Putin Triple Dog Dares President McBombypants To Pony Up Evidence On Syria

By William Teach August 31, 2013 – 11:32 am

Thanks to Purp at Ace of Spades for the President McBombypants thing (hey, remember when Obama and Democrats derided McCain for bomb bomb bomb Iran, which is well on their way to making nuclear weapons?). Niles Gardner notes that Obama is an embarrassment and an amateur on the international stage, having really built no alliances, no political friendships, other than with French President Francois Hollande. He compares and contrasts President George W. Bush to Mr. Obama, and sees that Bush took the time to forge alliances and friendships. Now, Bush may have been constantly derided, but there is no doubt Bush knew what he was doing, and was able to work with foreign leaders, build alliances and friendships with them, and, just as importantly, cause fear in unfriendly nations. Remember how Libya gave up on their weapons programs and terrorism? Bush knew about How Things Work on the international stage. Obama still thinks like an empowered community organizer, and is neither respected nor feared.

(Telegraph) The Russian President told journalists that if Barack Obama had evidence Bashar al-Assad’s forces had the chemical weapons and launched the attack, Washington should present it to the UN weapons inspectors and the Security Council.

Speaking after the US released its intelligence report, Mr Putin said: “I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States.”

He rejected American intercepts of Syrian communications as evidence, saying that they cannot be used to take “fundamental decisions” such as using military force on Syria.

Mr Putin said the US President, as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should remember the impact any US attack would have on Syrian civilians.

Kinda strange when Putin is the voice of reason, wouldn’t you say? Of course, this is part of the typical international game between States. Unfortunately, Putin is playing chess, Obama is playing solitaire. Obviously, Putin and Russia have a stake in what happens, with Syria being a partial client of the Russian state, but, this is also simply a swipe at the weakness of Obama on the international stage, which, unfortunately, makes America look weak.

Read: Putin Triple Dog Dares President McBombypants To Pony Up Evidence On Syria »

Posted in Barry Obama | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Nature Suggests Treating “High Carbon Lifestyles” Like Drug Addiction

By William Teach August 31, 2013 – 9:18 am

I have to wonder how much CO2 was generated by putting this article on the Internet, what with all the energy required (via The Hockey Schtick)

(Nature) Lessons from addiction may help to transform our high-carbon lifestyle.

It is often said that those of us who live in affluent, developed counties are ‘addicted’ to our high-carbon lifestyles, which depend on profligate use of energy and material resources. Think of central heating, air conditioning, our reluctance to wean ourselves off international air travel — whether for business or pleasure — and the amount of meat that we consume in our diets.

Yet, as is my constant refrain, those who believe most in anthropogenic “climate change” barely do more than token changes in their own lives. They might replace a lightbulb or two (in lamps they rarely use) with CFLs or LEDs. But, especially when we look at all the leaders of “climate change” hysteria, and those in government and NGO’s who push this, they actually have increased “carbon footprints”.

But it would stretch credulity to push the comparison too far; obviously cars are not ‘habit forming’ in the sense that cigarettes are, and certainly do not have the addictive characteristics of certain hard drugs. The habit-forming effects of drugs such as nicotine and heroin are mediated by specific receptors in the brain. But it is of course meaningless to talk of a specific ‘brain receptor’ activated by exposure to a car advert. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to posit that our responses to brands in general, the preferences we develop and the behaviours that we subsequently exhibit as consumers (and more generally as citizens), have a neurobiological basis. This does not at all imply that such preferences and behaviours are deterministically ‘fixed’, in the sense that they can be modified by learning and experience, or even pharmacologically. If we are sufficiently concerned about the environmental impact of travel, we can by our own volition choose to run an electric car rather than a gas-guzzler.

This seems to be a starting premise of the intriguing new research field of ‘neuroconservation’, which despite its name has nothing to do with conserving neurons. Rather, as explained by Elisabeth Jeffries (page 776), one of its aims is to study how the brain responds to nature. A working hypothesis is that the way we come to value and appreciate the natural world may involve some of the same brain regions and ‘reward’ pathways involved in addiction. If that turns out to be the case, which is far from certain, it follows that understanding addiction — both at a neurological and psychological level — might potentially help to devise strategies for shifting people’s attitudes in relation to environmental issues such as climate change, thereby promoting climate-friendly behaviours.

It boils down to the notion that Warmists want to essentially brainwash everyone (else) to be “green”, and green doesn’t mean being a good steward of nature, which doesn’t give a damn about your CO2 output, but by reducing your own “carbon footprint” on the alter of a political leaning. If Warmists refuse to cure their own addictions to, well, just about everything, because almost everything is considered Bad For Climate Change, why should anyone else care?

Read: Nature Suggests Treating “High Carbon Lifestyles” Like Drug Addiction »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Oh, Good, NY Times Blames UN And Congress, Saying They’ve Abdicated Their Role On Syria

By William Teach August 31, 2013 – 8:57 am

Interesting. Polls range from 50% to 80% saying Americans do not want to military strikes on Syria. And 80% want Congressional approval. Yet, Mr. Obama has stated that he’s not going to bother with more than a few meetings and briefings, nothing heavy nor involved, nor is he going to seek a vote, like PM David Cameron attempted (and lost) in Britain. Nor is he really going to bother with the United Nations. Obviously, this means that the problem here is not Obama’s go it alone, unilateral, “I’m doing what I want to do” attitude, but Someone Else

Absent on Syria

As President Obama moves toward unilateral military action in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 1,400 people, he is doing so without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis.

Except hundreds of Congressional members have stated that Obama should seek Congressional approval. A bipartisan coalition. It’s Mr. Obama’s job to seek that approval, and he’s already stated he doesn’t want a vote. I wonder what the NY Times editorial board would write if the House came back and voted against any action in Syria? Obama’s the one who ran his mouth, and I doubt if he’d even get many Democrats to support strikes.

But, then the editorial goes off the rails. I wonder if there were two sets of people writing it. The editorial notes that the admin has only pushed a “moral rationale” for strikes (say, what about all those being killed in Darfur? Or the thousands of Christians being slaughtered in Egypt?)

But no administration official has formally asserted a legal basis — absent a vote of Congress or the Security Council — for military strikes.

We’re still waiting for exactly why this affects U.S. national security. Apparently, so is Obama, since he still hasn’t made up his mind. Perhaps he’s still trying to find a way to Blame Republicans in the event things go tits up during the strikes or afterwards because of the strikes.

Congress spends a lot of time jealously guarding its powers, especially when it comes to Republicans thwarting Mr. Obama’s agenda. But apart from complaining, asking questions and getting briefed by administration officials, most senators and representatives seem content to leave this exceedingly difficult decision to President Obama. They should have returned to Washington from summer vacation to debate and vote on the Syria issue. Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain suffered a defeat when Parliament on Thursday voted to oppose involvement in a military operation, but at least the British lawmakers had to step up and take a stand.

Cameron called them for a vote. And the Times seems to want to Blame Republicans, while forgetting that the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Harry Reid is in no hurry to bring the Senate back.

Of course, Mr. Obama has not asked Congress to authorize military action. He brushed off this responsibility, required under the War Powers Resolution, when he used military force in the Libya operation, but in that case he did have Security Council approval.

Um, wait, so the entire premise of the story, that Congress and the UN (notice that the article barely mentions the UN to this point, they do briefly mention it in a following paragraph) are MIA, is bunk, because Obama is blowing off Congress (and the UN), and going all Imperial President? Hmph. How about that?

Mr. Obama’s approach on Syria now seems wholly at odds with the strong position he took in 2007 when, as a candidate for president, he told The Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

But, you know, Congress is a bunch of meanies who might not endorse this military action which would write a check for Obama’s “red lines” mouth.

Not only is Mr. Obama lacking the Security Council’s support, he has not obtained the backing of other organizations that could provide international legitimacy, such as NATO. In Libya in 2011, the Arab League supported the NATO air campaign, but it has not requested American military action in Syria, even though it publicly blamed Mr. Assad for the attack and called for accountability.

Nor has Mr. Obama bothered asking.

Mr. Obama’s ability to muster broad backing for immediate action was harmed by the British vote, leaving only France promising cooperation. Even in the best of circumstances, military action could go wrong in so many ways; the lack of strong domestic and international support will make it even more difficult.

I guess it’s also the Brit’s fault. Despite Obama not bothering to reach out and build any sort of coalition. Like most things, I suspect that Obama just expected to give a speech, make a pronouncement, and things would fall in place with everyone joining up. Funny how things work differently in the Real World, as opposed to Community Organizer World.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Oh, Good, NY Times Blames UN And Congress, Saying They’ve Abdicated Their Role On Syria »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

So, A Bunch Of People With No Skills Went On Strike For More Pay Yesterday

By William Teach August 30, 2013 – 3:27 pm

I wonder if next week’s headline will be “Unemployment Applications Rise” followed by “Fast Food Restaurants Advertise For Lots of Newly Opened Positions”

(Raleigh N&O) About 50 Triangle fast-food workers joined a nationwide strike Thursday, rallying outside several chain restaurants in Raleigh and Durham for a $15-an-hour wage.

Organized largely through social media and word of mouth, the walkout took place in about 60 cities, forcing restaurants in some locations to shut down without enough staff. It was the largest protest yet in the movement for higher wages and the right to unionize.

Fast-food restaurants locally were operating normally Thursday, though a targeted Taco Bell in Charlotte closed its dining room. Triangle workers started the morning in Durham, protesting at Burger King and McDonald’s restaurants where some of the strikers work. By lunchtime, the protest shifted to Raleigh, where the picketing continued in front of a Little Caesars Pizza on Capital Boulevard.

“Cancel the burgers, cancel the fries, make our wages supersize,” the group chanted.

How cute. I would have been out there yelling something back, but I was working.

Brandi Pegram said she was eager to wave a sign in front of the downtown Durham McDonald’s where she has worked for five years. She said she still makes the minimum wage: $7.25 an hour.

“I’m getting ready to have a baby, and it’s hard for me to survive,” she said, adding that she was scheduled to work Thursday but joined the picket line instead. “It was only going to be $50 anyway.”

I don’t mean to pick on Brandi, but, hey, she agree to appear in the article, and like so many others appearing in this and articles in news sources around the country, it should be pointed out that many are like Brandi: having kids they can’t afford, working a job that is meant as entry level and low skilled, and one in which they knew exactly what the wages were going to be. Furthermore, many, like Brandi, have worked these jobs for years, and if you’re still making minimum wage after being their for 5 years, don’t blame the company, blame yourself. Obviously, the work skills are not present. These people could have parlayed the skills into management/supervisory positions at the same or other companies, yet they’re still slaving away in a job meant for teens and people who want to earn a little extra cash. Again, this says something about themselves, not the companies.

Let’s also note that the franchises aren’t owned simply by Evil Republicans, but by Democrats, too, who are going to pay what the positions are worth. I remember a few decades ago when it was tough to get people to work at fast food places, at least in NJ where I grew up, so they were offering very good pay. Nowadays, there is no need: there is a large pool of unskilled workers, partly due to….the Democrats reliance on bringing unskilled workers to the US, along with refusing to do anything about illegal aliens. They drive down pay. For all you liberals supporting amnesty, think that will help increase pay? Good luck with that.

The Rev. William Barber II, the N.C. NAACP president, made a similar point, speaking after a march Thursday afternoon at the Kentucky Fried Chicken on New Bern Avenue.

“The fastest growing jobs in the United States are the lowest paid,” he said. “That ain’t right.”

Welcome to the Obameconomy, which you support, Barber.

Pegram, the Durham McDonald’s worker, hopes she’ll still have a job Friday. “I’m going in there to work at 7 a.m. with my head held high,” she said, adding that if wages don’t change soon, “I’ll come back out here and do it again.”

Conversely, she could spend the time looking for a better job with more pay, or perhaps go to her store manager and profess an interest in bettering herself and moving into management. She could educate herself and make herself valuable, learn about business, develop jobs skills. Nope, instead, like so many on the Left, she thinks she’s entitled to more pay for…doing no more work.

I feel for them, I really do! Interesting that their signs say “I am worth more”..of course you are, but your job is not…

No, it’s not, and thanks to the Obama policies, don’t expect anything to change anytime soon.

Bruce McQain has an interesting post saying these low wage workers could be replaced with automated machines, like they’re trying in Europe. The machines don’t need pay, vacations, personal days, or mandated health insurance.

Read: So, A Bunch Of People With No Skills Went On Strike For More Pay Yesterday »

Posted in Economy, NC News | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 30, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid drought world that would be perfect for a wind farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post on Obamacare, taxes, and John Roberts screwing the pooch.

Read: If All You See… »

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

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
Pirate's Cove