You Didn’t Buy A Volt, So Brown Recluse Spiders Could Move North

By William Teach March 14, 2012 – 1:31 pm

Scary story time! The Hockey Schtick catches the latest about spiders from ABC News. After discussing a person getting a horrific bite from a Brown Recluse (which they later go on to say “it could have been something else”) in Kansas, we get

The Daily Mail sounded an alarm about a University of Kansas study by graduate student Erin Saupe, saying the “deadly” spider was “spreading … to a town near you.”

The study was published last year in the online journal PlosOne

The spider’s habitat is limited to the Southeast and Midwest, stretching from Kansas east to the Appalachian states.

brown

But Saupe of the university’s Geology and Biodiversity Institute used computer modeling to predict how it’s habitat might move north to states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even New York, dependent on climatic suitability for the species.

Go that? Might move north. The computers tell us so. I suppose going out in the field to verify would be silly.

Vetter worked with Saupe on her master’s project, in which she tracked the spiders’ predicted migration through “ecological niche modeling.”

She used two models to predict the spider’s range in 2020, 2050 and 2080, given the effects of global warming, concluding they might move north but those left behind would die off.

Kansas is a “hotbed” for these spiders, said Saupe, who has predicted that they might become extinct in the southern portions of their range by 2080 as the climate in their natural habitats becomes to warm and their mobility is restricted.

Yawn. Let me know when it happens here in Reality Land.

Read: You Didn’t Buy A Volt, So Brown Recluse Spiders Could Move North »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are evil cats and dogs using up all of Gaia’s precious resources which can never, ever be replaced, you might just be a Warmist

Read: If All You See… »

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

About That “Obama Reaches 50% Approval” Poll…

By William Teach March 14, 2012 – 10:24 am

Al Reuters breathlessly tells us that the guy presiding over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and making a serious hash of it rocks

For the first time since early July, more Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing than disapprove, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll that shows his approval rating now at 50 percent.

That’s wonderful, except

The Reuters/Ipsos telephone poll of 1,084 adults included 554 respondents who identified themselves as Democrats, 421 as Republicans, and 109 as independents. The total respondents included 937 registered voters.

As Ed Morrissey points out

So the big news for Obama is that in a poll that consists of 51.1% Democrats, he gets a 50% approval rating? Yeah, that’s a boost, all right.

This is just one of the shenanigans we can expect to see in the run up to the General Election, with the media trying to protect Obama.

Read: About That “Obama Reaches 50% Approval” Poll… »

Posted in Barry Obama, Journalistic Malpractice | Comments Off on About That “Obama Reaches 50% Approval” Poll… | Trackback URL

Shock Poll: Online Liberals Most Intolerant

By William Teach March 14, 2012 – 7:19 am

Let’s face it, most people on-line can get a bit nasty at times, especially when discussing politics. I remember my first foray into on-line politics, where I skirted the rules at NJ.com discussing 9/11 with a liberals who thought we not only deserved it, but that 9/11 was no big deal. We all get snippy. A new Pew poll, though, shows that those on the Left are the ones who aren’t able to deal with opposing viewpoints the most (via Hot Air)

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

I’ve run a blog since July, 2004, and in all that time, I’ve blocked two or three people/blogs (not counting spammers). I’ve only requested one person be banned from Right Wing News, and that was primarily due to an outcry from multiple commenters, including a liberal. But, I’ve also been blocked from multiple liberal sites, one of which is obviously Little Green Footballs. Why? Because I disagreed with Chuck. I’ve been blocked at multiple liberals sites that use Disqus. I was shocked that I was blocked at Shakesville, even though I have almost never commented there. Many Warmist sites have blocked myself, along with many Climate Realists. Heck, the UK Guardian moderates my comments because I’ve called them out for their climate alarmism articles. That said, I’ve also been blocked at a few Libertarian sites, one of which is possibly more unhinged than LGF.

And, yeah, I delinked LGF after he went bat guano crazy. I have been blocked from seeing Chuck’s Twitter feed, though. The lengths he goes through to block and ban are amazing.

Personally, I like debating with Liberals, even when they become unhinged. Lots of them do not enjoy debating with people who disagree with them, even if they are liberals themselves. DUmmie Funnies has lots of posts on the subject of Democratic Underground posters being “tombstoned” for disagreeing, including this one. When all is said and done, we see that liberals are the least tolerant of divergent viewpoints.

This isn’t to say that all liberals are like this, but, there are certainly more according to the poll than Conservatives and moderates, statistically.

Read: Shock Poll: Online Liberals Most Intolerant »

Posted in Conservativism, Liberal World, Weblogs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

CBO: Cost Of ObamaCare Way Up, Those Covered By Private Insurers Way Down

By William Teach March 14, 2012 – 6:24 am

Reuters is spinning hard, but, can’t quite get away from the dismal numbers, written to be as confusing as possible. The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein is having none of it

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

By my math, that’s, well, a lot of money. Almost double the previous projects. And that is the full 10 year cost per the CBO, now that actual costs are included, rather than accounting gimmicks. And, that is the gross cost, before the taxes, er, penalties, er, what are they today? ….. anyhow, from the Reuters article

“The fact that the outlook for the new law continues to worsen so rapidly, even before it’s implemented, is ominous,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

and

These cost reductions are largely due to lower estimates for subsidies and tax credits associated with the law’s planned insurance exchanges for individual coverage.

They also include higher revenues from penalties and the tax effects of higher taxable income, as private employers drop health insurance plans in favor of extra compensation for employees to buy insurance via the exchanges.

Wait, I thought that “if you liked your insurance plan, you could keep it”. Weren’t we also told that there should be no fear that companies would drop their plans, because this basically just extends health insurance to illegal aliens and moochers those without?

But the analysis also projected that some 4 million fewer people will obtain insurance through employers or through the insurance exchanges promoted by the healthcare law by 2016 than estimated a year ago.

Wait, what? Fewer people with insurance? That’s because companies will drop their insurance and just pay the fine, for reasons discussed many times. To put it simply, it is cheaper for the companies to pay the fine, expected to be $2,000, than pay the $6k-$12K they pay each year per employee. And, if anyone in the company gets insurance through the exchange, the company has to pay the fine for ever employee. Companies won’t take the chance, especially since so many who have part time employees, for which either they offer much more expensive plans or no plans.

A follow up article by Klein

It’s also worth noting that we were told time and again during the health care debate that the law didn’t represent a government takeover of health care. But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.

I think the CBO is seriously underestimating the number that will lose coverage from being dropped. And many will simply not get insurance except for when they need it. And for the exchanges, hey, Someone Else is picking up most of the tab, so why not go under the Central Government controlled plans. This POS law needs to be struck down and/or repealed, and replaced with common sense legislation that actually would expand coverage.

Other Right Wing Raaaaacists covering, via Memeorandum: The Lonely Conservative, Weasel Zippers, americanthinker.com, Business Insider, The Right Sphere, Doug Ross

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: CBO: Cost Of ObamaCare Way Up, Those Covered By Private Insurers Way Down »

Posted in Barry Obama, Democrats, Healthcare | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Crossed 2,000,000 Hits Today!

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 8:41 pm

Time to dance and drink

Thanks to everyone who came by and made it happen!

Read: Hey, Crossed 2,000,000 Hits Today! »

Posted in Pirates Cove | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Trace Gas Necessary For Life Now Makes You Fat

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 3:57 pm

Here we go, via Tom Nelson

(ScienceNordic) Danish researchers have announced a rather wild hypothesis: Perhaps we are getting fatter and fatter because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Worf

(Hoping that one works as animated GIF, doing on Droid)

Read: Trace Gas Necessary For Life Now Makes You Fat »

Posted in AGW Idiocy | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled motor vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection.

Read: If All You See… »

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

2,000+ Page ObamaCare Creates Another 640 Pages On Exchanges

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 10:17 am

This isn’t uniquie, either. There’s already around 6,000 extra pages of regulations written due to the unpopular law, and here comes more

(NJ.com) The Obama administration Monday finalized an ambitious blueprint for new state-based markets that will offer consumers one-stop shopping along the lines of amazon.com. (snip)

Reaction on Monday to the 640-page rule was mixed. Consumer organizations, the insurance industry and some business groups gave it favorable or neutral reviews. Republican governors panned it.

The GOP controlled House is also saying “hell, no” to a request for $800 million to help set these exchanges up. Which be fully mandated by the Central Government in what they cover, the pricing, and offered by “preferred ” insurance companies, ie, Democrat donating ones.

Read: 2,000+ Page ObamaCare Creates Another 640 Pages On Exchanges »

Posted in Barry Obama, Healthcare | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Media Works Hard To Protect Obama On Gas Prices

By William Teach March 13, 2012 – 7:38 am

The 90% liberal/Democrat media is sure to do all in its power to protect (NMP) Obama regarding the rising gas prices, which have been high for the majority of Obama’s time in office, and that protection is starting at the Washington Post, which forgets that its cost of doing business is going up and profits are going down: fossil fueled vehicles are used to deliver their dead tree edition

Voters blame president for gas prices, experts say not so fast

How much does the president have to do with the price of gasoline?

A lot, say American voters. According to oil experts and economists, not so much — at least in the short term.

Short term, huh? How about for a few years, and continuing to rise? The average price hit $3.80+ Monday. It’s been above $3 for over two years. Obama’s policies, and discussion of policies, are part of the problem with. He provides no solutions

Today’s oil prices are the product of years and decades of exploration, automobile design and ingrained consumer habits combined with political events in places such as Sudan and Libya, anxiety about possible conflict with Iran, and the energy aftershocks of last year’s earthquake in Japan.

True on exploration: Democrats, including Obama, have done all they could to stop it. Auto design? Auto’s are being designed to be more fuel efficient: that should help decrease demand, reducing price. Nope. Political events? How about a president putting in place moratoriums, blocking drilling, ditching Keystone XL, and so on? Certainly more important for domestic pricing than Libya and Sudan. We don’t even get oil from Libya. Earthquake? OK. But, in Liberal World, nothing is Obama’s fault. The rest of the article goes on to attempt to prove that it is Not Obama’s Fault, and that there is Nothing He Can Do. Even though they blamed Bush for the prices. Heck, Obama blamed Bush

Four years ago, presidential candidate Barack Obama held a photo-op news conference at a gas station near Indianapolis to decry the nation’s ineffective energy policy and complain about “gas that’s approaching $4 a gallon.”

At the time, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded at Joe’s Junction was $3.55.

Nowadays, the price of gas at the same station under President Obama has topped $3.80, nearly twice what it was when he took office, and presidential spokesman Jay Carney on Monday decried Republican presidential candidates who promise to lower the price at the pump. He said Mr. Obama won’t pander to voters that way.

Give it a few months, and Obama will start to pander, at least if he can’t gin up some other issue to deflect to.

As a poll shows Americans are holding Mr. Obama responsible for soaring gas prices, the president Monday trumpeted an administration report that praises him for reducing the country’s reliance on foreign oil.

“We have made progress, with imports of foreign oil decreasing by a million barrels a day in the last year alone,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “Our focus on increased domestic oil and gas production, currently at an eight-year high, combined with the historic fuel-economy standards we put in place, means that we will continue to reduce our nation’s vulnerability to the ups and downs of the global oil market.”

If that was the case, we should be seeing reduced costs domestically.

Voters are showing signs of holding Mr. Obama responsible. Almost two-thirds of Americans, 65 percent, said they disapprove of the way Mr. Obama is dealing with rising prices at the pump, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll published Monday. Only 26 percent — Mr. Obama’s lowest rating in the poll — said they approve of his handling of the issue, while a majority, 52 percent, said they “strongly” disapprove.

Obama’s policy is to make sure energy prices are low some time in the future, possibly by harnessing unicorn gas. His “all of the above” strategy fantasy for decades down the road is not playing well, and won’t play well for the general election.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Media Works Hard To Protect Obama On Gas Prices »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Energy, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove