Strange: Lots Of Sub-zero Days Across The Country

By William Teach March 1, 2014 – 11:25 am

How could this possibly happen? A sub-zero day is defined as one where the temperature drops below zero at some point during the day. All this comes via the Weather Channel

International Falls, Minn.

  • Number of subzero days this winter: 70 through Feb. 28
  • This ties the all-time record for the period of Dec. 1 to Feb. 28 set in 1977-1978.

Grand Forks, N.D.

  • Number of subzero days this winter: 70 through Feb. 28
  • This is the fourth most number of subzero days on record for the period from Dec. 1 to Feb. 28. The all-time record for this period of time is 74 days.
  • When looking at the entire cold season from November to April, the most subzero days on record is 85 in the winter of 1977-1978.

Must be all the GHGs making it so hot that it gets cold.

Duluth, Minn. beat their old record of 59 with 65 days. Aberdeen, S.D has 62 days, 10 short of the mark set in 1916-1917.

Fargo, N.D.

  • Number of subzero days this winter: 65 through Feb. 28.
  • This ties as the fourth most for the period from Dec. 1 to Feb. 28 dating back to the 1880s.

1880’s. Green Bay broke their mark of 48 with 49. Chicago has 22, which ties it for third. Other cities easily cracked their top ten for most sub-zero days.

Oh, and there are all the snow days at or approaching record. Philly has its 3rd snowiest. Chicago, 5th. Indy, 3rd. Detroit, 2nd. Cincy, 5th. Toledo, 1st. Ft. Wayne, 3rd. Peoria, 3rd. Wilmington, Del, 4th. Allentown, Pa, 4th. These are just a few of the cities cracking the top 5 for snowiest. And, since that article was from the 26th, it does not cover the snow that fell through the end of today.

Read: Strange: Lots Of Sub-zero Days Across The Country »

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

You’re In Good (Liberal Activist) Hands, NYC

By William Teach March 1, 2014 – 7:19 am

Mayor Bill De Blasio is taking a page from the Obama administration, and surrounding himself with hardcore liberal activists rather than people with real knowledge about running a city. Even the NY Times notices

De Blasio Picks More Liberal Activists Than Managers for City Posts

In Bill de Blasio’s City Hall, it seems more and more, there is only a left wing.

The mayor, who advanced in politics by grass-roots organizing, has built a team filled with former activists — figures more accustomed to picketing administrations or taking potshots from the outside than working from within. His administration is heavily populated with appointees best known for the fights they have fought. (snip)

“We’ve said all along, as we make appointments, our standards are clear,” Mr. de Blasio said in announcing the appointments of Mr. Banks, who once lost to him in a City Council race, and two other officials. “We need people who share our progressive values related to the future of this city.”

Alternative ideas and values are no longer welcome in NYC. So, it seems, is the notion of needing people with quality backgrounds

In any case, Mr. de Blasio’s mayor’s personnel choices are just one means by which he appears to be easing the mayoralty from the practical details of governing into a platform for the kind of social change usually achieved on the streets and in the courts.

It is a far different approach from that of his predecessor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who favored agency heads and staff members with button-down business backgrounds.

As far as Bloomberg goes, while you can certainly condemn him for his nannying ways, but the guy did know business. And he wanted business to come to NYC, he wanted people who knew how to Get Things Done, like in a business. I heard an interview with him back in September, and he was thrilled that NYC had so many really, really, really rich people, because he understood they created jobs, and put money in the city coffers. De Blasio is sure to drive people away.

Even those de Blasio has picked who have managerial experience are hardcore progressives, and must share his vision. Expect this to be a very activist government for NYC, and things will not work very well, especially when much of the big tax base moves away.

Mr. Green, who was Mr. Bloomberg’s opponent in the 2001 election, warned that New Yorkers needed “more of a leader and manager than activist and advocate.”

“He’s been preparing for years to run for mayor but not to be mayor,” Mr. Green said. “The most-asked question I get from earnest citizens is, ‘Can he manage the city?’ ”

That reminds me of someone else with few managerial skills but was great at campaigning, and it hasn’t worked so well for the United States.

Read: You’re In Good (Liberal Activist) Hands, NYC »

Posted in Government, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama: Russia Needs To Stop Being Big Meanies, Then Heads For A Fundraiser

By William Teach March 1, 2014 – 7:01 am

So, Obama called a for a quick statement, then showed up late, as usual. People who show up late aren’t particularly trust-worthy. But, maybe it makes him feel special and powerful. In reality, it shows a profound lack of respect. Anyhow

(The Hill) President Obama warned Friday there “will be costs” if Russian takes military action inside Ukraine.

In a brief appearance in the White House press briefing room, Obama said his administration was “deeply concerned” by reports that the Russian military is already intervening in the Crimea, an area of Ukraine with strong Russian ties.

“Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe,” Obama said. “It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people.”

He warned Russian military intervention would be a “clear violation” of its international commitments, and noted the action came on the heels of the Winter Olympic games.

All in all, it was a pretty weak statement, even for Obama, who has apparently either learned nothing during his 5 years in office or just can’t be bothered. Or both.

(Fox News) Charles Krauthammer told viewers Friday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that President Obama’s statement on the latest Ukraine developments showed “weakness,” and implied that “we’re not really going to do anything” about the political upheaval in Ukraine. (snip)

“He said, any violation of Ukrainian territory is destabilizing, and that’s not in Russia’s interest. He is instructing Putin on what’s in Russia’s interest?” Krauthammer said. “I can assure you, Putin has calculated his calculated his own interests, and he’s calculated that detaching Crimea from Ukraine and making it, essentially, a colony of Russia, is in Russia’s interest – because he knows he has nothing to fear from the west, because it’s not led by anybody. It used to be led by the United States.”

And

(Fox News) “This administration’s policy toward Russia has been a failure,” Brookes said, later adding, “There is some value in strategic ambiguity because you are trying to deter the Russians from going any further, you’re trying to involve yourself in preventive diplomacy, but this should have been done a long, long time ago. And unfortunately this administration, like so many issues, is behind the power curve.”

Even Sarah Palin chimed in

In 2008, when she was the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin questioned in a speech whether then-Sen. Barack Obama would have the foreign policy credentials to handle a scenario in which Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,” she said in Reno, Nevada on October 21, 2008.

The former Alaska governor was happy to highlight her prediction on Friday and scold those who criticized her 2008 comments.

“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she said on Facebook. That remark was a reference to a 2008 interview in which Palin argued that Alaska’s proximity to Russia helped boost her foreign policy experience.

And, once his brief slight finger wagging comments were concluded, it was happy hour

President Obama himself, having delivered a limp warning to Vladimir Putin, decamped for a meeting of the Democratic National Committee, where he told a cheering crowd: “Well, it’s Friday, it’s after 5:00. So this is officially happy hour with the Democratic Party.”

I’m going to do something strange: I’m going to somewhat defend Obama. Throughout this entire thing, no one has really offered a better idea as to what Obama should have said, and what he should threaten. Seriously, what can he say? What can he do? Is there anything that would dissuade Russia and Putin? This isn’t the cold war time, and we won’t be covertly sending weapons and aid. One thing I used to always say to my employees is “if I don’t have a better idea, I won’t criticize you”.

On the flip side, I wasn’t POTUS. And I wasn’t the one who became a joke in the international community, at least amongst the leaders of countries around the world. For the most part, Obama is seen as weak and wishy-washy, particularly after his Syrian “red lines” walkback. And then running off to a fundraiser, rather than heading back to the office to keep an eye on things, shows a fundamental disconnect to the issues roiling the region.

His dealings with Russia have always been pathetic, starting with the “reset button” gaffe. He’s always appeared weak and ineffectual. George Bush may have been “hated” around the world, but, for the most part, he was respected as a leader with convictions, keeping the USA strong. Obama is more of a seagull pigeon leader: he flies in (late), makes a lot a bit of noise, some cooing sounds, craps all over everything, then flies off. Usually for personal/fundraising business, not Executive Office business.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama: Russia Needs To Stop Being Big Meanies, Then Heads For A Fundraiser »

Posted in Barry Obama | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

9th Circuit: Students Have No Right To Wear A USA Flag Shirt

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 2:29 pm

I’m a little late on this story from yesterday, but it brings up an interesting thought

(Washington Post) Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. (See here and here for more on this case.)

The court points out that the rights of students in public high schools are limited — under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), student speech could be restricted if “school authorities [can reasonably] forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” stemming from the speech. And on the facts of this case, the court concludes, there was reason to think that the wearing of the T-shirts would lead to disruption. There had been threats of racial violence aimed at students who wore such shirts the year before:

On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students. The groups exchanged profanities and threats. Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA.” A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.” When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.” Rodriguez removed the student from the area….

At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.

Now, there’s no doubt that the students wore the USA flag shirts to be provocative.  Being provocative is Verboten and ends 1st Amendment protections, apparently. Because there might be violence because American citizen students were daring to wear those shirts as the school celebrated Cinco de Mayo, a somewhat made up holiday barely celebrated in Mexico, and mostly revolving around people in the US getting drunk (tell me I’m wrong). Violence against the students wearing the US shirts

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.

Yeah, but, um, multiculturalism? Something?

(Allahpundit) The court’s ruling: School administrators can force you to remove your American-flag tee if the alternative is a classmate punching you in the face. That’s because, per the Supreme Court, students don’t have the same free speech rights at school that adults do on other public grounds. At school, the name of the game is order and instruction; you’re entitled to free expression to the extent you don’t interfere with those goals, but once you do, the school’s entitled to limit your expression accordingly.

In other words, a bully can get the principal’s office to silence you by promising to beat your ass if they don’t.

Now, this could set an interesting precedent: let’s say some pro-abortion group, or Code Pink, or ANSWER (not that they really protest with Obama in the WH), a “climate change” group, protests against Keystone XL, etc, are out and about. Conservatives could claim that their signs and shirts are provocative, and could cause violence, so The Government should force them to cease and desist.

Granted, these are children, and they do lose some rights when attending school in the name of learning (like the right to learn how to do correct math), but this ruling rewards the bullies. It will most likely go to the Supreme Court.

Read: 9th Circuit: Students Have No Right To Wear A USA Flag Shirt »

Posted in 1st Amendment, American Flag | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle that should only be used to take Warmists to climate change forums, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fausta, with a post on the death of the Monroe Doctrine (thanks, Obama). Take particular note of Fausta’s posts on the strife still occurring in Venezuela, then compare to what you’re not hearing from the MSM.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress”

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 11:00 am

Now, if he could only take the time to tell Obama and all the hardcore Progressives he’s installed to run EO agencies the same thing

(The Blaze) Just a day after a congressional panel was warned of a “constitutional tipping point” resulting from President Barack Obama’s use of executive powers, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted “the job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed by Congress.”

This was stated in relation to a question by Bill Press about about using executive actions/orders to stop deportations of illegals

“As the president has made clear going to your question, the job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed by Congress,” Carney said, before immediately bringing up an executive action taken by Obama in 2012. “The administration has taken a series of steps to focus our resources and make immigration enforcement more strategic, including focusing on criminals and the use of deferred action for young immigrants known as dreamers.”

Oh, so Obama does know that’s his job, he just prefers to ignore it. We’ve seen plenty of examples. Care for another? Ed Morrissey notes that HHS has waved their magic wand again

(AP) HHS said state residents who were unable to sign up because of technical problems may still get federal tax credits if they bought private insurance outside of the new online insurance exchanges.

The federal policy change is significant because until now the administration has stressed that the only place to get taxpayer-subsidized insurance under President Barack Obama’s health law is through the new online markets, called exchanges. Previously, people who bought outside the marketplace were not eligible for subsidies, although they benefit from consumer protections in the law.

This mostly bails out Democrat governors who implemented their own “exchanges”, a good chunk of which have failed, plus Democrat Senators up for tough midterm races. Does It’s. The. Law. allow subsidies to those who did not purchase insurance through a government exchange? And, if these folks are getting subsidies, why not the rest of us?

Read: Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats | Comments Off on Jay Carney Tells Us “the job of the Executive Office is to carry out laws passed by Congress” | Trackback URL

Warming “Pause” Excuse #9: It’s All A Coincidence

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 8:07 am

We can add it to the list, via Climate Depot

Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9) ‘Coincidence’

Remember, Warmists call this “science”

(Bishop Hill) Gavin Schmidt and his colleagues are looking at the hiatus in surface temperature rises and considers why the CMIP5 ensemble all got it so wrong. In their new paper they explain that the reason for this is not – as wild-eyed readers at BH might think – that the models are wonky. In fact it’s all down to an incredible, incredible coincidence

Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992. CMIP5 model simulations were based on historical estimates of external influences on the climate only to 2000 or 2005, and used scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs) thereafter4. Any recent improvements in these estimates or updates to the present day were not taken into account in these simulations. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.

Apparently, if you go back and rework all the forcings, taking into account new data estimates (add half a bottle of post-hoc figures) and ‘reanalyses’ of old data (add a tablespoon of computer simulation) you can bridge the gap and explain away the pause.

As Bishop Hill notes, much of this goes to Why The Models Failed, and how Schmidt and other Disciples Of Gore go back and rework the data. It’s all a coincidence that the pause happened.

But, wait, could there be a 10th?

(BBC) New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.

Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.

These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.

The research, published in the journal Nature, fills in a major gap in our understanding, researchers say.

It’s not just pine smell, but aerosols themselves, especially coming from Mankind. And, of course, the warming was mostly/solely caused by Mankind in Warmist world. It’s just nature fighting back or something. Strange that pine trees smell when it’s cold, too.

One does have to wonder: if the science is settled, why do they keep releasing papers?

Read: Warming “Pause” Excuse #9: It’s All A Coincidence »

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

Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity

By William Teach February 28, 2014 – 7:43 am

Of course they do. This will only affect Right side groups, because the IRS under Commissar Obama will not enforce those rules against left leaning group

(The Hill) A group of Democratic senators urged the Obama administration on Thursday to cap the amount of political activity that tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups can engage in at 5 to 15 percent.

The 15 senators, in public comments on a proposed regulation change that grew out of the IRS targeting controversy, said that the rules need to ensure that 501(c)(4)s can’t use their tax-exempt status to go around campaign finance rules.

“You will undoubtedly receive complaints from certain corners that these proposed rules will infringe on First Amendment speech rights,” Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and the other senators wrote to the Treasury Department and the IRS.

“Such complaints are without merit: these rules would not restrict anyone’s right to speak, or to spend money to influence elections,” the senators added. “If implemented properly, the rules will only close a loophole that has until now allowed donors to evade campaign finance law disclosure requirements.”

The GOP should counter with a requirement to limit political activity for the unions, NAACP, ACLU, oh, and heh, Organizing For Action, the 501(c)(4) group that exists specifically to push Mr. Obama’s political positions. Virtually every tweet is about Obama and his policies. The tweet using his name. The Twitter handle is BarackObama. Is that promoting social welfare, or politics?

And why are they proposing rules? Should this not be done by Congress? Is this not what the Legislative branch is for? Loopholes used to be closed by legislation. Perhaps Chuck Schumer and the other Dems realize that the 1st Amendment specifically forbids them from passing that legislation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday raised a slew of objections, arguing the administration is seeking to create a “no speech zone” through “breathtaking overreach.”

“This unworkable proposal demonstrates the obvious: the IRS has neither the expertise nor the authority to regulate First Amendment political speech, and should not be used by the administration for political ends,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the Chamber’s general counsel and chief legal officer.

“The proposed rule tramples speech that has never been regulated before, and puts the tax rules in hopeless conflict with themselves and other laws. We urge Treasury and the IRS to withdraw their fundamentally unsound proposal.”

Interestingly, most of the senators (as listed at the story) are in purely safe seats, so do not have to worry about any of the money and support from liberal 501(c)(4) groups. Not that any of them would need to worry about the IRS investigating them, not with a hardcore Progressive boss who likes to target private citizens and entities who oppose him.

In addition to calling for no more than 15 percent political activity, the Democratic senators also urged Treasury and the IRS to exempt nonpartisan voter registration efforts from the definition of candidate-related activity.

And all the far left groups will deem themselves as “non-partisan”, and most are on the left. Best comment from the story

Money in politics is no threat to democracy, compared to the ignorance of the masses.

Meanwhile, The Lonely Conservative covers Obama stating that he will veto the Stop IRS Abuse bill if it reaches him.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | Comments Off on Dem Senators Want Cap On 501(c)(4) Activity | Trackback URL

Warmist Study Prognosticates 180K More Rapes By 2099

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 3:57 pm

Might this be the start of Warmists, who are primarily Leftists, linking “climate change” to the war on women? Na, this isn’t the first time they’ve trotted out a fable about how “climate change” harms women, the question is, why aren’t Warmists changing their own behavior so more women don’t get raped?

(Mother Jones) Global warming isn’t just going to melt the Arctic and flood our cities—it’s also going to make Americans more likely to kill each other.

That’s the conclusion of a controversial new study that uses historic crime and temperature data to show that hotter weather leads to more murders, more rapes, more robberies, more assaults, and more property crimes.

“Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime,” says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with policy consulting firm Abt Associates. “We think that is likely to continue in the future.”

Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will “cause” an additional “22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft” in the US.

And if this occurs, we can directly blame Warmists for refusing to give up their fossil fueled lives and go “carbon neutral”.

Of course, there’s a third alternative—reining in the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming in the first place.

Go for it, Warmists. Reign in your own GHG emissions. Otherwise you are perpetuating a rape culture.

Yet, rape went down during the warming times of late 70’s through 1999.

Read: Warmist Study Prognosticates 180K More Rapes By 2099 »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea rising up to swamp the evil 1%ers who won’t give up their fossil fuels usage, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Obama the CIC and the minimum wage.

Bonus points for guessing the model, without looking at the photo URL.

Read: If All You See… »

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