Heavy Snow In Russia? That’s “Climate Change”

The cult of Climate Astrology is at it again (via The New Nostradamus Of The North)

(Moscow Times) The heaviest snowfall in a century brought Moscow and the surrounding region to a near standstill and left hundreds of people without power, officials said Tuesday.

And with snowfall set to continue at least until the end of the week, the authorities are bracing for more chaos on the roads.

“There hasn’t been such a winter in 100 years,” Pyotr Biryukov, deputy mayor for residential issues, said Tuesday in comments carried by Interfax. “The snow this year has already reached one and a half times the climatic norm,” he said.

They’ve received a massive amount of snow, and it keeps coming and coming. Epic snowfall. So, what do the Warmists at the World Wildlife Federation Russia say?

“The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia. “In the summer, we will probably see stronger bursts of rain.”

“In Moscow, that causes problems for transportation,” he said. “But in Central Asia and other places, it means flash flooding and very serious problems for agriculture.”

These people really are bat-guano insane, and anyone who believes this tripe should be treated as such and discouraged from being seen in society and their mental competence questioned. No matter what happens in the world, it “proves” their hypothesis of hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Heavy Snow In Russia? That’s “Climate Change” »

Democrats In Brokeifornia Offer Legislation Requiring Insurance For Gun Owners To Protect The Taxpayer

Seriously. California is one of the brokest big governmental entities in the world, spending taxpayer money taken at the barrel of a jail cell willy nilly, yet…

(The Blaze) Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons.

Similar bills have been introduced in other states following the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. They include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

“I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country,” said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. “There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”

Let’s see: Brokeifornia’s taxpayers are footing the bill for the far left leaning government’s lax policies on illegal immigration, which leads to the jails “hosting” a population that is over 1/3rd illegals, hospitals running in the red and seeing their emergency rooms close, and lots of crime. Their social services programs are over-run, as is the educational system.

Ting equated the idea to requiring vehicle owners to buy auto insurance. Gomez argued it would encourage gun owners to take firearms safety classes and keep their guns locked up to get lower insurance rates.

Getting some gun owners to take safety classes is not a bad idea. Heck, some need to be taught how to fire a gun correctly. How would the insurance carrier know about keeping the guns locked up? Might this be a way to have The Government visit and check out gun owner’s homes?

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said most gun owners already act responsibly and can be sued for damages if they don’t.

He said the proposal is part of an ongoing attempt to “price gun owners out of existence,” particularly the law-abiding poor who live in crime-ridden areas and need protection the most. Criminals would ignore the law, he said.

And that’s the true point of the legislation. While one can actually purchase liability insurance already, we can surely bet that what would come from the government of California would be so expensive that many gun owners couldn’t afford it. And, really, this is legislation that goes after legal gun owners, punishing them for exercising a Constitutional Right, rather than focusing on those who shouldn’t have them.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Democrats In Brokeifornia Offer Legislation Requiring Insurance For Gun Owners To Protect The Taxpayer »

California Looks To Go After Illegally Owned Guns

….wait, California?

(SFGate) In the divisive debates over gun control, here is something all factions should agree on: Deadly weapons should be taken out of the hands of those who have been deemed a risk because of felony convictions or episodes of domestic violence, mental health conditions or drug addictions.

California is the only state that has the ability to cross-check records of gun registrations against the list of those who are legally forbidden to possess firearms.

State Attorney General Kamala Harris has been making a concerted effort to confiscate guns from those on the banned list, but it’s a monumental task. At a legislative hearing last week, a representative from her Department of Justice said that about 20,000 registered gun owners in the state are ineligible to possess firearms – and that list is growing by about 3,000 a year.

The confiscation of firearms from felons and owners with court-certified issues with anger management, mental illness or addiction poses no danger to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

See, this is a common sense idea, going after those who aren’t legally entitled to own a gun. Of course, in some cases, someone is restricted simply because they are a felon but aren’t a danger. Consider, Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies, making her ineligible to own a gun. Is she a danger or a threat?

And, this still means that there are quite a few serious criminals running around California who won’t get a gun legally. There are no shortage of gangs in the Golden State. But, this is at least a start which doesn’t attempt to deal with the gun issue with a blanket decree that ends up hurting law abiding citizens who are legally entitled to own a gun.

Read: California Looks To Go After Illegally Owned Guns »

If All You See…

…is an awesome planet healing bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sentry Journal, with a post on gun control.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmist Paper Suggests People Should Work Less To Solve Hotcoldwetdry

Fortunately for them, ObamaCare is working on making a shorter work day a reality, as are the Obama economic policies (via Tom Nelson, of course)

(US News And World Report) Want to reduce the effects of global warming? Stop working so hard. Working fewer hours might help slow global warming, according to a new study released Monday by the Center for Economic Policy and Research.

A worldwide switch to a “more European” work schedule, which includes working fewer hours and more vacation time, could prevent as much as half of the expected global temperature rise by 2100, according to the analysis, which used a 2012 study that found shorter work hours could be associated with lower carbon emissions.

The Center for Economic Policy and Research is a liberal think tank based in Washington.

Of course, those vacations would have to be staycations, otherwise all the fossil fueled travel would undo this plan. And, no, the Warmists don’t mind giving up economic prosperity to save Gaia from getting a fever.

And, let’s not forget that there really hasn’t been any real global warming since 1990, with a whopping increase of .28F over 22 years.

But, I’m sure Lefties would be thrilled with having to work less, and would agitate to get paid exactly the same.

Read: Warmist Paper Suggests People Should Work Less To Solve Hotcoldwetdry »

Bummer: Electric Cars Heading To Trash Bin (Again)

Of course, they’ll have to be pushed there since they can’t travel very far under their own power

(Reuters) Recent moves by Japan’s two largest automakers suggest that the electric car, after more than 100 years of development and several brief revivals, still is not ready for prime time – and may never be.

In the meantime, the attention of automotive executives in Asia, Europe and North America is beginning to swing toward an unusual but promising new alternate power source: hydrogen.

The reality is that consumers continue to show little interest in electric vehicles, or EVs, which dominated U.S. streets in the first decade of the 20th century before being displaced by gasoline-powered cars.

Despite the promise of “green” transportation – and despite billions of dollars in investment, most recently by Nissan Motor Co – EVs continue to be plagued by many of the problems that eventually scuttled electrics in the 1910s and more recently in the 1990s. Those include high cost, short driving range and lack of charging stations.

Even most climate astrologers weren’t interested in purchasing these vehicles, including the Chevy Firestarter, er, Volt. What’s the point of spending quite a bit of money for a vehicle that won’t go very far per charge, and tends to be tiny? Sure, Warmists would be saving the planet from boiling, but they’ve never had much interest in practicing what they preach. Why spend $45k on a Volt when one can purchase a load Civic for quite a bit less, and actually be able to drive somewhere? And people aren’t particularly enthused by EVs which could catch on fire in their garages. Nor getting stranded because there are no charging stations. Driving an EV requires the driver to become the most anal of travelers, planning each and every trip down to the second, even if that trip is simply to work, the grocery store, or the movies.

Eventually, perhaps EVs will be viable (of course, where’s the power for them coming from?). In the meantime, hybrids are the best alternative. Of course, most are still low powered, and cannot perform many functions that gas only vehicles with big engines are needed for.

Read: Bummer: Electric Cars Heading To Trash Bin (Again) »

Leaked Memo Cites Legal Rationale For Targeted Assassination Of Americans Abroad

Let’s take a look at a few headlines, shall we?

Those are just a sampling of how the Credentialed Media is treating the release of the document which describes the legal rationale for whacking a US citizen abroad who has joined a terrorist group. In many cases, as I check around, the story is either buried deep or there is none. Can you imagine how this would have been received had Bush been president? Can you imagine the hysterical headlines? The stories themselves tend to be rather tepid, instead of the thinly veiled op-eds we were used to when Bush was in office.

NBC News is the outlet with the exclusive (first link)

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

This would have driven liberals and the media bat guano insane during the Bush administration. Heck, think how much “ink” they used due to a few idiots forcing prisoners to create naked pyramids at Abu Ghraid and stone cold killers being tortured with Britney Spears music. Now you have calm, rational stories. And liberals like Emptywheel defending Dear Leader. TalkLeft isn’t much better. In other cases, the same barking moonbats who would have assailed Bush can’t be bothered to bash Obama despite this paper saying Obama is doing things liberals really, really hate. Of course, not everyone is on board

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

And blogger David Swanson isn’t particularly enthused by the legal case for assassination.

As for myself, while this does create some concern over the possibility for abuse, I’m actually going to somewhat agree with Team Obama’s rationale for whacking US citizens who have joined Islamic terrorist groups. Once the people do that, and take a position to attempt to kill Americans and harm America, the are now enemies. Interestingly, this seems to be one thing Obama actually understands in practice (as opposed to his rhetoric), namely that these Islamists are at war with the United States and the West, and need to be eradicated like vermin.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Leaked Memo Cites Legal Rationale For Targeted Assassination Of Americans Abroad »

Horror! Carbon Pollution To Cause 69 Feet Of Sea Rise

Joe Romm at Soros funded Climate Progress tells us we’re dooooooooomed. Or something

Manmade Carbon Pollution Has Already Put Us On Track For 69 Feet Of Sea Level Rise

If you’re talking about “carbon pollution” you aren’t interested in actual science.

The bad news is that we’re all but certain to end up with a coastline at least this flooded (20 meters or 69 feet): (spiffy graphic of what a flooded coastline, which has apparently never ever happened before and, of course, the geology of the Earth has always been static before the invention of the combustion engine, ya know)

The “good” news is that this might take 1000 to 2000 years (or longer), and the choices we make now can affect the rate of rise and whether we blow past 69 feet to beyond 200 feet.

Oh, so no worries then.

Just last year the National Science Foundation (NSF) reportedon paleoclimate research that examined “rock and soil cores taken in Virginia, New Zealand and the Eniwetok Atoll in the north Pacific Ocean.” Lead author Kenneth Miller of Rutgers University said:

“The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.”

And that was only slightly less worrisome than a 2009 paper in Science that found the last time CO2 levels were this high, it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher.

So, despite the current CO2 levels, the sea levels aren’t as high and it’s not as warm? It’s almost like there is something else at play. Not Climate Astrologers living the carbon neutral lifestyle, of course.

Read: Horror! Carbon Pollution To Cause 69 Feet Of Sea Rise »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful non-fossil fueled bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, who continues his great coverage of Hookergate.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmist Wonders If Hotcoldwetdry Is The Next Civil Rights Battle

I wonder if climate astrologer Gerald Elias will recommend for the Salt Lake Tribune to no longer allow their reporters to gather news using fossil fueled vehicles as well as stopping the usage of fossil fueled vehicles to distribute the Tribune? (via Tom Nelson)

Climate change: The next civil rights battle

Twentieth-century America saw hard-fought civil rights progress for organized labor, women, African Americans and gays. In the 21st century, the looming civil rights battle that will affect all Americans, all humanity, is the battle to save planet Earth from becoming uninhabitable due to climate change. And if we don’t win this one, there might not be a 22nd.

Climate change a civil rights issue? Why? Because humanity should not be held hostage by a profit-obsessed fossil-fuel cartel. Because humanity has the right to breathe air not laced with carbon; the right to drink water not contaminated by fracking; the right to live on land that hasn’t been slashed and burned into barren submission. Humanity has the right to live on a sustainable planet.

Hmm, Elias is a musician (doesn’t it require fossil fuels to travel around playing gigs?), author (aren’t trees killed to publish books, trees necessary to take the “carbon” out of the air?), and volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby. Also, someone who doesn’t seem to understand science, since climate change is a political phrase, and it is “carbon dioxide”, not carbon. And also seems to forget that CO2 is a trace gas necessary for life.

Read: Warmist Wonders If Hotcoldwetdry Is The Next Civil Rights Battle »

Pirate's Cove