…is a flooded world because Someone Else refused to buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theodore’s World, with a post on our idiot Israeli ambassador.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a flooded world because Someone Else refused to buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Theodore’s World, with a post on our idiot Israeli ambassador.
Read: If All You See… »
A bit of insensitivity to start this Saturday morning, since the op-ed writers, Mark Barden and David Wheeler, both lost their sons to the Sandy Hook nutjob. Yet, if they are going to jump into the political realm in order to call for restrictions on our Constitutional Rights, and use Father’s Day as an excuse, there is every right to respond.
A Father’s Day gift for kids: Protect them from gun violence
This is the second Father’s Day we will have spent without our sons Daniel and Ben, who were murdered a year and a half ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But unlike last Father’s Day, when we grieved quietly, passing the day in solemn remembrance with our families and surviving children, this Father’s Day we feel compelled to speak out.
What has changed since the Sandy Hook shooting? There have been 74 more school shootings, according to the group Everytown for Gun Safety, which tracks news of firearms being discharged at schools as a result of assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental firings. Seventy-four, including tragedies such as those just this month in Seattle and Troutdale, Ore. How could that number not make you outraged? Incensed? Incredulous? How is it that after our beautiful sons were murdered, along with 18 of their classmates and six brave adults, we have seen no major federal policy passed to address this problem? Why is it that we now see summer not as a time of celebration and vacation but as a relief from having to read about new school shootings because kids are no longer at school or on campus?
And now so many school shootings later, with so many families facing the same agony and pain we face this Father’s Day, we have to ask a question. (snip)
Our question is the same (as Obama’s): Why aren’t we doing something about this?
First off, let’s consider how many of those shootings were suicide and gang violence. Nor had anything really to do with schools. Nor injuries. And were even caused by knives. Nor occurred on school property nor during school hours.
Getting beyond that, it should be noted that they did try to Do Something: they made schools gun free zones. How’s that working out? About the same as with liberal cities with heavy gun restrictions. Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and NY City are among those with the most gun violence. Gun violence in states tends to be driven by the urbanized areas, which tend to lean and vote Democrat, and have the most gun restrictions.
A better question to ask would be: why aren’t heavy gun restrictions and gun free zones working?
Another would be: why are anti-gun forces focusing on legal citizen ownership instead of criminals?
Read: Anti-2nd Amendment Op-Ed: Why Aren’t We Doing Something About Gun Violence? »
You’re shocked face probably looks more like a yawn, considering how much this happens. Here’s John Cigliano, director of the environmental conservation program at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, as published by Philly.com
Don’t give equal time to climate-change deniers
Let’s be clear: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.
We know beyond not just a reasonable doubt, but all doubt, that human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is a fact. Even as a scientist trained not to speak or think in such an absolute way, I am very comfortable stating this. This conclusion is backed by thousands of research articles from hundreds of scientists around the world from academia, think tanks, government, and non-governmental agencies. The latest National Climate Assessment report has confirmed this, and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have documented it.
Of course, there’s that pesky fact that there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years, despite rising CO2 levels. And the pesky fact that 95% of Warmist computer models failing. And that many of the Holocene warm periods were warmer than the current one. Facts do not matter when fascism is on the rise
Is it too late to do something about climate change? No. What can we do to slow it down and eventually stop it? Cut down our use of fossil fuels. Use alternative energy or less energy. Persuade local, state, and federal governments to mandate strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Eat less meat. Buy local and in season. Reduce/reuse/recycle, etc., etc.
You’ve heard all this before, but here’s a new one: The media must stop providing ink and air time to climate-change deniers. (snip)
One of the most important strategies we could employ to stop climate change is for the media to stop giving time and space to climate-change deniers. There is only one side of this story: Climate change is real, it is happening now, we are the cause, and it will be worse than we predicted.
Science as a totalitarian religion. Hitler, Chavez, Mao, Stalin, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, among others, would be proud. They would be even prouder of John’s next paragraph
The real story that should be covered is why, in the face of overwhelming, unequivocal evidence, do people still deny climate change? Is it lack of environmental literacy? Is it due to either political or financial self-interest? Why?
In other words, attack, attack, attack. Rebutting with scientific fact would be silly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this is not science, this is politics.
Related, Anthony Watts notes that a professor’s fellowship was terminated right after publishing an anti-climate change op-ed. See more at Climate Depot.
…is a horrible plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post noting Obama opening the federal financial database to law enforcement.
Read: If All You See… »
Wait, I thought liberals were gung ho regarding increased taxation (yes, I know, not all pot smokers are liberals. It’s still a valid point)
(Chicago Tribune) A group of marijuana activists in Colorado are suing to prevent the government collecting taxes derived from the state’s legal pot industry, saying it violates the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit, filed by local lawyer Rob Corry this week in Denver District Court, asks that a judge issue an injunction ordering the state and city of Denver to halt the practice. (snip)
The 37-page complaint, “which includes a history of marijuana prohibition in the United States,“ said that because of the federal ban, people who buy or sell pot implicate themselves in a crime, which violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“There can be no possible scenario where a person paying … marijuana-specific taxes can also be in full compliance with federal law,” the lawsuit said.
Know what would be funny? If the Court looks at the suit and decides that, yes, the taxes are bad because smoking/selling pot is against federal law, therefore, the ballot measure legalizing pot in Colorado is invalidated due to federal law.
Corry also said the state”s 25 percent combined sales and excise taxes on marijuana sales have undermined what voters intended when they approved legalized cannabis in part to take the criminal element out of marijuana use.
“The tax rates are so high that the underground market has experienced resurgence in Colorado,” Corry wrote.
So, wait, high taxes cause problems? Who woulda thunk it?
Read: Colorado Pot Activists Unhappy About Paying Taxes On Pot »
I’ve read this bit of climainsanity 4 times, and it gets nuttier each time
(Daily Beast) In the 14th century, four centuries of mild weather came to an abrupt halt in Europe. Famine and frigid temperatures ensued, and roughly 10 percent of the population died.
“‘Natural’ disasters are most disastrous when humanity gives them a push,†William Rosen asserts, and his lucid exposition of the fatal interaction of ecological, agricultural, economic, and political factors that led to the Great Famine of 1315-1322 should give pause to anyone who thinks we have outgrown such shortsightedness.
Long before the bitter cold winters and drenching rains of the early 14th century announced the end of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Europe had expanded dangerously close to the limits of its resources. Four centuries of unusually mild temperatures (the highest in 8,000 years), prompted the continent’s farmers to plant crops on vast quantities of land previously unsuitable for agriculture; the increased food supply in turn fueled a population explosion that tripled the number of people in medieval Europe.
If you’re thinking “these nutballs aren’t going to Blame mankind for the LIA”, um, yeah, they try
To 21st-century skeptics who cite the initially beneficent effects of the MWP as proof that global warming is no big deal, Rosen responds by pointing out that the MWP was “a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon … there is still little evidence that worldwide temperatures were, on average, warmer than today.†Moreover, the growth fueled by the MWP proved to be unsustainable.
“More and more marginal land was producing a larger and larger percentage of [Europe’s] food,†the author notes. When those marginal lands ceased to produce due to frosts and floods, the millions of extra mouths to be fed remained. Rebellions and civil wars exacerbated the impact of an unprecedented quarter-century of terrible weather and deadly livestock diseases. Two consecutive harvest failures in 1314 and 1315 launched seven years of famine, resulting in the deaths of between 5 and 12 percent of the population of northern Europe.
Except, there’s plenty if evidence of the MWP being worldwide, but, really, I love the suggestion that the MWP was localized to the European area and all that great farming and human activities led to the LIA.
While vividly re-creating a bygone civilization, he invites us to look beyond our significant but ultimately superficial differences and recognize that we too live in fragile equilibrium with the natural world whose resources we recklessly exploit, and that like our medieval forebears we may well be vulnerable to “a sudden shift in the weather.â€
Strange how shifts to cool cause so many problems for Mankind while things go well when warm, eh?
Read: Warmist Uses Little Ice Age To Position Climate Change As Bad »