…is a wonderful carbon friendly city which everyone should be forced to live in, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Yid With Lid, with a post on anti-Semitism in Rome.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a wonderful carbon friendly city which everyone should be forced to live in, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Yid With Lid, with a post on anti-Semitism in Rome.
Read: If All You See… »
This comes within the greater context of stating that conservatives distort and misrepresent climate scientists, saying that global warming is not on hiatus. This is all part of the wider whining as to why people aren’t listening, why they don’t care, and about those mean “deniers” putting out disinformation, blah blah blah
Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist with NASA, gave a crash course in climate change science for the public at Virginia Air and Space Center on Tuesday. He talked about all the evidence that the planet is warming—like the fact that temperatures right now are the hottest they’ve been since record-keeping began in 1850. He also noted that the rise in surface temperatures has slowed considerably since 2000. This doesn’t contradict the theory of global warming, he explained. Land temperature regularly varies, and much of the warming in the last decade is happening unseen in the ocean.
Ah, the old “the warming is playing hide and seek”. [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
The key thing to understand is that changes in global temperature don’t occur at a steady pace. It’s why climate scientists don’t only look at a single decade’s worth of temperatures. Loeb explained all of this in his presentation. And the Daily Press, a local paper that actually attended the presentation, relayed the explanation correctly. Temperature change, the newspaper’s account said, looks more like a “stock market graph, with jagged ups and downs built into a long, upward trend.†The long-term trend is clear, despite the hiatuses.
Of course, their computer models say something entirely different. None predict any big pauses. They predict an ever increasing world temperature, as do their talking points, which are even more outlandish, yammering on about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Yes, there has been a long term trend. Global temps have risen since 1850. In fits and starts. The longer term trend over the last 7,000 years shows a warm period followed by a cool period followed by a warm period, and so on. Multiple Holocene warm periods have been warmer than the current one. What Loeb is trying to do is use the historical norms to continue propping up the blaming of Mankind.
We can add this all to the big list of 30 excuses, via The Hockey Schtick, with a new and updated graphic from C3 Headlines.

Read: New Warmist Excuse: Warming Happens In Fits And Starts »
Good investigative work by the Washington Post’s Terrance McCoy
Last week, as the forces of the Islamic State crept within 40 miles of Irbil, fear settled over the urbane Kurdish capital. People had heard of the militants’ brutality — of the crucifixions, the beheadings, the mass killings. They were understandably frightened, Kurdish journalist Namo Abdulla told The Washington Post. Some began to flee. Others made for the mountains. The killers were coming.
In the last week, images of the Islamic State’s savagery have been inescapable. News exploded yesterday of an image of a young boy, son to an Australian member other of the Islamic State, hoisting a severed head beside his proud father. (snip)
The glorification of extreme violence using social media is one of the defining aspects of the Islamic State. The Sunni militants wield savagery like a tool, analysts say. It’s neither extemporaneous nor undisciplined. It’s concerted. It’s tactical. It’s evil. And that’s the point. “There’s a strategic reason behind the executions,†wrote the Washington Institute’s Aaron Zelin. “And the gruesome pictures posted online for all to see.â€
The seeds of today’s brutality were perhaps sown long ago in a 2006 book called “The Management of Savagery,†wrote expert Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker. One version of the book, written by a radical Islamist thinker named Abu Bakr Naji, details patterns of “abominable savagery†witnessed in both the Islamic State and its earlier incarnations. According to this English translation, it calls for an “administration of savagery†and merciless campaign to polarize the population, attract adherents, and establish a pure Sunni caliphate. “We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away, so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death,†the book says. (snip)
“In sum, the beheadings and the violence practiced by [the Islamic State] are not whimisical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate, considered strategy,†analyst Crooke wrote. “…The seemingly random violence has a precise purpose: It’s aim is to strike huge fear; to break the psychology of a people — and according to reports this is exactly what [it] has succeeded in doing.â€
You should read the whole article as it details how this book is put into use by ISIS (ISIL), and what they are going for is an Islamic caliphate. When they threaten to raise the flag of Allah about the White House, this is not some empty bloviation: this is something they actually want to do, and will work towards. Whether we would stop them is a different story.
Let’s face it, though: there is another playbook being used. The Koran. Some see peace in the book, some see violence. They see spreading Islam at the point of a sword. They see giving infidels a choice: convert or die.
(TROP) The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
And you get passages such as
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Call it Islamaphobia, call it “hating”, attempt to make a false equivalence with the Bible, at the end of the day, the Koran gives all a jihadi needs to be barbaric.
And, yes, not all Muslims practice the violence. But, there are more than enough that do. Hardcores are streaming from around the world to join ISIS.
We’ll leave the discussion of how many radical Muslims are using peaceful methods to take over for another day.
I think the operative word in the story is “asinine”
(EAGnews.com) Outrage is growing against federal restrictions on school bake sales and fundraisers.
“We don’t have enough teachers in our classrooms and now we are expected to hire some type of food police to monitor whether we are having bake sales or not. That is just asinine,†John Barge, Georgia state school superintendent tells WSB-TV.
Barge and the state Board of Education are attempting to get an exemption from the snack rules, which would allow only 30 sales per year per school. (snip)
“What an overreach this is for Washington to tell us what our school can and cannot sell to raise money in our schools,†Barge says, according to WSB.
These Big Government regulations (#ThanksMichelle) are causing lots of problems with fundraising for various school groups, events, teams, etc.
“The effect has been not what was intended,†says Jack Carter of Richland District 2 near Columbia, South Carolina. “The effect has been kids don’t eat in the cafeteria anymore, and that’s nationwide,†he tells WLTX.
Carter implied there will be a new type of segregation in schools – those that have good lunches, and those that have Michelle Obama’s.
https://twitter.com/Kelly_PaigeM/status/498639188167000065
https://twitter.com/zoe_mariee99/status/498543842677628929
Oh, then there’s this classic
#thanksmichelle come on…really! Stop feeding our kids crap, while your brats eat chef prepared entrees! pic.twitter.com/hLDucKd70E
— Ane (@AneShook) May 29, 2014
Read: Georgia Schools Not Impressed With Back Sale Restrictions »
…is a wonderful climate change believer friendly city, you might just be a Warmist
![]()
The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on the world class screwup that is Barack Obama.
Read: If All You See… »
Perhaps they should start by banning the use of fossil fuels by Warmists. Oh, and the use of the Internet by Warmists, because it uses lots of energy. Here’s Crikey’s Paddy Mannington (via Climate Depot)
Screw consultation, let’s just ban stuff: how to really fight climate change
Here’s an idea. If the business community and the conservative side of politics are never going to embrace market mechanisms to tackle climate change — what our PM has derisively termed a “so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no oneâ€â€‰â€” then let’s stop pandering to them and go back to banning stuff.
Emissions trading schemes (ETS) or “cap and tradeâ€, as the Americans call it, was meant to be a business-friendly, economically rational alternative approach to regulation and the command economy. It was used there successfully in the 1990s to stop acid rain by reducing emissions of sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. It is a strategy the US energy industry — as executives will tell you in a quiet moment — is extremely comfortable with.
But if the business lobby is going to go into hysterics about every sensible proposal to establish an ETS — or worse, jump into bed with the climate sceptics and abandon action on climate altogether, as they’ve done this year — then stuff ‘em.
Are the lobbyists and spinmeisters worried about red and green tape? Always. That’s their job. Let’s give them something to really worry about. All business wants is a level playing field. If the law establishes we are going to reduce emissions fast, companies will work within the law (ultimately, gladly, because you’d be mad to think businesspeople are not concerned about climate change). Australia’s economy will get what early-mover advantages the Germans and Japanese and Californians haven’t hoovered up.
Lest you think this is a joke, it’s not. Mannington is dead serious. He offers 4 ideas, which, surprisingly, do not force Warmists to live the carbon neutral lifestyle. Yeah, weird, right?
These direct actions are entirely compatible with our current system of government. No revolution is required: all we have to do to solve climate change is unplug fossil fuels, plug in renewables, and stop chopping down forests. If we can’t do that — as the sub-title for Naomi Klein’s forthcoming book This Changes Everything declares — it’s capitalism versus the climate, and there’s no doubt which will win.
OK, so, all Warmists need to do is to stop using fossil fuels and erect solar panels and wind turbines for their homes….as long as those homes aren’t built with wood from trees.
How so?
(Mediaite) On This Week Not with George Stephanopoulos, former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkinson said that journalists today were more hindered, and politicians more emboldened, than they were in the days of Woodward and Bernstein.
“I think that we’ve gone backwards since that time when we really felt empowered as journalists,†Attkinson said.
The video comes from the Daily Caller, which goes on to add linky love to Attkinson’s comments
“Nixon would basically refuse to turn over tapes to Congress,†she continued. “His aides would refuse to testify to Congress, or would take the Fifth, or would lie to Congress with a fair amount of impunity. Woodward and Bernstein would be controversialized on social media by special and political interests who use Facebook accounts.â€
“And then at the end,†Attkisson declared. “Nixon would go on a popular late-night comedy show, during which time he would humorously refer to his attackers who were political witch-hunters who believe in Area 51-type conspiracies.â€
Missing is that most of the media would take Nixon’s side, doing all they can to protecting him. They would be protecting him. Well, if he had a D after his name, of course.
Read: Sharyl Attkinson: Things Would Be Much Different If Watergate Happened Today »
You don’t say. Democrats don’t want to run on who they really are?
(Politico) It’s one thing for Democrats running in red parts of the country to sound like Republicans on the campaign trail. It’s another when Democrats running in purple or even blue territory try to do so.
Yet that’s what’s happening in race after race this season.
Faced with a treacherous political environment, many Democrats are trotting out campaign ads that call for balanced budgets, tax cuts and other more traditionally GOP positions. Some of them are running in congressional districts that just two years ago broke sharply for President Barack Obama.
The Republican-flavored ads provide an early glimpse of how Democrats will wage their 2014 campaign. Democrats, hampered by Obama’s rising unpopularity and the tendency for conservatives to turn out at higher levels than liberals in midterm years, face the reality that swing congressional districts favorable to them in 2012 will be far less so in 2014.
Politico’s Alex Isenstadt provides multiple examples, and what we see is that, while it is nothing new for Democrats to lie about their stances as elections approach, they are going even further than before. For instance
Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, who’s running in a district that Obama won in 2012 and 2008, has started airing a commercial that strikes a tea party theme. It highlights his record as speaker of the state House of Representatives when, he says, he helped balance the state’s budget.
This is the pattern, to lie about what they stand for. It happens in quite a few elections. And when elected, to go back to their Leftist ways.
Essentially, what we are seeing is a repeat of 2012, but amped up on Red Bull. You have Dems running as Republicans, or at least as Blue Dog Democrats if they are hard core Progressives (nice fascists). You have them running from Obama. Literally, such as when he comes to their State/District. They are not only avoiding the topic of Obamacare, they are running away from it. They’re running anti-Obama ads. They’re treating Obama as a pariah. Ask Hawaii Gov Neil Abercrombie what happens when one embraces Obama.
The question is, will Republicans take advantage of this? Will they point out that Democrats aren’t interested in running on who they are? That they’re lying? Will they contrast the Dems records with their talking points? The GOP should take a page from Democrats, and make the election All About Obama, tying all Dems to him, pointing out the contradictory talking points and Democrat beliefs.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Dems 2014: Not Only Running From Obama, But Running From Being Democrats »
It’s amazing how easy it is to find climate change hypocrites, wouldn’t you say?
(Daily Mail) He is meant to be helping to save the planet. Yet Lord Prescott has clocked up more than 40,000 air miles in five months – all while travelling to and from climate change conferences.
Since February the ex-Deputy Prime Minister and former Environment Secretary has attended all-expenses paid summits in Europe, North America, India and China.
There he has delivered lectures on the perils of damaging the environment and discussed new legislation which could restrict the ability of others to fly or drive cars in future.
But he has been leaving a substantial carbon footprint of his own.
The circumference of the globe is about 25,000 miles, meaning the former Hull East MP has travelled around the world almost twice in less than six months.
Now, the majority of the conferences and such that he has attended are all about “climate change”. Warmists get very upset when it is pointed out that they do not practice what they preach. The thing is, they don’t even try. Like Lord Prescott, they expect Everyone Else to pay the price for their beliefs. Warmists will, of course, attempt to deflect and change the subject, especially placing the blame back on skeptics, getting personal, blamestorming, etc. You know the tricks. At the end of the day, though, they aren’t willing to make changes in their own lives to match their beliefs. Even minor ones. Even just cutting back.