…is snow created by massive heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day The Jawa Report, with a post on funding Palestinian terrorists
Read: If All You See… »
…is snow created by massive heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day The Jawa Report, with a post on funding Palestinian terrorists
Read: If All You See… »
I bet you give the high sign of the he-man woman haters club and say the oath all the time
I… Stymie… Member in good standing of the He-Man Woman Haters Club… Do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love, and if I do may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours – or until I scream bloody murder.
All because you don’t believe in “climate change”
Mary Robinson: Climate Change’s Gender Gap
On International Women’s Day, Ireland’s first female president looks at the challenges ahead, including why women will bear the brunt of global warming.
In honor of International Women’s Day, I recently sat down with Robinson in Washington, D.C. to talk about her book, her long history of fighting on behalf of women’s rights, and her latest efforts to bring climate justice into the international spotlight. Here are excerpts from the interview: (big snip)
I would love it if you could explain the idea of how climate change disproportionately affects women.
It’s so clear and obvious, when you undermine poor livelihoods, it is women who bear the brunt. First of all, and my focus in Africa because that’s my knowledge base, particularly, the farming in Africa is done mostly by women. Seventy to 80 percent of the farmers are women. So if the seasons are not cyclical, and they’re not anymore—there are long periods of drought and flash flooding—it’s women who have to adapt. Women on the whole don’t get agriculture training. And they’re having to learn now to diversify their crops, to have seeds that can survive in drought or survive in waterlogged [conditions], and so there’s a disconnect between even the donor community for this agricultural training, mainly focusing on men, and who’s [actually doing the farming]. Also, if there’s more drought and less water, the women have to go further for firewood and right across the board, it affects women more. And I learned a lot from a good friend of mine at this stage, because we met quite a bit, Constance Okellet of Uganda, as I mention in the book. She’s the mother of eight in Uganda who, when she was growing up, had seasons. And now they have this drought and flash flooding and a destroyed school. But what happened when you have this weather shock and the school was destroyed? There’s no insurance, there’s no Plan B—it’s the women. It was the women, because they knew how to form a women’s group, who pulled that village together. And she became a leader by necessity, and then Oxfam learned about her and she learned that it wasn’t that God was punishing the village, it was rich people.
Go that? Weather has changed, so women will suffer. In fact, the majority of the interview has nothing to do with hotcoldwetdry (granted, she does have her own “climate justice” foundation, for which she takes lots of fossil fueled trips around the world) but other issues about women’s struggles around the world, and especially 3rd world shitholes developing countries. Yet, the headline is about “climate change.”
Oh, and Mary doesn’t seem all that concerned about the plight of women under hardcore Islam. Sure, she mentions, briefly, her concerns about the plight of women in Afghanistan once the US leaves, but fails to discuss just how poorly women are treated in most Islamist nations. Because climate change or something.
Read: If You Don’t Believe In Hotcoldwetdry You Must Hate Women’s Equality »
They’re the first state interested in protecting children from crazy people who see “gun free zones” as easy pickings
(NY Times) South Dakota became the first state in the nation to enact a law explicitly authorizing school employees to carry guns on the job, under a measure signed into law on Friday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
Passage of the law comes amid a passionate nationwide debate over arming teachers, stoked after 20 first graders died in an elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December. Shortly afterward, the National Rifle Association proposed a plan for armed security officers in every school, and legislation to allow school personnel to carry guns was introduced in about two dozen states. All those measures had stalled until now.
Several other states already have provisions in their laws — or no legal restrictions — that make it possible for teachers to possess guns in the classroom. In fact, a handful of school districts nationwide do have teachers who carry firearms. But South Dakota is the only known state with a statute that specifically authorizes teachers to possess a firearm in a K-12 school, according to Lauren Heintz, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. (big snip)
The law says that school districts may choose to allow a school employee, a hired security officer or a volunteer to serve as a “sentinel†who can carry a firearm in the school. The school district must receive the permission of its local law enforcement agency before carrying out the program. The law requires the sentinels to undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive.
This is all voluntary for each school, they don’t have to allow guns for protection, but it’s fantastic that they have the option. If there is just one or two armed and brave people in a school it could make a huge difference in making a nutjob say “no, I think I’ll commit mass murder somewhere else”. Heck, teachers and administrators could simply carry an unloaded weapon if they’re squeamish and never let anyone know it’s unloaded, and it would be a deterrent.
Opponents, which included state associations representing school boards and teachers, said the bill was rushed, did not make schools safer and ignored other approaches to safety.
The article includes exactly zero other approaches. Let’s go to the comments
peterheron – I trust there is not a single teacher in South Dakota who will opt to bring a gun into his / her classroom. Metal detectors, OK fine, but teachers with guns? This is an extraordinarily stupid law; the article does not make clear the NRA’s stance on this–did they provide money to the legistrators / Governor?–but the intent is clear: more guns. That benefits no one but gun manufacturerers, and morticians who specialize in coffins for children.
So, we should trust teachers to mold and shape the minds of our kids who are in their hands for 8 hours a day or so, but shouldn’t be trusted with actually protecting their charges?
Now, we wait to see what the politicized Obama DOJ does. Making schools gun free zones is a federal law, which still allows for “resource officers”, but does the law disallow other school employees from carrying? Will the DOJ threaten to sue or actually sue the state? All while ignoring Colorado’s marijuana laws?
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: South Dakota First In Country To Allow Guns For Teachers »
Bloomberg is flogging this story with the headline Most Insurers Lack a Plan to Address Climate Change, as if they’re doing something wrong, yet we learn (via Tom Nelson)
Almost 90 percent of insurance companies lack a comprehensive plan to address climate change and fewer than half of them view it as a likely source of financial losses, according to a report released today.
Only 23 of 184 insurers surveyed demonstrated a “comprehensive climate change strategy†and 88 said they consider climate change a future loss driver, Boston-based Ceres said today in a report.
So, essentially, insurers understand that bad weather happens. Always has, always will, regardless of the climate.
Read: Most Insurers Not Particularly Concerned With Climapocalypse »
…is precious water which can never be used again being wasted on a fossil fueled planet killer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the latest from the NRA.
Read: If All You See… »
Um, why isn’t he living them and many others every day? (via Tom Nelson)
Tomorrow I will pick 5 ideas out of my green ideas list and promise to live by them the week leading up to @earthhour on March 23rd #IWIYW
— Kumi Naidoo (@kuminaidoo) March 7, 2013
So far he hasn’t announced any today.

Read: We’re Saved! Greenpeace Executive Director To (Supposedly) Live By Green Ideas For A Week »
Wait, what?
(NY Times) Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,†Dr. Marcott said.
Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.
As Open Blogger at Ace of Spades points out “can someone explain to me again why mile thick glaciers over the northern states are desirable again? I missed that explanation the first time.”
This is all in conjunction with the new and breathtakingly alarmist report about “The Scariest Hotcoldwetdry Graph Just Got Scarier“. Of course, Mother Jones climate astrologer calls it “climate change”, not hotcoldwetdry. All sorts of other Warmists are freaking out and saying Something Has To Be Done, yet none are calling for Warmists to change their own behavior and give up fossil fuels. Strange that, eh?
Even if the temperature increase from human activity that is projected for later this century comes out on the low end of estimates, scientists said, the planet will be at least as warm as it was during the warmest periods of the modern geological era, known as the Holocene, and probably warmer than that.
So, it was actually warmer during the Holocene?
That epoch began about 12,000 years ago, after changes in incoming sunshine caused vast ice sheets to melt across the Northern Hemisphere. Scientists believe the moderate climate of the Holocene set the stage for the rise of human civilization roughly 8,000 years ago and continues to sustain it by, for example, permitting a high level of food production.
Humans have done better during this warmer period than during a glacial period? Who would have thought that?
In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.
Anthony Watts has a few things to say about the data and methods, and is not impressed. The GWFP notes
In the paper, and in the many press reports of it, it said that the climate has been warming since the industrial revolution kicked into gear, and that the two are related via greenhouse gas emissions. But prior to 1950 anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were to weak to have an a significant effect on the atmosphere. It is implausible to suggest that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions in the 19th century were changing the climate causing global temperature rise.
And there’s the rub of the matter: CO2 and other GHG emissions were at low levels when this “spike” started, not enough to have any sort of real effect. In fact, some have suggested that all the smoke and other particulates from the industrial revolution (which has given Warmists the cushy lifestyles that allow them the time to decry Other People’s modern lifestyles) would have blocked sunlight and decreased temps. What we have here is a casual link without proof of anthropogenic causation. It simply implies that Mankind is at fault without definitive proof.
What caused the end of the last glacial period? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. What caused the other warm periods during the Holocene, interspersed with cool periods? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. Why can’t that be the answer now, with a small percent caused by anthropogenic factors (many of which are localized, not global)?
But, again, if you Believers truly believe, you’ll make your own lives “carbon neutral.”
Read: Uh Oh: Because You Drive A Fossil Fueled Vehicle A New Ice Age Was Averted »