UN’s WMO Blames Cold And Snow On Global Warming

By William Teach March 25, 2014 – 8:43 am

No one should be surprised in the least that the IPCC will go down this road

(Daily Caller) The United Nations’ weather arm says that global warming was responsible for last year’s droughts, heat waves and heavy rains, as well as the freezing cold winters in North America and record sea ice coverage in Antarctica.

The U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that 2013 tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest year on record, and proved that the world was still on a warming trend. This warming trend, the WMO contends, is caused by human activity and is responsible for driving extreme weather events last year, including Australia’s record-setting heat wave and the record-low temperatures in United States.

“There is no standstill in global warming,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a statement. “The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable.”

Alas, there is a standstill, with a miniscule .14F increase since 1997 and .28F since 1990. And some data shows a zero degree increase since 2000. Some data even shows a slight decrease since 2000, though it would also be considered statistically insignificant. As for extreme weather, America saw a record year for unextreme weather in 2013. 2014 is seeing another year of record low numbers of tornadoes. The US has not seen a landfalling major hurricane since October 2005, which will shatter the record set during the Civil War era if there are none through November. There has been only 1 hurricane since October 2008, and it could be argued that Issac was simply a strong tropical storm. There is no link between “climate change” and extreme weather. The whole meme has been debunked.

But, Warmists will not give up, the cult must continue, hence the blame of mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, specifically what they unscientifically call “carbon”, making it so warm that it is cold and snowy

Oddly enough, warming is also responsible for the “frigid polar air [that] plummeted into parts of Europe and the southeast United States,” and “Antarctic sea ice extent [that] reached a record daily maximum.”

Global warming also meant that “Israel, Jordan, and Syria were struck by unprecedented snowfall,” according to the WMO.

Got that? You drove a fossil fueled vehicle and made it so hot it snowed in Jordan. And don’t forget Cairo. And Vietnam. The polar vortex as caused by “climate change” (a reminder: when you see climate change in quotation marks, it refers to the notion from Warmists that all climate changes are caused mostly/solely by Mankind) has been debunked. Arctic ice increased this year. The Antarctic ice has been increasing, and the temps decreasing, all except for one small portion. Much of the world has seen cold and snowy winters for the last 5 of 6 winters. Oh, and the new report is at odds with…the IPCC

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also said current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

The IPCC states that there is a lack of evidence to prove man-induced extreme weather. Pish tosh, there’s a narrative to push, so the WMO releases their scary report. Who needs evidence? Have Warmists ever needed facts and evidence?

Read: UN’s WMO Blames Cold And Snow On Global Warming »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers, UN | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Decides Ending NSA Bulk Data Collection Is An Awesome Legislative Issue

By William Teach March 25, 2014 – 8:11 am

After fighting against truly restricting the data collection programs by the NSA, which vastly expanded during his own time in office (and, yes, I do throw Blame at Bush and Congressional Dems and Republicans, as well), Mr. Obama has decided that this would be a great issue

(NY Times) The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials.

Under the proposal, they said, the N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans’ calling habits. The bulk records would stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.

In a speech in January, President Obama said he wanted to get the N.S.A. out of the business of collecting call records in bulk while preserving the program’s abilities. He acknowledged, however, that there was no easy way to do so, and had instructed Justice Department and intelligence officials to come up with a plan by March 28 — Friday — when the current court order authorizing the program expires.

I hate to by cynical on this, but we’re talking about the Obama and his administration, and he rarely does anything that isn’t hyper-political. It’s interesting to note that Obama has unilaterally changed the law and/or the way law is adhered to, including, but not limited to, laws like DOMA, illegal immigration, and his own signature law, Obamacare. He never bothered sending legislation over to Congress. Why is he bothering this time? He’s the POTUS. He could simply tell the NSA to Stop It! Why the legislation now?

The cynical part in me has a feeling that the legislative proposal will either be a) nothing anyone can really vote on, simply a basic idea on a sticky note, no details, and he’ll excoriate Congress to pass his “legislation”, or b) a detailed piece of legislation that will include one or more poison pills, making it unlikely that Republicans will vote for it, allowing Obama and the Dems to blast the GOP. Either one is likely. We could even see a combination. This will be turned into campaign wedge issue as the mid-terms approach.

But, it is a start. But why just phone records? What about all our other data? Our email? Or texts? Our browsing habits? Etc?

Anyhow, the proof will be in the details of the proposed legislation, and the conduct of Team Obama when released, as to whether this is sincere or a wedge issue.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Decides Ending NSA Bulk Data Collection Is An Awesome Legislative Issue »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | Comments Off on Obama Decides Ending NSA Bulk Data Collection Is An Awesome Legislative Issue | Trackback URL

Got Bubonic Plague? That’s Why You Need Ocare!

By William Teach March 24, 2014 – 2:58 pm

Well, it could happen! (via Twitchy)

Good grief.

Obviously, this has caused lots of derision, such as

https://twitter.com/kankokage/status/448167025341235200

https://twitter.com/SamValley/statuses/448114843292147713

and then

Boom!

Read: Got Bubonic Plague? That’s Why You Need Ocare! »

Posted in Healthcare, Unhinged Tools | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 24, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…are ocean winds that are being changed because someone used a hair dryer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on whiny Democrats being terrorized by mean ads.

Read: If All You See… »

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

NY Times Really Upset Over E-liquids, Calls Them Poison By The Barrel

By William Teach March 24, 2014 – 11:12 am

Previously, we saw the NY Times editorial board calling for lots of Government restrictions on electronic cigarettes, which matches some in the progressive community doing the same. In fact, the Times has been covering e-cigs for awhile now, and taking the position that since we do not really know, regulate! Today we get

Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes

A dangerous new form of a powerful stimulant is hitting markets nationwide, for sale by the vial, the gallon and even the barrel.

The drug is nicotine, in its potent, liquid form — extracted from tobacco and tinctured with a cocktail of flavorings, colorings and assorted chemicals to feed the fast-growing electronic cigarette industry.

These “e-liquids,” the key ingredients in e-cigarettes, are powerful neurotoxins. Tiny amounts, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal. A teaspoon of even highly diluted e-liquid can kill a small child.

Obviously, this means heavy regulation by Government. There’s no doubt that nicotine in a liquid form can be dangerous: when I fill my e-cig tanks, I’m careful, and immediately wash my hands. Though it is only a tiny bit getting on my fingers, typically from taking the cap off the tank.

But, like e-cigarettes, e-liquids are not regulated by federal authorities. They are mixed on factory floors and in the back rooms of shops, and sold legally in stores and online in small bottles that are kept casually around the house for regular refilling of e-cigarettes.

And, in Liberal World, everything MUST be regulated by the federal authorities. Interestingly, I’m not so sure that liberals who use e-cigs would agree. I also find it interesting that these same liberals at the NY Times, along with the other Dems calling for massive regulation, have no problem with a non-related person taking an underage girl across state lines for an abortion. In fact, they think making sure there are no restrictions on abortion is a Great Idea.

The problems with adults, like those with children, owe to carelessness and lack of understanding of the risks. In the cases of exposure in children, “a lot of parents didn’t realize it was toxic until the kid started vomiting,” said Ashley Webb, director of the Kentucky Regional Poison Control Center at Kosair Children’s Hospital.

And since some people are pure idiots, others have to pay the price. Anyone else getting the idea that the “article” belongs in the opinion section, not the business section?

Cynthia Cabrera, executive director of Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association, said she would also favor regulations, including those that would include childproof bottles and warning labels, and also manufacturing standards. But she said many companies already were doing that voluntarily, and that parents also needed to take some responsibility.

I don’t have a problem with that. Though, adults seem to have more problems with childproof bottles than children. There are warning labels on the liquid I purchase. There are warnings on the Blu e-cigs I started with. Some manufacturing standards would not be bad. I like that the people at the store I purchase from are puffing on the same stuff I am buying. They wouldn’t be doing that if they were concerned over what they were purchasing.

But that’s not what this push is about. This is about massive government regulation, and increasing taxation on a sector of the economy that is moving and growing. And, as noted time and time again in the comments, this is simply a hysterical scare story, in other words, an opinion piece in disguise. This is the Nanny State in action. We can have a legitimate, rational, adult debate without the bat-guano crazy.

Read: NY Times Really Upset Over E-liquids, Calls Them Poison By The Barrel »

Posted in Economy, Wonky Media | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Mother Jones Links “Climate Change” To Missing Malaysian Airplane

By William Teach March 24, 2014 – 9:22 am

Am I surprised? Shocked? Not in the least. I’m surprised it took a big website this long to create a link. (via Climate Depot)

One Reason It May Be Harder to Find Flight 370: We Messed Up the Currents

How climate change factors into the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.

Scientists say man-made climate change has fundamentally altered the currents of the vast, deep oceans where investigators are currently scouring for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight, setting a complex stage for the ongoing search for MH370. If the Boeing 777 did plunge into the ocean somewhere in the vicinity of where the Indian Ocean meets the Southern Ocean, the location where its debris finally ends up, if found at all, may be vastly different from where investigators could have anticipated 30 years ago.

According to interviews with three climate scientists who specialize in the region of the world where investigators are focusing their search, the winds of the Southern Indian Ocean bordering the Southern Ocean have been shifting southwards and intensifying over the last 20 to 30 years, in part due to a warming atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer. Ocean currents are also tightening around Antarctica, shifting whole climate systems towards the South Pole.

The entire article is an assumption that anthropogenic causes have changed the winds and the currents, which is Bad because the Earth was always exactly the same prior to Progressives deciding that Mankind is evil and Other People should be forced to stop driving fossil fueled vehicles.

But it’s that very deepness, coldness, and power that allows these oceans to absorb so much of the heat that manmade climate change is generating. “The Southern Ocean takes up something like 70 percent—plus or minus 30 percent—of all the anthropogenic heat that goes under the ocean,” says Russell. “This is one of the few areas of the global ocean that is immediately and definitely playing a role in the temperature on land, because it’s taking up all this anthropogenic heat and carbon. The whole ocean is doing that, but here it’s doing it more than it ought to, which is giving us a moment of grace.”

If you call it “carbon”, you’re practicing politics, not science. There’s no proof of anthropogenic causation, just assumptions by hardcore Progressives. If you cannot explain why this is happening more in the Southern Ocean, it’s not science. It’s politics.

It’s also a way to attempt to explain away the 17+ year pause in statistically significant warming.

The westerly winds here have increased by about 20 percent over the last 20 years, according to Russell’s 2006 investigation into the trends, messing with the overall system that we rely on for our climate stability—and potentially shortening this so-called “grace” period where the oceans are giving us a helping hand. “It can do loads of things to the climate system,” says Matthew England, joint director of Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. “It can decrease the amount of carbon you can get into the oceans…It can also affect the temperatures off the Antarctic ice shelf, which is a real worry.”

Interestingly, there really isn’t that much data prior to 20-30 years ago into the winds and ocean patterns in that region. Satellites weren’t focused on that area. Few ships and planes plied the area. Few research expeditions researched the area. Oh, and Antarctica is growing, not shrinking. But, Warmists have a narrative, and they have to work everything that happens into the mix.

Read: Good Grief: Mother Jones Links “Climate Change” To Missing Malaysian Airplane »

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

Washington Post Upset That “Vocally Devout” Justices Will Decide Ocare Contraception Case

By William Teach March 24, 2014 – 9:01 am

Tuesday is the day when the Supreme Court will hear the case on the Ocare mandate requiring companies to provide insurance that includes free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. Many religious companies find this to be against their religious beliefs. And, per the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, it’s horrible that religious justices might decide the case

High court with vocally devout justices set to hear religious objections to health-care law

There’s something that makes the current Supreme Court different from some of its recent predecessors.

The justices got religion.

Or at least they seem more open about their faith, appearing before devout audiences and talking more about how religion shaped their lives or guides them now.

As the court this week weighs religious conviction vs. legal obligation in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, those who study the court say the change is hard to quantify but easy to notice.

My goodness! I suppose Barnes would prefer they all be atheists or Leftist Christian religion haters. They can’t quantify anything, but they know someone who’s religious when they seem them, so they must be ready to decide based on being Bible thumpers or something.

But in what is likely to be the signature case of the term, the issue is not affiliation but devotion.

The justices on Tuesday will hear two cases in which business owners say they would violate their religious principles if they had to provide female employees with cost-free insurance coverage for all contraceptives.

Or, it could be that they’ll decide the case on the merits of the law and the Constitution. This article is meant to position a potential ruling against the contraception mandate as being based in hardcore religiosity, that people who play with snakes in church are ruling based on their religious beliefs, rather than law and the Constitution. We shouldn’t be surprised in the least. The NY Times ran an editorial that was grossly disingenuous, was a flat out lie. And this is how you get people, mostly Lefties, to trot out idiocy like this

Abortion and contraception are legal health care services in the US. These services cannot be denied to others based on anyone’s personal religious conviction.

To use an extreme and incorrect religious pseudo-justification for example – if my religious conviction allows human sacrifice, then by a misguided religious interpretation of American government, our government cannot interfere with my relgious conviction. These Christians need to re-read our legal history of freedom of religion. It contains two parts. Freedom of belief and freedom to practice.

All Americans have absolute freedom of belief. Any one of us may believe in God, nothing or that the Moon is made of cheese. Who cares, it does no harm to any other American. But the freedom to practice any religion is limited in that it cannot infringe on the rights of others.

That was from one of the top comments at the WP article. Liberals have taken the position that if Someone Else is not providing the abortion and contraception, they are being denied “legal health services”. God forbid that Liberals have to pay for it themselves.

Meanwhile, the NY Times is also stating that the ruling could have far reaching consequences if SCOTUS rules against the contraception mandate (which, BTW, is a mandate only per the Obama admin. It appears nowhere within the text of the Affordable Care Act), because all of a sudden people could claim their religious beliefs for everything

Objections to laws based on religious beliefs can arise in many settings, and supporters of the coverage requirement say a ruling for the company could frustrate the enforcement of laws addressing health, safety and civil rights.

“We would be entering a new world in which, for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else,” Mr. Dellinger said. “A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights.”

The Times does provide some evidence that this is simply a hardcore liberal talking point, and goes back and forth on whether or not this has merit. The fact is that the government must have a compelling reason to deny religious freedom, enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Human sacrifice for religious reasons is certainly not something that would be allowed. And, really, this is preposterous. We’re only talking about companies, which are paying for the insurance, not wanting to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization. People can pay for it on their own. But Team Obama wanted to pander and patronize their base, so they created the mandate out of thin air.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Upset That “Vocally Devout” Justices Will Decide Ocare Contraception Case »

Posted in Healthcare, Liberal World | Comments Off on Washington Post Upset That “Vocally Devout” Justices Will Decide Ocare Contraception Case | Trackback URL

Awesome: The Climate Change Deniers Have Won

By William Teach March 23, 2014 – 8:42 pm

Paul Homewood asks “What is it, precisely, that we are supposed to be denying?” Good question, because Warmists seem to be denying their own beliefs, since they rarely ever go beyond token measures, like changing one lightbulb to a CFL, in their own lives. Here’s the UK Guardian. I’m going to snag the picture from Paul at Not A Lot Of People Know that, click it for the story

I find the accompanying photo and caption interesting. What, exactly, does that have to do with “climate change”? While I personally find it despicable, from an environmental POV, that the Amazon is being clearcut, where is the link to “climate change”? Anyhow

All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.

Strange, because Warmists cannot provide said evidence. All they can provide is a nebulous casual link, along with lots of deeply scientific words like “may”, “might”, and “could”. And lots of scary stories about things in the future. AGW is about as scientific as saying that all waves are manmade because boats cause waves.

Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live. If they admitted they were wrong on climate change, they might have to admit that they were wrong on everything else and their whole political identity would unravel.

To answer Paul’s question, we deny that changes in the weather and climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind. We deny the politicized “science” being performed in order to push a Progressive agenda of higher taxes and more central government control of citizens and private entities. We deny that data should be changed to fit a preconceived notion. We deny science being used in a fashion reminiscent of a carnival fortune teller. And we deny the notion that we should be forced to change our lives by Government when Warmists will not voluntarily do the same for their own beliefs.

Read: Awesome: The Climate Change Deniers Have Won »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

German City Looks To Sic Green Police On Citizens

By William Teach March 23, 2014 – 3:03 pm

Why? They might dare to use electric heaters in order to ward off the cold weather caused by “climate change”

(No Tricks Zone) Most of us already suspect that environmentalists are dictatorial wolves dressed in the democracy sheepskin. Despite all the lip service they pay to justice and liberty, they are really all about state power and regulation.

So it is with Germany’s authoritarian statists and greens, who not long ago called for the enactment of a nationwide “Veggie Day” once a week in order to start weaning people off climate-killing diets containing meat. Fortunately the citizens roundly rejected the nonsense, sending the wackos off – to return another day.

Well, that “another day” has already arrived. The latest suggested intrusion into and control over our private lives is reported by the Liberal website of Friedrich Naumann Foundation For Liberty.

In the northern port city of Bremen, just a single hour away from the home of NoTricksZone, officials are now busily playing let’s-save-the-planet and zealously committing the city to cutting its carbon footprint by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

Why yes, yes, this is all about reducing a “carbon footprint”. Space heaters are considered Bad for “climate change”, as they use lots of energy, and many even use *gulp* fossil fuels. In this case, the city has proposed to ban electric heaters in the name of “sustainability”, which is one of the code words the Warmists use, and send the Gestapo to enforce the ban. The use of electric heaters has increased in Germany because of all their “climate change” regulations couple with the brutal winters, which has increased the cost of energy and reduced the availability of heating fuel. And Warmists love telling Other People what to do.

Read: German City Looks To Sic Green Police On Citizens »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on German City Looks To Sic Green Police On Citizens | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 23, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is Mother Earth being upset over Someone Else driving a fossil fueled vehicle which causes cold and snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on why we can’t get stolen valor prosecuted

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove