Oops: Washington Post Notices The Dearth Of Landfalling Major Hurricanes

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 10:47 am

Also, that Sandy was not a hurricane at landfall (via Steven Goddard)

(Washington Post) The U.S. has been extraordinarily fortunate lately: we have not been witness to the fury of a major hurricane (category 3 or higher) landfall since October 2005 when Wilma hit southwest Florida as a Category 3 storm. (Other countries have not had such good fortune these past few years. )

Since the hyper-active 2005 season, the U.S. has had just six Category 1 and 2 hurricane landfalls: Humberto (TX), Ike (TX), Gustav (LA), Dolly (TX), Irene (NC), and Isaac (LA).  Sandy was not technically a hurricane at its NJ landfall, and if it were, it would have been a Category 1 storm.

They provide this handy dandy graphic

A couple points. First, technically, the WP is wrong. The US hasn’t quite hit the longest period on record, which stretched 3,316 days, from August 11, 1860 to September 8, 1869. Set your calendar for November 22nd, 2014, which will break the record. The WP writer, Brian McNoldy, started with 1900, rather than further back.

Second, Irene was not a hurricane during either US landfall. This was further noted by Warmist Kerry Emanual in the NY Times. Isaac was barely a hurricane at landfall, and it could be argued that the storm was below hurricane strength, which would mean that the last US landfalling hurricane was Ike in October 2008.

Brian does note something important:

…just a single landfall at a vulnerable location can be a major disaster.

Even during an inactive season, a single storm can leave its mark on history (think Andrew in 1992)

To add to that, even a tropical storm can do massive damage. Hurricane Sandy was a tropical storm when it rolled through the Raleigh area in 1996, and was very destructive. Sandy was extra-tropical at landfall, combining with a strong cold front. That said, the point of this exercise is to note that the Warmists hysteria after the big 2005 season, that the year was what the “new normal” would be, was a bunch of mule fritters. When activity dried up, Warmists claimed that there wouldn’t be as many storms, but they’d be more powerful. Along came Sandy, and they said that would be the new normal. Nope. And they’re also claiming that global warming/climate change (meaning man caused) reduces Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing wind shear, something they started heavily bringing up over the last few years.

In reality, it’s all/mostly part of the natural cycles.

Read: Oops: Washington Post Notices The Dearth Of Landfalling Major Hurricanes »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 8:15 am

I’m sure almost every high school boy would agree that teenage high school girls should be allowed to wear extremely revealing clothing in school

(Global News) It all started when Grade 11 student Lindsey Stocker was singled out by Beaconsfield High School officials for the length of her shorts.

“I was in violation for showing my legs,” she said.

Last week, Stocker had decided to wear a pair of shorts, the length of which two vice-principals decided was unacceptable during a tour of the school.

This was determined during a “finger-length test,” where school officials apparently asked students to stand up with their arms at their sides. If the girls’ fingers hung past the length of their shorts, the shorts were considered too short for school.

“It was in front of my entire class,” Stocker said. “I felt attacked, it was humiliating.”

Now, if you look at the photo at the link, the shorts aren’t really that short. But, the rules are the rules. This is where it dives into idiocy

She said that she had been affected by the recent massacre in California, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger opened fire on a group of students after publishing a manifesto, in which he laid out his plans to exact revenge for being rejected by women.

“He didn’t pull that out of nowhere… There are girls everyday, girls in my grade, that go through, not fun things.”

To link not being allowed to wear skimpy shorts to class to Rodgers is idiotic. She also trotted out the “rape culture” meme. All because the little snowflake was told to adhere to school policy.

https://twitter.com/RelatableQuote/statuses/470267238503956481

A couple points. First, it’s Canada. How hot can it be? Second, she knew the rules. Third, let’s face an uncomfortable truth: high school boys love seeing women wearing skimpy clothing. They are obsessed by sex. It doesn’t mean they’ll act on it, it doesn’t mean a girl who wears skimpy clothing is a “slut”, it’s not an invitation to rape. But, it damned sure is a distraction for boys (OK, really, any woman in skimpy/sexy/tight clothing is a distraction for men, age appropriate). Our eyes and brains are wired that way as part of evolution. Get over it.

Furthermore, another uncomfortable truth is that young women will wear this type of clothing to be noticed by boys! Shocking, eh? Again, it doesn’t mean they are looking for sexual contact (despite liberals pushing young women to be sexual creatures), nor to be raped. Does anyone actually think Lindsay didn’t want the boys to look at her legs?

Perhaps culture shouldn’t push young women to be hyper-sexual. There have always been dress codes. The purpose of being at school is to learn. This little special snowflake is “challenging the dress code”, because it is All About Her. Just like so many are being taught. Out of control narcissism.

I’m certainly dating myself, but we didn’t have these problems when I attended high school during the 1980’s. Nor even college.

One final observation: if it’s hot out, aren’t you supposed to wear loose fitting, lightweight, loose woven clothing? Yes. yes you are. In essence, Lindsay, and all the people “defending” her, are pissed off that she got caught breaking the rules, so are doing what they do best: changing the subject.

Read: Telling High Schoolers No Short Shorts Is Body Shaming Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?”

By William Teach June 3, 2014 – 7:47 am

As I noted yesterday, I’m not going to get to worked up when it comes to Obama’s climate change plan. There are many things we could discuss, such as

  • The EPA admitting that it will raise the cost of energy by 6.5% by 2020, regardless of any spin by Obama and EPA head Gina McCarthy
  • That the plan would seriously harm the poor and middle class
  • That the supposed health benefits from the regulations are really from other regulations already in place
  • That the regulations will hurt jobs and the economy. This should be no surprise to anyone, since that’s what has happened to the majority of countries that attempted all sorts of “climate change” regulations post-Kyoto, especially in Europe, which, unshockingly, is moving away from these types of regulations.
  • That the public does not want nor care about this
  • There being no statistically significant warming for 17 years and 9 months, which is half the satellite record, despite rising CO2 levels
  • That 95% of the climate models have failed

And much, much more. The little plan threw the news media and pundit class into a tizzy Monday. Comments on Twitter and stories via Yahoo News (the only ones I can read while at work) were brutal against Obama and the EPA over the plan. Let’s look at this Politico article to see what was going through the minds of Obama and his team

The EPA’s proposed carbon emissions standards rule released Monday is one of the most significant actions the federal government’s ever taken on climate change. If finalized next year and put in place, it would be one of Obama’s largest legacy achievements.

Making sure that it didn’t seem like a big deal or all about Obama was all part of Podesta’s plan.

Interviews with Podesta and other senior White House aides on Monday portrayed a White House that had been closely involved along every step of the way, from drafting the rule to the roll-out and messaging effort surrounding it.

Lap after lap that evening in mid-May, Podesta and McDonough talked the president though the proposed rule. He wanted to know how it squared with promises he had made in Copenhagen in 2009, would hold up against the inevitable court challenges and how they’d attempted to balance the concerns of business, labor, Democrats and green groups so that everyone walked away not too disappointed and excited enough.

Last week in the Oval Office, Obama signed off on the outreach and messaging strategy Podesta and climate adviser Dan Utech briefed him on. The president wanted all the groups they needed bought in. He wanted the White House to be ready with whatever rebuttals they’d need. And most of all, he wanted to minimize the prospects of this becoming yet another flashpoint.

“He wanted to know,” Podesta said Monday evening, relaxed after a successfully calm roll-out day, “‘Okay, how are we prepared for battle here?’”

Let me ask, if this plan is supposed to be so super-awesome for the American people, why do they need to be “prepared for battle”? Possibly because Dems from energy producing states want nothing to do with this plan? Let’s not forget that the climate change plans passed and initiated in Australia by the ruling Labor Party first saw Labor decimated in the Queensland 2012 elections, to the point that Labor had so few seats that they no longer were considered a recognized political party in the parliament. Labor was similarly blown out during the national elections in 2013. In both cases, the cause was the climate change legislation.

As I wrote Monday prior to the release of the 665 pages of rules

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?

This is Obama’s legacy: plans that are bad for American’s, and they know it. Hence, Obama wants nothing to do with actual implementation during his presidency.

From EPA Facts. No worries, though, because Team Obama is prepared for battle. At the end of the day, this will not be implemented. And Obama can say “hey, I tried”.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s Now Raaaaacist To Wear A Coconut Bra And Grass Skirt

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 9:21 pm

Is there anything that isn’t racist?

(Daily Caller) At the University of California, Irvine, the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity stands accused of anti-Pacific Islander racism because it recently hosted a charity fundraiser called the FIJI Islander party which featured students who dressed in coconut bras and grass skirts.

The Phi Gamma Delta fraternity has been commonly known by the moniker FIJI since 1894. It boasts over 120 active chapters.

As a result of the event, reports Campus Reform, administrators at UCI have compelled the fraternity and other Greek organizations into “ongoing discussions” about “offending others.”

“The administration and student affairs is using it as an opportunity to show to fraternities what cultural appropriation is and how they might be more sensitive, to be able to have their week of philanthropy that ends in a social event without,” UCI spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon told Campus Reform.

Apparently, Amendment 28 of the Bill Of Rights states “All citizens must refrain from engaging in behavior that shall offend anyone else, nor make comments that offend anyone else”.

Read: It’s Now Raaaaacist To Wear A Coconut Bra And Grass Skirt »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

“Climate Change” Is Totally Like A WMD

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 3:27 pm

No, seriously, you guys!

Climate change as a weapon of mass destruction

When we speak of WMD, we usually think of weapons – nuclear, biological, or chemical – that are delivered in a moment, writes Tom Engelhardt. But what of climate change: a WMD on a long fuse, already lit and smoking …

Then we get some typical leftist whining about Iraq and WMD, going to

But what if he had? Who wanted to take that chance? Not Vice President Dick Cheney, certainly. Inside the Bush administration he propounded something that journalist Ron Suskind later dubbed the “one percent doctrine.”

Its essence was this: if there was even a 1% chance of an attack on the United States, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, it must be dealt with as if it were a 95%-100% certainty. (snip)

Now here’s a very real threat to think about

Of course, there was a weapon of mass destruction that could indeed do staggering damage to or someday simply drown New York City, Washington D.C., Miami, and other east coast cities.

And we’ll have

A cascade of catastrophes

Collapsing ice sheets: over 10ft of sea level rise

because

Climate change – a WMD with a long fuse

thanks to

The WMD is the entire fossil fuel supply and combustion system

which are

Weapons of Planetary Destruction

and it is a

crime of ‘terracide’

This system of destruction on a planetary scale, facilitated by most of the ruling and corporate elites on the planet, is becoming (to bring into play another category not usually used in connection with climate change) the ultimate ‘crime against humanity’ and, in fact, against most living things. It is becoming a ‘terracide’.

Got that? As so typical, Warmists blame That Guy, and refuse to see their own lifestyles and use of fossil fuels as contributing to the “terracide”. It’s so bad that

Read: “Climate Change” Is Totally Like A WMD »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 2, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is flooding rain that never happened before, all because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post noting comments from vets who served with Bergdahl.

Read: If All You See… »

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

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
Pirate's Cove