If All You See…

By William Teach December 2, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid fire which causes climate change and kills bears, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post noting that Ferguson is become a revolutionary tourist wonderland

Read: If All You See… »

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

NY Times: Know What’s Awesome? Hydrogen Cars

By William Teach December 2, 2014 – 9:53 am

But, hey, some of you critics are just so shortsighted, says the Editorial Board, who probably haven’t given up their own use of fossil fuels for their vehicles

Hydrogen Cars, Coming Down the Pike

The once-distant promise of clean, affordable hydrogen-powered cars is starting to become a reality.

Several major automakers, including Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, have started or will soon start selling these cars, which will be more expensive than comparable gasoline models but a lot cheaper than they were just a few years ago.

Hey, this is a great opportunity for limo liberals to Show They Care. Of course, this is what the big power using folks at the Times care about

The broad adoption of hydrogen-powered cars, which emit only water and heat, could play an important role, along with electric vehicles, in lowering emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants responsible for climate change. Cars and other modes of transportation account for about 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, second only to power plants, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Yeah, you didn’t think I would care that much about the editorial without “climate change”, right? Of course, they ignore the fact that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, and adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could actually have a big effect on warming. Stress could, because the studies really do not exist except as possible models. A lot would depend on where the vapor goes, whether it stays lower in the atmosphere and creates more of an urban heat island effect, or goes into the upper atmosphere and messes with the global trapping of heat.

Most hydrogen today is created from natural gas in a process that generates carbon dioxide. But scientists say fuel cells are still good for the environment, because making hydrogen produces far fewer emissions than burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen could be produced more cleanly by using alternative energy sources like solar and wind power to split water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. And it can be generated from renewable sources like sewage and animal waste.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Perhaps far in the future. And they may well be minimizing the release of CO2 from the process of releasing hydrogen. One article notes

Then again, hydrogen isn’t always clean to produce. It’s expensive to pull hydrogen from water. Non-renewable sources of hydrogen, such as oil and natural gas, are much cheaper, but using them still puts a drain on our fossil fuels supplies. Ironically, the carbon dioxide released in the process of producing hydrogen from fossil fuels cancels out any benefits to the environment. Experts say hydrogen that escapes during the production process could erode the ozone layer even further and exacerbate global warming [source: PBS]. There are other problems as well: Scientists are still struggling with the challenge of how to store hydrogen. Because it has such a low energy density, hydrogen needs to be stored and transported under high pressure — which makes it bulky and impractical. The pressure issue compounds another issue with hydrogen energy; like gas, hydrogen is highly flammable, but unlike gas, it has no smell. Sensors must be used to detect a leak before hydrogen can combust. Another issue is the need to provide enough refueling stations to supply all the hydrogen-powered cars throughout the country. Are hydrogen fuel producers willing to put a hydrogen station on virtually every corner?

Huh. So also bad for the ozone.

But cost isn’t the only problem. There are just 13 hydrogen fueling stations in the United States today, according to the Department of Energy. Big investments will be needed, and some are on the drawing board. The state ofCalifornia, where many of the first fuel-cell cars will be sold, plans to spend up to $200 million to build 100 fueling stations in a decade. Countries likeJapan and Germany are also investing in refueling stations. And car companies like Toyota and Honda are providing loans to help their business partners build hydrogen stations.

In other words, they want Government to pony up. According to this source, there are more than 13, but still not even close to being able to make it viable. Oh, and then there’s the part about it being tough to transport, tough to store, and highly flammable. Say, remember what the Hindenburg was full of? Hydrogen. And you won’t be able to smell a leak.

Some critics of hydrogen cars say they remain expensive and impractical compared with electric vehicles, which can be plugged into the existing electricity system. But that is shortsighted. The real competition for hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles is the gas guzzler. There is little doubt that the world will need many transformative technologies to deal with climate change.

I’ll agree, we do need something transformative. I’ve said time and time again I’m not a big fan of fossil fuels, they are dirty to the environment, and I’m not talking about greenhouse gases. Hydrogen, though, has too many dangers, such as …. being highly flammable. When it comes to “climate change”, though, we also learn

To produce usable hydrogen, it has to be separated from water, biomass (plant and animal waste), coal, or natural gas. About 95 percent of the hydrogen used today is produced by a process called steam reforming — separating hydrogen atoms from carbon atoms in methane [source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory]. This process releases greenhouse gasses, which contributes to global warming.

The other production method, electrolysis, separates hydrogen from water. Electrolysis can be powered by renewable energy such as wind, hydropower and solar energy, so that it produces no emissions. The downside is that it’s expensive. For hydrogen to reach its full potential as an energy source, scientists need to figure out a way to produce it inexpensively from clean, renewable sources.

That’s not sounding too impressive, and what happens when they start using water for this, leaving less for drinking and stuff, much like they are using food to create ethanol?

On the plus side, hydrogen is much more prevalent than fossil fuels. And, it is certainly clearer for the actual environment. It also provides roughly double the efficiency of fossil fuels (which is, itself, much, much more efficient than ethanol).

There are certainly pros and cons, but, hey, according to the NY Times, if you fail to get 100% behind hydrogen power, you’re a stupid meany critic and shortsighted. They do not want debate and discourse, they want people to shut the hell up and get in line.

Read: NY Times: Know What’s Awesome? Hydrogen Cars »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Energy, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

We Can Blame Barbie For Rape Culture And “Climate Change”

By William Teach December 2, 2014 – 9:28 am

The Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt catches something wonky from the Aussie Greens

The Greens really are ridiculous, hysterically accusing Barbie of secretly sneaking out of the toy basket to help bash women and steal their pay:

GREENS Senator Larissa Waters has urged Christmas shoppers to rethink buying bright pink jewellery or dolls for little girls, linking gender-stereotyped toys to domestic violence and pay inequality.

Let’s go to that Daily Telegraph Australia article

GREENS Senator Larissa Waters has urged Christmas shoppers to rethink buying bright pink jewellery or dolls for little girls, linking gender-stereotyped toys to domestic violence and pay inequality.

The minor party’s gender spokeswoman has endorsed the ‘No Gender December’ campaign, set up by grassroots group Play Unlimited, which calls on retailers to stop using old-fashioned gender stereotypes as marketing ploys this Christmas.

It warns aisles of pink and blue merchandise, while seemingly harmless, can lead to serious social problems including violence against women and children.

She goes downhill from there. But, Warmists are also pushing this

Climate Change Fuels Sexual Violence

This month a study added to the long-running controversy over whether temperature rises as a result of climate change may contribute to increased levels of violence. It found only an indirect link between temperature and violence, contradicting a study from 2013.

The paper concedes that climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa could exacerbate stresses and tensions over scarce resources, but it concludes that key political, economic and geographic factors are more important drivers of violence.

But however indirect this link between climate change and violence is, we should not underestimate it. Especially when it comes to violence against women and girls.

Although evidence is as yet patchy there is enough empirical evidence to suggest causal links: climate change leads to increased conflict over natural resources, which in turn leads to heightened violence against women and girls.

So, even though the link is indirect at best, Warmists are Utterly Sure that there is a link between rising temperatures, er, well, temperatures that will surely rise, according to their flawed computer models and talking points, in the future and sexual violence against women. So, we see that Barbie, a paragon of toys for little girls, is responsible for rape culture and climate change.

Tim Blair decides to give Barbie a makeover

So let’s fix Barbie and make her Greens-compliant.

First, the name has to go. Say goodbye to Barbie and hello to Barb, a women’s refuge counsellor, coal seam gas protester and cis-gender vegan poet.

Barbie needs a new hairstyle to go with her new name. That old look is clearly imposed by male concepts of beauty and attractiveness, and it isn’t very practical when you’re staging a university sit-in or chaining yourself to mining machinery. Barb’s new buzz-cut will be the talk of Toytown!

How can Barb possibly read the IPCC’s full report on climate change without proper eyewear? Barb requires a pair of glasses that project an image of assertive and confident womanhood; glasses that tell the world: “This little lady won’t be pushed around!” Maybe she can borrow a pair from Greens MP Adam Bandt.

And she’ll wear a permanent frown, just like most Lefties.

Read: We Can Blame Barbie For Rape Culture And “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama: Ferguson Is Totally Like A National Problem, Throws Police Under Bus

By William Teach December 2, 2014 – 9:08 am

There’s no surprise in any of this. Once a community agitator, always a community agitator. He’s long been a race baiter, and he easily threw the Boston PD under the bus. He quickly takes sides without evidence. He whips up negative sentiments. Now he’s putting the burden on the police for race relations

(The Hill) President Obama on Monday kept the national debate firmly on Ferguson, Mo., as he took a series of steps that he said would rebuild trust between police officers and minority communities.

The president dedicated his entire public schedule to Ferguson, meeting with civil rights leaders, Cabinet officials and law enforcement officers after a long holiday weekend when the shooting had begun to slip from the headlines.

“This is a problem that is national,” Obama said. “It is a solvable problem, but it is one that unfortunately spikes but fades into background. What we need is a sustained conversation … to move forward in a constructive fashion.”

National, huh? He’s basically blaming police officers and departments nationwide for what occurred in Ferguson, where a young thug who just robbed a store and assaulted the clerk, then assaulted a police officer and attempted to take his weapon, then charged a police officer was shot to death. That’s not the problem of the police: that’s a problem with Obama’s base. Let’s face facts: most of these types of “mistrust” issues occur in areas that heavily vote Democrat. If we want a sustained conversation, then we should certainly discuss why Obama’s base is so violent, and why they think violent actions are a proper response. Why they think looting and burning businesses in their own community is the proper response. Because that has absolutely zero to do with any mistrust.

Obama’s public events took place a week after a grand jury in Ferguson decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown, triggering protests around the country. While the president has been careful not to take sides in the racially charged case, he made clear that he thinks changes at local police departments are needed.

For starters, Obama requested federal funding that could purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras for police officers, something the family of slain 18-year-old Brown has lobbied for.

While providing local police departments is a wonderful idea, one has to wonder as to Obama’s motives, based on his political career. Might this be a move to give the federal government more control of local policing, something that would be linked directly to the Progressive goal of giving the federal government more and more power? That thought is not out of the realm of possibility.

And Obama said he would create a new task force that will examine “how to promote effective crime reduction while building public trust,” in the words of a White House official. That panel will be led by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and former Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson.

How about telling his base that rioting, looting, burning cars (including police cars) and buildings, assaulting and killing each other, along with other violent activities is unacceptable? That might be a good first step. Many police and police departments are not immune to charges, but they are often responding to the problems in Obama voter communities.

BTW, when will Obama worry about the huge amount of Black on Black crime? Of course, even mentioning the crime statistics will bring immediate denial about the problems from hardcore Leftists, who prefer to stick their heads in the sand. It’s almost like they prefer Black on Black crime in inner cities.

Read: Obama: Ferguson Is Totally Like A National Problem, Throws Police Under Bus »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil fire that burns wood which releases carbon pollution which makes it hot then cold, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on just stand up and play the damned game.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Don’t Know About You, But I Probably Wouldn’t Use A Minivan As A Getaway Car

By William Teach December 1, 2014 – 11:33 am

Would you?

(WRAL)  Three people were arrested early Sunday morning after a three county chase that ended with a crash in Durham.

The incident started after a burglary alarm was reported at Eagle’s Gas Station on Hampton Pointe Boulevard in Hillsborough at approximately 4:40 a.m. A witness said they saw a burgundy Dodge Caravan leave the store.

Moments later, an Orange County Sheriff’s Office deputy spotted the van and attempted to stop it on Interstate 85 South in Efland. The van, which investigators said was reported stolen from Raleigh on Nov. 24, led authorities down Interstate 85 to N.C. Highway 119 into Mebane, then back into Hillsborough on U.S. Highway 70 before entering Durham on Interstate 85, authorities said. The chase ended when the van crashed into a dumpster and a pole on the 600 block of Liberty Street at about 5:30 a.m.

Then again, criminals aren’t generally known for their brain-power.

Read: Don’t Know About You, But I Probably Wouldn’t Use A Minivan As A Getaway Car »

Posted in Good Move Slick | Comments Off on Don’t Know About You, But I Probably Wouldn’t Use A Minivan As A Getaway Car | Trackback URL

Surprise: Obama Never Thought It Would Be So Hard To Replace U.S. Stewardship Of Internet

By William Teach December 1, 2014 – 11:25 am

Hey, according to Obama the U.S. is just another country, nothing special, so, hey, why not give up control of of the open Internet? As The Lonely Conservative notes “Some day we can tell our kids and grandkids about the time when the internet was free”

(WSJ) We’re at the midpoint between the Obama administration’s March announcement that it would end U.S. protection of the open Internet and September 2015, when the change is supposed to happen. During this time, there has been no progress finding an alternative for protecting the Internet from authoritarian governments.

That’s no surprise—except to Obama administration officials who apparently never considered how hard it would be to replace U.S. stewardship.

Since the Clinton administration, the U.S. Commerce Department has overseen key operations of the Internet, preventing other governments from politicizing the Internet outside their borders. Bill Clinton opposed the Obama plan soon after it was announced, warning: “A lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom.”

Well, apparently it would be too much work for Obama to deal with. That small, white, dimpled ball isn’t going to get in the hole on its own, ya know. The Lonely Conservative goes on

All the administration has to do is renew the contract with Icann, but they refuse to do so, and have not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests for the legal justification for acting without the consent of Congress. Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?

We also have to seriously consider that this is what Obama wants. An open Internet which allows views from non-Progressives is dangerous to the Progressive agenda. Can’t have people learning un-approved thoughts.

Read: Surprise: Obama Never Thought It Would Be So Hard To Replace U.S. Stewardship Of Internet »

Posted in Barry Obama, Web/Tech | Comments Off on Surprise: Obama Never Thought It Would Be So Hard To Replace U.S. Stewardship Of Internet | Trackback URL

Earth Is Like Totally Moving Towards A 6th Great Extinction Or Something

By William Teach December 1, 2014 – 7:27 am

We need to head the warnings, y’all! Because it’s the end of days!

Heed the Warnings: Why We’re on the Brink of Mass Extinction

Evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll, executive producer of the doc Mass Extinction: Life At the Brink, on why mankind’s days are numbered.

…..

But now, to that list of calamities to learn from, we need to add “mass extinctions.”

Mass extinctions?

Yes, because nature’s warning lights are flashing. In the past forty years, Earth has lost half of its wild animal populations. Africa’s lions are one telling example. Thought the King of the Beasts was protected?

Think again. Fifty years ago, about 400,000 lions roamed Africa. Today, there are only about 30,000 remaining, as they have disappeared from twenty-six countries.

Carroll has a point. There is a big loss of life within the animal kingdom, and much can be blamed on Mankind. But, hey, you know this all has to point towards “climate change”, right?

The potential losses of species are on a scale that is rivaled by only a few events in the last 500 million years of Earth’s history. Five times during that span, the majority of species on the planet vanished in a short interval of time. Scientists have now identified the triggers of two of those events: an asteroid that struck Earth 66 million years ago and wiped out dinosaurs and much more, and massive eruptions of volcanoes underneath Siberia that decimated the world 252 million years ago.

While the triggers for these two calamities were different, detailed study of what unfolded in the past reveals a common mode of destruction that is relevant to understanding our predicament today: in each case, mass extinction resulted from large and rapid environmental change on a global scale. Indeed, the main weapons of mass destruction unleashed by the Siberian eruptions included enormous quantities of the very familiar climate-changing gas carbon dioxide. The great concern of scientists today is that the potential global temperature changes projected over the next century approach those that took place 252 million years ago.

Despite what computer models showed, or maybe just to spite computer models, there has been an 18+ year pause in warming, where temps have only gone up in a statistically insignificant way. There has been a miniscule 1.4F increase since 1850, less than one would expect during a Holocene warm period. But, Warmists are predicting doom and gloom in the future, anywhere from a 2C to 6C increase, based on the same computer models that failed 95% of the time.

Lest one think this is anything new, Warmists have been trotting out the 6th Great Extinction scareathon over the last few years, attempting to scare people to gin up support for their far left Progressive policies of increased taxation, increased centralized Government, and decreased control of our own lives and business, where that control is handed over to the central government.

At the current rate of loss in the animal kingdom, it would take 250,000 years to be concerned. Another book concerned about the 6th ME recycles old, outdated freakouts. Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore slammed the 6th ME yammering for what it is: a scare attempt. The 6th ME yammering relies on made up numbers and panic.

Warmists need to continue to amp up their invective in order to keep their cult going.

Read: Earth Is Like Totally Moving Towards A 6th Great Extinction Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama To Meet With Community Agitators For Ferguson Discussions

By William Teach December 1, 2014 – 7:03 am

Will they be discussing how to keep people who are part of his voting base from rioting and looting and vandalizing and burning cars and buildings? Or simply blaming the police, whipping up the emotions as is typical?

(The Hill) President Obama on Monday will focus on the relationship between local police and the communities they protect and serve in the wake of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson, Mo.

Obama will meet with Cabinet members to discuss a review the president ordered in August of federal funding and programs that provide equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies, according to the White House.

Law enforcement officials were criticized for their militarized response to protests in Ferguson after a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown. A grand jury last week refused to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the case.

There’s no doubt that police may have been a bit heavy handed in the beginning, and there is a concern with all their militarized equipment. That said, as time went on it became apparent that it was needed, what with all the rioting and violence, including attacks on law enforcement officers.

After meeting with his Cabinet, Obama will gather young civil rights leaders to the Oval Office, the White House said. Topics for that discussion will include the mistrust between law enforcement and communities of color.

In other words, the police will bear the brunt of the blame, rather than communities with lots of crime and a bad attitude towards law and order.

Later Monday, the president will meet with elected officials, community, civil rights and faith leaders, and law enforcement officials. That meeting will center on ways communities and law enforcement can work together to build trust to strengthen neighborhoods.

Here’s an idea: stop cursing the police, stop throwing things at the police, don’t charge the police, and listen to the police when they say “Stop! Get on the ground!” Trust is a two way street. Yes, there are bad and/or overbearing/overzealous police officers and police departments out there. Everyone wants to simply focus on law enforcement, while ignoring the problems in the community. What kind of community is Ferguson when the loot and burn their own business?

As Breitbart notes, hyper-Progressive NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio will be in attendance, because it’s important for him to be there to offer his advice on how to take over a town and implement policies that increase the crime rate.

Also, while not officially announced, Al Sharpton may well be in attendance, because, we all know that when you need a voice of reason and peaceful intent, Sharpton is the guy you call.

Expect this to result in Blaming The Police and creation of more victimhood.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To Meet With Community Agitators For Ferguson Discussions »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 30, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible Gaia killing plastic water bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Real Science, with a post on how much sea ice there is.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove