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

90,000 Health Insurance Policies At Risk In Nevada Thanks To Obamacare

By William Teach May 6, 2014 – 7:46 am

Do you find it as interesting as I do that a law meant to help people without health insurance obtain that insurance creates so many darned losers?

(Las Vegas Review Journal) Local business owners might be hoping the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandates cover sticker shock.

The law’s employer coverage mandate doesn’t take effect until 2015, but early plan renewals are starting to roll in. And for some businesses, the premium jumps are positively painful.

Local insurance brokers are reporting spikes ranging from 35 percent to 120 percent on policies that renew from July to December. The increases are especially acute among employers with workforces made up of younger, healthier men. That’s because Obamacare prohibits offering lower rates to healthier groups. It also narrows the allowed premium gap between older and younger enrollees.

“It’s like if there were no more safe-driver discounts with State Farm,” said local insurance broker Frank Nolimal of Assurance Ltd. “Everybody has the same rate, whether you have three DUIs, or you’re a (nondrinking) churchgoing Mormon.”

The changes put as many as 90,000 policies across Nevada at risk of cancellation or nonrenewal this fall, said Las Vegas insurance broker William Wright, president of Chamber Insurance and Benefits. That’s more than three times the 25,000 enrollees affected in October, when Obamacare-compliant plans first hit the market.

A few things to note. First, are they considering this to be 90K people potentially losing their plans, or 90K small business policies? If it’s the latter, small business policies would certainly cover a multitude of workers, meaning considerably more than 90k people would potentially lose their coverage.

Second, the article notes that many small businesses with deep pockets could potentially eat the extra costs, ones like professional white collar firms. But those on lower skilled and blue collar work could easily see their companies say “nope. Not paying the large increase”. And those that do keep the plans would surely pass the extra costs on to workers, which would mean less take-home pay and less disposable income.

Third, Nevada is a microcosm of what will surely happen across the country as the mid-terms approach.

Fourth, it’s funny how the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” ie, Obamacare, is causing so many problems for those who already had health insurance rather than helping those who did not have insurance and want health insurance obtain it.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts looks like it’s going to scrap its health insurance exchange website software, like Oregon did, costing taxpayers even more millions of dollars.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: 90,000 Health Insurance Policies At Risk In Nevada Thanks To Obamacare »

Posted in Healthcare | Comments Off on 90,000 Health Insurance Policies At Risk In Nevada Thanks To Obamacare | Trackback URL

USA Today Poll: 65% Say They Want Not Obama Policies And Programs

By William Teach May 5, 2014 – 4:41 pm

Yay, Year Of Action!(?) (via Jim Geraghty)

(USA Today) By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones. (snip)

By more than 2-1, Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. They remain downbeat about the economy. They aren’t persuaded that the Affordable Care Act is going to help them and their families. Even the president’s supporters worry he is a political liability for fellow Democrats. The president’s job approval rating remains anemic in the new survey, at 44% approve, 50% disapprove. (snip)

Voters say the most important issue affecting their vote for Congress this fall is the jobs situation, cited by 27% of those surveyed. Health care is first for 21%, followed by the federal budget deficit, named by 19%. Only education and national security also break into double digits. (and Obama is supposed to be pivoting to “climate change”) (snip)

Though economists report an economic recovery is underway, most people say they aren’t feeling its benefits. By more than 2-1, 40%-17%, they assess the nation’s economic conditions as poor, not excellent or good. That’s essentially unchanged from a year ago. (snip)

Most of those surveyed say their own families aren’t prospering: 39% rate their financial situation as “only fair” and 23% call it poor. They do see a bit of hope on the horizon. Looking ahead, 59% say things are getting better for them, though most say only a little better. One in four say things are getting worse.

All those numbers and perceptions lead to a generic ballot lead of 47-43% for the GOP. And Obama is a major drag for Democrats

What’s more, 26% say they think of their vote as a vote against Obama; 16% as a vote for him. The president looms as more of a drag on Democrats than he was four years ago, when Democratic setbacks cost the party control of the House. Then, by 24%-20%, people saw their vote as a vote for Obama.

Fortunately, Obama’s foreign policy is so much better….oh.

Read: USA Today Poll: 65% Say They Want Not Obama Policies And Programs »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Elections, GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Man With World’s Largest Carbon Footprint Is Supposedly Refocusing On Climate Change

By William Teach May 5, 2014 – 3:30 pm

I’m not sure why the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin is so excited about this: Obama pivot’s do not last very long

The satellite images viewed by President Obama before a meeting with eight Western governors were stark, showing how snowpack in California’s mountains had shrunk by 86 percent in a single year.

“It was a ‘Houston, we have a problem’ moment,” recalled White House counselor John D. Podesta, one of two aides who briefed the president that February day. Obama mentioned the images several times as he warned the governors that political leaders had no choice but to cope with global warming’s impact.

Yeah, how about the massive, and in many cases, record breaking, snow throughout the heartland to the east coast?

After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers.

So his legacy will be one of causing the energy costs of Americans to artificially increase, meaning the price of everything else will rise?

And while he routinely brings up climate change in closed-door meetings with world leaders, according to his aides, he also discusses it in his private life, talking about global warming’s implications with his teenage daughters.

“This is really real for him, in terms of what he’s leaving,” said Cecilia Muñoz, who directs the White House Domestic Policy Council and has helped coordinate federal investment in climate-resilient infrastructure projects. “This is personal for him.”

Is this a White House press release, Juliet? Anyhow, let’s not forget that Obama is a serial climahypocrite, casually jetting off around the country for brief speeches followed my lots of fundraising appearances. This is a guy who sent his dog on a separate vacation flight. Whose family routinely takes separate fossil fueled flights for vacations. Who heads off to play golf on a constant basis in large fossil fueled motorcades. Who had to be shamed to put the solar panels (which are mostly superficial and ornamental) back on the roof of the White House. Obama’s carbon footprint is calculated to be around 41,000 metric tons. The average CF for American citizens is a bit over 19 metric tons. Another do as I say not as I do liberal.

Read: Man With World’s Largest Carbon Footprint Is Supposedly Refocusing On Climate Change »

Posted in Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 5, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible beer that is causing the seas to rise (in a horribly racist advertisement), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on perception of racism.

There’s a second one below the fold

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

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

Hooray! How To Convince Conservatives Christians That Global Warming Is Real

By William Teach May 5, 2014 – 10:07 am

I’ve been waiting for this all life!!!!!!!! Of course, skeptics do believe in global warming. We believe that it is mostly/solely caused be nature. We also do not believe that it is apocalyptic. Anyhow, here’s Kathrine Hayhoe building the straw man

(Mother Jones) Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series The Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren’t in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. “There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype,” Cheadle observed.

Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. “I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to,” explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”

Can someone remind me where skeptics are saying that it is incompatible with our values? Actually, if you believe in limited government, freedom of choice, not having government in charge of your life, liberty, well, yeah, it is incompatible with our values.What she’s trying to say is that skeptics are saying that science is incompatible with religion. So, of course, after denigrating skeptics, she has ideas on how to talk to us

1. Conservation is Conservative. The evangelical community isn’t just a religious community, it’s also a politically conservative one on average. So Hayhoe speaks directly to that value system. “What’s more conservative than conserving our natural resources, making sure we have enough for the future, and not wasting them like we are today?” she asks. “That’s a very conservative value.”

True. It is. Notice that conservatives leave the surrounding areas cleaner than when they got there, while liberals leave a massive mess. But, this has nothing to do with the fake issue of climate change/anthropogenic global warming.

2. Yes, God Would Let This Happen. One conservative Christian argument is that God just wouldn’t let human activities ruin the creation. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, “God’s still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous.” You can watch Inhofe and other religious right politicians dismissing climate change on biblical grounds in this video:

This is just getting beyond silly. Besides, if we want to go down this road, then God has let the climate change on a constant basis. It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.

3. The Bible Does Not Approve of Letting the World Burn. Hayhoe agrees with the common liberal perception that the evangelical community contains a significant proportion of apocalyptic or end-times believers—and that this belief, literally that judgment is upon us, undermines their concern about preserving the planet. But she thinks there’s something very wrong with that outlook, and indeed, that the Bible itself refutes it.

Seriously, what do liberals know of the Bible? They do all they can to block it. Furthermore, the world is not going to burn from a tiny increase in the average world temperature.

4. Even If You Believe in a Young Earth, It’s Still Warming. One reason there’s such a tension between the evangelical community and science is, well, science. Many evangelicals are Young-Earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.

Of course, going down this road insults the beliefs of these evangelicals. And even if it is warming (there’s been no warming in 17 years and 8 months), it doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

5. “Caring for our environment is caring for people.” Finally, Hayhoe thinks it is crucial to emphasize to evangelicals that saving the planet is about saving people…not just saving animals.

True, but, again, this has nothing to do with “climate change”.

If you want to truly convince me that Mankind is at fault, you Warmists can simply change your own behavior. Give up fossil fuels, live in tiny homes, make your life carbon neutral. Right now, though, there is this big push on “how to talk to/convince skeptics”. All while insulting them.

Read: Hooray! How To Convince Conservatives Christians That Global Warming Is Real »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove