If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful bike save all plant life, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post noting that CUNY doesn’t want you to be polite.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Los Federales To Regulate Gas Fireplaces

By William Teach January 31, 2015 – 11:19 am

This is part of the Hotcoldwetdry push, but dovetails nicely into the notion of Progressives being “nice fascists”, ie, they’re being heavy handed in controlling the lives of everyone for your own good

(Daily Caller) Better go out and buy a gas fireplace and stove soon before federal regulations make them more expensive. Federal officials are looking to regulate the energy usage of fake fireplaces as part of the Obama administration’s effort to fight global warming.

The Energy Department has proposed new regulations that would mandate that “gas-fired hearth products” like decorative fireplaces and stoves be more energy efficient and produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. DOE says its rule would save $165 over the lifespan of the average hearth and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 11.1 million metric tons through 2030.

The DOE also notes that the price of gas hearths will likely go up because of its mandate. For example, smaller hearth producers could see the costs of making an outdoor hearth increase by $65 per unit. The cost of a vented indoor hearth could increase by $31 per unit because of the electronic ignition system.

I know what Warmists/Progressives will say: “hey, it’s ONLY $165 over lots and lots of years. It’s a small price for (Other People) to pay to save Earth from certain doom!!!!!!” Yes, it is only $165, and these appliances can be in place for 10 years, 20, 30, and longer. But, you add this to all the other Hotcoldwetdry regulation/rules/laws caused price increases, directly and indirectly, and this becomes a huge chunk of change. And that is getting beyond the notion that any cost increase due to regulations/rules/laws based on junk science is absurd. And, we must remember that all these dink and dunk freedom restrictions add up.

Read: Los Federales To Regulate Gas Fireplaces »

Posted in Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Volcanoes Are Caused By Climate Change, Because You Drove A Fossil Fueled Vehicle

By William Teach January 31, 2015 – 8:19 am

Anthony Watt’s writes that this may well be the stupidest article about climate ever. I’m not so sure about that: I and others, including Anthony, have written extensively about quite a few insane things emanating from the Warmist camp over the years. Nor is this the first time that Warmists have blamed volcanic activity on “climate change”. For instance, this article from Live Science back in 2013. And another from 2012. And we could keep listing them.

But, this is still pretty bat guano insane

How Climate Change Leads to Volcanoes (Really) by Jeffrey Kluger

Give climate change credit for one thing: it’s endlessly versatile. There was a time we called it global warming, which meant what it said: the globe would get warmer. It was only later that we appreciated that a planet running a fever is just like a person running a fever, which is to say it has a whole lot of other symptoms: in this case, droughts, floods, wildfires, habitat disruption, sea level rise, species loss, crop death and more.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/bandwagon/laughing_zps3b740454.gif

That’s so bad it moved beyond Facepalm City.

Now, you can add yet another problem to the climate change hit list: volcanoes. That’s the word from a new study conducted in Iceland and accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The finding is bad news not just for one comparatively remote part of the world, but for everywhere.

As Anthony Watts notes

So, Iceland has had melting glaciers, OK we’ll accept that, but Iceland is not the world, and a good number of volcanoes that have erupted in the last century are in the tropical parts of the world where there are no glaciers on the volcanoes or magma fields, yet somehow, this writer, Jeffrey Kluger, extrapolates Iceland’s glacier melt to volcano link up to to the entire world.

Good point. How, exactly, does land rebound cause so many volcanoes in areas that never were covered by glaciers, such as Montserrat, a volcanic island in the West Indies? Six of 12 volcanic areas were not covered by glaciers during the last glacial age. Hawaii certainly wasn’t. Nor the growing “Son Of Krakatoa”. Nor those in Guatemala, Nicaragua, nor El Salvador and Costa Rica. Nor even those in Mexico. Heck, even most Mediterranean volcanic areas were not covered by glaciers, such as those in Italy, like Mt. Etna.

If you enjoyed that, there’s more of the same coming. At the current pace, the researchers predict, the uplift rate in parts of Iceland will rise to 1.57 in. (40 mm) per year by the middle of the next decade, liberating more calderas and leading to one Eyjafjallajökull-scale blow every seven years. The Earth, we are learning yet again, demands respect. Mess with it and there’s no end to the problems you create.

And there it is, the blamestorming of Mankind. You knew it was coming, even beyond the fact that when Warmists write “climate change”, they are referring to their notion that all weather changes, which, in their fevered fantasy world causes massive land uplift and more volcanic activity, are mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Yet, these same Warmists refuse to give up their modern lifestyles and go carbon neutral.

Yes, land uplift from melting glaciers can have an impact on volcanic activity. Of course. There’s nothing anthropogenic about it, though. This has been going on since the end of the last glacial age 20,000 years ago. What fossil fueled vehicles caused all the Iceland volcanic activity thousands of years ago?

Read: Good News: Volcanoes Are Caused By Climate Change, Because You Drove A Fossil Fueled Vehicle »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Budget Conveniently Blows Off Sequestration

By William Teach January 31, 2015 – 7:51 am

Let’s all remember, Sequestration was very much Obama’s idea in the first place

5 things to know before Obama rolls out his budget Monday

Not included in the list, but briefly mentioned, is the notion that Obama looks to be actually planning on releasing his budget in a timely manner, in what would be a first for being on time. None of his other budgets were released anywhere near when they are supposed to be released. If his budget is actually released on Monday, as the saying goes, question the timing.

IT’S JUST AN OPENING BID

Despite all the hoopla surrounding it, a president’s budget is merely a suggestion. That’s especially true this year, with Obama delivering his multi-trillion-dollar wish list to a Senate and House run by the opposition.

Yet, Obama has mostly refused to negotiate during his previous years, and the Democrat controlled Senate was fine with that, having passed no actual budget during the Obama presidency, relying instead on continuing resolutions, because

MOST OF THE BUDGET IS ON AUTOPILOT

Running federal agencies isn’t even the half of it.

The biggest share of the budget goes to what’s called “mandatory spending” — ongoing payments that don’t need annual approval by Congress. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggies. Others include unemployment checks, food stamps and pensions for veterans and government retirees.

The article also notes that Details Matter, How Much Does The Military Get, and

OBAMA WILL BID HIGH

The president will call for increasing spending on agency operating budgets by 7 percent next year, blowing through limits set in an earlier bipartisan deal.

Previewing the detailed document to be released Monday, the White House said it would call for spending about $74 billion more next year than the painful automatic cuts Obama signed into law in that 2011 deal commonly known as the “sequester.” Those harsh automatic cuts were originally set in motion as a threat that would force bipartisan agreement to replace them with something more sensible, but it didn’t work.

Yes, those “painful cuts”, conveniently forgetting that people have to give up part of their earnings to fund the government, and that we are funding the government well above actual tax revenue collection rates, somewhere to the tune of 30-43 cents for every dollar spent, depending on the source. This is not just an Obama/Democrat problem, let’s be clear on that. Government often spends the People’s Money poorly, in a manner that companies and citizens would not wisely not, where we in charge. That’s a whole other giant post.

Let’s flip over to Jennifer Epstein at Politico

President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget proposal includes $74 billion in discretionary spending above the levels permitted by sequestration, a White House official said Thursday.

The increase amounts to a 7 percent increase over sequestration levels. The budget includes $530 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, an increase of $37 billion over the limits, the official said.

Obama’s defense spending proposal totals $561 billion, $38 billion more than the spending caps.
The announcement provides the first details of how much Obama will propose increasing spending when he releases his full budget proposal on Monday. He’s going to make the case that the next round of automatic spending cuts, which are scheduled to begin in October, should be canceled so Congress can spend more on national security and domestic needs — especially now that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that short-term deficits are shrinking.

Republicans are rejecting that argument, saying the nation’s long-term spending pressures are still a problem and Obama’s proposals do nothing about them. They’d prefer to live within the lower spending limits and are likely to base their own budget proposals on the reduced levels later this year.

At his root, Obama likes to spend (Other People’s) money. He likes the notion of a Big Big Big Central Government.

What this is really about, though, is manufacturing yet another fight with Congressional Republicans, particularly now that the GOP has taken control of the Senate. For all his “yes we can” and kumbaya rhetoric, Obama loves strife. He loves a good fight. He likes to be the one who creates the fight. He’s done virtually nothing in his years in office at any level to propagate the notion of working together. He loves to have an arch-foe, and he’ll create one if necessary. That’s what this budget is about.

What will happen will be that Obama will release his budget, and even before he discusses this with Congress he’ll hit the road and make quite a few campaign style speeches demonizing Congressional Republicans. We’ll hear his standard rhetoric, which we’re all used to from the past 6 six, which will thrill his hardcore Progressive base and have Republicans against him. And, there will be few, if any, negotiations with Republicans at any time afterwards.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Budget Conveniently Blows Off Sequestration »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

New Paper Claims Warming Causes Less “Extreme Weather”

By William Teach January 30, 2015 – 4:01 pm

What’s the difference between weather and extreme weather? First, extreme weather is a way of increasing anxiety and making a big deal in the news media. Yes, Fox News is just as culpable. Second, it is a way to say that every weather event is much, much, much, OMG WE’RE GOING TO DIE worse now due to “carbon emissions”. The Hockey Schtick runs across this new study

A paper published today in Science contradicts the prior belief that global warming, if it resumes, will fuel more intense storms, finding instead that an increase in water vapor and strengthened hydrological cycle will reduce the atmosphere’s ability to perform thermodynamic Work, thus decreasing the formation of intense winds, storms, and hurricanes. The authors demonstrate instead that if warming resumes

“Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms.”The paper adds to many others demonstrating that a warmer climate is a more benign climate with fewer extreme weather events, opposite the claims of climate alarmists. Claims of global warming producing more extreme weather due to “more energy in the system” are refuted by the paper which finds the atmosphere will become “less energetic” and the atmospheric “Carnot engine” will become less efficient at performing Work (such as generating intense winds and storms) due to global warming and a decrease of temperature differentials.

Strange, Warmists are always telling us that a warmer atmosphere fuels more storms and “extreme weather”. Head over and read the whole thing.

And, yes, it is just one paper. Let’s also not forget that the argument is not over warming, but causation. Since Warmists refuse to give up their own fossil fuels use, and go completely carbon neutral, they must not really believe, and instead want to impose their agenda for another reason.

Read: New Paper Claims Warming Causes Less “Extreme Weather” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 30, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible refrigerator, which causes problems for the production of tea and coffee due to warmth in the future, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on the Polaroid President.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Latest Excuse For The Pause: It’s A Fluke

By William Teach January 30, 2015 – 10:00 am

Does this make Excuse #67? There have been so many, and the excuses get thrown around in a willy nilly manner, that it makes it rather difficult to keep track. This comes via Yid with Lid

Are climate models really reliable?

There was a specific problem that puzzled Marotzke [Jochem Marotzke, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg] and his British colleague Piers M. Forster.

“We knew that the surface temperature of the earth has been stagnant for 15 years, whereas the models show progressive warming,” said Marotzke, referring to the problem.

Were the current climate models therefore wrong? Was there a systematic error in the models? Is global warming just a nightmare? Jochem Marotzke didn’t start this research to prove or disprove anything.

“We just wanted to grasp where this discrepancy between models and observations is coming from,” explained the meteorologist, when asked about the motivation for his most recent study.

Just a fluke?

The research team has just published his results in the journal Nature. With the help of a multi-step calculation, Marotzke and Forster ruled out systematic errors in the models. Instead, the researchers now blamed serendipity for the current lull in global warming. On the basis of their calculations, they say there is no reason to doubt current forecasts detailing strong global warming.

For laymen this may sound overly simplistic. Are the scientists just blaming chance because they can’t find another explanation? Marotzke has no problem with his latest findings.

“As meteorologists, we know that chance and chaos dominate the weather. You have to face the fact that chance plays a big role here.”

“It’s important that you can clearly distinguish between what happens randomly and what can be explained – which also improves our models,” he added.

Notice that the researchers are also essentially claiming that the models are correct, it is the observations of real data that are wrong. Something Dr. Roy Spencer noted almost a year ago.

Read: Latest Excuse For The Pause: It’s A Fluke »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Getting Rid Of The Ocare Medical Device Tax Is A Bad Idea

By William Teach January 30, 2015 – 7:03 am

In Liberal World, getting rid of any tax is a bad idea. This comes our way via the extremely well paid people who sit on the low diversity Editorial Board

No Case for Killing the Medical Device Tax

In seeking to dismantle the Affordable Care Act piece by piece, congressional Republicans have placed a high priority on repealing a tax on medical devices that would raise some $29 billion over the next 10 years to help ensure that health reform will not increase the deficit. Repealing the tax is a terrible idea that has been given a veneer of respectability by support from liberal Democrats in states with large concentrations of device manufacturers. They include Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota and Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, among others. President Obama ought to veto any bill that eliminates the tax.

I can think of one reason right off the bat: the costs of imposing the tax will primarily hurt low and middle class Americans, unlike those who get paid very well at the NY Times.

The health reform law imposes a modest 2.3 percent tax on sales of medical devices, to be paid by the manufacturers or importers. It applies to such products as X-ray machines, M.R.I. scanners, pacemakers and artificial hip and knee joints but not to eyeglasses, contact lenses and hearing aids. The $29 billion to be raised from the device industry is less than the amounts to be raised from insurers and drug companies, all of which will benefit from increased business under the act and should pay their fair shares of the cost. If the lost revenues from a repeal of the device tax are offset by reduced spending on other health care programs, as they might well be, many patients could suffer medical or financial harm.

Fair share, huh? The extra costs will be passed on to consumers in some form or fashion.

Some parts of the industry are thriving. In Warsaw, Ind., which bills itself as the “Orthopedic Capital of the World,” demand for artificial hips and knees and other orthopedic devices appears to be growing and companies are scrambling to hire more people.

“Some.” And any extra taxes on the devices increase the cost of the devices. Most taxes and “fees” tend to harm the lower and middle class American citizens. There is bipartisan support for repeal, including Nancy Pelosi. And it is doing harm to medical businesses, despite what is claimed in the editorial.

I bet if the tax was changed to, say, a 2.3% tax on sales of newspapers, which would be paid by the newspaper, you can bet that the Times would be against it in a heartbeat.

Read: NY Times: Say, Getting Rid Of The Ocare Medical Device Tax Is A Bad Idea »

Posted in Healthcare, Wonky Media | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Passes Keystone XL In Bipartisan Fashion

By William Teach January 30, 2015 – 6:42 am

The most recent Keystone XL poll from November 2014 has the public favoring the project by a margin of 59% to 31%. 83% of Republicans favor it, as do 58% of independents, while even 43% of Democrats support. So, of course, Obama is dead set against it

(NY Times) The Senate passed a bill on Thursday to force approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which President Obama is certain to veto in his first official clash with the new Republican-majority Congress.

The five-year fight over the Keystone pipeline has become a proxy for far broader fights over climate change, energy and the economy, and for the conflict between Mr. Obama and congressional Republicans.

The Senate voted 62 to 36 in favor of building the pipeline. Nine Democrats joined 53 Republicans in passing the bill. The passage sends the measure back to the House, which passed a largely similar bill this month. House leaders are deciding whether to pass the Senate bill as is or to hold a conference merging the House and Senate versions into a new bill to be voted on by each chamber.

Those 9 Democrats represent 3 times the number of Republican Senator who voted for the Stimulus plan. In regards to Obamacare , well, zero times nine is still nine, zero being the Republicans who voted for Ocare.

What will O do now? The final bill will probably reach his desk next week

Mr. Obama, who currently retains authority to approve or deny the permitting of the pipeline because it crosses an international border, is expected to veto the bill because it would remove his executive authority to make the final decision. Senate Republicans said that if he vetoed the Keystone bill, they would add it on to another measure this year, like must-pass spending legislation or a broader energy bill.

He’s been playing games for years on this. He said he’d wait on State Department approval. That came in 2014. He said he’d wait on a Nebraska court case. That came through earlier this month. And this excuse and that excuse

Mr. Obama has also said that he wants to wait until a series of reviews by additional cabinet agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Defense, Interior, Homeland Security and Commerce, are complete.

The deadline for those reviews, aimed at determining whether the project is in the national interest, is on Monday.

Those documents seem to be solely political, so, people tend to do what the boss wants.

Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican who is a chief sponsor of the bill, said: “You’ve got Congress approving it on a bipartisan basis. All six states on the route have approved it. The Nebraska court decision is done. The American people overwhelmingly support it. The president has to consider all that when he makes his decision.”

Obama will only consider what his unhinged base wants. And what’s in Obama’s interest. And, in this case, manufacturing a fight with the GOP is probably tops on his list.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Senate Passes Keystone XL In Bipartisan Fashion »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: “Climate Change” To Ruin Valentine’s Day

By William Teach January 29, 2015 – 4:31 pm

It’s not even February and Warmists are already trying to ruin yet another holiday

(UK Guardian) Environmental campaigners are calling for people to declare their love for the planet on 14 February – Valentine’s Day.

The Climate Coalition, made up of more than 100 UK organisations campaigning for action on climate change, is asking people to submit photos of things they love that they fear losing due to the effects of climate change. Submissions so far include photos of rivers, coral reefs, wildlife and “the changing of the seasons”.

photo worf-startrek-facepalm_zps01f51f46.gif

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” To Ruin Valentine’s Day »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove