Climate Astrologer Stephen Chu Steps Down

By William Teach February 2, 2013 – 8:47 am

And has a hissy fit

(Yahoo News) Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist frequently the target of Republican criticism, announced Friday that he was stepping down in the latest shake-up of President Barack Obama’s Cabinet. Chu, who disclosed his decision in a letter to Energy Department staff, frequently clashed with GOP lawmakers over gas prices as well as government backing for green-energy companies like the failed firm Solyndra.

In his letter, Chu took aim directly at his critics, saying the clean-energy efforts were a success—and blasted climate-change skeptics as trapped in “the Stone Age.”

A success, if your definition of includes massively wasting taxpayer money and watching Stimulus funded companies (80% of which were Obama/Democrat donors) go bankrupt, while increasing the costs of food and pretty much everything else.

He also scolded climate-change skeptics and urged a shift from fossil-fuels to other sources of energy.

While Chu doesn’t have a car himself, his wife drives a gas guzzling BMW 325i. No Chevy Volt for the Chu’s! Oh, and I wonder how Chu gets around the country? Fossil fueled travel would be the likely answer.

“The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity has had a significant and likely dominant role in climate change,” Chu warned in his letter. “There is also increasingly compelling evidence that the weather changes we have witnessed during this thirty year time period are due to climate change.”

Consensus is not science. But, then, this has never been about science, but about forcing far left progressive/fascist ideals on people. As for “weather changes”

(Roger Pielke, Jr) With this post I am creating a handy bullshit button on this subject (pictured above). Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change, including the currently popular “billion dollar disasters” meme, you can simply call “bullshit” and point to the IPCC SREX report.

The “extreme weather” mantra is a huge steaming pile of mule fritters.

And if Warmists like Chu actually believed their own propaganda, they’d change their own lives to be “carbon neutral”. They won’t.

Read: Climate Astrologer Stephen Chu Steps Down »

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

Obama Decides To Restart The Fight With Religious Institutions Regarding Mandate

By William Teach February 2, 2013 – 8:23 am

Many in the Legacy Media are hailing the new proposed rule regarding religious institutions and contraception, and only ones who hold weekly services, mind you, as super crazy awesome, which highlight how super crazy awesome Obama is. The Lightbringer! Everntually they quietly get around to mentioning that religious institutions aren’t happy with the new rule, which acts more like a shell game. Interestingly, Politico performs a random act of journalism and highlights the reality

President Barack Obama wasn’t looking for another fight with religious groups when the administration attempted Friday to clarify its birth control mandate.

But he got one anyway.

The change was meant to help quell a wave of lawsuits by providing guidance on which employers are exempt and how exactly they would meet the mandate without violating their conscience, according to close observers of the process.

To leaders of some religious and conservative (WT: there are some Obama/Democrat donors and supporters, too) groups challenging the policy, though, it was the latest example of an administration that’s struggled to relate to them just not getting it.

The Faith & Freedom Coalition called it “window dressing and more of the same.” The Catholic Association tagged it “just another accounting gimmick.” The Judicial Crisis Network described it as “no solution at all.”

Life News has a long article on Pro-Life groups blasting the mule fritters revisions. What this “revision” does is allow certain exempted religious institutions to use a 3rd party to provide and pay for the contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients. Simple a game.

A senior administration official said the White House didn’t expect to suddenly assuage leaders of the religious community. The proposed new rules — which included broadening the definition of which institutions were exempt — were aimed more at strengthening the administration’s hand in court than winning over the Catholic and other religious groups that objected to the Obamacare provision, the official said.

And there you go, Team Obama doesn’t care about the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, they just want attempt to set themselves in a better place when they are sued.

It comes down to something simple: who would be paying for these “3rd party plans”? And wouldn’t it simply make more sense to use that money to purchase contraceptives? It’s not like condoms and birth control pills are expensive.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Decides To Restart The Fight With Religious Institutions Regarding Mandate »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Dems Ask NFL, NBA On How To Fight Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach February 1, 2013 – 3:16 pm

Here’s my suggesting: if you are a Believer, give up your fossil fueled travel and move to a carbon neutral lifestyle

(The Hill) A new Capitol Hill climate task force wants a wide range of parties — including energy companies, green groups, sports leagues and plenty in-between — to submit suggestions for federal actions to battle global warming.

The letter to 300-plus companies and groups is among the first actions of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change that Democrats unveiled last week.

Recipients of the letter include oil and power companies such as Exxon and Southern Co., think tanks, environmentalists, defense contractors, retailers like Wal-Mart, financial companies like Goldman Sachs, food companies and many other sectors.

Also on the list: the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and other sports leagues.

Perfect! Let’s ask groups that tend to have massive “carbon footprints” through fossil fueled travel and electricity usage, not too mention the high cost lifestyles of their stars, for ideas.

“We can’t delay action any longer. We want to jumpstart action by seeking recommendations on what every part of government can do now,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement.

I suggest we shut a good chunk of the government down. And that Waxman gives up flying cross country.

Read: Dems Ask NFL, NBA On How To Fight Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 1, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is snow that’s a thing of the past but can only occur when it is warm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on social liberalism and the power of slogans.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Man Wins Unnecessary Fossil Fueled Trip To Super Bowl For Anti-Global Warming Contest

By William Teach February 1, 2013 – 11:17 am

More hypocritical action from the greenie weenies (via Tom Nelson)

(Discovery) Fighting climate change may seem like a Hail Mary pass, but the New Orleans Super Bowl Host Committee is running a play, called Geaux Green, to tackle the emissions from the big game between the San Francisco 49′ers and the Baltimore Ravens. The Committee also developed a game plan for fans to block their own emissions from blitzing the planet’s atmosphere.

…The Geaux Green (pronounced “go green”) website features a game in which fans can vote for which NFL team has the most environmentally friendly fans. Participants are encouraged to pledge to run eco-friendly plays, such as using fluorescent bulbs, carpooling or planting a tree.

Currently, football fans have pledged to save approximately 22,500,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. New Orleans fans are proving to be saints by pledging the most so far. Denver Broncos supporters are in second for their efforts to buck global warming. Third place Packers fans are proving it isn’t just their jerseys that are green.

How’d that work out?

(Center For Hotcoldwetdry Solutions) NFL fan Mark Karolkiewicz’s decision to play the Geaux Green game and commit to save energy around the house got him more than a lower power bill. He also won a free trip for two to Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans.

I really hope Mark and his son plan on either walking or biking all the way from New Hampshire instead of taking a fossil fueled trip. Doubtful.

BTW, the first link includes a handy dandy picture labeled “2009 Baltimore Ravens”, which is actually of the Vikings playing the Egirls.

Read: Man Wins Unnecessary Fossil Fueled Trip To Super Bowl For Anti-Global Warming Contest »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise! ObamaCare Plans Start At $20,000 For Family Of 4

By William Teach February 1, 2013 – 7:28 am

This is even before deductibles and out of pocket expenses, not to mention the other costs to the American taxpayer

(CNS News) In a final regulationissued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

The bronze plan will be the most basic plan offered under O-care. In all fairness, the average cost of health care for a family of 4, per a survey early in 2012, was a bit over $20k, but, that did include all the costs for actual care, medicines, co-pays, etc.

Most of the premiums are being paid by employers, leaving costs to families at $12,144. Some states (mostly Blue ones) have much higher costs. I guess that’s really not fairness, because the O-care plan cost doesn’t include families actually using the most basic insurance plan per the IRS.

“Most people are insulated from the true cost of health care,” Weltz said. (from the “average cost” link)

Fortunately under ObamaCare people will know just what they’re paying, as more and more companies drop their coverage.

Read: Surprise! ObamaCare Plans Start At $20,000 For Family Of 4 »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Healthcare | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Politico: Women Are Better Calling 911 Than Having A Gun

By William Teach February 1, 2013 – 7:02 am

The Democrat War On Women continues. Politico’s Roger Simon pens an opinion piece which tells women “hey, you’re safer just calling 911 than having a gun. Who cares if the criminal breaking in might rape, hurt, and/or kill you.”

Guns, ammo and … sex

I learned a lot about biology this week by watching a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was titled: “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

I am not sure biology was supposed to be the point, but an odd witness, who is not an expert on gun violence, let it rear its ugly head.

Gayle Trotter is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a self-described conservative group that believes in “limited government, personal liberty and free markets.”

Trotter also believes in guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.

Roger goes on to sneer at Trotter and her testimony. It’s always interesting when Liberals, who say they support women’s rights and empowering them will immediately attack their opinions

“You are not a woman stuck in her house, not able to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety on the phone with 911.”

This might be understandable if Trotter lived in Syria and needed to defend her family on a daily basis. But she lives in the United States. There is certainly violent crime in the United States, but little of it comes from criminals who kick down the doors of homes and come after women and children with guns blazing.

If that does happen, the safest thing to do is to call 911. The most dangerous thing to do is to keep loaded weapons around the house where children can find them and accidentally kill themselves or others. (And the Newtown shooter killed his mother in her sleep with one of the many guns she kept around the house for self-defense.)

There you go: hyper-liberal Simon says you’re better off being assaulted, ladies, because you can’t be trusted with a gun. You can surely be trusted with aborting a child willy nilly…perhaps this is why liberals are so insistent on mentioning abortion rights for rape victims, because Democrats prefer women to be raped rather than have the means to protect themselves from men with criminal intentions.

Personally, I believe a 100-round gun magazine is far more likely to be used by a criminal to kill innocent civilians and police than by a homeowner protecting herself.

Personally, I believe liberals who make up this meme about 100 round magazines are idiots. So, pretty much most of them. And they would prefer to disarm women and leave them open to criminals. That’s just how they roll.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Politico: Women Are Better Calling 911 Than Having A Gun »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Liberal World | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcoldwetdry A “Threat To Wildlife”

By William Teach January 31, 2013 – 4:21 pm

I truly love how climate astrologist immediately abandon all the principles of Darwinism when it comes to “climate change”

(USA Today)  From birds in the Plains to bighorn sheep in California to caribou in Alaska and moose in Minnesota, a new study says animals are struggling to adapt to the new climate conditions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which produces the carbon dioxide that warms the atmosphere.

Because nothing else produces CO2 but fossil fueled vehicles, typically used to deliver dead tree copies of the USA Today.

“Climate change is the biggest threat wildlife will face this century,” says the report released today by the National Wildlife Federation, an environmental group based in Reston, Va.

Animals have always adapted to changes in climate. Heck, the little birdies in the Galapagos quickly adapt their beak lengths depending on whether it is a dry or wet year. This is nothing new. And some that can’t adapt die out. That’s the nature of life on Earth

Though animals have adapted to natural climate variation since the beginning of time, the changes are happening much faster than they are able to respond. “The underlying climatic conditions to which species have been accustomed for thousands of years are rapidly changing, and we are already witnessing the impacts,” according to the report, called “Wildlife in a Warming World.”

Aaaand, there we go, a way to say this is unusual. Even though you look back during this interglacial and see that when the climate switched either to warm or cool, it happened quickly. The Little Ice Age came on very fast. Animals survived.

The federation says the warning is not based on computer simulations of what could happen to wildlife: “The evidence is that it’s happening right here and right now.” says climate scientist Amanda Staudt of the wildlife federation. She says that many animal and plant species are shifting their ranges to colder locales and that these shifts are taking place two to three times faster than scientists anticipated.

That surely happened during the previous warm periods, and they surely moved to other locales when it became much cooler. How does the federation know exactly where the correct spot for the wildlife is? Perhaps they evolved in those “cooler locales”? And still the Warmists won’t change their own behavior.

Read: Hotcoldwetdry A “Threat To Wildlife” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Hotcoldwetdry A “Threat To Wildlife” | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 31, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a world going to drought, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on Economics 101.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Warmist Thinks Snow Budget Should Be Raised Because Of “Climate Change”

By William Teach January 31, 2013 – 12:17 pm

Can anyone tell me the difference between a drug addled cult and those who believe in “climate change”, because I’m not seeing the difference (via Tom Nelson)

(The Star Phoenix) A climate change expert from the University of Saskatchewan says the city should be doing more to budget for extreme weather events.

…Pomeroy says extreme storms caused by climate change are not isolated to costal areas. While the effects of climate change typically means a shorter winters and more rain, it can also mean more drastic extremes in the winter months.

“We are getting more extreme precipitation events and drought events and we should be expecting more of that here. That will include some really big blizzards and some very heavy snow events as well as winters where we just don’t have any snow,” Pomeroy said.

The City of Saskatoon currently bases its annual snow removal budget on average estimates of 60 to 90 centimetres of snow a year. In 2012, the snow and ice removal budget was $5.7 million. Thanks to major snowfalls in November, the city expects to be over that 2012 budget by anywhere from $800,000 to $1.3 million, according the city’s infrastructure manager.

Read: Warmist Thinks Snow Budget Should Be Raised Because Of “Climate Change” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove