Station Which Names Winter Storms Says Cold And Global Warming Go Hand In Hand

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 8:54 pm

That’s right, in case you missed it, the Weather Channel has been naming winter storms, which everyone else has decided is idiotic and won’t participate. And, as typical for them, are engaging in more pseudo science cult behavior

Cold Snaps, Global Warming Go Hand-in-Hand

Frigid temperatures like these are sometimes used to refute the idea that the planet as a whole is getting warmer with each passing year. That’s just not so, say NASA scientists, who point out that even on a warming planet, bitterly cold temperatures and harsh winter weather will still be possible and even commonplace.

That’s not what the climate astrologers used to tell us.

One of the reasons they can coexist is a phenomenon known as Arctic Oscillation, a phrase used to describe the interaction of the jet stream and Arctic air during the winter. It can cause unseasonably cold air masses to sweep over what are normally temperate latitudes, NASA reports, making for unusually cold and severe winter weather across many parts of the U.S.

Um, if the natural process of the Arctic Oscillation is making things cold, why can’t natural processes also cause warmth? Oh, right, right, Lefties need a way to advance their Progressive/fascist policies.

Read: Station Which Names Winter Storms Says Cold And Global Warming Go Hand In Hand »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcoldwetdry Could Make Flu Season Worse

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 2:47 pm

Scary stuff

(India.com) Scientists led by Sherry Towers, research professor in the Mathematical, Computational and Modelling Sciences Centre at Arizona State University, studied waves of flu and climate patterns in the US from the 1997-1998 season to the present. The team’s analysis indicates a pattern for both A and B strains: warm winters are usually followed by heavy flu seasons, the journal Public Library Of Science Currents: Influenza reports.

Know what they use as evidence?

‘It appears that fewer people contract influenza during warm winters, and this causes a major portion of the population to remain vulnerable into the next season, causing an early and strong emergence,’ said Towers, according to an Arizona statement. ‘And when a flu season begins exceptionally early, much of the population has not had a chance to get vaccinated, potentially making that flu season even worse,’ Towers said.

So, warmer winters should be good for smaller flu seasons. But, Warmists have an agenda, so no matter what happens, “climate change” is to blame.

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Could Make Flu Season Worse »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Hotcoldwetdry Could Make Flu Season Worse | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a flooded drought world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on liberal logic.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Why Do Dems Want Women To Be Unable To Protect Themselves?

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 11:29 am

It’s an interesting dichotomy: Democrats create a society of criminal activity through their soft on crime policies, then they want to disarm citizens who need to protect themselves from criminals created by Democrat policies

(WWLP) Ware Guns owner Mike Weisser told 22News, he’s seen an uptick in the number of women who are taking the necessary classes to legally carry a firearm.

Weisser says the reasons for women buying handguns are also much different than men. “I’ve noticed a lot more women in the classes than I used to see, they’re not coming in as hobbyist the way that many of the males do. ”

They seem to be much more concerned about personal protection.

Don’t worry ladies, the good news as you are disarmed is that Obama is expanding free health care!

Read: Why Do Dems Want Women To Be Unable To Protect Themselves? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Draft IPCC Report Shows 20 Years Of Overestimated Globull Warming

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 7:07 am

At one point, Warmists might have been actually interested in real science, but, that quickly switched to pushing junk science in order to move forward their Marxist ideas of people control

(Fox News) A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

The report — which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 — was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

The IPCC graph shows that the midpoints of the various models predicted that the world would warm by between about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2012. Actual warming was much less than that: 0.28 F, according the data the IPCC cites.

Wow, .28F. Scary stuff. We’re doomed. Everybody panic. It’s no wonder Warmists fail to act like it’s a crisis with data like that.

Of course, the draft report tries to shift the blame for the failure of all their garbage in garbage out computer models on other processes, mostly natural ones. Weird how they never seem to consider that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mostly or solely natural.

And, it is a draft report, so we can expect the UN IPCC to change things up and most likely remove any data that shows that they’ve been wrong all along, and add in all sorts of dire predictions which require vast amounts of money to shift hands (with a good chunk ending up in the hands of the UN) and loss of freedoms.

Read: Draft IPCC Report Shows 20 Years Of Overestimated Globull Warming »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Democrats Have No Intention Of Securing The Border Before Amnesty

By William Teach January 29, 2013 – 6:48 am

While Soros funded Think Progress is saying that the border is more secure than ever (at least on paper, what with all those pesky illegals sneaking across, plus drug runners, plus the Obama admin running guns the other way), other Democrats are saying “yeah, don’t worry about that border securing commission”, and

(Washington Post) That’s a legitimate worry, according to Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group advocating for immigration reform. But he tells me that on a conference call yesterday, Democratic Senators reassured immigration advocates that this commission won’t be constructed in a way that will hold up the process for too long.

As Sharry put it, Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.” However, Sharry added: “The details of this are going to matter hugely, and we’ll have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.”

Interesting. Didn’t I write yesterday that this commission would essentially rubber stamp that the border was secure, that way all these illegals, many who will immediately qualify for social safety net programs and bring little in the way of skills and education, will immediately be put on this so-called pathway to citizenship? Yes, I did. And then there’s this from Mickey Kaus regarding the 5 page release from the Gang of 8

If you read closely, you learn that illegal immigrants will actually be legalized immediately–given “probationary legal status,” allowing them to “live and work legally in thee United States” (according to Politico). The only thing that’s delayed, pending “stricter border enforcement,” is the opening of a “path to citizenship.” As if, once legalized, the 11 million are going to be unlegalized if  enforcement measures are implemented with less than 100% efficacy.

So, this whole thing is like going to see a magician. They’re saying look over here, secure border, while they actually go and legalize people who came to this country illegally. The question remains, will Republicans go along with this, or will they fight?

Meanwhile, Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) says it “would be madness not to include LBGT issues in the shamnesty bill.”

Also, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is begging Obama not to release his own plan, because that will throw a wrench in the works. Allahpundit wonders why Obama would release one when there’s a deal on the table. Probably because he doesn’t care if it passes, and, really, at this point, Obama seems to want to pick fights out of habit, and create a great kerfuffle when the deal dies, which it surely will once Obama gets involved. He could care less about his fellow Democrats and their prospects. That’s his M.O. And PBO plans on releasing his own sticky note version of a plan today.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Have No Intention Of Securing The Border Before Amnesty »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, GOP, Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Carolyn McCarthy: Women Shouldn’t Use Scary Looking Rifles

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 4:22 pm

Jon Lilyea says she’s being sexist (via Andy at Ace’s)

(The Blaze) PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?

CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.

Um, wait, what? Is she saying that assault rifles are less accurate than the non-scary looking versions? And easier? And not really a rifle rifle? Actually, many “assault rifles” are a whole lot easier to use for women, since they are often lighter than many standard rifles, and it is easier to hold while reloading. Plus, with collapsible stocks they are easily customized for the size of the user. That’s are some of the reasons hunters like them. And people who like shooting. And people who want to protect their homes.

Let’s not forget that McCarthy is a proponent of women serving in combat roles. As Jon writes

I’d like to hear her explanation of the mechanics of her contention. So, since she opposes scary-looking rifles, does she think that the military should be teaching women to fight with bolt-action or lever action rifles in their new roles as combat soldiers? Or maybe she’s just unaware of what women are capable of – or doesn’t really care when she’s making idiot political statements.

Personally, I prefer my handguns for home defense, and, if I lived in a bigger place, probably a shotgun. With a pistol grip and no stock. Others prefer a scary looking rifle, because the first thing you want to do is scare the crap out of an intruder so you don’t have to fire. But, if you do, you want control and power.

Read: Carolyn McCarthy: Women Shouldn’t Use Scary Looking Rifles »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Beyond Moonbat, Democrats | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise up and cover all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That?, with a post on waste heat.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

In Order To Solve “Climate Change”, We Need Vast Amounts Of Marxist Babble

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 11:52 am

You could also refer to it as progressive babble, communist babble, socialist babble. It’s all one and the same, and generally means “someone else must be forced to Do Something. Meanwhile, I’m not planning to change my life at all”

(Fish Wrap) Well-intentioned critics of fossil fuel divestment have called for students to lobby their senators and representatives as a more direct path to federal action on climate change. These critics underestimate the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold over our political system, and their suggested path would only repeat past failures of the climate movement. They also ignore the networks of institutions, influence and capital that can be moved to support an end to extraction and fight climate change.

To make change, players including universities, foundations and public pension funds must be pushed to act for the greater good.

By building the skills and relationships necessary to overcome government inaction, student activists, working alongside those already fighting for a sustainable future, can not only push Washington to enact adequate legislation, but can also create a mass movement to demand truly sustainable societies and economies.

Is there like some calls Leftists take to learn to write this way? Or do they simply learn it at there far left group meetings?

Kate Aronoff is a student organizer with Swarthmore Mountain Justice and a board member at the Responsible Endowments Coalition.

She even manages, in the last paragraph, to compare the fight (that others must be forced to engage in) against hotcoldwetdry to the fight against apartheid. At least the latter was a real issue.

Read: In Order To Solve “Climate Change”, We Need Vast Amounts Of Marxist Babble »

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

Sharpton: People Don’t Have The Right To Unregulated Rights

By William Teach January 28, 2013 – 8:56 am

And who should regulate those Rights afforded to The People? The Government, of course!

(Daily Caller) Following a public policy meeting of African-American leaders, National Urban League president Marc Morial and National Action Network president Al Sharpton called for a new national assault weapons ban, saying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be regulated.

“The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not absolute. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and hide behind the First Amendment,” said Morial when asked by TheDC if he supports California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein’s assault weapon ban bill.

That’s because the portion about Free Speech regards political speech, Al. Perhaps you should read the documents regarding the Bill of Rights from the time it was being debated. I bet Al’s view would change if The Central Planning Office decided to slap a few restrictions on what MSNBC could broadcast.

“No one has been more aggressive in our defense of the Constitution than this nation’s civil rights leaders. …We respect the Second Amendment,” Morial added. “None of these provisions speak in absolute terms.”

So, if they do not speak in absolute terms, then slavery was OK, Al? Because the 14th Amendment sure seemed to “speak in absolute terms.”

People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued….

Prick a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Sharpton also said “everybody is regulated with every right,” using airports as an example.

Air flight is not a “right”. I love when liberals start yammering on about the Bill of Rights which they seem to never have read nor understood.

Read: Sharpton: People Don’t Have The Right To Unregulated Rights »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove