If All You See…

…is a wonderful city full of believer in climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Hillary’s coughing commencement.

It’s actually hard to find shots of Melissa Benoist in skimpy clothes, sexy clothes, heck, even swimsuits. She doesn’t seem to be the kind of celebrity running around doing Instagram stuff, flaunting her body (then complaining about body shaming), or any of the other things we see from celebs. Underneath the fold is the closest you’re really going to find for her, so, a second blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on James Watson being blackballed

Read: If All You See… »

Trump Pulling U.S. Out Of Paris Climate Accord Could Cause A Massive 0.36F Rise In Temperatures

It could be time to panic, per uber-Warmist Seth Borenstein

What happens to Earth if the US exits the climate deal?

Earth is likely to hit more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the U.S. pulls back from its pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution, scientists said. That’s because America contributes so much to rising temperatures.

President Donald Trump, who once proclaimed global warming a Chinese hoax, will soon decide whether the United States stays in or leaves a 2015 Paris climate change accord in which nearly every nation agreed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions.

Other global leaders have been urging him to stay during high level security and economic meetings in Italy that began Friday. Pope Francis already made the case with a gift of his papal encyclical on the environment when Trump visited the Vatican earlier this week.

In an attempt to understand what could happen to the planet if the U.S. pulls out of Paris, The Associated Press consulted with more than two dozen climate scientists and analyzed a special computer model scenario designed to calculate potential effects.

Yes, those who computer models which have failed 95% of the time.

One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.

Scientists are split on how reasonable and likely that scenario is.

In other words, they know it is a bunch of mule fritters, but, they’re cool with going along with the doom and gloom

Another computer simulation team put the effect of the U.S. pulling out somewhere between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (.18 to .36 degrees Fahrenheit).

While scientists may disagree on the computer simulations they overwhelmingly agreed that the warming the planet is undergoing now would be faster and more intense.

So, in order to supposedly save the Earth from a tiny bit of warming per computer models and soothsaying, we need a massive monetary redistribution scheme, which will have virtually no impact on the climate but cost a $100 trillion, and have devastating effects on economies.

Can you even tell the difference with .18 to .36F?

Read: Trump Pulling U.S. Out Of Paris Climate Accord Could Cause A Massive 0.36F Rise In Temperatures »

Former Durham, NC Illegal Alien Deported, Trump Blamed

This has given Democrats who excuse certain lawless people (see the previous post) a sad and a TDS

Former Durham student deported after struggling to stay in U.S.

A former Durham student struggling to stay in the United States has been deported after a long and highly-publicized fight to stay in the country and marry her high school sweetheart.

Wendy Miranda, 23, was born in El Salvador. She’s been held at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana since March.

Indeed, Miranda has kept a clean record since entering the U.S., but she’s been on the government’s radar since she was first caught trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in 2008. According to federal officials, Miranda was an unaccompanied teenager, and thus granted temporary entry into the United States, pending deportation hearings.

An ICE official confirmed to ABC11 that Miranda-Fernandez’s “removal was complete” and she is now in El Salvador.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed unlawfully present Salvadoran national Wendy Miranda-Fernandez May 26 pursuant to a final order of removal issued by a federal immigration judge in August 2016,” said Bryan D. Cox, a spokesman for ICE. “Ms. Miranda was removed after receiving all appropriate legal process before the federal immigration courts.”

Note the date.

“Her removal today sends her back into the same violence that she fled,” Butterfield added. “Ms. Miranda-Fernandez’s case is a truly unfortunate example of what is now possible under the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement policies.”

That would be G.K. Butterfield, Congressman for North Carolina’s 1st federal House district, and a Democrat. The order was given back in August, 2016. Who was president then? Could Trump have done something now? Sure. If he wanted to get into micromanaging the deportation of individuals. Chances are, he had no idea who the heck Miranda was. This is just another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Obama had five months to deal with this. Heck, he could have done something well before the final order. I guess Trump ascends time and space for his anti-illegal immigrants policies.

From the comments at WTVD

“Miranda’s family claimed she fled her native El Salvador after witnessing a crime and worried her life was threatened by gang violence.”

Yet she moved to Durham…..

Well, there is that. It’s one of those “I guess you have to live around here to get it” moments, but, Durham isn’t exactly a safe place. It’s no Chicago, Baltimore, or Detroit, but, yeah, yet another Democratic Party run city with an oversized violent crime issue.

Miranda had a choice if she wanted to escape El Salvador and the violence. Come here legally and do things the proper way, or do it illegally. She chose poorly.

Read: Former Durham, NC Illegal Alien Deported, Trump Blamed »

Washington Post: The House Shouldn’t Tolerate Greg Gianforte Or Something

The Washington Post has a sad moonbattery over Greg Gianforte being elected to the House of Representatives, and thinks the House should Do Something about it

Gianforte’s behavior was inexcusable. The House should not tolerate it.

“GIANFORTE GRABBED Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.” That was Fox News reporter Alicia Acuna’s account of how Greg Gianforte allegedly assaulted Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, the day before Mr. Gianforte won a special election to fill Montana’s at-large congressional seat. Along with an audio recording of the incident, the eyewitness accounts confirm that the now-congressman-elect engaged in brutish behavior. That he subsequently tried to blame Mr. Jacobs for the incident, in which the reporter was merely asking an honest question, makes Mr. Gianforte’s actions all the more inexcusable.

Inexcusable means inexcusable. The House, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who said “there’s never a call for physical altercation,” should have made clear that Mr. Gianforte would not be welcome in the chamber. Instead, the speaker said , “If he wins, he has been chosen by the people of Montana.” Other Republicans were even more forgiving. “It’s not appropriate behavior,” Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) reportedly told the Associated Press’s Mary Clare Jalonick. “Unless the reporter deserved it.” According to Texas Tribune reporter Patrick Svitek, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) held up a bullet-riddled gun-range target sheet and said, “I’m gonna carry this around in case I see any reporters.”

Well, yes, it is inexcusable. Or is it? Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has a breaking point. Remember, though, this is a paper that preaches tolerance towards Islamic jihadis and terrorist groups. A paper that was extremely supportive towards all those wonderful extremists who run Iran in terms of Obama’s Iran deal. A paper that tended to be supportive of the violence, riots, assault, arson, and theft surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of Ferguson and other incidents.

How many Democrats really had a problem with this inexcusable behavior? Both Kennedy and Byrd were lionized during their time in office. The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart yammered on about Byrd at least apologizing, in reference to David Duke. Uh huh.

Conservatives react with outrage at stories of intolerant college activists violently protesting right-wing speakers. Members of the Trump administration talk of fighting a war for “civilization,” a term that, if it means anything, stands for the proposition that disagreements are not settled brutally. Republicans must bring the same sense of moral certainty to the case of Mr. Gianforte — or they must admit they care about these essential principles only when it is politically convenient.

People who supported Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and hold up abortion on demand as their number one support issue have no right to ever discuss morals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post: The House Shouldn’t Tolerate Greg Gianforte Or Something »

Obama’s So Worried About People’s Carbon Footprints, You Guys

It’s always nice to be lectured about ‘climate change’ by this guy

Uh huh

Huh. There’s photos of him drinking from an evil plastic bottle, and think of the carbon footprint from all those who took fossil fueled trips to see him play golf.

Someone needs a Hypocrisy Offset.

Read: Obama’s So Worried About People’s Carbon Footprints, You Guys »

If All You See…

…is extreme rain from fossil fueled carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on weird UK interview with a Muslima.

Read: If All You See… »

Beans Are The New Magical Solution To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

Quick, every Warmists around, here’s your chance to Do Something

Eating Beans Could Be A Magical Solution To Climate Change

There is a cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that nobody likes to talk about, and it is cow farts. In a single day, a lone cow can fill a 55-gallon bag with methane-laden gas–methane being a GHG as much as 30 times more damaging than carbon dioxide–and at least 1.5 billion cows roam the planet. The meat and dairy industry accounts for as much as 15% of global emissions.

Various solutions have been proposed to rein in cattle-fueled methane: A scientist at Texas A&M University is developing a closed-loop dairy concept to trap emissions from manure and convert it into fertilizer; a group of farmers in Argentina has gone down a less sophisticated route and begun to harvest cow farts in giant bags. But a team of American researchers, led by Helen Harwatt at Loma Linda University, are suggesting that the key might be people switching up their diets–and swapping out beef for beans.

Before we get sidetracked by the myriad “one gas for another” jokes to be made, let’s first get through the science of it all. This one change, the researchers found, would lead to the United States immediately hitting 50% to 75% of its GHG reduction targets for the year 2020. Beef is the most emissions-intensive food to produce, but–despite the fact that we, as a nation, have collectively reduced our consumption of it by 19% since 2005–it’s among the most popular proteins of choice in the country. Beans and legumes don’t carry the same all-American cache as a burger, but the researchers found that their production results in one-fortieth of the emissions produced by the livestock industry.

Tell you what: the Cult of Climastrology can give up their eating of meat, especially beef, and the rest of us will benefit from lower beef prices due to lower demand.

But, they won’t. So few make more than token changes in their own lives.

Read: Beans Are The New Magical Solution To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Greg Gianforte Still Wins Montana Special Election

On the radio Thursday, Raleigh radio host K.C. O’day discussed this being Montana, and that the people there would most likely increase their support of Greg Gianforte after reportedly body slamming a reporter. Of course, that a goodly chunk of the vote was already in due to mail in ballot voting helps (will Democrats now complain about early voting?)

Greg Gianforte wins Montana race for Congress after ‘body-slamming’ reporter

Greg Gianforte has won a special election for Montana’s sole seat in the House of Representatives, just one day after he was charged with misdemeanor assault for “body-slamming” a Guardian reporter.

The Associated Press called it after 522 of 681 precincts – or 77% – reported. At that point Gianforte had 163, 539 votes, or 51% of the vote, compared with challenger Rob Quist’s 140,594 votes, or 44%.

After emerging from a blue curtain to greet a cheering crowd, Gianforte apologized for this actions on Wednesday, talking past the laughter of the crowd to say, “Last night, I made a mistake and I took an action that I can’t take back, and I’m not proud of what happened. I should not have responded the way that I did and for that I’m sorry.”

A member of the crowd shouted: “And you’re forgiven.”

Gianforte continued: “I should not have treated that reporter that way, and for that I’m sorry Mr Ben Jacobs.”

Down deep into the article, which is straighter than one would expect from the very leftist UK Guardian, especially since the reporter in question worked for the Guardian, we see

“It got really blown out of proportion,” said David Runia of the alleged assault. “I think the reporter is the one who should be charged, if anything.”

“We know him,” added Hannah Runia, speaking of Gianforte. “He’s a great guy.”

Lowell Springer, another Gianforte voter, agreed. “He’s a very polite guy,” he said. “There’s an end to everyone’s patience.”

Seth Thomas, who declined to state how he voted, said that the incident had “tarnished” Gianforte’s reputation, but added: “Everyone gets in fights in Montana.”

In other words, a lot of people really didn’t care. A lot of people have little to no respect for the news media. And for all those Democrats freaking out about Gianforte, there’s something to consider

Let’s not forget they had no problem supporting Hillary Clinton, who was being investigated by the FBI.

Read: Greg Gianforte Still Wins Montana Special Election »

Some Seem Rather Upset That Trump Wants NATO Members To Pay Their Fair Share

Isn’t paying a “fair share” a big Leftist mantra around the world? It’s sure something Democratic Party voters yammer about on a constant basis here in the United States. But, really, over all these months, there is almost nothing Trump can do, say, or propose that will make Democrats happy. Trump could announce a tripling of Planned Parenthood’s funding and Democrats would still find a reason to slam Trump.

Trump chastises fellow NATO members, demands they meet payment obligations

President Trump exported the confrontational, ­nationalist rhetoric of his campaign across the Atlantic on Thursday, scolding European leaders for not footing more of the bill for their own defense and lecturing them to stop taking advantage of U.S. taxpayers.

This is in the straight news section of the Washington Post, mind you, not the opinion pages. You might think otherwise.

Speaking in front of a twisted shard of the World Trade Center at NATO’s gleaming new headquarters in Brussels, Trump upbraided America’s longtime allies for “not paying what they should be paying.” He used a ceremony dedicating the memorial to NATO’s resolve in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States as a platform to exhort leaders to “focus on terrorism and immigration” to ensure their security.

And he held back from the one pledge NATO leaders most wanted to hear: an unconditional embrace of the organization’s solemn treaty commitment that an attack on a single alliance nation is an attack on all of them.

Instead, European leaders gazed unsmilingly at Trump while he said that “23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying,” and that they owe “massive amounts” from past years — a misstatement of NATO’s spending targets, which guide individual nations’ own domestic spending decisions.

Shouldn’t they be paying their fair share? Over to the opinion pages of the Washington Post

Trump’s behavior at NATO is a national embarrassment

Poor NATO. After all of the hoops summit organizers reportedly jumped through to accommodate President Trump and his anemic attention span, he definitely was not on his best behavior. Trump was the party guest whom no one really wants to deal with but has to — because he has more money than anyone else. The party guest who shows up and berates the hosts for not paying for their fair share of the defense spending cake. To borrow from NFL player Marshawn Lynch, Trump acted as though he was there just so he wouldn’t get fined.

Let’s perform an intellectual hypothetical exercise, shall we? Look up at the ceiling and consider how the media would have considered Mr. Obama stating that NATO members needed to pay their fair share.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Some Seem Rather Upset That Trump Wants NATO Members To Pay Their Fair Share »

Interesting: The Only Way To Solve Hotcoldwetdry Is To Solve Inequality

Remember, this is all about science, and we totally need to take the politics out (before discussing the politics)

If you want to solve climate change, you need to solve income inequality

We often talk about how climate change exacerbates social and economic inequality, but rarely do we consider the opposite: that inequality itself can be a driver of climate change.

“What’s missing from the conversation is what our inequality crisis is doing to our planet,” said Susan Holmberg, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and author of a new report that shows how unequal societies inflict more environmental damage than more economically even societies. “One key topic that is still overlooked is how environmental degradation and climate change are themselves the toxic byproducts of our inequality problem,” Holmberg said.

Some of the points actually make sense and are common sense, once you take the Cult of Climastrology out of it

Her analysis calls for a greater understanding of the link between climate change and inequality. Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.

CO2 is not pollution, but, regardless, I have a solution: anyone who is rich (meaning they get a paycheck) and believes in anthropogenic climate change/global warming should have at least 40% of their earnings taken by government to redistribute to those who are less fortunate, but, especially people like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Arianna Huffington, John Podesta (who started the Center for American Progress, which created Think Progress), etc and so on.

Read: Interesting: The Only Way To Solve Hotcoldwetdry Is To Solve Inequality »

Bad Behavior has blocked 7751 access attempts in the last 7 days.