If All You See…

…is snow caused by an abundance of greenhouse gases, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Sundries Shack, with a post on the recovery that isn’t.

Read: If All You See… »

Snap! Sunspots Do Impact Climate

I think you can forgive me for using “Snap!” Been awhile, and this article deserves it (via Climate Depot)

(Washington Times) Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.

Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.

Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.

Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?

Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.

Hmm, so, there is a big link between solar activity and climate. Let’s look at that chart

As the authors, Willie Soon and William M. Briggs (see the end of the article for their qualifications) point out, no such relationship can be ascertained when saying that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. It can’t. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so, according to Warmist doctrine, as it goes up, temperature should go up with it. Yet, it hasn’t. Which is of course why Warmists are now blaming cold and snow on a greenhouse gas.

Make sure to read the entire article.

Read: Snap! Sunspots Do Impact Climate »

Obama Mails It In For Weekly Address On September 11

It’s actually a very nice remembrance, right up till we get to the end 2nd paragraph, and completely at odds with his immediate thoughts on September 12, 2001

(White House) This week, we mark the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th attacks.  It’s a time to remember the nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children we lost, and the families they left behind.  It’s a chance to honor the courage of the first responders who risked their lives – on that day, and every day since.  And it’s an opportunity to give thanks for our men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed, sometimes far from home, to keep our country safe.

This anniversary is about them.  It’s also a time to reflect on just how far we’ve come as a nation these past eleven years.

Last year I gave Obama an A+ for a wonderful weekly address commemorating the 10th anniversary. Something looks familiar

This weekend, we’re coming together, as one nation, to mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.  We’re remembering the lives we lost—nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.  We’re reaffirming our commitment to always keep faith with their families.

We’re honoring the heroism of first responders who risked their lives—and gave their lives—to save others.  And we’re giving thanks to all who serve on our behalf, especially our troops and military families—our extraordinary 9/11 Generation.

In fact, a good chunk of the 10th anniversary address and this years are virtually identical, with just enough changed to make them not exactly the same. I guess Obama’s speechwriters were too lazy to come up with something new. His weekly address for 9/11 in 2010 was similar, too.

Anyhow, let’s not forget that it was many Democrats who decided that the attacks were either caused or allowed to happen by President Bush.

On that clear September morning, as America watched the towers fall, and the Pentagon burn, and the wreckage smoldering in a Pennsylvania field, we were filled with questions.  Where had the attacks come from, and how would America respond?  Would they fundamentally weaken the country we love?  Would they change who we are?

That makes an interesting contrast to his message of blame on 9/19/2001

“We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

“We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe-children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.”

Things are a bit different when one has to play the part of POTUS, eh?

We took the fight to al Qaeda, decimated their leadership, and put them on a path to defeat.  And thanks to the courage and skill of our intelligence personnel and armed forces, Osama bin Laden will never threaten America again.

And most of that happened under George W. Bush, who made the tough decision to destroy al Qaeda, instead of navel gazing about what America had done wrong like Obama.

Instead of changing who we are, the attacks have brought out the best in the American people.  More than 5 million members of the 9/11 Generation have worn America’s uniform over the past decade, and we’ve seen an outpouring of goodwill towards our military, veterans, and their families.  Together, they’ve done everything we’ve asked of them.  We’ve ended the war in Iraq (by following George Bush’s exit plan) and brought our troops home.  We brought an end to the Taliban regime (under George Bush).  We’ve trained Afghan Security Forces (mostly under Bush), and forged a partnership with a new Afghan Government (Obama has dissed Karzai multiple times).  And by the end 2014, the transition in Afghanistan will be complete and our war there will be over.

Had Obama been in charge on that September morning, we would have engaged in a national time of blaming ourselves and bowing to the terrorists while offering to negotiate without pre-conditions.

And finally, instead of turning inward with grief, we’ve honored the memory of those we lost by giving back to our communities, serving those in need, and reaffirming the values at the heart of who we are as a people.  That’s why we mark September 11th as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.  Because we are one American family.  And we look out for each other – not just on the difficult days, but every day.

No, that’s why he marks it that way. As Matthew Vadum wrote

The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

On September 11th, remember that there are people out there who would look to destroy America and kill her citizens. And remember that it was Democrats who decided to use September 11th to launch political attacks on George Bush for petty political gain. And remember that is the Democrats, and Obama, who look to polarize this nation.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Mails It In For Weekly Address On September 11 »

Good Grief: If You Support Voter ID, You Hate Frederick Douglass

And you’re a big racist, so says David W. Blight in a NY Times op-ed

SUPPRESSING the black vote is a very old story in America, and it has never been just a Southern thing.

In 1840, and again in 1841, the former Frederick Bailey, now Frederick Douglass, walked a few blocks from his rented apartment on Ray Street in New Bedford, Mass., to the town hall, where he paid a local tax of $1.50 to register to vote. Born a slave on Maryland’s Eastern Shore in 1818, Douglass escaped in an epic journey on trains and ferry boats, first to New York City, and then to the whaling port of New Bedford in 1838.

By the mid-1840s, he had emerged as one of the greatest orators and writers in American history. But legally, Douglass began his public life by committing what today we would consider voter fraud, using an assumed name.

And the obvious conclusion is that if ID was required, Douglass wouldn’t have been allowed to vote, hence, we shouldn’t require ID of anyone, because …. well, just because, you damned dirty racists who just want to stop people from voting

To those potentially millions of young, elderly, brown and black registered voters who, despite no evidence of voter fraud, they now insist must obtain government ID, why not merely offer money? Pay them not to vote. Give each a check for $711 in honor of Frederick Douglass. Buy their “freedom,” and the election. Call it the “Frederick Douglass Voter Voucher.”

Or, how about they just get an ID? Is Blight actually proposing that Blacks are incapable of getting a proper government ID? It sure seems like Democrats think Blacks aren’t smart enough to get a few bucks to purchase an ID.

Read: Good Grief: If You Support Voter ID, You Hate Frederick Douglass »

Increased Biodiversity From Warming Is Apparently Bad

Ever notice that Warmists always see the cup as empty?

(Guardian) Periods of the earth’s warming are associated with an increase in biodiversity, according to a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. While this may sound like good news, the timescales involved cancel out any benefits they might experience from the rising temperatures.

Mayhew said: “What seems to be happening is that when we get a warming, this coincides with an upward shift in biodiversity in groups of organisms. So it looks like warm periods are boosting the generation of new species and that’s improving biodiversity. However a bit later, and when I say ‘a bit’, I mean several millions of years later, you get extinctions occurring.”

Overall, according to the story, biodiversity generally improves. So, it’s better but not better but maybe better….isn’t this what Darwinism is all about? Weird how Warmists turn into flat earthers, eh?

Read: Increased Biodiversity From Warming Is Apparently Bad »

If All You See…

…is a flooded world made worse by the use of a fossil fueled water vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on dirty jobs.

Oh, and there’s a bonus “empty chair” photo below the fold, a bit more risque than I would put on the front page (SFW, though)

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Gov’t Warns Of Coming Zombie Apocalypse

Everybody panic!!!!!!!!!

(Yahoo News) “The zombies are coming!” the Homeland Security Department says.

Tongue firmly in cheek, the government urged citizens Thursday to prepare for a zombie apocalypse, part of a public health campaign to encourage better preparation for genuine disasters and emergencies. The theory: If you’re prepared for a zombie attack, the same preparations will help during a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake or terrorist attack.

Oh. Just a drill that teases us with the coming zombie apocalypse. Crap!

Actually, this isn’t a bad idea. There are a bunch of zombie clubs around the country who mostly do it for pure fun, but they plan for the Z.A., all in fun, and often partner with first responders to help out.

But, yeah, sucks that’s not real. Sniffle. I actually read a ton of zombie books. Love ’em. They’re more about people surviving a calamity rather than about the zombies.

Read: Gov’t Warns Of Coming Zombie Apocalypse »

Many Democrats Think We Should Ban All Corporate Profits

I heard this one yesterday while listening to Rush at the gym, and, unsurprisingly I was unsuprised at many of the answers Democrats provided

(The Blaze) Radio talk show host and erstwhile Senate candidate Peter Schiff has a long track record of trying to reason with his opponents, or at least engage with them fairly. The Connecticut based libertarian has taken on Lawrence O’Donnell on his home turf at MSNBC and most recently, even tried to engage with members of Occupy Wall Street in an 18 minute video that went viral last year.

Now, Schiff is back with a video from the DNC. Except this time, he’s taken on a rather different approach to engaging with his opponents. That is, rather than advocate his own views, he has shot video of himself playing devil‘s advocate for what many would consider to be a completely ridiculous extension of his opponents’ philosophy.

Schiff‘s target in this case is the Democrats’ seeming antipathy to corporate profits, which he attacks by pretending to be a radical Leftist who wants to ban corporate profits altogether, just to see if he can get any Democrats to agree with this economically absurd idea.

So while there’s not nearly universal agreement on the idea, and some people in the video force Schiff to moderate his position and others simply nod along politely, the video certainly shows a high degree of sympathy with the goal. And the immediate positive (and enthusiastic) reactions of several delegates, including one who enthusiastically calls for “corporate losses,” may strike some readers as either entertaining or disturbing.

The story writer, Mytheos Holt, isn’t particularly happy with this line of questioning, saying it isn’t good journalism. Holt misses the point that it’s not meant to be journalism, Schiff is a talk radio host, not a reporter. Anyhow, watch the video, and hear the replies

Peter Schiff’s blog post on this is here.

Peter Schiff’s official blog is here.

Read: Many Democrats Think We Should Ban All Corporate Profits »

Explaining Obama’s DNC Speech In One Paragraph

It’s very simple

(Daily Caller) President Barack Obama‘s 2012 Democratic National Convention speech asked voters to embrace a planned economy where government leaders would set goals for large swathes of the economy.

Pretty much exactly like we expected. This is all Obama and a good chunk of today’s Democrats know. Government. The speech validated the criticism regarding Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line (along with the rest of the comment). It validated what we’ve watched him do and what he’s pushed as policy for the past 4 years as president and during his time campaigning for president. Government is Good and Right and should be In Charge.

“I’m asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country — goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation,” he declared.

But Obama didn’t promise a rapid benefit from an expanded government.

“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. … It will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” he said, implicitly acknowledging the public’s skepticism about his government-focused economic policies after almost four years of record deficits and unemployment, declining wages and shrinking wealth.

And to solve those problems, we apparently need more Central Government. They will plan everything, instead of passing some common sense legislation designed to fix the issues (such as reinstating Glass-Seagal and reigning in the Community Reinvestment Act, among others) for the long term and then getting out of the way and dealing with the core missions of government as described by the Constitution.

But, it’s no wonder Obama is now pushing the notion that it will take a few years after initially telling us that he could fix it in one term: he’s a miserable failure whose policies failed miserably particularly when his Party had full control of Congress.

His speech was also a laundry list of issues that his kook fringe base….er, most liberals, care about. He certainly made the Warmists happy with his mention of the climate change hoax and that he wants to waste more money on “clean energy” investments, ie, shifting taxpayer money to campaign contributors.

Lastly, from the transcript

We don’t think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don’t think the government is the source of all of our problems — (cheers, applause) — any more than our welfare recipients or corporations or unions or immigrants or gays or any other group we’re told to blame for our troubles — (cheers, applause) — because — because America, we understand that this democracy is ours.

This is the same guy who blames everyone and everything else for whatever happens. He’s spent years Blaming Bush, Republicans, ATMs, Europe, tsunamis, earthquakes, , you name it, they’re/it’s at fault.

Oh, BTW, did any hear any spontaneous chants of “USA USA USA” during the convention? Certainly, I only watched a certain amount of the convention, but, same with the RNC, and Republicans seemed to use that chant quite often.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Explaining Obama’s DNC Speech In One Paragraph »

Bummer: Kiribati Man Denied “Climate Refugee” Status

Total bummer

(HuffPo) (Climate refugee) has primarily been an academic debate until now. New Zealand immigration authorities have just refused refugee status to a man from the drowning island country of Kiribati. The 36-year-old man sought refuge in New Zealand from climate change related harm, saying on his application that he fears for his children’s future on the coral atolls of Kiribati, which are elevated just slightly above sea level.

The I-Kiribati man has been in New Zealand since 2004. His visa expired recently, so he sought a more permanent solution to his sense of homelessness. During my recent trip to Kiribati, many spoke of New Zealand as a back up option that they would keep in the back of their mind. However, most that I spoke with want to remain in their homeland of Kiribati for as long as they can.

In other words, he didn’t want to go back to the poo infested waters of Kiribati so he decided to apply using the silly “climate refugee” crap. Pun intended.

The waters around Kiribati are not rising. In fact, the islands themselves are growing. Even if the waters were rising, how the heck do these flat earth Warmists think they came into being anyhow? The islands are coral based, hence, the seas had to be higher in the past to allow the coral to build what would become islands when the sea level went down.

But, then, who wouldn’t want to live in a paradise like New Zealand (ignoring that little issue of being on severe fault zones) versus islands that are barely above sea level to start with, are running out of fresh water because they’re tiny islands, and, oh, all that poo infested water?

Read: Bummer: Kiribati Man Denied “Climate Refugee” Status »

Pirate's Cove