New Climate Deniers Blame Spring Snow On, Yup, Global Warming

Do they think people are this stupid, or are they just this brainwashed? Witness Salon’s…well, that’s weird, no one was willing to put their name to this fable

Blizzards in May. Wild fires. Is this global warming?

Sandy has been followed by massive spring snowfalls. Here’s what to look for as our climate-change awareness grows

And here’s Salon’s handy dandy view of what global warming looks like

Cult, anyone?

From that point on, the excerpted article from Climate Central fails to mention anything to support either the headline or the sub-header. But, just the very fact that Salon would link spring snow with greenhouse gases is pure cultish fervor.

We are further treated to a whole bunch of “we don’t knows” regarding the possible effects of “climate change” due to CO2 with a smattering of “trust us'”. And that now we won’t see more hurricanes, but they’ll be more powerful (except for the pesky fact that there have been no major landfalling US hurricanes since late 2005, and only one barely a hurricane (if it was) hurricanes since 2008. Plus doom, gloom, and things that might maybe possibly happen. Like freaking snow in spring, I guess. Because Warmists are unclear of the concept that greenhouse gases trap solar rays and make it warmer.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: New Climate Deniers Blame Spring Snow On, Yup, Global Warming »

Chutzpah: Guy Whose Admin Walked Guns Into Mexico Blames America For Mexican Gun Violence

Sadly, this is not the Onion or some other satirical website making things up. These are direct quotes from a guy who is technically the POTUS and whom overseas a multitude of alphabet soup agencies who intentional walked guns across the border into Mexico with no intention to track them until they were used for crimes, failed to divulge Fast And Furious to the Mexican authorities/government, and the result was over 200 Mexicans killed, including children, along with all those injured, as well as 2 US federal agents killed

(RCP) “Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”

“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.

Hmm, too bad none of the reporters had the cajones to mention F&F to Mr. Obama. He also whined about Americans failing to respect Mexicans and indulging in old stereotypes and imposing ourselves on their sovereignty. Says the man who ran guns into Mexico.

Interestingly, virtually none of the “common-sense” reforms would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. And it’s a bit late to strengthen gun running laws when the Obama admin. already did it.

More:

  • Bob Owens: Mexico’s greatest arms dealer blames U.S. citizens for cartel gun violence
  • The Lonely Conservative: What Nerve! Obama Blames Gun Violence In Mexico On US
  • protein wisdom: And no, this isn’t an Onion piece (I like the way JeffG thinks!)
  • Niles Gardiner: Will Barack Obama ever stop apologising for America?

Read: Chutzpah: Guy Whose Admin Walked Guns Into Mexico Blames America For Mexican Gun Violence »

Grist: We Need A Wartime Mobilization To Fight Hotcoldwetdry

Because ‘climate change’ is like fighting WWII, and requires a similar solution, per Grist’s David Roberts

The lessons that emerge from that period aren’t ones I’m particularly comfortable with, and it sounds like the authors aren’t totally thrilled with them either. Long story short, what’s required in wartime mobilization is an enormous amount of centralized federal executive authority, an enormous amount of borrowing and taxing, and an enormous amount of labor displacement and retraining. At least temporarily, the economy will be more government-directed than market-based.

They may not be comfortable with them, but they want them regardless.

Among other things, pulling that off will require some sort of large-scale strategy, a set of goals and programs, that is durable enough to be insulated from the ebb and flow of passing administrations and changes in public opinion. It must be focused on long-term mitigation rather than merely immediate adaptation (which is what all the short-term political pressure will favor).

So, fascistic controls that elected government cannot stop.

At the same time, however, the mitigation strategy can’t be so rigid that it is immune to public oversight and control. Some measure of democratic control must be preserved.

Whew! At least we’d be allowed to keep some semblance of democracy. I suppose much like Saddam was elected with 99% of the vote instead of 100%. David goes on to say “no, you do not “got me”, I’m not really saying we need monster big fascistic government”, ending with

There’s no libertarian choice here. A huge, global challenge like climate change is inevitably going to mean more government action and intrusion. The choice is, do you want managed big government, with a bounded set of plans and some amount of oversight built in, or do you want panicked big government, responding to migrations, famines, and conflict? I’m not exactly excited about either choice, but the former definitely strikes me as the lesser of two evils.

Yup, monster big fascistic government based on Progressive ideals. They put their ideas out there with supposed “controls” and oversight as a way to deflect from the real message of “submit”.

Read: Grist: We Need A Wartime Mobilization To Fight Hotcoldwetdry »

If All You See…

…is snow created by too much fossil fueled heat, you might just be a New Climate Denier

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on what’s wrong with the Gang Of 8 amnesty bill.

Read: If All You See… »

Schoolkids Seriously Tired Of Knowing What Snow Looks Like

Won’t someone please think of the children!

(Salt Lake Tribune) Schoolchildren in Minnesota and Wisconsin got a rare May snow day Thursday as a storm dropped up to 16 inches of sticky snow across a beleaguered region that was just starting to enjoy spring.

Bobbi Howe’s daughters, 10-year-old Emma and 7-year-old Averie, stayed home in the southeastern Minnesota city of Owatonna, where 15.5 inches of snow made it hard for the family to open their front door. Owatonna was one of dozens of Minnesota and Wisconsin school districts that canceled classes for the day.

For Emma, the promise of a late spring snow day felt a little less like paradise.

“It’s not cool,” Emma said, adding that she was tired of winter and would rather be at school. “I don’t like the snow right now.”

Nancy Keller of Owatonna said her three kids were getting fed up with the endless winter, too. She said several of their tennis, soccer matches and field trips already have been postponed.

“They’re getting tired of having things canceled,” Keller said.

Good thing snowfalls are just a thing of the past and that children just aren’t going to know what snow is (since discussing Warmist predictions is often “inside baseball”, the headline and the post ending refer to a crazy prognostication from the UK Independent).

Warmists to blame Mankind’s use of fossil fuels creating a new normal of extreme weather in 3…2…1…

Read: Schoolkids Seriously Tired Of Knowing What Snow Looks Like »

Warmists Decide “Settled Science” Means They Should Burn Books

This is what science involves for the New Climate Deniers

(Watts Up With That?) From the Fahrenheit 451 department comes this indictment of California’s higher education’s “tolerance” for opposing views. When I first got the tip on this, I thought to myself “nobody can be this stupid to photograph themselves doing this” but, here they are, right from the San Jose State University Meteorology Department web page:

Warmists burn a book

The caption from the SJSU website reads:

This week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute {this or this }. The book is entitled “The Mad, Mad, Made World of Climatism”. Shown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.

Maybe they just can’t help themselves, note the pictures on the wall.

As Anthony Watts points out, the webpage post was removed, surely because they were caught engaging in the modern equivalent of the Inquisition. However, it lives on as an archived version. Anthony also has a screencap. From Heartland

Heartland must be having an impact if the leftist reflex to seeing our latest project — the wide distribution of a book that boils down a lot of this research for a layman audience — is to pull out the book of matches. Thanks for making Goreham’s point, professors! The enviro-left in academia has “progressed” from ignoring all this non-alarmist evidence, to trying to dismiss it, to failing at that, to refusing to debate, to fudging data and blackballing contrarian evidence, to committing crimes against The Heartland Institute, to now showing the world that putting a match to evidence from the “other side” is a reasonable reaction. Pathetic. We are witnessing the death throes of a cult in real time, and it ain’t pretty.

The Warmists may have thought it was a joke, but they sure didn’t react like it when they were caught. Or, maybe they needed to warm things up, considering the US is headed for the coldest spring on record. The majority of the lower 48 has been at or below normal temps for the entire year. The temps do not seem to be reacting according to the Warmist’s computer models or prognostication.

Oh, and if Heartland is reading, I’d surely like a copy of the book. Sorry, not spending $16 on an ebook version (I don’t spend that much on any ebook). $5 to $8? Sure.

Read: Warmists Decide “Settled Science” Means They Should Burn Books »

SC House Passes Bill Making Obamacare Enforcement A Crime

Might this empower and lead other States to do the same?

(Fox News) The bill, approved Wednesday by a vote of 65-39, declares President Obama’s signature legislation “null and void.” Whereas the law that Obama pushed and Congress passed is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, South Carolina’s law would be known as the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act.

It would prohibit state officials and employees from “enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws” and “establish criminal penalties and civil liability” for those who engage in activities that aid the implementation of ObamaCare.

In South Carolina, the nullification bill would allow the state attorney general to take action against anyone causing harm by the implementation of ObamaCare. It proceeds to the state Senate for committee review, according to The Washington Times.

It will most likely pass the SC Senate, as Republicans control the body 28-18, and Gov. Nikki Haley (R) will most likely sign it. It’s not quite nullification, more along the lines of  “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.” Gov. Haley has said that the people of SC do not want and cannot afford Obamacare.

An interesting question: if it passes the Senate and Haley signs it, will Obama’s highly politicized Department Of Justice sue? They sued Arizona for the SB1070, which tightened laws and rules regarding illegal aliens. But, they did not sue Colorado for marijuana legalization, despite marijuana being a Schedule I drug per the federal government.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: SC House Passes Bill Making Obamacare Enforcement A Crime »

OFA Receives 4 Pinocchios On Climate Vote Talking Point

Yeah, you’re shocked

(Washington Post) President Obama’s new political group, Organizing for Action, last week released a new video that mocks Republican lawmakers for appearing to play down or dismiss concerns about climate change. Some of the clips are fairly interesting — or amusing, depending on your perspective. It has already been viewed more than 225,000 times on You Tube.

We’ve written before about the growing consensus among climate researchers that climate change is the result of human activity; there’s little debate about that among scientists, though surveys show increasing skepticism among the American public. But we were intrigued by the video’s claim that 240 House lawmakers had called climate change to be a “hoax.”

Hey, Glenn Kessler, consensus is not science. Anyhow, let’s skip to the conclusion

There’s little evidence that a vote against this amendment meant that a lawmaker was affirming that climate change was a “hoax.” There are clearly lawmakers who voted against the amendment who believe that human activity contributes in some way to climate change — and the underlying bill actually states that there is “established scientific concern” that climate change exists.

Certainly there’s a strong strain of skepticism about climate change among Republican lawmakers, as demonstrated by a number of clips in the video. So initially we were tempted to conclude that this claim did not quite rise to Four Pinocchios. But the video seriously undercuts its credibility with the phony accounting on the amendment — and this sort of gamesmanship with congressional votes is simply not acceptable.

And 4 Pinocchios for the supposedly independent from Obama Organizing For Obama Action.

Read: OFA Receives 4 Pinocchios On Climate Vote Talking Point »

If All You See…

…is a food field that could be destroyed because of too much droughtflood, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on sex changes at Duke.

Read: If All You See… »

So, How Do You Get Conservatives To Buy “Green”?

Joe Romm’s highly partisan and George Soros funded Think Progress links to a study cited at The Atlantic

How Do You Get Conservatives to Buy Energy Efficient Products?

Why do conservatives, who should have a natural inclination toward conservation, have a beef with energy efficiency? It could be tied to the political polarization of the climate change debate.

A study out in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least.

The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb, the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

First, when do they cost the same? CFLs are typically more expensive, and those that aren’t are complete pieces of garbage.

Second, the study, as well as The Atlantic and Think Progress articles, position this as hating on the environment. What they miss is that it’s not the environment that we have a problem with. It’s not saving energy. We are (for the most part) all for that. We like to save money. We like to protect the environment. I typically choose appliances that are energy and environmentally friendly. I just spent almost $4000 on a new A/C unit that will cut my power by third to a half in the warm months. I bought an energy efficient fridge a few years ago. I typically buy environmentally friendly products like car wash liquid. I don’t litter (can liberals say the same? Every liberal event seems to generate tons of litter). I don’t always recycle, I’m not perfect, but I try.

The problem is that many tune the message of “green” out and purchase non-green because it has become synonymous with ‘climate change’, a made up issue. The Warmists have managed to take real environmental issues and put them under the banner of “climate change”.

Oh, and really, most CFLs stink. I used to like them, but they are a pain, giving out different light by brand. They have mercury. And they suck. I do use them in a few places, but not for my main reading lights.

Double oh, the study shows that Liberals are brain dead sheep who will buy anything their cult leaders tell them to.

Read: So, How Do You Get Conservatives To Buy “Green”? »

Pirate's Cove