Will Obama Discuss “Climate Change” During The 2014 SOTU?

By William Teach January 25, 2014 – 8:36 am

It’ll be a hoot if he does, making a push for legislation and executive action, mostly kingly executive action*, along with the typical hyper-partisan demeaning of Republicans?

(Daily Caller) President Barack Obama is expected to talk about fighting global warming in his upcoming State of the Union address next week, during what could be the coldest in State of the Union address in history.

The bitter cold that has hit the U.S. East Coast is expected to continue throughout February, and on Jan. 28 — the day of the address — the Mid-Atlantic region is expected to be hit with freezing cold air that could drive temperatures below zero in big cities along the I-95 corridor.

“Yet another Arctic air outbreak is destined to move into the Mid-Atlantic region on Sunday and then, after a less harsh Monday, an absolute brutal air mass will invade the central and eastern US on Tuesday and Wednesday,” according to the The SI Weather blog. “That particular Arctic blast has its origins in Siberia and it promises to feature some incredible cold (more details below in the video discussion). Siberian air masses are often quite noteworthy as they have in the past produced some record-breaking cold in this part of the world.”

Tuesday is expected to be a brutally cold day from the mid-West to the East Coast. The projected high in D.C. for Tuesday is 19, with the temp dropping to 8 overnight. There will be below average temperatures all the way down the Florida Keys. And this cold weather is expected to last into February.

Does this disprove global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise? No. But Warmists told us this was not supposed to happen anymore, before their climate models fell apart, and they decided that greenhouse gases caused not just heat but brutal cold, too. The optics of yammering on about “climate change” while snot freezes below your nose and iguanas fall frozen from trees in Florida are terrible. But, then, the Cult Of Gore won’t care. This isn’t about science, but far-left politics.

“President Obama should rank the battle against climate change as one of his top priorities in his State of the Union address next week,” said Center for Clean Air Policy President Ned Helme. “He should reaffirm his commitment to the aggressive timetable and agenda he laid out a year ago, especially with regard to regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.”

“The president should also use his address to encourage the American people to take action on their own,” Helme added.

Now, that last part is one I can partially agree with. Obama should encourage Warmists to modify their own behaviors to match their rhetoric. Start by giving up fossil fueled travel. Of course, Obama has the largest carbon footprint in the world, at around 41,000 metric tons. The average American’s is 19 metric tons. Obama should start by reducing his on footprint.

*How many times will we hear “If Congress won’t act, I will”?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Will Obama Discuss “Climate Change” During The 2014 SOTU? »

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

UN Climate Official’s Job Is “Sacred” or Something

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 6:57 pm

Yeah, that whole “this is a cult” thing is coming a bit more into focus (via The New Nostradamus of the North)

(USA Today) The top climate official at the United Nations has described her role in pushing nations to contain the Earth’s climate as a “sacred” job.

“We are truly defining the quality of life for our children,” Christina Figueres, the U.N.’s executive secretary for climate, told USA TODAY on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“We have to do everything we can because there is no plan B because there is no planet B,” she said.

“I fully intend my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be able to live on this planet. This job is a sacred responsibility,” Figueres said.

This was after she took a fossil fueled flight to the exotic vacation spot of Davos. Anyone think she flew commercial? I didn’t think so.

“Cumulatively we have already invested over a trillion dollars into renewable energies such as solar and wind but that is still far from where we need to get. We need to be investing a trillion every year,” Figueres said.

Well, perhaps the cult should pony up their own money, instead of always wanting to take it from the pocket of Other People.

(graphic from Deesillustration.com)

Read: UN Climate Official’s Job Is “Sacred” or Something »

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

Holder: We’re Going To Make It Easier For Banks And Pot Industry

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 2:05 pm

I think he’s forgetting that little thing that the Congress makes the laws, and they determined that it is illegal for banks to do business with drug dealers

(Politico) The Obama administration will soon announce regulations to make it easier for banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday.

“You don’t want just huge amounts of cash in these places. They want to be able to use the banking system,” Holder said during an appearance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “There’s a public safety component to this. Huge amounts of cash—substantial amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for it to be appropriately deposited is something that would worry me, just from a law enforcement perspective.”

While Holder spoke twice of new “regulations” that were being prepared, a Justice Department spokesman said later that the attorney general was referring to legal “guidance” for prosecutors and federal law enforcement. Such a legal memo wouldn’t be enforceable in court and would amount to less than the kind of clear safe harbor many banks say they would want before accepting money from pot businesses.

What this looks like is that the lawless Obama admin is once again going to ignore the law. I’m betting most financial institutions are still going to refuse to business with marijuana companies. No one ever knows if Team Obama will turn on them.

Regardless of what they want, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug, and no amount regulation or guidance will override the federal drug banking Las.

Read: Holder: We’re Going To Make It Easier For Banks And Pot Industry »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil smartphone sucking up energy and a shower that wastes non-renewable water in a drought world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Director Blue, with a post on the GOP’s amnesty plan (and a little Rule 5 in the Larwyn’s Linx post)

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Toure: Playing In Snow Is Like Dancing On Deck Of Titanic, Cause “Climate Change”

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 11:07 am

And pushes the unhinged, anti-science meme that all the snow is caused by warming

(Mediaite) After a winter weather report, MSNBC hosts Krystal Ball and Abby Huntsman reveled in their happy childhood recollection about snow and how freezing weather events bring them back to that carefree time.

Touré was having none of it. “I’m sorry,” he began. “I can only do so many fun, awe-struck stories about the weather and the extraordinary weather events without saying this is because of climate change.”

“And we don’t talk about it enough,” he continued. “When a quarter of America thinks these are not caused by human activities.”

“When we act like all this is fun, you know what we are doing?” he concluded. “We’re dancing on the deck of the Titanic.”

Read: Toure: Playing In Snow Is Like Dancing On Deck Of Titanic, Cause “Climate Change” »

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

NC DOJ: Illegal Aliens Can Forget About In-state Tuition

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 8:27 am

I have to wonder how many other states will be in the same boat? New Jersey had to pass a law to give them in-state tuition. Many GOP controlled states will say “nope!”

(WRAL) Students who arrived in the United States illegally cannot get in-state tuition in North Carolina community colleges or universities, even if they have been granted “deferred action” status by the federal government, according to a letter from the North Carolina Department of Justice released Thursday.

Last summer, the federal government announced that certain individuals who came to the United States illegally when they were small children would be able to work toward citizenship. To qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, participants must be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and meet other qualifications.

Rep. Marcus Brandon, D-Guilford, wrote to Attorney General Roy Cooper asking if those students would qualify for in-state tuition benefits, particularly if they had graduated from North Carolina high schools. In-state tuition is thousands of dollars cheaper per year than tuition charged to students from other states.

Replying to Brandon’s letter, special deputy attorneys general Alexander Peters and Kimberly Potter wrote that state law prohibits extending in-state benefits to DACA students.

North Carolina law would have to be changed in order for these children of illegals to receive in-state tuition. Which will not happen, what with the GOP controlling both houses of the General Assembly. The only way there’s even a vote is if a Democrat brings it up.

The N.C. Dream Team, a group of undocumented young adults pushing for changes in state and federal policy, responded to the letter by lashing out at (NC AG Rory) Cooper, saying that he has “thrown immigrant students under the bus.”

Typical Leftists. The law means nothing to them. It meant nothing when they came here illegally, it means nothing to them while they are here illegally, soaking up services, committing crime, wasting legal taxpayer money, and they want what they want, regardless of The Law. They should simply be deported, even if it’s just to another state which tolerates these illegal aliens. Why should they get in-state tuition? They aren’t legal residents of North Carolina, much less the United States. And every spot they take in a North Carolina university system school is one less for a legal resident/citizen. And in-state tuition has a cost to the citizens of North Carolina, who pay roughly 40% of the overall tuition.

One commenter writes

Next time tell Mom and Dad to not break the law.

Another

AWESOME!!! This should NEVER have been considered in the first place. Sorry their parents BROKE THE LAW and brought and kept them here, but it’s NOT my responsibility to supplement their education. Yes immigration needs reform but NOT this way. Glad they want an education but no one is denying them said education only denying RESIDENT IN STATE to those who are NOT RESIDENTS of the state. add LEGAL AND DOCUMENTED to that.

They shouldn’t be attending our schools in the first place. Let them go back to their home countries and apply to come legally.

Read: NC DOJ: Illegal Aliens Can Forget About In-state Tuition »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, NC News | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Hill: Five Things To Watch For Obama’s 2014 SOTU

By William Teach January 24, 2014 – 8:07 am

A big question for the 2014 SOTU is: will anyone be awake for it? As Peggy Noonan writes

Because when I imagine Barack Obama’s State of the Union, I see a handsome, dignified man standing at the podium and behind him Joe Biden, sleeping. And next to him John Boehner, snoring. And arrayed before the president the members, napping.

No one’s really listening to the president now. He has been for five years a nonstop wind-up talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses.

The Hill run a piece entitled “Five questions for Obama’s 2014 State Of The Union“, but it’s really more about 5 things to watch for

1. How hard does Obama attack the GOP?

There is little doubt that Obama will use Tuesday’s election-year address to highlight differences between his party and Republicans.

Expect a lot of this, because this is what he does. Obama brings no dignity, no statesmanship, even faked, to the office. They’ll be lots of whining to an essentially captive audience. He has a few agenda items, which he needs Republicans to help pass. And Obama has always found the best way to cooperate is by being a jerk. It helps pump up his moonbat base.

2. How much will be recycled.

The majority of Obama’s 2013 agenda failed to pass. So expect to hear a lot of complaining. The Hill thinks Obama will lay off gun control. I’ll give it 70-30 that he’ll trot it out to pump up his unhinged base that wants to disarm Other People.

3. How will Obama handle ObamaCare?

Too little time will lead to headlines about Obama downplaying his signature achievement, but it seems unlikely the president will want his speech to be dominated by healthcare. That sets up a bit of a dilemma for the speechwriting team.

I expect there to be more than The Hill thinks. Obama will stand up there and lie about how great it is, forgetting that it caused people to lose the plans, doctors, and deductibles they liked. That healthcare.gov is still a mess. That insurers are worried about losing vast gobs of money. That quite a few State marketplaces are failures. Obama will couch this in a way to pump his base up.

4. What will be this year’s surprise?

The Hill offers no guesses. Perhaps he’ll make it about “climate change”, while other nations, particularly Australia and in Europe, are giving the idiocy up. Probably not. It’ll most likely be heavy on “income inequality”, which is funny coming from a guy who’s a 1%er and uses every deduction available to pay the least in taxes he can. This is meant to pump his base up.

5. How will Republicans respond?

Cathy McMorris-Rodgers will give the GOP rebuttal. She will be calm, serious, and offer real world solutions, though some will probably annoy the Conservative base. My bet is on her mostly avoiding Obama, while laying a case for the GOP for the midterms. Except in terms of Obamacare, where she’ll pick around the edges of “If you like your plan, you can keep it” being the lie of the year. It’ll be interesting to see if the GOP has cajones to attack Obama and the Dems forcefully, or if they just pick at the scab.

What happens in chamber will be more interesting. Obama’s SOTU will be about 3 things.

  1. Pumping up his base for the 2014 midterms
  2. Narcissistic self flattery
  3. Demeaning and attacking Republicans

How involved will the Republicans be during the yawnfest? Will they even bother to get to their feet for the “applause lines”? Will they sit their completely disinterested? Will we get a Joe Wilson moment, with someone yelling something while Obama lies about Obamacare or something else? Will anyone appear pissed off as Obama does his “attack personally” schtick? We’ll see.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The Hill: Five Things To Watch For Obama’s 2014 SOTU »

Posted in Barry Obama | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

When It Comes To Warm Years, We’re Arguing Over Hundredths Of A Degree

By William Teach January 23, 2014 – 1:33 pm

Regarding yesterday’s post about 2013 being the 4th7th10th107th10th warmest for the world, Greenie Watch points something out

I reproduce below a current news report derived from NOAA and GISS.  You will see that continuing warming is proclaimed with no hint that the data might be troublesome to Warmism.  It is classical warming propaganda much as we hear every year.

I have been naughty, however.  I spent about 2 minutes on a Google search to find out what the actual figures were.  Here is a quote from NOAA:

“The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average.” Do you see what they are doing?  The differences in temperature that they rely on for a judgment that something was warmest are in hundredths of a degree!  They treat unbelievably tiny differences in temperature that exist only as a statistical artifact as if they told us something! For instance they contrast the 2013 anomaly of .62C with 2010, which is .66C.  The difference is only 4 hundredths of one degree Celsius!

As Greenie notes, is there any point at which Warmists concede that the difference is too small to be taken seriously? To be considered insignificant? The Warmists have been playing games with tenths of a degree for decades in attempting to scare people. And, incidentally, demand lots of money from people, along with reducing freedom for citizens and more and more control of the private sector while ramping up the size and scope of Government (while making no changes in their own live). The overall temperature increase since 1850 is a miniscule 1.4F. They trot out the scary stories about the global temperature increasing anywhere from 2C to 10C by 2100. Yet, the actual increases are in the hundredths of degrees year to year.

If that kind of information was laid out in front of people, all but Warmists would discount the horror stories, and look upon the Warmists the same way they look at a person carrying an “the end is nigh” sign. As bat guano crazy scaremongers.

Read: When It Comes To Warm Years, We’re Arguing Over Hundredths Of A Degree »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 23, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is a world killing dog, eating the planet to 200 feet of sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a post on comments regarding IRS rules targeting the Tea Party.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Global Warming Means More Intense Snows Or Something

By William Teach January 23, 2014 – 10:07 am

Hyper-Warmist Bryan Mooney attempts to keep the meme about warming causing more water vapor meaning more snow alive as the US Northeast is buried in lots of the white stuff

Believe It: Global Warming Can Produce More Intense Snows

We all remember “Snowmageddon” in February of 2010. Even as Washington, D.C., saw 32 inches of snowfall for the month of February—more than it has seen in any February since 1899—conservatives decided to use the weather to mock global warming. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and his family even built an igloo on Capitol Hill and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Har har.

Yet at the same time, scientific voices were pointing out something seemingly counterintuitive, but in fact fairly simple to understand: Even as it raises temperatures on average, global warming may also lead to more intense individual snow events. It’s a lesson to keep in mind as the northeast braces for winter storm Janus—which is expected to deliver as much as a foot of snow in some regions—and we can expect conservatives to once again mock climate change.

To understand the relationship between climate change and intense snowfall, you first need to understand that global warming certainly doesn’t do away with winter or the seasons. So it’ll still be plenty cold enough for snow much of the time. Meanwhile, global warming loads the dice in favor of more intense precipitation through changes in atmospheric moisture content. “Warming things up means the atmosphere can and does hold more moisture,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “So in winter, when there is still plenty of cold air there’s a risk of bigger snows. With east coast storms, where the moisture comes from the ocean which is now warmer, this also applies.”

Do you know what’s missing? Any proof of anthropogenic causation. Furthermore, we were told that this would not happen, that snow would be a thing of the past. Yesterday’s Weather Channel fact was that January 2014 has been the 4th snowiest for Chicago on record going back to 1885.

Indeed, scientific reports have often noted the snow-climate relationship. An expansive 2006 study of US snowstorms during the entirety of the 20th century, for instance, found that they were more common in wetter and warmer years. “A future with wetter and warmer winters…will bring more snowstorms than in 1901-2000,” the paper predicted. There is also a clear increase in precipitation in the most intense precipitation events, especially in the northeast:

What causes all the snow during cool periods? Like, during glacial ages?

Still, that’s more than enough to refute conservatives who engage in snow trolling.

What about when Warmists engage in weather trolling, where every weather event is the result of “climate change”? Heck, they even troll tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanoes, Blaming them on Mankind’s release of CO2, or, as they like to un-scientifically term it, “carbon”. Perhaps a Warmist could tell us what facts would refute their hypothesis of “climate change”. 20,000 years of these same things happening during the Holocene doesn’t seem to make any impression on Warmists. Nor does 4.5 billion years of history.

Read: Global Warming Means More Intense Snows Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove