I Get Email: “Might Your “Practice What You Preach” Meme Be Getting Old?”

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

Lisa Q sends me an email, which includes

You write about Warmists practicing what they preach quite a bit, in one form or fashion. While I’m not quite sure which side I believe, don’t you think that the meme has gotten old? It must crop up in almost every post.

Good question, Lisa. Very good question. I’d say that it must crop up, in one form or fashion, in at least 70% of my climate change posts. Every time I write it in some form, whether it be practicing what you preach, noting that Warmists are hypocrites, etc, I think to myself “here we go again”. Yet, I still add it. Why?

I’ve had a JVC receiver since 1987, to go with the same pair of Bose 301 speakers. I had a full boat with a JVC cassette player, CD player, and VCR. Those last three are in the attic. They’ve been retired. Yet, I still use the same receiver. It’s 60 watts per channel, has a fantastic equalizer, lots of inputs and outputs, but none of the really wild modern stuff. It does AM and FM, and I have my TV, BluRay player, and cable box hooked up, along with wireless headphones and a cable to connect to my MP3 player and Android phone. Yet, it is approaching 30 years old. Sheesh. There have been many times when I’ve considered replacing it, even going as far as looking online and at stores like Best Buy and HH Gregg. For the speakers, too. Yet, each time, I do not bother. Why?

It’s an easy answer. It works. It works very, very well. Sound is awesome. I do not need all the other stuff that comes with newer models. I know all the ins and outs of the hookups and how it all works. It’s easy to use. In other words, it’s a classic. At the end of the day, the receiver works awesome.

What does that have to do with my overall “practice what you preach/climahypocrite” meme? At the end of the day, it works. It’s relevant. It makes sense. And it gets to the heart of the “climate change” movement, which is not about science, but about enacting Progressive politics and policies.

I’ve had a Monet reproduction since 1994. I’ve seen it thousands of times. Same with some other paintings (I love beachy stuff). Despite that, they never get old. They work for me. Same with the memes. The memes need to be ridden that much because they are important in understand Warmists and their pseudo-religion. They want Everyone Else to pay the price for their beliefs, yet they won’t do the same in their own lives (whoops, wrote it again). In many cases, they are the worst offenders of “carbon pollution”. They have their memes, which they change up to match the weather, I have mine, which are not changing. Warmists must be exposed.

Read: I Get Email: “Might Your “Practice What You Preach” Meme Be Getting Old?” »

Posted in Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Power Plant Rules Seek To Reduce CO2 By 30%

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 7:50 am

Of course, not while he’s in office. Nor anytime soon. The full details of Obama’s energy cost skyrocketing plan will be released by the EPA today

(Wall Street Journal) The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a draft rule on Monday seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, according to two people who have been briefed on the rule, setting in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama’s climate-change agenda.

The rule, scheduled to be completed one year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement the rules and submit compliance plans to EPA by June 2016. States can decide how to meet the reductions, including joining or creating new cap-and-trade programs, deploying more renewable energy or ramping up energy-efficiency technologies.

Each state will have different percent reduction standards, and the national average will be 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, these people said.

Essentially, this is no more than throwing a bone to the unhinged Warmists, and not much different from the “spreading awareness” campaigns Warmists have engaged in for 25 years. It will do little, and possibly never be initiated. If a Republican wins the White House, he/she can throw the rules out immediately. Lawsuits will surely be filed by the end of this year, and they will continue on easily through 2016. Funny how the rules do not have to be in place prior to Obama leaving the White House, eh?

What we do know is that Democrats in energy producing states are distancing themselves from Obama over these coming rules. The Hockey Schtick notes that these rules will do nothing for climate or public health. Amy Ridenour has ten reasons why Obama shouldn’t impose “climate change” rules, including

  • 1. The world isn’t warming. Scientists measuring surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures using satellites – including scientists who believe in the global warming theory — say the Earth hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration.
  • 2. Anti-global warming laws hurt people. All the major legislative and regulatory proposals to combat global warming kill jobs and disproportionately hurt lower income people and minorities.
  • 4. Global warming climate models don’t work. Since 1979, over 96 percent of models predicted more future warming than took place.3 The models, run backward, also fail to predict past temperatures. Our climate system is extremely complex, and even the world’s most knowledgeable scientists don’t yet understand it.

Many, many states are already looking to blunt the soon to be released rules. You can bet most controlled by Republicans will simply blow them off.

I’ve noted many, many times (as others have), that there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years and 9 months. This, despite CO2 levels continuing to increase. Something else to note

Pretty much every single poll finds “climate change”, which is, sadly, rolled in under the banner of environment/pollution, to be last to dead last on the list of Things Americans Are Concerned About.

Really, this will be much-ado-over-nothing. It’s simply an in-the-moment distraction from Team Obama, meant to deflect from all the other bad news. That said, it will make a nice attack point for the GOP as we approach the mid-terms.

Read: Obama’s Power Plant Rules Seek To Reduce CO2 By 30% »

Posted in Barry Obama, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine: “Don’t Do Stupid Sh*t”

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 7:21 am

This is not The Onion or other parody site

(Politico) Forget The New Yorker’s “leading from behind,” and even President Barack Obama’s own “singles … doubles.” The West Wing has a preferred, authorized distillation of the president’s foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid sh—.”

The phrase has appeared in The New York Times three times in the past four days. So, if the White House’s aim was to get the phrase in circulation, mission accomplished!

The phrase – as “Don’t do stupid stuff,” with a demure disclaimer that the actual wording was saltier and spicier than “stuff” — appeared in the Los Angeles Times at the end of Obama’s Asia trip this spring, was reprised in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times.

The phrase itself is coming not from the leftist media outlets, but from Obama aids and Obama himself

Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter in the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune of April 29: “The president’s aides have scrambled to put things in simpler terms. ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is the polite-company version of a phrase they use to describe the president’s foreign policy.”

Christi Parsons and Kathleen Hennessey in the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune on May 25: “Privately, White House officials have described the working label for Obama’s doctrine as ‘Don’t do stupid stuff.’ Within the tight circle of foreign policy aides in the White House, the shorthand captured Obama’s resistance to a rigid catch-all doctrine, as well as his aversion to what he once called the ‘dumb war’ in Iraq.”

Mark Landler, in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times: “In private conversations, the president has used a saltier variation of the phrase, ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ — brushing aside as reckless those who say the United States should consider enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria or supplying arms to Ukrainian troops.”

Let’s see

  • James Madison had The Monroe Doctrine, telling European Nations to keep out of the Americas
  • Theodore Roosevelt had the Big Stick diplomacy (walk softly and carry a big stick)
  • Harry Truman’s doctrine came down to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”
  • John F. Kennedy had an “us vs. them” mentality, calling on everyone to engage in “a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself”
  • The Reagan Doctrine was to knock down the Soviet Union, what he called the Evil Empire
  • George Bush’s doctrine was to “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”
  • Barack Obama: Smart Power has become “don’t do stupid shit”

Unfortunately, Team Obama keeps doing “stupid shit”, and seems so focused on trying not to do stupid shit that they annoy our allies.

Yes, really.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine: “Don’t Do Stupid Sh*t” »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Polar Bear Numbers Were Simply Made Up

By William Teach June 1, 2014 – 4:00 pm

Don’t worry, this was all done for Science!!!!!!

(Daily Caller) This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.

Make sure to read the link in the second paragraph. That “public demand” was surely Warmists who wanted to find a way to issue doom and gloom reports to continue propping up their un-scientific cult.

Read: Polar Bear Numbers Were Simply Made Up »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful carbon friendly bike, causing the seas to heal, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Are We Lumberjacks?, with a post saying #please knock it off

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach June 1, 2014 – 8:57 am

Patriotic Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous in the Once And Future Nation of America. Not sure who did this pinup, one of those I found out and about.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. This is more of a link post from small dead animals, I usually include bigger stuff, but, seriously, follow it. Really.
  2. The Jawa Report is not impressed by the prisoner swap with the Taliban
  3. The Daley Gator notes that some people really are just crazy
  4. The Last Refuge notes an interesting racial discrimination suit
  5. The Lonely Conservative covers desperate Democrat emails
  6. The Other McCain notes that Shinseki resigning changes nothing
  7. Victory Girls Blog covers “lesbian privilege”
  8. Independent Sentinel discusses LGBT bullies and cakes
  9. Public Secrets delves into mass shootings and gun control
  10. Nice! Darleen Click (protein wisdom) compares Obama’s economy with Godzilla
  11. Patterico notices that the LA Times forgets to tell you who the traded jihadis are
  12. Legal Insurrection wonders whatever happened to the “Coffee Party” (I still get emails now and then from the Raleigh chapter)
  13. Flopping Aces writes about Obama climate lies
  14. Fire Andrea Mitchell notes that Thom Tillis leads Kay Hagan by 3
  15. And last, but not least, Director Blue discusses an NRA truism being true

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Say, How’s The Legalization Of Marijuana Going?

By William Teach June 1, 2014 – 8:13 am

I’ve long stated that legalization should be a state issue, rather than a federal issue. I’ve also said that I could care less if it is legalized. I don’t smoke it (I used to, but haven’t touched it in 20 years), I don’t plan on smoking it (I stopped finding it interesting), but, if someone else does, fine, go for it, as long as it doesn’t affect me. That’s part of Classical Liberalism (what American conservatism really is): if it doesn’t affect you, why do you care? However, there are problems cropping up in Colorado

(NY Times) Five months after Colorado became the first state to allow recreational marijuana sales, the battle over legalization is still raging.

Law enforcement officers in Colorado and neighboring states, emergency room doctors and legalization opponents increasingly are highlighting a series of recent problems as cautionary lessons for other states flirting with loosening marijuana laws.

There is the Denver man who, hours after buying a package of marijuana-infused Karma Kandy from one of Colorado’s new recreational marijuana shops, began raving about the end of the world and then pulled a handgun from the family safe and killed his wife, the authorities say. Some hospital officials say they are treating growing numbers of children and adults sickened by potent doses of edible marijuana. Sheriffs in neighboring states complain about stoned drivers streaming out of Colorado and through their towns.

“I think, by any measure, the experience of Colorado has not been a good one unless you’re in the marijuana business,” said Kevin A. Sabet, executive director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization. “We’ve seen lives damaged. We’ve seen deaths directly attributed to marijuana legalization. We’ve seen marijuana slipping through Colorado’s borders. We’ve seen marijuana getting into the hands of kids.”

That said, as the Times points out, there are no hard data sets at this point, mostly just anecdotes. 1.5% of citations for driving under the influence are for marijuana since January. Interestingly

Marijuana supporters note that violent crimes in Denver — where the bulk of Colorado’s pot retailers are — are down so far this year. The number of robberies from January through April fell by 4.8 percent from the same time in 2013, and assaults were down by 3.7 percent. Over all, crime in Denver is down by about 10 percent, though it is impossible to say whether changes to marijuana laws played any role in that decline.

But, many sheriffs are locking more people up for marijuana related offenses across the state, and there are more crime involving theft of marijuana and marijuana products

“Why break into a house to steal a TV or a computer that you have to fence when you can steal mounds of cash or marijuana, which is like liquid?” said George Brauchler, the district attorney who oversees Aurora. “That’s the kind of stuff we’re starting to become more aware of.”

And here’s one I find very interesting, in regards to the debate over e-cigarettes

Many of Colorado’s starkest problems with legal marijuana stem from pot-infused cookies, chocolates and other surprisingly potent edible treats that are especially popular with tourists and casual marijuana users.

Lawmakers and other whiners, mostly liberals, are complaining about all the flavors of e-juice, saying “won’t someone think about the kids!!!”, yet, the same people aren’t complaining about all the flavored products, including cookies and brownies, infused with marijuana.

I won’t say that it should be banned: if we go down that road, then we would have to ban alcohol, which causes way, way more problems. But, we do have to consider that the legalization is causing more problems, including criminal acts and deaths. Time will tell whether this is just an early blip form legalization which will calm down, or a long term problem that could grow. Keeping it illegal has its own set of problems. Let’s also not forget that the active ingredient is THC, which is a hallucinogen, and the power of the marijuana has grown tremendously, with such things as genetic modification. I remember smoking Jamaica Red back in 12th grade, and, wow, potent enough to start seeing trails and feeling like we were tripping. That was powerful stuff at that time (mid-1980’s). Today’s pot is much, much more powerful.

At the end of the day, it is a drug, and legalizing usage in such a big way will cause lots of problems. It might not be such of problem if it was limited to smoking it. The edibles are much more potent, and novices and casual users find that out. That said, it is interesting that so many want all sorts of restrictions on e-cigarettes while pushing for legalization of marijuana/cannabis.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Say, How’s The Legalization Of Marijuana Going? »

Posted in Current Affairs | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 31, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible CO2 infused beer causing wacky behavior from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Astute Bloggers, with a post about Barry’s fantasyland.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Jihadis Sure Party Bombastically

By William Teach May 31, 2014 – 12:15 pm

Ooh, yeah! All right!
We’re splodin’:
I wanna splod’ it wid you.
We’re splodin’, splodin’,
And I hope you like splodin’, too.

Ain’t no rules, ain’t no vow, we can do it anyhow:
I’n’I will see you through,
‘Cos everyday we pay the price with a little sacrifice,
Splodin” till the splod’ is through.

Read: Jihadis Sure Party Bombastically »

Posted in Good Move Slick, RoP | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Will Warmists Switch Back To Calling It “Global Warming”?

By William Teach May 31, 2014 – 12:07 pm

Why would they? Because “global warming” causes more fear than “climate change”

(NY Times) Many scientists have come to prefer the term “climate change” over “global warming.” Climate change is a broader term that encompasses not only the warming of the planet in recent years but also the rise of severe storms, droughts and damaging winds. The choice of terms has important implications for polling because Americans give different answers to questions depending on which is used.

According to a report by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication this week, the terms “are often not synonymous — they mean different things to different people, and activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.” While “climate change” makes many people think of general weather patterns — and natural fluctuations in temperature and precipitation — “global warming” tends to produce connotations of extreme weather.

When asked if climate change was a good or a bad thing, 63 percent of Americans said it was a bad thing, while 76 percent perceived global warming as a bad thing, a 13-point difference.

Of course, the big part here is that the study does not make any differentiation between anthropogenic and natural causation. Here’s how the question is position

On a scale for -3 (very bad) to +3 (very good), do you think (global warming/climate change) is a bad thing or a
good thing?

Only 33% found global warming to be very bad (-3), with 23% for climate change. What’s missing is a zero. I would find a flip to a cool period to be a -2. Human society has done much worse during cool periods than warm periods. Human society has done quite well during the Modern Warm Period, and during the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.

Essentially, this a study for Warmists, telling them to stop calling it “climate change” and go back to global warming. Of course, if they do that, they wouldn’t be able to Blame cold and snow on Mankind. It would significantly reduce their blamestorming abilities.

Unfortunately for Warmists, when it comes to Americans being concerned that either will harm them, most say “nope!”

Read: Will Warmists Switch Back To Calling It “Global Warming”? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove