…are evil beer cans infused with world boiling CO2 causing a massive droughtflood world, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on Team Obama knowing for months that Obamacare wouldn’t work.
Read: If All You See… »
Warmists could find and focus on the negatives of finding a huge gold deposit in their back yards
(Treehugger) One hypothesis about the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now has significant supporting scientific evidence.
Scientists speculated that a “CO2 fertilization effect” would occur as CO2 levels rose. The fertilization effect proposes that additional CO2 in the air allows leaves to extract more carbon during photosynthesis at less water cost to the plant. (snip. I’m leaving out some relevant info, because I’m old school and refuse to excerpt most of the article. Make sure you read the whole thing)
Scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) have untangled these confounding influences with the help of mathematical models and satellite imagery of the earth’s arid regions. They found that an 11 percent average increase in foliage between 1982 and 2010 can be attributed to a CO2 fertilization effect.
Well, that sounds like good news, right? Deserts having more plants should be a Good Thing, right? Alas, not for Warmists
How will blooming deserts affect our planet? Lead scientist Dr. Randall Donohue observes:
On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example.
God, but these are depressing people. But, um, wouldn’t more plant life be good for the “carbon cycle”, sucking more of that EVIL CO2 out of the atmosphere? Wouldn’t more plantlife be good for biodiversity, providing more food, shelter, the ability to capture dew which gives life more water, etc? According to Warmists, more plants are now Bad.
Read: CO2 Making Deserts Bloom, And That’s Apparently A “Bad Thing” »
One of the things I adore when it comes to the “climate change” debate is that Warmists are always coming up with new ways to amuse me. Sure, Democrats/Liberals/Progressives (you can add in Marxists, Socialists, and authoritarians in, too) can be maddening, and Warmists are primarily made up of those people, but their unhinged pronouncements bring the frivolity on a constant basis. Oh, look, here’s Excitable Joe Romm, a paid flack who pushes “climate change” (let’s be clear, “climate change” means man induced Bad Weather per the Warmists) at far far left George Soros’ Climate Progress
Hmm, Joe mixes up a few different entertainment shows. First he goes for the show about meth, Breaking Bad, then Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind (has anyone ever considered that the aliens are actually jerks? They kidnap a whole bunch of humans, some for decades, and a child during the movie. And during the timeframe of the movie they are screwing with people’s head’s, one of whom, being Richard Dreyfuss’ character, sees his family abandon him him along with losing his job because of the mental screwing)
A climate science denier of the first kind simply denies basic climate science, that, say the Earth is warming or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Given that both of those are basically “settled facts,†according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, we tend to see fewer and fewer of the CSD1s, in part because the media doesn’t take them terribly seriously. Only very famous CSD1s, like Sen. Jim Inhofe, get much press these days.
I will note, as I have many times, that I will argue with anyone who states that the world hasn’t warmed since the 1850’s. As far as CO2 goes, first, it follows temperature increases, not precedes it. Second, if it is so bad, why are Warmists some of the worst “carbon offenders”?
Climate science deniers of the second kind say that they accept basic climate science — so they aren’t ignored by the media — but then just assert that it isn’t going to be a big deal. They usually latch on to some tiny subset of the recent literature to make this argument. You have to cherry pick your science very carefully to be a CSD2 since as 2010 research presented at the AAAS presentation “concluded“: New scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC report are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is “worse than previously expected,†rather than “not as bad as previously expected.†And, of course, you have to ignore the fact that if the world actually keeps listening to CSD2s and taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution, then worst-case scenarios are all but unavoidable (see here). I would call Bjorn Lomborg the prototypical CSD2, except that he changes his position so often it’s hard to know what he really believes now.
To be clear, these are people who accept that Mankind is responsible for at least 50% of the warming since the Little Ice Age ended, but aren’t concerned about the effects and don’t think we should spend oodles of money while reducing people’s freedom, and should not be giving government more and more dictatorial powers.
A climate science denier of the third kind is the rarest of all. A CSD3 says that they accept basic climate science but then starts making arguments that effectively deny that science. Indeed a CSD3 who is rhetorically clever often says he or she used to believe in climate science, but then supposedly looked into the matter closely and was shocked, shocked to learn that they had been misled. The late Michael Crichton comes to mind.
Actually, this type isn’t rare at all: most of us are part of the 3rd kind. We understand basic climate science and see that those who believe that Mankind is mostly or solely responsible for creating the Modern Warm Period (or starting with whatever year is convenient for their argument) are full of bat guano. We use their own data against them. We understand that computer models are not real world data. We understand that Warmists continuously have to change the data and their arguments in order to keep their cult going.
The rest of the article is simply personal smears aimed at Matt Ridley, which I shall not repeat. But what of Climate Deniers Of The Fourth Kind? What would they be? Joe doesn’t say, so I’ll offer up…
Climate Science Deniers of the Fourth Kind are the penultimate worst kinds. These are people who buy into every pronouncement regarding Mankinds horrendous and evil role in making the Earth hotcoldwetdry. They believe that too much warmth causes it to get cold and snowy. They believe that the release of a trace greenhouse gas necessary for life causes earthquakes, volcanoes, Bad Weather, and virtually everything that happens. They smooth, normalize, spin, and falsify data in order to fit their preconceived notions, the very opposite of science. Their models fail in the real world but always give the answer the CDS4 folks want. The fail to follow the scientific model.
Their solutions revolve around more and more taxation and more and more Big Government, which creates more and more fascistic controls on people and economies. They mostly refuse to release their raw data, and when they do, the data fails. And they themselves refuse to practice what they preach. Yet they want everyone else to get the government “anal probes”, ie, higher taxes and control of their lives, such as what they can drive, what fuels they can use, what foods they can eat, what they must do with their homes and businesses to be “green”. Warmists always think the anal probes are for Someone else.
They’re also virulent racists and bigots, as they do not want people in the Third World to have the same benefits of modern lifestyle like Warmists themselves live.
Michael McConnell notes that (NMP) Obama is acting more like an English king of old
(Wall Street Journal) President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”
To make sure that American presidents could not resurrect a similar prerogative, the Framers of the Constitution made the faithful enforcement of the law a constitutional duty.
This is in terms, obviously, of Obama deciding he would suspend the employer mandate until January 1, 2015 despite the text of Obamacare stating that it must be enforced starting 1/1/2014. A president can, per the DOJ, decline to enforce laws he/she thinks are unconstitutional (which has never been tested in court), but cannot simply decline to enforce laws in the way they are written. POTUS cannot simply change the law.
This is not the first time Mr. Obama has suspended the operation of statutes by executive decree, but it is the most barefaced. In June of last year, for example, the administration stopped initiating deportation proceedings against some 800,000 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16, lived here at least five years, and met a variety of other criteria. This was after Congress refused to enact the Dream Act, which would have allowed these individuals to stay in accordance with these conditions. Earlier in 2012, the president effectively replaced congressional requirements governing state compliance under the No Child Left Behind Act with new ones crafted by his administration.
Imagine if this was George W. Bush doing this, or a President McCain or Romney…
Democrats too may acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s action, as they have his other aggressive assertions of executive power. Yet what will they say when a Republican president decides that the tax rate on capital gains is a drag on economic growth and instructs the IRS not to enforce it?
McConnell goes on to mention, regarding “immigration reform”, what’s the point when POTUS (specifically Obama) could arbitrarily decide not to bother enforcing parts of the law he hates, something many pundits, including myself, have noted after Obama decided to un-Constitutionally decided to suspend the employer mandate.
It’s rather serendipitous that Obama would decide to ignore the law so near Independence Day.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: WSJ: King Obama Suspends The Law »
Alex B. Berezow says “not by a long shot”
(Real Clear Science) It’s particularly trendy among politicians and members of the media to be worried about climate change. When President Obama recently spoke before a crowd in Berlin, he said that climate change “is the global threat of our time.â€
But that’s not true. Just a cursory glance around the world reveals that, given the enormous problems facing our planet, it would be surprising if climate change cracked a list of the top 10 immediate concerns.
As I discussed in my book Science Left Behind, the single biggest threat facing humanity is poverty. That’s a mundane topic; it’s neither sexy nor trendy, but it’s nonetheless true.
1.3 billion have absolutely no power. People in poverty have little access to power. Nor proper healthcare. Potable water. Good food. Yet, Warmists want to make sure that these people in poverty see huge sums of money wasted on alternative energy projects that those in poverty still can’t afford.
Basically, what the average person in the Westernized world considers to be a big problem is rarely aligned with reality. Instead, our concerns are more of a reflection of what our culture and the media say our concerns should be.
Worrying about “climate change” is a 1st World problem.
Read: Is “Climate Change” Really The World’s Biggest Problem? »
Here’s Al Gore’s Climate Reality CEO Maggie Fox providing yet another July 4th rant about fossil fuels. Apparently she wants everyone to stop breathing (via Tom Nelson)
Declaring Our Independence from Carbon Pollution
Last week, I watched President Obama stand up to the fossil fuel industry and all their friends in Congress and for future generations as he outlined his national Climate Action Plan. The speech was clear sighted on both the core problem of carbon pollution and the fact we’re already paying for it in spades. It was bold in following through on a promise to take action if Congress failed. Most important, though, this was the first time in a generation when a U.S. president officially broke the silence on climate change with a real plan.
Perhaps Ms. Fox should tell Obama, and Gore, to stop taking fossil fueled trips around the world.
To put it another way, it’s up to us. If we want to solve climate change, we have to stand up and get involved. We have to talk with our friends, families and networks, and help them understand the truth of the crisis, how it affects them and what we can do to solve it. Then, together we have to make our leaders listen.
Strange. There’s nothing in there about “hey, us Warmists need to practice what we preach”.
As a nation, we’ve always risen to the challenge, and today, this looks to be one of the greatest of them all. Our freedom to make the life we want really is at stake here, threatened by seas that would swallow towns and extreme weather that’s hitting us harder, more often, and with higher costs than ever before.
Idiocy and scaremongering based on lies and and absence of science. But, you know, our entire freedom is at stake despite a statistically insignificant rise in temperature over the last 15+ years even as CO2 levels have risen.
Read: Warmist: “Climate Change” Threatens Our Very Freedom Or Something »
Trackback URL
…is a world turned into a desert because Someone Else refused to take public transit, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Capitalist Preservation, with a post on getting over this “democratically elected” claptrap.
Read: If All You See… »
Oh, wait, no, that’s not what Warmist Scott Vrooman wants. Instead, he provides some handy dandy tips on how all the snowflakes can talk to their parents about “climate change”
I don’t expect public opinion on climate change will be swayed by columnists and pundits preaching to their choirs. Those who want to ignore the vast scientific evidence on the subject have likely already skipped to the comment section below to try to convince you that since I’m not shouting these things naked from a wooden hut in the middle of a bog, I’m a hypocrite and deserve to be ignored.
Um, well, yeah. If you’re not, you’re a hypocrite. But, then, 99.9% of Warmists are hypocrites.
For those still reading, I have a suggestion. Most of us don’t have millions of dollars to go toe-to-toe with the disinformation campaign being waged by the oil and gas industry. But most of us do have living parents. So let’s talk to them about climate change. Because if we can’t convince the people who love us more than anything in the world to take action on climate, who can we convince?
No, Warmists have the backing of governments with deeper pockets along with all sorts of Liberal groups and donors. But, that’s a cute strawman you’ve built. Anyhow, here’s Scott’s ideas
This is similar to the 1st World Problem of parents talking to their kids about hotcoldwetdry. Fortunately, an entire generation will soon graduate having experienced no statistically significant warming.
Read: Hey, Kids, Tell Your Parents To Stop Driving You Around In Fossil Fueled Vehicles »
Trackback URL
I’ll never understand how abortion became one of the sacraments for Liberals, how they push for unfettered abortion access with no regulations. This is the same group which wants more and more restrictions on gun ownership, despite there actually being a Constitutional Amendment in support of gun rights. Back during the debate post Sandy Hook I asked if Liberals would support any common sense restrictions on abortion: the answer, as we see, is “no”. I offered a reasonable compromise, Democrats would not support it. North Carolina has passed some common sense legislation that is meant to protect women, yet liberals are against something simple like abortion clinics having to be treated as outpatient centers…it’s not like “doctors” are yanking a fetus out of a woman or something.
Anyhow, here’s Beth Merfish, who seems super-duper proud that her mother had an abortion
My mother chose to abort her first pregnancy, in 1972. She and my father, who celebrated 40 years of marriage on Jan. 6 this year, met as undergraduates at the University of Texas, Austin. They got engaged. Then my mother became pregnant. She was 20, and he was 21.
They knew they were thoroughly unprepared to be parents, but abortion was illegal in Texas at the time (unless a woman’s life was at risk). This was the year before the United States Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, a case originating in Texas, affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion until the fetus was viable.
So the baby had to pay for the failure of Beth’s parents to practice responsible, protected sex, leading to a pregnancy that was apparently “inconvenient” for her parent’s lifestyle.
Until recently, fear of shame has kept her quiet about her experience, even as she passionately, publicly supported reproductive freedom. This is the first time we’ve discussed her abortion in public.
Beth discusses the abortion as if it was something to be proud of. Liberals really are sick, demented people.
What the movement for reproductive rights needs is for the faces of freedom to emerge from the captivity of shame. To my mother’s generation, I ask: Speak openly about the choices you have made. To all women: ask your mothers, grandmothers, godmothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and partners about their reproductive histories. Show that abortion has myriad faces: those of women we love, respect and cherish. You have the power to cement in the minds of your communities and families the importance of reproductive freedom. You have made decisions that are private, even anguishing, but the weight of this political moment demands that you shed light on those decisions.
These people are shameless. Having an abortion is nothing to be proud of, and should be kept private. Having an abortion (except in cases of rape or incest) shows that the mother engaged in reckless sexual conduct and now one of God’s children has to pay the price.
The opposition is frightening, as more states try to restrict abortion, but there is tremendous power and safety in numbers. You are part of a society of women who have been incredibly courageous; I ask humbly for yet another show of that bravery.
What’s frightening is that these abortion supporters will not accept any measures. They won’t allow restrictions on late term abortions, abortions after 20 weeks, parental notification, heck, even requiring that a sonogram be taken and having a miniscule 24 hour cool down period is too much for abortion supporters. Requiring women to pay for their own abortions and disallowing federal funding? To hear abortion supporters, this is like chaining women to the stove.
Having an abortion is not courageous: it shows that these women (and the men who support abortion on demand) should be treated like the mental children they are. They do not have the mental makeup to be allowed within adult society, they have no adult responsibility. It is not courageous to kill the unborn. How did it come to thinking that having an abortion and talking about it like one would mention removing a cyst is courageous and brave? These people are sick and disgusting.
Read: NY Times: What Abortion Needs Is The Face Of Freedom Or Something »
Rarely a day goes by without one of the big news sites complaining in some form or fashion about the coming hike in the student loan percentage. It could be an elected politician, a student group, or Obama, or simply the news outlet. Like today in The Politico
Congress returns to Washington this week groping for a way to retroactively fix a high-profile doubling of some federal student loan rates.
The rate for new subsidized loans shot up from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 after divisions among Senate Democrats made finding a solution untenable. Now with the bright lights of the immigration bill off the upper chamber, student loan rates take center stage.
In the days since the missed deadline, Washington’s political apparatus has been a muddle of messaging. House Republicans are blasting Senate Democrats for not passing a bill as the lower chamber has done, albeit one that President Barack Obama has threatened to veto. And lawmakers from both parties are now using the #DontDoubleMyRate hashtag on Twitter, first popularized by Obama at the height of last year’s presidential campaign.
Democrats in the Senate are angling for a 1 year extension of the 3.4% rate. Why not a permanent extension? Remember this?
So, here we are — with a majority of Americans feeling distinctly un-American as a partisan takeover of health care was engineered last weekend. But do Americans realize that Congress just took over student loans as well? Unlikely.
Now, not only will government increasingly be making decisions about individuals’ health care, but students will also have to deal exclusively with the government to get the financing they need for college. The government will be in charge of the delivery of $1 trillion in federal student loans over the next 10 years. That means 19 million students will have no where to call but to 1-800-DEPT-OF-ED. — I’m sure the calls will be handled in the order in which they were received. Good luck with that. Competition and choice have been taken away in the student loan market. Â Let’s face it, this experiment can only end badly.
Government money has been mostly backing student loans since the 1960’s, but Obamacare went and removed the private sector in terms of payouts and funding (some claim that it completely disallows private education loans). Oh, and then there’s this
Two years ago, Obamacare was passed. As part of the unconstitutional monstrosity, the Democrats introduced a nationalization of the college student loan program which was used to boost the phony revenues the federal government will supposedly realize through Obamacare; in other words, it was a gimmick to make it look like Obamacare would reduce the deficit (long since debunked). (There’s more; read this 2010 piece by Tim Carney.)
Obamacare increased the interest percent to 6.8% in the first place as a way of increasing revenue to fund Obamacare and help the CBO score. Then, in order to patronize students with elections coming up, the rate was lowered (the gov borrows the money at 2.8% and then lends it at 3.4%? In what world does that make sense?) So the 6.8% rate was not a bug, but a necessary feature. If students want to blame anyone, they can blame Obama and the Democrats, who supported Obamacare, voted for it, signed it into law, and never bothered to read it.
As a sidebar, let’s note that The Government doesn’t restrict loans in other sectors. These same students can pay up to 24.99% in interest in North Carolina (in some small cases, 27.50%). Credit cards can be much higher than the student loan rates. Motorcycles, small business loans, etc can be at higher rates. Why are student loans treated differently? These are folks with no income and there is no guarantee that the loans will be paid back. And the taxpayer is left on the hook so that students can get a degree and in the Obamaeconomy perhaps get a low paying part time job, again thanks to Obamacare.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: As People Complain About Student Loans, Don’t Forget: Obamacare »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.