New Paper Finds Seas Warmer During Medieval Warm Period

By William Teach February 5, 2014 – 11:36 am

Say, how did all the sea life survive during the Medieval Warm Period? Why didn’t all the coral die out? Was there some sort of mass die-off of sea life? Did islands tip over? Were they covered in hundreds of feet of sea rise? A paper published in The Holocene delves into the sea temperatures of that time period (Via The Australian Climate Skeptic Party)

(CO2 Science) What was done: Using ten proxy sea surface temperature (SST) records – six from the Norwegian Margin, three from the North Icelandic Shelf and one from the Scottish Margin – Cunningham et al. prepared a 1,000-year SST record spanning the period from AD 1000 to 2000, which revealed, in their words, that “the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ warming was most pronounced before AD 1200, with a long-term cooling trend apparent after AD 1250.” And what did the new record reveal about the uniqueness – or not! – of the region’s late-20th-century Current Warm Period?

What was learned: The twenty researchers report that “in recent decades temperatures have been similar to those inferred for the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’.” However, their graphical representations (three versions of them) of the one-thousand-year period clearly indicate that the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has actually been a couple tenths of a degree C less than that of the earlier Medieval Warm Period.

What it means: As has been found to be the case in so many land-based assessments of the relative warmth of the Medieval and Current Warm Periods, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth’s current level of warmth … although it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.

Let’s repeat that last line:

…although it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.

Unusual in terms of Warmist model predictions, which state that the Earth, and the seas, should be much warmer. Of course, Warmists will simply pronounce that the warming of the seas has disappeared into the deep oceans, much like with the surface warming. Why? Because shut up, that’s why. You ask too many questions, and asking questions isn’t science, ya know.

Read: New Paper Finds Seas Warmer During Medieval Warm Period »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 40 Comments | Trackback URL

Fact Checker: Obamacare Won’t Really Kill 2 Million Jobs

By William Teach February 5, 2014 – 8:13 am

Liberals, and the White House, are attempting to spin the CBO report that states that 2 million+ full time jobs will be lost thanks directly to Obamacare. They say this is not a bad thing. Do they have a point? Here’s Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker

Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.

The Facts

First, this is not about jobs. It’s about workers — and the choices they make.

The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.

One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)

Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market. Other people near retirement age might decide they no longer need to hold onto their job just because it provides health insurance, and they also leave the work force.

Look at this way: If someone says they decided to leave their job for personal reasons, most people would not say they “lost” their jobs. They simply decided not to work.

Well, that’s a good point. The jobs won’t actually be lost. It’ll just be people deciding to work less hours for their job. Here’s Greg Sargent

That’s not what the report says. Here is the key passage, on page 117:

Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the aCA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).

The CBO report actually says that the impact of the ACA will be “almost entirely” due to a decline in labor that “workers choose to supply.” It says explicitly that the ACA’s impact will not be felt as an “increase in unemployment” or “underemployment.”

Hmm, people voluntarily deciding to work less hours. And the NY Times

The report did say that the law would reduce hours worked and full-time employment, but not because of a crippling impact on private-sector job creation. With the expansion of insurance coverage, the budget office predicted, more people will choose not to work, and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise to obtain employer-provided insurance. The cumulative reduction of hours is large: the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.

The LA Times says the report is a good thing, and argues the same as above. So does the White House, liberal groups, and other Dems. Is this all bad? No. But, let me ask, how many people can voluntarily decide that they are going to work almost part time hours? And people will voluntarily choose not to work? How will they pay for Obamacare insurance? Who thinks companies will put up with this?

Let’s consider a big point avoided by all these Obamacare supporters: Ocare incents people to not work. Just like so many safety net programs. If Government provides, why work? Here’s The Hill

It instead found that the healthcare law will create disincentives for people to work and that this in turn will cut into the labor supply, hurt the economy, lower tax collection and cause higher deficits.

It’s creating a new “leisure class”, as Powerline notes.

Read: Fact Checker: Obamacare Won’t Really Kill 2 Million Jobs »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Hooray! Here Come Obama’s “Climate Hubs”

By William Teach February 5, 2014 – 7:29 am

Yeah, OK, uh huh

(NY Times) On the heels of the Senate’s passage of a long-awaited farm bill, the Obama administration is to announce on Wednesday the creation of seven regional “climate hubs” aimed at helping farmers and rural communities respond to the risks of climate change, including drought, invasive pests, fires and floods.

White House officials describe the move as one of several executive actions that President Obama will take on climate change without action from Congress.

In substance, the creation of the climate hubs is a limited step, but it is part of a broader campaign by the administration to advance climate policy wherever possible with executive authority. The action is also part of a push to build political support for the administration’s more divisive moves on climate change – in particular, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on coal-fired power plants.

How will they pay for it? Congress has not appropriated the funding. So, yes, a limited step. I love the part about drought and flood, because climate change causes everything, ya know!

The hubs will be located in Ames, Iowa; Durham, N.H.; Raleigh, N.C.; Fort Collins, Colo.; El Reno, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.; Las Cruces, N.M.; and Davis, Calif.

Hey, my town, Raleigh, will be part of this experiment.

With programs like the climate hubs, the Obama administration hopes to help farmers adapt to climate change while making the case for broader climate regulations.

In other words, this is about politics, not science. Let’s check the USDA page

USDA’s regional hubs will deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners within each region of the US to support decision-making related to climate change. These hubs are needed to maintain and strengthen agricultural production, natural resource management, and rural economic development under increasing climate variability. The Hubs will build capacity within USDA to deliver information and guidance on technologies and risk management practices at regional and local scales.

Does anyone get the feeling that this is a Democrat attempt to insinuate themselves into the rural population, which overwhelmingly votes Republican? To make them comply with Far Left politics? There will be lots of “outreach and education”. Think it will be science based, or political “climate change” based?

Finally, how is this a big EO from Obama? USDA had an application process for this, with a deadline to apply by 8/21/2013. Obama is not creating them out of thin air.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hooray! Here Come Obama’s “Climate Hubs” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Hooray! Another Article Explaining How To Convince Your Friends Of “Climate Change”

By William Teach February 4, 2014 – 2:46 pm

Warmists have been nagging people for decades about the current warm period and how it’s all Mankind’s fault. Before then, it was on cooling. Then warming. Then cooling. They blamed witches before then. Anyhow, they current set have been agitating and whining and spreading awareness since the 80’s, and are still doing it. This time, the Washington Post trots out some propaganda in the health-science section. This should be in the opinion section

How to convince your friends to believe in climate change. It’s not as hard as you think.

Environmental­ists have a reputation for being self-righteous and a little naggy, which makes them ripe for parody. (Seen “Portlandia”?) The perception that the eco-conscious are trying to take the fun out of life, however, is unfair. It also has some unfortunate consequences: It drives people away. Nagging breeds defiance.

Yes, it does. So, let’s nag some more

Socially negotiated silences grow up around issues that we simply can’t agree on. But we have to find a way around this stalemate, because the consequences are monumental. Marshall recommends tweaking your language slightly to make yourself sound less judgmental.

“Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions,” he notes. “Say, ‘This is what’s important to me, and this is why.’

And I’m going to ask “if it’s important, what changes have you made in your life?”

Don’t get caught up in the scientific discussion. You’re not a scientist, and evidence doesn’t persuade people who reject climate change. What carries power is your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor.”

Sounds rather judgmental, especially coming from people who reject Earth’s natural processes as explanations for climatic changes.

Say that you, too, were once reluctant to accept the idea of climate change.

So, lie.

Now you’ll need a compelling argument to explain why you came around. As Marshall notes, communications research shows that “because scientists say so” is a loser.

Don’t expect Warmists to give it up. The science doesn’t back them up, so they have to go with “consensus”.

The writer goes on to describe some talking points, which are pretty much the same talking points they’ve been using for decades. Here’s a fun one

Illness terrifies people of all stripes, so it sometimes helps to emphasize the links between climate change and disease.

Yeah, remember when that Black Plague spread as the climate turned cool and wet? It’s no wonder fewer and fewer people either do not believe in anthropogenic climate change or just don’t care. Warmists are nuts and naggy. And hypocrites.

Read: Hooray! Another Article Explaining How To Convince Your Friends Of “Climate Change” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 44 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 4, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil CO2 infused beer, causing snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Hockey Schtick, with a post on 0.09C increase in sea temperatures since 1957.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

WHO: Tidal Wave Of Cancer Is Coming

By William Teach February 4, 2014 – 11:17 am

Can you guess what their prescription is to fix this?

(BBC) The globe is facing a “tidal wave” of cancer, and restrictions on alcohol and sugar need to be considered, say World Health Organization scientists.

It predicts the number of cancer cases will reach 24 million a year by 2035, but half could be prevented.

The WHO said there was now a “real need” to focus on cancer prevention by tackling smoking, obesity and drinking.

Restrictions, huh?

The WHO’s World Cancer Report 2014 said the major sources of preventable cancer included:

  • Smoking
  • Infections
  • Alcohol
  • Obesity and inactivity
  • Radiation, both from the sun and medical scans
  • Air pollution and other environmental factors
  • Delayed parenthood, having fewer children and not breastfeeding

I’m not so sure restricting alcohol usage (interestingly, that seems to jibe with the UN’s dhimmitude towards hardcore Muslim extremism) will fly with Liberals, who tend to drink more than Conservatives (nor will it fly with Conservatives, who are into that thing called personal responsibility/freedom). The others, though, see to be a wish-list of far left ways to control people.

One of the authors, Dr. Bernard Stewart “said it was not the role of the International Agency for Research on Cancer to dictate what should be done.” But,

“In relation to alcohol, for example, we’re all aware of the acute effects, whether it’s car accidents or assaults, but there’s a burden of disease that’s not talked about because it’s simply not recognised, specifically involving cancer.

“The extent to which we modify the availability of alcohol, the labelling of alcohol, the promotion of alcohol and the price of alcohol – those things should be on the agenda.”

He said there was a similar argument to be had with sugar fuelling obesity, which in turn affected cancer risk.

So, not their job to dictate, but they’ll recommend dictating. Not that the UN needs any help in that regards.

Is cancer a threat? Sure. Could it get worse? Well, certainly with more people, and more things that can be carcinogenic, yes. Of course, the UN and WHO, along with Progressives, will push for more far left solutions.

Read: WHO: Tidal Wave Of Cancer Is Coming »

Posted in Liberal World | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Cover Oregon: Possible Criminal Fraud

By William Teach February 4, 2014 – 9:19 am

You remember Cover Oregon, right? It’s the Obamacare website that has essentially singed up zero people. All the enrollments have come via old school paper applications. The website is really still not working (not that the federal website is fully working correctly, either). Now we learn (via The Blaze)

(KATU) You already know the process that led to the failed rollout of the Cover Oregon website was bad.

But was it criminally bad?

Former Republican state Rep. Patrick Sheehan told the KATU Investigators he has gone to the FBI with allegations that Cover Oregon project managers initiated the design of dummy web pages to convince the federal government the project was further along than it actually was.

If Sheehan’s allegations are true, those managers could face time in jail for fraud.

Essentially, it looks as if those in charge of building the website were playing games in order to keep the federal funds flowing, even getting the funds (US taxpayer funds) increased from $48 million to $59 million.

To keep the money flowing, the website would have to hit specific benchmarks between 2011 and 2013. The state needed to show the feds it had picked a company to provide software and technical assistance; it had to demonstrate that the website was safe from hackers; and, most importantly, it had to show that people could actually sign up for insurance on the website. (snip)

(Carolyn) Lawson (the IT pro in charge of the project to build the website), however, chose to use an “iterative” approach. This time, imagine an extremely blurry picture of a whole car. With each iteration, the picture grows a little more clear.

What that meant for the Cover Oregon website was that it was able to paint a picture of a flashy website – imagine a concept car that looks flashy in the showroom but doesn’t actually run.

Make sure to read the full article, which shows all the smoke and mirrors used to make the website look super awesome, even demonstrating it for CMS, which thought her design was awesome.

“That could have been the smoke and mirrors that they were showing everyone which was not a live demo,” Sheehan said. “It would just be wire frames or a mock up.

“If they were able to connect the dots and if it’s true, someone’s going to prison. It would be fraud. It would be the State of Oregon, actually, willfully, misrepresenting something for federal funding.”

Here’s a thought: Los Federales were spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on the State exchange websites to get them up and running, including the utter failure of Cover Oregon. Did no one think to actually audit these sites? To have people come in and really look at things? Look at the code? They did a poor job with the federal website, so we shouldn’t be shocked in the least about what happened with Cover Oregon.

BTW, KATU wants to know what the Governor, John Kitzhaber knew about the failed website and when. He deflected and failed, and, by his own words, wasn’t involved at all, much like Obama and Kathleen Sebelius.

Read: Cover Oregon: Possible Criminal Fraud »

Posted in Government, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Obama To O’Reilly: I’m Waiting For John Kerry’s Approval On Keystone XL

By William Teach February 4, 2014 – 8:44 am

He’s simply running the clock out, as well as highlighting his pitiful leadership skills

(Fox News) President Obama told Bill O’Reilly Monday on “The O’Reilly Factor” that he was waiting to get an official recommendation from Secretary of State John Kerry before proceeding with the Keystone Pipeline.

Obama also took issue with the number of jobs the pipeline would create after supporters said it would create tens of thousands.

“Keystone Pipeline, a new study comes in, environmental impact negligible, 42, 000 jobs. You’re going to OK it, I assume,” O’Reilly asked.

Obama responded, “Well, first of all, it’s not 42,000. That’s not correct. It’s a couple of thousand to build the pipeline.”

Even if it ends up being “a couple thousand jobs”, it’s a couple thousand jobs. Permanent jobs. Probably more than have been created, in terms of permanent jobs, than for all of Obama’s green energy projects. It would also provide a large amount of temporary jobs as the pipeline is built (Keystone states that the number is 9,000, and 7,000 support jobs). The “shovel ready” jobs in Obama’s Stimulus where primarily temporary jobs. Did we hear him complaining about that?

He said the next steps in the pipeline approval process would be to get “agencies to comment on what the State Department did, public’s allowed to comment, Kerry’s going to, then, give me a recommendation.”

Obama does realize he is The President, right? There have already been numerous reports, agencies have commented, public comments, and such. And there are already a huge amount of pipelines running across the country. But Keystone XL has become a rallying cry for the “climate change” nuts, who are a big part of Obama’s wacko base. So, it appears as if Obama will look to run out the clock on this. And there may come a time when Canada, which has been extremely patient, just takes their ball and goes home, well, takes it to China.

This could set up an interesting situation if the GOP retakes the Senate, and Congress passes legislation allowing the pipeline to be built.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama To O’Reilly: I’m Waiting For John Kerry’s Approval On Keystone XL »

Posted in Barry Obama, Energy | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Has The Over-selling Of “Climate Change” Hurt Science?

By William Teach February 3, 2014 – 6:20 pm

Well, that supposes that “climate change” is actually about science

(Forbes)  Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.

Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).  The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.

Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.

You can see that paper and more links here.

Climate scientists have been profoundly defensive about the known problems. Paltridge elegantly explains that this has to be the case, and describes the likely horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives.

That day is coming closer, because, as Paltridge notes, people are catching on:

“…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.”

It is politics. If Warmists truly believed, they might change their own behavior to match their rhetoric, as I’ve written ad nauseum. Instead, they make excuse after excuse why they won’t and don’t, but why you should, preferably forced by Government.

“A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.”

Most refuse to debate, and use words and phrases designed to shut down debate. Yet they love all those government funds and cushy conferences held around the world.

“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.” [emphasis added]

I’m not so sure I agree, because people are quickly grasping that the “climate change” movement has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with far left politics. But, certainly, Warmists using science to push their politics can hurt for a short time.

Read: Has The Over-selling Of “Climate Change” Hurt Science? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Science | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NJ Dem: No Proof That Christie Knew Of Lane Closures

By William Teach February 3, 2014 – 3:03 pm

Funny, after weeks of hyperventilation reporting and investigating (the same type not done for Obama scandals excepting a few reporters), no one has found a thing

A New Jersey Democrat who’s leading a probe of a bridge traffic scandal that has engulfed Gov. Chris Christie said Sunday that he’s seen no evidence to support claims that the governor had been aware of the politically motivated traffic jams as they happened.

If such evidence does exist, a state panel investigating the closures has not yet seen it, Assemblyman John Wisniewski said Sunday.

Maybe there is, maybe not. Christie isn’t exactly an awesome person, he’s a politician. If he did it and it can be proved, he should resign. I’m not thrilled over the possibility of him being the GOP 2016 nominee. But, there’s that thing called “proof”.

Interestingly, he and his team are actually complying with subpoenas, no fuss, no stonewalling. Almost like he’s innocent.

Read: NJ Dem: No Proof That Christie Knew Of Lane Closures »

Posted in GOP | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove