How Conservatives And Liberals Differ On Rape

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 6:58 pm


See full graphic below the fold

Read: How Conservatives And Liberals Differ On Rape »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Conservativism, Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

33 Companies Come Out For Hotcoldwetdry Action

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 2:57 pm

Now you know which companies to attempt to avoid (via Grist)

(Ceres) As the President unveils his budget for the coming year, 33 major U.S. companies, including eBay Inc., Nike and Limited Brands signed a “Climate Declaration,” urging federal policymakers to take action on climate change, asserting that a bold response to the climate challenge is one of the greatest American economic opportunities of the 21st century.

Signatories of the Climate Declaration are among the country’s best-known consumer brands, including EMC Corporation, IKEA, Jones Lang LaSalle, L’Oréal, the North Face, the Portland Trail Blazers, Timberland and Unilever, among others. (A full list of signatories is available at www.climatedeclaration.us.) Over the course of an ongoing campaign organized by Ceres and its BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy) coalition, other leading businesses, as well as individuals, will be encouraged to sign the Declaration and join the call to action.

Well, now we know which companies to avoid as they’re raving hysterics.

“The signatories of the Climate Declaration are calling for Congress to address climate change by promoting clean energy, boosting efficiency and limiting carbon emissions — strategies that these businesses already employ within their own operations.”

There’s that progressivism (nice fascism) again, where they want their beliefs forced on everyone else.

“Businesses understand that planning for a successful future takes investment today. One of the most important things Congress can do to grow our economy and protect our planet is to pass smart climate change legislation this year. Our workforce, supply chain and consumers are counting on us to lead the way,” said Anna Walker, Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy at Levi Strauss & Co.

So, practice what you preach, and leave the rest of us along. Oh, and all these companies should immediately give up all usage of fossil fuels to ship their products and turn the AC and heating systems off at their locations, etc and so on. Bet they won’t.

See the companies below the fold

Ugh, I just bought a new pair of Nike’s. How can we avoid Intel? Nestle? Chocolate!!!!!! Symantec? Not giving them up, as I have a military grade version that is free for life. The rest I can do without. But, I’m not calling for a boycott. Just know that you pay extra for their Warmist views that they want forced on everyone else.

Read: 33 Companies Come Out For Hotcoldwetdry Action »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil CO2 infused can of beer killing Gaia, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Ice Age Now, which notes the snowiest 24 hour period ever in Rapid City.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Good News: Gaia Friendly Coolant Can Eat Your Face

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 11:00 am

The UK Daily Mail reports on this in terms of Obama’s EPA nominee (via Tom Nelson thru Tallbloke’s Talkshop)

Gina McCarthy, who faces a hearing Thursday morning on her fitness to serve as EPA administrator, was primarily responsible for EPA’s promotion of an automotive air conditioning refrigerant that caused engine fires in Mercedes Benz testing, MailOnline can report.

McCarthy, EPA’s current air regulation chief, ‘provided the real forward motion’ for a plan to reward US automakers who used the new climate-change-friendly refrigerant known as ‘HFO-1234yf,’ according to an EPA staffer with knowledge of the agency’s internal processes who spoke on condition of anonymity.

When her EPA subagency, the Office of Air and Radiation, approved HOF-1234yf, McCarthy said that the chemical ‘helps fight climate change and ozone depletion.’

She kinda forgot to mention all the results of the tests by Daimler.

A Daimler engineer told Reuters in December that his team was ‘frozen in shock’ when they saw test after test of HOF-1234yf turn a car’s engine compartment into an inferno after small leaks were simulated. (snip)

The fireball that engulfed their precision engines was caused by a mixture of the refrigerant and air-conditioning compressor oil spraying across the engine block, producing a quick-heated mixture of toxic gas, including hydrogen fluoride – a corrosive compound that can destroy skin after the briefest of exposures and quickly cause blindness. (snip)

He also noted that when HOF-1234yf is released into the atmosphere, it decomposes into other compounds that are ‘extremely persistent’ in the environment.

Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes Benz, recalled every vehicle that used HOF-1234yf. VM, Porsche, and BMW steadfastly refuse to use it. Real world data by these companies show that there is a serious danger in the event of even a minor accident, not too mention that it is actually bad for the real environment. Yet, McCarthy pushed this refrigerant hard and seemingly downplayed the danger

Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it ‘outrageous that Gina McCarthy is being considered for a promotion, when her actions in pushing this dangerous refrigerant into American automobiles shows a callous disregard both for consumers and the environment.’

‘If anything,’ he said, ‘she should be fired, and a special counsel should be appointed to get to the bottom of whether this approval is malfeasance or just incompetence.’

Yeah, but she was just trying to save us all from a burning planet, plus, hey, it would mean more cars off the road. Warmists don’t want Other People driving.

Read: Good News: Gaia Friendly Coolant Can Eat Your Face »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Environment, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

MIT Wonders About Harming People Today To Save Future People From Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 8:44 am

Writer David Rotman is really concerned about the “moral choice”. When liberals start talking about morals, hold on to your wallet (funny, because these same liberals aren’t particularly worried about morals when it comes to killing the unborn)

Climate Change: The Moral Choices

The effects of global warming will persist for hundreds of years. What are our responsibilities and duties today to help safeguard the distant future? That is the question ethicists are now asking.

The obvious answer is that all those who believe in “climate change”, a wholly unscientific term designed to allow the followers of Gore to blame everything on Mankind, should immediately give up their fossil fueled travel and go “carbon neutral.” Weird that so few are willing to do anything of substance for their own lives, eh?

One of the defining characteristics of climate change is poorly appreciated by most people: the higher temperatures and other effects induced by increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will persist for a very long time. Scientists have long realized that carbon dioxide emitted during the burning of fossil fuels tends to linger in the atmosphere for extended periods, even for centuries. Over the last few years, researchers have calculated that some of the resulting changes to the earth’s climate, including increased temperature, are more persistent still: even if emissions are abruptly ended and carbon dioxide levels gradually drop, the temperature will stubbornly remain elevated for a thousand years or more. The earth’s thermostat is essentially being turned up and there are no readily foreseeable ways to turn it back down; even risky geoengineering schemes would at best offset the higher temperatures only temporarily.

Yup, stubbornly increase a whopping .08C (.14F) from 1997 and only .28F (.16C) since 1990. Doooooom! Anyhow, here we go

One of the most controversial issues in economic analysis of climate-change policy is how to weigh the cost of implementing changes now against the benefits that future generations will realize—or the harm they will avoid. It might be supposed that we should do everything we can possibly do now, but that would probably be wrong, suggests Broome, since extremely radical action would have such negative consequences for those alive today that the effects would be felt for generations. Broome wrestles with how to balance these factors in an ethically responsible way, concluding that economists are, in general, right in adopting so-called cost-benefit analyses to evaluate actions on climate change. But he stresses that the ethical assumptions underlying such analyses are critical—and that economists often ignore or misunderstand them.

Extreme radical action is what the Warmists want. Well, for everyone else, of course. With no regard as to how much it may hurt other people. They have their rigid dogma handed down to them to repeat like a mentally impaired parrot and shall not be dissuaded from it.

We have barely begun to grapple with the moral issues related to climate change. Indeed, few are even likely to accept the basic role that ethical issues should play in our policy decisions, and certainly our responsibilities to the distant future are seldom part of the public debate. But given the convincing evidence climate scientists have presented that our actions over the next several decades will have direct consequences for generations who will live many years from now, we must consider the moral dimensions of our response. As Gardiner puts it at the end of his book: “The time to think seriously about the future of humanity is upon us.”

Here’s a moral issue: Warmists, who tend to be white liberals living a modern lifestyle with easy access to food and power, preaching that people in developing world should be denied the same easy access to food and power because of of hotcoldwetdry. It’s easy for the New Climate Deniers to complain, but they should try living like the people in the 3rd world, see if that changes their tune.

Read: MIT Wonders About Harming People Today To Save Future People From Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

By William Teach April 11, 2013 – 8:10 am

Initially when I read the headline of Toomey and Manchin’s bill over at Memeorandum I thought “if they’re calling it a 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act it will be anything but.” Then you get liberals like Clayton Cramer saying that Democrats get a lot in the bill, and 2nd Amendment lovers get little. And the Huffington Post pointing out that the NRA is “lukewarm” on it. In reality, it doesn’t do all that much except expand checks

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.

As for the records from the states, the bill requires that federal funds be withheld from states who do not comply, and does not specify which funds. Here are a few interesting tidbits

  • Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members. (this would override any state laws that require guns go to The State when a person passes on, for one thing)
  • Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term “transport” includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment. (what will “sportsman” be defined as, if at all? Will this allow some who is traveling to bring their weapon without fear, say, let me bring one or both of my handguns with me when traveling to see the parents in NJ?)
  • Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. (would make it easier for lots of people who are law abiding)
  • Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

And the wrapup

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

  • The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
  • The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
  • The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
  • The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
  • The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Here’s one interesting thing the bill doesn’t do: it doesn’t specify what types of guns it’s referring to. In fact, it simply refers to “firearms”. As they say, the proof is in the details once the entire bill is available, but it would appear that this is aimed at all guns, whether they be handguns, shotguns, rifles, muskets, etc. To be honest, I’m not necessarily against a quick background check for all gun purchases: a shotgun can do quite a bit of damage, possibly more than a handgun.

Erick Erickson finds an interesting tidbit, too

The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns.

And who defines mental illness if this can be done? Slippery slopes, slippery slopes.

Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.

Again, the proof is in the details when we see the whole thing. Here’s the NRA

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

I have to disagree, it could help to some degree. But, they’re right that there needs to be a focus on the criminals, rather than law abiding citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: 4 Ways Hotcoldwetdry Will Become Annoying In Some Far Off Time

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 4:17 pm

You know what would be really annoying? Another mini-cool period, what with all the mass starvation, inability to grow wheat, shortened growing seasons, Black Plague, lakes and rivers drying up as the water is locked up in ice and snow….sounds fun, eh?

4 annoying ways climate change will make your life a bummer

Within the next few decades, carbon emissions could cause global temperatures to rise between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit, melting ice caps and causing sea levels to rise. The price of crops like coffee and chocolate will skyrocket, and countless cuddly animals around the globe could be wiped out. And yet, a lot of people find it hard to really care about climate change. But don’t be fooled: Climate change will affect you. Here’s a brief sampling of ways that warmer temperatures will suck the fun out of your life:

  1. Your flights will be more turbulent (actually, the scientists making this claim say it could occur, as usual, hedging their bets, and there is no hard evidence to support the notion)
  2. Your ski vacation will be ruined (wait, I thought current New Climate Denier dogma stated that winters will now be more snowy because Someone Else (probably you!!!!) refused to give up your SUV and ride a bicycle to work)
  3. Your allergy symptoms will be way worse (doesn’t bother me, I’m allergic to dust mites, so, whatever the season, it can screw with me, but, hey, I’d much prefer warmer than colder. Anyhow, the great thing is modern science allows for the creation of allergy pills. Must have sucked during the previous warm periods.)
  4. You’ll have a harder time getting drunk (yes, that’s right, they’re claiming that a bit of warmth – well, really, they’re prognosticating massive increases, despite a big pause even with rising CO2 levels – will make getting beer a luxury. This harkens to a 2009 report about issues with hops growing in Germany and Slovenia because it’s gotten warmer. They should look at more current data, which is seeing cooler temps in those areas)

Can you figure out what’s missing? Any proof that the current warm period is anything but mostly or solely natural. Weird that.

Read: Bummer: 4 Ways Hotcoldwetdry Will Become Annoying In Some Far Off Time »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and cause islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on Obamacare being too complex per an Obamacare designer.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Dems Heart Taxes

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 10:02 am

They do, they really, really do!

(Washington Post) A clear majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the federal income tax system, according to new Washington Post-ABC News polling. But, in a somewhat remarkable finding, a majority of Democrats view the tax system in a positive light while Republicans and Independents carry the exact opposite view.

I’m not sure why that is remarkable. Democrats love taxes. What’s missing, though, is that Democrats love taxes on Other People.

Fifty-three percent of self-identified Democrats in the Post-ABC survey view the income tax system favorably while 43 percent see it unfavorably. That’s a stark contrast to the 66 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of independents who have an unfavorable opinion of the tax system.

The WP’s Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan attempt to explain this

Part of the answer may well be that Democrats are broadly supportive of the idea that government can and should collect taxes in order to provide services for the American public while Republicans and independents are more skeptical about giving money to the federal government to spend.

Let’s fix that, shall we?

Part of the answer may well be that Democrats are broadly supportive of the idea that government can and should collect taxes in order to provide free services and free stuff for themselves paid for by Other People while Republicans and independents are more skeptical about giving money to the federal government to spend on bullshit programs like shrimp on a treadmill, Florida beauty school tuition, road signs touting stimulus funds at work, turtle tunnels, Solyndra, and others to the tune of boatloads of money.

If Democrats like the tax system and the way the money, forcibly taken by the government, so much, they should be willing to send more of their own money to the IRS. At all income levels, Democrats won’t. It’s always about Someone Else having their taxes increased.

Read: Dems Heart Taxes »

Posted in Taxation | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North

By William Teach April 10, 2013 – 8:25 am

Facts: a .08C increase in global temperatures since 1997. A miniscule .28F from 1990-2012. Varying data collections which show warming has paused anywhere from 15-19 years. Warmists who think this is all so dire that they refuse to give up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and refuse to go carbon neutral. Their cult is dying around them. Their attempts at science are continuously beaten by real science. What to do? More scary prognostications!

(Sydney Morning Herald) In 50 years, wines from Bordeaux and Tuscany will be insipid. Instead, we’ll all be drinking Montana merlots and Chinese clarets.

That, at any rate, is the implication of a paper published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which estimates that anywhere from 19 to 73 per cent of the land suitable for wine-growing in today’s major wine regions will be lost to climate change by 2050. (The wide variance reflects the great uncertainty in climate prediction models.) As vineyards in Spain, Italy, and southern France wither, colder regions that are inhospitable today will be poised to take their place as the new grands crus.

If your prediction models predict a variance of 19 to 73 percent, your models stink and are based on wishful thinking, not science. We’re still waiting for the Warmists to tell us exactly what the optimum temperature for the Earth should be. Furthermore, Warmists are like Flat Earthers, in that they expect everything to always stay the same.

There’s just one catch, according to the study. Many of those new wine regions coincide with important habitat for species such as the gray wolf, the pronghorn, the grizzly bear, and in China’s case, the panda.

The most promising new region of all, according to lead author Lee Hannah of the non-profit organisation Conservation International, may be the area north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. That would put it directly in the path of a conservation initiative designed to connect Yellowstone to the Yukon. It’s that very type of wildlife corridor that scientists say may be needed to allow animals such as grizzly bears to respond to climate change themselves. “Vineyards would be a major impediment to this connectivity,” Hannah writes in a blog post about the study. “They provide poor habitat for wildlife, and would probably have to be fenced to avoid bears snacking on the grapes.”

And, there we go, the New Climate Deniers have linked “climate change” with conservation in an attempt to ramp up the scary prognostications from a 6 to a 9. During the previous warm period they were growing wine, good ones, in England. During the Little Ice Age wine grape production moved further south. But, seriously, all the way up to Wyoming and Montana? This is hysteria and cultish behavior, not science. The Carbon Sense Coalition pulls a great quote from H.L. Menken which perfectly encapsulates the New Climate Deniers

“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.”

Warmists are never willing to abandon their ideas: they’re only willing to stretch them so that no matter what happens, it is the fault of Mankind.

Read: Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove