…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… »
…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… »
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.
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.â€
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 »
…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: If All You See… »
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 »
Why? Because it’s Cinco De Mayo, an obscure holiday that is really only celebrated in the Mexican state of Pueblo, and has become an occasion to drink heavily here in the United States. Except for the illegal aliens and those who are here legally who push Mexican supremacy…isn’t that bigoted?…, returning parts of the US to Mexico, amnesty, etc. So don’t wear an American Flag shirt, at least in one California district
(Daily Caller) Students in a California school district will not be allowed to wear American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, due to concerns that such displays of patriotism would inflame racial tensions by offending Mexican students on their holiday.
The district’s policy concerned many free speech advocates, but was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In response, Tea Party groups plan to protest outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill. And they will be wearing American flag T-shirts.
“They silenced a symbol of patriotism and freedom in America,†said Georgine Scott-Codiga, president of the Gillroy-Morgan Hill Patriots, in a statement to KCBS.
The practice of limiting one group’s free speech rights because that speech might cause another group to react violently is known as the “heckler’s veto.†It is understood by free speech enthusiasts to have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Of course, the very liberal 9th Circuit ruled in favor of limiting 1st Amendment rights, because of the “heckler’s veto”.
Just to be clear, the situation wasn’t so black and white, as there is a history of antagonism between Hispanic and Anglo gangs in the area (wait, gangs in California? I thought it was all kumbaya?). And not all students wearing the American flag shirts were told to either turn them inside out or go home. And there was Supreme Court precedent for the shirts being banned. However, limiting Free Speech is a slippery slope. If the Hispanics were burning an American Flag, would the school administrators have stopped it because of the “heckler’s veto”? They had a little freakout over the shirts.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be celebrating a minor holiday about Mexican heritage and nationalistic supremacy, which mostly is about getting drunk, in public schools. No one freaks out about St. Patrick’s Day. But, then, true Irish don’t take to the streets to promote that America sucks and Ireland and the Irish are A#1. We don’t get stories about how not to be awful on St. Patrick’s Day. There aren’t stories about shootings during St. Patrick’s Day parades (shockingly, this was in Detroit). But, some do get out of hand, though the Irish aren’t usually pushing Irish nationalism. One has to wonder why we’re celebrating a Mexican holiday in the first place. Though, beating the snot out of larger, much better armed group of French troops is always a welcome cause for celebration. But, then, they did help the Colonies defeat the British during the War of Independence. Of course, don’t have a Mexican themed party, because that’s raaaaacist.
Read: Don’t Forget, It’s Illegal To Wear An American Flag Shirt Today »