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 »

Mayor Of Deadly Chicago Wants To “Clean Up The Murky World Of Gun Ownership”

Perhaps instead of going after legal gun owners, Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel and Crook,er, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle should concern themselves with the actual crime on their streets

(Chicago Tribune) Cook County and Chicago are adopting a tag-team approach on gun ownership. Our goal is to increase coordination between the city and the county, step up enforcement and reduce the flow of guns on our streets.

We plan to create a one-stop repository for all reports of lost, stolen, transferred or destroyed firearms, an important step in tracking guns used in crimes. It’s also an attempt to have a countywide gun strategy that is uniform, rather than a strategy where we each operate in isolation.

Hooray, we’re saved! This is the answer to stopping the lawlessness on Chicago’s streets!

An oft-cited University of Chicago Crime Lab study found that 29 percent of guns recovered in Chicago crimes were purchased legally in Cook County.

So, what about the other 71%? Rahm? Hello?

Nothing about what we are proposing is onerous for responsible gun owners. And we’re under no false illusion that this will stop the carnage on our streets. But the new approaches will help law enforcement go after people who repeatedly claim that their guns, after being recovered at a crime scene, had been lost or stolen. Their excuses will now have repercussions.

Oh, so we’re not saved? This plan to fine legal gun owners who see their guns (notice that nowhere within their little op-ed do they refer to “handguns”, “pistols”, or any specific type of gun. They mean all guns) stolen, lost, or sell or transfer them if it isn’t reported within 48 hours will not “stop the carnage on our streets.” So, exactly what is the purpose if it won’t stop the carnage? They say it will give The Government more information when it comes to the tiny amount of gun transfers and sales that occur without a background check, which is really tiny. But, this still won’t “stop the carnage on our streets.”

Perhaps Rahm and Preckwinkle might consider going after criminals.

Read: Mayor Of Deadly Chicago Wants To “Clean Up The Murky World Of Gun Ownership” »

Where’s The Obama Recovery?

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin argues it never arrived

The economy may or may not wind up in a technical recession (two quarters of negative growth), but in fact the Obama economy never really made a recovery. Its endemic low growth and high unemployment now define the U.S. economy — unless we chart another course.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum commented via an e-mail blast: “The bottom line: The January jobs report shows the economy moving sideways. Liberals are celebrating a revision of 35,000 jobs a month in 2012 — proof that they are charter members of the flat-earth society. When the economy is stalled, the new normal says “break out the champagne.” As he points out, the U-6 unemployment rate (underemployed and unemployed workers) is stuck at 14.4 percent.

Because it is politically uncomfortable to point out how awful the job market is, liberal pundits continue to play along with the notions that the economy is getting better and a surge in economic activity is right around the corner. (As with not much else, reality, intellectual consistency and the issues the left cares about take a back seat to simply sustaining the Obama cult.) After years of this economic anemia, we know what we are really in is not a “recovery” but a low trough in which economic activity is insufficient to push up employment, earnings and household wealth.

Recovery has been “right around the corner” ever since the passage of Stimulus, which failed to produce much in the way of economic activity, except for those groups and individuals which were big Obama/Democrat supporters and donors. The stock market may be doing well, but the average American is seeing stagnant wages, horrific long term unemployment, seniors staying in the jobs market longer, record numbers of people dropping out of the jobs market, and anemic GDP. Among other crummy conditions. If Bush were president, or some other Republican, we’d be hearing a constant litany of doom from the mostly Liberal MSM. Hell, they told us that 5% unemployment and high GDP during the Bush years was terrible!

While President Obama and Democrats in Congress have given up on growth and jobs and the mainstream media don’t bring it up (because the Democrats have given up), Republicans should not. (snip)

Without a change in regulatory, tax, spending, health-care and immigration policy, our economy will not revive. Republicans need to start explaining that we either are looking at a lost decade akin to Japan’s or a new, pro-growth agenda designed with one thing in mind: Get the job engine back.

It is remarkable that Democrats have been able to run from this issue. But it’s also shocking that Republicans have done so little with it.

The problem is that Republicans did pound the table with the poor economic conditions. Romney certainly did. Yet, a bare majority of voting Americans said they preferred Obama, the guy who led this stagnation and offered unicorn in the sky ideas on sticky notes, to a guy who knows how economies work and offered a detailed plan.

This is the economy the Obama voters wanted. If you hear them complain, laugh at them. Unfortunately, they’ve ruined the country for the rest of us.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Where’s The Obama Recovery? »

Typical Warmist Wants More Awareness Spreading To Get Cap ‘N Tax Passed

Strangely, this super duper Harvard professor isn’t calling for Warmists to act like it’s a crisis and modify their own lives to be climate neutral

Harvard professor has it right: U.S. climate push requires intense grassroots support around ‘cap-and-dividend’ bill 

In the past three weeks there’s been much debate in U.S. environmental circles over a provocative new paper [PDF] from Harvard University political scientist Theda Skocpol. In it, Skocpol gives the most compelling analysis yet of why the 2009 cap-and-trade bill to fight global warming went down in flames. In sum, Skocpol argues that intense and radical opposition from Tea Party Republicans proved much stronger than the environmentalists’ insider-game, partner-with-business, harness-polls-instead-of-the-grassroots approach.

Wait, I thought we were only supposed to listen to people who are climatologists?

Skocpol, on the other hand, from my field-based perspective, nails both the key problems and the solutions we need for moving forward. She is absolutely correct to call for a completely different legislative approach for the next big push on climate in Washington. She is correct in arguing that round two should be based on the policy of “cap-and-dividend” instead of cap-and-trade. David Roberts at Grist and others have applauded Skocpol’s criticism of the cap-and-trade campaign. But they are skeptical of her view that the best alternative is a policy that caps carbon emissions through permit auctions and then rebates the money directly to all U.S. citizens with a monthly check — cap-and-dividend.

What these greenie weenie hypocrites are pushing for is to penalize Other People while giving money to themselves, because, um, well, prices are going to skyrocket, oh, and, that liberal canard of redistribution of wealth to those who haven’t earned it.

Read: Typical Warmist Wants More Awareness Spreading To Get Cap ‘N Tax Passed »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful planet healing bicycle that Everyone Else should be forced to use, you might just be a Warmist

Yes, it is Bike Week this week, mostly because I have quite a few pics of girls with bikes building up in a folder. The blog of the day is Conservative Commune, with a post of Skeetgate Pushback.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove