“Climate Change” Is Dangerous Just Like The Occupy Movement

By William Teach April 8, 2014 – 10:10 am

No, really. Here’s Rebecca Solnit

Call climate change what it is: violence

Social unrest and famine, superstorms and droughts. Places, species and human beings – none will be spared. Welcome to Occupy Earth

Interesting. The Occupy movement showed us far left violence, rape, murder, theft, pooping on police cars and doorsteps, attempted bombings, mayhem. Fascinating.

Anyway, here we go:

If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.

But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.

So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.

Or so I thought when I received a press release last week from a climate group announcing that “scientists say there is a direct link between changing climate and an increase in violence“. What the scientists actually said, in a not-so-newsworthy article in Nature two and a half years ago, is that there is higher conflict in the tropics in El Nino years, and that perhaps this will scale up to make our age of climate change also an era of civil and international conflict.

The message is that ordinary people will behave badly in an era of intensified climate change.

All this makes sense, unless you go back to the premise and note that climate change is itself violence. Extreme, horrific, longterm, widespread violence.

Climate change is anthropogenic – caused by human beings, some much more than others. We know the consequences of that change: the acidification of oceans and decline of many species in them, the slow disappearance of island nations such as the Maldives, increased flooding, drought, crop failure leading to food-price increases and famine, increasingly turbulent weather. (Think Hurricane Sandy and the recent typhoon in the Philippines, and heat waves that kill elderly people by the tens of thousands.)

Climate change is violence.

So much bat-shit crazy, so little time. She even partially blames the Arab Spring on “climate change”, and blames “climate change” solely on humans. I suggest full legalization of marijuana, the better to keep these people heavily medicated. They are in desperate need.

Read: “Climate Change” Is Dangerous Just Like The Occupy Movement »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

UK Government Report Whines About Giving “Climate Change” Skeptics Air-time

By William Teach April 8, 2014 – 7:11 am

Why yes, yes, climate change believers are all about the fascism and restriction of speech

(Wired UK) The UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee has recently delivered a report on the state of climate knowledge and communication in the country. Although it doesn’t spare the government from criticism, the report notes that most of the public looks to the BBC to provide authoritative coverage on science. The report concludes that in this case, the BBC’s news division is failing its readership and viewers. Rather than providing authoritative information, the BBC is succumbing to false balance, and its director of Editorial Policy and Standards gave testimony on science coverage that appears to be incoherent.

Warmists really do not like when Citizens are allowed to hear contradictory facts when it comes to “climate change”, as this undermines their political science and ability to dictate how Citizens will live their lives.

In the UK, the major political parties largely accept the scientific evidence for climate change; official skepticism is limited to a few parties on the conservative fringe. As such, the report starts with the acceptance of the conclusions reached by the majority of scientists: the Earth is warming, and humans are the main factor driving that warming.

Fascinating, especially the part where the elected officials haven’t given up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and gone “carbon neutral”.

The UK does not have the same press freedoms we have here in the US, yet the report is heavily upset that skeptics are given any time in the news.

“It is not clear to us,” the committee concluded, “how a ‘journalistic point of view’ which presumably emphasises accuracy, can be at odds with a scientific approach whose prime objective is the establishment of empirical fact.”

Yet, Warmists are expressly giving their point of view, quite often based on hysteria and scaremongering, not scientific fact. A prognostication using failed computer models is not science. Nor is constantly changing past data.

The committee also examined the country’s newspapers, where it found that most of the inaccuracies appeared in opinion columns rather than news pieces. But the two most frequently mentioned offenders, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, declined to send anyone to meet with the committee. Both papers sent written statements indicating that they counted on their readers to note which pieces were reporting and which were opinion, a stance that left the parliamentarians “very disappointed.”

Really, this is just a part of the Warmist campaign to shut down debate. Here in the US, many papers refuse to publish anything that goes against the “consensus”. In the UK, it is the government attempting to shut down debate.

And, certainty, what is debatable is the policies that result from or are proposed due to Warmists prognostications and (unscientific) reports.

Read: UK Government Report Whines About Giving “Climate Change” Skeptics Air-time »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Eric Holder Wants Us To Consider Linking Guns To Something Wearable

By William Teach April 8, 2014 – 6:54 am

What do you think of this idea? I can see the good and bad

(The Blaze) It’s stuff straight out of a Bond movie. And now it’s being trumpeted once again by the Obama administration, specifically Eric Holder, to talk about gun issue.

What is it? Technology that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone but the lawful owner.

“I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe,” Holder told Congress on Friday.

“By making them — either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, — how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon,” he added. “It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, while at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis, where people where, kids especially, are struck down.”

The Blaze goes on to note that there is very little out on the market for this type of technology. One thing I’m seeing is an automatic response of people saying “hell no!” Having this technology available would not be a bad thing. For parents, this could be a great way to limit children’s ability to grab the gun and have something Bad happen without having to lock the weapon up and stick it on the top shelf behind the winter sweaters. Not particularly accessible if someone breaks in, eh? What if it could be left in the dresser drawer without fear?

I’m not particularly thrilled with the notion of the gun being linked to a fingerprint. It would certainly make it damned difficult in case someone steals the weapon, but it would also make it difficult to sell it, or let someone use it at the firing range. What if the spouse is the one who needs to grab it? I suppose it could be programmed to accept more than one fingerprint, but, more important, do these prints end up in government hands? More intrusion?

Some type of bracelet, ring, something wearable that uses a code would be the best. The biggest problem is not legal guns, but illegal guns. Many of those guns are stolen. According to the DOJ, 1.4 million guns were stolen from homes between 2005 and 2010. Roughly 25,000 guns are stolen from dealers every year. If there is a way to make them virtually unusable every year, would that not be a Good Thing? 2nd Amendment advocates constantly state that the issue is the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

But, would this be mandatory? Would Los Federales require registration of the tech? Would they have a way to shut the link down, meaning you could not fire the weapon? What’s your opinion?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Eric Holder Wants Us To Consider Linking Guns To Something Wearable »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: Butterfly Defies Warmist Predictions Of Extinction

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 3:56 pm

Stupid butterfly! How dare you adapt!

(Guardian) A butterfly species whose population collapsed because of climate change and habitat loss has defied predictions of extinction to rapidly move to cooler climes and change its food plant.

The quino checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino), found in Mexico and California, has shifted to higher altitudes and surprisingly chosen a completely different species of plant on which to lay its eggs, according to research presented at the Butterfly Conservation’s seventh international symposium in Southampton.

In reality, the quino checkerspot butterfly was mostly endangered by habitat loss. But, hey, like every real environmental issue, the nutballs have to make it about “climate change”. And they throw their belief in Darwinism out the window. Fortunately, the butterfly is smarter than the Warmists, and simply adapted. Like it surely did when the climate turned colder during the Little Ice Age. The Medieval Warm Period. The Dark Ages. The Roman Warm period. Etc.

Several other butterfly species have been changing habitat or diet to cope with a changing climate but the quino checkerspot is the first butterfly known to science to change both so rapidly.

Many environmentalists fear that climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt but, according to Parmesan, this surprising example shows that some apparently doomed species may be more resilient than we imagine.

Of course, the Warmists have to continue to push doom and gloom for species.

But the international symposium also heard strong scientific evidence that climate change will create more losers than winners because unspoilt habitat is so fragmented, preventing many butterflies, moths and other insects from moving to more suitable places. Tom Oliver of the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology told the symposium that scientific modelling predicted a number of UK butterfly extinctions by the middle of this century.

If the models are anything like the temperature models, butterflies should be just fine. Most life has adapted throughout the Holocene and the back and forth climates.

Read: Bummer: Butterfly Defies Warmist Predictions Of Extinction »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 1:39 pm

…is an ocean that will cover all the land because of the evil United States and its massive carbon footprint, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Wake Up America, with a post on the Police State USA.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Books: On The Suspension Of Belief

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 12:56 pm

What, exactly, is the suspension of belief? Essentially, in fiction, this is where the author creates a situation where one can suspend their belief that “this can’t happen. Give me break”. Sometimes it is really easy, as with books on zombies, vampires, Frankenstein, and so many others within the horror and science fiction genres. Not always. I love a good zombie book (they are not really about the zombies, but about people surviving in tough situations), but I’ve started a few that make it impossible to suspend the belief. Same with some scifi and horror.

You don’t have to believe in what the author is pushing, but a good suspension of believe allows for an excellent read. Consider the Nightside and Secret Histories books by Simon Green: a secrecy place in London called the Nightside? Return of King Arthur? Magic? Druids watching the world? It works. Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files? Magic? Demons? A wizard protecting Chicago? It works.

Harry Turtledove writes excellent alternative history books. Consider his World War series. It relies on the South forcing an end to the Civil War, essentially giving them a win. This all stems from a simple premise: instead of a messenger losing General Lee’s battle orders with them being found by Union soldier, a Confederate notices the drop and hands them back ( look it up, this is real). Instead of the Union winning the battle, what if the Confederacy won, and France and England told President Lincoln to settle, and there was two nations? Resulting in different outcomes in WW1 and WW2?

What brings this up? Two books. The first is Stealing Second. I did not finish this one. Why? Here’s my brief review

I really wanted to like this book. I usually avoid heavily political fiction, even books that agree with my political leanings. They have to be really entertaining for me to make it far in, much less finish. While this is entertaining, there is just too much wrong in order to suspend belief.

Spoilers ahead.

First off, there is a serious issue with the timeline. Things happen way too fast that would never be able to happen in America. In a very short time, the President declares certain guns verboten, then says all guns must be turned in, then puts out an Executive Order suspending the 2nd Amendment, deploys the National Guard, has law enforcement rounding up guns, then citizens are being shot, hung, or thrown in magically appearing detention centers? The main character getting into really good shape and losing lots of weight in a few days? No. Sorry.

Could this happen? With a proper buildup to provide that suspension of belief. But not as laid forth. There is no way that any of what was mentioned could happen without a long buildup. A president could not issue any orders to collect all guns, nor suspend the 2nd Amendment. Nor total martial law. Nor can a president arbitrarily call up the National Guard for domestic use in the manner described. It would take an act of Congress.

And I heavily doubt that the majority of law enforcement and military members would abide by what they are told to do in the book, nor go nuts and shoot and hang fellow Americans. More than likely, most would side with The People in support of the Constitution. You can bet those in Red States would revolt. And would Congress and state government blindly go along with all this? No. The conditions to allow this to happen were not created.

If you read In Due Time by J.K. Jones, and the After Eden series by Austin Dragon, you see those conditions created.

A little thing, they are not “clips”: they are magazines.

It was a good start, but, sorry, no.

Then there is The Second Revolution, which I just finished. What happens in the beginning is similar to the other book, yet, it is much more believable. A better timeline. A better buildup. President in both give illegal orders, yet The Second Revolution provides a more plausible story (I’m trying to avoid spoilers) by creating a proper suspension of belief. In essence, it works where Stealing Second fails.

I’m not trying to discuss politics regarding the two books, just illustrating how little changes can create a better story. Especially since I am very reticent when it comes to political books. I tend not to even like little political references, even ones I agree with, in fiction.

Though, I will say that conservative leaning books, like talk radio, are light years better than liberal ones. 🙂

Read: Books: On The Suspension Of Belief »

Posted in Books | Comments Off on Books: On The Suspension Of Belief | Trackback URL

Climate Change Is About The Kids Or Something

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 11:02 am

The Cult Of Gore is getting desperate

(Boston Globe) “CONVINCE ME.”

That’s the gauntlet I threw down weeks earlier to Kelsey Wirth, 44, a seasoned entrepreneur and mother of two who’s the driving force behind Mothers Out Front, the upstart nonprofit throwing house parties (and stroller-dotted Beacon Hill rallies) in an effort to unite Massachusetts mothers in the fight against climate change. I present the perfect test case: a South Shore mom who schleps the kids around in a gas guzzler, spends way too much on winter oil bills, gets scolding letters from her power company about using more kilowatts than the neighbors, and, other than separating trash from recycling, hasn’t given too much mind-share to the cause. (snip)

Forget the polar bears. This is about human mamas protecting their cubs. “We are not an environmental organization,” says Wirth, curled up in her sun-lit kitchen in jeans and a gray sweater, colorful kids’ artwork plastering the walls. “The earth is not our symbol. It’s not about the planet, per se. It’s about our kids. Our goal is to make climate change an issue that mothers care about because they are concerned about their kids’ future.”

That’s funny, since no kid in grade school has actually witnessed statistically significant actual warming

It’s actually more like 8 months, but, no need to quibble.

Read: Climate Change Is About The Kids Or Something »

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

Is The Game Up For Climate Change Believers?

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 8:53 am

That’s what UK Telegraph writer Charles Moore states

Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.

The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”. Proper science studies what is – which is, in principle, knowable – and is consequently very cautious about the future – which isn’t. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days.

The thing is, “climate change” or whatever you want to call it is not about science, unless we’re discussing political science.

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).

Moore goes on to describe how these ideas metastasized throughout the 1970’s along the lines of “environmentalism”, through the 1980’s, and into the 90’s, turning more towards anthropogenic global warming along political lines. James Delingpole refers to these people as “watermelons“, green on the outside, red on the inside, meaning that so many of the pseudo-commies moved into the enviro movement as the Soviet Union and other communist countries were collapsing.

…the international war against carbon totters on, because Western governments see their green policies, like zombie banks, as too big to fail. The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up.

The article is supposedly a review of The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall. In the second paragraph of the excerpt, we see “All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”.” That comes close to the reality of “climate change”, but fails to mention that this is all about instituting a Progressive government. Authoritarian. Dictatorial. Control over your life. Control of private entities. Full control of economies. Big Big Government. Fascism. This is the Third Reich without all the mass murder. Maybe. Let’s not forget that Leftists were more than will to turn their eyes away from the 100’s of millions killed by the Soviet Union and China, among other “communist” countries.

I’ve mentioned a few times that Jonah Goldberg referred to Progressivism as “nice fascism”, meaning that they do everything for your own good. But, the disciples are willing to get nasty when people refuse to conform. Witness what happened to now-former Mozilla CEO Brenden Eichs. The Progressive Hit Squad forced him out for failing to hold the proper beliefs.

Again, like always, I’ll point out that if Warmists really believed that Mankind is causing every weather/climate change, mostly through the use of fossil fuels, they might change their behavior. But, they don’t. Because the notion of “climate change” is just part of the gameplan to push Progressive politics worldwide. That sounds rather paranoid, rather conspiracy theory, I know, but sometimes they really are out to get you. And by you, I mean you, because these Progressive think none of the Bad Things, like rising prices, loss of freedom, higher taxes, etc, will happen to themselves.

Alas, the game may be up for the reality of “climate change”, but don’t think the Warmists will ever give up pushing this notion. It’s to important to their overall gameplan to quit.

Read: Is The Game Up For Climate Change Believers? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Shiny Quarter Politics: Obama Pivots To “Fair Pay”

By William Teach April 7, 2014 – 8:23 am

Which is rather funny, since Obama pays women who work in the White House less than the men

(The Hill) President Obama is preparing to lean on companies that do business with the government with a pair of new executive actions designed to close the wage gap between men and women.

The orders, detailed by a White House official, reflect the latest steps taken by the president to promote income equality without backing from the divided Congress – though both measures are limited in scope.

Obama will unveil the two orders on Tuesday, which marks “Equal Pay Day,” the name given to the point in the year at which an average woman’s pay catches up to what a man doing the same job made in the previous year.

The first measure is meant to prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their compensation. The White House official stressed that the order will neither compel workers to discuss their pay nor employers to reveal salaries.

That first measure is quite possibly illegal, since it creates law, of which the Executive Branch cannot Constitutionally do.

Obama will also sign a Presidential Memorandum directing Labor Secretary Tom Perez to draft new regulations requiring contractors to report summary pay information – including data on race and sex – to the agency, the official said.

What is the penalty if employers refuse to reveal their private data due to this EO possibly being illegal, since it also skirts the notion of law making?

What is the penalty to the White House, which, again, still pays its female employees less? Let’s face it, this is simply a distraction from the issues that Americans care about, along with a way to attempt to bump up the enthusiasm of the base approaching the mid-terms.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Shiny Quarter Politics: Obama Pivots To “Fair Pay” »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

“Climate Change” Might Possibly Maybe Damage Baseball

By William Teach April 6, 2014 – 1:41 pm

Yet another in a long line of $1 movie scary stories

(Straight) The crack of bats this time of year means two things: baseball is back and winter is over.

But Major League Baseball’s spring soundtrack relies heavily on wood from white ash trees treasured for strength and flexibility. And it may soon sound different as a tiny beetle, the emerald ash borer, threatens the northern Pennsylvania stands that for more than a century have supplied wood for bats.

Experts say climate change may alter just how far north and south the tree-killing pest will spread. Northern Pennsylvania is right in the emerald ash borer’s sweet spot.

“If climate change reduces those extreme cold temperatures in northern states, which can kill them, it may allow it to spread north faster,” said Dan Herms, a professor and entomologist at Ohio State University. “But surely they’ll get to where Louisville Slugger is.”

So, nothing concrete, eh? What happened during the previous warm periods?

”We haven’t seen it affect our ability to get logs yet, but it’s knocking on the doorstep,” said Brian Boltz, a general manager at Hillerich & Bradsby. “It’s pretty established both 50 miles [80 kilometres] north and south of our main harvesting areas.”

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Read: “Climate Change” Might Possibly Maybe Damage Baseball »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove