If All You See…

By William Teach May 17, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooded world because someone refused to limit themselves to 2 sheets of toilet paper, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Nice Deb, with a scandalpalooza post with lots of videos.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Does Anyone In This Administration Know Anything?

By William Teach May 17, 2013 – 11:14 am

Obama knows nothing.

Jay Carney knows nothing.

Eric Holder knows nothing.

Hillary Clinton knew nothing.

Susan Rice only knew what she was told.

Acting IRS head Steven Miller Knows nothing.

In most cases, if this were a private sector corporation, all those people would be “promoted to customer”. Terminated for incompetence. Summarily dismissed. But, this is government, where failing to answer questions is the norm, where not having the information (or pretending to not have it) is the norm.

There are no adults in charge. There doesn’t seem to be anyone in charge.

And people wonder why Conservatives complain about the size and scope of Government.

Read: Does Anyone In This Administration Know Anything? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Trot Out New “97% Consensus” Paper

By William Teach May 17, 2013 – 10:33 am

I first caught this over at Grist

An international team of scientists analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 dealing with climate change and global warming. That’s right — we’re talking about 20 years of papers, many published long before Superstorm Sandy, last year’s epic Greenland melt, or Australia’s “angry summer.”

About two-thirds of the authors of those studies refrained from stating in their abstracts whether human activity was responsible for climate change. But in those papers where a position on the claim was staked out, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are, indeed, cooking the planet.

Hence, because 97.1% where they did stake a claim state that Mankind is responsible, we have a new meme of 97 out of 100 climate scientists blaming Man. I’d love to know just how we’re cooking the planet when the global temps have gone up just 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit since 1990, the year prior to the start of looking at climate papers.

Jo Nova provides some takeaways from this New Climate Denier paper, produced by Warmist John Cook

  • Thousands of papers support man-made climate change, but not one found the evidence that matters
  • Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming
  • Some of these abstracts are 20 years old — does two decades of new evidence change anything?
  • Naiomi Oreskes found 928 papers with abstracts that didn’t explicitly reject man-made global warming. So? Skeptics found 1,100 papers that support skeptical views.
  • You want authority? Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists who agree, including 9,000 PhDs, 45 NASA experts (including two astronauts who walked on the moon) and two Nobel Prize winners in physics.

Ms. Nova provides a total of 12 clues that should make people sit up and take notice as to the fallacy of Cook’s 97% consensus paper. Make sure to read them all.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Guardian pushed the meme of almost unanimous concensus, but, as Steve Milloy points out, 8,000 papers did not take a position.

Anthony Watts likewise chimes in, pointing out that just 32.6% of the papers took a position. And let’s consider that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) craze had started just a few years prior to the start of the study sample, a time when scientists were very interested to see if Mankind had its fingerprints on the big warming that occurred starting in the late 70’s (right after they were worried about a coming ice age). With the fall of Communism, many of these scientists were coming in with an agenda to push Progressive Big Government, which was easily pushed with barely any way for people to get real information from a media that felt the same way. With the true rise of the Internet people were able to start seeing the real data and reality in the 2000’s. And let’s not forget that taking a position is not always the same as science.

Don’t expect any media outlets which push this new 97% meme to really let people know the true math, namely that it is 97% of just 32.6%.

Brandon Shollenberger digs deeper

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

Read the whole post as to why.

Oh, and here’s the totally independent from Obama Organizing For Obama Action

Will they tell Obama to stop taking so many fossil fueled trips?

Read: Warmists Trot Out New “97% Consensus” Paper »

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

Obamacare To Cost $1.8 Trillion Over First 10 Years

By William Teach May 17, 2013 – 8:27 am

Fortunately, the IRS will be the enforcement agency for Obamacare, wanting tons and tons of your personal and private information, and the person in charge of the IRS department which targeted the TEA Party is running the IRS health care office, so, hey, what else could go wrong?

(Washington Examiner) When President Obama was selling his health care legislation to Congress, he declared that “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” But with the law’s major provisions set to kick in next year, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will cost double that, or $1.8 trillion.

What accounts for the dramatic difference? It’s true that at the time of passage, the CBO said the gross cost of the law’s provisions to expand insurance coverage would be $940 billion over a decade. But as many critics of the health care law pointed out at the time, this number was deceptive because it estimated spending from 2010 through 2019 even though the program’s major spending provisions weren’t scheduled to go into effect until 2014. Effectively, the original estimate measured the cost of six years of Obamacare instead of 10.

And everyone knew that Team Obama was playing games with numbers as they submitted Obamacare to the CBO, and that this was based on static conditions that really didn’t account for the future conditions, nor what the fallout of implementation would be, such as people losing their employer based insurance

Now, as implementation approaches, CBO has released projections for the 2014 to 2023 budget window — the first actual decade of Obamacare — and the gross cost projection is $1.8 trillion.

CBO now expects the Medicaid expansion to cover an additional 13 million people by 2023 (up 1 million from its February estimate) and the new government-run insurance exchanges to cover 24 million (1 million fewer than previously projected).

So, for one thing, Ocare is losing 1 million who would have paid into the exchanges while adding 1 million non-paying patients into Medicaid.

Phillip Klein goes on to write that the CBO estimates that 7 million will lose their employer based health insurance. And these are all estimates. Once the reality of ObamaCare kicks in the price tag will surely go much, much higher.

Read: Obamacare To Cost $1.8 Trillion Over First 10 Years »

Posted in Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Liberals Desperately Wishing For President Bystander’s Scandals To Fall Apart

By William Teach May 17, 2013 – 8:05 am

And providing cover for malfeasance. It starts with the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, and Obama sycophant disguised as a member of the press, who at least acknowledges that these are scandals

Things go wrong in government. Sometimes it’s just bad luck. Sometimes it’s rank incompetence. Sometimes it’s criminal wrongdoing. Most of the time you never hear about it. Or, if you do hear about it, the media eventually gets bored talking about it (see warming, global).

But every so often an instance of government wrongdoing sprouts wings and becomes something quite exciting: A political scandal.

He then goes through the three big ones (AP phone records, Benghazi, IRS targeting Conservative groups) while leaving out lots of important information, blaming low level employees, forgiving Obama and senior administration officials for being unengaged passerby’s, and ending up with

I want to emphasize: It’s always possible that evidence could emerge that vaults one of these issues into true scandal territory. But the trend line so far is clear: The more information we get, the less these actually look like scandals.

Uh. But, you know what’s really, really important? Not 4 Americans left to die, not the DOJ taking reporter phone records willy nilly, not the IRS intentionally targeting Conservative groups for more scrutiny and using its powers for partisan purposes, no it’s

And then, of course, there are all the other problems Congress is ignoring, from high unemployment to sequestration to global warming. When future generations look back on the scandals of our age, it’ll be the unchecked rise in global temperatures, not the Benghazi talking points, that infuriate them.

Sigh. Let’s recall some important numbers: a 0.28F increase in global temperatures since 1990, and 0.14F increase since 1997. Those are what is known as “statistically insignificant”. Has Ezra given up his fossil fueled travel yet?

Many other ObamaZombies follow along, such as Taylor Marsh, Rachel Maddow, TheMahablog, Greg Sargent, and so many others are wishing the issues would go away, saying they are going away, and/or saying they are big fat nothing burgers. As the saying goes, just imagine if Obama was a Republican, not a Democrat. How would they be treating these scandals, not too mention other issues, such as Fast and Furious?

Here’s Jennifer Rubin

It is not a coincidence that the few dead-enders in the lefty blogosphere and punditocracy still defending the president embody the same ethos as the president. Republicans are liars, entirely responsible for all that goes wrong, out to wreck the economy and racists, they would have us believe. Obama set the tone, but they amplified it, encouraged it and dutifully took down the White House talking points. Had they not been so passive and eager to enable the White House, some in the administration might have internalized a sense of limits. Instead, they got nothing but encouragement.

It’s not just those in the Left-O-Sphere: it’s those in the press corps, which includes those writing opinion pieces.

(Washington Free Beacon) Lately the top officials of the executive branch have seemed always to be in another room, on another call. Hillary Clinton says she was not aware of cables warning of lax security in Benghazi. Eric Holder says he is not sure when he recused himself from the investigation into the AP leak, or if he told the White House, or, really, of anything. Obama says he learned about the IRS IG investigation from the news. He says the Benghazi talking points were a matter of dispute between State and CIA, not the White House. A Martian reading the statements of senior officials on subjects of public controversy would conclude that the U.S. government operates at the whims of midlevel career personnel. But why pick on Martians. Chris Matthews concludes the same thing: “The steering wheel doesn’t control the car anymore.”

With Obama, the buck only stops at his desk when he can crow about it and take it on the campaign trail. Everything is is Someone Else’s fault. However, Obama sets the tone, and it is one that enable these scandals.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Liberals Desperately Wishing For President Bystander’s Scandals To Fall Apart »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Liberal World, Obamanuts | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Monsieur Kerry Takes Fossil Fueled Flight, Regrets America Isn’t Doing More To Stop Fossil Fueled Flights

By William Teach May 16, 2013 – 5:04 pm

You can’t make this up. Secretary Of State John “Poodle” Kerry took a fossil fueled flight to Sweden and said this (via Grist, which was hoping he would truly apologize for America because fossil fueled flights are causing the Arctic to broil or something)

I also want to say that we appreciate Sweden’s partnership because these challenges in Europe and North Africa and Central Asia simply do not belong to one nation; they’re shared by all of us and they affect all of us. And at the top of that list of shared challenges which does not get enough attention, and it’s one of the principal reasons that I came here today to share bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister but also will travel on to Kiruna to take part in the Arctic Council, a principal challenge to all of us of life and death proportions is the challenge of climate change. It is not a challenge that can be solved by any one nation, and in our discussions with the Prime Minister he pointed out to me that, in fact, Sweden’s contribution to the problem of – to the problem of climate change is a tiny point percentage of the total problem. And yet Sweden’s contribution to the solution is much more significant than anything that might be expected because of the level of its own contribution to the problem. So Sweden is way ahead of the curve.

And I have to say that I regret that my own country – and President Obama knows this and is committed to changing it – needs to do more and we are committed to doing more. …..

John Kerry, continuing the Obama Admin. global apology tour.

Read: Monsieur Kerry Takes Fossil Fueled Flight, Regrets America Isn’t Doing More To Stop Fossil Fueled Flights »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Kerry | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 16, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible CO2 infused beer coming from a fridge that certainly has a Gaia killing ice maker, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on Nixon.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Oh, Noes, Hotcoldwetdry Could Mean Less Fish

By William Teach May 16, 2013 – 11:15 am

Doom

(Time) It’s easy to forget that global warming doesn’t just refer to the rising temperature of the air. Climate change is having an enormous, if less well understood, impact on the oceans, which already absorb far more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere. Like so much of what goes on in the vast depths that cover more than two-thirds of our planet’s surface, the effect of climate change on the oceans remains a black box—albeit one that scientists are working to illuminate.

And something like 96% of CO2 released yearly comes from natural processes, including the oceans, which release 16 times the amount all of Mankind does.

Here’s one way: fisheries. Wild fish remain a major source of protein for humanity—as well as a major source of reality TV shows—and for some coastal communities, fish mean even more. Scientists aren’t clear about what climate change, including the warming of the oceans, will have on wild fisheries. As Mark Payne of the National Institute of Aquatic Resources writes in a new piece in Nature, ocean researchers “tend to view climate change as a dark cloud on the horizon: potentially problematic in the future, but not of immediate concern”—especially compared to the much more pressing threat of simple overfishing.

Oh, so we don’t really know. Gotcha.

But now a new study in Nature makes the case that climate change—including the warming of the oceans—is already having a direct impact on global fisheries. Researchers led by William Cheung at the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Centre created a new model that took the known temperature preferences of different species of commercial fish and compared those figures to global catch numbers from around the world. They found that species comfortable in warmer waters have been replacing fish that are more accustomed to cool temperatures. That means climate change is altering the makeup of fisheries around the world—and that could be particularly bad for the tropics, which may eventually become too hot for even for fish that tend to prefer it on the warmer side.

First, fish evolved in much, much warmer waters. Second, this in no way proves anthropogenic causation. Third, I love how Warmists become flat Earthers and discard Darwinism for the sake of their pet cult-like hypothesis. Fourth, another frigging model. These people are nuts. Oh, and fish seemed to have survived just fine during the previous warm periods. And an ice age beforehand. And they still refuse to practice what they preach.

Read: Oh, Noes, Hotcoldwetdry Could Mean Less Fish »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Suggests That Wimpier Men Hold Liberal Views

By William Teach May 16, 2013 – 7:46 am

In evolutionary terms, liberal men are acting like women who need protection, both physically and psychologically (hey, don’t start the misogynist yammering, that’s the way it was for the human species, in general terms, for much of our pre-history)

Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

I’m not so sure that using a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best example, but he certainly held some right side views. The study isn’t perfect, though

In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

But

Professor Petersen said: ‘Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions.’

The study was primarily done along the lines of redistribution, and we find that liberal men tend to be weaker both physically (upper body strength) and mentally, and want someone to take care of them, with data collected from United States, Argentina and Denmark, and were published in the journal Psychological Science.

Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people’s political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.

‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they’re designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’

So, liberal men are essentially wimpy.

mom jeans and short hop

The study has no bearing on whether women will be right or left side.

Read: Study Suggests That Wimpier Men Hold Liberal Views »

Posted in Conservativism, Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Tries To Stop The Bleeding

By William Teach May 16, 2013 – 7:19 am

If our supposedly fair and independent press would have done their jobs over the past 4+ years there would have been quite a bit more bleeding from Mr. Chicago Way

(Politico) In recent days, Democratic strategists have all but begged President Barack Obama to take control of a deepening public relations disaster that threatens to derail his second-term agenda.

On Wednesday evening, Obama did just that. The White House released 100 pages of emails and documents showing the evolution of the administration’s talking points about the Benghazi attack. Just over an hour later, Obama himself came to the podium to announce that he’d directed his Treasury secretary to request the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner — and had gotten it.

So did two decisive actions on one rapid-fire news night stop the bleeding?

Well, ah, no. That resignation of the acting IRS commish? He was leaving in June anyhow. His was a temporary appointment lasting from November 2012 through May 2013.

The 100 pages of Benghazi emails? First, they start September 14th. The attack occurred three days earlier on 9/11. Where are the emails from those days? But they do show the heavy hand of the State Department watering down the original statement. Oh, and quite a few pages are simply the same email sent to someone else, rather than any sort of deep chain. They also show that the State Dept (hey, don’t they work for Obama?) wanted no part in letting people know that they had received warnings about the attacks beforehand. Really, the release is a deflection and an attempt to misdirect.

But after days of anxiety, Democratic operatives said the White House has found its footing. But happy as they were to see Obama win a news cycle, they insisted he’s far from being in the clear — Republican adversaries feel that they’re only just beginning, and they’ll have another chance to lay into the administration at Friday’s hearing on the IRS.

Much of the rest of the Politico article is about Team O and Dems wanting to win the news cycles, rather than following the law, doing the right thing, fixing the issues, and holding people accountable. Team O cares about the optics, not the issues.

But, the O admin will also have to deal with the burgeoning scandal regarding the phone records of AP. He wants the Senate to pass a shield law (via The Lonely Conservative)

(Free Beacon) However, the bill will likely contain a large carve-out for national security matters. The 2009 version of the legislation contained national security exemptions, which were included at the request of the White House.

Such a provision would likely not have shielded the AP from the Justice Department subpoena.

And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but this law would be unconstitutional, since it would consist of breaking “Congress shall pass no law….abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press…”. One would think Mr. Constitutional Professor would know that.

Then there is the matter that the DOJ obtained phone records from inside the House of Representatives, which, while targeting the press, could have involved members of Congress. Can you say violation of the separation of powers, and yet another stunning overreach?

I wonder what revelation we’ll be treated to today?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Tries To Stop The Bleeding »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Democrats | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove