Bummer: Fenway Park Could Be Victim Of “Climate Change”

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for winning the World Series. Your park is dooooooooomed!

(Environmental News Service) Boston’s 101-year-old Fenway Park – where the World Series was won by the Boston Red Sox tonight for the first time since 1918 – is at increased risk of flooding due to climate change, warns the National Wildlife Federation.

Calling the baseball diamond “a diamond in the marsh,” the environmental group points out that low-lying Fenway Park took its name from The Fens, the saltwater marshland around the Muddy River on which it was built.

Parts of the neighborhood, like much of downtown Boston, were built on filled-in marshy areas, blogs the NWF’s Miles Grant. (snip)

The environmental group wants to remind Bostonians before the upcoming mayoral election on November 5, that climate change is making flooding more likely due to “heavier rainfalls and climate change-fueled sea level rise.”

The fable includes this picture, done by the Environmental League Of Massachusetts

More unhinged and unscientific photos from the ELM are available here.

Fenway is 20 feet about sea level. The left field wall, The Green Monster, is 304-308 feet tall (depending on the measurement). That picture would seem to depict a sea rise of at least 170 feet. In reality

So, it would take over 17,000 years to see up to half of the Green Monster covered by rising seas. And Warmists call this “science”.

Read: Bummer: Fenway Park Could Be Victim Of “Climate Change” »

Possible New Liberal Talking Point: Those Insurance Cancellations Aren’t Real Cancellations

Democrats are desperately looking for a way to minimize the impact of the millions of health insurance cancellations in the face of (NMP) Obama’s constant “promises” regarding the ability to keep your insurance. The LA Times’ Jon Healy notes

One of the arguments made for the 2010 healthcare law was that it attacked the problem of underinsurance — the threadbare policies that offered such poor coverage, they allowed millions of Americans to be bankrupted by medical bills. Now, however, Democrats are confronting the fact that the law they wrote is forcing thousands of people to lose their current insurance plans because the coverage doesn’t meet the new standards. It’s a perfect example of the road to political hell being paved by good intentions.

When this whole thing started, one could infer good intentions. Democrats wanted to make sure that the 30-45 million Americans without health insurance, as their talking points went, were able to obtain affordable, quality health insurance. From there we ended up with the monstrosity of the “Affordable” Care Act. And people losing their plans. Along comes The NY Times’s David Firestone

A true cancellation is when someone gets a letter saying that she’s losing her insurance and cannot renew. That was common practice in the individual market for people with expensive conditions. Under the new law, no one will ever get a letter like that again. They cannot be turned down for insurance.

The so-called cancellation letters waved around at yesterday’s hearing were simply notices that policies would have to be upgraded or changed. Some of those old policies were so full of holes that they didn’t include hospitalization, or maternity care, or coverage of other serious conditions.

Is your head spinning? How does that stack up to “if you like you’re plan, you can keep it. Period”? For the millions who are receiving cancellation notices, they’re pretty sure that the policy is cancelled, and now they have to get a new one. Period. We can add this to the one about “you can keep your plan if it’s good”. Also, Democrats are Blaming the insurance carriers.For following the law Democrats passed.

Obama is blaming “bad apples” for the cancellations. Like most issues, he doesn’t seem to have much in the way of information. Or, he’s just plain lying. Probably a bit of both. Well, a lot of both. Expect lots of campaign style speeches in the coming months like last nights.

BTW, we haven’t even gotten to the point where people can’t keep their doctor.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Possible New Liberal Talking Point: Those Insurance Cancellations Aren’t Real Cancellations »

“You Can Keep Your Plan If It’s Good”

I’ve mentioned the emerging DemoRat talking point a few times, including the post on the “Affordable” Care Act earlier today. Here’s another example

(Weekly Standard) According to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Democrats had only promised that Americans could keep their insurance if it was “good insurance.”

“We said when we passed that, ‘If you had insurance that was good insurance that you wanted to keep it, you could keep it,’” Landrieu said.

Anyone else remember that talking point even before the “A”CA was passed? Furthermore, who defines “good”? Oh, that’s right, the Government is now going to fully decide for you.

You should talk to the insurance companies if they’re dropping people,” said Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “The idea here is to have affordable insurance to people that don’t have it.”

There’s another one, whereby the insurance companies are being blamed. You know, for complying with the rules passed by HHS, an arm of the Executive Branch under some guy named Obama. Who is ripped to shreds by Dana over at The First Street Journal.

This comes via The Lonely Conservative, who also notes

The measure is a bill introduced by Senator Ron Johnson called “If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It Act,” which almost sounds absurd, but that’s the reality we’re living in these days, a tragically absurd reality.

I’m not quite sure I’m for this. It will make great politics if Democrats vote against it, particularly in the Senate. On the other hand, if it passes, this gives Democrats an out, whereby they will demand that Republicans join in in passing more fixes to the ACA. Republicans should, if anything, force the full weight of Obamacare to be implemented immediately. No waivers, not delay of the employer mandate. Make people feel the pain of their votes.

Read: “You Can Keep Your Plan If It’s Good” »

If All You See…

…is a horrible natural gas fueled fireplace, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on massive security hole in Obamacare.

Read: If All You See… »

Report: Hotcoldwetdry May Pose Threat To Economic Growth

Late morning coffee snorters edition, where that pesky word “may” crops up again

(CNN) Nearly a third of the world’s economic output will come from countries facing “high” to “extreme” risks from the impacts of climate change within 12 years, according to a new report.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Index, an annual report produced by UK-based risk analysis firm Maplecroft, found that climate change “may pose a serious obstacle to sustainable economic growth in the world’s most commercially important cities.”

When Warmists start throwing around the word “may” (or might, could, etc), you know you’re in for a whopper of a fable. In this case, saying Bad Weather from “climate change” may cause Bad Things to happen, especially within the economies of 3rd World Shitholes developing nations which never seem to develop.

It said the combined GDP of the 67 countries classed as facing “high” or “extreme” risks was projected to nearly triple from $15 trillion to $44 trillion by 2025 — meaning nearly a third of the global economy would be coming under increasing threat from extreme climate-related events. It projected the population of those countries — currently estimated at more than 4.5 billion — could exceed 5 billion by 2025.

So, wait, GDP is supposed to “nearly triple” during “climate change” while also being threatened? I’ll admit, I’m kinda bad about editing posts prior to posting (especially headlines), but, then, I don’t get paid for this. People who write for, say, CNN, do. And typically have an editor who reads the article first.

Notice at the and of that paragraph that the writer seems a bit upset about population growth in these countries. Kinda racists, wouldn’t you say?

The greatest growth in economic activity, technology, health, and so many other things has occurred during the Modern Warm Period. Also, during previous warm periods, which were typically warmer than today, Mankind did a whole lot better than during cool periods, one of which was called The Dark Ages. In fact, things are so great that Warmists are able to whine about Bad Weather and “climate change” and stuff instead of scrambling just to survive.

Read: Report: Hotcoldwetdry May Pose Threat To Economic Growth »

What Blogs Would You Recommend?

I’m looking to add a few more blogs to my feedreader, increasing the pool for the If All You See.. posts and Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup. Over time, many that I’ve followed for a long time have drifted away from blogging. Who would you recommend?

Read: What Blogs Would You Recommend? »

Bummer: Peer Reviewed Paper Finds Medieval And Roman Periods Were Warmer Than Present

Nothing those of us who live in Reality Land didn’t already know. Of course, Warmist, or, should we call them the New Climate Deniers, will do their little dance and claim that those warm periods were completely different. Back then, natural processes drove the climate. The sun, moon, gravatic forces, volcanoes, oceans, water vapor, etc were the drivers. Now we have Someone Else driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using hair spray causing the both the warming and pause. Here’s from the summary (via The Hockey Schtick)

Yes, climate change is real … just like the world’s climate alarmists vehemently contend. In fact, it’s the norm. And in the several oceanic studies briefly reviewed above, as well as studies pertaining to the terrestrial surface of the planet, Earth’s climate has been recognized as having shifted over the past century or so from the coldest period of the current interglacial to a significantly warmer state, but one that appears not yet to have achieved the level of warmth characteristic of the prior Medieval Warm Period or the earlier Roman Warm Period, as is also demonstrated by the hundreds of other such studies reviewed on the co2science.org website. And since none of these “warm-ups,” as well as still earlier ones, were driven by increases in the air’s CO2 concentration (which hovered around 285 ppm until the Industrial Revolution started it on its upward course towards today’s 400 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th century warming of the globe was driven by concurrent anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

As always, I will argue with anyone who claims that there was no warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. There was. Around 1.4F, with various decades long warming trends, punctuated by pauses. Just like has happened time and time again during the Holocene

We now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of “the late twentieth century,” indicating – once again – that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe.

The warmth of the more distant past clearly exceeded that of the recent past, with the peak temperature of the MWP exceeding that of the Current Warm Period by about 0.6°C, as best as can be determined from the graphical representation of Ran et al.’s data.

The heart of the matter is that no matter how often Warmists are provided with hard data, with reality, they won’t care. Because they will continue their fictions to no end. The “climate change” movement isn’t about science, it’s about politics. It’s about pushing Progressive, ie, fascistic, policies, about giving Government more and more control over the lives of people and over the private sector. It’s about raising taxes. About creating loyalty to The State. By force if necessary. These are people who think adding a tiny amount of CO2 into the atmosphere is stronger than the nuclear furnace hanging in the sky.

The full report in PDF form is available here.

Read: Bummer: Peer Reviewed Paper Finds Medieval And Roman Periods Were Warmer Than Present »

Obama’s “Annoyed” And “Agitated” Over Healthcare.fail Issues

Good news for all you folks who have lost your insurance that you like, or are facing the prospect of losing your insurance: Obama’s annoyed that it’s difficult for you to obtain more expensive health insurance through the Exchange

(The Hill) An agitated President Obama has expressed frustration to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the faulty ObamaCare enrollment website.

A visibly annoyed Obama behind closed doors has made clear to Sebelius that it’s her responsibility to fix what has become an unwanted second-term blunder, according to senior administration officials.

White House officials say the strong words from Obama don’t mean Sebelius is necessarily in the doghouse but that she’s responsible for fixing the problem.

In other words, President Snippy Pants is upset that the optics are bad. For him. No one will be fired or forced to resign over this fiasco of a rollout. He still has Sebelius’ back. Partly since there is little chance Obama would be able to get a replacement through Senate confirmation. Mostly because he almost never gets rid of any incompetents. I do reckon Obama will be more annoyed and agitated once the House hearing featuring Chatty Kathy is done with, because there there can be a real focus on why Obama’s “signature legislation” is causing millions to lose their health insurance. CoveredCA is claiming that up to 900,000 will lose their plans.

Meanwhile, (NMP) Obama is heading to Boston today to give another campaign speech about the “Affordable” Care Act. I wonder if he will give unbelievable spin regarding his thousand and one promises that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period”. Spin like Spokesweasel Jay Carney trotted out

CARNEY: Sure. All I ask — all I ask is that when you do the report, you note that anybody who had a plan the day before the Affordable Care Act passed and was signed into law, and that — and has not been thrown off that plan and had it replaced by their insurer, has not dropped coverage of their own volition and then purchased it again in the interim, but has had that plan, is grandfathered in and can keep that plan.

He’s attempting to Blame insurance carriers for voluntarily dropping plans, as if the law didn’t add mandates which forced the plans to be dropped. Despite the administration knowing years ago that the rules put in place by HHS would cause this to happen.

Much of the spin coming from liberal politicians and cheerleaders, er, bloggers and wonks, is that it doesn’t matter that lied over and over and over and over and over again, because people are supposedly getting better insurance. Liberal Values encapsulates the foolishness

The question of whether people can keep their current insurance is comparable to the faux controversy I recently discussed over whether people can keep the same doctor they now have. The real point in these arguments is over whether people who are happy with their coverage will continue to have the same type of insurance care and medical coverage (with added protections they do not have now).

See? It’s a “faux controversy” that Obama lied out his posterior. People are getting better coverage!!!!!! (with higher premiums and deductibles). I’m sure every young man is thrilled to be paying for maternity coverage, free birth control pills, and pap smears. Then’s this fun new talking point

Republicans have been doing everything possible to avoid real discussion of health care reform. They are sometimes aided by journalists who do not understand the complexity of health care policy, and who want to report a scandal when none exists. Recent misleading media reports on people being “booted” from their health care plan is encouraging Republicans to make a lot of nonsense noise leading Greg Sargent to conclude, correctly, that normal debate about Obamacare is impossible. He wrote, “the GOP outrage about Americans supposedly “losing” coverage is largely just more of the same old misdirection. It’s a subset of a larger Republican refusal to have an actual debate about the law’s tradeoffs — one in which the law’s benefits for millions of Americans are also reckoned with in a serious way.”

Oh, why oh why won’t we have a real debate. Because millions losing the plans they liked and could afford is meaningless. And possibly losing the doctor they liked, because the networks for Obamacare are severely restricted. And millions are being moved from insurance plans to Medicaid. Jonah Goldberg destroys this meme. And Democrats knew that millions would lose their insurance. Then it gets funnier

As many others have, I recently received a letter from my insurance carrier that my current policy will not be available as it does not meet the requirements under the Affordable Care Act. However, I was also offered another policy by the same company. When I went to check on line I found that they were also offering several other plans. I never had this choice before.

Funny, one of Obama’s cheerleaders was dropped. Hey, Ron, didn’t Obama tell you that you could keep your plan? I love the part where there are now “choices!” for him. Because there were never choices before. The spin from liberals is amazing, but, it’s nothing we shouldn’t have expected, as they attempt to change the dynamics of the lies from Obama, which were echoed by his cheerleaders

(Politico) If you like your existing insurance, you can keep it. Shopping for a plan would be as easy as buying a plane ticket on Expedia. Annual premiums would drop by $2,500 for the typical family.

The simplicity of those messages are now running up against the reality of implementing the most far-reaching health care overhaul in 50 years.

It was a lie. There is no equivocation.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama’s “Annoyed” And “Agitated” Over Healthcare.fail Issues »

Warmist Really Upset About This Free Speech Stuff

Warmists really do not like when people disagree with their cult. Which is funny, when you consider they say they’re into science and education and.treating people with respect. In practice, they are more like the Taliban. Little fascists

(UT San Diego) I was terribly disappointed with the U-T’s pair of interviews on climate change Oct. 24 (Op-ed). It is absurd that the U-T had provided a microphone for fossil fuel industry shills in an editorial interview. The Heartland Institute is of course a front for the fossil fuel companies. The so-called scientific report it is touting is not peer-reviewed — just another lie. All have taken lots of dollars from the oil, gas and coal companies for their efforts. (WT-someone should ask the writer if she has given up all fossil fueled travel)

And how can the U-T be surprised that there’s a “public disconnect” on climate change when media outlets like the U-T print rubbish from climate deniers in the pay of the fossil fuel companies, placing them on equal footing with respected climate scientists from our own Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an international leader on climate research?

This is not journalism, and future generations will look back and know that media outlets were part of the reason climate change was not addressed when there was still time to avert most of the impacts.

Masada Disenhouse

Hilariously, on the same page which are letters to the paper, there are several more that say providing both sides is great, that Warmists are full of it, and that the “95%” notion is opinion, not science.

Read: Warmist Really Upset About This Free Speech Stuff »

If All You See…

…is lots of horrible Bad Weather creating concrete, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with an exclusive interview with a Benghazi whistle-blower.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove