Bummer: Humanity Getting Closer To Extinction From A Slight Increase In CO2 Or Something

By William Teach August 30, 2013 – 12:03 pm

Some are Warmists, some are Alarmists. Either way, most of them are bat-shit crazy

(KCET) In the last few days an alarming (ie, batshit crazy) article making the rounds on social media has revived the idea that our species might be doing itself in by changing the global climate. The article, by vice.com’s Nathan Curry, minces no words in its title: “Humanity Is Getting Verrrrrrry Close to Extinction,” with the extra rs in the original.

Curry cites sources ranging from climatologist James Hansen to admitted doomsayer Guy McPherson to advance a startling notion: human society has triggered enough irrevocable climate change mechanisms that we’re locked in to warming temperatures sufficient to kill us off.

It’s alarming, but is it alarmist? Could we really heat ourselves to extinction? Maybe, but that’s asking the wrong question.

So, now you’re expecting a reasonable, rational reply from the article’s author, right? LOL

All species eventually go extinct, and things can always go badly wrong when you’re futzing with your life support system. But if a few things happen that aren’t accounted for in climate forecasts — like a wholesale release of methane from permafrost and seabed deposits, there’s a significantly larger chance that most of what we humans currently think of as good places to live will become literally uninhabitable for at least part of the year.

Literally!!!!!!1!!!!!

There’s actually so much wrong with both the KCET article and the original by Nathan Curry that I wouldn’t even know where to start. Let’s look at one thing to see just how much they know about science, at the Curry article

Peter Ward is a paleontologist and author whose 2007 book Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future provides evidence that all but one of the major global extinction events (dinosaurs) occurred due to rapid climate change caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This time around, the carbon dioxide increase happens to be coming from humans figuring out how to dig billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and release it into the air. Ward claims that during the last 10,000 years in which human civilization has emerged, our carbon-dioxide levels and climate have remained anomalously stable, but the future doesn’t look so good:

Except, the bold part which refers to the book is a crock of unscientific shit. While increased CO2 levels can explain some of the major and minor extinctions (despite CO2 levels being much, much, much higher during most of the Earth’s lifespan than today), most scientists understand that other factors include glacial periods, massive volcano eruptions cause flood basalts, supernovas, gamma ray bursts, volcanoes, drops in sea levels, ocean onoxia, rising oxygen levels, more volcanoes, followed by more volcanoes, changing landforms, and more volcanoes. And impactor events, ie, asteroids and comets. These Warmists can’t even be honest when discussing science.

Read: Bummer: Humanity Getting Closer To Extinction From A Slight Increase In CO2 Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Humanity Getting Closer To Extinction From A Slight Increase In CO2 Or Something | Trackback URL

Politicized DOJ Decides To Pick And Choose Which Federal Laws To Enforce On Marijuana

By William Teach August 30, 2013 – 8:16 am

I’ve written before and I’ll write again that I don’t have a problem with marijuana usage, since it is really not a bad drug, and is much less dangerous than alcohol. However, it is still considered a Schedule I drug, illegal under federal law, which deems it to have no medicinal purposes. That last part could be up for debate, yet, it’s federal law. And once again the Obama/Holder Department of Justice has decided that justice isn’t blind and equal

(The Hill) The federal government on Thursday released new guidelines for federal prosecution of marijuana violations that mark a retreat from the aggressive guidelines of the past.

Instead of targeting individual recreational users, federal prosecutors are being told to prioritize goals like keeping marijuana from being sold to minors and preventing marijuana sales from funding criminal operations.

The thing is, most prosecutions aren’t done by federal prosecutors, but by state and local ones. So, what is really going on?

The new standards are most beneficial to marijuana users in Washington and Colorado, the two states where recreational marijuana use was legalized by ballot initiative in 2012.

Attorney General Eric Holder notified governors of the two states that, for the time being, the Justice Department would not take action to have the laws overturned.

The move should also relieve federal pressure on medical marijuana dispensaries in 22 states, many of which have been faced prosecution in recent years.

So, Holder has told the States that he refuses to enforce federal law on marijuana, which has been usurped by these states allowing medical and/or recreational usage (discussing State’s rights is a different discussion), in violation of his oath. We’ve seen this before, in terms of Team Obama refusing to enforce DOMA and a few other laws. Yet, the same DOJ has sued Arizona and others over crackdowns, which often mimic federal law, on illegal aliens. Also, suing over voter ID, which is not against federal law. In Obama’s America justice is applied haphazardously, with an eye towards politics. Lady Justice weeps.

Read: Politicized DOJ Decides To Pick And Choose Which Federal Laws To Enforce On Marijuana »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats | Comments Off on Politicized DOJ Decides To Pick And Choose Which Federal Laws To Enforce On Marijuana | Trackback URL

The Lonely, Unilateral President

By William Teach August 30, 2013 – 7:57 am

Poor Obama. So far, the only two countries he has engaged in a coalition of the willing or something has been France and England. And England has said “nope, no thanks”, in terms of attacking Syria. Well, their Parliament voted against any action on a narrow vote, anyhow, since PM David Cameron did something wild in actually putting it to their legislative body. We don’t quite know what the French opinion is. And Obama has really asked the United Nation to get involved to build a coalition. Nor much, if any, outreach, to other Middle Eastern nations. Remember when Bush obtained Resolution 1441 from the UN? And authorization from Congress? And built a coalition of well over 40 nations? All while giving Saddam time to comply with Res 1441 or face war? And we were told that that was “going it alone”? Good times, good times

The Lonely President

President Barack Obama had hoped for a quick, convincing strike on Syria, but growing opposition and Great Britain’s stunning rejection of the attack has thrust him into the uncomfortable position of go-it-alone hawk.

Just how Obama, whose career sprung from the ashes of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, got to this extraordinary moment in his presidency is a tale of good intentions, seat-of-the-pants planning and, above all, how a cautious commander-in-chief became imprisoned by a promise.

Glenn Thrush and Jennifer Epstein forgot to mention incompetence, a failure to plan for the eventuality of red lines being crossed, too much campaigning and too little Presidenting, and sheer incompetence. Oh, and thinking that leaders around the world will simply do as he says because it is Obama Saying It.

Obama seems likely to bull ahead with air attacks despite an impact and popularity that will be, at best, limited — an unsavory outcome marginally better than packing up his Tomahawks and going home, which would deal a humbling blow to U.S. prestige and embolden the Assad regime.

It’s a dilemma first-term Obama — who warned author Bob Woodward in 2010 that “once the dogs of war are unleashed, you don’t know where [they are] going to lead” — was careful to avoid.

But second-term Obama, tethered to his August 2012 “red line” pronouncement on Assad’s use of chemical weapons and eager to shed his lead-from-behind image, now runs “the risk of looking weak any way this turns out,” in the words of one former adviser who cited the limited impact of any missiles-only strike.

Look, I don’t think the “red line” comment was a Bad Thing. Warning Syria to not use WMD or face consequences is not a bad position. Unfortunately, 1,300 people killed by chemical weapons in a civil war where well over 100,000 have already been killed fails to incite people’s passion. When Obama made his red lines statements, I would suspect he was thinking more like 10,000 or more killed in a WMD attack. Nor do we really know who did it. And since it is the Assad regime and their supporters versus an uprising that is now in bed with al Qaeda and other Islamists, it’s hard for people to get worked up.

The House of Commons vote had a sins-of-the-father quality, hobbling a pair of leaders all too aware of the legacies of their predecessors George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who spearheaded the deeply unpopular Iraq invasion.

“Isn’t the real reason we’re here today, is not because of the horror of these weapons and the horror exists – but because the American president foolishly drew a red line and because of his position now, he’s going to attack or face humiliation?” asked Labour MP Paul Flynn during a raucous Thursday debate closely monitored by the White House.

I’m not going to re-litigate Operation Iraqi Freedom, except to say that dealing with Saddam and his torturous, murderous, violent regime after years of seeing 16 UN resolutions violated was popular, and the right thing to do. It only became unpopular after things became hard during reconstruction, and people decided that Hating Bush was fun, even though it damaged the military folks serving in Iraq, put them more in harms way, made their jobs harder, and emboldened the enemy.

Both Democrats and Republicans are demanding that Obama come to Congress, and, really, he surely has the time, since this is a slow, slow, slow march to wagging a finger at Syria with a few cruise missiles, and, due to all the leaks, Assad will have advance notice of where they will land.

Obama might actually get the backing of Congress and the American People if he would actually give a proper, president speech and lay out the reasoning. He won’t. Remember when Bush used the 2003 State Of the Union to lay out the full rationale for Iraq (which included way more than just denying Saddam WMD)? Obama can’t be bothered to even talk to the American People. No wonder he’s lonely.

Oh, BTW, free range chickenhawk Nancy Pelosi is telling Obama to hit Syria. I’m still unclear how the minor use of chemical weapons is “an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security.”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: The Lonely, Unilateral President »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, War On Terrorism | Comments Off on The Lonely, Unilateral President | Trackback URL

Warmist Explains “Mutually Insured Destruction”

By William Teach August 29, 2013 – 4:02 pm

Over at the NY Times, which is known for allowing both sides to provide viewpoints (sic), Warmist Maggie Koerth-Baker is super concerned about what hotcoldwetdry might do to the insurance industry

In March 1947, a winter of heavy snowfall followed by a quick thaw and torrents of rain swelled rivers throughout England and Wales. Over the course of just 13 days, at least 27,000 homes and businesses were flooded. It was one of the worst natural disasters in British history. But thanks to climate change, which can prevent the thick snowpack from which spring floods draw their strength, that sort of flood may be less likely to happen today.

Kinda what we’ve been seeing around a good chunk of the world, as the last 4 out of 5 winters have been brutal. Oh, and the late 40’s was a time of dipping temperatures. I do find it interesting that Maggie uses monster snows to push her science religion.

The seemingly inexorable (and increasingly irreversible) march of planetary warming is something we tend to associate with increased devastation — floods and famine, droughts and storms. In many cases, that’s true. But there’s a reason scientists prefer the term “climate change” to “global warming” — not everything is getting warmer. As the global average temperature rises, it alters weather systems, changing patterns of heat and cold and shifting wind currents. Risk is redistributed along with them.

See? Global warming causes cooling too! Nothing can ever disprove their pet cult doctrine, hence the name change to “climate change”.

Anyhow, the rest is about how the insurance industry is, like, super concerned, but there are a few who are taking advantage of this political issue and making some good money off of it being responsible or something.

As more groups like the Geneva Association call for risk models that account for climate change, politicians are going to get a different message. Denying climate change isn’t just foolish — it’s bad for business.

What Maggie and the rest of the Warmists do not seem to understand is that virtually no one denies that the climate changes, nor that the Earth is currently in one of its warm periods, which have been going on between cool periods since the end of the last glacial age 20,000 years ago. What we are debating is the cause of this warm period. Some will maintain that it is solely natural. I will maintain that it is mostly natural, with some anthropogenic forcings, mostly at the local level, ie, the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Weather can be bad for business. A cool period similar to the Little Ice Age would be much worse. Mankind has thrived during the warm periods during the Holocene, most of which were much warmer than the Modern Warm Period. If you really want to know what’s going on from the Warmist POV, follow the money and politics. Oh, and the last thing we need from Warmists, mostly part of the Progressive crowd, are ideas on How To Make Economies Work.

Read: Warmist Explains “Mutually Insured Destruction” »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Warmist Explains “Mutually Insured Destruction” | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 29, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a drought caused desert slowly reclaiming the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a discussion of a racist attack.

Read: If All You See… »

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

The Real Reason For Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance

By William Teach August 29, 2013 – 11:12 am

Read: The Real Reason For Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance »

Posted in Barry Obama, Like, Gnarly, Dude | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Mind-Blowing Paper Links Current Warming Pause To Cool Pacific Waters

By William Teach August 29, 2013 – 8:38 am

In Warmist World, the cooling Pacific is surely caused by too much heat

(Judith Curry) My mind has been blown by a new paper just published in Nature.

Just when I least expected it, after a busy day when I took a few minutes to respond to a query from a journalist about a new paper just published in Nature [link to abstract]:

Recent global warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie

Abstract.  Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r 50.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southernUSA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to aLa-Nina-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

This area accounts for 8.2% of the Earth’s surface. The paper seems to take part of the Warmist view that any warming is caused by Mankind, but any cooling or pause is caused by nature. Bob Tisdale notes

Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.

Warmists will continue to say that warming is mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, specifically you, dear reader, for driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using hair spray. They will either ignore this paper, or simply find a way to, again, blame the cooling on GHGs from Mankind, much like the blame snow and cold on warming, and say that the heat is doing a Where’s Waldo? in the deep oceans. It’s a cult, not a science.

Warmist leaning Climate Central highlights just how they plan on treating the paper.

In other words, natural climate variability affects the rate of global warming like a dial controlling the sound on a speaker — at some points the volume is turned up, and the planet warms faster, while at other times it is dialed back down, with a slower rate of warming. Scientists have also warned that at some point, the speaker may go all the way to 11, with warming at rates never before seen in human history, depending how high greenhouse gases climb.

And by GHGs, they mean Mankind-released ones. Because natural variability can never account for warming in their world. And, because you charged your iPhone and leave the charger plugged into the wall, the temperatures are soon going to go all Spinal Tap and boil the face of the Earth or something.

Both Ms. Curry and Mr. Tisdale delve into the science of the paper, if you want to dig deep.

Read: Mind-Blowing Paper Links Current Warming Pause To Cool Pacific Waters »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on Mind-Blowing Paper Links Current Warming Pause To Cool Pacific Waters | Trackback URL

Five Questions On Syria For POTUS Who Received Nobel Peace Prize Before Even Knowing Where All The White House Bathrooms Were

By William Teach August 29, 2013 – 8:05 am

I suppose there’s something raaaaacist in that headline, but, hey, don’t blame me, blame the Politico’s Glenn Thrush and Leigh Munsil, who offer up 5 questions for Obama on Syria

President Barack Obama is not a commander in chief drawn to military adventure nor an explainer-in-chief who is especially fond of delivering Oval Office addresses.

But Obama’s reluctance to offer a detailed explanation of an anticipated attack on Syria has puzzled allies and adversaries alike who warn that even a short engagement — likely two to three days of missile strikes — could draw the U.S. into the kind of “dumb” war Obama opposed as a candidate in 2008.

Obama — awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize before he knew where all the White House bathrooms were located — is in an unfamiliar and deeply uncomfortable position. He was elected on a wave of contempt for George W. Bush over Iraq, but now finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion — only 25 percent of Americans supported U.S. intervention in Syria after a chemical weapons attack.

Obama plans no Oval Office or other meaningful announcement, speech, notification, nor explanation to the American regarding Syria. Apparently, according Glenn Thrush, the White House stated that an Oval Office address is considered “passé” by Team Obama. My bet is on a couple throwaway lines inserted into a campaign style speech on one of Obama’s favorite subjects (which doesn’t include actually fixing the economy) given at either a high school or college. So, if Obama leaves town in the next few days, expect military strikes to start shortly.

1. What is the goal in attacking Syria?

The answer seems to be something well short of a regime change but somewhat tougher than a face slap at Assad.

American’s would love to know, because the O admin continues to yammer on about possible operations, alerting Syria as to what Obama plans to do. Of course, Obama has apparently made no decision on Syria. One would have thought plans would have been made by Team O after the multiple times he warned Syria about “red lines”.

2. Why attack now?

It’s all about cashing a rhetorical check Obama wrote Aug. 20, 2012, when he famously declared, “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

We’re also hearing about “moral imperatives” and that this is in the best interest for US security and national interests, though no one in the O admin is bothering to explain just why. But, if anything is done, let’s face the fact that this would be about Obama saving face.

3. What happens if Syria, Iran or Hezbollah attack Israel?

Welcome to Obama’s big nightmare — an act of controlled retaliation that escalates into uncontrollable regional conflagration.

Then someone shouldn’t have run his mouth with an off-teleprompter throw-away threat a few times.

4. What’s with all these leaks?

In most conflicts, countries guard their military plans with shoot-the-leaker secrecy. (snip)

Defense sources say Team Obama wants to keep expectations low and avoid the argument that the president is starting a third war or dragging the U.S. into a boots-on-the-ground quagmire. So officials are making clear that this won’t involve ground troops or even human pilots in warplanes overhead in Syria but rather only the safest and most precise weapons in the U.S. arsenal: Tomahawk missiles.

We’ll probably know what the ground crews stencil on the cruise missiles before they are even launched. Which will be posted on the White House Twitter feed.

5. Does Obama need to consult Congress?

The White House hasn’t said one way or the other — but Obama is preparing to anyway.

If he does, that would be a good start. The article reports that Obama plans on telling Congress, in person and by teleconference, starting today. Personally, I suspect we’ll start hearing about how Obama sent an email or a flunky in person to tell Congress Critters something, which really doesn’t provide any sort of explanation. Regarding Obama’s Big Libyan Adventure (how’s that worked out so far? Well, good for Britain and France, since the oil is still flowing to them), Obama told Congress with a letter. I don’t expect much more, because, sheesh, He’s The President, and has No Need To Inform Anyone As To His Actions. Including the American People.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Five Questions On Syria For POTUS Who Received Nobel Peace Prize Before Even Knowing Where All The White House Bathrooms Were »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | Comments Off on Five Questions On Syria For POTUS Who Received Nobel Peace Prize Before Even Knowing Where All The White House Bathrooms Were | Trackback URL

McCain: Hey, “Immigration Reform” Could Cause Problems For American Workers

By William Teach August 28, 2013 – 6:42 pm

Oh, good. We should pass this right now, as they were telling us a few months ago

(Washington Times) Two Republicans who helped write the Senate’s immigration bill said Tuesday that they are convinced it will finally be able to get a handle on the porous southwestern border — but acknowledged it could mean problems for American workers.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, said they fear that foreign workers will be more attractive to hire than Americans for some companies because the foreigners won’t be eligible for the same health care benefits.

“I think it’s a problem. I don’t know what else to say,” Mr. McCain told a questioner at a forum on immigration sponsored by the Arizona Republic newspaper and KPNX-TV, both based in Phoenix.

That’s what is called a political gaffe, ie, unintentionally telling the truth.

McCain also said that despite previous amnesty and immigration reform failing to secure the border, “this time it’ll be different”. Trust him and Obama.

Read: McCain: Hey, “Immigration Reform” Could Cause Problems For American Workers »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, John McCain | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

350.org Wants To Name Hurricanes After Climate Realists

By William Teach August 28, 2013 – 1:14 pm

Oh, and suggests that the lack of hurricanes is also due to “climate change”

(Climate Progress) 350 Action is out with a video that is as jarring as it is hilarious. It notes the injustice of naming devastating hurricanes after people who, most likely, had nothing to do with their destructive power.

It suggests a new nomenclature: “As climate change continues to create more frequent and devastating storms, we propose a new naming system. One that names extreme storms after policymakers who deny climate change.”

I’ll put the video below the fold.

There have been no hurricanes in August, which would be the first time in 11 years if none arise this week. The Atlantic has seen a string of named Tropical Storms that did not reach hurricane strength — possibly because of increased dry and dusty air coming off the Sahara.

Remember when Warmists were proclaiming that the new normal would be like 2005? Then when landfalling hurricane activity dropped off sharply, they suggested that activity might be lower, hurricanes would be stronger and bigger? Perhaps now they’re going to start saying that there will be fewer hurricanes due to Mankind, much like they now blame cold and snow on Mankind, particularly on our use of fossil fuels.

Yet Jeff Masters of Weather Underground suggests that these conditions will soon end: “The big guns of the African Monsoon are firing off a salvo of African tropical waves over the next two weeks that will find the most favorable conditions for development that we’ve seen this year.”

This suggests a more active period of hurricane weather in September.

Warmists really, really, really, really want to see some destructive hurricanes make landfall, the better to push their cult.

Read More »

Read: 350.org Wants To Name Hurricanes After Climate Realists »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove