…is horrible CO2 infused beer causing the Antarctic to get colder which causes the planet to boil, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is House of Eratosthenes, with a post wondering what would be if Palin became president.
Read: If All You See… »
Well, Warmists have pretty much made every weather event, including snow and cold, as the result of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 (via Climate Depot through the k2p blog)
(UK Guardian) Washout summers. Flash floods. Freezing winters. Snow in May. Droughts. There is a growing sense that something is happening to our weather. But is it simply down to natural variability, or is climate change to blame?
To try to answer the question the Met Office is hosting an unprecedented meeting of climate scientists and meteorologists next week to debate the possible causes of the UK’s “disappointing” weather over recent years, the Guardian has learned.
Tuesday’s meeting at the forecaster’s HQ in Exeter is being convened in response to this year’s cool spring, which, according to official records, was the coldest in 50 years.
The “roundtable workshop” will attempt to outline the “dynamical drivers of the cold spring of 2013”, but attendees are expected also to debate the “disappointing summers of the last seven years”.
Official records show that above-average temperatures in summer last occurred in 2006, a season that had above-average sunshine hours, and below-average rainfall. The only summer since then to give us average conditions nationally was in 2010.
The meeting will also discuss the washout summer of 2012 and the freezing winter of 2010-11.
Who wants to place a bet that the result is that cool springs and summers and freaking cold winters will be blamed on Someone Else driving fossil fueled vehicles? the k2p blog writes
But rather than admit that climate models have become a fiasco, it would seem that the “establishment†is now “circling the wagons†and rationalising to be able to connect all weather events to “man-made climate change†– defined as being anything over and above “natural variabilityâ€. Why would the “natural variability†of just the last 150 years be the benchmark. Why would the Little Ice Age or the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period not be part of the “natural variability†to be used as the reference? If the flood levels in Germany this spring reached the same level in Passau 500 years ago, why wouldn’t the weather/climate of 500 years ago also be part of “natural variabilityâ€?
The models are crap. They don’t work. They fail in retrospect. Here’s what Dr. Roy Spencer found
Read: Hooray! Met Office To Proclaim All Weather As “Climate Change” »
And probably a raaaaacist, too boot. So says Robert Kagen of the left leaning Brookings Institute
Immigration reform can prove U.S. strength and security
The debate over immigration will tell us a lot about the state of the national psyche. How do Americans feel about themselves and their nation? Are they confident or insecure? Do they want to go out and compete in new ways in a more competitive world, or do they want to try to shield themselves from the world’s new challenges? Are they in a declinist mode or a revivalist mode? Is the predominant sentiment one of fear or national assertiveness?
Where’s the part about enforcing the rule of law? That seems to be missing.
Historically, there has often been a correlation between national anxiety and insecurity and the desire to limit immigration. The “know-nothings†of the 1850s genuinely feared that U.S. democracy was in danger of being subverted by the wave of Irish and German Catholics who, they alleged, took their orders directly from that great “ally of tyranny,†Pope Pius IX. Proponents of Asian exclusion in the early 1900s feared that Japanese immigrants were, among other things, an advance guard for the coming invasion by the “yellow peril.†And it wasn’t a complete coincidence that the most severe crackdown on immigration came in the 1920s, when Americans, disillusioned by their involvement in World War I and suspicious of a chaotic world, turned determinedly inward. Part of shutting ourselves off from the world included shutting our borders to the world’s refugees.
Again, what’s missing? Well, that would be any mention that those were all positions of the Democrat Party (turning inward also involved Republicans, as the world went into the Great Depression). Democrats made restricting immigration from certain groups official parts of the Party Platforms.
It’s probably not a coincidence that, in today’s debate, the opponents of reform express a mood of pessimism, warning about both the loss of jobs to immigrant workers and the threat of terrorism, as if the present system were ideally suited to protecting jobs or guarding against attacks like that at the Boston Marathon.
Nothing is being reformed: illegals would simply be legalized, then offered a pathway to citizenship. But, hey, you opponents are just silly thinking that adding tens of millions of low wage unskilled workers, soon to be entirely dependent on government handouts is a Bad Idea.
Proponents of reform, on the other hand, take an optimistic view of the U.S. capacity to absorb and benefit from immigration. On the Republican side, they also happen to be the leading proponents of active U.S. involvement in the world, such as longtime internationalists John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Like them, another of the immigration reform bill’s sponsors in the Senate, Marco Rubio, has been a strong advocate for U.S. global leadership. His support for immigration reform clearly stems from his basic confidence in the United States and his desire to ensure that it can continue to compete and lead effectively.
But the majority of Republicans think those 3 Republicans are complete chumps and fools. Democrats now love them because they’re optimistic that by adding roughly 28 million new citizens will create a permanent Democrat controlled government, with so many of them beholden to the government programs. Law? Democrats couldn’t care less about that.
But, if you’re against turning those who broke our laws, abuse our public and private systems, more often than not refuse to learn and speak English, and commit crimes against Americans (like identity theft, rape, burglary, and murder) into citizens quickly, you must be insecure and fearful or something. None of the proponents of the shamnesty scheme can truly offer up deep meaning rationales for legalizing them beyond meaningless platitudes, so they tend to couch it in terms of feelings.
Read: Washington Post: If You Don’t Support Amnesty, It’s Cause You’re Scared »
That’s what super partisan Dana Milbank wants to know
(Washington Post) Where have all the liberals gone?
President Obama, who as a Democratic senator accused the Bush administration of violating civil liberties in the name of security, now vigorously defends his own administration’s collection of Americans’ phone records and Internet activities.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he thinks Congress has done sufficient intelligence oversight. His evidence? Opinion polls.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi defended the programs’ legality and said she wants Edward Snowden prosecuted for leaking details of the secret operations.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, accused Snowden of treason and defended false testimony given to her committee by the director of national intelligence, who in March had denied the programs’ existence.
With some exceptions, progressive lawmakers and the liberal commentariat have been passive and acquiescent toward the secret spying programs, which would have infuriated the left had they been the work of a Republican administration.
In all fairness, it is a mixed bag when it comes the average liberal/progressive: some are for the program, some are against. Some think Snowden should be prosecuted but still did a great service in exposing the extent of the programs. That’s the impression I get when traveling to Left leaning sites. Many, though, are either ignoring the issue or doing all they can to protect Obama, like the good little brain-dead sycophants they are.
Polling this week by The Post and Pew Research Center produced discouraging evidence that Democrats have shed their suspicion of government overreach now that one of their own is in charge. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say that terrorism investigations should trump privacy as the government’s main concern, compared with 51 percent in 2006, when the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program had come to light. Then, 37 percent of Democrats found the NSA’s actions acceptable, compared with 64 percent now. (Republicans went in the other direction, suddenly becoming more privacy-conscious.)
Yet it is jarring to see the left so compliant now that the surveillance has been sanctioned by a Democratic president. Even if the programs ultimately prove defensible, isn’t it worth finding out what they really are, before liberals accept a suspension of civil liberties they may come to regret?
No, really, it’s not jarring, or, at least, shouldn’t to anyone who understands that Progressives love Big Big Government and all that comes with it. Jonah Goldberg referred to Progressivism as “nice fascism”, and along with that comes the notion of spying on fellow citizens, both at the government level and the citizen level. When one talks of Progressives in terms of Government, they are actually way, way, way to the right on the old school political scale, sliding into authoritarianism, particularly in terms of the Economic (government being heavily involved in the private sector) and Moral (citizen’s lives, except for abortion on demand, of course) Cores, as it relates to government control, regulation, rules, and law.
When it comes to the Political Core, ie, voting and involvement, Progressives do what they can to suppress the opposition vote through action, rather than government.
The question that should be asked in a poll is “are you OK with the government potentially spying on you to protect the country from terrorism?” Liberals/progressives would surely say they are not at close to, if not, 100%. On the political left, it’s always about Someone Else. Progressives are A-OK with surveillance as long as it doesn’t involve them. And, let’s face it, their opposition during the George W. Bush years was opposition primarily to Bush the man and that he was a Republican, not to the programs.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Where Have All The Liberals Gone Regarding The Surveillance State? »
Here it comes
(The Hill) A Senate panel will begin consideration of a carbon tax bill as part of a broader hearing on climate change in mid-July.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told reporters in the Capitol on Thursday that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) climate bill will surface during that hearing.
Boxer has said she wants to get the legislation to the floor this summer. But it faces a tough path in the Senate, and is likely dead on arrival in the GOP-controlled House.
At this point, I really have no faith that the Republicans in the Senate nor the GOP controlled House will block this. I’m hopeful, but that’s about it. And this could be a huge issue to gain back the discussion. Look towards Queensland, Australia, where the ruling Labor Party, which forced the passage of the nation’s cap and tax bill, was completely and utterly destroyed during their 2012 elections, to the point where Labor holds so few seats that they aren’t considered a recognized Party. The Aussie government has taken measures to ban free speech regarding their cap and tax program.
Now, this links in to the post below that I wrote Thursday, but never made it around to posting, which highlights exactly how well all this cap and tax, er, trade works. Rather than posting separately, I added the above, which provides context
Sorry, California’s, the Democrats in charge of the government aren’t really concerned if you experience bad weather (via Tom Nelson, who used a different link)
(KQED) The budget deal finalized by Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders Monday night borrows $500 million from California’s cap-and-trade auction revenues, as Brown proposed last month.
The Brown administration’s argument for borrowing the funds: temporarily diverting auction revenue to the general fund gives the state more time to come up with effective programs to improve environmental quality and lower carbon emissions. California has already raised more than $260 million from auctioning off carbon emission rights.
Environmental groups say there are plenty of worthy clean energy projects to spend the money on during the coming fiscal year, but Brown defended the move during a Tuesday afternoon press conference.  “Yeah, we’re borrowing the money,†he said. “We do that with a number of funds. We don’t think we’re quite ready yet, and this is a reasonable accommodation.â€
Absolutely no one should be surprised that the money is not being used as intended: cap and tax is essentially a government slush fund designed to deal with the short-falls from all the other Big Government programs, which means that they will eventually need more money from We The People to pay for all the Bad Weather prevention programs Warmists want.
Read: Democrat Led Senate To Take Up Bad Weather Prevetion Tax »
…is an evil dog which sucks up all the resources of the world causing the oceans to boil, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Camp Of The Saints, with a post on the last days of the GOP.
Read: If All You See… »
My good friend Curmudgeon over at Political Clown Parade notes the recent Coolest SOB in the Blogosphere contest (which I had completely forgotten about, so never tried to pimp my blog for votes)
I was disappointed that so many of the bloggers I know didn’t fare well in the voting process. The sites listed below in alphabetical order are being presented the First Annual Paul Revere Award sponsored by Political Clown Parade.I chose Paul Revere as the icon for the award because he was an American patriot who’s legendary “Midnight Ride†to warn the colonists of Massachusetts before the historic battles at Lexington and Concord played a vital role in America’s struggle to gain independence from Britain.
I’m proud to be a part of this group, most of whom I know here in the Blogosphere, and most of who I link to. I’ll be adding the rest to my sidebar and feedreader.
Read: Poltical Clown Parade Announces The Paul Revere Awards »
In other words, hold onto your wallets, as Obama speaks to people whom which he wants to provide open wallets
(Bloomberg) With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
At closed-door fundraisers held over the past few weeks, the president has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July, according to people who have attended the events or been briefed.
Remember the days when US Presidents would make pronouncements to the press, members of Congress, especially their own party members, and to the American People? Welcome to the Permanent Campaign.
Obama’s promise frequently comes in response to pleas from donors to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s proposed Keystone XL project, a $5.3 billion pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. Opponents of the pipeline say it would increase greenhouse-gas emissions by encouraging use of the tar sands.
While Obama has not detailed the specifics of his plan to the donors, pipeline opponents anticipate the package will include a plan from the Environmental Protection Agency to issue final rules to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants. In April, the EPA delayed issuing the rule after the electric-power industry objected on legal and technical grounds. Since then, the agency has been rewriting the rule to address those concerns.
The White House plan may also include a standard for limits on existing power plants, something EPA officials have said they expect to propose in the next 18 months.
We will certainty have to wait for his rough outline, possibly written on a post-it note with no details. What we can expect are measures that raise the cost of energy, which will raise the price of everything else, raising the overall cost of living for all Americans, that will cause hardship for middle and lower class citizens.
And if you want to see how so much of this is pushed, meet Matthew S. Tejada, yet another environmental justice community organizer who was hired to be a bigshot at the EPA, after being one of the people who constantly sued the EPA.
What we will probably see, regarding Keystone XL, is Obama giving his hearty approval in public, but slapping so many restrictions and regulations to deal with hotcoldwetdry that it cannot be implemented correctly and in a cost effective manner.
Read: Pandering To Keystone XL Foes, Obama Said To Soon Release His Climate Measures »
Byron York noted that Rubio stated that he should have been more artful in his comments to Univision, where he stated that the illegals would be legalized before any sort of border security. I wonder how he’ll walk this one back, via Byron
(Washington Examiner) Why is it necessary to legalize the roughly 11 million currently-illegal immigrants in the U.S. before newly enhanced border security and internal enforcement measures are in place? Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Senate’s Gang of Eight, says part of the reason is that the federal government can’t afford to secure the border on its own and needs financial help from the immigrants themselves, in the form of fines paid when they are legalized.
Rubio made the statement during a radio interview after he voted against an amendment from Republican Sen. Charles Grassley that would have put off legalization until after the border is secure — a position supported by majorities of voters across the political spectrum. Host Andrea Tantaros asked Rubio why he opposed something that was important “to so many in the Republican party?â€
First he stated that “We cannot wait another four years with 11 million people living in this country illegally without knowing who they are or why they’re here” when noting that it would take at least 4 years to get enhanced border security in place. And then
But there was another reason. “We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,†Rubio explained. “If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.â€
This is because Rubio seem disinclined to spend taxpayer money on apparently low level issues like securing and protecting the US southern border. He doesn’t want to borrow and spend the money. Peering into my crystal ball, once the illegals are given legal status, we’ll hear that we haven’t gotten enough money out of them to pay for border security, so, hey, we had a good idea, it didn’t work, so let’s get on with making them voting citizens for 2016.
Then there’s this, which has to be taken with a grain of salt, since the Daily Caller doesn’t say where Rubio made the statement
Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.
“What we have is special,†Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?â€
The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,†the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.
This is the same type of impassioned emotional plea that Democrats make, while also noting that it would be un-American to refuse to accept these people who broke our laws, continuously flouted out laws, drain our social services, demand that they be provided with goods and services, demand that everyone else speak Spanish and provide writings in Spanish, and, in some case, commit crime, including violent ones up to murder, against American citizens. Oh, and let’s not forget the fun one where Mexican illegals demand that the US Southwest be returned to Mexico, or turned into a new Hispanic nation separate from the US.
Morning update: yes, big grain of salt (actually, it is more a steaming pile of mule fritters from the DC), since what Rubio was talking about was getting involved in the Syrian conflict, not immigration. The DC misrepresented what Rubio stated.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan wants to debate anyone who is calling the Gang of 8 bill “amnesty”. Perhaps he should debate the 2010 Marco Rubio.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Rubio: We Need The Illegals Legalized In Order To Pay For Border Security »
Usually, one can count on The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza to be hyper partisan. Yet, this article, written with Sean Sullivan, makes a good point, that people do not really want compromise, despite polls slamming Congress for not compromising and all the yammering that people do. They tell us why
1. Everyone likes the idea of compromise — both in politics and in life more generally. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable people who are always looking for the common-sense middle ground on a given issue and we want our politicians to reflect that approach. But, our desire for compromise goes out the window when it’s an issue that matters to us and/or where we are convinced we are right. Same goes for politics.
2. Compromise doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. One man’s compromise is another’s concession. Detailing what a compromise might actually look like in, say, talks about a grand bargain on debt and spending, would send many compromise-seekers running away from the negotiating table.
3. Compromise isn’t rewarded politically. Remember that large majorities of the House — Democrats and Republicans — face only one real threat to their political careers: a challenge from their ideological left or right. Redistricting, the decennial line-drawing process in all 435 House districts, is one reason for such lopsided districts. Compromise is a dirty word in primaries where the electorate tends to be the most conservative (or most liberal) voters who prize philosophical convictions over pragmatic legislating. There is not only no incentive to compromise then but there is actually a disincentive to do so.
The second point is the biggest one: we do not all think of compromise as the same. We’ve seen this recently with gun control. There are things we can compromise on, things that would make sense and would not violate the 2nd Amendment. Yet, where is that middle point? Where is the point that each side will give something up? Consider abortion: few on either side will meet at any point.
I’m willing to meet Warmists on certain points, but not for hotcoldwetdry. We do need to expand alternatives and find other, cleaner forms of fuel. Their idea of compromise is to tax fossil fuels out of existence and to waste tons of money on companies that are bound to fail (but were good Democrat donors), as well implement massive regulations that control every aspect of Other People’s lives.
There is a 4th point to this, namely that when a compromise is made, one side, and, let’s be honest, it is typically the Democrats, take advantage of that and demand more more more, either during the negotiations or afterwards.
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.
Â