Bubonic Plague Is Like Totally Linked To “Climate Change”

By William Teach February 27, 2015 – 11:08 am

Warmists have been pushing the “climate change will make diseases oh so worse. Doom!” meme hard for the past couple of weeks. No surprise, this crops up almost every year, particularly during the winter. Science 2.0 reprints an article from The Conversation. See if you can guess whats’ missing

Bubonic Plague Linked To Climate Change In Asia

The Black Death struck Europe in 1347, killing 30-50% of the European population in six violent years. 

It wasn’t a one-off epidemic: it signaled the start of the second plague pandemic in Europe that lasted for hundreds of years and only slowly disappeared from the continent after the Great Plague of London in 1665-1666.

These outbreaks were traditionally thought to be caused by rodent reservoirs of infected rats lurking in Europe’s cities, or potentially by rodent reservoirs in the wilderness. But our research, published in the journal PNAS, suggests otherwise.

If the “reservoir” thesis were correct, we would expect plague outbreaks to be associated with local climate fluctuations, through changes in agricultural yields and primary productions in forests, affecting the number of urban and wildlife rodents, resulting in more plague. We found that Europe’s plague outbreaks were indeed associated with climate fluctuations – but in Asia.

The Black Death came to Europe from Asia. Historical records tentatively map it back to outbreaks in 1345 in Astrakhan and Sarai, two trade centers located on the Volga river near the Caspian Sea.

Now, go ahead and read through the rest of the article.

This is the narrative we aimed to substantiate through evidence, but which we ended up challenging. Using tree-ring based climate records from Europe and Asia, we showed that plague reintroductions into European harbors were associated with periods of wet conditions, followed by a drought, across large parts of Central Asia.

OK. Still missing something.

This followed a pattern that we associate with current-day plague outbreaks. What is the implication of such a finding? In terms of our understanding of the past plague pandemics, it provides a different perspective as to how the disease moved across Eurasia, driven by climate events that were and still are frequently occurring.

The implication, as has happened with so many articles about past climate doom, including ones about the Bubonic Plague, is that climate change is Bad and causes lots of problems and look at what is happening now! Doom! What’s not mentioned in most of these articles (such as about the fall of the Roman empire) is that these occurred during a time of cooling. The incredibly deadly Black Death outbreaks, including the one in Asia, occurred during the Little Ice Age, which started around 1300. What these “scientists” are attempting to do is create a link to the Modern Warm Period without providing context and factual data. This is simply scaremongering.

Read: Bubonic Plague Is Like Totally Linked To “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist: “We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” Regarding Cold And Snow

By William Teach February 27, 2015 – 7:52 am

Yet another cultist tells us that all this cold and snow is because you, dear reader, drove a fossil fueled vehicle. Here’s Ann McFeathers

Climate change is all around

Don’t read this if you are among the few who have not been affected by this winter’s wild and wicked weather. You wouldn’t understand.

I am in my kitchen surrounded by pots and pans collecting water from leaks from the relatively new roof I recently paid off. The water is a disgusting shade of brown, of course, and can’t even be used for any good purpose.

But I am extremely grateful the roof itself has not caved in as so many have done in the Northeast.

I can’t drive my car to the grocery store because after I painstakingly dug it out of the snow, the county snowplow finally showed up and pushed the snow from the entire street in front of my carport. AAA cheerfully agrees it may be May before I drive that baby again.

One would think that this might actually give a Warmist pause in thinking about what the causes of the current warm period are. Nope.

Once again, I am mystified by climate change deniers, most of whom are rich or are paid vast sums to serve in Congress or are running for president. Some of them are so incredibly dense they say such things as, duh, there can’t be global warming when it’s so cold outside. Thus they tout their complete ignorance that climate change means more extreme weather patterns and long-term changes that will devastate huge populations.

Interesting. I’m not rich, nor am I paid vast sums to serve in Congress or run for president. In fact, most Skeptics are simply average folks who refuse to buy the line that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period. Some skeptics even hold the view that Mankind is responsible for 51%+ of the current warming. However, they also do not think it reason for scream doom and gloom, pass restrictive laws, rules, and regulations which artificially raise our cost of living and give government more power over our lives. Many understand that a warm period is much better for human development than a cool one. Anyhow, here we go

Climate change doesn’t just mean we’re seeing record warm temperatures year after year. It also means breadbaskets will become arid deserts, coastal towns will flood, tornadoes and hurricanes and tsunamis will become more intense and dangerous.

Interesting. Tornadoes and hurricanes have neither become more intense, nor widespread. Tsunamis? Seriously? The weather mostly has nothing to do with tsunamis. And, of course, the obvious inference, based on the opening paragraphs, is that “climate change” is causing snow and cold

This ongoing winter has been brutal, but as we shovel, mop and repair, a nagging thought occurs: We ain’t seen nuthin yet.

Nothing says “cult!” like blaming brutal snow and cold on heat trapping gases.

BTW, here’s global warming

(CBS Boston) ..a photographer on Nantucket found something most of us have never seen – nearly frozen waves.

Jonathan Nimerfroh was walking along a beach on the island recently when he saw these waves rolling in like slush.

The waves were semi-frozen because there was so much ice inside them.

I blame you for using heat in your big McMansion.

Read: Warmist: “We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” Regarding Cold And Snow »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

Leaving The Internet Unfettered Is Apparently A “Radical Decision”

By William Teach February 27, 2015 – 7:03 am

Liberals who cheer the partisan FCC ruling should remember the decision when their own service is affected

Net neutrality ruling: What it means for you

The Federal Communications Committee voted Thursday to regulate the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, which currently applies to telephone service.

The ruling will enable the FCC to enact new rules that would prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from manipulating how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted along their networks, a huge win for proponents of net neutrality.

Despite the headline, CBS kinda forgot to actually explain. Which is unsurprising, since the actual plan was and still is secret.

President Obama issued a statement praising the decision, which he said “will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs.”

Anytime anyone yammers on about a “level playing field” you know there will be huge numbers of burdensome rules, regulations, and control.

“Why are some companies so against it?” Cherry asked. “I can tell you why, because I used to work for them. It was a real coup in 2002 and 2005 when they got classification as information services. The deregulation gave them the freedom to essentially choose to whom, when, where and what service they’re going to bother to provide.”

Goodness! You mean private companies which spent huge sums of their operating income on developing infrastructure, services, products, apps, etc, would actually be able to run their business? How outrageous!

“This led to and can lead to incentives for unreasonable forms of discrimination. They want to make money every which way they can. That’s why they’ve resisted so heavily getting this Title II classification back.”

Oh, noes, money!!!!!! Profit!!!!!!

It could also affect consumers’ wallets. If, say,Netflix has to pony up money to make sure its video streaming looks seamless on your computer or smart TV, there’s a good chance those surcharges could end up increasing your monthly bill.

Here’s the thing: if a consumer is using way, way, way more bandwidth, is it unreasonable that they should actually pay more for it? Apparently, in Liberal World, the answer is “yes. Gimme!”

“If you let [Internet providers] control this you’re going to destroy the Internet,” Thompson told CBS News. “You’re going to destroy startups. It’s going to be much harder to create an Internet company. This is what American innovation thrives on. This is the part of our economy that is doing really well and if you give the [telecommunications companies] this control it will cut that off.”

Interestingly, despite the Internet providers having all this power over the years, the ‘net has thrived and grown. Some of you young whippersnappers might not remember, but if you go back even to the late 1990’s dial-up was still the primary source of Internet, with a max transmission speed of 52kbs. Few had any sort of broadband. Want to watch a cat video which is supposed to be funny? Start downloading, run out and get dinner. The utter explosion of web activity, speed, and companies preceded without the heavy hand of Government. You can now access the web on your phone at speeds that blow dial-up away, in under 20 years of big development. That’s no easy feat.

Money quote

“The decision is not radical in the sense that to do this legally is radical,” Cherry opined. “It’s undoing a prior radical decision. It’s momentous in terms of politically what it took to get here and the fact that a decision is coming out that is truly in the public interest as opposed to being in the interest of a relatively small number of companies that have a lot of resources to bring to bear.”

Got that? Leaving the operating decisions in the hands of companies and consumers, with very light government regulations, is “radical”.

Those who advocate for this “net neutrality” plan, which is still secret, should be careful about what they wish for: they just might get it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Leaving The Internet Unfettered Is Apparently A “Radical Decision” »

Posted in Democrats, Web/Tech | Comments Off on Leaving The Internet Unfettered Is Apparently A “Radical Decision” | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 26, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a super-wonderful forest which should be replaced with a wind turbine farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on amnesty recipients getting big tax benefits.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Having All Their Arctic Ice Free Prognostications Fail, Warmists Try Another

By William Teach February 26, 2015 – 11:14 am

This one is a doozy

photo facepalm.gif

Read: Having All Their Arctic Ice Free Prognostications Fail, Warmists Try Another »

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

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
Pirate's Cove