…is snow in the tropics due to Global Weirding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on grim times for gun grabbers.
Read: If All You See… »
…is snow in the tropics due to Global Weirding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on grim times for gun grabbers.
Read: If All You See… »
What were Nazi’s? Fascists. What are Progressives? Jonah Goldberg refers to them as “Nice Fascists”. Prick a Warmist and you’ll find a Progressive. And Dr. Roy Spencer has had enough
Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniersâ€, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazisâ€.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
Dr. S goes on to compare what the Nazi’s political policies were to the policies of Warmists, and there are lots of similarities. At the end he notes
NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Naziâ€, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.
Let’s not forget, Warmists have called for “deniers” to be jailed (and here. Here. Lots more where they came from) and executed (also the first jail link. And here. And more). These are intollerant, anti-science fascists, against freedom of thought and belief that doesn’t jibe with their own beliefs. Yet, interestingly, they themselves will not live the life of their beliefs.
Read: Dr. Roy Spenser: Time to push back against the global warming Nazis »
She and other vulnerable Democrats finally realized that their Obamacare votes have consequences, so they wrote a letter (via NRO)
(NRSC) Hagan’s ObamaCare “enacted $200 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years”
- In 2009, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) promised North Carolinians who depend on Medicare that she was going to “protect Medicare” and that they would “not see a drop in their Medicare coverage.”
- But in 2010 Kay Hagan voted to slash Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare. (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #72: Motion agreed to 56-42: R 0-40; D 54-2; I 2-0, 3/24/10, Hagan Voted Yea)
- In North Carolina 463,159 seniors depend on Medicare Advantage plans (28% of all Medicare enrollees).
- According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in North Carolina, seniors on Medicare Advantage plans experienced cost increases and benefit cuts of an estimated $50-60 per month as a result of this year’s 6 percent cut to the program due to ObamaCare.
- Now, as North Carolina seniors are being crushed under the weight of ObamaCare and as her own poll numbers plummet, Kay Hagan admits in a letter to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid that she cut Medicare for seniors after promising North Carolinians that they wouldn’t “see a drop in their Medicare coverage”
- Hagan’s letter reads: “We write to raise serious concerns about the Medicare Advantage (MA) 2015 rate notice and the impact further cuts may have on the millions of individuals enrolled in the program,†the senators write. “We are strongly committed to preserving the high quality health plan choices and benefits that our constituents receive through the MA program. Given the impact that payment policies could have on our constituents, we ask that you prioritize beneficiaries’ experience and minimize disruption in maintaining payment levels for 2015.â€
“Kay Hagan promised North Carolinians that ObamaCare wouldn’t harm seniors who rely on Medicare, but that wasn’t true,” said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. “Kay Hagan has repeatedly deceived North Carolina voters. Now even though Kay Hagan admits that she slashed Medicare Advantage to pay for ObamaCare, she is trying to blame others for her broken promises. Hagan’s reckless cuts to Medicare mean fewer benefits and health care choices for seniors. Â Deceiving seniors about Medicare isn’t the first lie Kay Hagan told about ObamaCare, but it serves as the latest reminder that North Carolinians can’t trust her to keep her word.”
If only there was something Kay and the other Senate Democrats could actually do. Some power delegated to them by the Constitution. But, then, perhaps they should have been concerned with what Obamacare would do before they stampeded straight to passing the Obamination of a bill.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Kay Hagan Is Bummed About Those Medicare Cuts She Voted For »
After that airplane incident the other day which featured massive turbulence, including a baby being thrown several rows away, who bet on “Warmists will blame this on Hotcoldwetdry”?
Fasten Seat Belts: Climate Change Could Mean More Turbulence
“Could” is one of my favorite scientific words, because it could mean anything and has no measurable testing requirements.
Sudden turbulence injured crew and passengers on two flights an ocean apart this week, and the back-to-back bumpy rides are more than a coincidence — winter weather and changing climate patterns may have played a role. Technology to precisely anticipate the “clear air turbulence” likely to blame for both flights just doesn’t exist, experts say.
The first incident occurred on Monday, when United Airlines flight about to land at Billings, Montana, was rattled by sudden turbulence, which left two passengers and three flight attendants injured. The jolt also tossed a baby from its mother’s arms and into a nearby seat, where it landed unharmed. The second occurred aboard a Cathay Pacific flight out of San Francisco hit a patch of rough air above Japan, and a high-altitude “roller-coaster†ride left eight crew and passengers in hospital.
Oh, but if you thought it was the warmth created warmth from fossil fuels, alas, no
“Winter is when turbulence is the worst,†Williams said. “It’s when the jet stream is strongest … And that’s why we’re seeing the two encounters this week.â€
So it is the warmth created cold from fossil fuels that could make turbulence worse.
Buckle Up, It’s Going to Be a Bumpy FutureThe bad news is that research suggests our travel is likely to get bumpier in the coming decades. Computer models have predicted that climate change and increased carbon dioxide levels will speed up the jet stream, leading to more serious episodes by 2050.
Once Warmists trot out “computer models”, especially when they “suggest”, game over. We’ve just gone into La La Land where science is conducted by unicorns who far out rainbows.
Read: “Climate Change” Might Mean More Turbulence In The Skies »
…is an evil carbon pollution infused can of beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on HHS wanting all your social media data.
Read: If All You See… »
Not well
NOAA totally blew winter forecast… But it will be 4 degrees warmer in 100 yrs. http://t.co/dCsmpLTevQ
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 19, 2014
This is why Warmists only like to make predictions 50-100 years out
(Business Week) Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was.
The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification†map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.
I bet this will soon be blamed on “climate change”. Or Warmists will flip to “that’s not climate, that’s weather. And we know what will happen 100 years from now (insert Dean scream). The Lonely Conservative notes that Warmists want to blow up the economy when they can’t even get one season correct. Ace
I don’t really think it’s terrible that government meteorologists failed to predict how tough, cold, and snowy this Global Warmening winter would be. Predicting the future, like hitting a curveball, is hard.
But, of course: I’m a bit skeptical when they move straight from one near-term failed prediction to a long-term prediction, also failed, at least for the last 17 years, and tell me “Serious You Guys you have to trust on this, the Science is Settled.”
Warmists have removed skepticism from science. Now you must Believe, Have Faith, and Comply.
Read: Say, How’d That Official U.S. Winter Forecast Work Out? »
The LA Times has been on a roll as of late with their “climate change” idiocy, here and here, blaming cold and snow and ice on “climate change”. Now we get
Climate change brings more crime
A new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures — on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis — are likely to produce more crime.
The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.
Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to 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, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.
OK, there is some basis to this. Crime tends to occur more when it is warm than when cold. Yet, how does this play when there has been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures for 17 years? Does a 0.28F increase since 1990 really make a big difference? Would a miniscule increase of a few degrees magically increase crime?
But, does this prove anthropogenic causation? Because there have been multiple warm periods during the Holocene, at least two of them which were warmer than the current Modern Warm Period. Perhaps Warmists could tell us exactly what the perfect temperature would be? Marc Morano
“Instead of looking at temperature data or other climate metrics to prove or disprove man-made global warming claims, the global warming activists have now shifted the playing field so rape and murder statistics are now used as some sort of ‘proof’ of man-made global warming. Global warming science has truly morphed to modern witchcraft!’
Back to the LA Times
Therefore, it adds, “an immediate and permanent 4% increase in the size of the U.S. police force would be required to offset the aggregate climate-related increases in murder, manslaughter, robbery, burglary and vehicle theft likely to occur over the next century.â€
And there we go: the Warmists want more police. More Big Government dominance. If they really cared about crime they might put more police in places like Detroit and other liberal cities. And change their own policies on law enforcement and the judicial system. Oh, and citizens carrying guns and standing their ground. Oh, and here’s something interesting pointed out in the comments at the LA Times article
According to the FBI’s own crime statistics, their “violent crime index” DROPPED steadily 1992 – 2011, from 757.7 to 386.3 (per 100,000 population). This is consistent with ALL the violent crime groups they list as well. Virtually cut IN HALF!
Google this exactly including the quote marks and it comes up first:
“Crime in the United States is described by annual Uniform Crime Reports” fbi
Well, that’s strange, wouldn’t you say? Should crime have increased cause “climate change”? And crime was down in 2013, despite the (false) assertion that 2013 was one of the hottest years eveh!
Read: Hooray! Warmists Now Say “Climate Change” Will Cause More Crime »
This opinion piece comes to us by way of hyper-lefty E.J.Dionne, who’s writing exactly what Lefties thing and proposing what they want. Well, want for Everyone Else. The minute they themselves need Stand Your Ground, they’ll scream to the high heavens for protection
Repeal stand-your-ground lawsThe law is supposed to solve problems, not create them. Laws should provide as much clarity as possible, not expand the realms of ambiguity and subjectivity. Laws ought to bring about the practical results their promoters claim they’ll achieve. And at its best, the law can help us to live together more harmoniously.
By all these measures, “stand your ground†laws are a failure. These statutes make the already difficult task of jurors even harder. They aggravate mistrust across racial lines. They appear to increase, rather than decrease, crime.
OK, so a few issues here and there mean the entire concept of the law has failed? Perhaps E.J. could provide a link to some study to back his assertion of mistrust across racial lines.
Dionne goes on to discuss the Dunn trial, and mentions George Zimmerman, in relation to SYG.
We shouldn’t fault the Dunn jury, which seemed to struggle to reach a just outcome. Unlike Zimmerman, the 47-year-old Dunn was not acquitted and could spend the rest of his life in prison. The jury clearly saw no justification for his firing at a fleeing car. But the stand-your-ground law undoubtedly sowed confusion on the murder count.
Actually, we should fault the jury, and prosecutor. The defense attempted to make a valid point in order to sow confusion in order to get his client off, despite it not being about SYG. And did to a degree, regarding the 1st degree murder charge, which I personally thought was a big stretch. In the Zimmerman case, the did not bring up SYG.
Florida’s statute allows someone to use force if he or she “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.†The “reasonable belief†standard is not unique to stand-your-ground laws, but it opens a vast loophole for extreme subjectivity when it is applied in conjunction with them. This has created problems that even the law’s supporters should acknowledge.
Which is apparently Bad. Say, I wonder if Dionne has armed protection at the NY Times building? Yes, there are armed security guards. How about that? As far as “reasonable belief” goes, no, that is not perfect. Liberals would probably prefer that people who carry weapons, since they can’t get those dratted carry laws repealed, have a long list of conditions they must read through before defending themselves.
Stand-your-ground laws shift the balance of power on the streets to those who carry weapons. They thus provide an incentive for everyone to be armed, which is why the National Rifle Association has pressured legislatures in some two dozen states to enact them. We shouldn’t have to wait for another death and controversial trial to recognize that this is a poor reason for laws that cause such palpable harm. It’s time to repeal them.
Actually, they shift power into the hands of the law abiding citizens over the criminal elements. Like this mom, whose home had been broken into just a mere 2 weeks prior to the second criminal act
As three teenagers rushed into the house, Mom “didn’t have time to get scared,†she told WXYZ-TV in Detroit.
She warned the intruders she had a gun. Upon hearing their “no you don’t†reply, Mom figured they needed some convincing….and opened fire.
The teens’ entrance — and mighty swift exit — was all caught on the newly installed security cameras.
One of the teens picked his gun back up and attempted to go back inside. Another scary blast from mom’s shotgun sent him fleeing. This would be a case of SYG under Michigan law.
Will people misuse SYG? Sure. Welcome to life, where people are not perfect, and there are always jerks. And lest you think this is just cranky E.J. Dionne yapping, the Michael Dunn defense successfully bringing up SYG to avoid the 1st degree murder charge has sent the liberal nags wagging, such as at US News and World Report, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Liberals would prefer that no one is allowed to defend themselves, especially with scary guns, from the crime that liberal policies create in the first place.
Crossed at Right Wing News.