Hotcoldwetdry Should Totally Be Renamed “Climate Disruption” Or Something

By William Teach March 13, 2015 – 10:21 am

Because this is what is done with science. Change the names. Remember all those times that the Theory of Gravity was changed to make it more palatable for the masses?

Forget Global Warming And Climate Change, Call It ‘Climate Disruption’

People have been learned to cope with change by thinking it’s not all bad, but climate change is all bad, according to a climate scientist at Argonne National Laboratory who says it’s time to replace the term climate change, itself a replacement for global warming, with a new term: climate disruption.

“Positive mental attitude is a really wonderful way to deal with change,” research meteorologist Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night. “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good. So maybe it’s wrong to portray climate change with a positive mental attitude.

“Maybe we should start talking about climate disruption, because the things I’m talking about would seem to be highly disruptive. And so maybe the better way to characterize what’s happening with these extreme weather events is to think of it as climate disruption. Maybe it more accurately represents the journey we are about to be embarking upon.”

Sisterson is not the first to propose adopting the term climate disruption. John Holdren, the senior advisor to President Obama on science and technology issues, proposed the term global climate disruption in 2007, in 2010 and again last year.

Changing the name is all about continuing to keep the scareathon and Blamestorming going strong. Most people aren’t scared anymore, as they aren’t seeing Doomworthy weather or any of the other doomy prognostication occurring. Well, other than very cold and snowy winters.

“We’ve been talking about global warming, but as you can see on a global scale increased greenhouse gases lead to a warmer planet on average, but it really doesn’t tell the whole picture. Because it’s complicated. In fact, temperature itself is probably not the biggest thing that we’re going to have to worry about about global warming,” he said.

So, doom. Scare people.

“We expect to see changes in precipitation patterns and sea-level rise that will have much greater impact to humans and our animal friends and biodiversity than the temperature alone. As a matter of fact, we’re pretty sure that we’re going to see increased weather extremes. Perhaps you’re noticing some of them as well.”

In other words, snow and cold is being blamed on greenhouse gases. Cult.

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Should Totally Be Renamed “Climate Disruption” Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Next Shutdown Threat: Highway Funding

By William Teach March 13, 2015 – 7:09 am

This is what happens when the Central Government hasn’t actually had a real budget during the entirety of Obama’s time in officer

(The Hill) Transportation funding is running on empty, forcing Congress to scramble to meet its next major deadline before the tank runs dry on May 31.

Both parties say they want to avoid a repeat of last month’s tense standoff over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. But the likelihood of an impasse increases with each day that passes without an infrastructure reauthorization bill, and transportation advocates warn that more brinkmanship would be disastrous.

What’s the problem? How to pay for it (cough * pass an actual budget * cough)

While all sides back passage of a long-term transportation funding measure this year, there is little consensus about how to pay for the new round of infrastructure spending.

Obviously, some are super thrilled by raising the gas tax

The Equipment Manufacturers and other transportation groups have come out in favor of an increase in the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gas tax, but many in Congress oppose asking drivers to pay more at the pump to help pay for road projects.

The gas tax has been the traditional source for federal transportation funding since its inception in the 1930’s — predating the Interstate State Highway System by about 20 years. But it has struggled to keep pace with construction costs, as cars become more fuel-efficient.

So, Government mandates that vehicle become more fuel efficient, push for more hybrids and electric vehicles, and then are shocked when the revenue from the gas tax decreases exponentially. But, hey, why not use gimmicks?

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) issued a proposal Thursday to nearly double the gas tax. If lawmakers find that politically untenable Pete Ruane, the group’s president, offered a potential deal sweetener.

“If our national leaders think they need to use budget gimmicks or ‘one-offs’ again to pass the surface transportation investment program the states need and the business community has been pleading for, then use those devices to provide a $90 tax rebate to middle and lower income tax filers to offset the cost to them of a 15 cent per gallon increase in the federal gas tax,” he said.

Sure thing. That makes sense. Not.

Also noted in the article is the reality that many Republican led states are looking to increase the state gas tax, and many of them have already. Here in North Carolina that is being debated. It’s not like NC already has one of the highest gas taxes in the country already. So, any federal raise would be a double whammy, since many Democrat led states have raised their gas tax. Many are pushing a per-mile usage fee.

“Rather than raise the federal gas tax, a better policy would be to repeal the federal tax and let states pay for their own road projects,” the Heritage Action group said in a blog post on its website. “Devolving transportation projects back to the states will ensure that gas tax money is used for the highest value-added projects.

States know better as to which roads are in need of repair, and would spend that money much better than the federal government. How much money was wasted for infrastructure projects via The Stimulus? Roads that needed no repair were repaired. How much stupidity and pork are inserted into every federal infrastructure funding bill over the years, a problem for both Republicans and Democrats?

The federal program made sense back in the middle part of the 20th century, when the country was building big roads that allowed citizens to move around the country, like I-95 and I-40. Today, when those roads are already built, it makes more sense to allow the States to maintain them, with some federal oversight over the Interstates.

Read: Next Shutdown Threat: Highway Funding »

Posted in Politics | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Obama’s Illegal Alien Program Allowed Those Convicted Of Crimes To Remain In U.S.

By William Teach March 13, 2015 – 6:46 am

Mr. Obama will Very Disappointed about this when he learns about it in the news. Of course, unless it is actually broadcast on MSNBC or ESPN, he’ll never know

(Associated Press) Federal agents in a sweep targeting the most dangerous criminal immigrants arrested 15 people who have been allowed to remain in the U.S. under President Barack Obama’s executive action intended to protect children who came to the U.S. years ago with their parents, The Associated Press has learned.

Fourteen of the 15 had been convicted of a crime, the Homeland Security Department confirmed late Thursday. In at least one case, the Obama administration renewed the protective status for a young immigrant after that person’s conviction in a drug case, a U.S. official briefed on the arrests said.

One of the eligibility requirements for the program is that immigrants not have a criminal history. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss the matter by name.

It was not immediately clear when 13 of the immigrants were convicted or what their crimes were. They were arrested by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. The answers to those questions could undermine the integrity of the government’s program, since eligibility is reserved for ambitious, young immigrants enrolled in school or who graduated and who would benefit American society.

I do enjoy how the AP refers to this as “the government’s program”, when this is not legally allowed by Congressional legislation, but, instead, on the whim of a man who sees himself as a quasi-king. One must also wonder “if there were 15 with criminal issues swept up in sweep, how many more are in the same boat?”

“With few fraud detection measures and effective background checks in place, it’s no surprise that ICE arrested over a dozen DACA recipients last week, most of whom had already been convicted of a crime,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. “I and other members of the House Judiciary Committee have expressed concern about this for years.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the case “sheds light on what appears to be a haphazard and risky vetting process by an administration that is very interested in finding creative and possibly unconstitutional ways for people to stay in the country.”

The illegals targeted in the sweep were supposed to be the worst of the worst. How many of the “not worst of the worst” have been given (illegal) deferred action yet still have criminal convictions on their record?

Of course, do not expect Liberals to care in the least: they just want to create more Democrat voters. They’ve shown quite clearly that the integrity of the nation, protection of our borders, and any concern for the plight of the American worker rank far below their need to legalize illegal aliens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Obama’s Illegal Alien Program Allowed Those Convicted Of Crimes To Remain In U.S. »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Surprise: Obama’s Illegal Alien Program Allowed Those Convicted Of Crimes To Remain In U.S. | Trackback URL

We Must Totally Reclaim “Climate Change” Debate From Alarmists And Deniers Or Something

By William Teach March 12, 2015 – 5:01 pm

Obviously, all you Alarmists and Deniers are causing great stress to the debate, so there is a great need to get the debate back on track to…a total belief in anthropogenic Hotcoldwetdry. Here’s Mark Lynas at the UK Guardian (which has totally gone all in on being the Official Paper Of Record for the Cult of Climastrology)

We must reclaim the climate change debate from the political extremes
Alarmists and deniers need to climb out of their parallel trenches, engage with the developing world and work together to end the crisis

Climate change is real, caused almost entirely by humans, and presents a potentially existential threat to human civilisation. Solving climate change does not mean rolling back capitalism, suspending the free market or stopping economic growth.

With those two rather innocuous statements, I have just alienated most people on either side of the climate debate. Today, climate change is no longer just a scientific or an energy problem. Instead, one’s position on global warming has become a badge of political identity in a debate riven by ideological and tribal conflicts. This bodes ill for humanity’s chances of addressing the threat before it is too late. (snip)

This (the belief that all weather events are caused by Mankind) isn’t science; it is politics. The science – as articulated by the IPPC – says the warming of the climate system is “unequivocal”, that the last 30 years were probably the warmest for the last 1,500 years, and that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”. (snip)

We should all be able to agree on this. But we can’t, because this scientific narrative seems to have been captured by one, rather extreme, end of the political spectrum.

Got that? You aren’t allowed to disagree with the Cult Of Climastrology (CoC), but, hey, also ignore the nutbags who hold the same beliefs. What Mr. Lynas is attempting to do is move the Cult back to sounding more mainstream with a disassociation of the more extreme elements of the CoC, like Naomi Klein, who has made the Big Mistake for the CoC of actually writing about what the true goals of the CoC are.

But to make any of this happen we will need to recapture the climate debate from the political extremes. We must then work to come up with inclusive proposals that can form the basis of a social consensus that must last decades if it is to have any meaningful effect on the climate change crisis that faces us.

For all you Skeptics, this means shutting the hell up and following along.

Read: We Must Totally Reclaim “Climate Change” Debate From Alarmists And Deniers Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible sea from the 1940’s that would soon rise hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on climate change mummies.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Denying Hotcoldwetdry Is Like Gargling With Arsenic Or Something

By William Teach March 12, 2015 – 10:38 am

“Climate change” is a fascinating subject to follow and blog about, because there is always some nutter doing/saying/writing something nutty

(WND) Would you gargle with arsenic?

Or juggle nitroglycerin?

Or even poke a poisonous brown recluse spider?

Perhaps not.

But an editorial cartoon published Tuesday in Pennsylvania-based PennLive.com suggests such “idiotic behaviors” is the same as if you deny “human-caused climate change.”

The banner atop the cartoon says, “Four totally idiotic behaviors,” then has images of people gargling with arsenic, juggling nitroglycerin, poking a brown recluse and denying so-called man-made climate change.

The headline at PennLive reads: “Yes, climate change is real. Stop denying it: A PennLive editorial cartoon.”

Here’s what that looks like.

Meanwhile, PennLive uses gobs of CO2 emitting energy to publish their cartoon.

Read: Denying Hotcoldwetdry Is Like Gargling With Arsenic Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Chivalry Is “Benign Sexism”, Which Is Still Super Bad, Or Something

By William Teach March 12, 2015 – 8:38 am

Personally, I just called it “being polite” and treating a lady like a lady

Why chivalry may not always be what it seems: Men who hold doors open and smile may actually be sexist, study claims

If you’re the sort of gentleman who holds the door open for a lady – or the sort of woman who expects him to – then be warned.

Such acts of chivalry may actually be ‘benevolent sexism’ in disguise, according to researchers.

Experts say this type of sexism is harder to spot than the ‘hostile sexism’ we are more familiar with – because it often masquerades as gallantry. It is typified by paternal and protective behaviour, from encouraging smiles to holding doors open.

Could those who identify as hardcore feminists please wear some sort of badge or hat or something, that way I can identify them, the better to let the door go.

US researchers argue that while women may enjoy being showered with attention, benevolent sexism is ‘insidious’ and men who are guilty of it see women as incompetent beings who require their ‘cherished protection’.

Professor Judith Hall, of Northeastern University in Boston, said: ‘Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality among women.

So, I should now hold the door for men, but not women? I’ll be sure to refer any upset lady to Prof Hall and her research team.

The rest of the article points out that being a benevolent sexist is Just As Bad as being a hostile sexist. You cannot win with these people.

They found men whose answers led to them being classed as benevolently sexist smiled more while playing the quiz game and chatting.

They were more patient while waiting for their female partners to answer the trivia questions and warmer, friendlier and chattier than those who were hostile sexists.

So, no smiling at women, no holding doors, let her freeze or get soaked, and treat her just like your best mates.

Read: Chivalry Is “Benign Sexism”, Which Is Still Super Bad, Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Mostly Peaceful Ferguson Protest Sees Two Officers Shot

By William Teach March 12, 2015 – 8:24 am

As The Other McCain points out, this is an entirely expected consequence after over half a year of anti-cop agitation

(St. Louis Today) Two police officers were hit by gunfire early Thursday outside the Ferguson police department.

The shots were fired just after midnight as police were confronting protesters who had gathered outside the police station.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said one officer was with his department and the other was with the Webster Groves department. Both were being treated at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, where Belmar spoke, and were in serious condition.

The chief said at least three shots were fired. He described the injuries of both men as “very serious gunshot injuries.” Neither injury was considered life-threatening.

The protest was over the resignation of the police chief.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Mostly Peaceful Ferguson Protest Sees Two Officers Shot »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Inconceivable: Majority Believe That Federal Policies Encourage Illegal Immigration

By William Teach March 11, 2015 – 3:17 pm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

(Rasmussen) Most voters continue to believe federal government policies encourage illegal immigration, but they still aren’t convinced states should go it alone in enforcing immigration laws.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally, the highest level of cynicism since June 2012. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, while 15% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Huh.

Still, 48% think relying on the federal government rather than states to enforce immigration laws is the best approach to dealing with illegal immigration. That’s down two points from last August but is in line with findings since February 2011. Forty-two percent (42%) think it’s better to allow individual states to act on their own. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. Support for state action was slightly higher in 2011.

I’d actually agree. The federal government should be the primary enforcement method, establishing specific rules, as dictated by the Constitution, working hard to protect the country and its citizens from those who are entering our country illegally. Unfortunately, Los Federales like to play games.

Most voters (61%) still favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Twenty-four percent (24%) oppose such sanctions, while 15% are undecided. Support for these sanctions have run in the high 50s to low 60s for years, and Americans told us in a 2013 survey that employer sanctions are the most effective way to stop illegal immigration.

I’d very much agree, and have written so in the past on multiple occasions.

But 57% believe if a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer should automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree, and 10% are not sure. These findings also have stayed fairly steady for years, although support for these checks hit a high of 73% in March 2009.

I’d agree. Are you a legal citizen or here legally? No? Arrest, detain, deport.

Read: Inconceivable: Majority Believe That Federal Policies Encourage Illegal Immigration »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is horrible concrete used to create a brick wall which is bad for climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on all the times Obama learned things from the news.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove