If All You See…

By William Teach June 17, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is desertification encroaching on wonderful jungle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on ISIS declaring all guns in Iraq illegal, except their own.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Berkley Looking To Save Us From Climate Change Using Stickers!

By William Teach June 17, 2014 – 11:27 am

They really hate fossil fuels, just not enough to stop using them and messing up their own modern lives

(Daily Californian)Berkeley commissioners are working to bring climate change awareness right to the gas pump in a proposal that would place warning labels on fuel nozzles.

The city’s Community Environmental Advisory Commission voted Thursday to move forward with a plan that would mandate such labels to be placed in Berkeley gas stations. The signs would state that gasoline consumption releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

Max Gomberg, chair of the commission, said the label would be a reminder to customers that the gas in their cars has a direct effect on the environment.

This is yet another stupid “spreading awareness” campaign that doesn’t require Warmists to actually Do Anything within their own lives. This is being pushed by the unhinged 350.org

On Wednesday, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the petroleum association, sent a letter to the commission stating that the plan would violate gas station owners’ First Amendment rights. Citing various court cases, she wrote that a governing body cannot compel a business to state information unless doing so would “prevent consumer deception.” Reheis-Boyd also questioned if climate change was a serious threat to California’s resources.

The letter states

The Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the City of Berkeley’s (City) proposed ordinance (Proposed Berkeley Municipal Code Section 11.64) to require gasoline pump “warning” labels disclosing the State’s of California’s position on the impacts of climate change. We have reviewed the draft legislation proposed to the City Council on March 11, 2014, and believe the City’s proposal compels speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The City has not shown a compelling interest in forcing gasoline service stations to make statements advancing the political opinions of the City and State regarding the alleged impacts of greenhouse gases. Even if the City had a compelling interest in the wide spread disclosure of the State’s opinions about greenhouse gas effects (which it does not), the City has not narrowly tailored its proposal to fulfilling that interest. Far less restrictive means exist to disseminate this information to the general public without imposing onerous restrictions on businesses and forcing unwanted speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Perhaps no city in our nation has as rich a tradition in the exercise of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech as the City of Berkeley. Throughout times of tremendous civil upheaval in this country, citizens of this City have exercise d great courage in resisting efforts by those at all levels of state and federal government to force them to agree with or advance government opinions. Citizens of Berkeley well know that, in America, “freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc ., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006); see also United States v. United Foods, Inc ., 533 U.S. 405, 410 (2001); Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind , 487 U.S. 781, 795 (1988). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court ha s found that the First Amendment prohibits the state from “requir[ing] an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public. . . The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster, in the way [the state] commands, an idea they find morally objectionable.” Wooley v. Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714-15 (1977).

The letter goes on to note that the City has numerous ways to inform the masses, such as their own government website. Obviously, Warmists/Progressivess do not care, particularly about the First Amendment, unless it is their own speech being monitored. They have a cult to push.

Read: Berkley Looking To Save Us From Climate Change Using Stickers! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Elected Office Seniority Not The Boon It Once Was

By William Teach June 17, 2014 – 8:43 am

Good!

(The Hill) Seniority was once valued in politics, but this year, incumbents are having trouble convincing voters that politicians get better with age.

It’s an issue that was front and center last week in 76-year-old Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-Miss.) primary runoff battle with state Sen. Chris McDaniel, and was a driving force in 91-year-old Rep. Ralph Hall’s (R-Texas) loss last month.

For both Hall and Cochran, it’s not just that their decades of service are seen as a detriment — questions about the effects of their age are popping up, too.

Much of the story centers on the Cochran/McDaniel race, but does briefly make note of the anti-incumbency and supposedly anti-government tendencies of the GOP primary voters. Let’s note that it isn’t “anti-government”, it’s about the size, scope, spending, and role of Government. We think there is way, way, way too much, especially at the federal level. As for incumbency, yes, there is a problem. More and more are thinking that term limits are A Good Idea. Many of these long term elected officials are quickly captured by the system, and so often do things counter to the reason they were elected. They are unresponsive to the system. Heck, many of those Republican’s voted in by the Tea Party in 2010 are becoming more Establishment. They listen more to the Big Donors and certain nationwide interest groups than their constituents. Look at what happened to Eric Cantor, who pretty much blew off his constituents till election time. He was only in Congress since 2001.

Edward H. Crane gave testimony to Congress in regards to term limits

I would make the point that the debate over three terms versus six terms is not mere quibbling over a technical issue. It is significant and substantive. It is a question of the people’s term limits versus the politicians disingenuous limits. The political energy behind the term limit movement is predicated on the need for a citizen legislature. Americans believe that career legislators and professional politicians have created a gaping chasm between themselves and their government. For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy – a government of, by, and for the people. That means a citizen legislature.

To achieve a citizen legislature it is imperative that our representatives in Congress – particularly in the House, which the Framers clearly intended to be the arm of government closest to the people – be not far removed from the private sector which, after all, they are elected to represent. As Rhode Island’s Roger Sherman wrote at the time of our nation’s founding, “Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.” In the era of year-round legislative sessions, the only way to achieve that objective is through term limits.

Three terms for the House is preferable to six terms for a variety of reasons, which I will discuss below. The most important one, however, deals with the question of who seeks to become a member of Congress in the first place. The fact is that America is best served by a Congress populated with members who are there out of a sense of civic duty, but who would rather live their lives in the private sector, holding productive jobs in civil society, outside the governmental world of political society. Such individuals might be willing to spend two, four, or even six years in Washington, but not if the legislative agenda is being set by others, who’ve gained their authority through seniority. Twelve year “limits,” which these days amount to a mini-career, do little to remove this major obstacle to a more diverse and representative group of Americans seeking office.

Today’s elected officials have essentially created a permanent aristocracy. They do what they want. Remember Barbara Boxer’s little whine about calling her Senator, rather than ma’am? Then there was John Conyer’s being celebrated for taking his 25,000th vote. I could swear there was a GOP Senator who did the same, but can’t find who. Regardless, that many votes is anything but a reason to celebrate. It is a direct assault on our Democratic Republic. These elected officials are divorced from their constituents.

Furthermore, they pay more attention to national politics rather than what is going on in their own states and districts, which is a reason that the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed, doing away with direct election of Senators. The original system of letting the state general assemblies pick the Senators would do three things. First, it would mean that states have an ambassador to the federal government (actually, two). Second, it would mean Senators would be more beholden to their state, rather than the national party. Third, it would mean citizens would pay quite a bit more attention to what is going on in their state government, which might mean more power being returned to the States from Los Federales, where that power should reside. That’s a much longer discussion for another day.

Long term incumbents live in their own Inside The Beltline bubble world, and, like oil in a car, need to be replaced every once in awhile, as they get stagnant, old, and non-functioning. Personally, I would go for four terms for Representatives, rather than three. Another Edward, Edward E. Cronin, wrote that term limits are a check against a cult of personality. The Harvard Crimson notes that elected officials say we already have term limits, they’re called “elections”. Yet, we constantly see elected officials lasting for 20, 30, 40 years. Daniel K. Inouye served in the senate from 1963 till he passed on in 2012. Heritage noted all the way back in 1994

The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests — particularly labor unions — that support them. The specter of term limits creates powerful emotional reactions in opponents, at least two elected legislators (one the chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on elections) having publicly compared the term limits movement to Nazism. Such overheated rhetoric indicates both the threat that term limits poses to established special interests and the urgency of the battle for them.

Why would they oppose term limits? Power. Pure, naked, unadulterated power. This is the kind of post which could continue to grow and grow and grow in the discussion. I’ll leave it to you to read a bit about term limits. I’ll also recommend reading An Act Of Self Defense by Erne Lewis, which is all about the need for term limits. Yes, it’s a fiction novel, but it makes a serious case, and does a good job in avoiding political labels, and engaging the issue for both Left and Right.

Read: Bummer: Elected Office Seniority Not The Boon It Once Was »

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Illegals Now Being Dropped Off Via Jet Skis In Front Of Law Enforcement

By William Teach June 17, 2014 – 8:04 am

Mr. Obama can talked about there being more deportations than ever, but that notion has now gone out the window. Most of those deportations were illegals caught crossing and almost immediately sent home. Due to Obama admin policies and discourse, illegals, especially young ones, are streaming across the border, some with parents, some without. They know exactly what to say

“We’re fleeing gang violence,” the mother told the Border Patrol agent, who detailed the conversation to TheBlaze on the condition that he not be named. The group did not run, but voluntarily turned themselves in to U.S. federal custody and claimed what is known as credible fear to apply for asylum in the U.S.

They all knew it was only a matter of time before they would be set free.

They know they’ll receive an order to appear in court, a legal document that will allow them to travel around the country. You have the 47,000 children being held and now shipped to other facilities around the country, kids who are coming to the US illegally because they’ve heard that the US won’t send them home, and then they (and Democrats) will want their parents. This is a failure of Obama and his admin. For goodness sake, Obama is going honor a few young illegal immigrants at the White House, instead of following federal law and kicking them out. And what is the result?

(The Blaze) Hundreds of people were scattered all across Anzalduas Park on the banks of the Rio Grande and edge of the United States on Father’s Day. Only 60 yards across the river, on the Mexican side of the border, a small resort park of jet skis, boats and swimmers blended with the American families in the water’s semi-neutral zone that divides both nations.

But in the confusion of children swimming, small boats and skiers, one of the men, a trafficker whose operations are conducted at the park, was taking illegal immigrants across the water on his yellow jet ski and dropping them off along a bank hidden by trees on the U.S. side of the river. His partner, another man on a blue jet ski, was doing donuts in the water, creating large walls of water to distract from the drop-off point along river’s bend.

It wasn’t enough to distract one Border Patrol agent, who spotted the people — who seemed to appear out of nowhere — scurrying from the trees.

These were not the kind of illegals a of late who let themselves be captured. They scurried away, melting into the crowd. A helicopter and two heavily armed patrol boats from the Texas Dept of Public Safety then showed up. Why?

The troopers were also armed with M-4 style rifles and with pistols. There’s a reason they are so heavily armed: They intercept drug runners and have been shot at by members of the drug cartels working on the Reynosa side of the border. The Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, two of Mexico’s most violent drug cartels, operate and control most of the transit routes along this area of the Mexico’s nearly 2,000-mile border with the United States.

“It’s been getting worse,” said a U.S. federal law enforcement official, speaking on the condition that they not be named. “While Border Patrol’s hands have been tied because of the increase in illegal immigrants other areas of the border have been left wide open and we know that supplies, as well as bad guys are making their way into country. We can’t have eyes everywhere and it’s worse when you have this massive flow of people.”

These “narco-trafficking organizations live for this kind of chaos,” he added.

Much like Team Obama’s other policies, such as his idiotic Syria, Iraq, and overall Middle East policies, his policies on illegals have real world consequences. The jet ski people even taunted TDPS by running around with children on the devices, while still attempting to bring more illegals across. Fortunately, they and Border Patrol seemingly caught all of the illegals that day. However

“We’re doing what we can,” one agent said. “What’s Washington, D.C., going to do about this? That’s what we want to know. We’re doing our job, but we know once they get processed they’ll get released. We don’t think this is ever going to end.”

It will continue as long as The Government/Obama is being as inviting to illegals as they could possibly be. Sadly, while Obama and his team, along with Democrats and some squishy amnesty supporting Republicans, live in this kumbaya world, there are negative consequences to go with what is mentioned above. There are tons of sex slaves being brought to the US illegally. Known gang members are streaming across the border, and not really being stopped. The Border Patrol is being handed new rules on use of force that will make it easier for illegals to escape. And put Border Agent lives at risk.

Rather than working to stop this influx of illegals, a legal and Constitutional requirement, which have lately been “OTM’s”, other than Mexicans, as they are termed, Democrats, Obama, and some squishy Republicans are making it easier and more inviting. NY State is planning on offering amnesty to illegals who live their and have paid taxes for three years. And, they get to vote. And all the benefits of the Social Welfare State. That’s the message illegals see: come to the US, violate our laws, and you’ll be rewarded for it. Of course, the NY proposal doesn’t require the illegals to actually speak our common language.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Illegals Now Being Dropped Off Via Jet Skis In Front Of Law Enforcement »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Gun Ownership Is Rather Conservative And Racist

By William Teach June 16, 2014 – 4:09 pm

Raise your hand if this screed by Tanzina Vega is surprising in the least

Minority Gun Owners Face Balancing Act, Weighing Isolation and Stigma of Violence

Standing in a small booth surrounded by displays for rifles, pistols, holsters and other firearm accouterments, the Rev. Kenn Blanchard signed copies of his book “Black Man With a Gun: Reloaded.” Amid the sea of thousands of white faces that descended on this city for the National Rifle Association convention in late April, Mr. Blanchard, an N.R.A. member since 1991, offered his reasoning for why he was one of the few black visitors.

“We still culturally have a fear that we’re going to be that lone guy out, and you don’t want to be the lone guy out,” he said, estimating that one in 100 people at the convention was black. “The exposed nail gets hammered.” (snip)

At a time when gun issues are volatile nationally and sales are increasing, minority gun owners — whether black, Asian or Latino — may feel that their weighing of the practical pros and cons of gun ownership comes up against the conservatism and unyielding stances of the N.R.A. and some other gun advocates. Mr. Blanchard said it could be a difficult balancing act.

Blacks are less likely than whites to own a gun. In surveys from 1973 to 2012, an average of 27 percent of African-Americans nationwide said they owned a gun, compared with 47 percent of whites, according to data from NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago. Even so, their attendance at the N.R.A. convention was minuscule compared with their rate of gun ownership, let alone their presence in the population at large.

Chuck Gueno Jr., 57, an African-American retired Marine at the convention who likes to shoot competitively, said the N.R.A. had “a stigma of being the good old boys, and people of color might be a little intimidated.”

See? Legal gun owners are overwhelmingly Conservative and white, hence, racism!

Part of the stigma around guns among African-Americans can be traced to high rates of gun violence, particularly affecting young blacks and those who live in poor, urban communities. Blacks die from gun violence at more than twice the rate of whites, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Oh, Tanzina, honey, that was really racist to mention statistics.

The article does get better after that, but the basic point is there: gun ownership is racism. Of course, whites, conservatives, the NRA, none of them can force a Black, or other racial interest group, to purchase a gun. That’s up to them individually.

Read: NY Times: Say, Gun Ownership Is Rather Conservative And Racist »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 16, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooded world because Other People won’t take Staycations, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on how well Single Payer works.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Latest Excuse For Warming Pause: “Lousy Data”

By William Teach June 16, 2014 – 11:49 am

We’ve seen quite a few excuses run up the flagpole by Warmists attempting to explain away the almost 18 year pause in rising temperatures. In April the UK Guardian was a leader in trotting out #11, that surface temperatures do not matter. Now they position #12, which is just enough different from the seas ate it and surface temps do not matter to ear its own spot

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on ‘lousy’ data

A widely reported “pause” in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency.

Global average sea surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat for the past 15 years. This has prompted speculation from some quarters that global warming has stalled.

Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”. (snip)

Since 1993, satellites have measured sea levels rising by an average of 3mm per year. Unlike the surface temperature, this rise continued throughout the supposed pause in global warming.

Christopher Merchant at the University of Reading has been working to understand why the increase in the stored energy has not translated into an increase in sea surface temperature.

Basically, they note, using other words, that the computer models stink like dead skunk in a public outhouse, and that they really just don’t have the correct data. Funny part is, these same people will proclaim doom and gloom and 97% consensus and that the science is settled. Eric Worrall notes

Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.

The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf

No worries, the excuses will keep coming, especially those as to why Warmists refuse to modify their own behaviors to conform to their “climate change” beliefs.

Read: Latest Excuse For Warming Pause: “Lousy Data” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Judd Gregg Unintentionally Highlights What’s Wrong With The GOP

By William Teach June 16, 2014 – 7:45 am

You remember Judd Gregg: he is a Republican who was Governor of New Hampshire, then served as a US Senator from New Hampshire. He has had his good points as a Conservative and poor points. However, he seems to be part of the GOP Establishment wing, which brooks no dissent within its ranks

Troubles of party system laid bare

Once there was a Republican Party; today there is not.

Once there was a two-party system in America; today there is not.

Those, in a nutshell, are the most serious and substantive lessons to be drawn from the defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a GOP primary contest last week.

After all the bloviating, to use an old Republican term coined by President Harding, by the pundits on Fox, CNN, and in newspapers and on websites, the real concern is the disappearance of the Republican Party as a functioning party.

With Cantor’s startling loss, a reality has been bared that has been suspected and whispered about, but has never before been displayed so publicly and starkly.

It is that the two-party system, which has been essential to the orderly governance of the nation for a long time, is now in shambles.

That structured system, whatever its flaws, has facilitated the reasonably rational and effective governance of a large and complex nation. Now, it has splintered into a series of fiefdoms or factions

What he’s laying out is a two party system where everyone is in lockstep with the Leadership, otherwise, Things Don’t Get Done

Thus, under our system, a proliferation of factions or parties generate even greater forces for inertia, and make it even harder for the government to govern.

This is the Establishment message: shut the hell up. But, hey, we the GOP leadership are more than will to compromise with the Democrats. Of course, they’re version of compromise seems to be giving the Democrats virtually everything they want.

The purpose of the two-party system, when it is working, is to begin the process of compromise.

Listening to and compromising with the Conservative base never seems to be in the cards for the GOP establishment.

With noncommunicative factions or strident sub-parties, such movement cannot occur. Things just stop. And they have.

This is the message that Cantor’s defeat delivers, in neon lights. But it is in fact a message that has been building and has been sent out by both parties for some time now.

It may be that in the short run, Democrats can take glee in the dysfunction now apparent in the Republican Party. But Republicans have not cornered the market in the rise of factions and the deterioration of the party as an effective vehicle for governance and coherent policies.

Notice that Gregg is Blaming Republicans who *gasp* have their own thoughts and ideas, and are tired of the GOP leadership selling them out in compromises with Democrats. He also fails to notice that the Democrats have already been taken over by their extremist wing.

The Democrats are not far behind. Those on the left are being pushed aside by the hard left, which is intent upon the resurrection of progressivism (more accurately named socialism) as the key cause of the Democratic Party.

More accurately, they aren’t socialists: they’re fascists. The two political ideologies share many common traits, such as control of the means of production to a heavy degree, even ownership of industry. Where they diverge is in allowing free thought. The Democratic Socialist model allows for free thought: Fascism requires compliance with the Approved Doctrine. There is no disagreement allowed with Government. There is heavy interference and control of the lives of citizens.

Regardless, Gregg highlights exactly why Cantor had to go: the Establishment doesn’t listen, doesn’t want to listen, and wants conservatives, the Tea Party, and libertarians to sit down, shut up, and do what they’re told.

Read: Judd Gregg Unintentionally Highlights What’s Wrong With The GOP »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Really, Really Wants To Break Out Of The White House Bubble

By William Teach June 16, 2014 – 7:22 am

Poor guy. Constantly having the pressure of having to do hard work in the job he campaigned for. Twice.

(Yahoo News) It’s perhaps appropriate that President Barack Obama is vacationing this weekend in California, where the state flag features a roaming grizzly.

The restless president, who has compared himself to a caged animal on recent wanderings by declaring the “bear is loose,” took a long Father’s Day weekend away with his wife and older daughter.

The visit to the desert resort area of Palm Springs is one of the ways Obama has been trying to escape during his sixth year cloistered in the White House.

“I think frankly we’ve all been through a cold and bitter winter and the bear has cabin fever,” said Obama friend and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. “His cabin is a little bit bigger and harder to escape than most.”

Obama has fantasized about being “on a beach somewhere drinking out of a coconut” or simply being able to walk out of the White House gate and stroll around unrecognized.

Aww, poor guy. I feel bad for him, cooped up having to do such tough things like meeting sports teams and trading 5 high ranking Taliban members for a guy who, at best, was AWOL. It’s no wonder he doesn’t want to meet with his economic team and has no patience for making a decision on things like Iraq going down in flames. BTW, the comments on the bear thing are brutal at the link.

Obama interspersed his four-day weekend with official duties, including Democratic Party fundraising, a speech on climate change and calls to his national security adviser discussing military options to stop a violent insurgency in Iraq. As his administration announced that some staff were being evacuated from the Baghdad embassy, Obama was on the golf course.

I wasn’t aware that fundraising and campaign style speeches were part of the President’s official duties.

Obama seemed determined not to let the crisis overseas keep him from getting a break, in a time-honored tradition of presidents going on working vacations even as some question the optics.

“I might walk up to the Lincoln Memorial, sit on there,” Obama said when asked on the “Live with Kelly and Michael” talk show what he would choose if he could do anything unrecognized. “Maybe I’d wander around and find myself at a little outdoor cafe or something and sit and order something and just watch people go by. The thing you miss most about being president is anonymity.”

Sniffle. It’s so terrible for Obama. Even with all the vacations, tons of rounds of golf, the parties, flights on Air Force 1 all over the country and world, the guy just can’t catch a break when Things Happen. I feel so bad for him that I have a recommendation: resign. They say that when a job stops being fun it’s time to go. Sounds like he’s not having fun. Time to move on with his life.

From the comments

This piece is probably meant to have us sympathize with Owebama’s wanderlust,but really it just confirms what many have said since he announced his candidacy. This person is not up to the task and never was. Yeah he’s an amicable guy (after all he’s a stoner at heart)and wants everyone to just chill and party. However the world sees this as a weakness and a chance to take advantage of a depressed American influence in the world. I don’t blame Owebama.he is what he is. The fault lies with those who choose to put him in a position he is incapable of the responsibilities of the office. So now we’re all just treading water and hoping for the best.

Huzzah.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Really, Really Wants To Break Out Of The White House Bubble »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Yes, Obama Did Refer To Climate Change Opponents As Deniers

By William Teach June 15, 2014 – 7:11 pm

A follow up to this mornings post regarding Obama’s silly commencement speech, where CNN had stated that Obama referred to skeptics as “deniers” (I refused to listen to the video), but failed to include any supporting quotes. Nor did I find anything on the ‘net to bring it up. However, perusing Bishop Hill’s blog, I noticed in the comments that BH has linked to a comment on Watts Up With That? by Roger Sowell that has the full transcript, which includes

The climate change deniers suggest there’s still a debate over the science. There is not. The talking heads on cable news suggest public opinion is hopelessly deadlocked. It is not. Seven in ten Americans say global warming is a serious problem. Seven in ten say the federal government should limit pollution from our power plants. And of all the issues in a recent poll asking Americans where we think we can make a difference, protecting the environment came out on top. (Applause.)

Warmists started using the term “denier” in order to equate climate skeptics with Holocaust deniers. It’s a despicable use of terminology meant to shut down debate and denigrate opponents.

Bishop had also noted in his post

I would have thought that someone who was trying to deal with an existential crisis would have been moving heaven and earth to unite people rather than divide them. Using fallacy – and abusive fallacy to boot – makes him look more like someone who sees global warming as a useful wedge issue than someone who really thinks he is trying to save the planet.

But, that’s Obama’s way on pretty much everything.

Read: Yes, Obama Did Refer To Climate Change Opponents As Deniers »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove