Women Kicking It On Climate To Take Long Fossil Fueled Flights Or Something

Unsurprisingly, the ‘climate change’ conference seems to be more of a hotbed of Progressive (nice Fascism) bloviating

McKenna rallies G7 women ‘kicking it’ on climate change as tax watchdog laments gas levies

As the countdown to next month’s G7 summit in Charlevoix continues, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is bringing “women climate leaders” from around the world to Canada — and specifically, Meech Lake — for Women Kicking It On Climate, a one-day working session to discuss climate change solutions that will, according to the advisory, “contribute to women’s empowerment” and “gender equality” while also “advancing the Paris Agreement.”

And Warmists wonder why I say that the vast majority of this “issue” is political, not scientific. It’s all linked together: ‘climate change’, SJW stuff, empowering big government, raising taxes and fees, controlling citizens and the private sector. Seriously, if we were totally doomed from trace amounts of CO2, one would think they could do this via teleconference, rather than flights from all over the world spreading “carbon pollution.”

Read: Women Kicking It On Climate To Take Long Fossil Fueled Flights Or Something »

If All You See…

…is carbon pollution created rain in a desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post noting the latest nanny statism in England.

Read: If All You See… »

Income Inequality Is Fueling ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

The BBC thinks it’s on to something

How the rich fuel climate change
From private jets to overspending, the planet’s wealthiest may be contributing the most to its changing climate, an Oxford professor argues.

Income inequality is one of the most significant challenges we face in the 21st Century. But one professor argues that it will have an adverse effect in a surprising way we may not yet have considered: the world’s wealthiest could be some of the biggest contributors to climate change.

Danny Dorling, a geography professor at the University of Oxford, believes economic disparity – the gap between rich and poor – is extremely damaging for the environment.

Listen to his opinion from BBC Ideas: are the ‘One Percenters’ really to blame, and if so, what can we do about it?

The video itself is typical Warmist/Progressive Blamestorming, and certainly forgets a few things. Like how so many Warmists took private jets to the 2007 Bali IPCC conference that they had to dead head the planes (fly without passengers) to other islands to park them. And that Warmists using tons of private jets to attend climate conferences is utterly normal. Like this guy

Former US president Barack Obama will lead a conference on climate change in Porto on 6 July, which aims to unite the wine industry in a collaborative approach towards tackling climate change.

Think he’s taking a commercial flight all the way to Porto, Chile? Perhaps he can team up with Al Gore, who became super rich while pushing Hotcoldwetdry.

Read: Income Inequality Is Fueling ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Today’s Outrage: White Woman Calls Cops On Black Man Taking A Stroll With Baby

This is utterly horrible, people! The Root is all over it

White Woman Calls Security on ‘Suspicious Man With a Baby’ at Park in Washington, DC

Well, it looks like the epidemic of well-meaning white folks (I guess) calling the police or security on black people as they go about their lives is par for the course in 2018 America.

It is becoming increasingly clear that although the whites have always had an irrational fear of black people, as they move in closer proximity to them (i.e., via gentrification), they also bring their biases—along with ironic dive bars and astronomical rents.

Hmm, that’s a rather racist opinion from a magazine that is always complaining about raaaaacism and is always Offended.

This time, a black father was pushing his son in a Washington, D.C., park, and a white woman saw fit to notify park security about “a suspicious man walking the bike path with a baby.”

It should make no difference that that man, Donald Sherman, is a professional, a lawyer, because to some folks, he will always be a scary black guy.

Sherman explained in a May 10 Facebook post that on the day in question, his son was not feeling well, so he stayed home with him.

I’m pulling their screenshot

What is clear to anyone with eyes, however, is that Sherman is dark-skinned while his son is not, perhaps prompting the woman to think that a black man somehow stole a white baby. I guess.

Sherman noted that the only person he saw on their walk was “a white lady on a bike who veered off as Caleb and I were walking in her direction” and that she was the one who “saw fit to report me to security.”

Here’s the thing: if this even happened, and we’ve seen so many incidents which were made up and then busted, clearly made up, or had no backing proof, there’s no proof that the white woman was the one who complained. For all we know it could have been someone he didn’t see who called it in. Did anyone running the accusation bother to attempt to contact the D.C. police to see if it even happened?

And I bet if I ask the story authors if this happened I’d be accused of unconscious bias and white privilege and stuff.

But, of course, this leads to unhinged rants in places like the Washington Post and the need for a National Conversation and stuff

Here are the things that black people can’t do in the United States in 2018 without a white bystander calling the police on them: sit in a Starbucks coffee shop; eat at a Waffle House; work out at a gym; move into a new apartment at night; golf with friends; fly on a plane; barbecue at a parkshop for a prom outfitbuy a money order to pay the rent; check out of an Airbnb; or take a nap while studying at their Ivy League college campus.

Don’t be drunk, abusive, and threatening in Waffle House. Speed your play up on the golf course. Don’t be very fat on a plane. Barbecue in the proper designated area. As for the others, I’m not familiar with them enough to make a comment, beyond the notion that, sure, some people are racists, and that goes both ways, and some things are turned into raaaaacism when they’re simply incidents. When a black woman was very rude to me at Taco Bell, I didn’t take it as racism, just a person being an a-hole.

Read: Today’s Outrage: White Woman Calls Cops On Black Man Taking A Stroll With Baby »

Not Coming For Your Guns: Boulder Passes Anti-Gun Ordinance, Essentially Bans All Semi-Automatic Rifles From City

I mentioned the other day that the City of Boulder, Colorado, was looking to do this, and now they have passed it, and we can see the final legislation, and it’s worse than the news articles realize

(Fox News) The Boulder City Council unanimously passed a sweeping gun control ordinance Tuesday night banning “assault weapons” and bump stocks, even as a pro-Second Amendment group threatened to retaliate by suing individual councilmembers.

In a surprising turn, one Colorado councilwoman admitted that she disagreed with the ordinance “in many ways,” saying it would invite a flood of litigation — despite voting for it.

The city defines assault weapons as “semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans.”

Included in the definition are “all semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds,” as well as “semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds or both.”

There’s actually a bit of uncertainty over that, which comes from the city’s own document (that link in excerpt). The agenda portion at the beginning makes that claim, which would essentially ban virtually all semi-automatic rifles, because while only some come with magazines that have a 21 round or higher count, you can get a 21+ round magazine for most.That non-scary Pioneer above would be banned.

Also on page 10 we read (D) Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined herein. That would wack any handgun which has the capacity to accept an extended magazine with a 21+ round magazine. I could get one for my little Walther P22. Hence, illegal.

The question here is, did the actual ordinance not do what they say it did? Looking on page 14 of the document, in the actual ordinance, much of the language looks like it was struck, including on magazines. We see A pistol grip or thumbhole stockll semiautomatic action rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one or more rounds. Does that mean the magazine talking point is not in effect? Perhaps the city council will respond to the email I sent them on the subject.


Those possessing assault weapons already can keep them under the law, but owning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines will be become illegal in July. Certain law enforcement and military personnel are exempted from the ordinance.

As to the possession part, um, kinda no. On page 18 we see that people have 4 choices: remove the weapon from the city, render it inoperable, surrender the to the city police, or register it with the city police. If registered, it would require another background check, the weapon must be kept secured at all times (will the police come and check?), and can only be on property owned or controlled by the firearm owner, or at a firing range. I guess taking it out hunting is not allowed anymore. Hmph. Talking point killed.

Oh, and you cannot keep it in the glove compartment of your vehicle while transporting, it must be in an approved safe. The fact that they mention the glove compartment means either they’re idiots  on firearms or they are actually attempting to ban handguns as we see from the document on page 10.

During the public comment period for the legislation, the nonprofit Mountain States Legal Foundation promised to sue the city for “violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” as well as the Colorado Constitution, Fox’s KDVR-TV reported.

There are going to be a lot of lawsuits. But, hey, remember, the gun grabbers don’t actually want to grab guns from law abiding citizens or something.

Read: Not Coming For Your Guns: Boulder Passes Anti-Gun Ordinance, Essentially Bans All Semi-Automatic Rifles From City »

Bummer: A Rising Standard Of Living Means More Use Of AC Which Causes More ‘Climate Change’

Warmists are very upset that Other People would use air conditioning, especially those icky “minorities”

Global Warming: Air Conditioners Are Bad For The Climate

It’s a real vicious circle. The hotter it gets, the more air conditioners we use… and the more air conditioners we use, the hotter it gets. Because yes, air conditioners refresh us but they also contribute, paradoxically, to the climatic disturbance of the planet. These devices consume a lot of electricity. The latter is today mainly generated by gas or coal-fired power plants and these emit greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

A report published Tuesday, May 15, 2018 by the International Energy Agency, ensures that unless a radical change of trajectory is implemented, carbon dioxide emissions related to air conditioning should almost double between 2016 and 2050. By comparison it’s like adding Africa’s CO2 emissions, about one billion tonnes of CO2 a year, to the CO2 emissions of the rest of the planet. And in cities, the warming effect of air conditioners is all the more felt. Indeed, each device rejects in the street the heat it has produced to cool the interior of a room.

The vicious circle is reinforced by the continuous rise in the standard of living in the world. Starting with China, India and Indonesia, three countries that will contribute half of the global rise in electricity consumption for air conditioning.

These developing countries are bearing the brunt of climate change. In the coming decades, billions of new devices will be installed around the world. In China and India, these goods will soon become as valuable as a refrigerator. In India, currently only 4% of households are equipped with air conditioning. But everything suggests that demand will explode in the next ten years. In Brazil, Thailand or Indonesia, when a household’s income goes up, it’s often one of the first purchases. Rapid urbanization, particularly in India, is further accelerating the phenomenon. Because urban machinery, not just air conditioning, creates heat, a heat that is in turn absorbed by concrete.

You’ve heard this all before, but, in this case, they left out the black people in Africa, who are usually on the hit list to limit their development. Interestingly, you never read about Warmists in the 1st world willing to give up their own AC, nor that they’ve actually done so. We see the Seattle Times, with a reprint of a NY Times article, trotting out the same lines

But there is growing concern that as other countries adopt America’s love of air conditioners, the electricity used to power them will overburden electrical grids and increase planet-warming emissions. (snip)

As incomes in those countries rise, however, more people are installing air conditioners in their homes. The energy agency predicted much of the growth in air conditioning will occur in India, China and Indonesia.

So, they’re upset that those icky “minorities” might obtain the same standard of living and have the same type of great lifestyle as Warmists. Rather racist, eh?

Read: Bummer: A Rising Standard Of Living Means More Use Of AC Which Causes More ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is horrible road used for fossil fueled vehicles which put out plant killing carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Free North Carolina, with a post on some myths ahead of the silly teacher’s marches here in NC.

Hump Day! As always, you can discuss whatever you want in these posts.

Read: If All You See… »

California Totally Keeping The Faith On ‘Climate Change’

I’m not sure if The Seattle Times’ Froma Harrop, or whomever wrote the headline, considered that it positions the whole anthropogenic climate change movement for what it is: pseudo religious. A cult

California keeps the faith on climate

Many on the right insist that California’s tough environmental rules are strangling its businesses. Evidence to the contrary emerged last week in news that California has just zoomed past Britain to become the world’s fifth-biggest economy. California must be doing something right.

One of the things is vigorously confronting the perils of global warming. The Trump administration, married to fossil-fuel interests, has gone AWOL in dealing with this threat to both the environment and global stability. Under Gov. Jerry Brown, California has assumed the leadership role, helping other states and other countries bypass Washington, D.C.

Before going on, let us note that many conservatives were outspoken environmentalists decades ago. President Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. Check out a compelling recent essay in The American Conservative: “Time for Conservatives to Break the Anti-Environmentalist Mold.”

But, ‘climate change’ and the environment are really 2 separate issues. And, you’ll generally find that conservatives tend to be more ecologically/environmentally friendly than leftists/Warmists.

California’s “decarbonization” program has created a booming green-energy economy. The solar industry alone supports 250,000 jobs in the state. The push away from fossil fuels is also putting more money in people’s pockets.

For example, California just approved a requirement that nearly all new homes come equipped with solar panels in 2020. The rule will add about $9,500 to the cost of construction, but the state’s homebuilders are for it.

Said economy is based on government whim, not economics or consumer demand. And it helps contribute to California having one of the highest costs of home ownership in the nation, as well as vast homelessness. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence provided that homebuilders are for it. Previous articles show that they actually do not support it.

“We have Gov. Brown of California. We have Mike Bloomberg,” French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed. “They’ve said they’re going to stand in place of the American federal government: ‘States, cities, private-sector players — we’re going to play a role ourselves.’ ” And so they are.

But, they’re doing it by force of government, raising costs and taking away choice.

Brown, meanwhile, plans to host the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this September. One can just imagine the hostile tweets that will emerge. But you can rest assured, it will be a two-way tweetstorm.

Nothing says “I believe” like inviting thousands of people of climate faith to take long fossil fueled trips to attend a conference which will whine about fossil fuels.

Read: California Totally Keeping The Faith On ‘Climate Change’ »

“No One Is Saying Get Rid Of Guns, Just Make It Too Hard For People To Get Them”

Pro-2nd Amendment advocates keep saying that what the anti-2nd Amendment folks want to do is essentially disarm law abiding citizens. The Anti’s say “no, no, what we want to do is make it harder for Bad People to get and use firearms. We don’t want to take away the rights from law abiding citizens.” Then they go on to enact laws that make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms, and tell us exactly what they want to do, as we see in this screed by Jami Martin-Trainor at the John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa

The Right to Live

Every time there is a mass school shooting, we hear the exact same thing; send your thoughts and prayers. But, are thoughts and prayers going to stop people from getting shot? Probably not.

Students are going to school every day, worried that they might get shot while trying to get and education. Isn’t it sad that we must think about the possibility of death more than our GPA?

So many problems could be solved in America if we merely had stricter gun control laws. No one is saying to completely get rid of guns. We’re saying to regulate who can get them and make it significantly harder for the everyday person to obtain a gun. It was known that the Parkland shooter had many mental health issues, such as OCD, ADHD, and anger issues, and yet still easily purchased at least 10 guns.

No one is saying to completely get rid of guns. They just want them left in certain hands under Government control, while making it damned near impossible for the “everyday person”, meaning law abiding citizens, to obtain them for protection from the criminals the gun grabbers go soft on and against a dictatorial government.

Notice that Jami completely forgets to mention that it was an utter failure of government in doing their jobs to deal with the Parkland shooter, meaning he was never put on the “do not buy” list.

Violence will exist, but the number of casualties that come from the violence can be decreased exponentially with stricter gun control. If the Parkland school shooter had walked in with a knife, he would not have been able to murder 17 people in minutes.

Or, he could have walked in with a bomb. Regardless, because of the criminal actions of a few, and often people who were able to obtain guns because government failed to do its job, the rest of us are supposed to give up our Rights? No. Hell no. Go pound sand.

Excuses are made by greedy politicians, who are only blaming the children, and not actually listening to us. We are citizens in America, and we all deserve to get a say in our own lives. Gun control is something that we need as a society, because children may only make up a small percent of the population now, but we are the future. We are the new generation and we deserve the right to live.

You get a say, but you don’t get to override the Constitution. Don’t like it? Try and change it. And, if you were honest, you’d be advocating measures to stop bad people from getting and using guns, not taking them from law abiding citizens.

Read: “No One Is Saying Get Rid Of Guns, Just Make It Too Hard For People To Get Them” »

Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something

The Washington Post Editorial Board goes through some serious mental gymnastics here. First off, they start off really well, noting that it is Hamas that started the violence, which is the norm. Then, it degenerates badly, as you can see from the headline (which has changed at least twice between when it was published and now)

Hamas has launched another war. Israel needs a better response.

Last night, when I first saw it, it said “Israel needs to do better.” Then, it looks like it went to “Israel must avoid a moral and political defeat.” OK, moving on

ISRAEL AND Hamas have fought three wars in the Gaza Strip over the past decade, and though it may not look like the others, a fourth one is now underway. Having tried and failed to defeat Israel with rockets and armed cross-border attacks, Hamas this spring deployed a new strategy: assembling thousands of nominal civilians to march on and attempt to breach the border fence, in the calculation that many would be killed. The result would be a moral and political defeat for Israel — and perhaps some relief for a regime that is literally besieged from all sides.

The only reason it would be a moral and political defeat is because the Israel/Jew hating (sometimes one, sometimes both) media, governments, the United Nations, and Leftists refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend themselves, and rarely condemn the way in which groups like Hamas act. In this case, using human shields. Seriously, does the above, the first paragraph in the editorial, really seem to be condemning Hamas? Or just telling facts? If they’d stop excusing groups like Hamas, Israel wouldn’t have to defend themselves.

On Monday, this cruel and cynical tactic paid off, albeit at enormous human cost. By the Israeli account, Hamas assembled some 40,000 people at 13 points along the border, then sent groups of them toward the fence, armed with wire cutters, slingshots, knives and, in a couple of cases, firearms. They were met with clouds of tear gas, but when that failed to disperse them, Israeli snipers opened fire. At least 60  Palestinians were killed. On Tuesday, Israeli officials said two dozen had been identified as militants of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad.

They forgot the flaming bottles, tires, and kites, along with lots and lots of rocks.

On cue, condemnations of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu poured in. Israel was accused of carrying out a “bloodbath” by Human Rights Watch, while Amnesty International said its soldiers may have committed war crimes. European governments summoned Israeli ambassadors and called for an investigation; at Poland’s urging, the U.N. Security Council observed a moment of silence for the victims. Only opposition from the Trump administration likely prevented a Security Council condemnation of the Jewish state.

This same UN can barely find it in themselves to condemn Hamas and the violent Palestinians.

With the White House’s strong support, Mr. Netanyahu will likely shrug off the international onslaught. He shouldn’t. As the Palestinians well understand, Israel can ill afford further damage to its standing. Sympathy for it is dangerously eroding on U.S. campuses and among Democratic voters — not to speak of in other Western countries. President Trump’s embrace of controversial pro-Israel initiatives, such as the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, may in time produce its own backlash.

First, if people would stop taking the side of terrorists, Israel wouldn’t have a problem. Second, being pro-Israel is apparently considered “controversial” at the Washington Post. Which leads back to the first point.

The question for Israelis is why their government, with weeks of warning about what Hamas would attempt, did not develop a strategy to defeat the operation by minimizing the loss of life. Clearly the government must defend its borders; if it had allowed thousands of Palestinians to pour across toward nearby Israeli communities, the bloodshed could have been much greater. But it seems likely such a breach could have been stopped without such extensive use of lethal force. That impression is only strengthened by the stridency with which senior Israeli officials defended the killings and even called for more. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan on Tuesday proposed the assassination of Hamas’s leaders.

See? It’s all Israel’s fault. If only they had done something else, which the WPEB fails to offer as an idea, they wouldn’t have had to shoot violent Palestinians who elected a State Department designated terrorist group to be their government.

In fact, Israel can ill afford to escalate, given the low-grade war it is already fighting with Iran in Syria. Most likely it will watch as Hamas reaps the gains of its strategy: Egypt already has responded by relaxing its own closure of the Gaza border. Unbothered by the death toll, Hamas leaders say the marches will continue — which means Israel needs to find a way to stop them without being defeated by them.

Israel made it quite clear that the terrorist disciples should not approach the border, and has said this for weeks. What else are the supposed to do? But, notice, again, that Palestinians under Hamas getting violent is blamed on Israel. And it’s no wonder

Few elected Democrats offered positive words for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Chuck Schumer was one of the only ones. Most either failed to mention it or decried it. Similarly, few elected Dems are slamming Hamas and the Palestinians. Most seem to be taking the anti-Israel side. Which is the norm.

Read: Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4342 access attempts in the last 7 days.