If All You See…

By William Teach April 2, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is hot water melting ice cause someone else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on compulsory lesbianism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Pelosi: Obamacare Not About Insuring The Uninsured

By William Teach April 2, 2014 – 11:12 am

No, seriously

(CNS News) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says Democrats passed their health insurance law, not to insure the uninsured, but to give people “quality” health care and “affordable” health care.

“Madam Leader, isn’t the real measure of success, not the raw number who signed up, but how many of those who signed up were not insured before?” a reporter asked Pelosi at a news conference on Tuesday.

“No, that’s not — the measure is twofold,” Pelosi responded. “The message is how many people have access to health care — quality, affordable health care and insurance.”

According to Pelosi, “The real reason to do the Affordable Care Act…was the cost of health care in our country was unsustainable — unsustainable to individuals, to small businesses, to corporate America, the competitive issue internationally, and also to state and local and certainly the federal budget.

Well, that’s news to this lady

Access to quality, affordable health care is critical to the well being of America, today and in the future. Central to this is addressing the needs of the 46 million uninsured Americans…

Hmm, that’s strange, isn’t it?

Of course, making sure the uninsured were forced to purchase costly insurance or be penalized provided with health insurance was not the only stated reason for the PPACA, but it was a consistent and primary talking point pre and post-passage. Now that tens of billions, if not more, was spent on Ocare so far in order to provide 3.4% of the uninsured with “private” insurance, the talking points have to change.

And anyone who complains will be smeared and receive death threats.

Read: Pelosi: Obamacare Not About Insuring The Uninsured »

Posted in Healthcare, Queen Nancy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bill McKibben: Climate Scientists Should Go On Strike Or Something

By William Teach April 2, 2014 – 8:16 am

Bill McKibben is a co-founder of the wacky 350.org, and a hardcore Warmist. Actually, he’s more in the uber-Alarmist category. He’s known for his overheated rhetoric (as is 350.org). He’s also a massive climahypocrite, traveling all over the US and the world via fossil fueled travel, complaining about fossil fuels. Heck, in just the next few months he’ll be in Texas, Hawaii, Pa, Arizona, and Washington state. Anyone think he’ll walk, ride a bike, take a sailing boat, to get to those places? Anyhow

Time for climate scientists to go on strike

Late last night Yokohama time, the world’s scientists did once more what they’ve done so many times in the past: issued a thumping big report demonstrating that climate change poses the greatest danger our civilization has ever faced. These regular analyses have been conducted since 1995 under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – by now the papers, indexes, footnotes and drafts would fill the Superdome.

They’ve said it with graphs, they’ve said it with tables. They’ve offered color-coded guides to future decades. They’ve told us about basic science and, when that didn’t work, they’ve tried to explain it in terms anyone could understand. The latest summary, for instance, shows that most studies of food production in a warming world forecast dire trouble – some, by century’s end, show a 50% reduction in crop yields. Both drought and flood will keep on increasing, the number of refugees will climb sharply, and we risk “civil wars and intergroup violence.”

Did it include this graph?

If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.

But if science has worked, political science has failed. So far, the world’s political leaders have balked at ever doing anything about global warming, and each new warning produces declarations of meaningless resolve. Here’s John Kerry, the Secretary of State, reacting to the latest study: “Read this report and you can’t deny the reality: Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” True enough, and eloquent enough, except that his own State Department team last month recommended building the Keystone Pipeline through the American heartland, a project opposed by every prominent American climate scientist.

So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.

I think this is a great idea, especially since most of them are not climate scientists. In fact, according to Warmist talking points, we shouldn’t listen to Bill, because he holds no degree in climate science. Honorary degrees do not count.

But, yes, they should all go on strike, including all the bureaucrats, that way we can avoid being inundated with idiotic scary prognostications from people who refuse to practice what they preach.

Because it’s perfectly clear by now that you can’t scare politicians with the news that the world is ending. It’s going to require convincing them that something they really care about might disappear: their jobs.

See? Scary stories.

Powerline also hopes they all go on strike, and discusses the notion of the “scientists” doing their work for free, which McKibben mentions in the article.

Anthony Watts also hopes they all go on strike, and mentions the poll in McKibbens article, which goes drastically wrong, and is titled “Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?” 77% answer “no”, just 21% say “yes”. Whoops!

Read: Bill McKibben: Climate Scientists Should Go On Strike Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Sargent: Why Does Mitch McConnel Want To Take Insurance Away From Kentuckians?

By William Teach April 2, 2014 – 7:52 am

This is all in the form of telling us that Obamacare is a disaster, but KeNect is super awesome

The office of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear just announced that more than 370,000 people have now signed up for Obamacare on KyNect, the state exchange. More than one out of every dozen Kentuckians — 8.6 percent of the state population — now has obtained coverage through the exchange, Beshear’s office said, claiming that a preliminary analysis has established that three out of four enrollees has reported that they were uninsured before signing up.

But as recently as three days ago, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was denouncing Obamacare as “disastrous,” lamenting the “catastrophic effects” the law has had on Kentucky families, and insisting that “the pain caused by this terrible law is easy to see.” He claims the law must be uprooted “root and branch.”

So the question is, Does there come a point at which Alison Lundergan Grimes can more directly target McConnell for wanting to take health coverage and security away from hundreds of thousands of people?

That meme about taking health coverage and security away is cute, and repeated multiple times. Yet, at least 280,000 Kentucky residents lost their health insurance plans directly because of Obamacare. So we can figure that around 75% of the signups were people that had health insurance and lost it. Why was Sargent not concerned about them when they were losing their plans and security? That 75% number seems to jibe well with what is happening in the federal and all the state exchanges, namely that 75%-85% of people who sign up previously had insurance.

And while the Kentucky exchange seems to be working well in terms of signing people up, they face the same problem: high deductibles, which range from $4000 on a base bronze plan to a high of $6350. There are only two companies offering plans: Kentucky Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kentucky Health Cooperative. The latter offers just one plan per level. BCBS offers several plans per level (none in platinum, though). How’s that for consumer choice? Plus, let’s consider that many are receiving government taxpayer money to help pay the premiums. Another entitlement.

The talking point about taking health coverage and security away is looking to become a new talking point for Ocare supporters. Despite over 6 million losing their plans.

Grimes appears to be adopting a strategy of deliberately avoiding engagement on Obamacare. There’s a plausible rationale for this. The campaign seems to have calculated that above all, she should avoid getting drawn into Washington arguments (such as the one over the health law). That’s because one of her chief strengths is that she never served in Washington (and didn’t vote for the law). If Grimes’ main assets are that she’s very much of the state and represents something new — making it easier to paint McConnell, with his low approval ratings, as part of the Washington problem – then avoiding association with Washington Democrats and controversial national legislation perhaps makes sense.

In other words, once you get beyond all the silliness from Sargent, Grimes is running like hell from defending Ocare, which her party rammed through and owns, because she knows it is a losing policy position.

As far as KyNect working correctly, well, some state had to work correctly, at least statistically. It’s surprising more haven’t worked correctly. One would have thought it wouldn’t be that hard to put together a website in this day and age.

(NPR) “This law is doing what it’s supposed to do,” Obama said at the Rose Garden. “It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast.”

Well, if it means that 75% of the signups are people who were unceremoniously thrown off their plans, well yeah. That’s working. What about the 30-45 million people without insurance? Wasn’t that the point? Are we really spending $2 trillion over ten years to add around a million new people with health insurance?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Sargent: Why Does Mitch McConnel Want To Take Insurance Away From Kentuckians? »

Posted in Healthcare | Comments Off on Sargent: Why Does Mitch McConnel Want To Take Insurance Away From Kentuckians? | Trackback URL

How Doomy Is The “New” IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report?

By William Teach April 1, 2014 – 4:23 pm

About as doomy as one would expect professional doomsayers to prognosticate

(UK Register) The summary for policymakers alone is 44 pages and the full report contains 1,552, so it’s necessary to be rather brief in this initial report on the newly-released documents. Later analysis is the place to go deeper. Let’s start with the summary’s assessment of the “observed impacts, vulnerability and adaptation” to climate change.

The summary then presents the following eight “key risks” that the IPCC feels “are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions.”

The risks are:

  1. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise
  2. Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.
  3. Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services
  4. Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.
  5. Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.
  6. Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.
  7. Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.
  8. Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.

The summary eventually considers “overlapping approaches” to “adaptation” that will help humanity to ameliorate climate change. Many types of adaptation are suggested, ranging from better land planning laws to the creation of “catastrophe bonds”.

So, doom everywhere. Funny thing is, they can’t prove that any changes are caused by global anthropogenic causes, and, their models continue to fail in a big way.

There is so much funky stuff in the report it’s hard to know where to begin. I am amused that they are now all sorts of worried about flooding in Australia, when they had recently been all sorts of worried about drought. Hey, different day, different complaint. Interestingly, none of the adaptation or other recommendations include Warmists practicing what they preach. Strange, eh?

They also are astounded that the world can actually change. Because that never happened during the previous 4.5 billion years. They also fail to note that 17+ year pause.

Read: How Doomy Is The “New” IPCC Hotcoldwetdry Report? »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a horrible CO2 infused beer causing lakes to rise up, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on building a green town.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Californians To Receive Hotcoldwetdry Rebates

By William Teach April 1, 2014 – 12:36 pm

This isn’t satire, but it should be

(Grist) The state’s cap-and-trade program has raised nearly $1.7 billion so far. About 40 percent of proceeds are earmarked to be spent on clean energy initiatives, while the rest will be distributed to small utility customers through various programs, helping offset any increase in electricity prices. Residential customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities, which together serve more than two-thirds of the state’s electricity, will receive the first California Climate Credits on this month’s electricity bills, reducing the amount due by roughly $30 to $40. The next residential credits will be paid out in October. Small business customers will receive them monthly.

So they pass a law that artificially raised people’s power bill, and essentially everything else, all for a fake issue, and are going to get a tiny rebate for the economic pain.

Sadly, Grist’s article on massaging fish is neither satire nor for April Fool’s Day.

Read: Californians To Receive Hotcoldwetdry Rebates »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

DOJ Rolls Out Transgender Sensitivity Training for Police

By William Teach April 1, 2014 – 11:11 am

This is not from The Onion

(CNS News) Following several years of “constructive dialog” with the LGBT community, the U.S. Justice Department is now training law enforcement officers on how to better understand and help the “transgender community”

“It’s clear that such  training is as necessary as it is overdue,” Associate Attorney General Tony West told a gathering at the Justice Department on Thursday, as DOJ’s Community Relations Service kicked off its new “transgender law enforcement cultural professionalism training.”

The training will help law enforcement agencies “improve their understanding of the transgender communities they serve and improve their work with those communities,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Cole, who appeared with West to launch the sensitivity training.

Another Special Class of Protected People. When does the DOJ plan on actually enorcing law? Oh, I wonder what would happen if a large group of Redneck Americans complained? Or White Oppressed Males? Would we be afforded the same treatment?

BTW, I know it’s April 1st. This is not satire.

Read: DOJ Rolls Out Transgender Sensitivity Training for Police »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Will Obamacare Hit 7 Million Signups? Will It Matter?

By William Teach April 1, 2014 – 7:20 am

And, if so, will Kathleen Sebelius re-change her mind about 7 million being important? Better yet, will they pay?

(Fox News) On the last day to sign up for ObamaCare, the health care overhaul was reportedly on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for insurance coverage, though the number of enrollees who have paid for their insurance premiums is still unclear.

Government officials confirmed the 7 million target to The Associated Press late Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement.

Ms. Sebelius stated that, according to insurers, something like 10-20% haven’t made their first premium payment yet. And insurers and medical facilities are expected to eat the costs for a couple months until they can successfully dump the people.

Yet the bigger question is perhaps whether the law has indeed helped insure at least some of the estimated 48 million Americans who previously did not have insurance or couldn’t get it because of a pre-existing condition.

The most recent finding by the often-cited McKinsey & Company shows 27 percent of enrollees were previously uninsured and that roughly 75 percent of those who signed up for private insurance under ObamaCare have paid their premiums.

Good question: the idea was to insure the, depending on the day, 30-45 million Americans without health insurance. Yet, the majority are people who were the recipients of Obama’s lie of the year, “If you like you plan, you can keep your plan.”

(Forbes) If you apply that math to the RAND figures, you get this: of the people who have paid their first month’s premium on the Obamacare exchanges, and are thereby enrolled in coverage, 76 percent were previously insured, and 24 percent were previously uninsured.

In essence, this will be a break even proposition regarding those who lost their plans. And the uninsured will still be uninsured. Of course, a goodly chunk of those who did get Obamacare insurance might as well still be uninsured, since there is an average Bronze plan deductible of $5,081. Here’s Marc A. Theissen at The Washington Post

Recall that between 5 million and 6 million Americans lost their health plans because of Obamacare last fall. If the administration now succeeds in signing up 5 million to 6 million previously insured Americans, it will have achieved . . . nothing. Breaking even is no great accomplishment.

And let’s not forget: Many of those new Obamacare sign-ups are self-sufficient people who were previously paying their own way and now receive government subsidies for insurance. Creating government dependency is not progress — it’s a step backward.

A $2 trillion price-tag over 10 years, all for virtually zero movement in the uninsured. All while damaging the economy, decreasing work hours, reduced hiring, reduced take-home pay, more people shifted to part time hours, companies holding on to their cash due to the massive uncertainty created by Obamacare, burdensome regulation after burdensome regulation, a virtual federal takeover of the student loan industry (yes, that was part of Ocare), increased taxes, increased consumer costs….we could keep going and going, but, at the end of the day, the CBO predicts that there will still be 30 million uninsured.

Read: Will Obamacare Hit 7 Million Signups? Will It Matter? »

Posted in Healthcare | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

FDA Proposes Burdensome, Costly, Unnecessary Rules For Beer Makers

By William Teach April 1, 2014 – 6:51 am

Why would they do this? In Government World, why not? They have nothing better to do

(Fox News) Beer brewers are objecting to a proposed federal rule that would make it harder for breweries to sell leftover grains as animal feed instead of throwing them away.

The Food and Drug Administration rule change would mean brewers would have to meet the same standards as livestock and pet-food manufacturers, imposing new sanitary handling procedures, record keeping and other food safety processes on brewers.

Beer makers complain that the new rules, if adopted, would force them to dump millions of tons of “spent grains,” which are left over after barley, wheat and other grains are steeped in hot water.

Bear Republic brewmaster Rich Norgrove says the rules would be costly and force brewers to dump the grains, instead of the more sustainable practice of feeding them to livestock.

It’s mission creep, and rule making for the sake of rule making. The FDA states this is part of modernizing the food safety system, and they’re concerned about foodborne illness in animals and people

Chris Thorne of the Beer Institute said he believes once the FDA has all of the information, it will see the benefits of the current system of recycling the old grain.

“This regulation is onerous and expensive, but really it’s just unnecessary. There has never been a single reported negative incidence with spent grain,” Thorne said in a statement.

Unfortunately, Chris, it matters little whether anything has ever happened, and that the regulation would be unnecessary: how often do federal agencies announce regulations and not implement them, regardless of what they hear during the comment period? This will have a negative impact on beer brewers, particularly small ones. And it will be a difficult balancing act between eating the extra costs and passing the costs on to consumers. All because the FDA wants to Do Something about an imaginary issue.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: FDA Proposes Burdensome, Costly, Unnecessary Rules For Beer Makers »

Posted in Food and Drink, Government | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove