If All You See…

By William Teach August 21, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil dog sucking up Gaia’s resources and causing seas to rise hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, which speaks Liberalese.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Trenberth: IPCC To Change A Lot Based On Government Input

By William Teach August 21, 2013 – 9:27 am

Don’t forget, this is supposed to be about Science (via Tom Nelson)

(Boulder Daily Camera) [Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR] “But how these things get portrayed, and the wording used to describe them, may change, to try to make it more clear. The caveat is that that’s not the final version.”

That was seconded by Trenberth — who has attended the IPCC sessions in the past but won’t be doing so this year.

“It’s going to change a lot,” he said. “How it gets said, and the wording, and what gets emphasized and what gets dismissed is decided by the government representatives. And there is usually a war of sorts that goes on in that room, between governments who are determined to have a clear and accurate report, and some governments who are trying to muddy the language and downgrade the language.

“For the 1990, ’95 and 2001 reports, the main countries that were working to obfuscate and diminish the language were the OPEC countries, led by Saudi Arabia,” Trenberth said. “And the 2007 report, the country with a strong delegation and strong objections was China, backed up by Saudi Arabia.

“There is supposed to be unanimous consensus. And that is very hard to achieve.”

The struggle to reach consensus, Trenberth said, “is an interesting process, but it’s a brutal process. The chair has to have an amazingly robust bladder.”

So, politics, not science. Thanks for the confirmation.

Read: Trenberth: IPCC To Change A Lot Based On Government Input »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Politics, UN | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Climate Change Causes Sea Level To Fall in 2010 And 2011

By William Teach August 21, 2013 – 7:54 am

No, really

(UK Register) Global warming and climate change are usually thought to mean that world sea levels will rise, perhaps disastrously. But according to US government boffins, in recent times (2010 and 2011, to be precise) phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall.

The seas have, of course, been rising steadily as the climate has changed for thousands of years, ever since the end of the last ice age. During the 20th century, according to estimates mostly from erratic tide gauges, sea levels rose by around 1.7mm a year. Since the early 1990s, satellites have also been used to measure sea levels, and by contrast have suggested a steady unchanging rise of about 3mm annually – that is, until 2010.

According to a statement issued yesterday by the US National Science Foundation:

For an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimeters.

And what do they blame this on? The Australian flooding, which like the drought that was supposed to go on forever because of Hotcoldwetdry, is blamed partly/mostly/solely on Mankind. The NSF several weather events came together to create the conditions for such heavy rains, which were then soaked up by the Aussie continent without heading right back to the seas. Because Australia is big. Really big.

(NSF) Fasullo believes there may have been a similar event in 1973-74, which was another time of record flooding.

But modern observing instruments did not exist then, making it impossible to determine what took place in the atmosphere and whether it affected sea level rise.

Wait, weren’t scientists and the media worried about a coming ice age at that time? Wasn’t that the consensus?

Essentially, natural forces will do what natural forces do, and all Mankind can do is adapt to it and deal with it.

Read: Climate Change Causes Sea Level To Fall in 2010 And 2011 »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: NSA Can Only Spy On Roughly 75% Of US Internet Traffic

By William Teach August 21, 2013 – 7:09 am

Do you feel safer?

(Fox News) The National Security Agency’s surveillance network has the capacity to spy on 75 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Citing current and former NSA officials for the 75 percent figure, the paper reported that the agency can observe more of Americans’ online communications than officials have publicly acknowledged.

The NSA’s system of programs that filter communications, achieved with the help of telecommunications companies, is designed to look for communications that either start or end abroad, or happen to pass through the U.S. between foreign countries. However, the officials told the Journal that the system’s reach is so broad, that it is more likely that purely domestic communications will be intercepted as a byproduct of the hunt for foreign ones.

The NSA is claiming that this is all legal and protects the privacy of Americans while still defending security. The question is, “is it constitutional”? Also, “does anyone actually believe the NSA anymore?”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Good News: NSA Can Only Spy On Roughly 75% Of US Internet Traffic »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Liberals Really Excited Over New Book “Christian Nation”

By William Teach August 20, 2013 – 4:52 pm

No, this isn’t a non-fiction book, but the paranoid ravings of what Liberals think might happen if, God some nebulous social justice deity who probably isn’t real anyhow forbid, McCain-Palin had won in 2008. Ace was all over this yesterday, with three posts on the subject. People were making fun of the book on Twitter. Here’s how it goes on Amazon

“They said what they would do, and we did not listen. Then they did what they said they would do.”

So ends the first chapter of this brilliantly readable counterfactual novel, reminding us that America’s Christian fundamentalists have been consistently clear about their vision for a “Christian Nation” and dead serious about acquiring the political power to achieve it. When President McCain dies and Sarah Palin becomes president, the reader, along with the nation, stumbles down a terrifyingly credible path toward theocracy, realizing too late that the Christian right meant precisely what it said.

In the spirit of Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, one of America’s foremost lawyers lays out in chilling detail what such a future might look like: constitutional protections dismantled; all aspects of life dominated by an authoritarian law called “The Blessing,” enforced by a totally integrated digital world known as the “Purity Web.” Readers will find themselves haunted by the questions the narrator struggles to answer in this fictional memoir: “What happened, why did it happen, how could it have happened?”

Obviously, many lefties are orgasming over this book, per the reviews on the page

  • “The scariest thing about Christian Nation is that it’s so plausible. No violent revolution, no blood in the streets, is necessary for Americans to lose their freedoms—just a failure to defend the liberties that we often take for granted.” (the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State)
  • “This riveting novel should join Sinclair Lewis’s It Can Happen Here as an American classic…Please, read this book and then pass it on to six other people, making it into a chain letter for liberty.” (Nadine Strossen, former president, American Civil Liberties Union)
  • “Rich’s Christian Nation is more than a ‘what if’—as the ‘theocratic program’ unfolds our usual ‘So what?’ regarding fundamentalism of any variety becomes the real danger. Pay attention. What’s at stake is the heart and soul of American democracy.” (Rev. Dr. James A. Kowalski, dean, The Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine)

USA Today has another take

‘Christian Nation’ falls flat, despite milking liberal fears

….

It’s not a comedy. It is an earnest, heavily researched warning about what Rich sees as the real-life threat to democracy and tolerance posed by the religious right.

That means it will be judged less on literary merit than political leanings. If there was ever a blue-state novel, this is it.

Intentionally or not, those last two lines hit at the crux of the matter: the book is heavy on pushing politics and short on entertainment. I have no problem with Liberals engaging in these types of fantasies, no matter how utterly far-fetched they are. Conservatives/Libertarians certainly publish books that engage in the same type of “what if” speculation. I generally avoid the heavily political fiction books (I don’t mind a bit of politics, but, keep it simple), but there are two I’ve read in the last year or so, An Act Of Self Defense by Erne Lewis and In Due Time by J.K. Jones, that are spectacular. The first is about the need for term limits in a State that is increasingly tyrannical. The latter is actually a time travel book that mixes in what would happen if the US becomes super Progressive. The difference here is that both those books understand the cardinal rule: Entertainment First. I’ve started a few that did not understand this, and put them away.

Lefties do not seem to understand that entertainment must come first. That’s why their talk radio fails, while Hannity, Rush, Boortz before he retired, etc had/have large audiences for long periods of time. This is why liberal movies keep failing. Who wants to pay for this stuff? Not even liberals. The last movie, and one of the only successful ones, was Fahrenheit 911. Since then there’s been a string of political heavy liberal movies that flop. Heck, even some movies that are light on liberalism have failed this summer.

Quite frankly, it sounds really, really dull. And preachy. Lefties will eat this up, but, then, they are gluttons for punishment. And prefer to be miserable. So, the book should help them out with that misery. Plus their paranoid fantasies of a coming Christian Theocracy. But, hey, don’t mention the notion that Islamists are actually working to take over the world and install their hard line version of Islam, because that would be silly. Even though they tell us this in the real world.

More: one thing I wanted to mention was another book that tried to go down a mega-liberal consiracy/fantasy/moonbat paranoid fantasy, namely The Shell Game by Steve Alten. Alten has written some excellent scifi books, such as the Meg serious, The Loch (a very good and even realistic look at the Loch Ness Monster), and others. But, Shell Game was horrible. Because it was so overtly over the top leftists, focusing on politics rather than entertainment.

Read: Liberals Really Excited Over New Book “Christian Nation” »

Posted in Books, Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an evil moo-cow causing ice caps to melt, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post noting people fleeing NY state have taken $46 billion with them.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

WSJ: Even The EPA Admits Biofuels Are A Disaster

By William Teach August 20, 2013 – 11:36 am

Biofuels, including ethanol, might be workable in the future. Heck, using sugar as fuel seems to be working well in Brazil. But, what’s being done in America, and much of the developed world, where it is mostly food being used to develop fuels, is an unmitigated disaster (article is behind the paywall. You can see the full thing here)

Put a Corn Cob in Your Tank

A strong candidate for the most expensive policy blunder of recent years would have to be the mandate to blend corn ethanol and other biofuels into the nation’s gasoline supply. This month even the Environmental Protection Agency essentially acknowledged that the program is increasingly unworkable and costly to consumers. The EPA just won’t do much to fix it.

When these mandates were enacted in 2007 under George W. Bush, biofuels were sold as the wonder-fuel of the future: a cheap and plentiful domestic energy source to compete with OPEC oil and reduce global warming. Six years later none of those predictions have panned out.

One of the biggest debacles has been the law’s requirement that the oil and gas industry mix cellulosic ethanol—made from the likes of switch grass and wood chips—into gasoline. The original law mandated the use of one billion gallons of cellulosic fuel in 2013, with even higher levels through 2022. This may have been the worst government forecast in history, which is saying something. Even with taxpayer subsidies, total cellulosic volume in 2012 was about 20,000 gallons. The government was off by a mere 99.9%.

The WSJ goes on to describe many of the issues revolving around cellulosic fuels, including that the fossil fuels industry has to pass on costs of fines for not using fuels that do not exist. Then into the silliness of the corn based ethanol mandates, and ends with

Maybe, but the biofuels program is a failure that can’t be fixed with tweaks. If ethanol is the miracle fuel its defenders say it is, why must its use be mandated? The effect of the quotas has been to raise gas prices and make food more expensive as corn goes to fuel rather than food. A rash of studies also shows no net reduction or even an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol.

But no matter how indefensible the program, no one in the White House and few in Congress want to take on Big Corn. Americans should remember whom to thank the next time they pay $4 a gallon at the pump.

We should also remember that ethanol fuels provide less MPG than standard fuels. Oh, and that the cost increases raise the price of everything that requires delivery by autos and planes.

And lest the typical Warmist starts caterwauling about the WSJ being a supposed “far right” news source, even the NY Times noticed a few years ago that using food for fuel is a Bad Idea.

Read: WSJ: Even The EPA Admits Biofuels Are A Disaster »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Energy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: New Study Finds Tree Ring Proxies “Seriously Compromised”

By William Teach August 20, 2013 – 9:59 am

Usually I focus on the politics of “climate change”, throwing in a few facts and scientific data. Here’s a bit of true science I noticed while going through the feedreader

(The Hockey Schtick) More bad news for Michael Mann: A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that ‘modern sample bias’ has “seriously compromised” tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an “artificial positive signal [e.g. ‘hockey stick’] in the final chronology.” Needless to say, Mann’s hockey sticks are also seriously compromised by statistical techniques that produce hockey sticks from random numbers, use of upside-down data, the trick to hide the decline, the most important tree in the world, use of bristlecone pines which were condemned by the NAS for use as temperature proxies, and a complete lack of validation skill.

(From paper excerpt) Dendrochronologists observed that the older a tree was, the slower it tended to grow, even after controlling for age- and time-driven effects. The result is an artificial downward signal in the regional curve (as the older ages are only represented by the slower growing trees) and a similar artificial positive signal in the final chronology (as earlier years are only represented by the slow growing trees), an effect termed modern sample bias. When this biased chronology is used in climate reconstruction it then implies a relatively unsuitable historic climate. Obviously, the detection of long term 15 trends in tree growth, as might be caused by a changing climate or carbon fertilization, is also seriously compromised (Brienen et al., 2012b). More generally, modern sample bias can be viewed as a form of “differing-contemporaneous-growth-rate bias”, where changes in the magnitude of growth of the tree ring series included in the chronology over time (or age, in the case of the regional curve) skew the final curve, especially 20 near the ends of the chronology where series are rapidly added and removed (Briffa and Melvin, 2011).

…..

Analyzing 1200 randomly selected published chronologies, we find that regional curve standardization is improved by adding an effect for individual tree productivity in 99% of cases, reflecting widespread differing-contemporaneous-growth rate bias. Furthermore, modern sample bias produced a significant negative bias in estimated tree growth by time in 70.5% of chronologies and a significant positive bias in 29.5% of chronologies. This effect is largely concentrated in the last 300 yr of growth data, posing serious questions about the homogeneity of modern and ancient chronologies using traditional standardization techniques.

This shouldn’t be anything unexpected: so much of the Warmists so-called science has serious issues, if not outright fraud. It is based on opinions and political biases. The Hockey Schtick also points towards another paper that finds climate models “substantially erroneous” because the models assume the world is flat.

Read: Bummer: New Study Finds Tree Ring Proxies “Seriously Compromised” »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmists Really Hate Robust Debate

By William Teach August 20, 2013 – 9:47 am

Just a quickie post. Many of you know that Grist is one of my favorite environmental/Warmist websites, which I cite quite often. I was trying to comment on David Roberts stating that he’s taking a year off, because he’s burnt out. I found out that I’ve apparently been blacklisted from commenting there, receiving a “you don’t have permission to post on this thread” message. Same with every other article.

They probably do not appreciate that I constantly offer real world rebuttal material, as well as call out the Warmists for not practicing what they preach. Dissension is not allowed in Liberal World.

Read: Warmists Really Hate Robust Debate »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Jonathan Chait Really Upset Over Voter Suppression In Obama’s Illinois

By William Teach August 20, 2013 – 9:28 am

Oh, wait, sorry, Jonathan Chait, another in a long line of Liberal race baiters and grievance mongers, doesn’t bother to mention Obama’s homestate and their voting restrictions, but instead whines about North Carolina in completely raaaaacist terms

Modern Vote Suppression Better Than Jim Crow, Still Pretty Bad

A pervasive sense of racial victimization has afflicted conservatives during the Obama years — the feeling that they are beset by a combination of false accusations of racism and actual anti-white racial animus that they dare not denounce lest they trigger still more false accusations of racism. That bundle of grievances resurfaced last week when North Carolina Republicans passed sweeping restrictions on voting rights, and Hillary Clinton declared in a speech, “Anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention.”

Cast once again as the heirs to the political tradition of the segregated South, conservatives have lashed back. It is certainly true that modern Republican vote suppression pales in comparison with the pre-1965 version, in method and scale, to the point where equating the two is absurd. Segregated states used violence and “literacy tests” to disenfranchise the vast majority of the black population. The modern analogue instead works around the margins. Nobody is forcibly prohibited from voting. Instead, bureaucratic hurdles discourage some small share of disproportionately Democratic voters from voting.

Four points. 1st, what fantasy world do liberals like Chait live in? 2nd, read the rest of Chait’s race baiting article for a good laugh. Or perhaps you’ll be at the screen with the same type of face your spouse makes when you’ve done something really dumb. 3rd, let’s make sure to note that the pre-1965 voter suppression, which involved violence, occurred at the hands of Democrats.

4th, let’s note that Chait fails to call out any of the Democrat/Northern states which feature similar laws. Illinois, Obama’s home state, requires ID to vote. Granted, it does not go as far as NC’s in requiring picture ID to vote at the polling place on election day. But, for early voting, you are required to have government issued picture ID. People need two forms of ID in order to register to vote. The number of early voting days is 15, compared to NC’s 10 (which includes increased hours and polling places). The national average of those states that do feature early voting (not all do) is 21. You must vote in your own precinct on election day.

Hawaii has required ID for a long time. VP Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware requires some form of ID to vote, not necessarily a picture ID, you could use a utility bill. In order to vote early, you have to have a legitimate excuse. Same with absentee voting. There is no same day registration to vote in Delaware as of yet.

Why is Chait not complaining about those states? Because, apparently, he, like many in the Democrat Party, think Blacks in the South are incapable of obtaining a proper ID and following the rules. Maybe he, like the other Dems, think Southern Blacks are too dumb, to incompetent, to poor to obtain a proper ID. Perhaps Chait is remembering the days when Democrats suppressed Black voting rights. Going after Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii, and other states that see lots of Dems elected would blow out the raaaaacism narrative Democrats like Chait need to validate their fantasies, as well as whip the voting base up.

I like this comment by Morgan Frost about the article

All of this is terribly amusing, but it doesn’t explain why it should be so burdensome for someone to identify himself before casting a vote. An ID card is easy to obtain and is cheap (or, in case of need, free). It’s necessary to purchase alcohol, get on a plane, buy a gun, drive a car, or enter a courthouse. As a voter, I believe that demonstrating that I am who I claim to be prior to casting my vote secures my right, rather than undermining it.

Well, you know, Morgan, raaaaacism.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Jonathan Chait Really Upset Over Voter Suppression In Obama’s Illinois »

Posted in Democrats, Election Fraud, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove