Bummer: Climate Change Lecture Cancelled Due To Snow

By William Teach March 13, 2014 – 10:34 am

Hello, Gore Effect!

(Windsor Star) You may be tempted to snicker at the irony that a discussion on climate change at the University of Windsor was called off due to Wednesday’s wild weather.

But plant biologist Catherine Potvin’s afternoon lecture was only one of many special events and regularly scheduled activities that were shut down by the sudden snowstorm.

I’m snickering. How about you? Unless you are a Warmist, then you’re blaming snow on too much heat from GHGs. Let’s look at the “wild weather” link

The bad news is that Windsor utterly smashed its winter snowfall record on Wednesday. The really bad news? This may not be the last blast of the year.

According to Environment Canada’s weather hotline, the March 12 snowfall total as of 9:30 p.m. at Windsor Airport was 12 centimetres — more than enough for this winter’s snowfall total to bust the previous all-time record.

“It’s a lot of snow, for sure,” said Environment Canada meteorologist Geoff Coulson earlier in the day. “Unfortunately, given the forecast over the next couple of weeks, we could still be adding to it after that.”

Windsor’s previous snowfall record — set in the winter of 2004 and 2005 — was 225.5 cm.

Furthermore, the prediction for this morning was to see a low of -17C, which would smash the record of -13.9C for March 13th. According to the Weather Channel, it is -15C in Windsor right now.

(CBC) “And with respect to temperature, [it’s been] the coldest winter since the winter of ’78-79,” Environment Canada meteorologist Geoff Coulson said.

That was back when the media was worried about a coming ice age. Wait, wait, sorry, I forgot, cold is also caused by too much heat.

BTW, Detroit is 2.9 inches away from tying their seasonal snow record. Set in 1880-1881. Toledo, Ohio, is 51 inches above normal for snow.

Read: Bummer: Climate Change Lecture Cancelled Due To Snow »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Barbara Boxer Has Lessons From The Senate Climate Change Sleepover

By William Teach March 13, 2014 – 7:18 am

One of them is that because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle, it’s really cold in Minnesota, as she writes in an opinion piece for the Huffington Post

Second, every state in the U.S. is already experiencing the effects of climate change.

During the all-night session, it was fascinating to listen to my Senate colleagues from across the country — North, South, East and West — as they discussed what people in their states are experiencing now and the threats they face from climate change — including extreme weather.

Senator Tom Udall and Senator Martin Heinrich talked about the impacts of severe droughts in New Mexico and throughout the Southwest, and Senator Bill Nelson discussed the devastating effects of sea level rise in the state of Florida. Senator Ben Cardin told us how climate change puts the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland at risk, and Senator Ed Markey said his home state of Massachusetts loses an average of 49 football fields of land to rising sea levels each year.

Senator Al Franken talked about how the extreme cold has contributed to a serious propane shortage in Minnesota. Senator Angus King told us about the negative impacts on the lobster industry in Maine, and Senator Mark Udall spoke about how wildfires in Colorado are becoming more frequent and more intense.

How can one not see that this is a cult, when they blame “extreme cold” on greenhouse gases? Seriously, blaming cold on gases that trap heat? Warmists like to refer to skeptics as “anti-science”. Warmists should be referred to as “un-science”, because there is really no science involved with what they yammer on about.

First, climate change is real and the deniers are losing ground.

Is it appropriate for a sitting US Senator to refer to skeptics … remember, skepticism is a major component of science … as deniers, a term meant to compare those who do not believe in mostly/solely man-caused “climate change” to those who do not believe in the Holocaust? You can Tweet Ms. Boxer here, ask her about the propriety.

Ninety-seven percent of climate experts now say with virtual certainty that the planet is warming due mainly to human activities which have increased the amount of carbon pollution in our air. The level of scientific certainty on man-made climate change is about the same as the consensus among top scientists that cigarettes are deadly.

Of course, that 97% has been debunked heavily multiple times. If you’re calling it carbon, well, your science just went out the window. And the real consensus is 95%, which is the percentage of climate models that have failed.

An overwhelming majority of the American public recognizes that climate change is real and is happening now, and there is strong support for action to address this growing threat.

Yet, concerns over the climate rank at the bottom of American concerns in poll after poll. Strange, eh?

Read: Barbara Boxer Has Lessons From The Senate Climate Change Sleepover »

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

Krauthammer: Hardship Exemption Essentially Cancels Mandate

By William Teach March 13, 2014 – 6:47 am

You’ve probably heard about this one by now: Team Obama has changed the hardship exemption rules

(WSJ) But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”

This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

What does all that mean? (video at the link)

(Daily Caller) “[HHS Secretary] Sebelius is implying it was in the plan all the time, in the bill,” Krauthammer replied. “Yes, it was. But it was very narrowly defined. It meant if you lost your house, you lost your job, if you are living in the back of a VW, then you are a hardship case and you are exempt from the individual mandate.”

“It’s now been redefined,” he continued, “so that all you have to do is to claim that going into the exchange would create a hardship. I mean, it’s ironic. It makes Obamacare itself the hardship — which is slightly ironic, but I think she is beyond the reach of irony so she didn’t quite see it.”

“All you have to do is say, ‘You know, this is hard on me,”’ Krauthammer explained. “You sign a paper, you don’t have to provide any other documentation. It’s essentially a cancellation of the mandate.”

As Ezra Klein noted in December, “Obamacare itself is the hardship”.

George Will saw more irony in the rule change. “They told the Supreme Court, ‘It’s absolutely crucial that we have the individual mandate,’” he said. “Turns out nothing is crucial. Therefore, nothing is almost left of Obamacare.”

Meanwhile, HHS head Kathleen Sebelius was in front of the House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday, and, as usual, had no answers to direct questions. She had no idea how many people had paid their premiums. No idea as to the age makeup for those obtaining insurance. No idea how many signups had previously lost their health insurance due to the requirements. Yet, she and Obama can yammer on about millions signing up? Oh, and she told the panel that people can expect their premiums to go up next year.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Krauthammer: Hardship Exemption Essentially Cancels Mandate »

Posted in Healthcare | Comments Off on Krauthammer: Hardship Exemption Essentially Cancels Mandate | Trackback URL

How’d Pushing Climate Change Work For Dems In Fla-13?

By William Teach March 12, 2014 – 2:41 pm

Well, I’m sure by now you know that Nancy Pelosi compatriot Alex Sink lost

(Forbes) The national media this morning are calling Democrat Alex Sink’s surprise defeat in a bellwether special Congressional election yesterday a foreboding referendum on Obamacare. Perhaps this is so, but only slightly less noteworthy is Sink supporters’ failed attempt to turn victorious Republican David Jolly’s global warming skepticism into a political albatross.

Having just moved into Florida’s U.S. House District 13, I was shocked these past two weeks to discover how global warming became the central issue dominating television’s political commercials. Granted, I haven’t been watching much television, as moving from one house to another has been nearly a full-time job. Nevertheless, it seemed I couldn’t go 15 minutes into my limited viewing schedule without seeing the same Sierra Club/League of Conservation Voters commercial excoriating Jolly for being a global warming skeptic. I honestly can’t recall seeing any other political commercials these past two weeks, either pro-Sink or pro-Jolly. However, I must have seen the global warming commercial at least a dozen times.

Jolly didn’t bother fighting back against the “climate change” attacks, which was actually a wise move, which showed voters that the issue was too tiny to even bother with. Jolly stayed on message, mostly about the “Affordable” Care Act being a disaster.

This also goes to show that the Democrats focus on this issue really goes nowhere with voters, excluding the unhinged base, which would vote Dem anyhow. It’s no wonder Senate Democrats had no legislation to go with their Monday night sleepover whinefest about “climate change”.

Just to be clear, Sink also complained about oil drilling (while driving around in a fossil fueled vehicle to campaign events and fundraisers) and discussed her unwavering support for abortion on demand.

Read: How’d Pushing Climate Change Work For Dems In Fla-13? »

Posted in Democrats, Elections, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is some evil dude driving an evil fossil fueled machine which creates hot snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with post on racism as the driving force in liberal politics.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: “Climate Change” Still Ranks Near Bottom Of American’s Concerns

By William Teach March 12, 2014 – 10:55 am

Warmists have been pushing this issue for 25+ years. They’ve spent God-knows how much money, both private and public, pushing “climate change” awareness, attending conferences, preaching, etc, and they’ve browbeat people on a constant basis, yet this is what they’ve accomplished

(Gallup) Twenty-eight U.S. senators held an all-night “talkathon” Monday to call attention to climate change, an issue that only 24% of Americans say they worry about a great deal. This puts climate change, along with the quality of the environment, near the bottom of a list of 15 issues Americans rated in Gallup’s March 6-9 survey. The economy, federal spending, and healthcare dominate Americans’ worries.

Here’s the breakdown

Good job, Warmists: mission accomplished. This continues a trend where “climate change” tends to come in last or close to last.

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” Still Ranks Near Bottom Of American’s Concerns »

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

What Does It Cost To Rent A Democrat Senator?

By William Teach March 12, 2014 – 9:02 am

It works out to around $238,000 per hour

(NRSC) How much does it cost to rent the Senate floor (and 30 United States Senators) for 24 hours? By the looks of it, more than $100 million.  Last night, the majority of Democrats engaged in a so-called, “talk-a-thon” to protest climate change and advocate for policies that hurt American energy development.  Yes, this is the same Democrat majority that has controlled Washington since 2009.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “There has been little talk of legislation to tackle climate change in Congress since 2010, when a bill to reduce carbon emissions died in the Senate. But as they rev up for the midterm elections, Democrats are heeding the call of California billionaire Tom Steyer, who has pledged $100 million to back candidates with a program to curb climate change.”  The Washington Post is even more blunt:  “…There is another more political reason for the decision by Senate Democrats to devote their time to the issue right now. And that issue is campaign cash.  Environmental groups spent about $20 million on ads and other activities to help Democrats in 2012 and gave about $742,000 directly to candidates during the cycle… Then there’s the billionaire businessman Thomas Steyer. …Steyer hosted a recent fundraiser at his San Francisco home that netted the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $400,000 and where Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and the six other Democratic senators in attendance openly discussed plans for tonight’s talkathon, according to reports.”

$100 billion for just about 15 hours, or $6 million per hour.  To accomplish…. nothing.  As USA Today lamented, “The Democratic effort is cause for some confusion because these senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote, or any timetable for action this year.”

So, if you consider $100 million, 15 hours, 28 Warmist Democrat Senators, that’s around $238,000 per hour to do nothing more than yammer on an on, all while insulting people with opposite views as “deniers”, equating them with those who do not believe in the Holocaust.

The problem for Senate Democrats is that being beholden to extremists exposes another vulnerability for Senators already in danger of losing their seat like Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Kay Hagan, Mark Warner, Mark Pryor, Jeanne Shaheen and especially newly named Energy & Natural Resources Chair Mary Landrieu. The Democrats’ talk-a-thon makes clear that Landrieu is the Chair in name only, and instead is beholden to whatever Harry Reid wants. Mary Landrieu always brags about being a committee chairman – we all know she talks a good game, problem is – Mary Landrieu just never delivers results.

None of those Senators were in attendance during the sleepover. I’d be surprised if they were even near Washington Monday night. I’m sure they had “prior engagements”.

And then all the sleepover attendees jumped in their fossil fueled vehicles to head home, where the appliances were not unplugged while they were away.

Read: What Does It Cost To Rent A Democrat Senator? »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Will Supposedly Change Rules On Executive Overtime Pay

By William Teach March 12, 2014 – 8:43 am

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

(NY Times) President Obama this week will seek to force American businesses to pay more overtime to millions of workers, the latest move by his administration to confront corporations that have had soaring profits even as wages have stagnated.

On Thursday, the president will direct the Labor Department to revamp its regulations to require overtime pay for several million additional fast-food managers, loan officers, computer technicians and others whom many businesses currently classify as “executive or professional” employees to avoid paying them overtime, according to White House officials briefed on the announcement.

Right now, those making $455 a week or less as a salaried employee are eligible for overtime pay, per federal regulation. In some states, that salary rate is higher. Try to take Obama out of the equation for a moment

Conservatives criticized Mr. Obama’s impending action. “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, who warned that employers might cut pay or use fewer workers. “If they push through something to make a certain class of workers more expensive, something will happen to adjust.”

That could most certainly happen: the question is, to what degree? Let’s flip it around, though: many companies designate positions as salaried in order to avoid paying OT. George Bush raised the rate to $455 a week in 2004. That’s a salary of $23,600. Not quite what one would think of as a salaried employee. And some of these employees may be working well over 40 hours a week.

White House officials said those rules were sometimes abused by employers in an attempt to avoid paying overtime. The new rules could require that employees perform a minimum percentage of “executive” work before they can be exempted from qualifying for overtime pay.

“Under current rules, it literally means that you can spend 95 percent of the time sweeping floors and stocking shelves, and if you’re responsible for supervising people 5 percent of the time, you can then be considered executive and be exempt,” said Ross Eisenbrey, a vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization in Washington.

Again, take Obama out of the equation: is this fair to workers? There certainly must be a line between what is fair, what is treating employees with respect, what is not taking advantage of them. I think we can all agree that companies shouldn’t have carte blanche to abuse the employer-employee relationship. One big question revolves around how much of an increase will the new rules require?

Let’s put Obama back in

Mr. Obama’s decision to use his executive authority to change the nation’s overtime rules is likely to be seen as a challenge to Republicans in Congress, who have already blocked most of the president’s economic agenda and have said they intend to fight his proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25. (snip)

The proposed new regulations would increase the number of people who qualify for overtime and continue Mr. Obama’s fight against what he says is a crisis of economic inequality in the country. Changes to the regulations will be subject to public comment before final approval by the Labor Department, and it is possible that strong opposition could cause Mr. Obama to scale back his proposal. (snip)

The overtime action by Mr. Obama is part of a broader election-year effort by the White House to try to convince voters that Democrats are looking out for the middle class. White House officials hope the focus on lifting workers’ pay will translate into support for Democratic congressional candidates this fall.

And there’s the real reason for this proposed change: making Obama and Democrats look good to voters with a mid-term fast approaching. This is an attempt to further change the subject away from the horrible law known as Obamacare. Strictly politics.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Will Supposedly Change Rules On Executive Overtime Pay »

Posted in Barry Obama, Economy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Whew! Another Moonbat Article Describing How To Talk To A Denier

By William Teach March 11, 2014 – 4:50 pm

Personally, I recommend starting out with a discussion of how you’ve changed your own life, rather than by using a word comparing people who do not believe that anthropogenic forces are mostly/solely causing hotcoldwetdry

How to Talk to a Climate Change Denier

The contest is joined. On one side there is the near-unanimous conclusion of thousands of active climate scientists throughout the world: the global climate is changing and human technology is the primary cause. From the other side we are told that “climate change” is at worst a “hoax” or at least a normal and natural phenomenon not significantly affected by human activity. This position is endorsed by right-wing media, almost all congressional Republicans, and a few bought-off “scientists” (“biostitutes”) lavishly funded by fossil fuel industries.

Wow. That should help with the discussion. Personal insults, denigrating those scientists as “scientists” and prostitutes, proclaiming they are bought and for by Big Oil (still no proof), oh, and using human technology that supposedly causes hotcoldwetdry to complain.

So how do you deal with a “denier” willing to engage you in a debate?

If the “denier” tells you that “God would not allow the climate to change” or that “Jesus will fix all that when he comes back in the next few years,” and then quotes the Bible as “evidence,” save your breath and his time. His is a hopeless case.

If the Warmists tells you that they haven’t made significant changes in their own lives, and cites “consensus”, you’re wasting your time, because they are more religious than a devout Catholic.

But if your adversaries are citing what they believe is “scientific fact” or otherwise exhibit some indication of a capacity to yield in the face of scientific evidence, they just might listen to reason and consider evidence — but don’t count on it.

Interesting, because Warmists refuse to listen to any evidence that discounts their cult, er, science.

Instead of citing an endless list of scientific studies, I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions.

  • “Putting aside for the moment the issue of the reality of climate change, will you acknowledge that a recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% affirmed the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”
  • “Will you acknowledge the existence of a recently released report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency with 195 member countries, which concludes with 95% confidence that the climate is changing, due to human activity.”
  • “How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged facts?”

Interesting. There are no scientific facts, just polls and consensus. The 98% thing has been thoroughly debunked, as has the IPCC 95%. And there are no facts that follow, just allegation, implication by causation, and insults.

The findings of the IPCC and of those thousands of climate scientists portend unimaginable horrors., unless the global community of nations and their scientists act immediately and decisively.

“Eventual” vindication of their warnings will be too late.

Yet, their models have fallen apart. Personally, I have always enjoyed a good scary story, TV show, and movie. “Climate change” has more in common with werewolves and vampires than anything in reality.

Read: Whew! Another Moonbat Article Describing How To Talk To A Denier »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: “Climate Change” To Reduce Surfing Waves

By William Teach March 11, 2014 – 2:09 pm

This article brought to you by computer models and idiocy

(Guardian) Researchers have warned surfers that climate change will significantly reduce the number of large waves off Australia’s east coast in the coming decades.

The research found that an increase in greenhouses gases will cut the number of days with large ocean waves more than four metres high. The frequency of large waves is expected to drop by 40% by the end of the century, with roughly half of this decline happening over the next 30 years.

Researchers looked at 18 different climate change models and found that even in a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions were rapidly slowed, there would be a 25% reduction in large waves.

Why?

The study, published by Nature, analysed buoy data along the NSW coast, from Coffs Harbour to Eden, to show that large waves in the region are primarily caused by storms called east coast lows.

As heat-trapping gases are released into the atmosphere, fewer of these storms are created, resulting in a reduction in large waves.

As Bob Greene at Junk Science notes

Global warming predicts more storms everywhere except when the narrative needs fewer storms.

Hey, whatever serves the storyline. More storms, less storms. Haven’t the Climate Change Sheep been bleating about Hotcoldwetdry creating more extreme weather? These two comments at Grist are amusing

Ummm … doesn’t global warming result in more severe and more frequent storms…. and the bigger the storm – the bigger the wave…..What’s next – climate change is gonna cause catastrophic doldrums?

Silly you

Well that seems to be happening in the northern hemisphere right now due to less temperature variance between the Arctic and temperate regions, causing the jet stream to meander and get stuck.

Strange. This winter has seen lots and lots of storms. Warmists live in an alternate universe, and can’t seem to remember their own lies.

Read: Bummer: “Climate Change” To Reduce Surfing Waves »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove