…is an awesome planet healing mode of transportation that everyone else should use, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is And So It Goes In Shreveport, which features a great video on regulation nation.
I should probably offer up a bit of Rule 5 for the ladies when I link the ladies on my blogroll, but, um, no. 
Read: If All You See… »
More insanity via the UK Guardian
It’s time to come clean: climate change is a hoax. And the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and the CIA is hiding the identity of the gunman on the grassy knoll.
It might seem odd to lump climate change – a scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of independent lines of evidence – with conspiracy theories like these. But new research to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found a link between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of established facts about climate science.
In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality. (snip)
What they found was remarkable. People who endorsed conspiracy theories such as “9/11 was an inside job” and “the moon landings were faked”, were also more likely to reject established scientific facts about climate change, such as “I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperatures to an appreciable degree.”
What a load of compete horseshit. The vast majority of these conspiracies are held by people on the left (though we could certainly include some of Ron Paul’s followers). 9/11 Truth, the moon landings being faked, New World Order, JFK conspiracies, the FBI killed Martin Luther King, the Air Force is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitors, Pearl Harbor foreknowledge, the government created AIDS, all mentioned in the abstract (scroll near the end of the paper to see them all), are positions that are held by mostly people on the political Left.
The research paper is here. From it, we learn
Our respondents were self-selected denizens of climate blogs. One potential objection against our results might therefore cite the selected nature of our sample. We acknowledge that our sample is self-selected and that the results may therefore not generalize to the population at large.
I wonder if it occurred to them that the denizens answering the questions could be Lefties who go to those blogs to leave unhinged and abusive comments?
We prefer rejection of science” to the term denial,”…
The only people denying science are those who buy into “climate change”, itself an un-scientific term. Just consider
The U.S. government allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place so that it would have an excuse to achieve foreign (e.g., wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) and domestic (e.g., attacks on civil liberties) goals that had been determined prior to the attacks.
Climate Realists tend to be conservatives. What conservative will answer “yes” to that? At least 99.999999999% will say “that’s a load of Pelosi! (4)”. The whole study is a load of Pelosi, but, Warmists have to do something to discredit their opponents, since they don’t have the science to back up their cult.
Read: Crazy Research Compares “Climate Skeptics” To 9/11 Truthers »
Did I write “mafia”? I meant the Philadelphia city council, which, like many other political leaders in big liberal cities, is acting in a manner reminiscent of organized crime, declaring that a privately owned company must change its behavior in order to operate in those cities, which is a tactic similar to what organized crime does, known as “extortion”, which is a felony. When I first wrote a post about Dan Cathy stating that the company doesn’t support gay marriage back on the 20th, I had no idea of the true extent of the liberal apoplexy to come
(Fox News) The Philadelphia City Council will consider a resolution condemning Chick-fil-A for what one city leader called “anti-American†attitudes that promote “hatred, bigotry and discrimination.â€
Interesting: I thought the anti-American attitude was one of stopping both free speech and freedom of association. Silly me. Do you see Conservatives rushing out to abandon Amazon due to Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, donating $2.5 million to gay marriage? Nope. If we were truly upset, we’d just create a competing company. But, we all know that Lefties are pretty lose with their definition of “anti-American.”
City Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy telling him to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.â€
“My effort is to allow people to understand that in certain segments of corporate America there are folks who are using their dollars to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination,†Kenney told Fox News.
He is introducing a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.â€
Kenney joined the mayors of Boston, Chicago and now San Francisco in blasting the Atlanta-based company for supporting a biblical definition of marriage – a union between one man and one woman.
In Liberal World, one is not allowed to disagree with the tenants. Diverging opinion are verboten, comrades, and must be squashed. It’d be interesting to see what would happen if the company pulled all their stores from the liberal cities, reducing jobs and tax money. Other companies might be reticent to build in those cities, since the possibility of being extorted by the politicians would be ever present, and what business owner wants the extra hassle? Is it any wonder job creation is low, what with crazy liberal politicians out there (among other reasons)?
The Democrats who wrote, passed, and support the “American Care Act” probably thought that companies would just roll over and willingly pay a higher tax rate for their medical devices. Alas, the Real World has intruded on the Dem fantasies of collecting more tax money to spread around to their campaign contributors and voters
(Fox News) An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it’s scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama’s health care overhaul law.
Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.
“This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we’re not going to be able to build,” a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.
He said the original plan was to build factories in “hard-pressed” Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.
“In reality, we’re not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can’t, to be competitive,” he said.
Surprise! Who could imagine that increasing taxes could cause a company to change its behavior rather than rolling over in docility? Liberals might say that a 2.3% tax on medical devices isn’t a big deal, but when that increases costs on a company by $20 million dollars, which is real money when you get outside the Washington, D.C. bubble, things have to be changed. And that cost also tends to be passed on to the consumer, who might think twice about making the purchase, and go with that product that was made in another country and is not subject to the tax.
But the Cook Medical spokesman said the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes. He said the impact on actual earnings is another 15 percent, and he projected the company’s total tax burden next year will rise to over 50 percent.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to decrease taxes, meaning people would purchase that product in greater numbers, a product made in America by (hopefully) American workers, so that the company can make more money, which means more tax money is paid to the state and local governments through sales tax and, because earnings are greater, more income tax to the state and federal governments? In Liberal World, they’d just prefer the money goes straight to the federal coffers, and damned the consequences.
And let’s not forget that with more sales, there would be a need for more production, so the companies would expand, people would work. Oh, and it means people would pay less for the medical devices they need, devices that may just be better quality than those imported.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Cook Medical Scraps Expansion Plans Over ObamaCare Medical Tax »
I guess they found the time (h/t Gumball Brains)
(The Hill) Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable†gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
I’d be interested to see the details of this in terms of just what guns it applies to. Is it simply assault rifles, or does it apply to all guns? A good chunk of handguns are designed to specifically use clips that hold more than 10 rounds. If so, that would essentially stop sales of most handguns to law abiding citizens, at least till manufacturers retool. A clear violation of the 2nd amendment.
Also, could there be an unintentional effect, in that police officers wouldn’t be able to purchase? How about others, like the military? If companies aren’t allowed to legally sell…..
PS: I own a little Walther P22, and I can swap the 10 round mags in about 2-3 seconds and be shooting.
And decides to pick a fight with the NY Times’ Andrew Revkin, who took umbrage to the use of the word “unprecedented” when discussing the recent Greenland melting in much the same way I did the other day.
Joe really does not like anyone mentioning that this happens around every 150 years, because that would require a discussion of just why it happens and why this time is any different from the numerous times it has happened in the past before CO2 rose above 350ppm. And, here we go
Another day, another bad New York Times headline:
‘Unprecedented’ Greenland Surface Melt – Every 150 Years?
The New York Times then launched into a critique of:
- NASA — for what they asserted was an “inaccurate headline†in its press release, “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Meltâ€;
- Most of the media coverage — for supposedly “hyperventilating†by accepting NASA’s use of the word “unprecedentedâ€;
- Me — for using James Hansen’s term “reticent†for one of the NASA scientists who said, “if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.â€
And how does Joe respond to this?
I interviewed one of the country’s top climatologists, Michael Mann, by phone, and another, Gavin Schmidt, by email. The bottom line is:
- People who live in greenhouses definitely should not throw stones
- Ditto.
- Not. Mann explained to me that “it’s absolutely worrisome†what’s happening in Greenland already.
So, Joe throws some ad hominums, and is unable to refute that the melting is no “unprecedented” in the least. The best he can do to defend his cult is
The most thorough response comes from NASA’s own Gavin Schmidt in a comment posted on the NY Times story (one he confirmed with me):
The NASA results are clearly unprecedented in the satellite record (and this is obviously what was being referred to), and come at the tail end of a strong increasing trend in summer surface melt area (as seen in data from the Steffen and Tedesco groups).
LOL! “Unprecedented in the satellite record”. How cute. And how completely scientific.
Steven Goddard writes
Joe has declared war on Andy Revkin, and science. Joe is apparently also really pissed off at the author of the NASA Greenland melt  study – who said that this has happened every 150 years for the last 10,000 years.
Joe is also guilty of a big blogging, heck, Internet no no in that he hotlinked the graphic in his story from here.
Read: Joe Romm Decides To Skip Science On “Unprecedented” Greenland Melting »
…is a field that should be full of wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Steven Goddard, who says you too can be smarter than a NASA expert.
Read: If All You See… »
The numbers for the 2nd quarter GDP are out, and some are celebrating, since some expected 1.3% (some expected 1.5%, though), and got 1.5%. Um, a clue for those celebrating: 1.5% sucks.
(Bloomberg) The U.S. economy expanded at a slower pace in the second quarter as a softening job market prompted Americans to curb spending.
Gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced, rose at a 1.5 percent annual rate after a revised 2 percent gain in the prior quarter, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 1.4 percent increase. Household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the world’s largest economy, grew at the slowest pace in a year.
Apparently, the Obama plan “worked”.
Drew M: “Clearly these numbers have been taken out of context.”
Ed Morrissey: “Expectations must have been pretty low for a 1.5% GDP to spark optimism.”
Strangely, 2011 4th was revised up from 3.0% to 4.1%, which is a strange jump, however, that makes the 2012 slowdown look even worse than it is. Which is pretty bad.
However, don’t forget, the private sector is doing fine
Read: Hooray! GDP Up 1.5% »
A double shot from the Washington Post this morning, which says that House leaders open to gun law debate
….The comments echoed the sentiments of lawmakers and the president’s own aides, who said this week that Obama is unlikely to push for new gun legislation because of strong opposition in Congress.
But House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters Thursday that he would welcome new proposals from the president and agreed that it would be appropriate to review current gun laws.
“If the president has proposals on other ways that we can address criminals owning guns, I’ll be happy to look at them,†Boehner said.
He goes on to say
“I think that what’s appropriate at this point is to look at laws that we already have on the books and to make sure that they’re working as they were intended to work and are they being enforced the way they were intended to be enforced,†Boehner said. “And that’d be the most logical step forward at this point.â€
And later
“I don’t know. I’m not the expert on this,†Boehner said. “But if the president’s got ideas, I’d be happy to look at them.â€
It’s pretty clear that in Washington Speak Speaker Boehner is daring (NMP) Obama to make policy recommendations, rather than just nebulous talking points exhorting others to do the actual work. Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t push for any hearings or legislation. Harry Reid, in charge of the Democrat led Senate, stated that the Senate was just too darned busy (not passing budgets) to consider taking up gun control. So, there you go, Obama: make some policy recommendations. Show that leadership! I triple dog dare you.
House leaders, and Republicans, would be open to a gun law debate, because it would put Democrats in a bad position of lying about their support for the 2nd Amendment or telling the truth, namely that they want the populace unarmed.
Read: Boehner Dares Obama To Make Gun Control Recommendations »
It’s rather cute how the media continues to prostitute itself for Team Obama. Deluded and absurd would also be words we could use. Oh, look, here’s the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake:
Context be damned: Obama’s ‘It worked’ quote should work for Republicans
Context is dead. Long live context.
For the second time in two weeks, Mitt Romney’s campaign has an out-of-context quote it can use to bludgeon President Obama. First it was “You didn’t build that,†and now it’s two ill-fated words that Obama spoke at a fundraiser Monday: “It worked.â€
As with “You didn’t build that,†the Romney campaign’s attacks on “It worked†will be criticized for being out-of-context, lowest-common-denominator politics. And as with “You didn’t build that,†“It worked†is going to … well … work.
Here’s why.
There’s a lot of controversy these days about campaign tactics and what crosses the line. Obama’s team has been crying foul for two weeks now that “You didn’t build that†has been taken badly out of context by Republicans.
The problem is, the gray area is just too gray. Fact-checkers are great (especially our Glenn Kessler), but as long as either side has an argument to justify its attacks, the history of politics dictates that it’s all fair game. (snip)
In all of these cases, we’re dealing with a somewhat ambiguous quote.
Except, neither of Obama’s off-script quotes are ambiguous. In fact, when you read/hear the full quotes, they tend to be worse than the shortened versions.
In the case of “It worked,†as Dave Weigel notes, it’s perhaps even clearer that the words are being taken out of context.
You’ve seen the quote (“Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan. And it worked.”). What of the full quote?
“I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan. And it worked.â€
Yet, we’ve had 41 months of 8%+ unemployment, record numbers of people dropping out of the jobs market in despair….you know the whole depressing list. His plan was to pump more and more borrowed money into the economy, and try and get more and more money out of “the rich” to pump into the federal treasury. Because bureaucrats, political appointees, and elected officials, many whom have never worked in the private sector, never had to make a payroll, never had to expand a business, apparently know more about how the economy runs than the people who are out there making lots of money.
And, really, Obama shouldn’t be talking about “budget surpluses” when he has presided over 4 straight years of trillion dollar plus deficits. And few are doing well.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Read: Liberal World: “You Didn’t Build That” And “It Worked” Are “Ambiguous” »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
