Good News: Chris Van Hollen (D) To Push Cap And Trade

Interestingly, he really doesn’t seem to want to pass cap and trade, he just wants to use it for political reasons….hmm, that sounds exactly like what I’ve been saying for years, that “climate change” is primarily a political tool

(CNN) With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the odds of passing a climate change bill this year are virtually non-existent. But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, plans to reintroduce legislation to cap carbon emissions this week, anyway, due in part to the impact it could have on the 2016 election.

“Our goal is to keep attention focused on this issue as we head into this congressional session, and also into the presidential election in 2016,” Van Hollen told CNN, explaining the bill serves as a vehicle for discussion.

Van Hollen’s objective is to force Republicans to address the issue, and he believes they’re slowly coming to the negotiating table. Think Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and her crusade against income inequality to push Hillary Clinton toward embracing a populist mission as she forms an economic platform for her likely presidential bid.

Again, this is about politics, not actually passing legislation that Democrats really want. They could have rammed through cap and trade during the time they fully controlled Congress, 2009-2010, with a Democrat president, much as they rammed through Stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and many other bills. They chose not too.

Yes, there are squishy Republicans who Believe, and like the idea of more Central Government. But, again, as my long running meme, if all these Warmists really believed that “climate change” will doom us, and Mankind is mostly/solely at fault, they’d practice what they preach rather than attempting to force their beliefs on Other People.

Read: Good News: Chris Van Hollen (D) To Push Cap And Trade »

If All You See…

…is a horrid cold warming ocean that will rise up and swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jack Shaw, with a post on Hillary Clinton’s war on women.

Read: If All You See… »

Shocking News: Climate Skeptic Paid By Fossil Fuels Companies

Obviously, this invalidates everything, you guys!

Leading climate change denier was paid by energy companies
Wei-Hock Soon earned more than $1 million publishing erroneous reports

Wei-Hock Soon, a leading climate change denier whose work has fortified right-wing political arguments for years, was paid more than $1.2 million by energy companies, The New York Times reports. New documents uncovered by Greenpeace via the Freedom of Information Act show that over the last decade, Soon received sizable funding from oil and gas corporations, which he failed to disclose in scientific papers he published.

Who else will pay? The government surely won’t. They are in the business of only funding one side, the same as groups like WWF, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. They in no way want anything that diverges in the least from their cultish beliefs

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: ‘What effect do you think the billions of government money flooding into the system has? Why is it government money is seen as ‘pure’ and industry money ‘tainted’, especially when the government far outspends industry. The government is, after all, an interested source. Just think of EPA grants. What will you say of the common practice whereby scientists review grants and also receive them from the same agencies (not simultaneously of course)? Tremendous conflict of interest! Do you recall Eisenhower’s speech where he not only cautioned against the military-industrial complex but also about the corrupting influence of government money?’

I kinda missed the part about “erroneous reports”. Oh, here it is, back to original article

“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” Kert Davies, executive director at the Climate Investigations Center, told the Times. Experts say Woon’s work employs “out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.”

Interesting. It’s called “erroneous” because it refuses to mostly/solely Blame Mankind. Does the Climate Investigations Center fund skeptics to do research? No.

This is a witch hunt designed to discredit people in order to discredit research Warmists do not like, rather than responding directly to the research and rebutting it. No one really cared about James Hansen being funded by Government and the Heinz Foundation. The media collectively yawned at all the errors and lies in multiple IPCC reports.

Yet, these Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.

Read: Shocking News: Climate Skeptic Paid By Fossil Fuels Companies »

DHS Head Johnson: “Violent Extremism” Phrase Came From Muslim Leaders

This would be at Obama’s little summit, which excluded a group of reform Muslims. One which opened with a Muslim prayer, and no prayers from other religions. One which featured Muslims who defended terror groups.

(Fox News) Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on Sunday that President Obama’s decision not to say the actions of the Islamic State is a form of “radical Islam” is at the behest of the Muslim community.

“The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion,” Johnson told “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the terror group also known as Islamic State, or ISIS.

Johnson said the leaders argue their religion is about peace and brotherhood and “resent” that Islamic State is “attempting to hijack that from us.”

Huh. Rather convenient excuse. Is it true? It’s hard to know with Team Obama, since they lie a lot. They also like to Blamestorm a lot, too. This could very well be a typical shifting of blame.

Johnson, who appeared on all of the major Sunday talk shows, also made a similar argument.

“To refer to ISIL as occupying any part of the Islamic theology is playing on a battlefield that they would like us to be on,” he said. “I think that to call them some form of Islam gives the group more dignity than it deserves frankly. It is a terrorist organization.”

Remember when the US refused to identify the Nazis as Nazis, because it would have given them more dignity than they deserved? Of course, the same administration is more than willing to identify domestic political opponents. Such as with the silly “sovereign citizens” report. And the many “right wing terrorists” reports from Obama’s highly politicized DHS has released.

Sidebar: if sovereign citizens hate the police, does that make a good chunk of Black people sovereign citizens and “right wing extremists”?

Anyway, Obama and his team have long avoided linking Islamist extremists to a belief in Islam, well before this confab. Think about that in light of “shifting blame”.

Read: DHS Head Johnson: “Violent Extremism” Phrase Came From Muslim Leaders »

Belief In Witches And UFOs Higher Than For Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan

Most people understand that heavy handed government regulation is a Bad Idea, at least when it comes to that same heavy handed government regulation directly affecting their own lives

(CNS News) Matthew Berry, chief of staff to Federal Communications Commissioner Ajit Pai,pointed out that only nine percent of Americans support the commission’s plan to regulate the Internet.

“More Americans believe in witches (21%) than support Pres. Obama’s Internet regulation plan as it stands (9%),” Berry Tweeted on Friday.

Berry was referring to the findings of a poll conducted over the weekend that found that only nine percent of Americans support the “net neutrality” regulations set for a vote next Thursday. The study was conducted by Hart Research Associates, a Democratic polling firm.

In a 2005 poll looking at beliefs in the paranormal, Gallup found that more than twice that number – 21 percent – of Americans “believe in witches.” The poll also found that 24 percent of Americans believe that “extraterrestrial beings” have visited Earth.

We also find in the poll

  • 56% of Americans do not believe that the government should take a stronger and more active role in overseeing and regulating the Internet. Only 33% favor such government action.
  • 53% of Americans believe that it would be harmful for the FCC to do what President Obama has requested and regulate the Internet using the same authority it has used to regulate telephone service. Only 32% believe taking that step would be helpful.

Those who are in favor are either fools or believe that these draconian and burdensome regulations will make sure that their political opponents and people they do not like will be shut up. 79% also want the FCC to release the actual text of the plan, all 332 pages, prior to the upcoming vote, something the Democrats who run the FCC refuse to do.

Ted Cruz did a great job in explaining why the net neutrality plan is a Bad Idea

Let me tell you another reason. I’ve mentioned that I used to work in the wireless industry, from 1994-2010. I started when it was still called “cellular”.  As time when on, and we hit the late 90’s, the “joke” in the industry was that the USA was 5 years behind the rest of the world. Which was almost true. The rest of the world had jumped into using SMS, MMS, wireless internet, heck, even color displays, way before the US. Why? A couple of reasons. One was that the US is a very big country with a spread population, one which travels on roads quite a bit. Americans wanted coverage. Putting up towers takes capital, and could take up to 2 years to accomplish. It doesn’t happen by magic. There were quite a few considerations, such as “will this tower make money or is it a need tower (such us might be on a major highway, but they would be very spread out. Remember dropping calls on highways?)”. Making sure there were enough channels available to place calls (yes, that is a thing). Oh, and dealing with massive government regulations, requirements, permits, and permission.

I remember a time when a city council member from Wake Forest came in to my store and complained about coverage in WF. A big boss happened to be in store that day, and informed said council member that the council was blocking BellSouth Mobility DCS from building towers in the city limits. Huh.

Another big problem was government regulation overall. The government did a great job in stifling innovation. Hence, most big tech advances in wireless occurred overseas. They had been texting and picture messaging and using the Internet on their phones for years prior to the US getting it. The phones with the most tech tended to be foreign in origin. Ericsson, chief among them. Sony. Nokia. When we finally saw wireless Internet, what is called WAP (wireless access protocol), it had a maximum speed of 14.4kbs, with a true access of 9.6kbs. In other parts of the world it was considerably faster. I could go on and on, but government regulation helped stifle innovation.

Net Neutrality will stifle innovation, drive out business, and be used as a political tool. Those who love the idea of restrictions on content that they do not like should remember that they themselves could end up on the short end.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Belief In Witches And UFOs Higher Than For Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan »

If NYC And Other Big Cities Are Doomed By “Climate Change”, Why Do So Many Warmists Want To Live There?

There’s a new doomy report out about NYC that urges “urgent action”

(Gothamist) We can keep debating global climate change (it’s real!) until the last polar bear takes its final gasping breath. But let’s never forget that this seaside city is in imminent danger—a new study confirms New York’s temperatures are skyrocketing, sea levels are rising, and we’re in for one hell of a grim ride.

The Mayor’s Office has just released this year’s incredibly bleak New York City Panel on Climate Change report today, noting that their findings “underscore the urgency of not only mitigating our contributions to climate change, but adapting our city to its risks.” Not that this should be surprising at this point. Here are some fun things to look forward to, according to the report:

Mean annual temperatures are expected to shoot up by 4.1 to 5.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2050s. By the 2080s, those mean annual temperatures could increase by as much as 8.8 degrees Fahrenheit. For comparison’s sake, mean annual temperature increased a total of 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1900 to 2013, so that’s a pretty big jump in under a century.

The news gets worse. The sea level will increase between 11 inches and 21 inches by the 2050s; by the 2080s, it’ll be up to between 18 and 29 inches, and by 2100, we can expect an increase of between 22 and 50 inches. And if the science gods are against us—and aren’t they always?—that sea level could see a rise as high as six feet by 2100. Bye, Red Hook!

This cause celebre has quickly replaced the “zOMG, we’re doomed from disease due to “climate change”” that had been the talking points for about 4-5 days. And we see this same freakout for many other cities, notably Miami. Yet, Liberals, who are the primary disciples of anthropogenic Hotcoldwetdry, want to be there. Weird, yes?

Interestingly

(Scientific American) The report noted that temperatures in Central Park climbed at a rate of 0.3 F per decade from 1900 to 2013, totaling a 3.4 F rise, but the panel expects those figures to soar, with an increase of 4.1 to 5.7 F by the 2050s and 5.3 to 8.8 F by the 2080s.

The world temperature has gone up around 1.4F since 1850. If NYC has gone up 2 degrees F more in 50 years less, might there be something else at play? Cough *Urban Heat Island Effect* cough.

Read: If NYC And Other Big Cities Are Doomed By “Climate Change”, Why Do So Many Warmists Want To Live There? »

If All You See…

…is a sport that will be devastated by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Scared Monkeys, with a post on Al Shabaab threatening the Mall Of America.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another great day in the Once And Future Nation Of America. It’s big race day, with the Daytona 500 running today. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Flopping Aces has a flashback regarding the Rudy G. controversy
  2. Raised On Hoecakes has a reason you might reconsider buying Girl Scouts cookies
  3. Legal Insurrection has the silliness of the Dems post-2014 massacre plans
  4. Public Secrets has tales from the Nanny State
  5. Patterico has some interesting info on Ebola
  6. Nice Deb discusses concerns about ISIS slipping into the US
  7. Moonbattery features Brigitte Bardot’s fight against Islamism
  8. Jihad Watch has an update on bomb threats against a mosque that made the media crazy
  9. Fire Andrea Mitchell highlights a media double standard
  10. Director Blue has the Huff Post lying directly about illegal aliens
  11. Blazing Cat Fur notes who Obama kept from his terrorism summit
  12. American Power features another big beheading claim by ISIS
  13. 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny has disturbing info on “net neutrality”
  14. Yid With Lid notes Obama’s childishness regarding Netanyahu’s visit
  15. And last, but not least, This ain’t Hell… digs into the silly DHS “right wing extremists” report

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

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

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

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Thank Goodness Uber-white Nicholas Kristoff Is Here To Discuss Your Unconscious White Privilege

Do you think you’re a pretty inclusive kind of person? That you aren’t a racist? Well, sorry, if you’re White, you are a major racist, because of your unconscious mind. Of course, this apparently only applies to White Men

Straight Talk for White Men

SUPERMARKET shoppers are more likely to buy French wine when French music is playing, and to buy German wine when they hear German music. That’s true even though only 14 percent of shoppers say they noticed the music, a study finds.

Researchers discovered that candidates for medical school interviewed on sunny days received much higher ratings than those interviewed on rainy days. Being interviewed on a rainy day was a setback equivalent to having an MCAT score 10 percent lower, according to a new book called “Everyday Bias,” by Howard J. Ross.

Those studies are a reminder that we humans are perhaps less rational than we would like to think, and more prone to the buffeting of unconscious influences. That’s something for those of us who are white men to reflect on when we’re accused of “privilege.”

White men sometimes feel besieged and baffled by these suggestions of systematic advantage. When I wrote a series last year, “When Whites Just Don’t Get It,” the reaction from white men was often indignant: It’s an equal playing field now! Get off our case!

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that unconscious bias remains widespread in ways that systematically benefit both whites and men. So white men get a double dividend, a payoff from both racial and gender biases.

It’s apparently not just White Men over Blacks, but over White Women too. So, shame on you, you evil White Men. You must prostrate yourself and strive to be mediocre in the face of what you do not even know your brain is thinking. It’s a good thing Mr. Kristoff is here to tell us these things. Otherwise I’d be concerned that the NY Times is doing nothing about their Editorial Board, which features one Black person (and he’s a man, too!!!!!) out of 17 members. Even the women on the EB are about as lilly white as can be, so, at least the EB isn’t misogynist, too.

It’s not that we white men are intentionally doing anything wrong, but we do have a penchant for obliviousness about the way we are beneficiaries of systematic unfairness. Maybe that’s because in a race, it’s easy not to notice a tailwind, and white men often go through life with a tailwind, while women and people of color must push against a headwind.

See? You should definitely strive to be mediocre and blah. Because fairness, ya know.

None of these examples mean exactly that society is full of hard-core racists and misogynists. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a Duke University sociologist, aptly calls the present situation “racism without racists”; it could equally be called “misogyny without misogynists.” Of course, there are die-hard racists and misogynists out there, but the bigger problem seems to be well-meaning people who believe in equal rights yet make decisions that inadvertently transmit both racism and sexism.

Whew! I feel much better that my unconscious mind doesn’t make me a hard-core racist and misogynist. I shall strive to be more inferior. Whoops! That’s certainly an unconscious word which exposes that I think I’m better than Blacks and women. Instead, I shall attempt to be unexceptional. Whoa! Yet another unconscious word.

This is Liberal World, where instead of people striving to be better, certain people must be treated in a biased manner to bring them down, everywhere from people who are rich to White People to, especially, White Men. White Men are fair game to be treated in a manner that would be out-of-bounds for any other group. Could we term that unconscious racism and sexism? For all their talk about loving people, Liberals are extremely intolerant, and must always find someone/some group to demonize. I’m not even going to get into their race baiting game at this time, beyond saying that everyone has biases and discriminations. Those can be good or bad. If you like certain foods and wines, and dislike others, you are said to have a discriminating palate. It’s the same in life. But, apparently, only Certain People are allowed to think them.

Let’s be clear: this kind of talk is meant to put White People, and especially White Men, on the defensive, in the same manner as the good old question “when did you stop beating your wife?”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Thank Goodness Uber-white Nicholas Kristoff Is Here To Discuss Your Unconscious White Privilege »

FDA Pushing New Guidelines Based On “Climate Change”

They say they are doing this because of “the environment”, but, what the mean is Hotcoldwetdry

Nutrition panel urges Americans to eat green

Americans should consider the health of the planet along with the health of their hearts when deciding what to eat, according to an expert panel that advises the federal government on nutrition.

It is the first time the advisory committee, which updates its recommendations in a report every five years, has considered the environmental impact of food choices.

Rather than obsess over individual ingredients, the report urges Americans to think about healthy dietary patterns, with more fruits, nuts, legumes, vegetables and whole grains, and less red or processed meat. That type of diet is linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Plant-based diets also use fewer resources, such as land, water and energy, and produce fewer greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. Vegetables also are less likely than livestock to pollute the land, according to the report, issued Thursday.

“We need to think about a sustainable diet that’s supportable and accessible for generations to come,” says committee member Miriam Nelson, a professor of nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. “A sustainable diet is also a very healthy diet.”

The FDA has apparently reached the point where they do not care about your health, they’re more concerned about Hotcoldwetdry.

In all fairness, they do care a bit about the actual environment, too

The report encourages people to consume fish, for example, but to choose kinds that are harvested in ways that avoid “overfishing,” or wiping out a region’s entire supply of a particular species. Although some health advocates are concerned about the risk of mercury contamination from fish, the report finds that the benefits of fish oils for the heart and brain outweigh those concerns.

Over-fishing is an actual real environmental concern, rather than “climate change”.

At the end of the day, though, their ideas about obesity and doing away with red meat are really about “climate change”, rather than being healthier. Fortunately, kids around the country will be the major recipients of this as the guidance changes their school lunches yet again, though, I’m not sure if the lunches could become more unpalatable after Michelle Obama’s push for changes in schools everywhere…well, except in the school her own kids attend.

On a hat tip to Lauren Phillips, who emailed me this Politico article. Unfortunately, that article is dramatically different now then when she sent it on around 6pm on the 19th. I mean, big time different.

Read: FDA Pushing New Guidelines Based On “Climate Change” »

Pirate's Cove