Warmist Calls For Hotcoldwetdry To Be Human Rights Issue

By William Teach December 13, 2014 – 7:28 pm

No one should ever be too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry. Nor have to deal with the wind, humidity, sunshine, or any weather condition that makes them uncomfortable or frizzes their hair. Personally, I’m getting tired of climate change induced cold and dry which creates lots of static cling

(ABC Australia) MARK COLVIN: The International Bar Association says climate change should become a human rights issue able to be challenged in a court of law.

It says the judiciary is inadequate for those suffering injustice because of global warming.

It will now attempt to draft a new model statute, or law, for people suffering the effects of climate change.

Usually, we can chalk this up to Progressives pushing for more governmental control, dominance if you will, over people. In this case, it appears more towards the ability of lawyers to generate more personal and corporate revenue from suits, based on junk science. By wrapping it into human rights, it makes it easier for them to win. Because, right now, they usually lose. Heck, they usually drop the suits after making a lot of noise.

Read: Warmist Calls For Hotcoldwetdry To Be Human Rights Issue »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 13, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful bike saving a very old city from changes in the weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a brave GOP stance.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Seven Psychological Reasons We Aren’t Tackling Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach December 13, 2014 – 11:02 am

They aren’t the reasons I would use, but, hey, some of them actually make sense. Here’s the Washington Post’s hyper-alarmist, Chris Mooney

The 7 psychological reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change

You may have noticed: We can’t act on climate change. Granted, very devoted people are in Lima, Peru, right now, trying to change that. But inaction has been the norm on this issue, especially in the United States.

Nothing says “we need to act on climate change right friggin’ now!!!!!!!!! like 12000 people taking fossil fueled flights all the way to Lima, eh?

When a gigantic threat is staring you in the face, and you can’t act upon it, it’s safe to assume there’s some sort of mental blockage happening. So what’s the hangup? That’s what a new report from ecoAmerica and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University’s Earth Institute — entitled Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Change Communication – seeks to help us better understand.

Here we go (I’ll leave it to you to hit the link for the full info)

  • Psychological Distance. “People have a hard time thinking about — or acting on — things and events that are perceived as far in the future, physically distant, happening to other people, or involving uncertainty,” (and Warmists tend to push their cult as things that are going to happen 50-100 years from now, usually because their prognostications for things that will happen now fail. Hence the reason they’ve come up with “extreme weather”)
  • Finite Pool of Worry. People, adds the new report, “are able to worry about only so much at any given point.” (doesn’t seem like Warmists are too worried about their own carbon footprints, eh? Just those of Other People)
  • Emotional Numbing. On a related note, we simply can get overloaded emotionally, especially by people constantly trying to make us feel fear and alarm. (90% of Warmist communication is meant to make us feel fear and alarm)
  • Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning. People also have a tendency to “seek out or absorb only the information that matches their mental model, confirming what they already believe to be true,” (funny thing is, Warmists still fail to follow through and put their beliefs into practice)
  • Defaults. We’re also terribly biased in favor of the status quo, of doing things the way they’ve always been done. (silly us for not wanting to destroy our modern lifestyles for a phony political issue)
  • Discounting. Economists have long noted that when you introduce a time element into considerations, people value money differently. (they’re positing that people discount the dire, fear-mongering prognostications because this will happen in the future)
  • Ideology. Finally, researchers have increasingly focused on ideology itself as a psychological phenomenon. After all, political beliefs are deeply felt and highly emotional, and yet we rarely even know why a certain conclusion feels so right to us, even as another person can feel just as strongly about the opposite view. (Warmists rarely know why, they can rarely explain their positions, they just regurgitate talking points)

Interesting choices. I would certainly add

  • Why would I take action when Warmists won’t in their own lives?
  • Why should we take action when 95% of computer models have failed?
  • Why should we destroy economies and hand over our liberty based on junk science, emotionally based arguments, and disingenuous data?

 

Read: Seven Psychological Reasons We Aren’t Tackling Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bolivian President Blames Capitalism For “Climate Change”

By William Teach December 13, 2014 – 7:33 am

Many scoff when I and other Skeptics say “climate change” is primarily a political movement based on far left ideology, an ideology that despises capitalism (all while buying lots of stuff for themselves). A few Warmists have been honest, ones like Naomi Klein, who says specifically that capitalism must be destroyed to save Gaia from getting a fever. Here’s another

(Reason) Evo Morales, the president of the Plurinational Republic of Bolivia, is a superstar politician here at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP-20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The press gaggle follows him around like puppies and enthusiastically applauds his unrelenting diatribes against rich industrialized countries. The headline is a quotation taken from Morales’ response to being asked at a press conference if he was optimistic about the summit meeting here in Lima? “The deep causes of global warming are not being dealt with here. The origin of global warming lies in capitalism,” asserted Morales. “If we could end capitalism then we would have a solution.”

Morales has long been an enemy of capitalism, constantly yammering on about it and wanting to destroy it

Morales further observed, “After thirty years of negotiations, global warming is still going on.” He added, “So many people and countries do not act responsibly. They are only thinking about profits, luxuries, and markets. They are not thinking about life, but only of money and how to accumulate more capital.”

Say, I wonder how he traveled from Bolivia to Lima. He sure didn’t walk.

Morales is just expressing the opinion of so many Warmists, who are also primarily Progressives. We see these anti-capitalists show up at all sorts of Leftist demonstrations, such as Occupy Wall Street, the Ferguson protests, and the Eric Garner ones. And “climate change” demonstrations.

Read: Bolivian President Blames Capitalism For “Climate Change” »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

It’s Official: Men Engage In Significantly More Risky Behavior Than Women

By William Teach December 13, 2014 – 6:59 am

I think we all kinda knew this

(Washington Post) Here it is, scientific proof that a Y chromosome makes you dumb. (No, not really).

Every year, the British Medical Journal puts out an especially, shall we say, whimsical edition in honor of the holiday season. All of the studies therein are subject to the same standards as usual, but they tend to be a bit goofier than the prestigious journal’s usual fare. Previous BMJ holiday papers have included an investigation of how much James Bond actually drank (the conclusion: too much to be the sharp-shooting Don Juan we know him to be), a look at the genetic characteristics of magic in the “Harry Potter” series, and a study recording different responses to the sight of a man on a unicycle.

This year does not disappoint: On Thursday, BMJ published “The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour,” a systematic (but tongue-in-cheek) evaluation of the balance in male and female recipients of the “Darwin Award.” For the uninitiated, this misanthropic award is given posthumously to those who have supposedly improved the gene pool by removing themselves from it.

Led by a group of (male) researchers, the study investigated “male idiot theory” (MIT) using the Darwin Awards as a subject pool. Sure enough, there were more male winners — significantly more.

Of 318 confirmed Darwin Awards, 282 were awarded to males. That’s 88.7 percent of the award populations. What a bias!

Here’s the abstract of this paper

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

There are some limitations to the study

However, this study has limitations. One of the weaknesses is the retrospective nature of the data collection. One alternative explanation for the marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners is that there is some kind of selection bias. Women may be more likely to nominate men for a Darwin Award, or there may be some selection bias within the Darwin Awards Committee. In addition, there may be some kind of reporting bias. Idiotic male candidates may be more newsworthy than idiotic female Darwin Award candidates.

And alcohol may be involved

In addition, alcohol may play an important part in many of the events leading to a Darwin Award. It is conceivable that the sex difference is attributable to sociobehavioural differences in alcohol use. Anecdotal data support the hypothesis that alcohol makes men feel “bulletproof” after a few drinks, and it would be naïve to rule this out. For example, the three men who played a variation on Russian roulette alternately taking shots of alcohol and then stamping on an unexploded Cambodian land mine. (Spoiler alert: the mine eventually exploded, demolishing the bar and killing all three men.) Unfortunately the data on alcohol consumption are incomplete and do not permit testing for sex differences after adjustment for differences in alcohol consumption between the sexes.

You can see a good list of Darwin Award winners here. Not mentioned is one of my favorites, where a suicide bomber fell down the stairs after strapping his vest on, setting it off and killing himself and housemates, prematurely taking himself out of the gene pool.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: It’s Official: Men Engage In Significantly More Risky Behavior Than Women »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | Comments Off on It’s Official: Men Engage In Significantly More Risky Behavior Than Women | Trackback URL

Sigh: Can Yoga Solve Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach December 12, 2014 – 5:19 pm

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/543419037280370688

Yoga pants might!

Read: Sigh: Can Yoga Solve Hotcoldwetdry? »

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

Rep. Jackie Spears (D-Ca): Let’s Apologize To Terrorists For CIA Torture

By William Teach December 12, 2014 – 2:30 pm

Hey, she’s just saying what Liberals are thinking. Via Hot Air, where you can watch the video

Speier: Every single page had something in the executive summary that shocked me. Whether it was the rehydration anally or keeping them sleep deprived for one-hundred and eighty hours with their hands over their head in shackles. That is not what this country is about and we have got to shut this down.

MSNBC host: Should the agency issue an apology?

Speier: Absolutely.

Since the people involved were terrorists, primarily members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, she wants the CIA to apologize to them. As Noah Rothman noted at Hot Air

To whom should this apology be directed? Since all of the individuals subjected to EIT’s were not revealed in the SSCI report, would this be a blanket apology to anyone suspected of involvement in al-Qaeda who was interrogated by CIA operatives or their associates? If his were to occur, it might undermine the efforts to protect the identities of CIA operatives who engaged in questionable practices. Most of their names were redacted from the Senate committee’s report. If this is what Speier is advocating, that is the most ill-considered proposal we’ve heard from the left since at least Tuesday.

These complexities are why an apology will not be forthcoming, but Speier probably knew that. All she hoped to accomplish was to nurse her sense of moral superiority. Mission accomplished.

Maybe she should try apologizing to Islamic terrorists in person. I have a feeling that wouldn’t go so well.

Read: Rep. Jackie Spears (D-Ca): Let’s Apologize To Terrorists For CIA Torture »

Posted in Democrats, Dhimmitude, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful carbon friendly bicycle riding over the desertified remains of land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post wondering if we’re turning our boys into cupcakes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Is Messing Up Your Christmas Tree

By William Teach December 12, 2014 – 9:59 am

Bad me, I missed this one back on December 1st, whereas Warmists started their typical “let’s ruin Christmas by interjecting “climate change” into the season” schtick

Climate Change Is Messing Up Your Christmas Tree

Owners of spotty and bare Christmas trees this winter can blame the California drought. Farmers say they’ve noted “dry spots” and other signs of stress in many trees, particularly those five feet and taller (buyers should plan on watering them immediately for best results). In many parts of the country, the drought also means a price hike of as much as 10 percent. Looks like climate change is the real War on Christmas.

The article then refers readers over to NBC San Diego for more confirmation of their insane cult. Of course, there’s a bit of a problem with this: even the NOAA was forced to admit that the cause of the drought was natural, not manmade. Warmists have caterwauled incessantly, blaming the drought on Mankind, but, as usual, they’re wrong.

Meanwhile, in The Phillipines

Albay is going camote this Christmas. A 40-foot Christmas tree layered with 3,000 black nursery bags of camote (sweet potato) tops and adorned with huge white lanterns and lights has been put up at Peñaranda Park in front of the provincial capitol in Legazpi City, ushering in the monthlong holiday celebration in the province.

Known as Karangahan Festival, the celebration features indigenous materials as a way of raising awareness on a clean and green environment, according to Gov. Joey Salceda. Karangahan was coined from the Bicolano root word ranga, meaning endearment, and when used to refer to the festival, it means “endearment to culture, arts and nature.”

For its Christmas tree in 2011, the first time the festival was held, the provincial government used empty fuel drums. In the next two years, it tapped pili saplings and coconut shells.

They just can’t help themselves in being bat guano insane. If they really cared, they would stop exporting camote, which requires vast amounts of fossil fuels.

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Is Messing Up Your Christmas Tree »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Is Messing Up Your Christmas Tree | Trackback URL

Almost Half The States Now Part Of Lawsuit Against Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Order

By William Teach December 12, 2014 – 7:14 am

Recently I noted that there were 16 States suing over Obama’s unilateral executive amnesty. Now…

(Fox News Latino by way of AP) Four more states have joined a Texas-led coalition suing the Obama administration over executive action on immigration.

The addition of Arkansas, Michigan, North Dakota and Oklahoma brings to 24 the number of states fighting the order in a federal district court in Brownsville.

Announced last month, the president’s unilateral move is designed to spare millions of people living illegally in the United States from deportation. But the lawsuit accuses the White House of “trampling” the U.S. Constitution.

Along with Texas, we have Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

I have a recommendation: all the states that do not want to sue can have all the illegals. Let them pay for the cost. California and New York are states that apparently love illegals, and a good chunk end up in those states. They can have them if they want to go along with Obama’s supposed executive action. Why supposed? I also mentioned that the Executive Orders he supposedly signed still do not seem to exist

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of President Obama’s move to provide amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants, expressed astonishment Monday and ridiculed the administration for not carrying out the action through an executive order.

In remarks made at the Washington office of the government-watchdog group Judicial Watch, Sessions said: “I guess they just whispered in the ear of (DHS Director) Jeh Johnson over at Homeland Security, ‘Just put out a memo. That way we don’t have to enforce the law.’”

The news that Obama had not signed an executive order to carry out the policy he announced to the nation in a televised address Nov. 20 was broken by WND Senior Staff Writer Jerome Corsi last week.

He doesn’t actually need an EO, just a bunch of memos directing agencies to, well, fail to follow federal law, to enforce the law, in order to be sued. Remember, though, that he made a Big Deal out of saying he was doing this through Executive action.

Read: Almost Half The States Now Part Of Lawsuit Against Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Order »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove