Bummer: Seas Could Rise Blah Blah Blah

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 11:50 am

They can’t help themselves

(Green Biz) [Editor’s Note: Today is World Water Day. In addition to this article by Robert Kropp of SocialFunds, also see the post by GreenOrder’s Simon Lim on how energy companies manage their water footprints.]

Since 1880, average sea levels have increased by more than eight inches, most if not all of which can be attributed to the impacts of climate change. According to Climate Central, in a report entitled Surging Seas, unchecked climate change is likely to make things much worse, and soon.

Eight inches since 1880 is pretty much…..below average sea rise. The average sea rise per century since the massive sea rise brought on by the end of the last glacial period, around 7,000 years ago, is 6 inches per century. Now we have 8 inches in 130 years? During a warm period? Remember, the average comes from a period that includes oscillation between warm and cool periods. But, hey, it “could” get worse

The study projects that sea levels could rise as much as an additional eight inches by 2030. Furthermore, “The rate of rise is accelerating,” Climate Central reports. “Scientists expect 20 to 80 more inches this century.”

One effect of rising sea levels is likely to be massive migration by populations in low-lying areas. The Center for International Earth Science Information Network has estimated that there could be as many as 700 million climate refugees by 2050. And CIESIN states, “Sea-level rise appears to be the impact most certain to result in displacement and resettlement.”

And by 2030 and 2050, these dire predictions will have been forgotten. But, give them public money to study this, and just accept massive fascistic restrictions on your life, OK?

Read: Bummer: Seas Could Rise Blah Blah Blah »

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

Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 10:14 am

He hasn’t been too excited to discuss it in public, either, mostly mentioning it during fundraisers with the 1%, who can already afford really good insurance plans. He rather failed to discuss it during the State Of The Union. He avoided the subject during the run up to the 2010 midterms. He must really be proud of his signature legislation, signed March 23, 2010

(The Hill) President Obama will not mark the two-year anniversary of his signing of the healthcare law — which takes place days before the Supreme Court offers a decision on the constitutionality of his signature legislative achievement.

Senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Obama will not be offering a vigorous public defense of the law, holding events or even making public remarks in the lead-up to the Supreme Court case.

Obama will instead leave arguments to the Justice Department, which begins defending the law on Monday.  Likewise, Obama is not expected to hold an event around the two-year anniversary on Friday, said officials who labeled it a faux milestone and off the radar of most Americans.

Off the radar, eh? Except for all the news stories and discussion of the upcoming SCOTUS hearing and pending decision. And that a majority of Americans are still against the travesty of a law. There are demonstrations planned in at least 100 cities nationwide for Friday.

“If the president is so proud of his signature policy initiative he should own it and continue campaigning on it,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “Instead, the White House is attempting to distance themselves from the president’s namesake because it’s clear Americans believe ObamaCare is making healthcare worse instead of better.”

Certainly, there are some popular notions within Obamacare, yet, people understand that the way the law is structured will do little to bring down costs, and, in fact, drive costs up. They understand that it means more government interference in their lives through health mandates. They understand that even if they like their plan, they won’t be able to keep it, because companies are essentially incentivized to dump their plans, leaving people with the choice of going through government approved exchanges, rather than searching out what they want. And they do not like being told to purchase a product or pay a fine/tax.

“This president believes that federal bureaucrats can do a better job than you can deciding what should be in your insurance policy, and ultimately what kind of care you should receive,” Romney said on Sunday.

And those same bureaucrats will have no accountability to The People. It’s not easy dealing with the federal bureaucracy now, think it will get better? Try dealing with a recalcitrant insurance company, and then triple that.

“This president believes that federal bureaucrats can do a better job than you can deciding what should be in your insurance policy, and ultimately what kind of care you should receive,” Romney said on Sunday.

Read: Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare »

Posted in Barry Obama, Healthcare | Comments Off on Obama Not Too Excited To Celebrate Two Year Anniversary Of ObamaCare | Trackback URL

Majority In North Carolina Support Marriage Amendment

By William Teach March 22, 2012 – 9:42 am

One of the questions surrounding this is “will the poll numbers translate over to the vote?”

(WRAL) A proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in North Carolina as being between one man and one woman has broad support among voters statewide, according to a new WRAL News poll.

Amendment One, which would effectively bar any same-sex union in the state, will appear on the May 8 primary ballot.

SurveyUSA polled 1,001 likely voters across North Carolina between last Friday and Tuesday and found that 58 percent support the referendum. Thirty-six percent of voters oppose it, and 6 percent remain undecided.

Gay marriage is already against state law, but this would enshrine it in the Constitution. It would also ban civil unions, in a pre-emptive shot in case a Democrat takeover of the General Assembly would chose to make civil unions legal. Civil unions are currently not legal in North Carolina. The text of the proposed amendment, which would be part of Article 14, section 6

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

The amendment will not stop private parties from entering into contracts, such as with companies providing benefits to domestic partners, nor with wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Nor will it affect domestic violence laws, in this case, when you have same sex partners living together (more on the subject here).

Of course, outside groups are pouring into NC to oppose this. The California Democratic Party plans on making calls. I hope they understand the time difference when they do. And, if you’ll remember, (NMP) Obama chimed in on the subject last week

“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” campaign spokesman Cameron French said in the statement. “That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the president does not support it.”

Except, it won’t deny rights and benefits, except marriage itself. Let’s not forget, Obama opposes gay marriage himself. Though he does support civil unions. Not that many States actually have civil unions. North Carolina does not.

To be honest, I’m not sure which way I’ll vote. I’ve always maintained that, when pushed, I’m against same sex marriage, but for civil unions. This is America, the land of freedom. One of our founding principles is “if it doesn’t harm someone else, then it’s no one else’s business.” I could care less if someone is gay. Doesn’t affect my life. I also maintain that marriage is primarily a religious institution, and it should be left to the religious institutions if they want to perform a same sex marriage. But, two points: first, marriage is not always performed by a religious leader. A justice of the peace can perform one, for instance, as can a judge. So, not just enshrined in religion. Second, the law forbids certain marriages already: there cannot be a marriage amongst more than two people. People can’t marry dogs. One cannot marry a tree. Yes, people do that. It is a long Hindu tradition, one which is illegal in the USA.

I do not like that it stops all civil unions. But, then, as mentioned, NC doesn’t have civil unions. Nor do most states. Because of the freedom aspect of America, I have a problem with this. I see no reason why same sex partners should be denied the rights and benefits of partnership under the law.

To steal from Allahpundit, exit question: “do you think I should vote for or against the Amendment, and why?”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Majority In North Carolina Support Marriage Amendment »

Posted in Current Affairs, NC News | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Realize They Have To Bait And Switch To Sell Their Failed Cult

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 5:27 pm

Of course, this is called “rebranding.” Just like the Law of Thermodynamics was rebranded. Same with Gravity. Otherwise, people wouldn’t have bought in

(Politico) Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming!

There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.

More than two years since Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan died in Congress, the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgment from environmentalists that they’ve lost ground by tackling global warming head-on. Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch: Help elect global warming fighters by basing campaigns on kitchen-table issues.

That’s why they switched from global warming to phrases like climate change, extreme climate change, abrupt climate change, and are pushing “extreme weather” now, attempting to state that every weather event is caused by Someone Else driving a fossil fueled conveyance. They’ve also tried “biodiversity”, “sustainability”, and “buy local.”

“I think climate change is more difficult to explain,” Cani said. “When we’re talking about the immediate effects of some of these policies and some of these issues that will lead to climate change, they’re very serious too. We think that when we’re talking about [health] issues … we’re still talking about climate change,” he added. They “might not be using that word or that phrase.”

True. It’s rather difficult to explain how below average temperatures and massive snow is caused by greenhouse gases which trap heat. And how a trace gas necessary for life on earth is a pollutant which will kills us all. And why the leaders of this movement tend to be the worst “carbon offenders”, and that their disciples tend to take no real actions within their own lives.

Read: Warmists Realize They Have To Bait And Switch To Sell Their Failed Cult »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…are awesome Gaia compliant bikes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Junk Science.

Read: If All You See… »

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

AP Tries The “More Supply Doesn’t Decrease Price” Trick

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 10:43 am

Statistics can tell you anything you want

(WRAL) It’s the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

You’re welcome to read the whole thing, but, it comes down to the AP wanting to defend Obama, pure and simple. What’s missing is that supply has to outstrip demand to bring prices down. It hasn’t. Even with more domestic drilling on private land, as we’ve seen, the demand still outweighs supply. Said statistics are mostly based on world supply and demand, which fluctuates. Were America to make a concerted effort to massively increase our own supply, our domestic prices would change, much like in the other big producer countries, where prices are much lower.

The AP also forgets to get around to telling us what, exactly, drives prices.

Read: AP Tries The “More Supply Doesn’t Decrease Price” Trick »

Posted in Energy, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News! Politico Manages To Find Nine Dems Willing To Embrace The Obama Mantle

By William Teach March 21, 2012 – 9:16 am

They’re literally fighting for Obama’s mantle, which seems to violate the “new tone”. Very violent rhetoric. Not quite as violent as Joe Biden telling me that “We’ve all got a dog in this fight.” I thought dog fighting was barbaric, violent, and illegal. So, if anyone gets caught dog fighting, blame Joe. Anyway

(Politico) While some Democrats are loathe to be linked to President Barack Obama in the 2012 cycle, others are doing just the opposite – they’re fighting over who is the president’s most faithful disciple.

It’s a dynamic that’s playing out in hard-fought Democratic congressional primaries, where candidates are appealing to liberal constituencies where support for the president runs high.

In New Jersey, Reps. Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell, two sitting Democratic members competing in a primary, are at war over who has been more supportive of Obama’s policies. The conflict was on full display at January’s State of the Union address, where both Democrats seemed to go out of the way to greet the president in view of a national TV audience.

There’s good reason for both lawmakers to embrace Obama so forcefully. They are competing for a northern New Jersey-based 9th District seat that is heavily Democratic and that will almost certainly back Obama over the eventual GOP nominee.

This is a situation that plays out a whopping seven more times, with Democrat candidates in extremely Democrat districts saying they loves them some Obama!

Even in 2012, there are also more conservative districts where being too close to the president isn’t an asset. In the primary for a vacant Oklahoma House seat, for example, neither of the Democratic candidates running makes any attempt to mention the president on their campaign websites.

“It’s totally dependent on how competitive a district it is in the general,” said Andrew Myers, a Democratic pollster who has counted many House members and candidates as clients. “When it’s a safe seat, I think it’s a good image to have. It telegraphs that you’re a Democrat to folks. If you’re in a 50-50 district, you have to be careful about embracing it.”

Forget about even mentioning Obama, Democrats only want to reveal they are Democrats in safe Democrat districts. It’s almost like they are afraid to let people link them with the far left agenda which includes Obamacare, nanny stateism, massive spending, the failed Stimulus, reducing the military, coddling Iran, opposing Israel, and building more debt and bigger deficits than ever before.

“There are absolutely places where Obama is really popular. He’s a polarizing figure — people either love him or hate him,” said Dave Beattie, a Democratic pollster who has worked on many House races. “Anytime the race is for a seat that has a high percentage of African American voters, your support for the president and what he’s doing is going to be part of the narrative.”

Apparently, there are only a few, since Politico was only able to mention nine Dems, and many of them are competing against each other for the same Congressional seat.

Read: Good News! Politico Manages To Find Nine Dems Willing To Embrace The Obama Mantle »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Elections | Comments Off on Good News! Politico Manages To Find Nine Dems Willing To Embrace The Obama Mantle | Trackback URL

You Used Your Washing Machine, So A Whale Appeared In SF Bay

By William Teach March 20, 2012 – 5:07 pm

Because whales, and nature, are supposed to be completely predictable and never, ever change

(Slate) A 15-foot newborn gray whale calf and its mom are an unusual sight in San Francisco Bay,….

….but some scientists say the recent visitors are yet another sign of a changing climate and shifting life patterns in the ocean.

(Video of the whales at the link.)

Read: You Used Your Washing Machine, So A Whale Appeared In SF Bay »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 20, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees capturing CO2, you might just be a Warmist

The Blog of the Day is Sister Toldjah.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Suddenly, “Data” Shows 2010 Warmest Evah!

By William Teach March 20, 2012 – 10:34 am

Warmists are breathless

LONDON, March 19 (Reuters) – Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which for years maintained that 1998 was the hottest year, has published new data showing warmer years since, further undermining a sceptic view of stalled global warming.

The findings could helpfully move the focus from whether the world is warming due to human activities – it almost certainly is – to more pressing research areas, especially about the scale and urgency of human impacts.

After adding new data, the CRU team working alongside Britain’s Met Office Hadley Centre said on Monday that the hottest two years in a 150-year data record were 2005 and 2010 – previously they had said the record was 1998.

See? Change a few data sets (remember, the CRU and others work hard to make sure their publicly funded raw data is not released) and boom! change! But, wait a minute

None of these findings are statistically significant given the temperature differences between the three years were and remain far smaller than the uncertainties in temperature readings.

So, statistically insignificant. Climate Realists do not argue that the world has warmed, we argue that it is mostly or solely the fault of nature, and that most perceived warming is actually from land use, such as deforestation and urbanization, among others. But, really, all this is is an attempt to make the facts fit the talking points.

As Anthony Watts points out

Some of the change had to do with adding Arctic stations, but much of it has to do with adjustment. Observe the decline of temperatures of the past in the new CRU dataset:

Make sure you read the whole thing, for which Watts provides lots of that sciencey stuff. What they’ve done is essentially cool the past, and warm the present. Not the first time Warmists have played with the data

Australian Climate Madness: If you torture the data enough, they will surely confess. Also, noting from a BBC article, ACM notes

“For the latest version, we have included observations from more than 400 (observation) stations across the Arctic, Russia and Canada.”

And exactly what are those stations? The news reports and actual report do not really say. For all we know, it could be the thermometer in someone’s backyard, and we still do not have the raw data.

Still, even if the data is 100% correct, it still only proves that….the climate has warmed, like it has countless other times. Doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

Read: Suddenly, “Data” Shows 2010 Warmest Evah! »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on Suddenly, “Data” Shows 2010 Warmest Evah! | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove