Hooray! How To Talk To A Climate Contrarian (If You Must)

By William Teach April 5, 2014 – 12:07 pm

The first piece of advice I’d give The Week’s Ryan Cooper would be to act like an adult and leave the insults out of the mix

How to talk to a climate change contrarian (if you must)

Climate trolls make the link between climate change and extreme weather seem highly complicated. It isn’t.

No, it isn’t complicated, because it doesn’t exist except in the talking points of Warmists. Starting out with “troll”, ie, people who don’t adhere to the same religion as Warmists is probably a Bad Idea.

Nate Silver’s hiring of noted stats whiz Roger Pielke Jr. to write for FiveThirtyEight sparked a minor internet scrape last month over climate change, extreme weather, and how those issues are covered in the press. Pielke made his career repeatedly accusing climate scientists of scientific malfeasance for exaggerating the link between climate change and extreme weather (see here for dozens more). His latest effort was another entry in the canon, arguing that the rising economic costs of extreme weather had little to do with climate change.

Now the Breakthrough Institute, which is about as troll-y as they come with regards to climate change, is out with a true-to-form defense of Pielke, claiming that a new, devastating report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entirely vindicates his approach to weather disasters. (I know, I know, I’ve called on the universe not to feed the trolls, but sometimes I’ll take requests.)

As is typical for Breakthrough, Pielke, and other climate change contrarians, the debate they’re trying to have is almost totally pointless. It’s long past time to kill forever the idea that quibbling over the current costs of weather disasters matters either for climate policy or politics. When it comes to climate change and extreme weather, one simple fact takes care of the vast majority of what’s really important. You ready? Here it is, drum roll…

More global warming means more extreme weather.

Mr. Cooper actually forgets to explain how one should talk to a “climate contrarian”, instead focusing on the discredited notion of extreme weather. Thing is, there has been no statistically significant warming in 17 years and 8 months. No US landfalling major hurricanes since October 2005. Only one barely-a-hurricane since October 2008. We’re seeing very low fire and tornado seasons. Then he kind blows his own argument out of the water that we’re doomed from extreme weather

The Pielke post that kicked off this whole mess is about an ancillary question: is the economic damage from past natural disasters the result of climate change? Right away we’re in trouble, because extreme weather events are by definition rare and random, and there have been only a few decades on record that have been much hotter than average. As this post explains in detail, with the exception of heat records, we simply don’t have very much data yet on the question, and it will take a while for the statistics to shake out.

OK, we don’t have much data, but we’re supposed to change our entire society for the prognostications of what may possibly happen in the future? In fact, we have lots of data from news reports about “extreme weather” occurring well before CO2 hit 350ppm. And we know what humans went through during the Little Ice Age. We know that humans do much better during warm periods than cool periods. We also know that Warmists are so utterly concerned about CO2 that they change their own lives to match their rhetoric.

Read: Hooray! How To Talk To A Climate Contrarian (If You Must) »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Kinsley: The Solution To Money In Politics

By William Teach April 5, 2014 – 7:50 am

Obviously, people, primarily liberals/Democrats, had a conniption fit over the recent Supreme Court decision over campaign finance. Here’s Michael Kinsley

On Thursday, the day after the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, The Post and the New York Times between them carried eight separate print articles about the ruling. McCutcheon is the latest in a string of decisions in which the court has held that various limits on campaign contributions violate the First Amendment free speech rights of rich people and corporations. The articles ranged from fairly balanced news reports through only slightly slanted sidebars to open frothing and foaming on the Times editorial page.

Nevertheless, this was all too much for a group of Republican House members who introduced H.R. 2532, the so-called “Freedom From the Press Act,” which would place strict limits on how much a corporation or individual could spend putting out a newspaper or any other medium in which political opinions are expressed. “For too long,” said a news release issued with the text of the bill, “wealthy media companies have been able to dominate the political debate, drowning the voices of ordinary citizens who may not agree with these companies’ elitist views on subjects such as campaign contributions by wealthy corporations. Some of these ordinary citizens are veterans, who have fought for freedom in Afghanistan or Iraq, only to come home and find that their own voices are drowned out by the blowhards on ‘Morning Joe’ or the mandarins at the New York Times. Media corporations dominate the political debate, not just because of money but because they control the established channels of communication. This bill will be one step toward a level playing field.”

Sadly, this was not a real bill

There is, in fact, no such bill as the Freedom From the Press Act, limiting anyone’s right to publish a newspaper or broadcast a talk show. But if there were, is it possible that the media might find this bill just a tad unconstitutional? Might they not invoke every cliche of First Amendment jurisprudence, such as “the solution to speech is more speech” (i.e., if you disagree with me, write your own op-ed piece but don’t try to stop mine) or all that stuff about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it? And wouldn’t they be right?

It would have been great if it had been real, for exactly the notions Kinsley writes about. The media is spending their own money to propagate their own political point of view while demonizing Other People, primarily those on the political right, who do the same. Have you ever seen the NY Times or Washington Post or MSNBC rail against the money spent by George Soros and other big pocketed Liberals? Or how about the money Obama spent to win the presidency? As far as his idea about money in politics goes

The power of money in politics, in other words, is only as large as we allow it to be. What we need are a few more campaigns where the amount an opponent is spending becomes an issue itself. We need a political culture where a politician will have to make a calculation before accepting a contribution from Rich Plutocrats for America: Will the number of votes I gain by having more money to spend on obnoxious TV commercials be bigger or smaller than the number I will lose because people are offended by Rich Plutocrats for America (and those obnoxious TV commercials)?

He wants people to speak up. That’s a great idea.

However, I will note that the moneyed class, and the media, have much more influence than the average citizen. Did they listen when we said “Hell No!” to Obamacare? Or many other laws and regulations? Sure, the Government, particularly elected officials, ie, public servants, listen now and then, but money and access is huge. While I don’t like someone people being able to essentially buy elections, power, and access, the 1st Amendment is the 1st. We have to deal with it. I wrote a post somewhere in the archives, having trouble finding it, that they key is not to put regulations on citizens, including the moneyed class, but on the elected officials. How about restricting lawmakers from offering legislation that helps any individual, company, or industry that has donated to them above a certain monetary level? Or hurts a competitor of the entity that donated? Restricting lawmakers from voting in the same manner? Clamping down heavily on “pay for play”?

There are lots of ideas, but they should mostly be aimed at the lawmakers, not the citizens, in order to reduce the influence of money in politics. There has always been a problem with money in politics. The biggest problem is not trying to elect, or defeat, officials and legislation, but in trying to essentially bribe politicians to pass legislation that helps the donor and/or hurts rivals. Is giving boatloads of money to a politician part of “asking for redress of grievance”? That’s the big question.

Read: Kinsley: The Solution To Money In Politics »

Posted in Politics | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

EPA Proposes Burdensome Regulations On Wood Stoves

By William Teach April 5, 2014 – 6:57 am

More mission creep, more highhanded government causing problems for citizens

(Fox News) A federal proposal requiring more efficiency from wood-burning stoves has ignited a debate between the Obama administration and lawmakers who oppose the new regulations, arguing the rules impose an unfair burden on people in remote areas.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule changes in January that would dramatically tighten emissions requirements on new wood-powered heaters, though does not impact ones already in homes.

The EPA estimates that as much as 13 percent of all soot pollution in the U.S. is a result of inefficient wood-fired stoves and boilers.

Is soot a problem from a purely environmental viewpoint? Yes. Just like it has been since Man discovered fire. Of course, these wankers are looking at it from a “climate change” point of view, rather than simply a clean air and water view. I wonder if they plan on implementing regulations against Mother Nature for when she starts fires from lightening strikes?

Among those opposed to new rules are South Dakota Republicans Sen. John Thune and Rep. Kristi Noem, who say the new requirements will have a big impact on South Dakotans who rely on wood stoves during the long winter.

“Leave it to the EPA to impose more regulations on an affordable and renewable fuel source after one of the coldest winters on record and a costly propane shortage,” Noem said.

Hey, the EPA saw a sector that was booming, and someone said “hey, let’s use our Power to Do Something”, and that do something is to require an 80% decrease in “emissions” within 5 years.

It would apply to wood heaters, including outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers, known as hydronic heaters. The changes would only apply to new stoves and rules would not impact outdoor fireplaces, fire pits or other types of outdoor fire containers.

Those are used in typically non-urban areas to provide heat. Can’t have people being warm, now, can we? At least not with a large increase in cost.

In October, seven states primarily located in the urban northeast — New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont — sued the EPA asking the agency to update their emission policy to include wood-fired boilers.

So, instead of simply dealing with this in their own states, these Progressive (nice fascist) states want to foist and force their beliefs on Everyone Else. This probably won’t go down too well for people in upstate NY nor Vermont, where they would be more prone to using the stoves.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: EPA Proposes Burdensome Regulations On Wood Stoves »

Posted in Energy, Government | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hooray! Someone Is Finally Going To Cover “Climate Change” On TV

By William Teach April 4, 2014 – 3:48 pm

Whew! Our long national nightmare is over

It’s About Time Someone On TV News Covered Climate Change Like This

Geez, TV news– it’s about time!

In a one-hour documentary on Sunday, Ann Curry will be reporting on an angle of climate change that is scarcely found on TV news: that “there is virtually no debate among climate scientists”–climate change is real and “largely caused by human activity.” Curry will travel to areas high and low in the world, from the Arctic to the Florida seas, and speak to eyewitnesses of the devastating consequences of climate change, NBC News announced Thursday.

Hooray, Ann will take lots of fossil fueled around the world to tell us that fossil fuels are Really Bad. Aren’t you excited?

(Broadway World) The report features ordinary people who say their experiences convince them – they are eyewitnesses to climate change, including the Inuit in Greenland, and the victims of Hurricane Sandy. We also hear from some of the world’s top climate scientists who explain whether there is a link between climate change and extreme storms, like the deep freeze this past winter in places like Atlanta. They also tell us how to get ready for what some call the new normal.

If that’s the new normal, wouldn’t that mean we’re heading into a cooler climate?

Ann Curry Travels the World in Search of Climate Change

Curry’s report will air across all of NBC News’ platforms, including the Today Show, Nightly News, Meet the Press and NBCNews.com. Plus, nbcnews.com/anncurry will feature original digital reports from Italy, Washington state, Florida and Washington, DC and will highlight select viewer social media posts.

Wow, that’s sure going to use quite a bit of energy, which creates “carbon pollution”, eh? Anyhow, let’s see the real consensus

Again, this does not disprove that the earth is currently in a warm period. What it does do is put yet another nail in the coffin that the warming is a result of mostly/solely anthropogenic causes.

Read: Hooray! Someone Is Finally Going To Cover “Climate Change” On TV »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid world killing dog, which will cause the world to boil and the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Bobby Jindal’s healthcare plan.

Read: If All You See… »

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

High Flying Christiana Figueres Calls For Leaving Almost All Fossil Fuels In The Ground

By William Teach April 4, 2014 – 10:33 am

This is the same lady who thinks communism is the best way to fight climate change and hates US democracy (via Junk Science)

(Reuters) The U.N.’s climate chief called on the oil and gas industry on Thursday to make a drastic shift to a clean, low-carbon future or risk having to leave three-quarters of fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

“The time for experimentation, for marginal changes and for conditional response is now over,” Christiana Figueres told the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) in a speech in London.

I’m sure the fossil fuels industry was thrilled by the notion of firing themselves.

She urged an “urgent transformation” to greener production after top scientists warned on Monday that climate change would damage food supplies, slow economic growth and aggravate the underlying causes of armed conflicts.

Limiting global warming to an agreed U.N. ceiling “means that three quarters of the fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground, and the fossil fuels we do use must be utilized sparingly and responsibly,” she said.

By “sparingly and responsibly” she probably means “allowing Christiana to take all sorts of fossil fueled trips around the world while restricting its use for Other People.” Does anyone think she walked to the speech? In the last year she’s given speeches in:

  • Bonn, Germany (twice)
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Songdo, South Korea
  • Warsaw, Poland
  • Cambridge, Mass
  • Bogota, Columbia
  • Barcelona, Spain
  • Boston, Mass
  • San Francisco, California

If you continue down the list, you’ll find that she visits all sorts of places around the world. Australia, Barbados, China, Abu Dhabi, Durban, etc, lots and lots of fossil fueled trips. This would be a pure example of what would be termed hypocrisy. It’s also interesting to note that she seems to want to deny the same cheap energy to people in developing nations.

Read: High Flying Christiana Figueres Calls For Leaving Almost All Fossil Fuels In The Ground »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Maryland Ocare Exchange Has A Net Loss

By William Teach April 4, 2014 – 7:56 am

Remember how Maryland was supposed to be a model for how the new “Affordable” Care Act exchanges would work? Well, that was before their website turned out to be a complete failure. They’re now looking to use the Connecticut exchange software, after pissing away $125 million, which could cost another $30 million or more. Know what else failed?

(CNS News) The head of the Maryland Health Insurance Exchange testified Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only 60,000 people have signed up for Obamacare through the state’s exchange – 13,000 less than the number of individuals reported to lose their insurance due to Obamacare.

“According to our reports, according to AP, press accounts, 73,000 individuals in Maryland were going to lose their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, and what you’re telling me is your revised goal is approximately the same number – 75,000. So your revised goal of people you’re gonna sign up is: We’re gonna sign up the people who were kicked off of the Affordable Care Act,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said.

So, there you go, a net loss of 13,000. Of course, the question is “how many said to hell with the Exchange and purchased insurance on their own?” If so, it’s interesting that so many did not want to go through the Exchange. But, then, the original goal was 150,000 “private” insurance signups through the Exchange originally.

In prepared written testimony, Joshua Sharfstein, chair of the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange, said, “We expect that by the time the dust settles, more than 290,000 Marylanders will have enrolled in coverage since January 1, including more than 60,000 Marylanders in qualified health plans and more than 230,000 Marylanders in Medicaid.”

Which should be equally as disturbing, since so many people are being moved to Government paid for and Government controlled plans, creating more entitlement.

Read: Maryland Ocare Exchange Has A Net Loss »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Could Skeptic Keith Baugues Be The Next Victim Of The Progressive Truth Squad?

By William Teach April 4, 2014 – 7:26 am

We already know that people who fail to toe the Progressive line can be hounded, demeaned, abused, and even forced out of their jobs. Witness Mozilla CEO Brenden Eichs, forced to step down because he dared to donate a measly $1,000 to Proposition 8. Even Andrew Sullivan thought forcing Eichs out was a Bad Idea, was too much, and showed no tolerance. Then witness what the IRS did to TEA Party groups. Witness the President of the United States Of America insult, denigrate, abuse, ridicule, and just plain treat American citizens who have different political views with a lack of respect. Witness Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the US Senate, denigrate private citizens, the Charles and David Koch. Remember Joe the Plumber, hounded because he responded to a question Obama asked him? How about all the people who complained about Obamacare? I often mention that Progressives are what Jonah Goldberg refers to as “nice fascists”. Warmists are part of that movement, and most certainly have to drop the nice when people refuse to toe the line

(USA Today) Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.

After weeks of heavy snow and freezing air, he had had enough. He took to a government message board one day in February, complaining that his normal 45-minute commute had turned into a painful three-hour slog. “Anyone who says global warming is obviously suffering from frostbite,” he wrote.

Baugues would later say he was only joking. But he wasn’t just any government bureaucrat. Baugues is assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the man in charge of cleaning up Indiana’s air.

He’s apparently not allowed to hold a different position, because, as we all know, global warming is the result of everything, and has taken over the environmental movement.

Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several Environmental Management staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.

“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote.

Of course, there is no such thing as consensus science, unless we are referring to political science. Let’s not forget that the real consensus is that 95% of the models have failed. Many of the comments whined at Baugues talking about consensus. So does the USA Today article. Funny that they so rarely talk about science, following the scientific model, doing experiments, looking at the raw data, etc.

Another said that Baugues “should not speak on such matters until he is better informed.” Then that person, who was not named, took pains to point out that recent extremes of cold weather were caused by warming global temperatures. That resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.

I believe the clinical term for these Warmists is Bat Guano Insane.

Anyhow, despite attempting to mollify the Progressive Truth Squad a bit, Baugues declared that he is “a skeptic of global warming”. He also wrote that he is more than willing to have a discussion. But Warmists do not want a debate, even though Indiana has attained air quality mandate compliance under Baugues. Oh, no, a head must roll

But some scientists and environmentalists note that Baugues’ comments are at such odds with overwhelming scientific opinion that they wonder whether he is the right person to lead Indiana’s efforts to regulate air polluters.

Will this go further? Will they hound this man out of a job because he holds the wrong political belief? Time will tell. What we do know is that Mr. Baugues best watch his back, because the Progressive Truth Squad is on the case.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Could Skeptic Keith Baugues Be The Next Victim Of The Progressive Truth Squad? »

Posted in Global Warming, Liberal World | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

House GOP Goes After “Climate Change” Spending

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 4:56 pm

This is obviously going to cause much freakout in Warmist World, where they expect Someone Else to pay up

(Bloomberg) A fiscal year 2015 budget plan developed by House Republicans aims to reduce funding for federal climate change programs.

The House fiscal 2015 budget resolution, released April 1, proposes to cut overall spending on the federal government’s climate change-related activities, mostly through reduced spending on overseas climate change activities. The budget resolution also recommends that federal agencies streamline climate change programs to eliminate “duplicative and unnecessary” spending.

The budget blueprint also recommends ending funding for renewable energy programs and expanding oil and gas development on federal land.

One thing to note: I have no problem with tax breaks/incentives for alternative energy, and if they are going to be offered for oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas, alternatives should get them. However, no subsidies, no more taxpayer funded boondoggles.

Read: House GOP Goes After “Climate Change” Spending »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible ocean rising and evil rains a comin’ due to Someone Else not buying local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on insanity at the Huffington Post.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove