Bummer: 2014 Hottest For Britain!!!!!!!!!

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 2:46 pm

Obviously, this means we’re doomed

(Raw Story) Last year was Britain’s warmest since records began in 1910, the Met Office weather agency said.

Sooooooo, we have a record that only goes back to 1910, 60 years into a typical Holocene warm period? Seriously? No one in England has records before than? Actually, there are, if we look at the Central England Temperature (CET) record, but that is only constructed back to 1659, so we do not have precise data for the Medieval Warm Period for comparison. Which, interestingly, shows big high temperature spikes in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

Provisional full year figures put the mean temperature in 2014 at 9.9 degrees Celsius (49.82 degrees Fahrenheit), 0.2 degrees higher than the previous record set in 2006.

Turn your heat up 0.2 degrees C and see if you can feel it.

Know what this all means? Nothing. There’s nothing abnormal about a Holocene Warm Period, and without actual data from previous warm periods, Warmists can only bloviate and assume that Mankind is causing this one.

Read: Bummer: 2014 Hottest For Britain!!!!!!!!! »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a tent that would be a perfect home for Everyone Else to live in to commune with the climate, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on left wing loons protesting the teaching of economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Five Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 11:05 am

I ran across this one at College Humor, which almost perfectly describes the “climate change” cult

5 Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult

Thanks to some recent events, I’ve come to recognize that much of my life has been spent brainwashed by a cult. In an effort to save others from suffering the same fate as me, I have decided to share with you today some telltale warning signs I noticed during my time on the inside. If you recognize any of these in your own life, please seek help.

What are they?

1. You’re Expected To Follow Blindly

Faith and trust are paramount precepts of any cult. The group practices the same habits, reads the same literature, and studies the same canon. Objectors are shunned as outcasts. Even when all logic suggests that something will not live up to the divine expectations set forth by the cause, you’re still expected to treat it like it will be something worthy of worship. It’s a dangerous cycle that leads to huge amounts of disappointment and heartache.

Sounds perfectly like the Warmist cult. And all Progressives.

2. You’re Required To Recruit Others To Your Cause

Well, Warmists are necessarily required, but they sure try. Though, being obnoxious, demeaning, and abusive is a strange way to do it.

3. You Follow A Clearly Insane Leader

Are Warmist leaders insane? They’re certainly hypocritical. Of course, if you’re constantly talking about doom and gloom and predicting doom and gloom and things like the 6th great extinction from a tiny rise in CO2 and temperatures, well, you might just be insane. And, one of the definitions is extreme folly or unreasonableness. Another is something utterly foolish or unreasonable.

4. The Other Members’ Devotion Leads To Violent Behaviors

Most Warmists aren’t necessarily violent, yet, they often threaten violence against those who do not believe, as well as advocating violence, jailing, and re-education camps for those who do not Believe. They even advocate killing those who do not Believe. The post violent video’s like 10:10’s No Pressure. Some advocate population reduction, particularly in Africa and other 3rd World areas. Let’s also not forget the attack by crazed eco-terrorist James Jay Lee on the Discovery Channel headquarters.

By their own standards, they are violent against Mother Earth, as they drive around in fossil fueled vehicles, take fossil fueled flights, waste energy and water, and leave litter everywhere.

5. You Invest Large Sums Of Money Into These Beliefs

Well, really, in the case of Warmists, they mostly invest large sums of other people’s money into these beliefs, though a few, such as Tom Steyer, waste huge sums of their own money.

Read: Five Warning Signs You’ve Joined A Cult »

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

Warmist Lawrence Summers: With Gas Prices Low, Now Is Totally Time For A Carbon Tax

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 7:47 am

Of course, every time is time for a carbon tax in Warmist World. And, yes, this is the same Lawrence Summers who advised Obama from 2009-2010 as the economy cratered and Democrats authorized their trillion dollars in stimulus that failed

(Washington Post) The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling. With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.

This is one of those “the debate is over” moments. So, if the only debate that’s allowed is how big the tax on “carbon” will be, I recommend we hold a national vote on it, and that the tax is $5 per gallon for anyone who votes in the affirmative for a carbon tax. Everyone else will be given the option to pay whatever they’d like.

The core of the case for taxation is the recognition that those who use carbon-based fuels or products do not bear all the costs of their actions. Carbon emissions exacerbate global climate change. In many cases, they contribute to local pollution problems that harm human health. Getting fossil fuels out of the ground involves both accident risks and environmental challenges. And even with the substantial recent increases in U.S. oil production, we remain a net importer. Any increase in our consumption raises our dependence on Middle East producers.

So, Warmists like Summers should be thrilled to pay a tax themselves. Why aren’t they doing that now? Better (and rather inconvenient for Warmists) question, why haven’t they given up fossil fuels and gone “carbon neutral” themselves?

All of us, when we drive our cars, heat our homes or use fossil fuels in more indirect ways, create these costs without paying for them. It follows that we overuse these fuels. Advocating a carbon tax is not some kind of argument for government planning; it is the logic of the market: That which is not paid for is overused. Even if the government had no need or use for revenue, it could make the economy function better by levying carbon taxes and rebating the money to taxpayers.

Did he just inadvertently call Warmists like himself hypocrites? Good luck getting that money back from the government.

While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on balance, raised the incomes of Americans, it has also exacerbated the problem of energy overuse. The benefit of imposing carbon taxes is therefore enhanced.

I have to wonder if he simply wrote the piece and forgot to read before publishing. If falling energy prices is good for the incomes of Americans, exactly why would adding a tax, artificially raising the cost of living to Americans, be a good thing?

Progressives who are most concerned about climate change should rally to a carbon tax. Conservatives who believe in the power of markets should favor carbon taxes on market principles. And Americans who want to see their country lead on the energy and climate issues that are crucial to the world this century should want to be in the vanguard on carbon taxes. Now is the time.

Notice he fails to say that Progressives should actually pay carbon taxes themselves. As for Conservatives, how is a forced tax. implemented by government, again, artificially raising the cost of living, be anything resembling the power of the market? At the end of the day, when climate change is compared to other issues, it tends to come in next to last, last, or not even appear.

Read: Warmist Lawrence Summers: With Gas Prices Low, Now Is Totally Time For A Carbon Tax »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Harvard Employees Who Pushed Ocare Appalled At Notion Of Using Ocare For Themselves

By William Teach January 6, 2015 – 7:26 am

Obamacare, ie, The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, is one of those notions that Liberals will defend to the death. Well, someone else’s death. Because they think Ocare is great for Other People, not themselves

(NY Times) For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?

“Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,” said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because “Harvard was and remains a very generous employer.”

One professor calls this tantamount to a pay cut. Welcome to the real world, Harvard employees, where the policies you pushed and supported for That Guy have come back to bite you in sensitive areas. There are quite a few quotes from Harvard employees, making me wonder how it was possible for this article to get published in the Times. I’d expect this more at the Daily Caller, Breitbart, Wall Street Journal, or some right leaning source.

Meredith B. Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said she was puzzled by the outcry. “The changes in Harvard faculty benefits are parallel to changes that all Americans are seeing,” she said. “Indeed, they have come to our front door much later than to others.”

But in her view, there are drawbacks to the Harvard plan and others like it that require consumers to pay a share of health care costs at the time of service. “Consumer cost-sharing is a blunt instrument,” Professor Rosenthal said. “It will save money, but we have strong evidence that when faced with high out-of-pocket costs, consumers make choices that do not appear to be in their best interests in terms of health.”

So, they understand, but they shouldn’t be punished with the same type of insurance forced on everyone else.

“None of us who protested was motivated by our own bottom line so much as by the principle,” Ms. Lewis said, expressing concern about the impact of the changes on lower-paid employees.

This is a good time for the quote of 2013, and one of the best regarding Ocare: “Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Harvard Employees Who Pushed Ocare Appalled At Notion Of Using Ocare For Themselves »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 5, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooding world dominated by extreme waves, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on Blue state blues.

Read: If All You See… »

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

LA Times Offers Simple Way To Fix Congressional Gridlock

By William Teach January 5, 2015 – 11:58 am

If you’re like me, you probably gave a little sigh, maybe a bit of a jaw rub, perhaps a full facepalm, thinking that the LA Times suddenly is concerned about gridlock now that Democrats are in the minority, because they want to make sure that Democrats are able to get their legislation passed. And that’s certainly a valid thought. But, wait a minute, this is actually a rather good idea. Interesting that they didn’t bring it up when Democrats had some measure of control

(LA Times) There is a far simpler measure reform-minded members of Congress should consider: Replace the committee selection process and seniority rules with a system in which legislators are assigned to committees via a random draw. This straightforward reform, requiring nothing more than a change in each chamber’s rules, would go a long way toward restoring Congress’ power and relevance.

Committees are where much of Congress’ work gets done, where legislators debate technical language in bills and horse trade. Committees shape the legislative agenda, deciding, with limited exception, which bills the floor may consider.

Congress’ practice is to allow the two parties’ leadership-controlled steering committees to assign legislators to committees, which gives the leadership leverage over rank-and-file members. Breaking party leaders’ hold on committee assignments would reduce the pressure legislators feel to vote the party line instead of their personal or district preferences.

As Brian Feinstein notes, this would also reduce fundraising loads, as well as the ass kissing of Party leaders maneuvering by Congress critters for plum assignments. And, while committees would certainly lose some expertise

Perhaps most important, committees with randomly assigned members would be more likely to draft bills that reflect the broad preferences of Congress, and could therefore actually make it into law. The process would encourage compromise and dampen the influence of special interests.

It’s actually not that bad of an idea, but, I do have to question the timing, in that this idea didn’t come up during the tenure of Reid nor Pelosi and their clenched fist control. Perhaps it’s just serendipity. Ideas happen. Much like instituting a flat or fair tax, limiting the power of Congress over citizens and private entities, limiting the power of Party leaders over rank and file would be a good thing.

Of course, Congressional gridlock is rather a good thing, limiting the effect a far off Congress divorced from the Citizens.

Read: LA Times Offers Simple Way To Fix Congressional Gridlock »

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Alters Taste Of Wine

By William Teach January 5, 2015 – 9:59 am

Because, as we all know, the climate has been perfectly stable over the last 4.5 billion years, until the invention of the fossil fueled vehicle

Global warming alters wine taste

Grapes such as pinot noir, merlot and chardonnay are now growing more quickly, subtly changing the compounds produced as they ripen and the synchronisation between maximum flavour and the ratio of sugar to acid, scientists said.

An increasing number of vineyards are thus struggling to identify the perfect moment for picking the grapes to ensure their wines retain their characteristic flavours, according to research by Kimberly Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University in Sweden.

“Climate change is beginning to affect the singular flavours that people expect from different wines the experience you come to know and trust from your favourite reds and whites,” Ms Nicholas said in a report in Scientific American.

Well, that’s it, we need to Do Something, to Spread Awareness, to pass regulations and restrictions on Other People!

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Alters Taste Of Wine »

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

Dems Push Keystone XL Amendments That Could Make It Hard For Obama To Veto

By William Teach January 5, 2015 – 8:38 am

One of the first things that will be taken up by the new GOP controlled Senate is legislation authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which has become a cause celebre amongst Leftist activists. Why? It’s just one of those things, considering there are many other big pipeline projects that are being built or will soon be built, all without the same level of hysteria from the activists. Keystone has been approved many times through many studies, yet Mr. Obama has put off a decision. Congress has the statutory ability to authorize construction, and Democrats may help

(Politico) Senate Democrats are floating a handful of amendments to a Republican Keystone XL pipeline bill to prohibit exports of the Canadian oil and to push green energy as they prepare to take on the role of the minority party of the upper chamber.

“Consideration of this bill will provide us with the first opportunity to demonstrate that we will be united, energetic and effective in offering amendments that create a clear contrast with the Republican majority,” Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Vice Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) wrote Democratic colleagues Sunday in a letter obtained by POLITICO.

The coming days will be an important initial test for incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has pledged to have an open amendment process after he and Republicans frequently criticized how former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran things.

Some of the amendments may pass, some will surely fail. You can see the main 5 that Democrats will offer up at the Politico link. Some are meant to be poison pills, but, if McConnell allows debate, something Harry Reid often refused to allow, Democrats can’t complain. The GOP could simply ramrod the legislation through, they have the votes, much as Democrats did during Harry Reid’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader. If the GOP can peel off some Democrats and get them to vote for Keystone, it will make it much harder for Obama to veto the bill.

Read: Dems Push Keystone XL Amendments That Could Make It Hard For Obama To Veto »

Posted in Energy | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Being “Arrested WIthout Incident” Is Totally Like #WhitePrivilege

By William Teach January 5, 2015 – 8:10 am

So, here’s the deal: if you are arrested without being shot by a police officer, you must be Caucasian, so says the NY Times’ Charles Blow

Privilege of ‘Arrest Without Incident’

The day after Christmas, a shooter terrorized the streets of a Chattanooga, Tenn., neighborhood. According to the local newspaper, the shooter was “wearing body armor” and “firing multiple shots out her window at people and cars.” One witness told the paper that the shooter was “holding a gun out of the window as if it were a cigarette.”

She fired at many vehicles, then led the police on a chase, even pointing her gun at officers at one point.

Surely this was not going to end well. We’ve all seen in recent months what came of people who did far less. Surely in this case officers would have been justified in using whatever force they saw fit. Right?

According to the paper, the shooter was “taken into custody without incident or injury.”

Who was this shooter anyway? Julia Shields, a 45-year-old white woman.

Take a moment and consider this. Take a long moment. It is a good thing that officers took her in “without incident or injury,” of course, but can we imagine that result being universally the case if a shooter looks different? Would this episode have ended this way if the shooter had been male, or black, or both?

What he forgets to tell you is that the officers told her to drop the weapon, and she did. Just like happens many many times, regardless of race. We just usually do not hear much about these situations, because they are not quite as sensational.

It’s an unanswerable question, but nevertheless one that deserves pondering. Every case is different. Police officers are human beings making split-second decisions — often informed by fears — about when to use force and the degree of that force.

Here’s an answer: cops in more suburban and rural areas are often on less of a hair trigger than those in deep Democrat cities, which have lots of crime and violence on a constant basis.

But that truth is also the trap. How and why are our fears constructed and activated? The American mind has been poisoned, from this country’s birth, against minority populations. People of color, particularly African-American men, have been caught up in a twister of macroaggressions and micro ones. No amount of ignoring can alleviate it; no amount of achieving can ameliorate it.

Strange since so many of those “macroaggressions and micro ones” tend to occur in Deep Blue cities, eh? Charles goes through the list of the outrages, Michael Brown, Eric Garner (who was not shot), Tamir Rice, Antonio Martin, and several others. All in Democrat areas.

Maybe one could argue that in some of those cases the officers were within their rights to respond with lethal force. Maybe. But shouldn’t the use of force have equal application? Shouldn’t it be color- and gender-blind? Shouldn’t more people, in equal measures, be taken in and not taken out?

Blow himself wrote it earlier (before qualifying it with raaaaacism), cops must make split second decisions. Sometimes that means shooting the perp. Sometimes, it means taking them into custody.

Why weren’t these black men, any of them, the recipients of the same use of force — or lack thereof — as Julia Shields?

Well, maybe you folks in Deep Blue Liberal areas should work on your racism.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Being “Arrested WIthout Incident” Is Totally Like #WhitePrivilege »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove