If All You See…

By William Teach June 8, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooded world thanks to Other People refusing to install smart meters, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is All American Blogger, with a post on Ted Cruz’s response to the NSA spying

Read: If All You See… »

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

Obama Wants Cyber-Attacks List Created

By William Teach June 8, 2013 – 11:07 am

This is horrible, horrible, terrible news, a massive scandal…um, wait

(Guardian) Barack Obama has ordered his senior national security and intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks, a top secret presidential directive obtained by the Guardian reveals.

The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) “can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging”.

It says the government will “identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power”.

There are good leaks, and bad leaks, and “you don’t say” leaks. Many are decrying this as some sort of scandal and shows the tyranny of Obama. I’m going to disagree and defend Obama on this. I’d be upset if he hadn’t ordered this in this day and age. The US government, especially the DOD, has always had plans. Plans to fight a war, even first strikes, against our best allies. There are surely plans involving Canada, the U.K., heck, probably the Canary Islands. In this day and age we need plans for cyber-attacks.

So, in this case, Obama was doing the correct thing.

Read: Obama Wants Cyber-Attacks List Created »

Posted in Barry Obama | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Oh, Noes, Earth’s Alarm Bells Are Ringing!!!!!!

By William Teach June 8, 2013 – 8:08 am

Unsurprisingly, the two op-ed authors, Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth…you remember, Kevin, right? He’s the one who wrote the email which said “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”, among others…start out by forgetting to actually mention science. But, you know, alarm bells

In a recent op-edfor The Post, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) offered up a reheated stew of isolated factoids and sweeping generalizations about climate science to defend the destructive status quo. We agree with the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that policy should be based on sound science. But Smith presented political talking points, and none of his implied conclusions is accurate.

So the two are going to rebut what they call Smith’s talking points with….talking points!

The two of us have spent, in total, more than seven decades studying Earth’s climate, and we have joined hundreds of top climate scientists to summarize the state of knowledge for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Climate Research Program and other science-based bodies. We believe that our views are representative of the 97 percent of climate scientists who agree that global warming is caused by humans. Legions of studies support the view that, left unabated, this warming will produce dangerous effects. (This commentary, like so much of our work, was a collaborative process, with input from leading climate scientists Julia Cole, Robert W. Corell, Jennifer Francis, Michael E. Mann, Jonathan Overpeck, Alan Robock, Richard C.J. Somerville and Ben Santer.)

How many times will Warmists push that discredited 97% study? Remember, 32% of the papers included take a stance on man-induced global hotcoldwetdry. 97% of the 32% say Mankind has an effect, yet over 50% say that Man bears responsibility of more than 50% of the perceived warming. Heck, I take a position that Mankind bears a small burden for any global and local (UHI/land use) warming.

Man-made heat-trapping gases are warming our planet and leading to increases in extreme weather events. Droughts are becoming longer and deeper in many areas. The risk of wildfires is increasing. The year 2012, the hottest on record for the United States, illustrated this risk with severe, widespread drought accompanied by extensive wildfires.

Extreme weather has been debunked, too. And it was the lower 48, not the United States. Alaska has been cooling, to the tune of 2.4F over the last 10 years. Much of Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and Antarctica have been cooling. Most of the Southern Hemisphere hasn’t noticed any warming. And, as I’ve written ad nauseum, the global temp has gone up only 0.28F since 1990 and 0.14F since 1997. Not numbers to get excited over.

Last month, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million, approaching the halfway mark between preindustrial amounts and a doubling of those levels. This doubling is expected to cause a warming this century of four to seven degrees Fahrenheit. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide reached this level was more than 3 million years ago, when Arctic lands were covered with forests. The unprecedented rate of increase has been driven entirely by human-produced emissions.

No, it didn’t actually break the 400ppm level, so they’re lying. 2nd, Arctic lands had trees? So, this happened before? It’s not unusual? Whoops!

Computer model projections from at least 27 groups at universities and other research institutes in nine countries have proved solid. In many cases, they have been too conservative, underestimating over the past 20 years the amounts of recent sea-level rise and Arctic sea ice melt.

No, they haven’t. And sea rise has been well within the historical norm for the last 7000-8000 years as a mild warm period. Consider, the average sea rise over that time is 6-8 inches. This is between cool and warm periods. How do you get an average? Well, if we refer to math, it means that there are going to be observations above and below that average, say, 16 and 0. That gives us the average. The mean 20th century average was 8 inches. If this was a big warm period, we should expect much more.

I could go on and fisk pretty much ever paragraph they write, exposing the science talking points. They even blame Superstorm Sandy on “climate change”. And if they’re using that term, they’re interested in politics, not science.

Read: Oh, Noes, Earth’s Alarm Bells Are Ringing!!!!!! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Congress Can Stop The Privacy Abuse

By William Teach June 8, 2013 – 7:07 am

The question is, will Mr. Obama and his team go along with any plans to stop the over-broad fishnet surveillance of the US citizenry? Here’s the Times’ editorial board

Over the last three years, several measures were introduced in Congress that would have helped reduce or eliminate the abuses of communications surveillance revealed this week. Every one of them was voted down.

Most members of Congress, it turns out, had received the usual bland assurances from counterterrorism officials that the authority granted to the government under the Patriot Act and related laws were absolutely necessary to prevent an attack on the United States, and that domestic spying activities must remain top secret. Proposals to bring greater transparency to these activities, or to limit their scope, were vigorously opposed by the Obama administration. (The Justice Department argued in a court filing in April that there must be no public disclosure of the extent of domestic data collection.)

Except for a few leaders and members of the intelligence committees, most lawmakers did not know the government was collecting records on almost every phone call made in the United States or was able to collect anyone’s e-mail messages and Internet chats. And most important, since the public did not know about the extent of the surveillance, it was in no position to bring popular pressure against elected representatives.

As they go on to write, now we know, to some extent, about several programs, and that there are probably others that have not seen the light of day, all that could be massive infringements on our Constitutional Rights, especially the 4th. And, again, for those who are saying that if you’ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn’t be concerned, I ask if you would be fine with government issuing a secret warrant whereby they come and search your house every day while you’re at work, just poking around, just in case. My email is rather innocuous. My calls are mostly business related. My friends know I prefer quick calls, as I’d rather chat in person (I like to see people’s eyes and body language). The government has no business having any information on any of my electronic communications. Is anyone looking at that data? Most likely not. They probably do not even notice anti-Obama/Democrat posts and Tweets. That’s not the point. If I’m not the target of a criminal investigation they have no need of all that data. Those warrants make you and me targets of a criminal investigation.

The Times goes on to describe two measures to deal with this. The first is requiring the FISA court to “make public the summaries of its opinions on domestic spying activities.” I’m not a big fan of that, since all it does is tell us they are spying on US citizens.

2nd, they want “legislation to limit the collection of call records and the monitoring of Internet traffic to that of people suspected of terrorism, ending the mass warehousing of everyone’s data.” This legislation should have actual teeth, with huge fines and jail time for those that violate the law. But, wait a second, that seems almost like….profiling! Josh Barro at the very left leaning Business Insider proclaims that the massive overreach is the fault of We The People, who wanted to stop Islamic terrorism. Um, no. Conservatives have said for years that there needed to be profiling, targeting people who fit the profile of Islamist extremists, rather than making us all take our shoes off at the airport. Liberals, George Bush, and many of his employees were against any sort of profiling. Kudos to the NY Times for finally realizing that that is what is necessary.

Raised On Hoecakes: If Senators, Representatives and the President are all outraged at these revelations, make a law that prevents this from happening again. Make a law that declares the records between two private parties (i.e. the phone company and a customer) belong to each party and cannot be released by one without the consent of the other. Furthermore, any warrant for records must be served on both parties as well.

Our message to the elected officials is “stop whining and grandstanding and get to work fixing the problem.”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: NY Times: Congress Can Stop The Privacy Abuse »

Posted in Constitution, War On Terrorism | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Are Enviroweenies Annoying?

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 5:54 pm

Even enviros might notice that they are (via Tom Nelson)

(Bloomberg) For an answer, Dumb Question visited with Mark Tercek, president of the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and a former Goldman Sachs investment banker who has embraced “natural capital.” It’s the concept in environmental economics that natural systems, such as storm-blocking coastal wetlands or water collection, are critical but largely unaccounted for in the industrial economy. Tercek is the author, with Jonathan S. Adams, of the recent book Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature.

DQ: Why do you think Americans don’t like environmentalists?

Mark Tercek: I don’t think people like to be told what to do or to be criticized. I know I don’t like it. And environmentalists, we kind of preach. Our choir likes it, or they agree with us. And it’s not like we’re wrong. We’re probably often right. But that preachy tone… (snip)

I came from Cleveland, Ohio. Most people in Cleveland, Ohio, don’t like environmentalists. Why? Because it does look like we’re troublemakers, or against stuff. We’re not realistic. We’re insensitive to the need for economic growth and jobs. We lecture. We criticize. Those are not qualities that people like. It’s not that obvious that we’re helping anyone.

Well, yeah, but I do think this applies more to the hardcores and especially those who link “climate change” to every single real environmental issue.

Read: Hey, Are Enviroweenies Annoying? »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Photo-shopping For Anti-Obesity Campaign: It’s For The Kids Or Something

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 2:03 pm

These sure are some happy looking horizontally challenged kids (hat tip to Ashley Helms)

(MSN News) Sponsors of a campaign that’s drawing ire say it’s meant to educate parents and create change since pictures of healthy, smiling kids don’t really work in targeting obesity.

This is one before and after Photoshop job that’s not going down too well.

First 5 California has been doing anti-obesity campaigns for years, hoping to inculcate healthy food habits among parents. This year, the government-funded early childhood program went a step further and Photoshopped images of kids to make them appear bigger than they normally were.

Here’s one of them

Some are calling the above one racist, because it makes the child darker. I’m not seeing it, looks more like they lightened her as they made her look fatter. Another replaced a glass of milk with a bag of sugar with an Asian child (like the above, in case you missed it).

As Ashley wrote in her email to me “Apparently obesity is such an epidemic that they can’t actually find any obese people to photograph for the ads.”

Let’s not forget that the climate change wankers have also subsumed the obesity problem under their banner, and blame fat people for “climate change”, killing polar bears, “polluting” the air, and want to force fat people to eat less by government law. Oh, and kill them, too.

Read: Photo-shopping For Anti-Obesity Campaign: It’s For The Kids Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrid drought world caused by too many hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post proclaiming the new category, The Ministry Of Jiggly. Since I add the photo before searching for a story, some jiggly below the fold

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Blame TS Andrea On “Climate Change”

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 11:08 am

It’s been over 2784 days since a major hurricane hit the United States. Only one actual hurricane (Isaac being a hurricane can be debated) has hit the US since 2008. There hasn’t even been that many tropical systems hitting the US. Major hurricane activity seems to occur during the PDO, and can be affected by cold air aloft (the US has had one of the coldest springs in decades). Doesn’t matter, because “climate change” isn’t about science, and those who push it are brain dead

Wait, I thought the warming was hiding in the deep oceans?

Read More »

Read: Warmists Blame TS Andrea On “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Climahysteric Of The Week: Google’s Eric Schmidt

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 9:03 am

Alternate headline: Guy whose company uses a ton of energy complains about Other People using energy.

(Register) Google chairman Eric Schmidt has a low opinion of climate-change skeptics and global-warming deniers.

“You can hold back knowledge, but you cannot prevent it from spreading,” Schmidt told his audience at his company’s “How Green Is the Internet? Summit” in Mountain View on Thursday. “You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you’ll be seen as a liar.”

That’s funny, because that’s exactly what Climate Realists have been saying for over a decade. Except, we bring facts to the fight, not just personal attacks.

Schmidt discussed what he referred to as “the fact problem” and how it relates to the media and governments. At Google, he said, people fact-check what they’re told, especially if what they hear doesn’t sound quite right.

He’s right, you can’t hold back knowledge, and thanks to search engines like Google people were able to do research and find out the reality of “climate change”, rather than the 1 sided view provided through left leaning media outlets.

“The math says that there are a couple of billion people who are going to want our carbon footprint,” he said, “and we can’t afford that carbon footprint as a global thing – and we don’t want to reduce our own.”

Like most Warmists, Schmidt refuses to give up his own modern lifestyle and massive “carbon footprint”. But, he wants other people to be denied. And since so many of those people tend to be minorities, especially in Africa, we can use Leftists own words and call him a racist.

And that pesky carbon problem is only going to get bigger, Schmidt said, as internet use increases and data centers will need to be built to service the five to six billion internet users that he says will occupy the planet in the next decade or so.

So, all you Warmists using the Internet, you need to stop right now, because you are causing Gaia to boil.

He said that during his travels, he has visited many less-developed countries, and has been impressed with the efficiencies and careful cultivation of resources that he has seen. In the Congo and Rwanda, for example, ecologically sensitive farming methods that have been in use for generations, he said, that recycle water and other resources.

Wait, he takes fossil fueled trips around the world? Interesting. And hypocritical. Warmist, decarbon yourself.

Read: Climahysteric Of The Week: Google’s Eric Schmidt »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama’s “Let’s Have A Debate” Defense

By William Teach June 7, 2013 – 8:31 am

The Politico’s Josh Gerstein explains what that means

The Obama administration has a familiar refrain on the surveillance of Americans’ telephone records: the president and his team are eager to have the debate.

Eager, that is, only after others have brought the tactics to light and the administration has spent years employing them.

On Guantanamo and drone strikes, as well as his administration’s aggressive use of leak investigations into the telephone records and e-mails of journalists, President Barack Obama and his aides often seem to cast him as a detached analyst or law professor watching policies carried out, rather than the one actually directing or responsible for them.

Or the one at whose desk the buck stops at. The guy who ran for the position of POTUS twice. The guy who sits at the head, per the United States Constitution, of all these federal agencies. The guy who said “I’m the president and I take responsibility.” The guy who said “I am not a dictator, I’m the president.”

When it comes to surveillance, Obama has as president shown no sign of really wanting to have a robust debate. For years, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Minn.) have been pleading with the administration to disclose more information about call-tracking tactics that they suggested would shock many Americans.

The administration largely rebuffed those calls. Only after the leak Wednesday of a four-page “top secret” court order indicating that millions of Americans’ phone calls were tracked on a daily basis did officials begin to confirm the program’s details.

Unfortunately, Wyden and Udall were not calling for the O admin to stop the full program, which casts a wide net over a good chunk of the American population, rather than targeting those who could be terrorists. I’m sure some have a problem with any electronic surveillance; I personally have no problem with targeting those who could be bad people. Some have cast out the old “well, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn’t be worried” meme. For those people, I’d ask if they’re OK with The Government coming in to their homes and searching them every day, going through their drawers. If they’ve done nothing wrong, they should be fine with that, right? Right?

“Every time he gets into trouble, he wants to have a debate, he wants to have a discussion….I think it’s his way — a distortion field created by his own moral rectitude,” said Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “It’s the same thing with the reporters [and leaks], he wants to have a guy who violated their civil liberties to have a discussion with the media.”

Saying he wants this discussion is different from having the discussion. Because he and his administration generally stonewall at that point. And it ends up being a heated argument, as Team O and Obama himself cast aspersions and denigrate the people who want to know the information.

“This is [Obama’s] characteristic mode of discourse,” said Steven Aftergood, a classified information policy analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. “The public should have been notified and consulted and involved and it was not. That should have taken place years ago.”

On that I disagree. Secret program. What should not have happened was the use of multiple spy programs in the blanket manner they’ve been used. The Bush admin mostly used them in a targeted fashion, sometimes crossing the line a bit. The Obama programs are more like someone crossing the line at Daytona then driving another 1000 miles. Which seems to be the reason why so many people have leaked these programs.

The question, which is discussed somewhat in the article, is why we need a debate at all? Americans are obviously pissed off. They do not want to be spied upon. They do not want the IRS targeting them. They don’t want Los Federales deploying drones over America. They do not want the government reading all their email and tracking them. For all their faults, Bush 43 and Bill Clinton didn’t “have a debate”: they took action and held people responsible.

This is not necessarily to Blame Obama. He may have had no knowledge of these programs. He doesn’t seem to know anything else as to the Big Issues that go on around him. He may have known, but not the full extent. But it is his job to fix it. Having a debate is a way to duck responsibility.

BTW, I’m not putting this in any sort of “War on Terrorism” category, unless we are now considering that hundreds of millions of US citizens are now terrorists.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama’s “Let’s Have A Debate” Defense »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove