Newest Prognostication: Hotcoldwetdry Will Increase Lightning Strikes

You had to use a hair dryer, take a 5 minute shower, and drive a fossil fueled vehicle to work today, stopping to pick up a breakfast sandwich, so, this will all be your fault. If it happens. Because it might mayba

Lightning Strikes 50 Percent More Often with Climate Change

We already know that climate change is increasing the likelihood of daily floods, tornadoes and heat waves. Now, new research shows that lightning will strike 50 percent more often in our warming world, though where these electric shocks will occur remains a mystery.

Actually, most of that has already been debunked, and, even if true (notice they left out tropical storms), there is no proof of anthropogenic causation.

Currently, there are about 20 million lighting strikes each year in the United States, igniting deadly wildfires and threatening to strike buildings and even people, the NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory reports. And with climate change causing average global temperatures to rise, this number is only expected to increase.

Except for that 18+ year pause.

Based on 11 climate models, the new study, published in the journal Science, predicts that for every one degree Celsius of global warming, lightning strikes will increase by about 12 percent. Overall, that means that for every two lightning strikes in 2000, there will be three in 2100. However, scientists don’t yet know where or when exactly these upsurges will occur.

So, our old friends the climate models. Which have failed 95% of the time. But, hey, scientists climahysterics don’t quite know yet how this will occur. So, give them lots more money to research their already published prognostications that they say will happen.

This is not science. It’s a cult.

Read: Newest Prognostication: Hotcoldwetdry Will Increase Lightning Strikes »

If All You See…

…is an ocean that is obviously super encroaching on the land due to someone using their natural gas heating, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post noting that Loretta Lynch is as bad as Holder.

Read: If All You See… »

Man With Monster Carbon Footprint Pledges $3 Billion In Other People’s Money For Climate Change Fund

The UK Guardian puts it another way

Obama’s $3bn for climate fund could kickstart action on global warming

Why does he need to pledge to give money that isn’t his, ie, it’s taxpayer money, for this? There has been no statistically significant warming in over 18 years. Seriously

https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/533306236184186880

A 0.63C increase in over 120 years is not scary, not huge, and most likely less than should be expected during a Holocene warm period

Barack Obama’s handshake deal with China and $3bn pledge for climate financecould break down the wall between rich and poor countries that has blocked action on global warming for 20 years, observers of the negotiations said.

The White House announced the $3bn pledge on Friday, putting climate change firmly on the agenda of the G20 summit in Brisbane and injecting momentum into United Nations talks ahead of a key meeting in Lima this month.

The $3bn is the most pledged by any country to date to the Green Climate Fund, set up to help poor countries fight climate change. The US contribution puts the fund at nearly $6bn towards its initial $10bn goal.

Obviously, The Guardian is a big fan of this. How much of their own money will they pledge? How much of Obama’s own money will he pledge? How much of their own money will Believers in anthropogenic global warming/climate change pledge?

This is simply a redistribution scheme for political purposes using Other People’s hard earned money.

“Obama’s pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the UN $3bn for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle,” Jim Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the likely incoming chair of the Senate environment and public works committee said in a statement.

“The president’s climate change agenda has only siphoned precious taxpayer dollars away from the real problems facing the American people,” he added.

Inhofe has pledged to block the funds. This announcement, much like Obama’s executive amnesty, is another way for Obama to deflect the narrative and create a fight, rather than dealing with the pressing problems in the economy.

How big is Obama’s carbon footprint?

Read: Man With Monster Carbon Footprint Pledges $3 Billion In Other People’s Money For Climate Change Fund »

Gruber Wanted To Play Labeling Game To Get Rid Of Health Care Tax Breaks In 6th Video

Sheesh, I didn’t even get a chance to opine about the 5th video, and along comes a 6th. In the fifth, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber mocks critics as “adolescent children”. Pretty derogatory language for someone getting paid hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Jake Tapper, one of the only reporters truly covering this, tells us

(CNN) In a 2011 conversation about the Affordable Care Act, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the law more commonly known as Obamacare, talked about how the bill would get rid of all tax credits for employer-based health insurance through “mislabeling” what the tax is and who it would hit.

The issue at hand in this sixth video is known as the “Cadillac tax,” which was represented as a tax on employers’ expensive health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.

“Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance,” Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston. The subsidy is “terrible policy,” Gruber said.

“It turns out politically it’s really hard to get rid of,” Gruber said. “And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.”

If you think that’s bad, it get’s much, much worse

The second way was have the tax kick in “late, starting in 2018. But by starting it late, we were able to tie the cap for Cadillac Tax to CPI, not medical inflation,” Gruber said. CPI is the consumer price index, which is lower than medical inflation.

Gruber explains that by drafting the bill this way, they were able to pass something that would initially only impact some employer plans though it would eventually hit almost every employer plan. And by that time, those who object to the tax will be obligated to figure out how to come up with the money that repealing the tax will take from the treasury, or risk significantly adding to the national debt.

Unions and employers who object in 2018, he noted, “at that point if they want to get rid of it they’re going to have to fill a trillion dollar hole in the deficit…It’s on the books now.”

The remarks start at the 30:38 mark at this link.

Meanwhile, as I write this at 7am, Fox News is talking about yet another video to surface with Gurber talking about Ocare being a hoax.

Read: Gruber Wanted To Play Labeling Game To Get Rid Of Health Care Tax Breaks In 6th Video »

Father Of Son Killed By Illegal Alien Asks Obama To Bring His Son Back With Executive Order

So far, crickets back from Mr. Obama, because, remember, Liberals are super compassionate

(Breitbart) A grieving father is asking President Barack Obama to bring his son, who was killed by an illegal alien, back to life with an executive order on immigration.

“While your Executive Order pad is out, can you write one to bring my son and the tens of thousands (actually over 100,000) killed by illegal aliens back to life and to bring our destroyed families back together?” asks Don Rosenberg in a letter to Obama. His son Drew was killed by an illegal alien who ran over him in 2010.

In the letter, Rosenberg notes that President Obama’s administration refused to deport the illegal alien who killed his son.

“I know that shortly you will be issuing some sort of Executive Order protecting millions of lawbreakers, many of whom have killed people but all of whom share some responsibility for those killed,” Rosenberg wrote. “I know that you want to prevent their families from being separated. By the way, your administration refused to deport the man who killed my son. I was told, ‘He’s only committed one crime of moral turpitude.’”

This was not the first letter he wrote to Obama and other administration officials, and he has yet to receive one reply. Maybe he should have come out as gay, or been a big advocate for free birth control.

“Before you illegally say, ‘Welcome to America’ to those who have caused so much pain and suffering, on your next trip to California let me take you to Drew’s grave, and you tell him this is the right thing to do,” Rosenberg wrote back then, NewsMax reports. “My son and all of the others are considered collateral damage in the quest for votes and campaign contributions. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.”

How many people have been harmed by illegals? Killed, physical harm, identities stolen, jobs stolen, wages deflated, robbed, etc? Congressman Steve King (R-IA) estimates that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day — that’s a death toll of 4,745 per year. Cars are stolen. We are all victims.

For Obama, this whole amnesty by executive action thing is more about picking a fight with Republicans, along with throwing his insane base a bone (one that will end up biting them back in many ways). Does anyone really think he cares about illegals? This is simply politics. He prefers strife and fighting over governing. For parents, relatives, friends, loved ones, and just every day Americans, illegal aliens and the crime that so many bring is a reality.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Father Of Son Killed By Illegal Alien Asks Obama To Bring His Son Back With Executive Order »

Surprise: Colder Weather Increases GHG Output

No, really!

From the linked article, at the US Energy Information Administration (BTW, had anyone ever heard of the EIA before?)

In the long term, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driven by economic and efficiency trends and changes in the fuel mix. But weather fluctuations, which drive the level of energy use for both heating and cooling, are a very significant factor affecting year-to-year variation in fossil fuel consumption and their resulting emissions.

EIA’s most recent monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), issued on October 10, forecasts U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions for 2014 and 2015 at 5,457 million metric tons (MMmt) and 5,436 MMmt, respectively, both higher than the 2013 emissions level of 5,396 MMmt. The forecasted 1.1% rise in CO2 emissions for 2014 relative to their 2013 level reflects a combination of historical energy use data already in hand for more than half of the year and forecasted energy use for the remaining months.

Very cold weather early this year contributed to an increase in total energy use and CO2 emissions for the first six months of 2014 compared with the same period the year before. EIA ran simulations using the STEO model to estimate how much lower emissions would have been had the weather in the first half of the year instead been more like the previous 10-year (2004-13) average. The results show that using this alternative weather scenario, energy-related CO2 emissions during the first half of 2014 would have only been about 0.4% higher than in the first half of 2013, well below the actual first-half to first-half emissions increase of 2.7%.

If I were a hyperalarmist, I might yammer on about “how’d they pick those years. Cherry picking!!!!” I’d probably need to write it in all caps, too.

Of course, these same buffoons want to decrease the available energy, leaving Other People cold.

Read: Surprise: Colder Weather Increases GHG Output »

If All You See…

…are super wonderful climate friendly bikes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on hitting the big ten-oh! Congratulations! Pirate Dance!

Though the first photo is probably more appreciate.

BTW, I actually forgot about my own ten year blogoversary in July. Oh, well.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Literally Bury Their Heads In The Sand To Protest

No, really (via Watts Up With That? and Twitchy). I held off on this till today because embedding tweets is a nightmare using a smartphone

(Guardian) More than 400 protesters stuck their heads in the sand on Australia’s Bondi Beach on Thursday, mocking the government’s reluctance to put climate change on the agenda of a G20 summit this weekend.

Prime minister Tony Abbott’s perceived failure to address climate change is all the more galling in the wake of an agreement between the United States and China on Wednesday to limit their carbon emissions, they said. (snip)

Parents with babies, school children and working people in business suits dug holes on the beach and stuck their heads in them. The ostrich is said to stick its head in the sand in futile bid to avoid danger.

Ornithologists say the African bird does no such thing but that didn’t spoil the protest.

Here ya go

https://twitter.com/newzuluAU/status/532825451127787520

BTW, how did they get to the beach? Fossil fueled vehicles, perhaps?

Read: Warmists Literally Bury Their Heads In The Sand To Protest »

POTUS Who Despises Political Opponents And Works Against Democracy Criticizes Burma For Same

So, the President Of The United States Of America went to a foreign country, Burma, and decided to criticize the government of Burma

(USA Today) Sweltering on the back patio of Burma’s most famous home, where democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi spent years under house arrest, President Obama and Suu Kyi called for further moves toward democracy ahead of the country’s presidential elections next year.

The two leaders criticized the army-dictated constitution that bars Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), from standing in the keenly anticipated poll.

Suu Kyi, released four years ago from more than two decades of confinement, is unable to run in the election because of a constitutional rule barring anyone with strong allegiances to a foreign national from standing for the presidency. Suu Kyi’s sons are British, as was her late husband.(snip)

Obama also raised an issue that has led to criticism for the opposition icon — her reluctance to address the abuse of minority Rohingya Muslims who are deeply disdained by most people in Burma.

“Discrimination against the Rohingya or any other religious minority I think does not express the kind of country that Burma over the long term wants to be,” Obama said. “Ultimately that is destabilizing to a democracy.”

Look, his criticisms are legitimate. The constitution was written specifically to bar Suu Kyi from running. There are issues with the way minorities and political opponents are treated.

Obama, though, is one of the last people who should be criticizing. While he was doing this, we were learning that he plans to circumvent the American political system, the Constitution itself regarding separation of powers, to unilaterally give millions of illegal aliens an “amnesty”, which Charles Krauthammer called an “impeachable offense“. He’s worked to subvert US law numerous times. With just Obamacare alone he’s changed the written law over 30 times.

Then we get to political opponents. He’s denigrated, smeared, insulted, and just generally treated a large segment of the US population (60 million, if we look at the number who voted for Romney) like garbage. They aren’t opponents to him, they are enemies. The Internal Revenue Service, a branch of the federal government that works directly for Obama, intentionally targeted Conservative groups and conservatives individually, and Obama did nothing. Obama has attacked individuals who do not agree with him politically. So, Obama is the last person who should be criticizing Burma.

There’s also this

“You’re always popular in someone else’s country,” he joked. “We believe in this nation,” and its democratic future, he told the mostly Burmese audience. Burmese should respect differences and understand the grievances of minorities, but still put national identity before ethnic identity, he said to applause.

He wasn’t joking, he was whining. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last. And, again, he’s one of the last people to be telling others to respect differences and understand grievances of others.

Read: POTUS Who Despises Political Opponents And Works Against Democracy Criticizes Burma For Same »

Ocare Architect Gruber Discussed Misleading Public In 4th Video

Remember how Jonathan Gruber, a major architect of Obacare, from the White House’s side, said he “regretted” what he said in the first video release? I wonder what he feels after the release of the second, third, and now forth video? Anyhow, it’s good to see someone in the MSM do their job, in this case, Jake Tapper, one of the more honest journalists out there (video is here. Watch it before CSPAN sends it down the memory hole)

(CNN) As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill’s architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve.

In recent days, the past comments of Gruber — who in this 2010 speech notes that he “helped write the federal bill” and “was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well” — have been given renewed attention. In previously posted but recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an “exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” taking advantage of voters’ “stupidity” to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.

In this fourth video, Gruber’s language is not as stark as in three previous instances, but his suggestion that Obamacare proponents engaged in less-than-honest salesmanship remains.

“Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay?” Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. “He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured….What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it’s going to lower the cost of health care, that’s all they talk about. Why? Because that’s what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs.”

He discusses an approach where things are just thrown against the wall to see if they stick, and that they  have really no idea how to control costs. He also whines about how surgeons are now really rich guys, when they were just middle class in the 1950’s ( a bit of class envy and creation of strife from a guy paid $400000 for consultation for Ocare). We where told constantly that Ocare would reduce costs. It would reduce the deficit. It would be revenue neutral. It would save a family of 4 $2500 a year. All based on lies.

How bad is this? Even Firedoglake is upset, though, to be fair, FDL has never been shy over criticizing Team Obama from the Left. Jon Walker notes how Obama criticized John McCain over some supposed plan to tax employer-based health plans during the campaign, and made it a major point. Yet, immediately after the election, Obama moved forward with a plan to tax employer-based health plans, calling them “Cadillac Plans”

While experts at the time saw through this fiction, it is refreshing to see a key architect so openly admit Democrats did it solely to con the public. Democrats embraced an idea they campaigned against, but in an attempt to trick the public they made it an even worse and needlessly more complex policy

Most of the law is worse and needlessly more complex. Democrats threw in some ideas that are popular with the American People, rather like throwing a few drops of orange juice into a bottle of Castor Oil (it used to be considered really nasty medicine in cartoons and tv shows, now they say it regrows hair), to make it more palatable, but it is mostly based on lies. Conservatives knew this. Gruber is confirming it.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Ocare Architect Gruber Discussed Misleading Public In 4th Video »

Pirate's Cove