If All You See…

By William Teach November 19, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a Bad Weather creating plastic bottle of water, you me just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, which proves that women know the great Southern phrase “hey, y’all, watch this!”

Read: If All You See… »

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

Abbott And Costello Do Unemployment

By William Teach November 19, 2013 – 11:00 am

Thanks to Trish in the comments for this one

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in the U.S.A.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%

COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, the Government said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to be looking for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who do look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment rolls that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how they get it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for re-election.

ABBOTT: Absolutely!

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Government.

Read: Abbott And Costello Do Unemployment »

Posted in Economy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Paper Finds Pause In Arctic

By William Teach November 19, 2013 – 8:10 am

Warmists have been trotting out a meme that there has been no pause at all, that the warming was double what was previously thought (just to be clear, what is called a pause was actually statistically insignificant warming, 0.28 since 1990 and 0.14 since 1997, though the data does show a declining temperature since 2000).

(The Hockey Schtick) A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that the ‘pause’ in global warming is also true for the Arctic since 1998. According to the authors,

“Our analysis shows that the warming structure in the recent period (roughly from 1998) differs greatly from that in the earlier period. In the recent period, the surface was not clearly warming in summer, and 500 hPa air [closest to the surface] became colder in autumn. Before 1998, however, all the layers at 500 hPa or below were warming.”Therefore, the authors find clear evidence of a pause of Arctic warming and even cooling during autumns since 1998, and no change during summers, in contrast to an Arctic warming trend in all seasons from 1979-1998. According to the authors, “Our analysis shows that the warming structure in the recent period (roughly from 1998) differs greatly from that in the earlier period.”

The findings differ substantially from the new warmist study by the SkS secret forum participants Cotwan & Way that claims to get rid of the 17+ year pause in global warming by a reanalysis of extrapolated Arctic data. The authors advise “extreme caution” in using reanalyses of Arctic temperatures, such as has been done by Cotwan & Way, stating, “Our results also suggest that studies of the Arctic climate based on reanalyses should be undertaken with extreme caution.”

That Cotwan and Way paper magically created data for the Arctic out of thin air. When real data is used, rather than interpretations, extrapolations, smoothing, reconstructing from far away stations, all the funny things Warmists, we find that there is still a pause, and it applies to the Arctic, as well.

One thing to note, even of Cotwan and Way were correct, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation, it would simply prove that the Earth had warmed more than thought by adding Arctic warming. Which is the normal state of affairs during a warm period. Which have happened on and off during the Holocene.

Read: Bummer: Paper Finds Pause In Arctic »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on Bummer: Paper Finds Pause In Arctic | Trackback URL

Uh Oh: Politico’s Roger Simon Proves Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq War

By William Teach November 19, 2013 – 7:49 am

Uber-liberal opinion writer Roger Simon, not to be confused with Conservative writer Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media, has a pithy little piece entitled President Obama: Lying liar or media target? and makes a little mistake, which destroys the moonbat arguement that Bush lied, people died

The reviews are in, and Obamacare is a disaster. No, it is worse than that. Obamacare is a debacle, a shambles, a wreck, a fiasco, a flop, a failure and a farce.

To the media, Obamacare is such a catastrophe that mere words cannot describe it. Only comparisons can.

So Obamacare is Hurricane Katrina (The New York Times), the Iraq War (“Meet the Press”), Watergate (Bill Kristol) and “the worst thing since slavery” (Dr. Ben Carson, a columnist and Fox News contributor).

Bush didn’t make Katrina happen. It was a natural disaster, made worse because the Democrats in charge of the state and New Orleans where incompetent. Bush begged Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to declare an emergency. Not that Bush’s FEMA director was competent, either. Interestingly, the GOP run states affected, like Mississippi, didn’t have the same issues. Yes, the Iraq War had issues. Bush worked hard to turn them around. Watergate? Perhaps. Worst thing since slavery? Might be a bit overblown in terms of rhetoric

Some people who believe Obama has never told the truth about anything (including where he was born) are now wobbly with shock that he “lied” about Obamacare.

A lie, however, is an intentionally false statement. An unforgivable screw-up may be unforgivable and a screw-up, but it is different than a lie.

Presidents do lie. “I am not a crook” was a lie told by Richard Nixon.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” was a lie told by Bill Clinton.

“If you like your plan, you can keep it” is a lie only if Obama intended to deceive. (But how did he intend to get away with it?)

The lefty meme was that Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq. Virtually everybody thought Saddam had WMD. Dem politicians, US and international intelligence agencies, the UN weapons inspectors, President Clinton and all those who passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. John Kerry and John Edwards, before they decided to make it up for their 2004 presidential run. Bush was told they had them. His 2003 State of the Union was about denying Iraq WMD. And they did have some that we found, mostly low grade stuff like irradiated items from the leftover uranium from the blow’d up Osirak plant, mustard gas, and chlorine. So, Bush thought, based on what everyone told him, that Iraq had WMD.

Therefore, according to Simon, Bush did not lie.

As for Obama, Simon never really tries to see if Obama lied or not. He goes soft with this

In a news conference last week, Obama said: “With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan, you can keep it, I think — and I’ve said in interviews — that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate. It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.”

Translation: I wasn’t accurate, but I didn’t lie.

But, Obama did know beforehand that it was a lie. He certainly knew that it was a lie regarding keeping your doctor and families saving up to $2500 a year on premiums. Hence, this was an actual lie. Premeditated. That’s why many fact checkers, including Glenn Kessler, found that he had lied. And why many are now calling Obamacare a fraud (I think I beat the pundits to their weekend talking points). Possibly criminal fraud. There was an intention to “mislead”, which harms other people and helps Obama (and his Party).

Anyway, thanks, Roger, for vindicating President Bush from the silly Liberal talking point.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Uh Oh: Politico’s Roger Simon Proves Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq War »

Posted in Barry Obama, GWB, Healthcare | Comments Off on Uh Oh: Politico’s Roger Simon Proves Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq War | Trackback URL

Chris Christie’s In-state Tuition For Illegals Passes Senate

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 6:17 pm

This is legislation that Chris Christie, the guy who it seems the GOP Establishment wants for 2016, wants

(NJ.com) A bill to offer in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants who grew up in New Jersey is continuing its progress towards Gov. Chris Christie’s desk.

The state Senate today voted 25 to 12 to approve the controversial measure, which would also allow the students to qualify for state financial aid programs.

“This to me is about fairness and equity. It’s about accessibility,” said state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex), the prime sponsor. “And most importantly it’s about engaging in a conversation, that when we talk about making the Garden State stronger, this has to be one of those variables in the conversation to ensure that.”

See, this is the problem: Democrats and Republicans like Christie push this based on feelings, not on law. But they don’t seem to have a lot of feelings for the citizens of this country nor those who did immigrated legally. Where’s the fairness towards those people? Why are we being “fair” to illegals? What about all the citizens of NJ who lose a place at college because of these illegals? What about their accessibility?

Currently, immigrants without legal status have to pay more expensive out-of-state rates.

Why are they paying anything? Why aren’t they simply being deported? I could go on, but you Conservatives already know these arguments, and liberals have decided that we are a “country of Men, not of Law”.

Anyhow, this still has to pass the Assembly, before hitting Christie’s desk. And he will sign it.

Read: Chris Christie’s In-state Tuition For Illegals Passes Senate »

Posted in Democrat Lite, Illegal Immigration | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

No Drama Obama

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 2:36 pm

PBO really, really doesn’t like any draaaaama in his little bubble, because the POTUS shouldn’t ever have to deal with drama, dagnabit! (via Twitchy)

(Time) And yet, as the dry-runs continued to produce red flags—over and over—the president remained in his steely cocoon. If this were the presidency of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, the obvious theories would abound: the chief executive is disengaged. Or incurious. Or worse. But since Obama is none of the above, what gives?

This much is clear, after speaking with both past and present senior administration officials: no one was really in charge, so no one knew for sure how bad the overall picture was. What’s more, and—perhaps most telling—no one wanted to even hint to the president that this techno-savvy administration possibly had a website stuck in, say, 1995. “People don’t like to tell him bad news,” says an ex-White House staffer. “Part of it is the no-drama culture.”

As the saying goes, Obama likes to be president, he doesn’t like to do president. This goes back to Obama never having held a position of leadership, no managerial or executive experience, neither in the public nor private sectors. Anyone who has been In Charge, even over just a few folks, knows that Drama occurs. Deal with it. Lead. Manage. Move it forward.

I will disagree on one point: he loves drama when it comes to partisan politics, just not within the duties of POTUS.

Along those same lines of partisan politics, Obama didn’t push “comprehensive immigration reform” when Dems controlled Congress because he wanted to use the issue to attack Republicans. The Lonely Conservative has the 411.

Read: No Drama Obama »

Posted in Barry Obama | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid drought world caused by people shooting evil guns which contain lead bullets, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on Valerie Jarrett leading negotiations with Iran.

And some Rule 5 from Evil Blogger Lady and Diogenes’ Middle Finger.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist: Climate Changed Caused The Japanese Tsunami

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 11:38 am

This is one of the reasons the Warmist movement is dangerous: it creates idiots

(Raleigh N&O) Americans, 5 percent of the world population, are responsible for 25 percent of the global energy consumption. It is little disputed that carbon derived energy is responsible for climate change, itself seems guilty of “acts of God” like the recent disaster in the Philippines or the tsunami that caused the nuclear incident in Japan. So here is a new economic problem: what is the real cost of carbon energy?

The letter to the editor is in the context of comparing energy costs in Europe and the US. This warmist blames “climate change” and “carbon derived energy” (kudos for being scientific) for the Japanese tsunami. It’s cute how she writes “acts of God” in parentheses.

Oh, and it is very much disputed. Heck, Warmists dispute it themselves by refusing to give up their own fossil fuels usage.

Read: Warmist: Climate Changed Caused The Japanese Tsunami »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Robert J. Samuelson: We’re Not Sure What’s Going To Happen, But Let’s Get A Carbon Tax In Place Anyhow

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 9:09 am

The delusion of the Warmists is on complete display in this opinion piece called Global warming pragmatism

Economist Robert Pindyck of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently examined the computer models that estimate the effects and costs of climate change — and he didn’t like what he found. The models reflect two gaping uncertainties, he says. First, we don’t know how much increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will raise global temperatures. “There are feedback loops” — interactions between greenhouse gases and weather — “that aren’t easy to measure.” The models make assumptions. Next, he says, we don’t know what economic losses will result from higher temperatures. More assumptions. The “damage functions” in the models, he says, “are completely made-up.”

Huh. So the economist Samuelson cites states that Warmists and their computer models and prognostications and scaremongering are plain mule fritters.

Pindyck sounds like a “global warming denier.” He isn’t. True, he thinks climate change and its adverse economic consequences could be wildly overstated. He also thinks they could be wildly understated. The effects might ultimately be catastrophic. We simply don’t know. Ignorance reigns. The best course, he says, would be to adopt a modest carbon tax — because there are certainly some ill effects of global warming — and adjust it as we learn more. Meanwhile, we shouldn’t assume that computer models convey scientific truth. “The models create an illusion of knowledge,” he says. “For me, the issue is being honest.”

Well, obviously, that’s the answer, yet another tax. I guess we’re going to tax your bodies, made up of carbon…oh, wait, that’s right, these Warmists keep calling everyone who doesn’t believe in “climate change” “anti-science”, yet they can’t even use the proper term, “carbon dioxide”. There is a difference between that and “carbon”.

Samuelson notes that there are three things which keep Government from Doing Something, including

Second, it requires that governments inflict pain (higher energy costs) on today’s citizens for hypothetical gains (less global warming) for tomorrow’s citizens. The politics are ugly.

Yet, this has been tried in many countries, particularly after the Kyoto Protocol was passed. All people in those countries obtained were higher taxes and higher costs, higher unemployment, more and more controlling regulations, and a reduction in life quality. It saw massive seat losses for the Australian political party that passed their form of a carbon tax, along with a loss of control of the government. Japan wants nothing to do with any sort of scheme (remember, Kyoto is in Japan). Same with New Zealand. Canada is moving away from this. So are other countries.

There’s no obvious way around these obstacles. Why not try something different? The crux of the matter is putting a price on carbon — through a tax on oil, coal and natural gas — that reflects global warming’s costs. This would promote energy efficiency and favor renewables. The trouble, as Pindyck says, is that we don’t know what that tax should be, because we don’t know global warming’s full effects.

But, hey, let’s slap a tax on the people of the USA anyhow! WarmistThink. A tax in search of a problem. The problem mostly being made up in the first place.

Read: Warmists Robert J. Samuelson: We’re Not Sure What’s Going To Happen, But Let’s Get A Carbon Tax In Place Anyhow »

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

Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Finally Figures Out An Angle On Obamacare

By William Teach November 18, 2013 – 8:42 am

The Editorial Board of the “Paper of Record” has been strangely silent over the past couple of weeks, with only tiny mentions of the “Affordable” Care Act over the past month, despite the enormous problems that have cropped up. Their last big one was when they deemed that Obama “misspoke” when he said “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” When they do chime in, it tends to be to carry the administration’s water (I bet NY Times bigwigs want nothing to do with signing up through the Exchange themselves) and go after Republicans. They finally found another angle

The Shame of American Health Care

Even as Americans struggle with the changes required by health care reform, an international survey released last week by the Commonwealth Fund, a research organization, shows why change is so necessary.

The report found that by virtually all measures of cost, access to care and ease of dealing with insurance problems, Americans fared poorly compared with people in other advanced countries. The survey covered 20,000 adults in the United States and 10 other industrial nations — Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain, all of which put in place universal or near-universal health coverage decades ago. The United States spends far more than any of these countries on a per capita basis and as a percent of the national economy.

Obviously, O-care is The Answer!

The Affordable Care Act was created to address these problems by covering tens of millions of uninsured people and providing subsidies to help many of them pay for policies; by setting limits on the out-of-pocket costs that patients must bear; and by requiring that all policies cover specified benefits.

Americans are understandably frustrated with the Obama administration’s failure to produce a functioning website. President Obama’s erroneous statements that all people who like their current insurance policies can keep them — not true for many people buying insurance in the individual market — has added to anger and misunderstanding. The reform law, however imperfect, is needed to bring the dysfunctional American health care system up to levels already achieved in other advanced nations.

It may have been created to address these problems (doubtful), but it in no way accomplishes any of what they say. Cost is going up in the form of premiums and deductibles. Access to care is going down as networks are limited and doctors want nothing to do with either the insurance or more Medicaid patients. The issue of dealing with insurance companies will probably not change, though now more people will have to deal with The Government, vis a vis the majority of signups who were shifted to Medicaid. Furthermore, access will be more of a problem when the unelected and unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka “death panels”) gets involved in determining care, and you have a large number of people with Medicaid and Exchange plans accessing a limited number of medical facilities. These plans also do not include the best medical centers, as well.

Certainly, there is a problem with the healthcare system in the United States. You can start with the notion that this is a huge country with 300 million plus people and mandates for the system come from a federal government way away in D.C., determining rules and regulations with little regard to reality. Then the States chime in. Both often ignore the medical and insurance professionals. There are things we can do to help fix the problems, much of them created by Government. Obamacare is not that answer.

Read: Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Finally Figures Out An Angle On Obamacare »

Posted in Barry Obama, Healthcare, Journalistic Malpractice | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove