Climate Change Is Like The New Slavery Or Something

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 9:56 pm

What was that thing I noted earlier today regarding Bloomberg News saying Warmists should just stop it with all the scary stories? Apparently, Grist’s Gillen D’Arcy Wood didn’t listen

Is climate change the new slavery?

Are Warmists smoking that new super marijuana? Anyhow, climablah climablah climablah

The last global climate crisis for which we have substantial historical records began 199 years ago this month, in April 1815, when the eruption of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia cooled the Earth and triggered drastic disruptions of major weather systems worldwide. Extreme volcanic weather — droughts, floods, storms — gripped the globe for three full years after the eruption.

Interesting: she’s using what happens when the temperatures severely dip as her reference. Certainly, things seem to be much worse for humans than during warm periods. Hence the reason human society tends to make great strides during Holocene warm periods.

Across what was then the Dutch East Indies, the rice crop failed for multiple years following Tambora’s eruption. In response, the common people did what they always did when faced with starvation: They sold themselves into slavery, by the tens of thousands. In faraway China, desperate parents likewise sold their children in pop-up slave markets.

So we should make sure we continue to keep the climate warm. Heck, if Skeptics are correct and the current warm period is mostly/solely natural, we should add anthropogenic forces in a manner to make sure we don’t slip back into a cool period.

To invent a language for climate change (WT-hey, they’re inventing everything else regarding “climate change”), we might start with the historical analogy of slavery, which flourished during the Tambora climate emergency two centuries ago. Like our future under climate change, slavery was a human-designed global tragedy that lasted centuries, displaced tens of millions of people, and reorganized the wealth and demographics of the planet. Like climate change, slavery institutionalized the suffering of millions of people from the global south so that folks in Europe and North America (and China) might lead more comfortable, fulfilling lives. And like climate change, few people at the time saw slavery as a serious problem. Even those who did believed nothing could be done without bringing about global economic ruin. That exact argument is used today to defend the continuation of our fossil-fuelled societies.

Really, where do you nutters get this bat guano crazy stuff? I can’t stress enough that you need to read the entire thing for the full wackadoodleness.

BTW, have I mentioned that there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years 8 months, and no warming, even some statistically insignificant cooling, so far this century?

Read: Climate Change Is Like The New Slavery Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Fish To Lose Fear Cause “Climate Change”

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 3:16 pm

Yet another horror/scifi fable brought to you by Warmists who refuse to give up their own big carbon lifestyles

(Climate Progress) Add “losing fear of predators” to the long list of impacts acidifying oceans could have on fish and other marine life.

A new study published in Nature Climate Change has found that elevated CO2 levels in marine waters make reef fish attracted to the smell of their predators, rather than being repelled. Researchers looked at multiple species of reef fish living near natural volcanic CO2 seeps in Papua New Guinea, an environment the study says is acidified to levels comparable to projections of what the entire ocean’s acid content will be in the next 100 years. They compared the behavior of the fish living in the acidified environment to fish in nearby, less acidified reefs, and found that, while fish in the nearby control reefs avoided water streams that contained predator odor, fish from the acidified reef spent 90 percent of their time in water streams that smelled of their predators.

I have to wonder: what did fish do during the majority of history when ocean temps and CO2 levels were higher than today? But, you know, the Warmists have to continue their hysteria in order to push their cult.

Read: Bummer: Fish To Lose Fear Cause “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle which should be restricted for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on the latest rantings of the Goreacle

Read: If All You See… »

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

Poll: Majority Think Obama Is A Liar

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 10:31 am

On one hand, this could describe most politicians, though it might be better to describe it as them pegging the bullshit meter. It is not a good thing when the POTUS is found to be a liar

(Fox News) About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.”

Question: should a POTUS even lie “only now and then”?

The number of voters saying Obama lies “most of the time” includes 13 percent of Democrats.  It also includes 12 percent of blacks, 16 percent of liberals, 31 percent of unmarried women and 34 percent of those under age 30 — all key Obama constituencies.

The poll actually has a pretty good political identification sampling, with a Dem/Republican/Independent sample of 39/38/20. Only 8% of Independents say Obama never lies. 4% of Republicans say Obama never lies. 31% of Dems say he never lies (note: some of the numbers do not add up to 100% for all groups).

Again, there is a vast difference between political bullshit and straight up lying.

  • “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
  • “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”

Those are two major whoppers. Here’s a list of 21 lies. And a list of 20 lies. And 252 lies. Are they all lies? No. Some are political BS, such as

“I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be the president
 of the United States of America.”

At what point does political BS cross the line to an outright lie? Thing is, Obama provides so much political BS on a constant basis that it is hard to see it as political BS and not a straight out lie.

Read: Poll: Majority Think Obama Is A Liar »

Posted in Barry Obama | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Bloomberg News: Warmists Should Stop Trotting Out Scary Stories

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 8:47 am

The Bloomberg News editorial board is wondering how to reset the climate change debate, and offers up a pithy idea for Warmists, way down in their editorial

It’s too easy for politicians to blame popular resistance to such measures on voters’ shortsightedness and ignorance of the proven science. Governments and their advisers have fallen into the habit of overstating their certainty about the consequences of inaction and needlessly narrowing the range of appropriate responses. It’s as though they’ve decided that people need to be scared into accepting whatever governments might propose, rather than guided to weigh intelligent choices. (snip)

And insurance companies typically don’t try to frighten people into buying their products. Instead, they present it as a sensible, even boring, necessity. Scare tactics about climate change have not only failed to move public opinion, but they’ve also undermined trust in government, which was too low to begin with.

Obviously, Bloomberg is enamored with Big Government, but it is interesting to note that they conclude that the scare tactics have reduced trust in government, and, in reality, the point of pushing “climate change” is to increase Progressive government, which is an ever increasing Big Government, with more control of individual lives and private entities. But the scare tactics aren’t working. Climate change continuously tends to be at the bottom, if not dead last, of citizen’s concerns in poll after poll, both here in the U.S. and in countries around the world.

Perhaps that arises due to those pushing “climate change” the hardest are massive hypocrites, using fossil fuels to drive and fly quite a bit.

It could also be due to people being able to get the real facts that rebut Warmist hyperventilation of doom. Warmists lament and whine about skeptics on a constant basis. They try and stop the debate, some papers refuse to allow anything but Warmist propaganda. Warmist websites remove comments and block skeptics who want to debate. Warmists call for prosecution and jail for skeptics.

Anyhow, back to the start of the editorial

The world’s failure to take meaningful action on climate change may one day be seen as the gravest mistake of our time. How to account for this failure?

There are many reasons for it — but principally lack of leadership. Governments won’t succeed in this endeavor until they start risking political capital on the cause and, equally important, rethink their arguments. Climate change is neither an inevitable cataclysm nor a scientific hoax, the twin poles that have defined this debate. It is a relatively straightforward but profound risk against which the world must insure itself.

Interestingly, the government of Australia risked their political capital in enacting a big cap and trade carbon tax scheme, which led to Labor, being the majority party who pushed the legislation, first being wiped out in the Queensland elections of 2012, then getting blown out in national elections of 2013. Both loses were due primarily to the “climate change” legislation.

Another worthwhile tactical shift would be to acknowledge that the remedies aren’t clear-cut. Offering voters a choice between acting “quickly and dramatically” or facing “catastrophic” harm, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry did recently, doesn’t help. The costs of mitigation vary enormously, as does who would bear the burden. Addressing these complications requires more debate, not less.

Here’s the thing: much of what Warmists say they want (mind you, their talking points do not really match their ulterior goals) match up with what skeptics want: a cleaner environment. I might be out of line, but I dare say that most would like cleaner energy sources, and might be willing to pay a tiny bit more for it. I would. But, we skeptics aren’t referring to CO2 output, but actual pollutants. We understand that coal and gasoline are not exactly clean. We’d like to see the use of other energy sources used. If they work. We’d like to see more research, in order to come up with breakthroughs.

But what Warmists really want, as mentioned, is Progressive government, otherwise known as “nice fascism”. Climate change is simply a way to get where they’re going. Solar and wind projects are used as political payback to Democrat donors. Mass transit is a way to control the movement of citizens, as is their notion of everyone living in cities (even though cities have been shown to have a higher per capita carbon footprint than living in the suburbs and countryside). As Ed Rogers notes, any new “carbon tax” will not stop Bad Weather or change the weather.

The lead sentence of an April 14 New York Times “news article,” headlined “Political Rifts Slow U.S. Effort on Climate Laws,” deserves some study. The first sentence reads, “The United States needs to enact a major climate change law, such as a tax on carbon pollution, by the end of this decade to stave off the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, according to the authors of a report released this week by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”  What? According to this article, if the United States doesn’t act unilaterally with a giant new tax, it will be impossible to “protect the globe from a future of serious food and water shortages, a drastic sea level rise, increased poverty and disease and other profound risks.” It is fair for voters to ask, “Do you like how your current tax dollars are spent?  Will a new tax designed to shape the climate be spent any better?”

But, the central point of carbon taxes is not to stop Bad Weather, but to put more taxpayer money in Government hands for liberal causes, along with controlling behavior of citizens and companies, along with creating more dependence on government as money is (supposedly) refunded back to the citizens.

Don’t expect the scary stories to stop. Warmists have been trotting them out for decades, even when they fail. How many tipping points have been postulated? Lots. And even though they fail to come about, they’ll keep trotting them out. The scary stories are all they have.

Read: Bloomberg News: Warmists Should Stop Trotting Out Scary Stories »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Liberal World | Comments Off on Bloomberg News: Warmists Should Stop Trotting Out Scary Stories | Trackback URL

Illegal Alien Deportations Decreased 43% Under Obama

By William Teach April 17, 2014 – 8:06 am

Remember the talking points about deportations under Obama never being higher? The Nation just ran a story saying no president has ever deported more. NPR said they were a record. Well, when people said the figures, and talking points, are mule fritters, they are correct

(Boston Globe) New deportation cases brought by the Obama administration in the nation’s immigration courts have been declining steadily since 2009, and judges have increasingly ruled against deportations, leading to a 43 percent drop in the number of deportations through the courts in the last five years, according to Justice Department statistics released Wednesday.

The figures show that the administration opened 26 percent fewer deportation cases in the courts last year than in 2009. In 2013, immigration judges ordered deportations in 105,064 cases nationwide.

The statistics present a different picture of President Obama’s enforcement policies than the one painted by many immigrant advocates, who have assailed the president as the “deporter in chief” and accused him of rushing to reach a record of 2 million deportations. While Obama has deported more foreigners than any other president, the pace of deportations has recently declined.

A good chunk of those deportations come from illegals being caught at the border and sent back, with the LA Times (the “mule fritters” link above) noting that the measurement methods have been changed under Obama to consider those caught immediately as formal deportations, artificially increasing the statistics. Those under “catch and release” across the border back to Mexico were never counted in the official deportation numbers. Until Team Obama changed the methodology in order to look tough on immigration

The steepest drop in deportations filed in the courts came after 2011, when the administration began to apply more aggressively a policy of prosecutorial discretion that officials said would lead to fewer deportations of illegal immigrants who had no criminal record. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security opened 187,678 deportation cases, nearly 50,000 fewer than in 2011.

At the same time, the share of cases in which judges decided against deportation and for allowing foreigners to remain in the United States has consistently increased, to about one-third last year from about one-fifth in 2009.

This can’t all be blamed on Team Obama failing to bring illegals to deportation hearings, as illegals are lawyering up, with much thanks to all the illegal alien supporter groups. Of course, they’re illegals. They should simply be kicked out. But, many judges have their political viewpoints, and many are following Obama’s/Dem policies to be “more humane” and let them remain in the country.

On the plus side, Obama has kept the border enforcement, strengthened under President Bush (sometimes with him being dragged kicking and screaming), mostly at the same strength. And Border Agents seem to know that if those they catch quickly are not deportated almost immediately, they’ll end up in deportation court and could end up being allowed to stay.

Let’s also not forget that some Republicans are not helping the situation, either, with their push for amnesty, er, a pathway to citizenship. When politicians of both parties tell us that the immigration system is broken, they’re lying, because it is the political class, which wants to play games with our border security and sovereignty, who are broken.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Illegal Alien Deportations Decreased 43% Under Obama »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Freedom From Religion Foundation Looks To Force Their Faith On Clemson Football

By William Teach April 16, 2014 – 2:29 pm

Obviously, someone was “offended”, so that means that Everyone Else must be forced to comply with the FFRF’s religion

(Greenville News) The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a letter of complaint to Clemson University, citing “constitutional concerns about how the public university’s football program is entangled with religion.”

According to the foundation, Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney has promoted a culture in the program that violates constitutional stipulations of the separation of church and state.

A spokesman for the athletic department declined to comment on the letter. Cathy Sams, the university’s chief public affairs officer, said her department has not completed its review of the letter but said Swinney hasn’t forced his religion onto his players.

“I can’t comment on any of the specifics in the letter or any of the specific concerns,” Sams said. “No one is required to participate in any religious activities related to the football program. It’s purely voluntary. Religion and faith is a big part of Coach Swinney’s personal beliefs, but it is in no way required. There is no mandatory participation.”

But, the FFRF see religiosity in a public funded school, so That Must Not Be Allowed, even if voluntary.

The foundation, a national nonprofit educational charity based in Madison, Wis., says it is the nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics. According to Elliott, the organization does not intend to infringe on Swinney’s beliefs, but to ensure that the players’ constitutional rights are protected.

Did they ask if the players cared, or wanted their help? In fact, there is not one mention in this or any other article about anyone associated with the football program getting a bee up their bums

“What we have observed in the records is that the football coaching staff is doing a number of things to promote Christianity to their student-athletes,” foundation staff attorney Patrick Elliott said.

“While student-athletes can pray, conduct Bible studies and engage in religious activities, the coaching staff, as public employees, should not be doing that with their student athletes.

I wonder if they can point out where in the US and/or South Carolina constitution where public employees are not allowed to be religious, mention religion, pray, worship, etc, on public (ie, taxpayer owned) property? While it would certainly violate the spirit of the 1st Amendment to forced players, staff, others to worship in a particular manner, or just simply worship, there is nothing to stop the current activities.

“It violates their constitutional rights. Coaches have tremendous influence over players. They make decisions on who has scholarships and who plays and what they do.”

Ever get the feeling that these anti-religion hate groups have never read the founding charters nor the documents that led to them? Clemson has had Muslims and Jews, among other religions, play for them. Those who come play football for Clemson do so voluntarily, and so often grew up in a religious atmosphere. They don’t seem to have a problem, yet here comes the FFRF busybodies to interfere with the lives of other people. People have a right to be offended. They don’t have the right to make other people comply. The FFRF is as totalitarian as most Progressive groups, and as overbearing and dogmatic as the Taliban.

Read: Freedom From Religion Foundation Looks To Force Their Faith On Clemson Football »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 16, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is wasting precious, non-renewable water on an evil fossil fueled machine, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on the IRS trolling social media.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Tom Nelson: Things I Believe On Warming

By William Teach April 16, 2014 – 9:59 am

An interesting post by Tom Nelson

(This post was written to respond to Don’s Twitter question here)

Don, off the top of my head, here are some things I believe:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901

Continued below the fold

Read More »

Read: Tom Nelson: Things I Believe On Warming »

Posted in Global Warming | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Scot Lehigh: This Democracy Thing Is Bad For Climate Change

By William Teach April 16, 2014 – 8:24 am

Why? Because those who don’t buy into the doom and gloom of man-caused global warming are able to have their opinions, their say, and their vote.

(Boston Globe) THE WORLD now has a rough deadline for action on climate change.

Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Expect a certain part of our political class to insist that man-made climate change is not consensus science, and that until it is, nothing should be done. The problem there is obvious: By the time all the skeptics are persuaded, it will be too late for an effective response. In that regard, climate change poses a test of our democracy’s ability to address a threat pressing enough to require a relatively prompt response but too complicated for a lay person to assess on his own authority.

If you notice the hyperlink, the original title was “climate change skeptics don’t deserve veto. What’s being pushed is that democracy (yes, I know, we have a federal republic, but it’s still a democratic political model, and other countries use democratic models of voting) is inconvenient for Warmists, getting in the way of implementing their far-left Progressive agenda. And, again, the only science consensus is part of is political science. Not hard science.

Similarly, most politicians who must wrestle with the issue, like most journalists who write about it, don’t have the expertise to design the computer models and do the complex analysis necessary to evaluate the threat themselves. So the matter becomes an epistemological issue: How does one decide what to credit, trust, believe?

Mr. Lehigh mentions “authority” throughout the article. Here’s the real authority

Most computer models have failed. Here’s another representation

Most people turn to the consensus of scientific opinion. That is, to things like the UN panel. Others, however, define themselves as skeptics or contrarians, an identity that, once adopted, is often hard to abandon. Doubters might consider Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley and co-founder of Berkeley Earth, who was once such a skeptic himself.

Muller is probably not the best example, considering he was a fake skeptic. Actually, on reconsideration, perhaps he was a good choice for inclusion, considering that the issue itself is fake. There has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years and 8 months despite rising CO2 levels.

Even if the temps were rising, there is no hard proof that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind as opposed to mostly/solely natural causation, which has happened throughout the lifespan of the Earth, and we can easily see there has been a seesaw effect throughout the Holocene of warm periods, some of which were warmer than the current period, and cool periods.

But the idea that every prominent skeptic must be satisfied before the country moves forward is wrongheaded. Senator John McCain, who advocated a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases during his 2008 presidential campaign, had it right back then. He noted that if we moved forward and it turned out that climate-change believers were mistaken, we’d still have a cleaner planet, whereas if we did nothing and the skeptics were wrong, we would have done a profound disservice to future generations.

Remember when they moved forward with the Kyoto Protocol? How’d that work out for the signatory countries? Their “carbon footprints” and CO2 output continued to rise, the majority never came close to their goals, yet, their economies were damaged and reduced, their citizens suffered from slow economies, and they’ve been left with poor energy infrastructure left on a razors edge during the cold winters. And many are moving back to using more coal. It’s no wonder Bill Clinton and the entire US Senate, including all the Democrats (which included hyper-Warmist John Kerry) refused to join Kyoto, because it would damage our economy.

We would not have a “cleaner planet”, as CO2 is not a pollutant, but a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. We would be tilting at windmills, and future generations would be pretty ticked about destroying the economy and implementing tons of government regulations that harm their freedom.

But, as always, if Warmists like Mr. Lehigh are so concerned, they can easily show us the way by living the life they advocate for everyone else.

Read: Warmist Scot Lehigh: This Democracy Thing Is Bad For Climate Change »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove