Say, Why Aren’t Businesses Caring About “Climate Change”?

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 1:38 pm

Good question

(CBC) It seems a strange disconnect. If climate change is really causing economic havoc, as outlined in a new blue ribbon Congressionally mandated report from the United States. why is business so insouciant?

That’s not the way markets are supposed to work. According to the theory, if there is a problem that needs to be solved, markets move to fix those problems. When that theory holds true, it’s one of the wonderful and useful things about market capitalism.

Boom, there’s your answer. Business doesn’t seem to think there’s a problem. They don’t see a loss in revenue. They see weather. Well, obviously, all these businesses are wrong, because doom!

So if the entire productive capacity of the United States — and by extension Canada — is suffering damage due to climate change, why isn’t business onside when it comes to efforts to try and minimize it?

Three potential reasons come to mind.

  1. Short Term Thinking
  2. Vested Interests

And here’s my favorite

Climate change futures

As for reason number three, there is something self-fulfilling about it, but it may be that business leaders have begun to honestly believe the widespread propaganda of climate change denial. Perhaps they are truly convinced that the vast majority of scientists, save those paid by the Scientific American donors mentioned above, are all wrong.

See? Businesses have Wrong Thoughts. Of course, it’s so obvious! Or, business may not care that weather changes. They adapt. They see a cult.

Read: Say, Why Aren’t Businesses Caring About “Climate Change”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is lots of horrible CO2 infused beer, causing cold and snow from warming, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Black and Right, with a despicable tweet from Donna Brazile.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 8:05 am

I supposed I’m obligated to mention something about the NCA, since I blog so darned much about “climate change”. Let’s look at sea rise

(CNS News) The National Climate Assessment released today by the White House says that as a result of climate change the sea level could rise 8 inches, 11 inches, 4 feet or 6.6 feet by the year 2100, but that a rise of less than 8 inches or more than 6.6 feet is “considered implausible.”

“Scientists are working to narrow the range of sea level rise pro­jections for this century,” said the report.

“Recent projections show that for even the lowest emissions scenarios, thermal expansion of ocean waters and the melting of small mountain glaciers will re­sult in 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100, even without any contribution from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,” it said.

Talk about hedging one’s bets. And, if there is a rise of 11 inches, that would be well within the statistical average for a warm period. In fact, it would be somewhat on the low side. During the 20th Century, the sea rise was completely average for the last 7000 years of the Holocene, after the tremendous sea rise post-glacial age (technically, the Earth is still in a glacial age, as there are glaciers and ice at the poles, but that’s quibbling). And Antarctica is not melting. Most of it is cooling.

But, you know, science is now apparently taking a bunch of numbers and throwing them at the wall. In effect, they really don’t know, so they’re just glancing in their crystal balls and looking to scare people. Here’s The Weather Channel founder John Coleman

This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.

If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).

Marc Morano

“This report is a misdirection. Obama has entered his 2nd term lame duck status and with climate executive orders he does not need Congress to “do something” about global warming.

“This report is contrary to peer-reviewed studies and observations. By every measure, so called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100 year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

“Why does the report now call ‘global warming’ a new name, so-called ‘climate disruption’? Simple answer: Due to earth’s failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years – another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear. Now every storm is offered up as some sort of ‘proof’ of global warming.

Judith Curry

While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW.  Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration.  The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.

The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change).  As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes:  presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.

Ms. Curry has also noted some tweets yesterday by Roger Pielke, Jr, who isn’t exactly a pure skeptic

  • “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
  •  “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
  • “lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
  • “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”

The report stops short of delving deep into serious blame of hurricanes on “climate change”, which is smart, considering there have been no landfalling major hurricanes here in the U.S. since October 2005, the second longest period on record going back to the Civil War period. We will break that record if there are no major hurricane landfalls this season. Furthermore, only 1 hurricane has made landfall as a hurricane since 2008, and it could be argued that Isaac was not at actual hurricane strength at landfall. Irene and Sandy were not hurricanes at landfall.

As far as there being more tropical systems, they are somewhat uncertain, but stop short of recognizing that the satellite era, along with better air and sea transportation, has allowed scientists, weathermen, the news media, and the general public see more occurring, something that could not be done previously. For the most part, tropical systems were recognized when they approached shore. One that formed way out in the Atlantic then died was never seen.

Anthony Watts saw an advance copy and pulled this quote, among others

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have shifted northward over the United States., Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward trend in the number of storms causing large financial and other losses. However, there are societal contributions to this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.

So, yes, Obama’s politicized scary story NCA blames more winter storms on warming.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/463772526569848832

And then Obama flew a bunch of meteorologists to the White House on fossil fueled flights to make a political statement, then took a fossil fueled trip across the country to fundraisers. Because fossil fuels are evil.

Read: Obama’s Heavily Political National Climate Assessment Can’t Quite Figure Out Sea Rise »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Barry Obama, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

EPA’s Dept Of Homeland Security Blocking Investigations

By William Teach May 7, 2014 – 7:28 am

In other news, the Environmental Protection Agency has a Dept Of Homeland Security. Seriously? Seriously. You can’t blame this on Obama, the department was formed in 2003 under Christie Todd Whitman while Bush 43 was president, and just seems typical of a complete government over-reach, even in the time shortly after September 11. Of course, Team Obama is using it for political purposes

(Fox News) The Environmental Protection Agency’s little-known Office of Homeland Security has illegally blocked investigations by an independent watchdog for years, an inspector with the agency’s Office of Inspector General will tell Congress Wednesday.

Patrick Sullivan, the assistant EPA inspector general for investigations, is expected to testify Wednesday before a House oversight committee about the activities of the Office of Homeland Security, a unit run by President Obama’s political staff.

The office of about 10 employees is overseen by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s office, and the inspector general’s office is accusing it of operating illegally as a “rogue law enforcement agency” that has impeded independent investigations into employee misconduct, computer security and external threats, including compelling employees involved in cases to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Hooray! Most ethical and transparent administration ever!

“Under the heavy cloak of ‘national security,’ the Office of Homeland Security has repeatedly rebuffed and refused to cooperate with the OIG’s ongoing requests for information or cooperation,” Sullivan wrote in prepared testimony. “This block unquestionably has hamstrung the Office of Inspector General’s ability to carry out its statutory mandate to investigate wrongdoing of EPA employees.”

That’s right, they’re claiming they need to block misconduct investigations under the guise of “national security”. The EPA. Should we be shocked that the EPA under Obama is acting in this manner? No.

The Obama administration is withholding the full contents of a “media strategy” discussion over a Fox News report on Benghazi, claiming that releasing them would have a chilling effect on their “frank deliberations.”

The seven-page email chain was in reference to a Fox News report on Sept. 27, 2012, that the intelligence community knew within 24 hours that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

If you work in the private sector, you operate under multiple federal and state laws which mandate email retention and compliance with government agencies, including Sarbanes-Oxley, the Patriot Act, HIPAA, and the CAN-SPAM Act, among many others. If the Government comes calling, you cannot block legal investigations nor withhold email. Hey, must be nice to be the king.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: EPA’s Dept Of Homeland Security Blocking Investigations »

Posted in Barry Obama, Environment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

ECU Provost: Hell Yes Students Can Mention God At Ceremonies

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 8:25 pm

The Progressive anti-religious bigotry doesn’t go down well here in the South, including at my alma mater, East Carolina University

(WRAL) The provost at East Carolina University has told chemistry students to disregard instructions from a professor who forbade them from mentioning God during a departmental recognition ceremony Friday.

Eli Hvastkovs, assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry, sent an email to students Thursday with a list of four guidelines for the recognition ceremony that included keeping their statements short, family friendly and “not gross.” Topping the list was an instruction not to thank God.

“I’m sorry about this – and I don’t want to have to outline the reasons why,” Hvastkovs wrote in the email.

I think we know the reasons why: another hardcore Leftist restricting Free Speech along this absurd and complete mule fritters line of “separation of church and state”. Well, Marilyn Sheerer, the provost and assistant vice chancellor for academic affairs, responded with her own email, writing

(Greenville Daily Reflector) “These statements can be your personal expressions and as such the University will only limit these expressions as permitted by applicable First Amendment law,” Sheerer said.

Sheerer explained the university would only prohibit statements that violated state statutes on hate crimes, were disruptive to the campus including inciting a riot, exceeded the word limit or came in after today’s deadline.

She said religious references would not be restricted.

“I regret that, without approval from the appropriate university officials, any other limitations were communicated to you,” she said.

Nice to see some common sense.

Read: ECU Provost: Hell Yes Students Can Mention God At Ceremonies »

Posted in NC News | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Awesome: Climate Change Means Hot And Cold!

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 4:19 pm

Those darned greenhouse gases from Other People driving fossil fueled!

Climate Change Is Not Uniform And Leads To Warming And Cooling Of Planet

Temperatures are rising as well as cooling across the globe, leading researchers to warn that global warming is not uniform.

Scientists have taken the first detailed look at global land surface warming trends over the last 100 years – shedding light on what types of warming we might see in the future, writes Science World Report.

The findings are published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Is it any wonder we skeptics refer to Warmists as members of a cult?

While most to the global warmed up from about 1910 to 1980, there were some regions south of the equator that actually cooled down and then had no change at all until the mid-1990s, according to Science World Report.

Other areas near and south of the equator didn’t see significant changes when compared to the rest of the world.

In fact, we were told that we should see massive changes in warming along the equatorial areas first. Now that that didn’t happen, and some areas are seeing cooling, Warmists have to manufacture the “science” in order to continue to prop up their deluded, irrational, non-science cult.

Read: Awesome: Climate Change Means Hot And Cold! »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, which should be banned for Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Western Hero, with a post on the definition of a dictator.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

I Get Email: What Do You Mean By “Someone Else”?

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 12:15 pm

This come from Kay in Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dear Teach

I spend quite a bit of time cruising websites and reading articles on climate change, both Warmist and Skeptic. Yours is one my typical stops. I love those posts with the facepalms.

My belief is that Mankind does have some fault, perhaps as much as 50%, for the warming of the 20th century, though much of that can be attributed to the UHI and land usage, IMO. While I am concerned, I do not buy into the apocalyptic predictions. Nor do I minimize that there is some danger. But, then, climate and weather can always cause issues for life.

Anyhow, I don’t want to make this a long email, as my central questions is, what do you mean when you write things like “Someone Else”, “Other People”, “That Guy”?

Kay, thanks for the kind words and for making my little site a read of yours. And that is a great question. Those of us who write about “climate change”, whether skeptic, warmist, or neutral, often forget that it is sometimes like “inside baseball”, which is

The phrase “inside baseball” refers to a detail-oriented approach to the minutiae of a subject, which in turn requires such a specific knowledge about what is being discussed that the nuances are not understood or appreciated by outsiders.

We perhaps write a bit too much “inside baseball”.

When I write the aforementioned phrases, what I’m referring to is the notion that Warmists want Someone Else, That Guy, Other People, to suffer for the beliefs of the Warmist(s), but the Warmist(s) do not want to suffer themselves. The regulations, rules, laws, penalties, taxes, cost increases, etc, should not apply to the Warmists.

This is a notion that applies to most things Progressive. Consider taxes: they always want That Guy to pay higher taxes, not themselves. Look at Warren Buffett: he said he should pay the same income tax as his secretary. But he won’t write a check. And, I guarantee if you threaten to raise his capital gains tax he’d be “whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s hold off!” Look at Obama: he constantly complains about income inequality and says he should pay a higher tax rate rate, yet he takes advantage of every tax deduction. You could say this about most Progressives. And they always have an excuse as to why they should have to do X, but Someone Else should be forced to do X.

When it comes to Obama and climate change, he wants all sorts of rules, regs, and laws, yet he refuses to mitigate his own carbon footprint. He is by no means a lone example. EPA head Gina Davis, Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, the high up mucky mucks at the IPCC, you name them, they are hypocrites. But, see, it’s not just about hypocricy, it’s about forcing Other People to be penalized for the Warmist, and Progressive, beliefs while refusing to pay the penalty themselves.

Occupy Wall St and 99%ers whine about Big Corporation yet use the products themselves. Progressives complain about That Guy using racist/sexist/some type of ist language, and want That Guy penalized, but excuse their own same type language.

Warmists whine about fossil fuels. They want divestment and such. They want to shut down projects. And, yet, they refuse to give up their own fossil fueled lifestyles. Heck, they show to anti-fossil fuels rallies in fossil fueled vehicles. They take fossil fueled flights to protest Keystone XL. But, they want you, That Guy, to be restricted.

Warmism, and the parent Progressives, are all about hypocrisy while forcing Someone Else to pay the piper.

Read: I Get Email: What Do You Mean By “Someone Else”? »

Posted in Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Another Obama Backed “Green Energy” Company Is A Disaster

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 10:47 am

Um, surprise?

(Washington Examiner) Four years have passed since President Obama visited Kansas City’s main airport, rolled up his shirt sleeves and admonished the skeptics who said Smith Electric Vehicles was unlikely to make good on its promises to build 510 experimental electric-powered trucks and buses suitable for commercial use.

“Come see what’s going on at Smith Electric,” the president said, inspecting a table full of bright green truck batteries in what was once a maintenance hangar for TWA. “I think they’re going to be hard-pressed to tell you that you’re not better off than you would be if we hadn’t made the investments in this plant.”

The skeptics turned out to be right.

Despite $32 million in federal stimulus funds and status as one of Obama’s favorite “green” companies, the firm has halted production, having built just 439 of the promised 510 vehicles.

It has also left a trail of broken promises and unpaid bills.

Smith created just a quarter of the jobs it initially promised the state of Missouri it would create in return for $1.4 million in tax credits. Meanwhile, it has also stiffed the Missouri University of Science and Technology, the state government, and a local electrical supply company, as well as its landlord, the Kansas City city government, for hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to interviews and reviews of public records by the Washington Examiner.

Now, supposedly, this is just a temporary situation, according to Smith. They state that they are briefly shutting down production in order to come out with a Generation III model. They also state that they have a “tight cash flow situation”, and that they are ready to announce “major new funding”. Isn’t it interesting that so many of these projects cannot survive without a constant infusion of cash, rather than surviving because they are making a profit?

Smith is not as bad as some of the other Obama green companies, but it certainly could not be termed anywhere close to a success.

Read: Another Obama Backed “Green Energy” Company Is A Disaster »

Posted in Barry Obama, Enviroweenies | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Helpfully Offers Notion That House Should Investigate Obama’s Post-Libyan War Incompetence

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 8:15 am

Obviously, this is intended to distract from the idiocy of Team Obama’s handling of Benghazi and the death of four Americans, before, during, and after. But, the Washington Post Editorial Board has a point of the overall rank incompetence of Obama regarding Libya

What Obama botched in Libya

Other than the bombing? Pretty much everything.

REPUBLICANS HAVE a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.

Awesome, another Islamist nation, thanks to Obama’s incompetence, inattention, and dithering. Unlike in Egypt, though, there is no strong military to take the nation back from the extremists.

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

Essentially, Obama did what Obama always does: perform a seagull mission. Fly in, make a lot of noise, crap all over everything, then fly out, leaving the resulting mess for Someone Else.

It’s nice that the Washington Post is finally noticing that Libya is a mess. What, exactly, was Obama trying to do post-Gaddafi? Were there any plans? Any attempt to help the new government, particularly to stop the rise of Islamic extremists in the eastern part of the country?

Let’s face it, there was a dereliction of duty by Obama and his administration, but that is not unusual by this president, who likes to Be President, but doesn’t like to Do President. The hard work of getting things done seems to be beyond him, unless it is fundraising. He thinks making pronouncements is the same thing as fixing a problem. Having never run anything of importance, he doesn’t understand the phrase “inspect what you expect”. His runs a shiny quarter administration: he’s constantly distracted and moving on from issues. He doesn’t seem to be able to concentrate on more than one thing at once, and he quickly moves on. He doesn’t seem to want to do the hard work. And, thanks to all that incompetence, Libya is now a failed Islamic state, rife with hardcore Islamists. How, exactly, does that serve the national security of the United States, to have an Islamic state with a huge coastline in the western Mediterranean?

Read: Washington Post Helpfully Offers Notion That House Should Investigate Obama’s Post-Libyan War Incompetence »

Posted in Barry Obama, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on Washington Post Helpfully Offers Notion That House Should Investigate Obama’s Post-Libyan War Incompetence | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove