If All You See…

By William Teach November 20, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible flooded world caused by climate change terrorism, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on the US funding Palestinian terrorists. And some Balkan Rule 5.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Arctic Algea Shows Doom Or Something

By William Teach November 20, 2013 – 10:40 am

More activist science

(Discovery) Bright pink algae that light up the Arctic seafloor like Las Vegas neon are also guides to hundreds of years of climate history, a new study shows.

From the medieval chill called the Little Ice Age to the onset of global warming in the 1800s, the coralline algae show how Arctic sea ice has responded to climate swings for the past 650 years. The findings were published Monday (Nov. 18) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (snip)

During the Little Ice Age, when volcanoes and sun cycle variations caused a global cooling from the 1300s to the 1800s, the coral’s underwater “tree rings” narrowed, suggesting extensive sea ice cover and short summers. Starting in 1850 — the onset of the Industrial Revolution — the algae’s growth rings doubled in thickness, in sync with the decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice. “The steepness of the decline is unprecedented in the entire record,” Halfar said.

Got that? The Little Ice Ace is natural, but the Modern Warm Period isn’t. Because the decline is unprecedented. And because we say so. Despite the study not including previous warm periods. So there is no actual comparison. But, hey, the decline of sea ice is unprecedented. Because we say so.

Read: Arctic Algea Shows Doom Or Something »

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

Awesome: Climate Change As Terrorism, U.S. Blamed

By William Teach November 20, 2013 – 8:06 am

I must admit, this is a new one from the Warmists (who still won’t practice what they preach)

(Salon) As part of the pivot to Asia, the U.S. government has ramped up its counterterrorism cooperation with the Philippines, Indonesia and elsewhere. This has, understandably, sparked debate there over the wisdom of increased U.S. military presence.

But the bigger question from the perspective of Filipinos, in light of the natural disaster they have just experienced, is this: Why is it that the United States still doesn’t have a domestic consensus that there is such a thing as climate change? When we talk about a global community, we at least ought to be able to start with that item at the top of the agenda.

For Filipinos and many poor people around the world, climate change, in effect, is terrorism conducted on them. And that is a far bigger threat to people’s livelihood and physical safety than all the things the United States is trying to sell them in order to have its troops’ forward positioned in the Philippines.

So, is it the hot, cold, wet, or dry part that is terrorism? Maybe it’s that all you Other Americans (according to Warmist doctrine, it’s not me, it’s you that are the problem) refuse to give up your fossil fueled vehicles and hairspray, that you don’t unplug every appliance not in use. And because you used air conditioning this summer, a typhoon was created, something that never occurred when CO2 was below the “safe” limit of 350ppm. And you won’t simply part with all your money and send it to other people. Shame, shame, shame. You should be riding a bike to work. Yes, I understand you work 30 miles away from your home. Move. Or leave early. You terrorist you.

Read: Awesome: Climate Change As Terrorism, U.S. Blamed »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Awesome: Climate Change As Terrorism, U.S. Blamed | Trackback URL

Blue Cross North Carolina Seeks Up To 24% Increase For Reinstated Plans

By William Teach November 20, 2013 – 7:34 am

Here’s how Obama’s cancelled plans “fix” will work he in North Carolina

(WRAL) Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina formally asked state regulators Tuesday to resurrect health plans that were to be canceled because they don’t meet minimum requirements under the Affordable Care Act.

The move would come at significant cost to consumers, however, as the insurer is seeking rate increases of 16 to 23 percent on the plans.

This covers the 227,400 Blue Cross customers who saw their insurance toasted thanks to the “Affordable” Care Act.

The company said the higher rates reflect new taxes and fees under the Affordable Care Act, as well as the price of care and amount of medical services used by customers in those plans.

“Primarily, it’s medical costs – the claims, a combination of increase in price of services, increase in utilization of these services,” Morales Burke said in explaining the request for rate increases.

So what he’s saying is that they’re still having to include the increased costs of Obamacare within the same plans. Otherwise, they might have seen a 10-15% increase, which had been the trend. Those who were being forced in the federal Exchange would have seen their rates double or triple. Some even talked about a five-fold increase.

Didn’t Obama say the average family would see up to a $2500 decrease?

Meanwhile, the D.C. Exchange insurance covers elective abortion on demand, but not hearing aids. According to the Hyde Amendment, anyone with these plans cannot legally get any federal money. Speaking of abortion on demand, here’s an interesting quote from the Albuquerque referendum, which saw citizens reject limits on late term abortion by 55-45%

“Albuquerque families sent a powerful message today—they do not want the government interfering in their private medical decisions,” Micaela Cadena with the Respect ABQ Women campaign said in a statement. “Dangerous, unconstitutional laws like the one we rejected today have no place in Albuquerque, no place in New Mexico, no place anywhere in our nation.”

Liberals have a big issue with government restricting abortion on demand (though it would have been the citizens voting for the restriction), but love them some Government run Obamacare. Go figure.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Blue Cross North Carolina Seeks Up To 24% Increase For Reinstated Plans »

Posted in Healthcare, NC News | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Where Does All That “Climate Change” Aid Go?

By William Teach November 19, 2013 – 1:54 pm

First World countries have made huge pledges to give “developing nations”, which never seem to actually develop, huge sums of money. How’s that working out?

(Washington Post) So it’s worth asking: What does this climate aid actually look like? Where has it all gone so far? And are wealthy nations really going to put up $100 billion per year in climate finance in the years to come? Here’s a breakdown:

–2010-2012: The first $35 billion in climate aid. Between 2010 and 2012, the world’s wealthy nations say they provided $35 billion to help poorer countries adjust to climate change, as promised at Copenhagen. (You can see a full breakdown of these pledges from the World Resources Institute here.)

The vast majority of that aid — $27 billion — came from five countries: Germany, Japan, Norway, Britain, and the United States. And most of it went toward clean energy, efficiency, and other mitigation projects around the world. Only a small slice, about $5 billion, went toward helping poor countries prepare for the actual impacts of climate change, like droughts or heat waves.

For instance, Norway gave Brazil $1 billion to help prevent deforestation. The United States gave the Congo Basin $15.7 million to preserve rain forest biodiversity. Japan gave Egypt a $338 million loan for wind power. You can see a partial list of projects in this map below from 2011..

Essentially, it looks like the money was being used for some real environmental issues. Some of the money was in terms of “loans”, rather than grants. Most was simply repackaged aid that would have occurred anyway. And we really do not know if the money is being used properly as it was intended. Nor does the money usually help people who are supposed to be affected by Hotcoldwetdry directly.

Oh, and of course this had to crop up

–Climate inequality and the U.N. talks. That brings us to this year’s U.N. climate talks in Warsaw, where the unequal impacts of climate change have been a major theme — particularly after the devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines underscored the difficulty that poorer nations will have in adjusting to weather disasters that could become more likely as the world warms.

Warmists can’t help themselves.

Read: Say, Where Does All That “Climate Change” Aid Go? »

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

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
Pirate's Cove