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

We’re Having The Wrong Debate On Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 11:43 am

I’m going to skip the whinyness and woe-is-us from Warmist Fiona Johnson, and skip to the fun part

I find it frustrating that the comments in social media and on forums degenerate in a fairly predictable way when it comes to so-called debates about human-induced climate change.

But we are having the wrong debate. For climate change, the evidence is clear that carbon dioxide and temperatures are increasing. Where is the interest in debating observations?

Data like this?

Alas, she doesn’t really want to discuss data, probably because the real world data is pesky and blows the models and talking points out of the water.

What is more interesting is when we have to make decisions that depend on the values that we hold as a community. Someone may value free markets, someone else may value the natural diversity of our coral reefs, whilst a third may value a large house on the beach. The debate that we need to have is how these values can co-exist or if they can’t then how to prioritise them. But the current level of vitriol doesn’t promote rational discussions.

So, we do not need to discuss science and data, but feelings. Cult, anyone?

Read: We’re Having The Wrong Debate On Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Chile’s Earthquake Means We Need To Take “Climate Change” Seriously Or Something

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 8:07 am

You just knew that some Warmist somewhere was going to link the recent 8.2 Chile earthquake to “climate change”, right? Here we go

Chile’s Terrifying Earthquake Makes It Clear That We Need to Take Climate Change Seriously

An 8.2-magnitude earthquake struck the northern coast of Chile Tuesday night, triggering landslides, fires, a small tsunami, destruction of homes and power outages. Reports say six people have been killed, either from being crushed by debris or from suffering heart attacks. The scene was chaos as more than 900,000 people were evacuated, hundreds of prisoners escaped and aftershocks rocked the country. With power and road access cut off in many areas, people were waiting in the dark atop hills for help, CNN reported.

Tuesday’s enormous earthquake and its alarming repercussions may be part of a larger phenomenon less natural than we might think: climate change. (snip)

For many, this earthquake evokes the panic Chile suffered in the aftermath of its 2010 earthquake that, at 8.8 on the Richter scale, killed more than 500 people and actually knocked the Earth a few degrees off its axis. In 2004 the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami killed more than 200,000 people and also shifted the Earth off its axis. With each small degree change in the Earth’s axis, time as we know it changes. Our days literally shorten.

Marguerite Ward attempts to make a link to the glacial melt

Today, while we’re far from our more glacial past, we are experiencing warming and rising sea levels at an unprecedented rate. As glaciers melt, fault lines are able to move more easily, making earthquakes more possible and common.

Except, the earthquake was not an area with any melting glaciers. Nor was the one in the Indian Ocean. Nor the Japanese earthquake (though she doesn’t mention it, Warmists did go down that road)

The Incorporated Research Institute for Seismology runs a live interactive map of all recent earthquakes. Both large and small, there have been nearly 33,000 earthquakes this past year alone. Hundreds of earthquakes have shaken the Earth in the past seven days. Will earthquakes like the one that rocked Chile this week become more common as the Earth’s climate changes? It may be time to rethink what exactly climate change means.

Read: Chile’s Earthquake Means We Need To Take “Climate Change” Seriously Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Chile’s Earthquake Means We Need To Take “Climate Change” Seriously Or Something | Trackback URL

36,000 Potential Cases Of Voter Fraud In North Carolina In 2012

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 7:49 am

Democrats will tell us that voter fraud is virtually non-existent….well, except when they lose an election (cough 2000, cough, 2004)

(WRAL) State elections officials said Wednesday that they’re investigating hundreds of cases of voters who appear to have voted in two states and several dozen who appear to have voted after their deaths.

State lawmakers last year mandated the State Board of Elections to enter into an “Interstate Crosscheck” – a compact of 28 states that agreed to check their voter registration records against those of other states. The program is run by a Kansas consortium, checking 101 million voter records. The largest states – CA, FL, NY, and TX – are not part of the consortium.

State Board of Elections Executive Director Kim Westbrook Strach delivered the report Wednesday to the legislative Elections Oversight committee.

Strach said North Carolina’s check found 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to match registered voters in other states on their first names, last names, dates of birth and the final four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those voters appear to have voted in North Carolina in 2012 and also voted in another state in 2012.

There are also an additional 36,000 names which match people who voted in other states, but there is no Social Security number match, because most of the states are not providing the last 4 of the SS#. There are also 13,416 dead voters on the rolls. 81 voted, though it looks like 30 voted by absentee ballot.

“I think the big bombshell today is that you have documented voter fraud that has occurred,” said Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland. “We have over 36,000 people who apparently voted in this state illegally and committed felonies.”

They are running a few ideas up the flagpole, and there would have to be coordination between the states. Of course, this has brought out the anti-voter ID whiners

Sen. Angela Bryant, D-Nash, pointed out that the current changes in voting laws and the requirement for voters to present photo identification at the polls will not stop anyone from voting in two states.

Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips with Common Cause NC said he, too, is concerned about the repoirt and wants to see the cases investigated. But he said it still doesn’t justify House Bill 589, the 2013 law that included voter ID and several other key changes.

“In my mind, it doesn’t justify cutting early voting. It doesn’t justify eliminating same-day voter registration. It has nothing to do with eliminating the pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. A lot of what 589 did, that is not connected to this information,” Phillips said. “But I’m saying – as an advocate for good government, and an advocate for easy, accessible voting – sure, this needs to be looked at.”

Do they have a point? Of course. None of the 589 measures will stop this particular type of voting fraud, right? Ah, but it can. One must have a North Carolina ID to vote (or something else that shows you actually live here). It’s not a perfect system, but it can help reduce the double voting. Either way, this shows that fraud does occur.

And you can bet your bottom dollar (not hard to find in the Obamaeconomy) that Democrats will fight tooth and nail against any reforms.

Read: 36,000 Potential Cases Of Voter Fraud In North Carolina In 2012 »

Posted in Election Fraud, NC News | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Affordable: Ocare Could Cost Large Employers Up To $5,900 Extra Per Employee

By William Teach April 3, 2014 – 6:58 am

Hooray, affordable reform!

(Washington Free Beacon) Obamacare will cost large companies between $4,800 and $5,900 more per employee and add hundreds of millions to their overhead, according to a new survey.

The American Health Policy Institute conducted a confidential survey of 100 large employers—those with 10,000 or more employees—asking what costs they expect to incur from Obamacare over the next decade.

Factoring in the health care law’s added mandates, fees, and regulatory burdens, employers anticipate cost hikes between $163 million and $200 million in 2016, a 4.3 percent increase. By 2023, employers will be paying 8.4 percent more than “what they would otherwise be spending” for their employees’ health care.

In the next 10 years, the total cost of Obamacare to all large American employers is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion, according to the study.

Just to be clear, the cost per employee number is over 10 years. ACA supporters will say “hey, that’s just roughly $500 extra per year per employee! No biggie!” Of course, when it is their own company, and other things get cut, when raises are limited, when jobs are done away with, when hours are cut, hey, when they own the company and see their own earnings being reduced, they won’t like it. Fortunately, free contraception.

What could cause the increases?

  • Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute fee;
  • Temporary Reinsurance Fee;
  • General ACA implementation and administrative costs;
  • Excise tax on high cost plans;
  • Mandate to cover adult children up to age 26 as dependents; and
  • Other benefit mandates including covering 100 percent of preventive care services.

The indirect costs of the ACA include, but are not limited to:

  • New supply chain taxes passed onto employers (e.g., medical device tax);
  • Increased take up rates of employer offered coverage resulting from the individual mandate; and
  • Increased cost shifting from the expanded Medicaid coverage.

Might a large business be able to eat these costs? Perhaps, to some small degree. But, most likely, things will have to change, and the workers will be the one to suffer. Thanks, Obama and Democrats!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Affordable: Ocare Could Cost Large Employers Up To $5,900 Extra Per Employee »

Posted in Economy, Healthcare | Comments Off on Affordable: Ocare Could Cost Large Employers Up To $5,900 Extra Per Employee | Trackback URL

Do You Prefer Long Pork Over Going Vegan?

By William Teach April 2, 2014 – 3:58 pm

I mentioned on Monday that Warmists really, really, really want Everyone Else to go vegetarian (probably at the barrel of Government law/regulation) in order to save Gaia from getting a fever some time in the far future. Well, here’s something interesting, via my favorite crazies at Grist

Celebrity endorsements aside, converting to veganism remains a hard sell to most Americans. How hard? New research hints that more of us would rather munch on our neighbor Larry than give up meat and dairy.

According to a new poll from The Society for Progressive Meat (SPM), 10 percent of Americans would consider trying man meat, while a measly 3 percent could bear to part with all animal products. A poll and questionnaire on its website surveyed 2,500 respondents over a two-week period.

And, yes, these people are nuts

SPM President Len T. Illmore told Grist over the phone that consuming humans could solve countless environmental woes — everything from overpopulation to the horrors of factory farms to even the not-so-green funeral industry. And he has a point. With growing populations and industrial agriculture both operating as driving factors of climate change, progressive protein enthusiasts point out that humane cannibalism could both help curb our energy needs and satisfy the appetites of a populace not quite ready for a plant-based diet. All signs point to the fact that Americans are more prepared to swallow toe food than tofu.

Plus, Illmore says that while the humane meat movement sounds good on paper, “who can truly say that chicken actually had a good life? With humane human meat, we’d have prom pictures, tax returns, and even the occasional unpublished memoir to prove your meat led a mediocre to arguably happy life.”

This is what the Warmist/Environmental movement has devolved into.

Read: Do You Prefer Long Pork Over Going Vegan? »

Posted in Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

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
Pirate's Cove