If All You See…

By William Teach May 28, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…are evil cans of CO2 infused beer which will cause the Earth to boil, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the media covering for Islamists in Britain.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Republican Senators Upset Obama Never Called For A Second Date

By William Teach May 28, 2013 – 11:18 am

Well, at least they only let him get to second base, rather than putting out

(The Hill) Senate Republicans who shared laughs with President Obama over dinner at the Jefferson Hotel in March are grumbling there has since been little follow-through from him on deficit talks.

They say the White House has not set up a process for negotiating controversial reforms to Social Security, healthcare programs and the tax code, and that absence of basic organization has stalled negotiations.

Most of those involved were the Typical Squishes, and really should have know that Obama was simply pulling a campaign style trick designed to make Obama look magnanimous, but would go no further than the first date. And if the GOP didn’t put out, Obama would reach into his bag of tricks and start slurring them.

Read: Republican Senators Upset Obama Never Called For A Second Date »

Posted in Idiot GOPer's | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

A Coming Little Ice Age?

By William Teach May 28, 2013 – 9:42 am

Forbes’ Peter Ferrara provides an interesting article regarding the current pause in warming, and starts off with lots and lots of history and scientific facts (which are very inconvenient for Warmists who willingly turn a blind eye to those), well worth the full read

To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

I’m not sure of horror, since Warmists will simply find a way to blame the cooling and snow on Mankind’s output of carbon dioxide. They spin all sorts of fantastical stories about this, such as the warmth “hiding” in the deep oceans, all the cold from the melting Arctic taking a roadtrip south, and aerosols masking the warmth. There’s always an excuse to continue to blame Mankind, and Warmists are really upset if they can’t take their fossil fueled trips to lots of “symposiums” in nice vacation spots funded by taxpayers. Let’s get to the meat of the article

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

Mr. Ferrara provides many more excerpts along the same line, so this begs the question, is the Earth heading into another long term cooling period? Instead of computer models, the scientists are looking at real world data based on historical patterns. Right now, the Earth is in a long term pattern of minimal warmth, which involves slight warming for a few decades followed by flatlined or reducing temperatures (such as the late 40’s to the late 70’s). There has been a statistically insignificant warming since the last El Nino in 1997 (0.14F increase through 2012). Much of the world has experience cold and snowy winters over the past 5 years. Record breaking cold. Yet, the US lower 48 saw tremendous warmth during 2012. But Alaska has been cooling for 10 years. But there’s been no change in upper atmosphere, temperature wise. Spring has been mostly absent. 79% of the lower 48 has been at or below normal for 2013.

What does it all mean? Are we heading towards a new period similar to the Little Ice Age, which was the deepest over the past 4,500 years? Or maybe a slightly less cool one, like the Dark Ages or Grecian cool period (right before the Roman Warm Period)? Or are we simply going to see a slight dip such as the 1940’s to 1970’s? That’s up to the natural processes. Time will tell. I’ll reserve judgement and remain skeptical until we actually start seeing a significant drop in the global temperature, on the order of at least 1F. If it happens, it will happen quickly.

One thing you can count on is that Warmists will blame it on Mankind if it occurs.

Read: A Coming Little Ice Age? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Editorial Board Upset That Illegals Have To Deal With Criminal Justice System

By William Teach May 28, 2013 – 9:09 am

They’re basically recommending open borders. Perhaps they should look south towards Mexico, where illegals are treated harshly, or to most other countries in the world, which have strict immigration policies. Anyhow, here’s what the extremely white and male editorial board writes

Border Injustice

Those who view fixing immigration as simply a matter of getting tougher on lawbreakers tend to overlook how tough the system already is, an ever-growing web of agents, cops, courts and prisons whose cruelty and deficiencies are appalling. Much attention has focused on the excesses of local law enforcement, exemplified by self-appointed immigration enforcers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., whose department was found guilty in federal court on Friday of violating the constitutional rights of Latinos for years through racially biased crime sweeps, arrests, detention and harassment.

But the abuses of local officials like Sheriff Arpaio are well matched by the federal government, which is guilty of its own overreach in the hunt to prosecute illegal immigration. A new report from Human Rights Watch examines many of these problems in detail, with prescriptions lawmakers should not ignore.

While immigration enforcement used to be mainly a civil matter, the federal government has devoted vast criminal law-enforcement resources to immigration violators — particularly for the felony of illegal re-entry — ensnaring thousands of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “criminal.”

Shorter editorial board: How dare the government prosecute law breakers! I mean, sheesh, devoting law enforcement to felonies? How gauche!

The federal government has said for years that its goal is to stop dangerous criminals at the border and deter migrants from trying to cross illegally. This would be understandable if the defendants were primarily a flood of dangerous criminals, but they aren’t. Many have minor criminal histories or none at all. Many are deportees trying to return to their families and jobs.

See? They’re just minor criminals, and we shouldn’t stop them from returning to families who shouldn’t be in the country and jobs that they aren’t legally entitled to have, reducing the jobs available for legal citizens and workers! You people want to stop them are big meanies!

The system needs to be recalibrated to spare noncriminal migrants the harshest consequences. The Human Rights Watch report recommends revising immigration law to impose only civil, not criminal, penalties, for illegal entry and re-entry. Or, at the very least, it says illegal entry should be punishable by two years in federal prison, not 20.

So we slap them with a fine and let them go on their way and provide them with a pathway to citizenship. It’s that easy. We provide them with high power lawyers and all sorts of constitutional protections and allow them to fight the charge of being here illegally for years and decades.

I guess it’s no big surprise that the Times, being the most important of Liberal newspapers in the US, would push for reducing border control and letting most illegals go on their way at this time, what with the debate set to start on the New Shamnesty bill coming in a few weeks to a month. Expect many Democrats to make the same arguments when debate starts, essentially creating a system where it is easier for illegals to cross the border and overstay their visas.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: NY Times Editorial Board Upset That Illegals Have To Deal With Criminal Justice System »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Wonky Media | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Lord Stern Finds No Warming

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 6:50 pm

Heartache for Warmists. Though, he does find a way to blame things for blocking all the massive temperature increase that the computer models (snicker) say should be occurring. He has his talking points down pat

(UK Telegraph) The peer, who first warned the Government of the cost of climate change in his 2006 Stern Report, said that for the last decade global warming has remained stable.

“I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience.

He said the reasons were because of quieter solar activity, aerosol pollution in certain parts of the world blocking sunshine and heat being absorbed by the deep oceans.

Lord Stern pointed out that all these effects run in cycles or are random so warming could accelerate again soon.

It couldn’t possibly be that the Sun controls the vast majority of climate, could it, Lord Stern? Instead of this “missing heat ending up in the deep oceans where we can’t measure it” trope? Take heart, Warmists, because he does think that the world temperature will rise around 4C, and that the Government should spend oodles of taxpayer money and put in all sorts of regulations which give government more power.

Interestingly, the cycles he yammers on about tend to prove non-anthropogenic causation.

Read: Bummer: Lord Stern Finds No Warming »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Politico: What’s Next For The IRS

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 3:22 pm

Politico’s Kelsey Snell should read a different article on Politico about Sharyl Attkinson, who has been one of the few reporters willing to engage in Journalism, rather than hero worship like most of the rest of the media, and investigate the IRS scandal. Anyhow

In the two weeks since the news surfaced that the Internal Revenue Service wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for a tax exemption, the debacle has unfolded at a breathless pace — complete with resignations, three congressional hearings and the transformation of civil servants into household names.

Lois Lerner, the embattled IRS official, provided many of the more bizarre twists and turns by defiantly proclaiming her innocence at a congressional hearing before invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and ultimately rejecting a request from her new boss to step down.

But now the flood of scandal news is poised to slow dramatically.

Perhaps Kelsey could use those skills obtained in journalism school and investigate. However, after saying the flood of news (which is given scant coverage on most of the major media news outlets), we learn

The GOP — and many Democrats — insist the investigation is only getting started. But where can the saga go from here?

There will be serious investigation by Congress of Lois Lerner. She could be dragged back to the House to testify regarding her opening statement and that she signed off many of the targeting documents to Conservative groups.

There will be more hearings involving others.

Resignations, and perhaps prosecutions, will be coming.

There are document dumps coming.

And talk of reforming the IRS will most likely be coming, especially in light of how the IRS is the enforcement agency for ObamaCare.

So, altogether, it looks like this flood will not slow down.

Read: Politico: What’s Next For The IRS »

Posted in Current Affairs, Taxation | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…Memorial Day Edition…

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is the flag that has watched over so many brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice, you might just be a patriot

The blog of the day is Powerline, with a post on Memorial Day. Also, happy 11th Blogoversary to Powerline.

Read More »

Read: If All You See…Memorial Day Edition… »

Posted in Holidays, If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

“The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial”

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 11:17 am

Some late morning amusement from another Warmist, Forbes’ Todd Essig

The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial: Lessons From Comparing Republican Decision-Making Cowardice To Angelina Jolie

Starts out with name calling. Check

But before describing what I saw I want to be clear about something; there is a strong consensus among climate scientists about human-caused climate change. That is fact, not opinion. Furthermore, the fact is that events like Hurricane Sandy and the Moore tornado are more likely and likely more severe, and will be increasingly so. And finally, the fact is that facts don’t change minds.

That “97%” consensus “study” has already been beaten like a rented mule. Consensus is not science, and the study is based exactly on opinion, in other words, of the roughly 32% of the papers which took an opinion, 97% mentioned anthropogenic causation. Hell, my stuff, were they papers, would be in that category, as I believe Man plays a small role, mostly through agriculture, landfills (global) and through the land use/urban heat island effect.

The tornado meme has been beaten up, too. And calling it climate change shows a predilection for politics, not science. Anyhow

1. Lost in the scientific weeds

They grab a fact, a factoid, or an isolated data point consistent with their group identity and then categorically assert that this scientifically proves—it absolutely proves!—that human-caused climate is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated. They ignore all those pesky peer reviews and concerns with methodological rigor. They know best. I mean, really, why bother with the actual science with which you,  your group, and your political leaders disagree?

That’s funny, because it is the Warmist side which has taken to saying that cold, snow, ice, no spring in Europe, etc, are caused by too much warming. Oh, and that the warming is hiding in the deep oceans.

2. Trashing scientists

They move up a level of abstraction. Instead of trashing the science they trash the community of scientists. Consensus is irrelevant because scientists are weak, craven, and dishonest. For them, scientists are just a bunch of liars and cheats who will say anything to get a grant. This group cites evidence of scientific wrongdoing that never happened and ignores the results of any contrary investigation.

Oh, we trash the “science”, but this is interesting considering Essig started out with the “denier” crap. Warmists constanly start out by saying anyone who doesn’t agree with their notions are in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal, and want to kill granny and kids and all life…you know the hit parade.

3. Backwards policy prescriptions

This species requires both significant imagination and a radical suspension of logic. They start by pointing to dire, horrific, civilization altering consequences of policies that take climate-change seriously. And then, with a startling display of illogic, turn around to say that because the policy is unacceptable all this talk about climate-change must be nothing more than total crap.

Huh what? Warmists are the ones calling for doom and gloom somewhere in the far future when their pronouncements will not be remembered.

4. Name calling

Don’t mean to shock you but there are people who think name calling moves things forward. Among other things, I was accused of huffing glue and of being a pagan believer in “ecotheism.” Let me assure you that neither is true. The former would unacceptably interfere with running and biking while the latter implies a religious commitment beyond the grasp of my secular soul.

Says the guy, again, who started out by calling us deniers.

He ends thusly

The only question is on the basis of what will you act: cowardly leadership or scientific consensus? Just like Jolie had to make choices based on probabilities so too do our policy makers. It remains to be seen whether they will have the courage to make data-based decisions or continue hiding in the cowardice of science-denial. And as the leaders go, so too will many followers.

Right. So politics, not science.

Read: “The 4 Species of Climate-Change Denial” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Dionne: It’s Not Easy Being Obama

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 8:35 am

You know why? Because all you people who criticize him are raaaaacists, per the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne. Let’s skip all the way to the end to find out how simply awesome Obama is

He’s an anti-ideological leader in an ideological age, a middle-of-the-road liberal skeptical of the demands placed on a movement leader, a politician often disdainful of the tasks that politics asks him to perform. He wants to invite the nation to reason together with him when nearly half the country thinks his premises and theirs are utterly at odds. Doing so is unlikely to get any easier. But being Barack Obama, he’ll keep trying.

Can’t you just feel the orgasmic writing of Dionne? But, hey, you people!

You wonder if President Obama sometimes finds himself singing a variant on Kermit the Frog’s anthem about the burdens of being green: It’s not easy being Barack Obama.

This is not simply or even primarily a matter of color, although the president’s racial background has been a source of both opportunity and trial. As the first African American in the White House, he has won an unprecedented level of support among black Americans and the goodwill of enough white Americans to build a national majority.

Yet it’s undeniable that racism lurks beneath so many of the preposterously false charges against him — that this son of Hawaii wasn’t really born in the United States, that he is a secret Muslim who “hates America,” that he’s animated by a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Among African Americans, his persistent emphasis on responsible fatherhood, a key theme of his recent commencement address at Morehouse College, is sometimes cast as a way of pandering to white prejudice by hectoring a community to which he owes a large and still-unpaid political debt.

And those groups who were targeted by the IRS? Well, they attack Obama because of race, and are now blaming Obama for the targeting because of race. Heck, they probably attack Obama for spending so much time campaigning and playing golf because of race. The fact that he’s a terrible leader, a hyper-partisan, working to change America to something more akin to Greece has no bearing on it. But, he reaches out to Republicans with Grand Bargains, Dionne writes. He can’t be partisan! Yet, each time Obama finds a way to blow up the bargains (hence the reason Democrats do not want Obama involved in amnesty at this time) and uses that as a pretext to attack Republicans. Almost like it is planned.

Anyway, if you attack Obama, you’re a racist, per Dionne. Liberals never get tired of playing the race card, and, quite frankly, we should expect to see more of this line of thought feeling as more scandals occur.

Read: Dionne: It’s Not Easy Being Obama »

Posted in Barry Obama, Obamanuts | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Dick Durbin: Should Bloggers And Tweeters Be Shielded Like Journalists?

By William Teach May 27, 2013 – 8:12 am

Loathsome Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il), who at one time compared the military members at Guantanamo Bay detention facility to Nazis, isn’t quite ready to call for a special council regarding the DOJ’s investigations into journalists, as he said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. And

(Daily Caller) “But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

It’s not up to Durbin and his cohorts to define who is and who isn’t covered by the 1st Amendment protections of the Press Clause, and Dick should note that it doesn’t says “journalist”, but “the Press”, which at the time meant any person who felt like publishing any news and/or opinions. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton (and others) thought there was no need for the 1st Amendment to mention the press (it’s well worth reading the entire article)

Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. (This argument lead to adopting the Ninth Amendment.)

There’s a big doubleshot, in that Hamilton saw that the government was given no power to restrict, but that there would be some who would seek to take advantage of the Press clause. Ironically, without that clause, there would be no way to cry out for civil rights, since the federal government ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The purpose of both the speech and press clauses is not to be able to publish the dirty highlights of a Justin Bieber party or Lindsay Lohan’s latest run ins with the law and rehab, but to be able to publish material critical of the government. This grew out of the restrictive policies of the British government towards religion and the press

Freedom of speech and of the press served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish without license their grievances against public policy or conduct of public officials. One of the distasteful things found under the common law was the government practice of criminalizing or shielding itself through requiring license to publish of any criticism it felt made people dissatisfied with their government or government established religion.

Seditious libel (or criminal libel as it was sometimes called) was generally defined as “the intentional publication, without lawful excuse or justification, of written blame of any public man, or of the law, or of any institution established by law.” (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law)

It’s not up to Dick Durbin and his cohorts to define who is covered by a shield law: they’re protected by the Constitution, and they have no power to define under the Constitution. One last quote from Benjamin Franklin

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.

Freedom of the Press is an extension of Freedom of Speech, meant specifically for the written word. We see what happens when the government starts codifying speech, say, at the IRS.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Dick Durbin: Should Bloggers And Tweeters Be Shielded Like Journalists? »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Constitution, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove