…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… »
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.â€
“And we don’t talk about it enough,†he continued. “When a quarter of America thinks these are not caused by human activities.â€
“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.â€
Read: Toure: Playing In Snow Is Like Dancing On Deck Of Titanic, Cause “Climate Change” »
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 »
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.
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 »
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. Â You will see that continuing warming is proclaimed with no hint that the data might be troublesome to Warmism. Â It is classical warming propaganda much as we hear every year.
I have been naughty, however. Â I spent about 2 minutes on a Google search to find out what the actual figures were. Â 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 »
…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… »
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 »
And recommends shutting it down. Good thing the NY Times buries the story on page A14 of the print edition, wanting to protect Obama and his 100% support of the domestic spying program
(NY Times) An independent federal privacy watchdog has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal†benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down.
The findings are laid out in a 238-page report, scheduled for release by Thursday and obtained by The New York Times, that represent the first major public statement by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress made an independent agency in 2007 and only recently became fully operational. (snip)
The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,†the report said. “As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.â€
Does anyone think Team Obama will shut the program down? Remember when the media and Democrats went apoplectic over the Bush admin listening to calls originating overseas between people who were not citizens of the USA, and referred to it as “domestic spying”? Yet most, not all, mind you, but most Dems aren’t showing the same anger over a programs that just scoops up data on most citizens calls and retaining them. And there is so much data that the program really doesn’t work.
(Washington Post) “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,†said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.â€
And for that we’re supposed to let the government collect data on all our phone calls? Perhaps the NSA should focus more on foreigners and people/groups overseas, like they’re supposed to.
Read: Watchdog Says NSA Phone Program Barely Works And Is Illegal »
They’ve already wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars building a barely functional website though a no-bid contract to CGI. Now they have to spend hundreds of millions more
(Fox News) While the administration publicly expresses full confidence in its health care law, privately it fears one part of the system is so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies and cripple ObamaCare itself.
“Week after week, month after month,” says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, “the Obama administration kept telling us everything’s working fine, there’s no problem and then they turn on a dime and fire their contractor.”
To justify a no-bid contract with Accenture after firing CGI as the lead contractor, the administration released documents from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that offered a rare glimpse of its worst fears, saying the problems with the website puts “the entire health insurance industry at risk” … “potentially leading to their default and disrupting continued services and coverage to consumers.”
Then it went even further, saying if the problems were not fixed by mid-March, “they will result in financial harm to the government.”
What they’re referring to is the “bank-end”, where the information consumers input is transmitted to the health insurance companies. All the information on the consumer and their insurance plan pick, along with whether they are eligible for subsidies and what those subsidies specifically are. Also, payment. Payment’s rather important, wouldn’t you think? Insurers are still receiving bad information, which leads to just guessing about subsidies
For now, though, officials concede they’re relying on estimates from the insurers.
“Here’s who we think we have, and here’s the subsidy we think they’re owed,” explains Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Please send us a check from the treasury,” he says chuckling. “The honor system again.”
“There’s no way to effectively match policies and people,” says Holtz-Eakin.
That’s a recipe for disaster. Here’s Charles Krauthammer
“Right now the insurers are guessing at the subsidy, so all of this is on the honor system and it can be wildly off,” Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor said. “If they undershoot, the insurers are going to go bust. If they overshoot, the government is going to be stuck with a huge bill.”
“You’ve got a train wreck coming,” he said. “I think it’s going to come out slowly, it’s not all going to happen in one day, but I think they’re in deep trouble and the deadline is mid-March. If they don’t have this in place in mid-March, then there’s going to be- all hell’s going to break loose on this.”
What he’s referring to (full video available at the link) is no one really knowing what the real subsidies are. So, the insurers are using estimates. Guesses. Which could cost lots and lots of money to the insurers and/or the government. Larry Kocot, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, notes that “It’s like [CGI] built the façade of a house with nothing behind it.â€
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Obama Admin Fears Failure To Fix Healthcare.gov Could Bankrupt Insurers »
Trackback URL
Lots of cities are launching these bike-sharing plans. NYC has one. San Francisco just launched one using electric bikes. Many other cities are giving it a whirl or considering it. How’d it work in Montreal?
(Treehugger) Bixi, the Montreal bike-sharing service that debuted in the city in pilot form in the summer of 2008 and filed for bankruptcy yesterday, has definitely had its ups and downs.
When the full Bixi program opened on Montreal’s streets in 2009, it had 3,000 bikes and 300 stations, and was heralded as the coming of full-strength bike share to North America. Bixi (a combination of the words ‘bike’ and ‘taxi’) was popular, too, with 10,000 members and one million trips in the first year. Bixi’s parent company thought its system would become a model internationally.
In its second season, the Montreal bike share was even bigger – more than 5,000 bicycles and 400 stations. But questions about the internal structure of the company behind Bixi surfaced quickly in local press, and Bixi’s debt was feared to affect the city’s bottom line economically.
By the end of 2010 Bixi Montreal had to restructure and get a big loan and line of credit from the city. In 2011 Bixi came back with a few more stations, and advertisements on the bicycles – a feature which many users hated.
There were layoffs in 2011. There were all sorts of software issues. Bixi had to raise prices, then raise them more. They have $42 million in debt. The mayor of Montreal is pledging $1.3 million (US) to making sure that the bike-sharing program is open come spring (do they have spring in Canada? Is that where people stop wearing fur lined hats and switch to lighter weight hats?).
Personally, I like bike-sharing programs, at least in areas that make sense. It wouldn’t work so well here in Raleigh, except for just the downtown area. Probably not. In heavy urban areas they can reduce traffic, get people around quicker, and reduce real air pollution, like smog. Like mass transit (which I support if done correctly), bike-sharing is great in certain areas. However, most of these bike-sharing programs are being done with “climate change” in mind. It’s more about advocacy rather than being a wise business practice. Government is wasting lots of taxpayer money for these limited use programs. Loans that will never be repaid, or repaid at a fraction of the loan value. And then the companies need even more taxpayer money, or the government steps in to kinda or fully run the programs.
Trackback URL
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.