Biggest Carbon Footprint In The World Obama To Release “Climate Change” Plan Tuesday

By William Teach June 23, 2013 – 8:09 am

What he’s doing is creating a plan that will regulate by executive fiat (remember when Obama and Dems used to rail against Bush taking executive action?) that will harm the lower and middle classes

(Washington Post) President Obama will announce Tuesday in a speech at Georgetown University that he plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, according to individuals who have been briefed on the plan but asked not to be identified.

In a statement Saturday afternoon sent via the White House Twitter feed, Obama said that he plans to fulfill the pledge he made in his second inaugural address to “respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations.”

I mentioned this the other day when it first cropped up, but now The Man With The Largest Carbon Footprint In The World has a video!

“This Tuesday, I’ll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go — a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it,” the president said. “This is a serious challenge — but it’s one uniquely suited to America’s strengths.”

As usual, there are lots and lots of “I’s” in the video. Anthony Watts pointed out that the vid was getting very few watches, and that hasn’t changed much. As of this writing there were only a bit over 29,000, which is pretty low for a vid released by the White House.

What does the video show? Well, early on it features rain storms, because those never happened before 1980. Then a shot of a coal plant releasing what he wants you to believe is nasty “carbon pollution”, but is in fact water vapor. And yes, he uses Al Gore’s “carbon pollution” phrase. It’s not like CO2 is necessary for life on earth or something.

He wants scientists to develop new fuels and farmers to grow them, which has worked so darn well so far, what with artificially increasing the cost of food (corn ethanol), seeing forests chopped down and animals slaughtered (palm oil fuels), and these fuels actually putting out more CO2 than gasoline.

He mentions preserving “God’s creation”, which probably lost most of his unhinged base. Oh, and the Earth doesn’t care about a little heat. Gaia has dealt with many warm periods, especially the ones since the end of the last glacial age, which were much warmer. CO2 will not destroy the earth, nor damage the waterways, as PBO suggests.

He wants to do this for the sake of the children (while moving his laser like focus away from the economy again). What about when he was wasting $850 billion on his porky pork and campaign contributor Stimulus, which leaves kids and grandkids with a huge borrowed debt? Has anyone explained to Obama that the trend is now for cooling? Oh, and after the speech (via a Tom Nelson flashback)

“When President Obama makes his first extended trip to sub-Saharan Africa later this month, the federal agencies charged with keeping him safe won’t be taking any chances. Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of emergency,” reports the Post.

“Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet-proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts giving 24-hour coverage over the president’s airspace so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

Yup, President Super Massive Carbon Footprint. Do I even have to mention that calling it “climate change” means a person is interested in politics, not science?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Biggest Carbon Footprint In The World Obama To Release “Climate Change” Plan Tuesday »

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

Hooray! Corker-Hoeven Bans Any Profiling, Plus Other Passages

By William Teach June 22, 2013 – 10:17 pm

Make sure to keep an eye on Senator David Vitter’s Twitter feed as he reads through the bill. I was just blowing threw it, popping back and forth, and found this little nugget on page 671

6 SEC. 3305. PROFILING.
7 (a) PROHIBITION.—In making routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal law enforcement officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on race and ethnicity if a specific suspect description exists.

There are some exemptions, via the “if specific suspect description exists”. Someone, I don’t thing “hey, there’s 10 Hispanics driving around with no ID and none speak English” will be allowed.

Further lines require reports be collected to make sure no profiling is done, and guidelines be established to make sure no profiling be done.

On page 683-685, it gives the Secretary of DHS the ability to decide who is a stateless person/group to and grant them provisional status despite them being inadmissible to the US or being deportable. And their kids and family. This can act into the “climate refugees”, as well as following pages about “refugees”.

Page 750 starts out blocking all illegals with gang affiliations from earning legal status….oops, SecDHS can waive if the person “renounces” gang affiliation, page 751 starting line 24.

Page 754, habitual drunk drivers (3 or more convictions) aren’t eligible, and, for a change, SecDHS can’t waive. This only applies IF at least 1 conviction comes after the amnesty bill is passed. So, they could have 10 prior, none after, and would be eligible.

Page 756 allows no waivers whatsoever for child sexual offenders. Of course, we’d still have them stuck in our country and jails, paying for them, the child is raped or dead, and the illegal shouldn’t have been here in the first place.

OK, I’ll stop there, getting worked up, and it’s drinking time.

Read: Hooray! Corker-Hoeven Bans Any Profiling, Plus Other Passages »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 22, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible hair spray and other products that give the planet a Ferber, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Glob, with an illustrated guide to the dishonesty of Think Progress.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Mother Jones: People Aren’t Purchasing To Save Gaia From Getting A Fever

By William Teach June 22, 2013 – 11:05 am

But, they are purchasing green

(Mother Jones) If you care about saving the climate, there’s good news and bad news this week, courtesy of a voluminous new report on Americans’ personal and consumer behavior in relation to global warming that’s just out from the Yale and George Mason research teams on climate change communication.

First the good news: It looks like energy efficiency is really winning out with the American consumer. Not only do half of Americans now say they’ve purchased a kitchen appliance that’s energy efficient. Looking forward, impressive majorities say that they want their next appliance or car purchase to be green. Three-quarters say as much for kitchen appliances, 71 percent for their next water heater, and 61 percent say they want their next car to do 30 miles per gallon or better.

Hey, I do that myself, mostly to save money. When I replaced my fridge in 2011, energy efficiency was an important factor. When I replaced my central A/C unit in April, energy efficiency was important. Why? I like saving money in the long run. I often purchase products, like car cleaner, dish detergent, and clothes detergent, that are truly environmentally friendly (note: quite a few that say they’re green are full of cow patties). I don’t do this to “save the climate”, which is a truly stupid phrase and notion, since climate always changes. I do this to save money and protect the real environment, and I suspect that most purchase that way for the same reasons.

Anyway

So what’s the bad news? Well, it comes in the area of what you might call “efficacy”: Americans are buying lots of green stuff, but at the same time, they’re markedly less convinced that their personal or individual actions actually make a difference for the climate. (snip)

According to Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale, it’s very unlikely that most Americans have suddenly figured out that individual energy-saving actions—while highly commendable—aren’t enough on their own to fix climate change (because instead we need major policy changes). Rather, he suggests, people’s sense of climate efficacy has declined largely because climate change itself fell out of the media, and public consciousness, in the wake of the economic collapse and throughout much of President Obama’s first term. “I think a lot of it is because we aren’t talking about this issue at all any more, so people are not being reinforced with the message: ‘So, here are the things you can do.'”

I’d suggest that it actually comes down to people seeing all the Goreacle Warming leaders, Gore, Hansen, Mann, Obama, etc, failing to practice what they preach. That rarely do they see an article from any of the Warmists, at places like Grist, Treehugger, Climate Progress, and so on, which tell people that they themselves need to reduce their own carbon footprint. Why should people believe that their own action will make a difference when the leading Warmists always want Someone Else to bear the burden for their beliefs?

Read: Mother Jones: People Aren’t Purchasing To Save Gaia From Getting A Fever »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on Mother Jones: People Aren’t Purchasing To Save Gaia From Getting A Fever | Trackback URL

Warmists Really Excited About Chinese Plan To Possibly Execute Polluters

By William Teach June 22, 2013 – 7:37 am

Really excited. Here’s Grist’s John Upton

There are carrot and stick approaches to tackling pollution. China is reaching for the stick. The country announced Wednesday that it is willing to impose the harshest possible penalty on polluters. From Reuters:

Chinese authorities have given courts the powers to hand down the death penalty in serious pollution cases, state media said, as the government tries to assuage growing public anger at environmental desecration. …

A new judicial interpretation which took effect on Wednesday would impose “harsher punishments” and tighten “lax and superficial” enforcement of the country’s environmental protection laws, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

“In the most serious cases the death penalty could be handed down,” it said.

What the Chinese are talking about are real environmental issues, not the fake “climate change” cannard. What’s in the minds of Warmists like Upton?

Executing polluters is certainly a more dramatic approach to reining in pollution than is carbon trading, which also began in China this week.

Boom, linked to “climate change in a heartbeat. This isn’t the first time Warmists have had fantasies about criminal penalties and death for people who aren’t helping to reduce “carbon pollution,” and won’t be the last. This continues in the comments

  • About time! Looks like China is out front on this issue. Too bad we don’t have this in the U.S., there probably wouldn’t be a corporate scumbag left. (yeah, there would be no one to produce the computer your used to write your comment)
  • While I would strongly prefer a more enlightened society where people lived a lot more lightly on the Earth in much smaller numbers and treated each other a lot better, that’s a distant goal, not current reality. As you said, execution would be a great incentive to get these assholes to stop polluting our planet, as nothing else has worked to any substantial extent.
  • What would be even more effective is if the customers of these polluters were put to death. Make it a capital offense to buy gasoline. Use a plastic utensil and die. Turn the lights on and it’s the gallows for you. After all, these polluters wouldn’t pollute if they didn’t have willing customers.
  • If we did this in North America there would hardly be a CEO left – sounds about right to me.
  • See, I never understood how people could accept totalitarianism until climate change. I am at the point where I would accept horrible things if they actually did do something about climate change.

Progressives are so tolerant. Interesting how when it comes to murderers, cop killers, gang bangers, pedophiles, and Islamist terrorists, they are against the death penalty.

Read: Warmists Really Excited About Chinese Plan To Possibly Execute Polluters »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Weekly Address: We Need To Give Amnesty Because (Mumble Garble)

By William Teach June 22, 2013 – 6:56 am

Has anyone ever given a real reason to legalize the illegals that isn’t a strawman or based on feelings? Don’t expect Obama to be the first

(White House) Hi everybody.  Right now, the United States Senate is debating a bipartisan, commonsense bill that would be an important step toward fixing our broken immigration system.

The only thing that’s broken is the way our government fails to properly enforce the existing law.

It’s a bill that would continue to strengthen security at our borders, and hold employers more accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers, so they won’t have an unfair advantage over businesses that follow the law.

We already have Everify. And what does that matter if we’re giving them all legalized status immediately? As far as the borders go, we all know they will be mostly ignored no matter what the bill says. We aren’t stupid. We’ve been talking about this since the last amnesty in 1986.

It’s a bill that would modernize the legal immigration system so that, as we train American workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we’re also attracting the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers who grow our economy for everyone.

We already attract foreign workers. This isn’t new. However, we’ll be added tens of millions of workers while Americans suffer through the terrible Obameconomy, with a record number of people dropping out of the workforce in despair, with people sitting on unemployment for record time, and seeing it run out. With it being an employers market, which reduces worker bargaining power, and therefore wages.

O goes on to describe a bunch of studies that supposedly say things will be great. None of us most of us aren’t stupid.

Because with this bill, millions of additional people will start paying more in taxes for things like Social Security and education.  That’ll make the economy fairer for middle-class families.

Except the majority aren’t middle class workers, but unskilled low wage workers who will be in the tax bracket which has a net zero federal liability and will surely get lots of money back from their federal tax returns. And, regardless of how the bill turns out, will be given federal benefits.

So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like.  Stronger enforcement.  A smarter legal immigration system.  A pathway to earned citizenship.  A more vibrant, growing economy that’s fairer on the middle class.  And a more stable fiscal future for our kids.

Still waiting for a reason as to why we should legalize them, followed by citizenship.

We can do this, because we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants; a place enriched by the contributions of people from all over the world, and stronger for it.  That’s been the story of America from the start.  Let’s keep it going.  Thanks, and have a great weekend.

If we were a nation of laws, we wouldn’t be talking about giving amnesty. We’d be doing all we could to stop them from coming illegally, from overstaying their visas, kicking them out and getting them to leave. I almost want to say “yeah, let’s just pass this legislation” just so that Conservatives can say “we told you so! We told you that the security measures will be mostly blown off, that they won’t really have to pay fines, that they will get federal benefits quickly, and that Democrats will immediately agitate to naturalize them without fees so they can be new Democrat voters who’ll immediately bring in up to 17 million more low wage and unskilled workers, so of whom will immediately be on Welfare, Social Security, and/or Medicaid.”

I’d like to see someone give me the reason we should do this based on something other than feelings and BS arguments.

BTW, what is the GOP weekly address? It’s Rep John Kline, talking about….student loans? Really? Seriously? That’s it?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Weekly Address: We Need To Give Amnesty Because (Mumble Garble) »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Weekly Address: We Need To Give Amnesty Because (Mumble Garble) | Trackback URL

What Say To Immigration Bill Giving Lawful Status To “Climate Refugees”?

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 4:01 pm

No, really, and the progressives at George Soros (a big open-borders guy) funded Think Progress are super thrilled (via Breitbart)

Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.

Yeah, I’m betting Schatz isn’t too concerned about them ending up in Hawaii. And lest one think this is really about immigration, Think Progress provides handy dandy highlights from Schatz

The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons.

Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with states torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States.

In other words, another way to push Hotcoldwetdry primarily, while also giving the head of DHS and State lots and lots of latitude to make a determination as to which illegals will be given legal status on a whim (anyone else thinking “all of them”?)

The amendment would also require a federal study as to the impacts of hotcoldwetdry on internal movement within the United States…kinda like the government tracking citizens movements, eh? As Ace points out

Drought in Mexico?  Gee, we never have droughts in Mexico.  But now that we have had one, say hello to your 25 million new, specially-amnestied US citizens.

I’m not even going to get into the Think Progress silliness (and anti-science) regarding sea rise in Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.

Read: What Say To Immigration Bill Giving Lawful Status To “Climate Refugees”? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a wonderful form of transportation which will be needed when the seas rise up 200 feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sultan Knish, with a post on Angry Liberals In America.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Chelsea Clinton Bummed That Her Great-Grandmother Didn’t Have Access To Planned Parenthood

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 10:35 am

As The Lonely Conservative points out, Chelsea is apparently not the brightest tool in the shed

(Life News) From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.

Read: Good Grief: Chelsea Clinton Bummed That Her Great-Grandmother Didn’t Have Access To Planned Parenthood »

Posted in Democrats, Liberal World | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax

By William Teach June 21, 2013 – 9:29 am

This is the same NRC that has pushed to create one sided “climate change” education standards, despite there being a 15+ year pause in warming, which the models haven’t predicted, and even fail when the models are applied in hind-sight. Oh, and the NRC relies on public grant money. They have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling

(Politico) A federal report is endorsing a carbon tax as a far better method to combat climate change than the current web of energy tax provisions.

Despite spending billions of dollars on energy subsidies, the federal government’s Tax Code has done little overall to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to a National Research Council report out Thursday, which concludes that a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be much more effective.

“In order to meet ambitious climate-change objectives, a different approach that targets GHG emissions directly through taxes or tradable allowances will be both necessary and more efficient,” the report concludes.

First, the tax code is not meant to be a means to modify behavior. Second, it’s completely unsurprising that The Government has wasted what is really tens of billions of dollars dealing with Hotcoldwetdry, because most of the projects seem to be linked to scratching the backs of big campaign donors. Third, carbon tax programs around the world have failed. And if California is any indication, we would simply see the money that was supposed to be used for Bad Weather prevention programs used for everything else but the Bad Weather prevention programs.

Fourth, has anyone else noticed that most, if not all, of the policy prescriptions from Warmists tend to model themselves around far left Progressive doctrine, such as increasing taxation and reducing liberty?

That conclusion is far from surprising; the prospect of a carbon tax swirled heavily in Washington recently, even drawing interest from conservative groups such as the American Enterprise Institute. And many economists have said a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to address emissions.

Poltico writer Alex Guillen makes it seem as if the AEI supports a “carbon tax”, but the only interest was in debating the merits, which is what adults do, rather than fools who proclaim “the science is settled!!!!!” Their conclusion was that it would be a Bad Idea for quite a few reasons, one of which is that any carbon tax would be regressive, and seriously burden the middle and lower classes. So, it seems that a carbon tax is good for the 1%ers, but no one else. They would be up for one if income taxes were reduced across the board, or even eliminated. Same with government regulations.

“Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite,” the report says. “As structured, the biofuels tax credits encouraged the consumption of motor fuels because they lower prices, and this effect appears to offset any reduction in the GHG intensity of motor fuels that occurs because of the incentives to blend biofuels with gasoline.”

Actually, it shouldn’t be obvious, because most of the biofuels actually put out more CO2, while needing more water and land to produce them, while costing more and being less powerful. But what the NRC wants is super-duper high gas prices. I bet those who work for the NRC haven’t given up their own fossil fueled travel.

Contributors to the report include David Hawkins, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s director of climate programs; Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus; and Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Ah. So the main contributors are all far far left Warmists. Color me surprised.

Read: National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on National Research Council Pushes Carbon Tax | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove