Hillary way back in the 1990’s, and she was cordial and warm. It was not a political event. Conservative radio host Mike Gallagher, in his book Surrounded By Idiots, writes about surprising his Democrat wife with a trip to meet Hillary, who was, again, very nice and pleasant. At the end, though, Mo Dowd seems to come off the rails

But if Hillary really wants to help those children, maybe she should give them some of the ostensible and obscene $2.5 billion that she is planning to spend to persuade us to make her grandmother of our country.

Interestingly, for all the Democrat caterwauling about money in politics, they sure like to spend lots themselves. And, at the end of the day, why, exactly, does she want to run for president?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, Why Does Hillary Want To Be President, Anyhow? »

Posted in Hillary Clinton | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 11, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a place featuring capitalist advertisers, who are bad for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Liberal Bubble.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Scottish Warmist: Nationalize All Energy

By William Teach April 11, 2015 – 11:24 am

Of course, this is just one guy writing a letter to the Herald Scotland. But, if one Warmist is writing it, how many others are bobbing their head in agreement?

Energy must be nationalised to address climate change

MES, as the science and engineering literature amply attests, is well established technically. Methods range from electric storage (batteries, capacitors, super-capacitors), magnetic storage (superconducting coils), kinetic energy storage (flywheels), gravitational storage (pumped-hydro, artificial lagoons) to compressed air (in massive underground caverns).

Compressed air and gravitational systems furnish the really massive levels of storage capable of providing the kind of back-up power needed to smooth grid fluctuations in a world of intermittent renewables. For example, lagoon storage systems being developed off Copenhagen, and at Jiangsu, in China, will potentially provide respectively 2.3GWh and 598GWh of electrical energy. These levels are certainly large enough to confidently advocate the rapid development of fossil fuel free grid systems.

Unfortunately, within our worldwide corporate-driven. neo-liberal economic structures, the privatising buccaneers of this system, who control much of the investment in developing technology, will see no merit in storage because nothing is produced and hence nothing exists to sell at a profit. Until energy is nationalised and becomes democratically controlled, the growth of storage capacity, which is essential to the evolution of a secure green electricity grid supply, seems very likely to fail and the transition to green power will not, therefore, advance fast enough to address climate change.

Strange how virtually everything Warmists want dovetails nicely with Far Left Marxist/Socialist/Progressive beliefs, eh?

Read: Scottish Warmist: Nationalize All Energy »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Game Of Thrones And “Climate Change” Are Totally Linked Or Something

By William Teach April 11, 2015 – 8:10 am

No longer can we just watch a show and be entertained: we must now consider the implications of Serious Issues And Stuff

Has ‘Game of Thrones’ Affected the Way People Think About Climate Change?
Winter is coming, but no one seems to care. Sound familiar?

An invisible force threatens to destroy life as we know it, yet society remains largely indifferent. A small group of devoted soldiers, who know the true strength of this threat, warn us of the horror to come. But alas, their warnings are to no avail. Sound familiar? Fans of HBO’s Game of Thrones, which returns this Sunday for its fifth season, will surely think of the Night’s Watch. For the uninitiated, those are the black-clad warriors who struggle to convince the rest of the realm that everyone is in imminent danger. Ignore the fact that the source of that danger is some zombie-like creatures called White Walkers, and and it might start to sound like something that we’re grappling with in our own dragon-less world: climate change.

In 2012, Arizona State University’s Manjana Milkoreit was struck by the meaningful dialogue transpiring online about the overlaps between Game of Thrones and climate change. These bloggers weren’t simply talking about the show, Milkoreit tells me, but instead were using metaphors to instigate real political conversations—conversations about responsibility, indifference, activism, and the future.

Fans of the show have surely connected the dots already, but the metaphor goes: Winter and the merciless White Walkers represent climate change; the Night’s Watch—the only people who know the extent of the horror Westeros will soon face—are climate scientists; and the status-obsessed capital city of King’s Landing represents an ignorant and inactive public and/or government.

People tend to have a very limited imagination about what a climate-changed future might look like. Even climate thought leaders and scientists lack imagination when looking forward, she says. But shows like Game of Thrones, while filled with dragons and magic, spark meaningful dialogue.

Of course, said dialogue never actually leads to practitioners of the Cult of Climastrology practicing what they preach.

Read: Game Of Thrones And “Climate Change” Are Totally Linked Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove