…is horrible fossil fuels warmth created snow, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is American Power, with a post regarding Palestinian terrorist supporters urging Alicia Keys to not perform in Israel.
And thanks to JGlanton for finding this photo, saying we had to see the whole pretty lady.
Read: If All You See… »
As Erika Johnsen notes “Never underestimate the sneakiness when you’re dealing with The Most Transparent Administration Evah”
(Bloomberg) Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.
With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.
Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.
So, they attempted to hide this from the public, did not open it to the public for comment, and will essentially raise the price of consumer goods artificially for a ginned up issue based on what can be charitably be called faulty science, despite no warming in 15+ years. And they want to monetize anything regarding The Weather, which will allow lawsuits to proceed easily against Keystone XL and others. Insurance claims from The Weather would appear to be greater. Warmists would be able to complain more. Just don’t ask them to live the life they want Everyone Else to be forced to live.
Read: Obama Slips Through Hotcoldwetdry Regulations In Policy Regarding Your Microwave »
So says the head of the NSA
(NY Times) The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that “dozens†of terrorism threats had been halted by the agency’s huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans, while a senator briefed on the program disclosed that the telephone records are destroyed after five years.
The director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads both the N.S.A. and United States Cyber Command, which runs the military’s offensive and defensive use of cyberweapons, told skeptical members of the Senate Appropriations Committee that his agency was doing exactly what Congress authorized after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
General Alexander said he welcomed debate over the legal justification for the program because “what we’re doing to protect American citizens here is the right thing.†He said the agency “takes great pride in protecting this nation and our civil liberties and privacy†under the oversight of Congress and the courts.
Citizens do not want “debate”, because debate rarely gets anywhere in stopping the massive intrusions of our privacy by Government (or virtually anything else): how’s that debate regarding “enhanced pat-downs” at airports working? The fact is that these programs should be targeted towards those who would look to harm the United States, not every citizen.
As a sidebar, I couldn’t care less if the NSA targets China, European countries, and others. That’s what they should be doing. And calls from certain nations, those that support terrorism or are know to have lots of terrorist groups, to the United States should be targeted. But, the NSA programs grew out of typical government response, where instead of targeting specifics, they go after everyone. Remember, profiling was stopped cold in the wake of 9/11. Grandma Wendy from Wichita had to be treated the same as Mohammed reciting Allahu Akbar.
Gallup has finally come out with their poll on the issue
More Americans disapprove (53%) than approve (37%) of the federal government agency program that as part of its efforts to investigate terrorism obtained records from U.S. telephone and Internet companies to “compile telephone call logs and Internet communications.”
Interestingly, 49% of Democrats approve while 40% disapprove. Replace the name Obama with Bush, McCain, or Romney, and I wonder what those numbers would be? But this is the 3rd out of 4 polls saying Americans are against this program the way it is run. CBS had it as 58-38 against. Rasmussen had it 59-26 among likely voters. The Washington Post-Pew poll had it 56-41 in favor of the program, but, as I pointed out yesterday, 50% + of the survey respondents had followed the NSA programs news coverage “not too closely/not closely at all.†So why should their opinions matter if they’re clueless?
Analysts can look at the domestic calling data only if there is a reason to suspect it is “actually related to Al Qaeda or to Iran,†Feinstein said, adding: “The vast majority of the records in the database are never accessed and are deleted after a period of five years. To look at or use the content of a call, a court warrant must be obtained.â€
The problem here is that the American People have no assurances that the use of that data will be limited. Who would have thought that the IRS would target Conservative groups? Who would have thought that Romney donors would be targeted by the IRS? Who would have thought that the POTUS and his people would intentionally target private citizens who disagree with him with barbed criticism, a violation of the spirit of the 1st Amendment? Who would have thought that the Attorney General would say that, while hypothetical, it is legal to launch a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil? Who would have thought that the Obama admin and HHS would violate the 1st Amendment rights of religious organizations with Obamacare regulations?
What if they decide to use this data for other purposes? What assurances do we have that the usage will stay focused on terrorists and nations like Iran? We have none. What if they are used to track Conservative groups? What then, Liberals? What if a Republican president uses them to track your groups, Liberals? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. There needs to be an open posting of exactly how this data can be used, and enforced in law. Stopping terrorist attacks is great, but not at the loss of privacy by citizens who aren’t involved in the least.
Read: Hooray! Spying On All Americans Stopped Halted Terrorist Threats »
How many times have you heard Marco Rubio’s commercial where he proclaims “And then they don’t qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare”? And said this in interviews. And written it. But, now he’s trying to get it in place? Because there are tons of loopholes
(Washington Examiner) Sen. Marco Rubio is preparing to offer an amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill he helped negotiate to strengthen provisions that would prevent former illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits.
The Florida Republican is collaborating on this proposal with Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Details of the amendment were not yet available. But Rubio said the measure would be designed to strengthen the principles of comprehensive reform legislation the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” authored, which included prohibiting millions of newly legalized immigrant residents from obtaining federal assistance — such as Obamacare subsidies — and burdening U.S. taxpayers.
Why would he be working to strengthen these provisions? He told us that the Shamnesty II legislation already restricts the immediately legalized illegals from obtaining federal benefits during the whole 13 year process. If they were in the bill, why toughen them? Probably because the Gang of Ocho bill doesn’t restrict at all. In fact, the Senate voted down a proposal to restrict illegals from receiving Obamacare benefits back in March. Heck, when it comes to illegals in some states, such as California, illegals are already receiving massive amounts of federal benefits: will Rubio take those away? Will the states? As the Save America Foundation points out
Once illegals gain provisional legal status, which is immediately, they’ll qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges, a subsidy funded by taxpayers (Sec. 2245D(d)). And even worse for fiscal conservatives, virtually all funding is classified “emergency†under the Statutory ‘Pay As You Go Act’ of 2010. Government Spending on food stamps, Head Start, welfare, housing subsidies, Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and other benefits will expand, unlimited.
Everything he’s said about this scheme is a fraud.
Earlier this week, Rubio proposed an amendment to the Senate immigration bill to beef up a provision that requires former illegal immigrants to demonstrate English proficiency as a condition of advancing to permanent residency, and eventually, citizenship.
There again, his commercials told us they’d have to speak English. Perhaps he meant simply the phrase “Speak Spanish?” In fact, the original legislation required illegals to either demonstrate proficiency in English or show that they are enrolled in a class. The amendment would do away with the second part. But they wouldn’t have to demonstrate English for 10 years, when they are able to get their green card. Democrats and illegal shills think that this would be a “roadblock”.
Everything about this legislation is a lie, and every Republican supporting it should be primaried. Of course, that won’t matter, since once the illegals start being legalized, you can kiss the Republican party goodbye, essentially creating a one party system in the United States.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Rubio Works To Stop Illegals From Getting Federal Benefits…Wait, What? »
Alternate headline: Guy with a pretty darned big carbon footprint who’s mayor of a city with a pretty darned big carbon footprint forgot to take his meds (via Watts Up With That?)
(NY Daily News) CLIMATE CHANGE is real — and it could turn the city into a flood-prone danger zone with summers as sweltering as the deep South’s in the not-too-distant future, according to an expert panel of scientists.
The panel, which Mayor Bloomberg tasked with studying weather patterns in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, predicts the greatest threats to Gotham will be catastrophic heat waves and frequent bouts of heavy rains for days on end.
The bad weather patterns should kick in as early as 2020, according to the findings released on Monday.
So, within 7 years, when most won’t remember the predictions.
In that year, the city will see an average temperature of 57 degrees — up from the current 54 — and 10% more rainfall.
Increases in rainfall tend to support cooling, not warming, when the Sun is less active, allowing the solar wind to strike the earth and create more cloud cover.
That rainfall will come with an alarming, nearly 1-foot rise in the already high sea level — which will likely increase the city’s flood risk.
A 12 inch rise in 7 years? Good luck with that. Anthony Watts features info on the sea rise at Battery Park, the same as I mentioned July 2012, where The Battery is seeing a rise of 2.77mm.
Here’s 3mm
Scared yet? It would take 100 years to hit 1 foot.
Anthony also notes info from Joe D’Aleo which plots temperature to population in NYC, making a strong case for the UHI.
When the infants of today are hitting their mid-life crises — around the middle of the century, in the 2050s — New York’s summers will be similar to the summers in sultry Birmingham, Ala., today.
That means an average of 39 to 52 days a year with temps over 90, the panel found. The current norm for the city is just 18 days over 90.
Steven Goddard notes
One hundred degree days are much less common than they used to be in New York. During the 1930s they occurred about once every 400 days, and now they occur about once every 900 days.
So, the panel is hysterical and unhinged? And, what do they want? Lots of government spending and bad weather prevention programs which restrict liberty and control companies. Surprise!
Oh, and reading the Washington Post after I had wrote this post I see that Excitable Dana Milbank has a piece entitle “Bloomberg’s race to protect NYC from climate change“, and is whininh about the threat for flooding in D.C. It might surprise the hell out of Dana to learn that D.C. was built on…wait for it…marshy land. The swamp thing is kinda a myth, but the area has always been prone to flooding. Dana forgets to mention the massive carbon footprint of Bloomberg and NYC.
…is a flooded world because someone used hairspray, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Scared Monkeys, with a post on George Bush’s climbing ratings.
Read: If All You See… »
And change a whole raft of other regulations regarding handguns
(Raleigh N&O) A major gun-rights bill took an unexpected turn Tuesday with a proposal to eliminate the law that requires people receive a permit from their county sheriff before they can buy a handgun.
The bill, approved in a Senate Judiciary committee, still requires a permit to carry concealed handguns but expands the places that those weapons can be taken: all educational property, not just public colleges and universities as an earlier version proposed; private schools, unless they prohibit weapons; parades and funeral processions, unless they’re expressly prohibited. Cities and counties would not be allowed to ban firearms on greenways but could continue to do so on athletic fields.
This would not do away with the background check requirement, which is a federal requirement, nor the 7 day waiting period.
The greenways part is interesting. Raleigh has a huge amount of these, and some, like the Neuse River greenway (which runs behind mi casa) can be very isolated. Would I carry? Don’t have a concealed carry permit. But, I believe I’m allowed open carry.
That said, NC AG Roy Cooper is against doing away with the pistol permits, as is the NC Sheriff’s Association. I’m torn: on one hand, I can see the point that the permits have been approved in an inconsistent manner, and some do not want the government to know their business. On the other hand, it’s better to leave the permitting procedures to the Sheriff’s offices, rather than the gun stores, making the gun stores do more work. Some states, though, have no problem with doing away with the permits.
The law also would strengthen penalties against some gun crimes, expedites mental health data to the federal database, and makes confidential all concealed carry permit data.
The N&O does mention that the legislation would do away with all backround checks for private sales, “such as at gun shows”. They fail to mention that licensed dealers would still have to do checks, just as federal law requires. Liberals love spreading misinformation on this issue.
Alternate headline: Man with massive “carbon footprint” and lots of money at stake says other man with largest “carbon footprint” in the world needs to Do Something about no statistically significant warming in 15+ years
(Politico) Add Al Gore to the chorus of environmentalists who say it’s time for President Barack Obama to get serious about climate change.
The former vice president used a Google+ plus video chat Tuesday to tell supporters that Obama needs to go beyond his “great words†on the topic, and to lament that the president has yet to assemble a team to spearhead his second-term climate agenda.
Gore echoed the complaints of other green activists who say Obama isn’t moving fast enough — and who are pleading with him not to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
“I hope that he’ll get moving on to follow up on the wonderful pledges he made in his inaugural speech earlier this year and then soon after in his State of the Union,†Gore said. “Great words. We need great actions now.â€
Gore has quite a bit of money at stake, and really doesn’t care if Americans are left as energy poor. The Warmists have made the Keystone XL pipeline their cause celebre, preferring to see all the tar sands oil go to China instead of the United States.
“You know, really, if he’s serious about it he needs to get a team in place and he needs to present a plan, he needs to use the bully pulpit, he needs to be a vigorous advocate,†Gore said.
Or, instead, Obama (and Gore) could practice what they preach and reduce their own “carbon footprints” in accordance with the talking points. Strange how they never practice what they preach.
He also whined that actual scientists won’t let unhinged Warmists link tornadoes to “climate change”. Probably because tornadoes have happened long before CO2 was at 350ppm, and while 2011 was a busy season, 2012 was not….of course, Warmists blame both on “climate change”. And then scientific data jumps into the debate
You can see the larger version here. It comes from the NOAA. And seems to show that large tornado activity is worse during cooling periods, which would be the 40’s (the chart starts in 1954, of course) through the late 1970’s, then when it got warmer, that activity dropped off. Interesting that there have been several monstrous tornadoes this spring, what with it being a cool spring, wouldn’t you say?
Read: Gore Says Obama Needs To Get Serious On Dealing With Hotcoldwetdry »
Trackback URL
OK, OK, we know that this is a Republic, but it is a democratic Republic, part of the Democracy political model. And we do have to give them style points for going against Obama and other Democrats on this issue
(NY Times) A new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of Americans are untroubled by revelations about the National Security Agency’s dragnet collection of the phone records of millions of citizens, without any individual suspicion and regardless of any connection to a counterterrorism investigation.
Just as a sidebar, a Rasmussen poll showed exactly the opposite of that WP-Pew poll. A related poll found that 56% think the US government is a threat to individual rights. And it should be pointed out that 50% + of the survey respondents had followed the NSA programs news coverage “not too closely/not closely at all.” So, if they have no real idea about the issue, their opinions shouldn’t matter.
Perhaps the lack of a broader sense of alarm is not all that surprising when President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, and intelligence officials insist that such surveillance is crucial to the nation’s antiterrorism efforts.
Add in some Republicans, like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who have come out in favor of the NSA program, and others whose main talking points are about prosecuting Snowden.
But Americans should not be fooled by political leaders putting forward a false choice. The issue is not whether the government should vigorously pursue terrorists. The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. Far too little has been said on this question by the White House or Congress in their defense of the N.S.A.’s dragnet. (snip)
Tracking whom Americans are calling, for how long they speak, and from where, can reveal deeply personal information about an individual. Using such data, the government can discover intimate details about a person’s lifestyle and beliefs — political leanings and associations, medical issues, sexual orientation, habits of religious worship, and even marital infidelities. Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School and a privacy expert, likens this program to a Seurat painting. A single dot may seem like no big deal, but many together create a nuanced portrait.
And then what does the government do with the data? Might someone use it for nefarious purposes? Might a politician use it for payback or to target political opponents or the supporters of political opponents? It’s not unheard of. Do a search of “Bill Clinton Echelon.” And it’s not just confined to Clinton: several presidents have used spy agency data to retaliate against US citizens. There’s a fundamental lack of trust in the government, and government does little to attempt to earn back that trust.
The effect is to undermine constitutional principles of personal privacy and freedom from constant government monitoring. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the program’s constitutionality, and it was right to do so.
It undermines the 4th Amendment, which did not give permission to fishing expedition warrants. Rand Paul has introduced the 4th Amendment Restoration Act for the 3rd time, and hopes that the Democrat led Senate will finally give it the time it’s due. It makes for strange bedfellows when the ACLU and Rand Paul are on the same side, eh? Usually the ACLU is on the side of Democrats regardless.
Even if most Americans trust President Obama not to abuse their personal data, no one knows who will occupy the White House or lead intelligence operations in the future. The government’s capacity to assemble, keep and share information on its citizens has grown exponentially since the days when J. Edgar Hoover, as director of the F.B.I., collected files on political leaders and activists to enhance his own power and chill dissent. Protections against different abuses in this digital age of genuine terrorist threats need to catch up.
Well, we should expect the Times to throw in a little Obama love, though I’m not sure where they get that notion that most trust Obama. The WP-Pew Poll is not the source. Anyhow, no one in government should be trusted with this information.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
An important question an enviroweenie/Warmist wants answered from Grist (because your average E/W doesn’t seem to have the brainpower to do the Internet search themselves, so instead will ask someone else to do the work, thereby increasing the amount of energy needed to find the answer)
Ask Umbra: Can my bicycle power my toaster?
How much biking would it take to fire up your toaster? Well, your typical cyclist puts out about 100 watts, and a toaster requires 800 to 1,000 watts. There’s some loss involved in the energy capture and storage. According to Begley, it takes “15 minutes of hard riding … to toast two slices of bread.â€
There are two main reasons why this route might not be practical for you, Eric: First, the cost is prohibitive for most people, typically around $500-$1,000 or more. You could try your hand at building your own, but even the DIY model is estimated to start at $300. Second, it is … kind of a dumb idea. At least for your average homeowner in the developed world. We use an insane amount of power at home, a fact colorfully illustrated by the BBC when it rounded up 80 cyclists to power a family’s home for a day. For a while, teams of 10 or 20 cyclists could keep things going, but at one point all 80 weren’t enough. A smaller-scale experiment at Middlebury College has been similarly eye-opening. Turns out the bike-generator idea, though cool, is pretty  darned inefficient; here are two pieces that explain why, one short and passionate and the other long and nerdy.
Actually, I think this is a fantastic idea for Warmists. First, it would allow them to practice what they preach. 2nd, it would allow them to understand the high costs and burdens that their push for governmental regulations and laws would create.
Read: How Much Energy Is Required For Two Slices Of Toast? »
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.