Democrats Go On Witch Hunt For Skeptics

By William Teach February 26, 2015 – 11:01 am

Here’s one from yesterday that I wasn’t able to get around to

Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.

University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.”

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Pielke wrote on his blog.

Pielke is one of seven academics under Grijalva’s investigation for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research. Pielke says he’s never been funded by fossil fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much when he testified before Congress.

Pielke is most definitely a believer in man-induced global warming, however, he’s not one of the nutty Warmists. Pielke writes

For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect todisasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.

No matter your beliefs in anthropogenic global warming, “climate change”, climate disruption, etc, whether you are a big believer who says it is mostly/solely Mankind’s fault, or a 50%, or a “yes, Man does have a small effect, or a “nope, no effect”, you should be seriously concerned about government of any level, and especially an elected official, using their domineering position to come after private citizens in this manner. This is Big Brother territory. Warmists may be thinking “yeah, get that Skeptic! Mess him up! Get them all!”, but, remember, not stopping this kind of power abuse that you favor leaves you open if government comes after you.

Read: Democrats Go On Witch Hunt For Skeptics »

Posted in Global Warming, Government | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

FCC Set To Vote On “Net Neutrality” Today

By William Teach February 26, 2015 – 8:16 am

Let’s start with this

Ajit Pai is one of the commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. It should be very concerning that no one can actually see what’s in the plan.

(USA Today) After nearly a year-long process, the Federal Communications Commission casts its all-important vote Thursday on the divisive issue of net neutrality.

The five-member board is expected to approve FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s new rules that aim to preserve an open Internet and prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against content makers. But regardless what happens Thursday, the agency’s action won’t be the last word.

“It is a defining moment, but it will be redefined by the courts, Congress and other entities including the marketplace going forward,” said Gary Arlen, a Bethesda, Md., research analyst. “But whatever they decide is going to be a benchmark.”

Ah, but here’s the thing: this has not been a one year push: it’s been going on for over a decade. Gizmado takes a look at the history of “net neutrality”, which begins in March 2002

The FCC, under the Bush Administration and Republican Chairman Michael Powell, declares that cable modem services are “not subject to common carrier regulation,” meaning they aren’t bound by standards for non-discrimination in service. Instead, cable Internet services fall under a separate light regulatory regime that gives the commission limited enforcement power.

Tim Wu coined the phrase net neutrality in Fall of 2003. In August of 2005, the FCC adopted a toothless position on NN. In March 2006, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced a net neutrality bill that quickly died. Then we get

Aug. 2008 – The FCC, under Republican Chairman Kevin Martin, orders Comcast to stop slowing down user access to BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer sharing network often used to share music and videos.

This continues on till we get to today. And, during that whole time, 12 years since the introduction of the phrase, 13 since the original FCC declaration, and 9 years since the introduction of the first NN legislation, there has been only really one case of a slowdown by a cable company, which involved a company that allows users to “share music and videos” in a manner that actually violates copyright law.

Back to the USA Today

In general, Republicans share the ISPs’ concerns that Wheeler’s plan to regulate them as a utility — like traditional telephone service — under Title II of The Communications Act is overkill. The rules “may not ultimately provide net neutrality protections for American consumers … (and) may raise rates for the American Internet users and could stymie Internet adoption, innovation and investment,” Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Wednesday.

Here’s the thing: we do not really know, because the FCC Chairman refuses to let the public see the plan. We can make assumptions, and we have hard data on what placing telecommunications under the auspice of being a public utility has done over the years. Again, it’s a solution in search of a problem that will create more problems. And there are so many potential problems that it’s hard to keep track of them all.

(NPR) But there’s something net neutrality advocates dislike about the proposed rules, too — and it’s related to what policy wonks call “zero-rating.” Basically, that means your wireless provider promises not to count one app or group of apps against your monthly data cap.

T-Mobile’s “Music Freedom” plan, which lets subscribers stream all the music they want without data charges, is one example. That may sound like a good deal for consumers — who doesn’t like free data? But critics say there’s a problem.

“I think zero-rating is the next big threat to innovation and free speech online,” says Barbara van Schewick, a professor at Stanford Law School. She says the problem with some zero-rating plans is that they create an un-level playing field — where wireless companies can favor their own video services, for example, or strike business deals that favor other big companies.

“That distorts competition, interferes with user choice,” she says. “And that’s exactly what network neutrality is designed to protect.”

In essence, this would tell private companies that they can’t push their own content over competitor’s content. In this case, T-Mobile is letting people stream music from their own app for free. If you want to listen to iHeart radio, you use data (and, damn, but iHeart music uses serious data, which is why I only use it on WiFi). It is a service you pay for, running either $4 a month for basic or $9.99 for premier. Or, I, as a T-Mobile customer, can choose to pay $80 a month for completely unlimited LTE data (which goes with unlimited talk and text), $20 more than I am paying for 3gb of LTE now. That’s the beauty of choice. Which this FCC plan can take away, forcing a one size fits all solution.

Seriously, what is the problem with companies offering specials for themselves? T-Mobile doesn’t stop you from using other music streaming services. They just offer a special for their own service. My new TV only offers iHeart as an app. Is that fair? Does it create an “un-level” playing field? Or, is this simply choice?

Read: FCC Set To Vote On “Net Neutrality” Today »

Posted in Government, Web/Tech | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Chairman Obama Threatens Immigration Enforcement Officials

By William Teach February 26, 2015 – 7:30 am

Hey, why not? He’s threatened and insulted a good portion of the citizens of the United States (not too mention citizens of other nations), why should federal law enforcement be ignored?

(Weekly Standard) President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.

According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn’t be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.

“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.

“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”

“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”

Got that? The duly elected President Of The United States Of America just threatened employees of ICE and Border Control, telling them to ignore the ruling of a federal judge which put a hold on Obama’s possibly illegal and un-Constitutional executive action, telling them there would be “consequences” for failing to act in a lawless manner.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Chairman Obama Threatens Immigration Enforcement Officials »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Typical Believer: Newspapers Should Publish Debates Between Warmists And Skeptics

By William Teach February 25, 2015 – 3:57 pm

It was actually rather tough, figuring out the headline, since this letter to the Duluth News Tribune by Peter Johnson is a mishmash of Warmist thoughts beliefs

Reader’s view: Newspapers should publish climate-change evidence

Human-caused climate change is real and supported overwhelmingly by climate scientists worldwide.

It’s funny how so many man-made global warming deniers deny receiving payments from conservative organizations or financial support from big oil, big coal and powerful lobbyists who can influence legislation. However, if one researches, one typically discovers conservative roots spending conservative money.

Yet, believers in Hotcoldwetdry, overwhelmingly obtain “payments” from Left leaning organizations and Government. How is that money any better? Oh, right, I’m not supposed to ask inconvenient questions. BTW, Warmists organizations also receive funding from fossil fuels companies.

Considering this, it’s grossly unethical that ordinary people be successfully duped by conservative propaganda — as well as the testimony of self-appointed “experts” who supposedly see through an alleged liberal hoax.

Is it ethical to rely almost solely on computer models from, to put it generously, on flawed data? Is it ethical to force one’s almost religious belief sets on other people while refusing to practice them yourself?

A popular conspiracy theory proposes that scientists are seeking to control future energy markets at the behest of Democrats and are pressured by Democrats to skew research. That’s ironic since, from the 1970s on, climate scientists have dispensed the same essential findings, no matter which party controlled Washington. They also must have used a time machine to visit 2015 and gain accurate information about today’s climate conditions. Or were they just lucky to promote a massive conspiracy that actually came true — based on guesses?

Yeah, remember when these same climate scientists were Very Concerned about the coming ice age? Too bad the conditions via their talking points and computer models keep being invalidated by real world data. BTW, I’ve never heard the conspiracy theory offered.

How about asking newspapers to publish weekly debates between learned climate scientists and their opponents? They could then offer evidence supporting or refuting specific arguments, not just shots in the dark taken without prior knowledge of which issues will be discussed.

I’m all in for that one. Too bad that very few Warmists will actually debate actual Skeptics, because the Warmists usually lose. And lose badly. And look bad. Really bad. Foolish. And like they have a political agenda.

Mr. Johnson wraps up by seemingly pushing the notion that newspapers should actually refuse to publish anything from Skeptics. Is anyone surprised?

Read: Typical Believer: Newspapers Should Publish Debates Between Warmists And Skeptics »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 25, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city, a great place for Warmists to live with people who think exactly the same, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on an “Islmophobia” expert joining ISIS.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist Al Roker: All These Winter Storms Are “Climate Change”

By William Teach February 25, 2015 – 10:30 am

Cultists just can’t help themselves

(Real Clear Politics) AL ROKER: Boston, as of this point, is at the #2 snowiest winter ever. 

LARRY KING: Is this all part of climate change? 

AL ROKER: I think it is. Look, you can’t point to any one event and say this is climate change, but what climate change opens the door for and allows for is — more extreme swings of weather. So, while you’ve got this ongoing drought out in California, you know there has been almost no snow pack — snowfall — in the Sierras, and it barely has rained. Yet you’ve go monumental forest fires, wildfires.

Here in the East you’ve got brutal cold, yet globally, January was the warmest month on record. All these swings that are happening, climate change makes that more possible.

You have to love the inclusion of the often used “you can’t point to any one event”, followed, as Warmists usually do, by then blaming “climate change” for the events. Could changes in climate have an effect? You betcha. But, what Warmists mean is that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the changes, all while refusing to give up their big “carbon footprints”.

Read: Warmist Al Roker: All These Winter Storms Are “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

27% Of British Muslims Sympathize With Motives Behind Attack On Charlie Hebdo

By William Teach February 25, 2015 – 7:51 am

Again, to be clear, and thwart Leftist attempts at deflection, distraction, and strawman arguments, this does not blame all Muslims. What it does show is that the hardcore brand of Islam is spreading, gaining traction, and influencing larger and larger populations of Islam

(UK Daily Mail) More than a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the motives behind the attack on the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, which left 12 people dead, a survey shows.

The new poll also revealed that 32 per cent of respondents were ‘not surprised’ that the massacre took place after the publication printed a number of images of the Prophet Mohammed.

And more than 10 per cent of the 1,000 British Muslims interviewed agreed that the magazine ‘deserved’ to be attacked.

The survey also found that almost one in 10 knew other Muslims who had strong sympathies with those fighting for Al-Qaeda or Islamic State. (snip)

When polled, 27 per cent said they agreed with the statement ‘I have sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris’

The poll was conducted by ComRes for BBC Radio 4, and, let’s be honest, the “sympathy for the motives” doesn’t necessarily mean that the Muslims agreed with the murders, just the reasons for the murders. However, thinking that a simple drawing is reason to commit violence and murder, identifying with the reasons for a terrorist act, should give one pause.

What should be of even more concern is that 32 percent were “not surprised” that adherents to their religion went on a murderous rampage over the publication of cartoons which depicted Mohammed. Says quite a bit as to where Islam is heading.

Read: 27% Of British Muslims Sympathize With Motives Behind Attack On Charlie Hebdo »

Posted in RoP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Net Neutrality: A Solution In Search Of A Problem (That Will Create More Problems)

By William Teach February 25, 2015 – 7:32 am

Randolph J. May wonders whether the FCC is a lawless organization, in terms of a background in how the Constitution creates our form of government in light of the way the British authorities simply “dispensed power”, a “form of exercise of royal prerogative under which the king could excuse himself or his favored subjects from complying with particular laws enacted by Parliament.” That’s certainly a valid argument, but how he starts his opinion piece is even more interesting, and more relevant to the effect on We The People

This Thursday, Feb. 26, will be a fateful day for the future of the Internet. In the nearly 40 years that I have been involved in communications law and policy, including serving as the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) associate general counsel, this action, without a doubt, is one of the agency’s most misguided.

The sad reality is that, without any convincing evidence of market failure and consumer harm, the FCC is poised, on a 3-2 party-line vote, to expand its control over Internet providers in ways that threaten the Internet’s future growth and vibrancy.

Here is the nub of the matter: By choosing to regulate Internet providers as old-fashioned public utilities in order to enforce “neutrality” mandates, the commission will discourage private-sector investment and innovation for many years to come, if only as a result of the litigation that will be spawned and the uncertainty that will be created. And the new government mandates inevitably will lead to even more than the usual special interest pleading at the FCC, as Internet companies try to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors by seeking favored regulatory treatment.

In other words, by turning the Internet into yet another heavily regulated industry, the government will not only stifle innovation and investment, but will be in a position to pick winners and losers, rather than as it is now, where competition reigns to pick winners and losers. No, the Internet is not perfect, nor are the companies involved. But, do you think it will get better, do you think minor problems will be solved, especially those problems that pretty much only exist within the minds of people who are saying “this could happen!!!!!!!!!”, by making it a highly regulated utility? As Jeffrey Dorfman noted back in November 2014

Net neutrality seems like a simple concept: the company that links your computer/tablet/smartphone to the internet should not be able to discriminate among users and providers in the level of connectivity service provided. That is, we should all be able to send and receive the same number of bits of data per second.

This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products.

I pay for a slightly faster Internet speed that the usual Time Warner package, but I see no need for the fastest of the fast. People and private entities can pay for multiple different speeds at different prices. Not to be ageist, but many seniors feel no need for anything but the slowest speed (typically 768kbs), as they are not cruising around and downloading videos and such. People choose the speed that works for them.

Of course, those in favor of net neutrality (thinking the negatives will never affect themselves) discuss what “could” happen. Here’s Patrick Leahy and Richard Blumenthal (Democrats) at Slate

Most Americans believe that when they sign up for Internet access with a broadband provider, they are paying to access the lawful content and services of their choice. But without crucial protections, the relationship can quickly be reversed—instead of selling their customers access to the Internet, broadband providers can effectively sell privileged, fast access to their customers to the highest bidders. By limiting their subscribers’ access to only the websites that can afford to pay, or by blocking or throttling lawful content, broadband providers have the potential to thwart the Internet’s role as an engine of economic growth, democracy, and free speech.

This is similar to Progressive’s arguments for “climate change” regulations: something might happen in the future. At least with climate change, there is validity to the climate having changed from a cool one to a warm one. The argument is on causation. In this case, nothing has happened, which the two Democrats unintentionally note in the very next paragraph

Internet users have now gone more than a year without crucial protections in place that guarantee their right to access the lawful content and services of their choice. Internet users have now gone more than a year without crucial protections in place that guarantee their right to access the lawful content and services of their choice….

So, let me get this straight: there were no “crucial protections” from Big Government in place for a year, and absolutely nothing bad happened? The Internet continued on just as it had? Innovation and investment continued? People developed apps? Websites started? Free speech was not stifled? In fact, the only ones looking to “thwart the Internet’s role as an engine of economic growth, democracy, and free speech” are the Democrats in favor of net neutrality.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Net Neutrality: A Solution In Search Of A Problem (That Will Create More Problems) »

Posted in Current Affairs, Progressive Goals, Web/Tech | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama Unshockingly Vetoes Keystone XL Pipleline Bill, And You Won’t Believe Why

By William Teach February 24, 2015 – 6:17 pm

It doesn’t get more ironic than this, and took some serious hutzpah (via Hot Air)

https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/570322193957199872

As Allahpundit notes

The bit about “circumventing longstanding processes” is a reference to the loooooooong State Department review — six years and counting — of whether Keystone, which would create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction, is in the “national interest.” That review is supposedly what’s being “cut short” by the bill on Obama’s desk. Although Sean Davis is right: In an era of unilateral presidential lawmaking, Congress attempting to set policy with bipartisan support (this one got 63 votes last month) itself qualifies as “circumventing longstanding processes.”

How many times has Obama stated that since Congress (you know, the body empowered by the Constitution to pass law, as opposed to the Executive Branch, Constitutionally empowered to enforce the law) wouldn’t act, he would? In this reverse case, Congress has every right to pass legislation such as this bill.

Read: Obama Unshockingly Vetoes Keystone XL Pipleline Bill, And You Won’t Believe Why »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 24, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, helpful for getting through the heat created snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on Project Veritas investigating Al Sharpton.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove