If All You See…

By William Teach August 15, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil CO2 producing refrigerator that no one else should own, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post about Romney’s best speech of the campaign.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Nature: You Don’t Believe In Globull Warming Because Of Wharrharbl

By William Teach August 15, 2012 – 9:49 am

Latest attempt to circle the wagons (via Tom N)

(Nature) Studying things from a psychological angle does help to make sense of climate-change scepticism. But the true source of the problem, research suggests, is not that people are irrational. Instead, it is that their reasoning powers have become disabled by a polluted science-communication environment.

Or, it could be that people aren’t that stupid, and know mule fritters when they see it.

Read: Nature: You Don’t Believe In Globull Warming Because Of Wharrharbl »

Posted in AGW Idiocy | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Romney Says Obama’s “Angry And Desperate”

By William Teach August 15, 2012 – 7:43 am

We’ve known this for quite a long time, Mitt. We also know Obama is sleazy, un-presidential, and a disgrace…oh, you’re going to get to that? Gotcha

(Washington Post) Mitt Romney lashed out at President Obama with some of the harshest rhetoric of his campaign at a Tuesday night rally here, accusing Obama of leveling “wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency.”

The already divisive presidential contest took on an even uglier tone after Romney seized on the latest campaign-trail skirmish — a comment at a Virginia rally by Vice President Biden that Romney’s plans to loosen Wall Street regulations would “put y’all back in chains” — to go after his opponents.

Divisive? The majority of the nasty language is coming from the Obama camp, partly because Obama has nothing positive in his record to talk about, and partly because that’s simply the way Democrats act.

“This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like. President Obama knows better, promised better, and America deserves better,” Romney told a roaring crowd of about 5,000 supporters in Chillicothe. “His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose.”

Romney added, “Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.”

One thing you have to admire about Romney: unlike McCain and Bush 43, he fights back, and he’s able to fight back without getting in the gutter. While negative campaigning has been shown to work, there comes a point where the voters realize that one person is a major league scumbag, particularly when the other refuses to get down in the gutter and is calling for civility, or at least as much as can be expected in politics. Come September, the negativity and all-around sleaziness of the Obama campaign will backfire.

Read: Romney Says Obama’s “Angry And Desperate” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Elections, Romney | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Lapdog Slate Says Ryan Company “Didn’t Build That”

By William Teach August 15, 2012 – 7:09 am

It’s obvious that Slate writer Sally Kohn didn’t build her post: surely the Obama administration did

When Paul Ryan took to the stage in Mooresville, North Carolina, as Mitt Romney’s running mate, he attacked President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark about the role of government in supporting private innovation. But while Republicans have been clamoring to make this election a false dichotomy between the private sector and the public sector, Paul Ryan — heir to a private fortune made by building public highways — is a gaping pothole in that plan. Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand.

Paul Ryan’s great-grandfather started a construction company to build railroads and, eventually, highways. According to the Web site of Ryan Incorporated Central, the company was “founded in 1884 with a single team of mules building railroad embankments in Southern Wisconsin.” And in the 1800s, railroad construction was subsidized by the federal government. Mid-century, President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railway Act into law, providing taxpayer dollars to fund the construction of a transcontinental railway. All railroads thereafter connected to, and benefited from, that public investment.

At the turn of the century, Ryan Inc. turned to road building. A subsidiary family corporation, Ryan Incorporated Southern, states on its Web site, “The Ryan workload from 1910 until the rural interstate Highway System was completed 60 years later [and] was mostly Highway construction.” The $119 billion spent by the federal government on the Interstate Highway System was, by one account, “the largest public works program since the Pyramids.”

Except, the Ryan company did, in fact, build that. First, they were a privately owned company. Second, where did the money come from? She even mentions it: the taxpayer. Private citizens who had their money forcibly taken by the government. Mr. Ryan built the company, then used the company to make money by being involved with “public works” projects. Of course, Sally carries more water for the Obama administration

When President Obama said that we succeed in America “because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together,” he was actually speaking in more general terms — about manufacturing companies that ship their goods on our railways and highways and thus indirectly benefit from that public infrastructure. With a net worth of up to $3.2 million and ranking as the 124th richest member of Congress, Paul Ryan very directly and very significantly benefited from the federal spending he now rails against.

A couple points. First, Obama only attempted to position his “you didn’t build that” comment about infrastructure afterwards when he tried to “explain” the comments. It was quite obvious from the initial speech that he meant a company couldn’t be built without the super duper awesome hand of government. 2nd, Paul made his money before entering Congress, unlike others *cough Harry Reid cough* who somehow made themselves millionaires while in federal office. 3rd, Conservatives, including Ryan, do not have a problem with government itself, they have a problem with the size and scope of government, and how money is wasted on stupid projects, and wasted in general. If a road needs building or fixing, sure go ahead, let’s get that done (interestingly, who usually builds the road? A private company who wins the contract to build that road). But, if you take that taxpayer money and use it to, say, build a $10 million turtle tunnel, repaint bridges, repave roads that do not need paving, put a shrimp on a treadmill, yeah, we have a problem with that.

What we have is a difference of viewpoint: those on the Left believe things can only get done with the hand of government. Those on the right believe it’s about your initiative first and foremost.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Lapdog Slate Says Ryan Company “Didn’t Build That” »

Posted in Elections, GOP, Liberal World | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

New Study Says No Real Proof “Climate Change” Causes Severe Weather

By William Teach August 14, 2012 – 3:08 pm

There’s a bit of spin by Jason Samenow, trying to link the two, but, eh, not so much

(Washington Post) The study (abstract): “Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge”, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, states its objective plainly:

Due to the intense media coverage of and great public interest in the 2011 disasters, we suspect that many [meteorologists] have received inquiries or have a personal interest about the nature of these events in the context of long-term trends and potential climate change. This paper is meant to present a clear record that can be used by meteorological professionals about what is known and unknown and why.

What’d they find out?

Summary: Good long-term records of thunderstorms don’t exist and there’s no clear physical reason why to expect they would have changed.

Summary: Records of past tropical storm and hurricane activity are likely incomplete. While the frequency of Atlantic storms has increased since 1970 when observations have been more reliable, the cause of this uptick is not agreed upon.

Summary: There’s indication big snowstorms have increased over the last 60 years but no clear explanation for the change. The increase in big snowstorms has occurred even while the number of years with very little snow has stayed the same or increased. And there’s no evidence of meaningful changes in ice storms.

Summary: Reliable data indicate heavy precipitation events are increasing and rising amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to human-caused warming offer a good, but not necessarily complete, explanation.

So, the only thing they saw an uptick on is heavy precipitation events, which may or may not have anthropogenic causes, but, hey, could just as well be explained by solar activity. Jason is not convinced

The time may well come when we can more reliably describe the causes for trends we see in severe weather. But, for the time being, we’re all on firmer ground when drawing connections between climate change and increasing warm weather, ice melt, glacier changes, sea level rise, etc. And this study – in combination with others – makes a strong case to include heavy precipitation on the list.

Except, none of those things are acting according to the models, and, if you read the section at the story about precipitation, you’ll see that there really isn’t a big reason to believe that precipitation is anthropogenic. There are many reasons, such as nature doing its thing.

Read: New Study Says No Real Proof “Climate Change” Causes Severe Weather »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 14, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an older fossil fueled vehicle that probably has no catalytic converter, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sister Toldjah, with a post smacking Debbie Downer around.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmist Mother Leaves Child In Tears Over Climate Change (Hoax)

By William Teach August 14, 2012 – 11:34 am

With all due respect to Steven Hayward, Jerry Brown can’t be the Green Weenie of the Week: this lady is, and should probably be nominated for Green Weenie of the Year (via The New Nostradamus of the North)

(NJ Today) My 12-year old has just asked to participate in another weekly activity thirty minutes away. I try a quick rebuff: “You’re already too busy and it’s too expensive.”

We’re already into “Mother of the Year” before adding the Warmist agitprop

With more than a bit of adolescent attitude, she replies, “You just don’t want to take the time to drive me.”

I look at the clock. It’s past 7 p.m. We haven’t eaten dinner, and unfinished homework clutters the kitchen table. There is never a perfect moment to get into the real nitty gritty of why and wherefore. Still, sometimes you have to take the time to give your kids an honest answer to their questions.

“Yes, you’re partly right,” I tell her, and her sister too, who has now wandered in. “I don’t especially want to spend more time carting you around (WT-more mother of the year). But there is another reason. Every time we get in the car we contribute to climate change. By the end of this century – and you may both still be around – climate change is likely to make conditions for life on earth drastically different from what they are today.”

I pause. It’s gloomy stuff, the state of the environment. Usually I try not to dwell on scientists’ pessimistic planetary forecasts. Nobody, including me, really wants to hear it. Nobody wants to read about it over morning coffee and a doughnut. Nobody wants to tell their kids about it.

What follows is more doom and gloom, the standard unhinged Warmist talking points, yet, Mom of the year still hasn’t given up her fossil fueled vehicle. Weird.

Although this cheers them up a bit, they are smart enough to know that a few leaves of spinach are not going to fix a whole lot. By the end of the conversation, they’re in tears.

How special. And, as NNoN points out “There are probably thousands of similar families, with children in tears after listening to their alarmist parents´ global warming scaremongering.” Warmists do not care. Like most Lefties, they are hyper-narcissistic people who really do not care about anyone else.

Yet, most still refuse to become carbon-neutral. They want you to do that.

Read: Warmist Mother Leaves Child In Tears Over Climate Change (Hoax) »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

GOP Has 10 Questions For Next Time Obama Takes Any

By William Teach August 14, 2012 – 8:05 am

It’s been quite some time since Obama answered any questions, apparently his twisted version of “transparency”

(Politico) As the national discourse has skipped along from the July jobs report, to negative campaign ads, to the new GOP vice presidential pick, the Republican National Committee points out, President Obama has yet to personally answer questions about either.

“It’s been almost eight weeks since President Obama last took questions from the White House press corps,” the RNC notes in a memo to be released Tuesday. “Since then, a lot has happened, and the American people are demanding answers on a growing list of issues.

“When will President Obama quit ducking and dodging? When will he hold himself accountable?”

Here are the questions (since they are coming from the RNC, rather than being written by Donovan Slack in the Politico article, I’m going to excerpt them all. Excerpting too much of an article is supposed to be a no no in the blogosphere)

1) Why did you cut $700 billion from Medicare?

Even as he talks Medicare on the campaign trail, the president has not explained why he robbed Medicare—and the seniors who depend on it—to bankroll Obamacare.

2) Do you condemn the Obama Super PAC’s desperate and despicable ad campaign?

As a candidate, then-Senator Obama promised to “walk the walk” and denounce independent organizations that ran indefensible ads on his behalf. Yet when the Obama SuperPAC Priorities USA produced an ad attempting to exploit a woman’s death for political gain, he remained silent. He previously gave his blessing to the SuperPAC and allows his cabinet and top staff to fundraise for it, but he lacks the courage to take responsibility for their appalling behavior.

3) How do you explain the July increase in unemployment and slowing GDP growth?

Last month, unemployment increased to 8.3 percent, marking the 42nd straight month of unemployment above 8 percent. We learned in July that GDP growth slowed, meaning the economy is losing steam. Yet the president cannot say why four more years of the same failed policies will turn around this dangerous trend.

4) Why is your plate too full for your own Jobs Council?

President Obama has not convened his Jobs Council in over seven months. The White House says he’s too busy, but he has found time for 130 political fundraisers since the last meeting of what he claimed was not a “show council.” (He has attended more than 200 fundraisers since April 2011.) So much for making jobs a “number one” priority.

5) Did you approve of David Plouffe’s profiting from a sponsor of terrorism?

Right after announcing his return to the Obama White House, David Plouffe accepted a $100,000 speaking gig with a company who had ties to sponsors of terrorism. It hardly seems responsible to give someone a high level security clearance after exhibiting such poor judgment.

6) Can you explain to business owners your “You didn’t build that” comment?

Small businesses are struggling in the Obama economy—especially in the wake of Obamacare. Entrepreneurs and innovators are rightfully outraged that the president would denigrate their hard work and attack them both with his policies and his words.

7) Do you condone your staff using personal email accounts to conduct government business?

We learned recently that former Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina used a private account to email lobbyists about “rolling Pelosi” during Obamacare negations. This seems highly hypocritical for the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history.”

8) Why didn’t you stop the restructuring of Solyndra’s loan?

Nearly everybody in the president’s inner circle knew Solyndra was headed for disaster. But the White House and the Administration approved of a loan restructuring plan that put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions more. The president has not explained how he let this happen.

9) Why did you invoke executive privilege on the Fast and Furious scandal?

Americans deserve answers on how this failed operation turned into a tragedy. But the president is hypocritically impeding transparency and accountability.

10) Can you reconcile the conflicting responses to national security leaks?

Keeping America safe and secure is of paramount importance, but the president has yet to see fit to answer the charges, from Dianne Feinstein no less, that sensitive information has been leaked by his administration for political gain.

Some excellent questions. I’d really like to know the answer to #9. Since Obama slapped Executive Privilege on the remaining 90% of the documents, it must mean he has personal knowledge of the operation. How deep does that knowledge go? Since he’s POTUS, under the liberal blame rules established during the Bush 43 presidency, this means that Obama is personally responsible for the murders of 2 federal agents and 200-300 Mexican civilians.

And I’m sure we all have some questions for Obama. Personally, I’d like him to answer the question “how, exactly, do you plan on returning America to an economic powerhouse if given a 2nd term, considering that your 1st term policies have been failures?”

Read: GOP Has 10 Questions For Next Time Obama Takes Any »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Petula Dvorak: “How Dare Chick-fil-A, Papa John’s and In-N-Out Burger Offer Their Opinions”

By William Teach August 14, 2012 – 7:46 am

Liberals love Free Speech as long as it conforms exactly to their own narrow, rigid dogma

(Washington Post) Since when does serving up junk food give someone a license to preach?

Since it’s a private business and they are covered by the 1st Amendment of the Bill Of Rights would be my guess.

Politics and all things fried, fatty and fast are becoming intertwined to the point of absurdity.

We’ve got the Papa John’s pizza guys weighing in on the health-care debate, while the burger slingers out west at In-N-Out can’t serve up a cheeseburger without a Bible verse.

In Liberal World, one is not allowed to discuss Obamacare raising one’s costs, and, sheesh, In-N-Out has dared, dared I tell you, to put numbers of Bible tracks on some of the cups and food wrappers! It must be excruciatingly painful for a Liberal to see “Proverbs 3:5” and “Nahum 1:7” written out on their soda cup (make sure it is less than 20 oz!). That’s what she calls “Bible verse”: just a name and passage number.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy opposes same-sex marriage to anyone who has heard the hymns piped into the restaurant or tried to tame a chicken jones on a Sunday, only to find a closed restaurant because Sunday is for God, not chicken. But his remarks on the subject created a furor and divided the nation yet again along political lines.

I’ve lived in the South full time since 1991, and started attending college here in 1985: I’ve been to lots of Chick-fil-a stores around the state and in other states, and I have never heard hymns piped in. The music is……well, if there’s music, you can’t hear it over the sound of lots of people eating. Perhaps Petulant Dvorak heard a Christian soft rock song being played at the mall, where the stores do not control the music. And, of course, you see the whines about the store daring to be closed on Sunday.

Fortunately, she provides balance

On the other end of the spectrum, the folks who brought us the bulk of that eat-a-pint-after-a-breakup weight, Ben & Jerry’s, churned out a Hubby-Hubby flavor in support of same-sex marriage.

Why does bad food have to come with politics? Where do the broccoli people stand on abortion? That, we’ll never know.

Perhaps some people do not find it to be bad food. Perhaps it’s little thing called “First Amendment Rights”.

Of course, this is America. And all business owners have a right to express their views however they see fit. But sometimes a right simply turns into righteous.

And that doesn’t taste too good.

Then don’t eat there.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Petula Dvorak: “How Dare Chick-fil-A, Papa John’s and In-N-Out Burger Offer Their Opinions” »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Eliot Spitzer Provides A Climate Change (Hoax) Plan That Even Conservatives Can Love!!!!

By William Teach August 13, 2012 – 2:59 pm

I’m assuming that by “love” they are referring to the way some would say “love it!” when they see something funny like the videos from Freaky The Scary Snowman

A climate change fix conservatives can love (also at Slate)

Well, Eliot would know about love, eh? OK, cheap shot.

And what are we talking about in our presidential campaign? Obamaloney and Romney Hood. Silliness has taken over, and the capacity to raise tough issues has dissipated if not gone entirely. Climate change appears to have fallen off the political agenda.

Are you ready for silly? I bet you are

Yet there is an answer for either candidate courageous enough to take the first step. This answer is steeped in conservative economics: Companies that pollute should be taxed so that a product’s cost to society is reflected in the price of that product. Milton Friedman and Richard Posner agree on this point!

The idea, proposed by Hansen, is simple: a fee on carbon emissions collected from fossil-fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to legal residents on a per capita basis. It is simple, would move us away from carbon-based fuels, would cost most consumers nothing, and would stimulate innovation in the clean-energy sector. Right now, in contrast, we are subsidizing fossil fuels to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year — while the greatest minds in science agree that we are destroying our planet.

So, let me get this straight: we’re going to tax companies that “pollute”, ie, release some greenhouse gases, with the result being that the price of the product will be artificially inflated, then take that fee/tax and give it in full back to the people who are paying the higher costs for the products because the companies are being taxed/fee’d? In what world is that in any way conservative? Not that I have to explain it to you, but this is a classic far left redistributive plan which would also cause the price of everything else that relies on fossil fueled transportation to rise precipitously, which would not be covered by the “rebates”, which would surely see a huge cut end up in the government’s hands and used for other things.

Read: Eliot Spitzer Provides A Climate Change (Hoax) Plan That Even Conservatives Can Love!!!! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Beyond Moonbat, Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove