…is a world killing plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with the Daily Scoreboard.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a world killing plastic bottle of water, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with the Daily Scoreboard.
Read: If All You See… »
The question is, does the study prove us menfolk are liars?
(UK Express) A lovely pair of peepers is the first thing about a woman to draw a man’s attention, research claims – contrary to popular belief that his attention is likely to be fixed somewhat further down.
Predictably, though, his gaze does wander south next, taking in the lucky lady’s dazzling smile before an appreciative glance at her breasts. Only then is our Romeo likely to notice her well-coiffed hair and consider her overall weight before eyeing up her legs.
If all of that passes muster, the amorous chap will give some thought to her dress sense – perhaps as an excuse to take a furtive peek at her shapely derriere.
Then he will notice her height, though if she is particularly tall he may have had more trouble than usual focusing on her eyes in the first place.
Finally he will delight in her peachy soft skin, according to the survey of 1,000 men.
A spokesman for Murine eye drops, which carried out the poll, said: “This study almost crushes the common stereotype that the first thing men look at is a woman’s chest.
Actually, I can see it. At least when meeting a woman close up. I’d say when we are more than 10 feet we see the head, torso, and lower half all at once, then might focus in. Could be head, hair, smile, eyes. Or legs, breast, butt, waist, etc.
But, we now have scientific proof men aren’t pigs!
Apparently they’re stealth hurricanes, since the US mainland has not been hit by a major hurricane since October 24, 2005
(Hurricane enable: How climate change is mixing up bigger, badder storms )
Global warming and hurricanes are like Bourbon Street and Hurricanes: The farther down the road you go, the more intense they get.
Buy your Hurricanes at the Hard Rock Café, and you can probably make it through a third before you’ve dimmed enough to believe the Republican talking points on climate change. But by the time you get to The Marigny, they’re making those things with three kinds of rum, a half-gallon of rocket fuel, and the soul of an angry leprechaun.
Most climate models predict the same thing with storms: The more we stray from the climate norm, the stronger the hurricanes become. Which makes a lot of sense when you look at how these tempests work.
Those same models have failed spectacularly.
But will hurricanes find our new climate so likeable that they not only become stronger, but more frequent as well? Here, the science is unsettled. One recent model by Kerry Emanuel of MIT makes some worst-case assumptions and predicts hurricanes getting stronger and more frequent. The majority of climate models, however, predict we won’t see more hurricanes — they’ll just get a hell of a lot worse.
Judith Curry discusses this over at NPR, in terms of the big report that stated that 2005, a big, big hurricane year, would be the new norm
Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she’s soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, “We just don’t know.” (snip)
Curry says her 2005 hurricanes paper “generated a lot of media attention which we were ill-prepared to deal with,” she says. “We were being attacked by the anti-global-warming crowd as well as a large number of people in the hurricane community who thought this was natural variability.”
Curry learned quite a bit over that situation, and she decided to dive in and engage with more than just the True Believers, and now wonders how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural variability. After that paper was published, hurricane landfalls dropped off precipitously. So then Warmists said, as the Grist article notes in a disingenuous way, there won’t be more hurricanes, they’ll just be stronger. Which is false, according to actual data, as opposed to “computer models”. A warmer atmospher should actually cause fewer and weaker. We’ve actually seen some of the worst activity over the past 150 years during early parts of pauses and during slight cooling (late 40’s to late 70’s).
But, Warmists have to keep up the scary stories for their cult. Even making it up, like Gore did with his “category 6” yap yap, for which he was smacked around by science and reality.
Read: Grist: “Climate Change” Creating Bigger, Badder Hurricanes »
I forget what website I was on a couple days ago that was discussing some other issue with Detroit, made I made the comment to the effect that Detroit is the model for that History Channel TV series “Life After People”. I might have been closer to the truth
(Bloomberg) As many as 50,000 stray dogs roam the streets and vacant homes of bankrupt Detroit, replacing residents, menacing humans who remain and overwhelming the city’s ability to find them homes or peaceful deaths.
Dens of as many as 20 canines have been found in boarded-up homes in the community of about 700,000 that once pulsed with 1.8 million people. One officer in the Police Department’s skeleton animal-control unit recalled a pack splashing away in a basement that flooded when thieves ripped out water pipes.
“The dogs were having a pool party,†said Lapez Moore, 30. “We went in and fished them out.â€
Packs of wild dogs? Check. Infrastructure falling apart? Check. Nature taking over? Check. Though some people still live there. Mostly democrats waiting for Someone, probably Government, to come save them.
Read: Detroit Apparently Auditioning For “Life After People” »
…is baby that is bad for carbon pollution, and Everyone Else should be restricted from having them (especially Black people in 3rd world countries), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, who continues to write furiously on the #FreeKate movement.
Read: If All You See… »
Al Gore sat down for an interview with the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, and provides some real howlers. Here’s the part relevant to the headline (via Watts Up With That?)
EK: Give me the optimistic scenario on what happens next. If all goes well, what do the next few years look like on this issue?
AG: Well, I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation. I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation.
The conversation on global warming has been stalled because a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it’s mentioned. It’s like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace. But the political climate is changing. Something like Chris Hayes’s excellent documentary on climate change wouldn’t have made it on TV a few years ago. And as I said, many Republicans who’re still timid on the issue are now openly embarrassed about the extreme deniers. The deniers are being hit politically. They’re being subjected to ridicule, which stings. The polling is going back up in favor of doing something on this issue. The ability of the raging deniers to stop progress is waning every single day.
Al Gore should know about racists and anti-abolitionists, considering his father and his background. Nor is this the first time Gore has called Climate Realists racists. Much like with other subjects, the far Left uses such pejoratives in order to attempt to shut down debate, a debate that Gore and his little minions are losing.
Notice how much Gore talks about politics: that’s because this is a political issue, not a scientific. If it was science, perhaps Gore and his minions, along with all the people involved in the UN IPCC and “climate” research would practice what they preach. But Gore doesn’t want that, he wants cap-and-trade, because he makes a boatload of money off them. And he wants these policies implemented further, because he stands to make money off them, and, unstated, probably because so many carbon trading markets are collapsing, so he needs more that have higher prices.
Al Gore: We have already crossed the 400 parts per million mark. We crossed it earlier this year. The question now is how high it will go before we begin bending the curve. But in spite of the continued released of 90 million tons of global warming pollution every day into the atmosphere, as if it’s an open sewer, we are now seeing the approach of a global political tipping point.
Actually, no, we didn’t cross 400ppm. CO2 is not pollution. And Gore releases way more than his “fair share”, rather than reducing his own “carbon footprint”.
The appearance of more extreme and more frequent weather events has had a very profound impact on public opinion in countries throughout the world. You mentioned my movie back in the day. The single most common criticism from skeptics when the film came out focused on the animation showing ocean water flowing into the World Trade Center memorial site. Skeptics called that demagogic and absurd and irresponsible. It happened last October 29th, years ahead of schedule, and the impact of that and many, many other similar events here and around the world has really begun to create a profound shift.
The extreme weather meme has already been debunked. Sandy was not the first big storm to hit the Tri-state area, nor will it be the last.
If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. That’s what put so much more energy into that storm. That’s what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But they’re stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.
The US hasn’t been hit with a major hurricane since October 24 2005, the longest period on record. Sandy was not a hurricane when it made landfall, and there has only been one landfalling hurricane since 2008, and calling Isaac a hurricane is charitable. No one is adding a 6 to the hurricane scale. What put the energy into Sandy was a cold front. Tornado activity is at an all time low. The seas aren’t rising above average. Drought and flooding are not abnormal. Nothing is stronger.
The man is a hysteric. I used to appreciate his calm, reasoned voice, particularly on real environmental issues, to the point that I voted for him in 2000. He’s off the edge of the map at this point.
Oh yes they did
(Fox News) Kansas and Arizona filed a lawsuit jointly against the federal government Wednesday over requirements needed to register to vote.
The lawsuit demands that the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission modify the federal voter registration form in both states so it would allow for proof of citizenship when people sign up to vote.
The federal form doesn’t require proof of citizenship. It only requires prospective voters to declare that they are citizens.
“A mere oath without concrete evidence of citizenship, as allowed for by the current version of the Federal Form, does not suffice to effectuate the State laws of Plaintiffs or enable Plaintiffs to obtain information Plaintiffs deem necessary to assess the eligibility of voter registration applicants and to enforce their voter qualifications,†the lawsuit reads.
This goes back to the recent 7-2 SCOTUS decision which knocked down State requirements to require proof of citizenship. Talking Points Memo notes that Justice Scalia invited Arizona to sue after the decision
The issue involves the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, also known as the “motor voter†law, which requires states to let people register to vote simply by attesting they are citizens, when renewing their driver’s license or applying for social services. A 2004 law adopted by the voters in Arizona added the requirement that people registering to vote also provide proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court struck down that law earlier this year, concluding that it is trumped by the motor voter law. Arizona, the court ruled, could not add new requirements to the form prescribed by the federal law.
But during oral arguments in March, Scalia expressed his bafflement that Arizona did not launch a broader assault on the constitutionality of the NVRA form, written by the Election Assistance Commission.
Here’s what the Constitution says, Article I Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Liberals take the path that States can never go further than what Federal law states, despite the 9th and 10th Amendments. This is what got Arizona sued over their illegal immigration laws. Stephen Kruiser notes
Put bluntly, Arizona experiences problems with illegal immigrants from Mexico on a far greater scale than any other state, even the other border states. Lawmakers there aren’t attempting to be draconian when they create legislation that requires stricter proof of citizenship, they are trying to get a grip on a problem that has been wreaking havoc in the state for almost half a century. This means they have even more incentive to require voter ID.
For whatever reason, Democrats/Liberals have taken up the cause that people from all over the world should simply be able to come to America illegally, and once here should be given all the rights and privileges, including the ability to vote, of American citizens. Oh, right, the reason is they want more Democrat voters.
Of course, the ACLU is upset by this, forgetting that the “A” stands for “American”. For some reason they don’t want to protect the integrity of the American citizen right to vote and elect without foreign influence.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Kansas And Arizona Sue To Allow Proof Of US Citizenship To Vote »