Access To Birth Control Is A Fundamental Component Of Climate Survival

Any morally acceptable pathway to prevent catastrophic global warming includes broad access to affordable birth control for the world’s women. The conservative war on birth control is a war on women’s rights, and thus on the rights of us all. Manmade global warming is one of the most troubling symptoms of economic and social injustice around the planet, and the ”countries in the developing world least responsible for the growing emissions are likely to experience the heaviest impact of climate change, with women bearing the greatest toll.” Researchers have found that empowering women to reduce unplanned pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat greenhouse pollution, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson discussed at the Durban climate conference last December:

In addressing climate resilience, Robinson stressed the importance of focusing on health and burden impacts of climate change. One of the keys is access to reproductive health for women.

Good grief. Is there a class Lefties attend to learn to write like that, like Marxist Magniloquence 101? Anyhow, this goes back to one of the Warmist’s biggest issues: reducing the global population. And, interestingly, this ties into what Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted, namely, reducing the number of minorities, which is what happens when birth control is spread around to much of the developing world, particularly places like the African continent. You want racism? That’s racism! Planning based on the doctrine of eugenics.

The more world leaders focus on giving women and girls the tools of empowerment — access to family planning, education, and the political and economic system — the better future all of us will have.

A world where women and girls have more power is a healthier world.

That’s interesting, since Liberals get the vapors when Conservatives talk about liberating women from being 2nd class citizens as they are in much of the Islamic world. But, really, this is all about spreading abortion on demand around the world. Cheaply. Which is where the asterisk in the headline comes in: liberals think contraceptives, sterilization (Sanger loved the thought of sterilizing Blacks and defectives a hoot), and abortions should be free, and, by free, I mean “someone else pays.” Liberals never seem to want to pay for anything themselves. That’s why they loved Obama’s insurance mandate, as Someone Else would pay for their condoms and birth control pills, and screw what the constitution says about religious freedom.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(UK Guardian) The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

Let that sink in for a second: actual scientific research has shown that there was no ice lost in the past 10 years, the decade the Warmist say is the hottest in Earth’s 4.5 billion year history.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Oh, so Warmist are and were wrong on Greenland and Antarctica, too?

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia’s highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

This begs the question, why is it a concern? This happens over and over during the warm periods over the last 10,000 years, and, geez, what about the melt from the end of the last glacial period? It also begs the question, why are some glaciers growing and some shrinking? Quite a bit seems to be localized, and doesn’t seem to support the theory hypothesis crystal ball view of anthropogenic global warming, which should mean the entire globe is warming. Which is why the Warmists have latched on to the phrase “climate change”, in order to cover their tracks for their original prognostications, and enfold everything that happens into their cult-like beliefs.

Don Surber: I do not doubt that over time glaciers retreat, or advance. Surface temperatures may even rise. But if man’s production of CO2 were to blame, the glacial meltdown would accelerate, not stop, as the CO2 levels are on the rise (as measured by proponents of the global warming theory). Instead the melt appears to have stopped.

Vox Popoli: Scientists spend an awful lot of time being stunned because they are some of the most naive, credulous, and easily manipulated beings on the planet. That’s why they tend to inordinately fall for every nonsensical philosophical and political ideology that crosses their paths. The average reader of The National Enquirer probably has a better and more-developed sense of skepticism than the average scientist.

Anthony Watts has the graphic of where glaciers are growing based on the Grace data.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Fox News) The flu virus is thought to thrive in cold weather, so it’s no surprise that during this unseasonably warm winter, we’ve had an equally mild flu season. Doctor visits for the flu have been below average this winter, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

But don’t think you’re in the free and clear.

Typically, flu season peaks in February or March, so it still has time to ramp up—meaning you still have time to get a flu shot—the kingpin of prevention—if you haven’t already.

There’s still time for the flu to ramp up, but, not much so far. I haven’t gotten the flu. Parents, not so much. Friends and co-workers, not so much. Even in South Dakota, the flu is almost nowhere to be seen. There has been a marked decrease in the purchase of flu medicine in Canada.

(Daily Press in Virginia) We’re into February, traditionally when flu season peaks, and there’s been barely a hint of the illness on the Peninsula, statewide or even across the country. “We really haven’t seen much flu yet. I think the important word is yet,” says David Trump, director of the Peninsula Health District.

Trump received the first lab confirmation of a local flu case on Tuesday. “We may be at the very beginning of it finally,” he adds.

As we get into the coldest month of the year, we are seeing a slight increase in flu outbreaks, but, so far, world wide the flu season has been a bust. So, is a warming world really that bad? At the beginning of the Little Ice Age, the Black Death ran rampant, killing 75 million from Europe to Asia. And like today’s warm period, the LIA was natural. Things will happen, some good, some bad. People have still been getting colds this fall/winter, but most have been mild. This mild winter could (there’s that word again, very scientific) cause more Lyme Disease this year. For the Warmists, though, hot cold wet dry is a cause for apoplexy and force 10 moonbattery. They are true Flat Earthers, thinking that nothing should ever change, that the climate and weather should always be the same and entirely predictable.

Tom Nelson asks a good question: I’m not a climatologist, so questions like this confuse me: If the Maldives is described as “paradise” and averages 40 degrees F. warmer than Minneapolis, why should I be afraid that Minneapolis might warm by a couple of degrees? Warmists? Any answer?

Why climate change will make you love big government

This essay was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom’s kind permission.

Look back on 2011 and you’ll notice a destructive trail of extreme weather slashing through the year. In Texas, it was the driest year ever recorded. An epic drought there killed half a billion trees,  touched off wildfires that burned 4 million acres, and destroyed or  damaged thousands of homes and buildings. The costs to agriculture,  particularly the cotton and cattle businesses, are estimated at $5.2 billion — and keep in mind that, in a winter breaking all sorts  of records for warmth, the Texas drought is not yet over.

That kind of whining about the weather, which is the fault of Barack Obama cruising the country in 17 car convoys, continues on for a bit longer. Because weather never happened before 1980 (until you cruise Real Science, and see the newspaper headlines from the past)

Such calamities, devastating for those affected, have important  implications for how we think about the role of government in our  future. During natural disasters, society regularly turns to the state  for help, which means such immediate crises are a much-needed reminder  of just how important a functional big government turns out to be to our  survival.

In the past, people tended to rely on themselves. And there is nothing wrong with government helping out: it’s one of the reasons we have government. There is no need for a massive central government with a giant bureaucracy. Of course, that’s not the progressive narrative: to them, we need giant over-reaching and all powerful government for when the wind blows, it rains, and it snows….hey, remember when the NYC public sector unions slowed the snow cleanup in 2010?

Anyhow, the author goes on and on about how great big central government is, and why the private sector can’t do anything, ending with

In the face of an unraveling climate system, there is no way that  private enterprise alone will meet the threat. And though small “d”  democracy and “community” may be key parts of a strong, functional, and  fair society, volunteerism and “self-organization” alone will prove as  incapable as private enterprise in responding to the massive challenges  now beginning to unfold.

To adapt to climate change will mean coming together on a large scale  and mobilizing society’s full range of resources. In other words, big  storms require big government. Who else will save stranded climate  refugees, or protect and rebuild infrastructure, or coordinate rescue  efforts and plan out the flow and allocation of resources?

It will be government that does these tasks or they will not be done at all.

What would we do without Big Centralized Government taking charge? Just because they’ll need to take more and more money while imposing more and more regulations/restrictions on its citizens and businesses is Bo reason to poo poo the idea. Government is just here to help. Despite being incompetent and taking vastly too long to accomplish the most minor and mundane task is no reason to be concerned about Government. Just because the climate change movement is about fascism (for everyone else) is no reason to worry.

Said story: Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.

They are showing up at planning meetings to denounce bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances — efforts they equate to a big-government blueprint against individual rights. (snip)

The protests date to 1992 when the United Nations passed a sweeping, but nonbinding, 100-plus-page resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas. They have gained momentum in the past two years because of the emergence of the Tea Party movement, harnessing its suspicion about government power and belief that man-made global warming is a hoax.

Some may in fact see it as a UN plot, but, then, the UN has been pushing junk science and all sorts of initiatives, most recently “biodiversity” and “sustainability”, as a means to put more control into the hands of government, as well as people’s hard earned money. As Tom Nelson points out

Is Revkin really sure that Tea Party activisits don’t just see their hard-earned cash being blown on idiotic left-wing bad-weather-preventing projects?

Let me tell you a little tale. Behind my home is a greenway that follows the Neuse River. The stretch in my area, which extends a few miles from the Highway 264 bridge north, is mostly dirt and gravel. Over the last few months they have been paving it. And cutting down trees. Wait, cutting down trees on a greenway? And by “months” they have literally been slapping down a mile or two of pavement perhaps 5 feet wide. I hear their machines every weekday for months. Not quite sure what they are doing, but, I’m pretty sure it’s expensive. Now, I have no problem with the greenway. In fact, I think it’ll be great to rollerblade on (there are no good places in my area to ‘blade). Of course, not many people used it before: most folks either walked the sidewalks or the golf car paths. I’d go for a walk down it beforehand (it’s been closed for about 5 months now) and see no one else. A $13 million bond was voted in back in 2007. Perhaps, in this economy, it isn’t the time to spend the money on a greenway that will barely be used. Total cost for all the greenways is $30 million. Rather expensive, eh? And wasteful. Should have put convicts out there building it.

Similarely, TEA Party activists are tired of the government wasting enormous amounts of money, usually overspending at high levels, on “green” projects that will rarely be used. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes nature projects for the sake of nature are good. But, be responsible with the money. And don’t cut trees down on greenways, for goodness sakes.

Isn’t he cute? Don’t you just want to hug him and kiss him and take him home where you can make Seal Flipper Pie or Seal Meat Hash? Well, sucks to be you, because baby harp seals are apparently being killed off by globull warming

Climate change spares no one. Not even the adorable. Baby harp seals, for instance, can’t catch a break. After centuries of looking over their shoulders to spot folks who plan to eat them or wear them, the cute little critters now have to worry about Mother Nature. As climate change warms the Arctic, it is reducing sea ice to historically low levels. Since stretches of thicker ice are getting harder to come by, baby seals are now more frequently drowning or getting crushed by broken-up chunks of ice. Though harp seal numbers remain strong, the pace of sea ice melt has hindered the survival of pups. Canada saw a 25 percent survival rate in 2007, and virtually no pups survived there in 2010.

Bummer. I wonder how they survived during the previous warmer periods over the last 10,000 years. Unfortunately, this turns them into juvenile delinquents

One can only hope that a recent case of baby seal breaking and entering (BSB & E) will not prove to be the start of a trend: Rogue bands of thug baby seals, driven to lawlessness by the cruel dictates of global warming. Believe it or not, that premise is not as satirical as it sounds. Polar bears, like our cartoon friend Bebbo, find that global warming has decimated their opportunities to hunt, so starvation increasingly forces them into town garbage dumps for survival.

Got that? It’s not a case of an animal doing something silly and cute, but a dire cause of someone like DaTechGuy daring to drive a fossil fueled vehicle. I suggest that all Warmists everywhere disconnect their power (no more TIVOing The Daily Show and Current TV, because TV boxes are huge causes of wasted energy) and water (there’s only so much to go around, ya know), wash their clothes in rivers and streams (with expensive Gaia friendly detergents), dry them on clothes lines (hey, what’s a little bird poo when we are saving Gaia?), and walk to work. No more fossil fueled vehicle trips for you!

(BBC News) Growing inequality, environmental decline and “teetering” economies mean the world must change the way it does business, a UN report concludes.

Health and education must improve, it says. Subsidies on fossil fuels should end, and governments must look beyond the standard economic indicator of GDP.

The High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability was established in 2010 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

It was launched because fewer and fewer people where buying into the anthropogenic global warming guano.

It is being launched in Addis Ababa by its two co-chairs, Finnish President Tarja Halonen and her South African counterpart Jacob Zuma.

“With the possibility of the world slipping further into recession, policymakers are hungry for ideas that can help them to navigate these difficult times,” said Mr Zuma.

“Our report makes clear that sustainable development is more important than ever given the multiple crises now enveloping the world.”

See? It’s so simple, we’ll simply do away with GDP, redistribute wealth, and all sit around on farms reminiscent of the 5th century digging in the mud while our lords and masters sit in their castles deciding what is best for us.

Sustainable development is simply another version of the Left’s call for fascism, same as the climate change hoax is. I suppose we can also think about it in terms of Soviet style communism, where there was an all powerful central government full of the elites dictating everything, right down to whether you are allowed to have salt and trans-fats, how you can run your business, and how much bread will be available. People are docile when they are standing in food lines for hours. This is the kind of idiocy that creates worthless products like the Chevy Volt, which limits our ability to move around to a small area. These people are true “watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside

The report – Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing – includes 56 recommendations that would, if implemented in full, have profound implications for societies, governments, and businesses.

Governments would build the true environmental costs of products into the prices that people pay to purchase them, leading to an economic system that protects natural resources.

Goods would be labelled with information on their environmental impact, enabling consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions.

And even more based on “environmentalism”, natch, climate change controls. They’d do away with all subsidies for fossil fuels, because they are eeeeeevil, and, magically, real world prices would stay low, but, hey, even if they rise exponentially, it’s for our own good. They Know Better.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Wall Street Journal) In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The letter from the concerned scientists goes on to describe how CO2 is actually a good gas, and life evolved when concentrations were 10+ times higher. How young scientists are afraid to come forth and not walk the academic Warmist line. That this is not the way science works. Oh, and that if you want the real answer as to why so many push the meme of man-induced global warming climate change extreme weather global weirding it’s snowing because it’s hot, you need to follow the money.

They also point out that if one does subscribe to the notion of AGW, the best solution is not taxes and restrictions, but economic growth

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

And, let’s not forget, with strong economic growth comes advances, advances that could see quality replacements for much of the use of fossil fuels (coal and oil, which, let’s face it, aren’t particularly clean, and I’m not referring to CO2) at cheap prices. Instead of wasting money on means to “stop global warming”, none of which actually work, that same money could be used to solve medical issues, to increase the quality of life of people, and even deal with real environmental issues. But, we all know that the AGW movement is about putting more money and power into the hands of centralized government, enforcing a far left fascistic vision of the world.

And, oh, these scientists aren’t exactly pip squeeks. Check the listing at the WSJ.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Green Answers) Cambodia, an exotic land filled with bright colors, city lights and ancient temples is a popular vacation spot. A remarkable country with exquisite culture holds one of the darkest secrets alive today. Very much a real and disturbing reality; we come to unfold this problem and discuss the problems of the sex trade in this area. In fact, children as young as 5 are being sold as slaves in exchange for sex. A problem that has been around for a while is being made worse by the problems caused by climate change.

Sexual slavery/trade has been around for pretty much all of human history. It is a serious concern, I don’t think there is a need to explain why. Yet, rather than taking on the problem, Warmists subsume it into their cult’s beliefs, and you know you just rolled your eyes and head and said “give me a break” when you read the last line of that excerpt, which takes away for dire need to do something about this serious issue, something the liberal extremists just don’t get.

The sex trade in Cambodia has been around since 1999. The sex trade is happening due to thousands of victims in need of natural resources like food, water and trees. Human trafficking affects 2-3 thousand children and young teens each year. Families are deceived by con artists telling them that their daughters will work for hotels, restaurants, hair salons or complete clerical work in order for them to bring money for their families. Truth is, con artists actually take their daughters into sex industries and force them to have intercourse with older men.

The climate has always changed, and can always cause problems. Does anyone think life would be better during a cool period such as the Little Ice Age? Life on Earth has to take the good with the bad as climate changes according to the whims of the natural world, but, then, if Warmists fessed up and said a changing climate was primarily natural, as history and science shows, they wouldn’t be able to push their far left redistributionist and fascist agendas. They believe that if YOU (not themselves, though, they need their Suburbans to get the kids to soccer practice, drive to work, and pick up wine and cheese for their Organizing for America parties) can be made to drive a Chevy Volt and use CFLs, the Cambodian sex trade would simply disappear. So, they waste time and other people’s money instead of dealing with the actual issue, because the actual issue won’t give lefties the control over people and economies they want.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(WCTV) A new campaign, Forecast the Facts (www.forecastthefacts.org), launches Sunday to pressure TV meteorologists to inform their viewers about climate change. The launch coincides with the kick-off of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) annual meeting in New Orleans, LA.

Since then, this new fatwa has been cropping up all over the left-o-sphere. And here’s a fun unhinged one

The requirements to be a TV weather presenter are fairly slack: an undergraduate degree with some training in meteorology is preferred, but not required, and the main skills seem to be looking presentable with nice hair, being able to dance with a green screen, and being glib and cheerful. So I guess it’s not surprising that the “scientists” leading the charge against global warming are climate-denier TV weathermen. That link takes you to a long list of quotes from various television weather personalities — including a couple from Minneapolis — who all deny reality and use their position as frontmen pretending to be scientists to delude the public. Take a look and see if your local television station has a conspiracy nut doing the weather.

Of course, by the standards of the Cult Of Gore, we aren’t supposed to listen to PZ Myers because he doesn’t have a degree in climatology. Anyhow, so far, the Warmists have failed to prove using the scientific method that this warm period is any different from the previous warm periods throughout the current interglacial period. They’ve established a tentative link to CO2 without the benefit of scientific proof, instead, they use simple conjecture more similar to the Underwear Gnomes. And they refuse to abide by the doctrines of their cult and change their own behavior.

I think we can safely say that no Republican should be allowed anywhere near the reins of government. They’re anti-science through and through.

Silly me, I thought the Constitution forbade any sort of religious tests to be elected.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.