Report: Fewer Brits Will Die From Cold Due To ‘Climate Change’

Just like back during previous Holocene warm periods.

(UK Telegraph)  Climate change may have unexpected benefits for Britons because fewer people will die from the cold during the winter, a new study suggests.

Although many regions of the world will see death rates soar as the climate heats-up, in northern Europe hot weather mortality will be cancelled out by the decrease in cold weather deaths.

In bad years nearly 50,000 more people die during the winter in Britain compared to the clement months. But the new research suggests that cold-related mortality will fall by between 32 and 50 per cent if the worst case climate change scenarios occur by the end of the century.

Of course, the Telegraph then went into all the other doom and gloom from the study, because that’s what Cultists do.

Oh, and they forgot to provide empirical, scientific, rock solid proof that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, but, then, they are cultists, and do not need proof to Believe. Nor do they feel a need to practice what they preach.

Read: Report: Fewer Brits Will Die From Cold Due To ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is a horrible carbon pollution spewing airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Hijab Barbie.

Read: If All You See… »

Are Gun Grabbers Attempting To Rebrand Gun Control To Gun Safety?

For a long time now, the gun grabbers (who often refuse to give up their own firearms and/or armed security) have used the phrase “gun control.” They’ve worked in the gun safety here and there, but, it looks like they could be making a concerted effort to rebrand, much in the way they changed global warming to climate change. For instance, here’s rising Democratic party star Kamala Harris, who at one point would have been part of the extremist wing, but, really, now, the extremists run the party

What are those gun safety reforms? Who knows, she doesn’t say, but, it would be a pretty good bet to think that they are the same ones the Dems want to pass to take the guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, rather than going after criminals (who tend to vote Democrat due to the Dems weak on crime policies).

Everytown is all about instituting massive gun restrictions on law abiding citizens. They do not talk much about going after criminals.

They are using the hashtag #GunSafety all over Twitter. Crazy Ted Lieu (D-Ca) tweeted back to Sarah Palin about gun safety.

Kamala also dropped one which reads

On the topic of reasonable gun safety laws, the false choice that is being proffered everywhere is the choice that suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. That’s a false choice and we have to reject it.

They can reject it all they want, because their policy recommendations are about taking guns away.

I see, among others, CNN, Senator Bob Menendez (good grief), Bill DeBlasio, Dianne Feinstein, Gabby Giffords, and so many other blue check marks, including so-called journalists, pushing for “gun safety”.

A lot of this seems to stem back to a push by Everytown to reframe, just like Kristof recommends from the 7th. There’s lots of anecdotal evidence that this became a big push starting November 7th. The end result is the same: gun grabbing.

Read: Are Gun Grabbers Attempting To Rebrand Gun Control To Gun Safety? »

Thousands Of Activist Scientists Warn Of Doom Or Something

Usually, the Alarmist wing of the Cult of Climastrology issue their most doomy proclamations prior to each year’s UN IPCC meetings. But, there are always a few that come out during, in order to attempt to give the conference some news bites (this years is pretty much back page news, if mentioned at all). Like this one, featured in the Washington Post, which kills lots of trees, uses vast amounts of energy, and uses lots of fossil fuels to conduct their business

Thousands of scientists issue bleak ‘second notice’ to humanity

In late 1992, 1,700 scientists from around the world issued a dire “warning to humanity.” They said humans had pushed Earth’s ecosystems to their breaking point and were well on the way to ruining the planet. The letter listed environmental impacts like they were biblical plagues — stratospheric ozone depletion, air and water pollution, the collapse of fisheries and loss of soil productivity, deforestation, species loss and  catastrophic global climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

“If not checked,” wrote the scientists, led by particle physicist and Union of Concerned Scientists co-founder Henry Kendall, “many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.”

Interestingly, things are still OK. Doom has not occurred. They wrote in the document “No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.” We’re still fine.

To mark the letter’s 25th anniversary, researchers have issued a bracing follow-up. In a communique published Monday in the journal BioScience, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries assess the world’s latest responses to various environmental threats. Once again, they find us sorely wanting.

I wonder if they’ve given up their own use of fossil fuels and practice what they preach?

“Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse,” they write.

This letter, spearheaded by Oregon State University ecologist William Ripple, serves as a “second notice,” the authors say: “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory.”

Global climate change sits atop the new letter’s list of planetary threats. Global average temperatures have risen by more than half a degree Celsius since 1992, and annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 62 percent.

I’d love to know where that half a degree figure comes from. Most data sets of actual data show, at most, a .2C increase, and let’s not forget that for all the dire warnings from these concerned activist scientists, there was a warming pause that lasted almost 19 years, per actual measurements. Regardless of .2 or .5, the dire predictions and doomy prognostications haven’t come to fruition, and all the models that predicted this have failed.

The authors offer 13 suggestions for reining in our impact on the planet, including establishing nature reserves, reducing food waste, developing green technologies and establishing economic incentives to  shift patterns of consumption.

Pretty much the typical Big Government, domineering, controlling policy prescriptions which other Progressives offer for everything. Liberty? Freedom? Over-rated in Warmist World.

And the more they roll Hotcoldwetdry into real environmental issues, the more they scaremonger, the more people tune out.

Read: Thousands Of Activist Scientists Warn Of Doom Or Something »

Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons”

It’s great how liberals are always saying “nobody is talking about taking your guns” right before they talk about taking your guns

From the screed

Trouble is, it’s not clear the “something” Democrats typically demand would make a real dent in the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Congress can ban assault weapons, but they account for just a tiny sliver of the country’s 33,000 annual firearm deaths. And tighter background checks will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.

In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, leading Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.

At a New Hampshire forum in the fall of 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke approvingly of an Australian gun buyback program that collected more than 650,000 weapons — a buyback that, she neglected to mention, was compulsory.

Obama, Kamala Harris, and many others have talked about the “Australian solution.”

The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

There’s deadly weapons in the streets …. just witness Democratic Party run cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore … being used by criminals, so, let’s disarm people trying to protect themselves who have nothing to do with the crime

Here in the United States, interest in large-scale gun buybacks — both voluntary and involuntary — has mounted with each mass shooting. Matt Miller, a journalist and onetime senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, has proposed what he calls a “massive, debt-financed” buyback.

The idea is to supersize the small-scale, voluntary buybacks that happen in American cities — offering hundreds of dollars more per weapon in a bid to make them more effective. “Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500,” Miller wrote, in an opinion piece in the Washington Postafter Sandy Hook. “After all, overpaying powerful constituencies to achieve public policy goals is a time-honored American tradition; we do it every day with Medicare drug benefits and defense contractors, to name just two.”

Good luck with that. Most legally obtained firearms cost more than $500. Certainly, those scary looking rifles are worth more. But, perhaps some will trade in old ones not worth much and put the money towards a new firearm.

John Rosenthal, co-founder and chairman of Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence, says it may be time to embrace a mandatory buyback — the relentless tide of mass shootings leaving weary activists with little choice.

Remember, Democrats are not talking about taking away guns from law abiding citizens.

Many of those hard-core gun owners see their weapons as a guard against government overreach. And sending government agents to claim them could end very, very badly. An NRA article on the specter of Australian-style confiscation coming to the United States is subtitled “There Will Be Blood.”

Ya think?

Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the enterprise. An operation on par with the Australian buyback — claiming one-fifth of American guns — would mean tens of thousands of police officers collecting some 60 million guns. It is, on some level, simply unimaginable.

Part of the problem is that law enforcement leans Republican, and officers would refuse to engage in something so anti-Constitutional.

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

It’s interesting how Democrats always want to disarm the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Boston Globe: “Hand Over Your Weapons” »

Global Warming Will Kill Hopes Of A White Christmas In Ireland Or Something

From the Department Of Give It A Rest comes more scaremongering which will surely mean historic levels of snow in Ireland over the next few years (via Watts Up With That?)

Global warming melts hopes of a white Christmas in Ireland
A leading climatologist has some bad news for snow-lovers

The prospect of Ireland waking up to a white Christmas is becoming more and more unlikely every year, according to a leading climatologist.

Prof John Sweeney said that Ireland can expect increasingly warmer winters due to global warming, resulting in less snowfall in the traditionally coldest months of the year. (snip)

He said: “The projections are for Ireland to warm by 1C by mid-Century, and we’re looking at both warmer summers and winters.

“We’ll always get snow in the uplands and mountains, but we’ll start to see less snow in the lowland areas in the coming years, and that means we’ll get fewer and fewer white Christmases. Let’s put it this way, if I were a betting man I wouldn’t be putting any money on there being snowfall on Christmas Day. It’s getting less likely each year.”

Can you guess what is missing? Proof of anthropogenic causation. And, again, that is the debate. Not warming, but causation.

And, as Eric Worrell points out

Of course, climate scientists can trot out predictions that global warming will cause heavier snowfalls when the inevitable blockbuster winter hits, to demonstrate they were right all along.

We all know that they’ll blame cold, snow, and ice on greenhouse gases, too boot.

Read: Global Warming Will Kill Hopes Of A White Christmas In Ireland Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible carbon pollution spewing airplane, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on the daycare generation.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: Fossil Fuels Usage To Reach Record Highs In 2017

One of the best things of all time which allows people to move out of poverty and into a better life is the use of fossil fuels. Inexpensive, easily obtained, reliable energy. This is a bad thing in Warmist World

Fossil fuel emissions will reach an all-time high in 2017, scientists say — dashing hopes of progress

Global carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise again in 2017, climate scientists reported Monday, a troubling development for the environment and a major disappointment for those who had hoped emissions of the climate change-causing gas had at last peaked.

The emissions from fossil fuel burning and industrial uses are projected to rise by up to 2 percent in 2017, as well as to rise again in 2018, the scientists told a group of international officials gathered for a United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany.

Would that be the COP23 conference, where thousands upon thousands of True Believers took fossil fueled trips from all over the world to attend?

The renewed rise is a troubling development for the global effort to keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below the levels needed to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. The more we emit now, scientists say, the more severe cuts will have to be later. That’s because of the very long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide, which means we can only emit a fixed amount in total if we want to stay within key climate goals.

They should start with their own usage of fossil fuels.

China and India are going up for CO2 output, and expected to further rise a lot. The EU is expected to go up a tiny bit. The US is expected to continue its slow downward trend. However, when it comes to the Rest Of the World, their output is expected to go way, way up, and this goes very much to the so-called developing nations, which are very interested in using fossil fuels and other things that put out CO2 in order to have the same lifestyles as those in the 1st World.

The new findings will be immediately relevant to the proceedings in Bonn, since one part of the agenda involves laying the groundwork for a “facilitative dialogue” to take place next year, in which countries will take a hard look at where their emissions are, and where they need to be, to live up to the Paris goals.

Let’s unpack that: it means global elites who refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and lavish carbon footprints want to control what everyone is allowed to do.

Read: Bummer: Fossil Fuels Usage To Reach Record Highs In 2017 »

In The Age Of Trump, Sheriff’s Are Emboldened To Be Tough On Criminals

Only in Liberal World would getting tough on crime and criminals be considered controversial

Emboldened by Trump, sheriffs are mimicking his rhetoric and putting some residents on edge

With his red “Make America Great” hat now prominently displayed in his office here in Titusville, Ivey is part of a wave of county sheriffs who feel emboldened by President Trump and his agenda, becoming vocal foot soldiers in the nation’s testy political and culture wars.

From deep-blue states such as Massachusetts and New York to traditionally conservative strongholds in the South and the Midwest, locally elected sheriffs have emerged as some of the president’s biggest defenders. They echo Trump’s narrative on everything from serious policy debates such as immigration to fleeting political dust-ups with NFL players who kneel during the national anthem.

With Trump dominating the national conversation through tweets, sheriffs are mimicking his antagonistic political style, alarming progressives and some legal observers who fear an increasingly undisciplined justice system. Some have even gone to battle with Democratic officials, bucking their “politically correct” policies and using rhetoric that puts some residents on edge.

Those residents would be illegal aliens and criminals

“Members of law enforcement and sheriffs seem to be more comfortable articulating controversial, pro-incarceration views than in recent years,” said Daniel Medwed, a law and criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston. “When you have a president who feels comfortable saying things that people would not have said in previous regimes, it emboldens other people to say those things.”

Over the past nine months, various elected sheriffs have been filmed saying that they would call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on undocumented residents, have threatened to bar sex offenders from hurricane shelters, and have proposed sending inmates to help build Trump’s planned Mexican border wall.

And? I’m not seeing the problem here, but, I’m not pro-criminal.

But legal analysts and other observers are surprised that the breadth and political clout of conservative sheriffs appear to be growing stronger, reflecting the coarsening of debate in the United States.

Goodness, law enforcement officials wanting to enforce the law? To get tough on crime and criminals? To make punishment painful? How terrible!!!!!1!!!!

What the article is even more upset with is that so many Sheriff’s are Trump supporters and Republican voters. And that they want to actually enforce Constitutional provisions, rather than squishy, extra-Constitutional laws emanating from Washington.

Of course, there are still some Democratic Party Sheriff’s in the Dem big cities. And look what’s happening with their crime rates.

Read: In The Age Of Trump, Sheriff’s Are Emboldened To Be Tough On Criminals »

NY Times Offers Well Thought Out Plan To GOP Corporate Tax Cuts That Soaks Everyone

The NY Times Editorial Board actually provides a rational, well researched, well thought out plan, and offers some facts, figures, and likely outcome on corporate taxes. Is it workable, though? What it does do is get money grabby

The Right Way to Cut Corporate Taxes

Republicans are right about the corporate tax system being broken, but wrong about why it’s failing and how to fix it.

The EB says that lowering it from 35% to 20% is the wrong way to go about this. They note that, on average, American companies actually pay an average effective federal-state rate of 18.1 percent, per a 2016 report, which they say is lower than many other 1st World nations (which is a little disingenuous, since this is a combination of taxes, while Trump is talking about the federal rate being the highest in the developed world). They note all the tax schemes “cooked up” by all sorts of different people, embedded in law, which means that the corporate share of tax revenue is just 1.6% of GDP, when it was 4% in 1967. Still a bit shoddy of a stat, since things have changed quite a bit since 1967. But, this isn’t really the point of the editorial.

They also try to show that trickle down from corporate tax cuts didn’t work in either the 1980’s corporate tax cut nor from Britain’s same in recent years. Here’s what the Times offers

So what would true reform look like? First, it would not blow a $1.7 trillion hole in the budget over the next decade, which is what the House plan would do, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Second, it would make the system fairer and more efficient. If Republicans worked with Democrats, they could reach a compromise to lower the top corporate tax rate to between 25 percent and 28 percent, eliminate loopholes and reduce the incentive businesses have to take on debt, rather than to use equity to expand. Under current law, interest is deductible for tax purposes while dividends are not.

Suddenly, the Democrats at the NY Times are worried about debt. They never seem to wonder if perhaps Los Federales should spend less, and, get this, spend wisely. Don’t spend $500 on hammers (which tend to get lost quite a bit) when you can get a really good one for less than a $100 on a Craftsman or Stanley with lifetime guarantees. Don’t spend money on fish on treadmill studies. Don’t pay $2 million for a road that should cost $100,000 for real. And so forth. Regardless, would this work? The point of the GOP plan is to attempt to keep companies in the United States, so that the money stays here. And the jobs stay here.

Real reform would also include a minimum tax on profits earned abroad by American corporations in the year those profits are earned, minus a credit for taxes paid to other countries. Businesses can now defer taxes on such profits indefinitely, as long as they do not bring the money back to the United States. Big companies like Apple, General Electric and Microsoft have kept an astonishing $2.6 trillion in profits offshore, hoping Congress will lower the tax rate or give them a tax holiday to repatriate the money at ultralow rates. The House bill would let companies bring those profits home at 7 percent (for money invested in hard-to-sell assets) or 14 percent (for cash). A plausible compromise would let businesses repatriate all past profits accumulated overseas at a somewhat discounted rate, say 15 percent to 16 percent. All of this money could be used to rebuild America’s dilapidated infrastructure.

Good? Bad? Would companies repatriate for 15% or 16%? Or say “nope”? Of course, the Times is happy to put yet another tax on companies. I wonder if they keep their own profits earned overseas overseas. And here’s another

While the outlined changes would solve an immediate problem, Congress also needs to consider longer-term obstacles to tax avoidance by multinational companies. One smart idea that deserves more study is a proposal by economists like Kimberly Clausing, a professor at Reed College. She argues that the United States and other countries ought to tax profits that corporations earn from sales inside their borders, similar to the way American states now tax corporate profits. Each country would control its tax rates, deductions and credits. But companies would lose the ability to game the system by booking profits through subsidiaries registered in zero- or low-tax countries like Bermuda and Luxembourg, where they might be making few sales.

The NYTEB is all about increasing taxes.

Eventually, Congress will need to do more than just patch the tax system. Even without the Republican tax cut plans, the Congressional Budget Office expects the federal deficit to grow to 5.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2027, up from 3.2 percent in 2016, thanks in part to the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war. Lawmakers will need to consider new sources of revenue, including a value-added tax, a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax. Each would broaden the tax base and achieve important policy goals, like encouraging savings, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing risks in the financial system.

Apparently, Obama’s proliferation Stimulus plans and massive spending, which almost doubled the US deficit in 8 years, isn’t even considered as a big deal by the EB. But, of course, they want more and more taxes, regardless of what it does to consumers and economic activity negatively.

The Republican proposals do none of these things. They do, however, reward the wealthy. Among the worst offenders is the proposed corporate tax cut, which is larger than needed and does nothing to make the system more efficient. The victims here are the economy as a whole and the workers and ordinary folk to whom Mr. Trump promised relief.

Right. Because no one would be victims of a far left tax increase on almost everything. We’ll all be equally poor. The question with the GOP plan is “will it keep corporate profits here, and will it stimulate companies to stay in the U.S. and hire employees”?

The GOP should take a page from the NYTEB and cut any loopholes that effect newspapers. Let’s see what the Times thinks then.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Offers Well Thought Out Plan To GOP Corporate Tax Cuts That Soaks Everyone »

Bad Behavior has blocked 3230 access attempts in the last 7 days.