Cult Of Climastrology Rather Upset That They’re Being Called A Religion

By William Teach April 1, 2015 – 2:15 pm

I actually agree. They should be upset. Because they aren’t a religion, they’re a cult. Here’s Warmist Rebecca Leber at the far left New Republic

Republicans Are Attacking Climate Change Science by Comparing It to Religion

Republicans struggle to find a convincing reason not to take action on climate change, so they tend to recycle excuses. In the 2014 election, one line in particular caught on—the two top Republican congressional leaders, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, insisted they were not qualified to discuss climate change science because they were not scientists. Since then, countless high-profile figures have called out this line, including President Barack Obama and Stephen Colbert.

Au contraire, we have plenty of reasons, chief among them being that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a load of unscientific mule fritters.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum demonstrated the line in a speech on Thursday. Santorum, who uses his religion to justify policies such as discriminating against gay people and outlawing abortion in all circumstances, accused President Barack Obama of being motivated by the so-called religion of environmentalism. “[Obama] is against fossil fuels, for his own, in my mind, quasi-religious reasons, which is not a rationale,” Santorum said. “If someone would go forward and put forth a religious idea as to how we should regulate the environment, and it was based on a Christian or other types of religious (ideas), they would be condemned up and down.”

Similar remarks seem to be circulating within the GOP.

Again, they’re wrong, because it’s a cult

The climate-as-a-religion accusation is hardly a new invention. It continues to cycle in and out of political rhetoric. The late sci-fi writer Michael Crichton (Senator James Inhofe’s favorite climate change expert) elevated it in a 2003 speech the Wall Street Journal reprinted on March 15. He declared that “one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.” Inhofe, who uses the Bible to refute climate change science, repeated these words in 2005 remarks on the Senate floor. He said, “Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith.” Countless others have picked it up since then.

Well, yes, they have, because those who believe in AGW/Climate change act like cultists. Nothing dissuades them from their belief set.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy gave a blunt answer to Republicans arguing this at a congressional hearing earlier in March. “Climate change is not a religion,” she said. “It is not a belief system. It’s a science fact.” Taking action to mitigate and adapt to global warming isn’t a faith-based task. It is a response to reality. Obama is responding to an issue that affects the businesses, the weather, infrastructure, agriculture, insurance market, GDP, medical care, and more. This isn’t about his personal “belief” about coal. Republicans can disagree with Democrats about the best solutions to pursue, but they can’t reasonably argue that not responding at all is an option.

We can’t argue with those who act in a manner more reminiscent of a hardcore cult member, as opposed to someone who is willing to look at the scientific facts. And they all act more like the leaders of hardcore cults, the type that live high on the hog while their followers are forced to live very simple lives.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Rather Upset That They’re Being Called A Religion »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a desert created by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on how long Americans have to work for the tax bill.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: Study Says “Climate Change” May Not Cause Cold Snaps

By William Teach April 1, 2015 – 10:25 am

Of course, it fails to actually state what is causing the cold snaps

(Weather Channel) After a brutal winter that left parts of the country buried in record-breaking snow, many were looking for a culprit to blame.

According to a new study, climate change might be off the table as the reason when it comes to the unusually harsh winters we’ve seen in recent years.

A team of scientists from Swiss university ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology say that, contrary to previous scientific thought, climate change doesn’t cause cold snaps.

The study, published in the Journal of Climate, overturns the previous hypothesis that rising temperatures in the Arctic weaken the polar jet stream, which in turn leads to higher temperature variability and harsher winter seasons.

Rather, the scientists say, a warmer climate will mean a lower range of temperature fluctuation and increasingly rare cold snaps. The team used climate simulations and “theoretical arguments” to back their statements.

Huh. So, warming (despite an 18+ year Pause) isn’t causing cold. Go figure. But, hey, it will cause “a lower ranger of temp fluctuations” in the future and cold snaps will be rare. Per their “models”. Strange how the real world seems to always create contradictions. We even get “In theory there would no longer be any temperature variability.” So, Canada will have the same temps as Barbados.

Let’s be clear on one thing: this could happen. They could be correct. However, the debate is not about results, but causation.

Read: Good News: Study Says “Climate Change” May Not Cause Cold Snaps »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

White House Releases Its “Plan” For Forcing Others To Pay Higher Energy Prices For “Climate Change”

By William Teach April 1, 2015 – 7:17 am

Yesterday I mentioned that Team Obama was going to release a plan, which is less a plan than a rough outline

(White House) Building on the strong progress made under President Obama to curb the emissions that are driving climate change and lead on the international stage, today the United States submitted its target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The submission, referred to as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), is a formal statement of the U.S. target, announced in China last year, to reduce our emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and to make best efforts to reduce by 28%.

There’s no such thing as “carbon pollution”. First, it is CO2. Second, it is a necessary trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Calling it “carbon pollution” means this is politics, not science.

Here are the intended targets

  • Clean Power Plan: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed guidelines for existing power plants in June 2014 that would reduce power sector emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering $55-93 billion in annual net benefits from reducing carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants.
  • Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: In February 2014, President Obama directed EPA and the Department of Transportation to issue the next phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by March 2016. These will build on the first-ever standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (model years 2014 through 2018), proposed and finalized by this Administration.
  • Energy Efficiency Standards: The Department of Energy set a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through energy conservation standards issued during this Administration. The Department of Energy has finalized multiple measures addressing buildings sector emissions including energy conservation standards for 29 categories of appliances and equipment as well as a building code determination for commercial buildings. These measures will also cut consumers’ annual electricity bills by billions of dollars.
  • Economy-Wide Measures to Reduce other Greenhouse Gases: EPA and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense regulations and standards. At the same time, the State Department is working to slash global emissions of potent industrial greenhouse gases, called HFCs, through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol; EPA is cutting domestic HFC emissions through its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program; and, the private sector has stepped up with commitments to cut global HFC emissions equivalent to 700 million metric tons through 2025.

That last one should give everyone pause: “economy-wide measures”. Every single one of these means a cost of living increase for Americans, and will burden the middle and lower classes, while barely impacting those rich 1%ers, like Obama, that the Democrats constantly demonize.

And for what?

(Barbwire)…Obama’s plan will only avert 0.001 degrees Celsius of global temperature rises a year, according to climate scientist Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute.

Knappenberger notes that Obama’s climate plan mirrors a scenario where the U.S. reduces carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2050. Using this assumption, Knappenberger calculates that only about one-tenth of a degree of temperature rise will be averted by 2100. This breaks down to about a one-thousandth of a degree of averted temperature rise every year over the next century.

The cost? It’s not clear, but EPA regulations aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector is projected to cost as much as $8.8 billion a year based on agency figures. Other studies put the cost much higher — a NERA study found the costs would be $41 billion per year.

.0001 degrees C. All for a massive increase in the cost of living.

(Reuters) The Obama administration’s plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to “proceed with caution” in negotiations with Washington because any deal could be later undone.

Everything Obama is doing makes it that much more important to get a Republican in the White House, even a super squishy one like Jeb Bush. Republican voters failed to show up with Romney, who had a chance to roll back many of Obama’s regulations and rules, particularly Obamacare. Obama seems to be on a scorched earth campaign. Time to roll it back.

Read: White House Releases Its “Plan” For Forcing Others To Pay Higher Energy Prices For “Climate Change” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Arkansas Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Restoration Legislation

By William Teach April 1, 2015 – 7:01 am

This had made liberals very upset, because institutionalized, government approved bigotry against religions (well, any religion but Islam) is a Good Thing in their world

(NY Times) The Arkansas legislature on Tuesday passed its version of a bill described by proponents as a religious freedom law, even as Indiana’s political leaders struggled to gain control over a growing backlash that has led to calls to boycott the state because of criticism that its law could be a vehicle for discrimination against gay couples.

The Arkansas bill now goes to the state’s Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier version but more recently said he would sign the measure if it “reaches my desk in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states.” But the bill already faces a significant corporate backlash, including from Doug McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, the state’s largest corporation, who said Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Hutchinson should veto it.

Here’s where it gets funny

But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote. Now the backdrop is often perceived to be the cultural division over same-sex marriage.

So, when it was protecting people using peyote in religious ceremonies, it was cool. Now, when it would protect those who are threatened by gay activists, who could easily go to another business for their wedding cakes and flowers and photos, it’s not cool. It’s always something with liberals.

Both states’ laws allow for larger corporations, if they are substantially owned by members with strong religious convictions, to claim that a ruling or mandate violates their religious faith, something reserved for individuals or family businesses in other versions of the law. Both allow religious parties to go to court to head off a “likely” state action that they fear will impinge on their beliefs, even if it has not yet happened.

The Arkansas act contains another difference in wording, several legal experts said, that could make it harder for the government to override a claim of religious exemption. The state, according to the Arkansas bill, must show that a law or requirement that someone is challenging is “essential” to the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, a word that is absent from the federal law and those in other states, including Indiana.

This is apparently some sort of “too broad application” or something. You know what’s really broad?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

Meanwhile, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy is continuing his hissy fit

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) on Tuesday described Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) as a “bigot” and said that politicians have a responsibility to speak out against Indiana’s divisive religious freedom law.

Pence is “not a stupid man, but he’s done stupid things,” Malloy said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “And signing this law — and quite frankly promoting this law, knowing exactly what it was going to do — was an incredibly stupid thing for him to do.”

“When you see a bigot, you have to call them on it,” he said.

Which is an interesting position. Four UConn coaches won’t attend the Final Four in Indiana, where college basketball coaches have meetings

(CBS Sports) Ollie and Co. have opted out — and basically been forced to, because UConn is a state-backed institution and so the university is now prohibited from sending its employees to Indiana for business-related purposes. A travel This ban was put into effect on Monday by Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy. The ban prevents any state-funded business to be paid for, via flights or other transit, into Indiana.

Has Malloy read his own states’ Constitution? “The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.” Has he read the federal Constitution? He is using his power as Governor to discriminate and violate both.

Furthermore

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/583084779731611648

That’s right. In case you missed it, Connecticut has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, along with 19 other states. Twelve states have RFRA legislation pending, including Arkansas.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Arkansas Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Restoration Legislation »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Big Government Looks For Nanny State Solution To Cyber-Bullying

By William Teach March 31, 2015 – 5:21 pm

I think we can all agree that cyber-bullying is a Bad Thing, especially for children, and even young adults. Bullying is a sad, and unfortunate, fact of life since time immortal. Cyber-bullying has also become a sad and unfortunate fact of life. So, what to do about it?

Cyberbullying: Rutgers University Awarded Grant to Develop New Cyberbullying Detection Methods

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a grant to Rutgers University to develop a system of “automatic detection” of cyberbullying. Rutgers University has received $117,102 in funding so far for its project. According to the grant, 40 percent of American teenagers have reported being the victims of cyberbullying.

“This is especially worrying as the multiple studies have reported that the victims of cyberbullying often deal with psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders,” the grant states. “Specifically, this research will advance the state of the art in cyberbullying detection beyond textual analysis by also giving due attention to the social relationships in which these bullying messages are exchanged. A higher accuracy at detection would allow for better mitigation of the cyberbullying phenomenon and may help improve the lives of thousands of victims who are cyberbullied each year.”

Learning more about it and the methods that occur in order to help kids is a Good Thing. Here’s where this starts running off the rails

The project will used text mining – searching for keywords – as well as other methods of analyzing the relationships between the adolescents who send and receive hurtful cyber messages. The grant language suggests that the researchers understand that research needs to go deeper and will hopefully be used to detect cyberbullying before it begins.

“By analyzing the social relationship graph between users and deriving features such as number of friends, network embeddedness, and relationship centrality, the project will validate (and potentially refine) multiple theories in social science literature and assimilate those findings to create better cyberbullying detectors,” the grant states. “The project will yield new, comprehensive models and algorithms that can be used for cyberbullying detection in automated settings.”

In other words, this will be a massive data mining initiative that delves deep into the lives of private citizens.

(Washington Free Beacon) Vivek K. Singh, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University, is leading the project.

“I have worked on multiple projects including designing a novel media sharing application, detecting patterns in large scale Twitter feeds, and analyzing community behavior in social media to design mechanisms to ‘nudge’ people into suitable behaviors,” he writes on his website.

Suitable behaviors as defined by whom? How will they define it? What methods will they use to “nudge” behavior? And, how will this be applied as “mission creep” creeps in? I’m sure Liberals will be A-OK with all this, but, will you be good with it if, say, a Republican administration, decides to use these methods to go after liberals online? As the saying goes “be careful what you wish for: you may get it.”

Read: Big Government Looks For Nanny State Solution To Cyber-Bullying »

Posted in Web/Tech | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 31, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike that Everyone Else should be forced to use rather than fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on rank hypocrisy.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Latest Great Pause Excuse: Atlantic And Pacific Oscillations

By William Teach March 31, 2015 – 11:50 am

The Cult of Climastrology is desperately attempting to mitigate their failed computer models, talking points, and prognostications. The Hockey Schtick lists 66 excuses so far. There are really so many, does it matter anymore whether we number them?

Global Warming Pause Caused By Interaction Of Atlantic And Pacific Oscillations

The recent slowdown in climate warming is due to natural oscillations in the climate, according to a team of climate scientists, who add that these oscillations represent variability internal to the climate system. They do not signal any slowdown in human-caused global warming.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) describes how North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures tend to oscillate with a periodicity of about 50 to 70 years. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) varies over a broader range of timescales. The researchers looked only at the portion of the PDO that was multidecadal — what they term the Pacific multidecadal oscillation (PMO).

So, warming is mostly/solely Man-caused, the Pause is natural. Strange how that works. Of course

Using a wide variety of climate simulations, the researchers found that the AMO and PMO are not significantly correlated; they are not part of the global “stadium wave” oscillation, as some researchers had claimed. What they found was that the Northern Hemisphere was warming more slowly, not because of the AMO — which has been relatively flat — but because of a sharply down-trending PMO.

Simulations, huh? Of course, they have to work in the dog at my homework oceans ate my warming, one of the original Excuses

The researchers conclude that the down-trending PMO and the unusual slowing of warming over the past decade are tied to heat burial beneath the tropical Pacific and a tendency for sustained La Niña type conditions. While there is paleoclimate data suggesting that this type of response could come from subtle features of climate change itself that climate models do not currently capture, the researchers note that the most likely explanation is the random excursions of the AMO.

Perhaps it’s time for the CoC to admit that they’re full of it, that climate and weather patterns change, and that Man is not mostly/solely responsible. They won’t. They have too much invested politically. Interestingly, Michael Mann is involved, so we know that the data is skewed, and we get

“Our findings have strong implications for the attribution of recent climate changes,” said Mann. “Internal multidecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures likely offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.”

Warming=Man, Pause=nature. But of course.

The researchers conclude that given past historical patterns of variation in the AMO and PMO, this situation will likely reverse and add to human induced warming in the future.

Anything to keep the money train and fear-mongering rolling.

Read: Latest Great Pause Excuse: Atlantic And Pacific Oscillations »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With Massive Carbon Footprint To Offer Major Blueprint On “Climate Change”

By William Teach March 31, 2015 – 9:26 am

Over the weekend Barack Obama jetted off to Florida to play some golf, which required multiple helicopter rides, several jumbo jets, and lots of fossil fueled vehicles to cart him around to and fro. Now we learn

Obama to Offer Major Blueprint on Climate Change

The White House on Tuesday morning is expected to unveil President Obama’s blueprint for cutting United States greenhouse gas pollution by nearly a third over the next decade.

Mr. Obama’s plan, part of a formal submission to the United Nations ahead of efforts to forge a climate change accord in Paris in December, will detail the United States side of an ambitious joint climate change pledge the president made in November in Beijing with the Chinese president Xi Jinping.

In an effort to spur other countries to enact their own domestic climate change plans leading to the Paris accord, the leaders of the world’s two largest greenhouse gas polluters offered the outline of a set of climate actions. Mr. Obama said the United States would cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025, while Mr. Xi said that China’s emissions would drop after 2030.

But the plan will also intensify fierce Republican political opposition to Mr. Obama’s effort to build a climate change legacy.

His legacy is one of telling other people how to live their lives, and enforcing many of those beliefs on people via Executive Office regulation, while he himself has a carbon footprint of around 41,000 metric tons per year. The average American is at around 19 metric tons per year.

Mr. Obama’s blueprint, the follow-up to the Beijing announcement, is expected to lay out a road map for exactly how the United States will meet that pledge. Mr. Obama hopes that if the United States puts forth an ambitious domestic plan, other countries will follow, leading to a deal that would commit every country in the world to enact domestic climate change plans.

Of course, all this will have to rely upon action within the Executive branch, since Congress will not approve. This is another reason why Republicans need to retake the White House, especially with a non-squishy candidate, in order to roll back the economy killing measures, and the Big Government interference in our lives.

Meanwhile, Obama will continue to jet around, living the high life, using vast amounts of power and fossil fuels.

Read: Man With Massive Carbon Footprint To Offer Major Blueprint On “Climate Change” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: Clear Majority Distrust Iran To Uphold Any Non-nuclear Weapons Deal

By William Teach March 31, 2015 – 8:14 am

Wait, people don’t trust Iran? Strange

Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

Part of this certainly has to do with Iran being Iran. The other part is certainly the horrible, pro-Iran position taken by Team Obama and its negotiators, who continue to seemingly give away the house to Iran.

Digging deep into the poll, we see that only 4% are very confident that “such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons…”, while 34% are not confident at all. This is with a typical oversampling of Democrats to Republicans, 30% to 22%.

Popular sentiment among Republicans is more in line with GOP lawmakers on the issue of whether Congress should be required to authorize any deal with Iran. A Pew Research Center survey released Monday found 62 percent of the public believes Congress, not President Obama, should have final authority over approving a nuclear agreement with Iran.

We also learn from that Pew survey that 63% think that Iran is not serious. In that poll, 49% approve of negotiating with Iran, 40% disapprove. There’s nothing wrong with negotiating: it should be preferred over immediate military action. The problem is when any deal really doesn’t stop Iran from working towards developing nuclear weapons.

Read: Poll: Clear Majority Distrust Iran To Uphold Any Non-nuclear Weapons Deal »

Posted in Current Affairs, Iran | Comments Off on Poll: Clear Majority Distrust Iran To Uphold Any Non-nuclear Weapons Deal | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove