Hotcold Take: America Needs Negative Zero, Not Net Zero

It’s always something with this doomsday cult, who also won’t give up their fossil fuels, modern lifestyles, and go carbon neutral

Forget “net zero” emissions target — U.S. must get to “net negative” ASAP, nonprofit argues

A new policy roadmap provides Congress and the White House with ways to support the growth of methods to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using everything from existing forests to direct air capture machines.

Driving the news: Recent climate studies, such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1.5-degree report, have pointed to the clear need for society to pursue strategies for driving carbon emissions into negative territory by the latter half of the century.

Yes, but: Many of the technologies we are going to need to get to negative emissions— which can only happen after actual emissions are brought to near zero — don’t yet exist or don’t exist in cost effective ways at scale.

State of play: That’s where the nonprofit group Carbon180 comes in. The California and DC-based group aims to promote policy solutions to rapidly push forward a “transformation” in carbon removal.

Or, bear me out, they could mind their own f’ing business and concentrate on their own lives. Perhaps they can get this all done in California and D.C., which would serve as the experimental groups.

But, they’re happy to use your money and get government to tax you. Also

The man unloading is driving an older Civic LX. Why hasn’t he purchased a hybrid or EV?

Read: Hotcold Take: America Needs Negative Zero, Not Net Zero »

If All You See…

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

The blog of the day is Blazing Cat Fur, with a post on Canada creeping towards totalitarianism.

Read: If All You See… »

Liz Cheney Proves Again Why She Needed To Be Dumped From Leadership Position

Elise Stefanik may be a squishy NY Republican, but, I’d rather have her and her focus on pumping up and supporting Republicans and working to get Republicans elected, rather than Cheney who’s more focused on Orange Man Bad and giving ammunition to Democrats

Liz Cheney says she regrets voting for Trump in 2020

Rep. Liz Cheney on Friday said she regretted voting for former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election given his efforts to overturn his defeat and sow doubt in the integrity of the process.

“I was never going to support Joe Biden and I do regret the vote,” Cheney told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl. “It was a vote based on policy, based on substance and in terms of the kinds of policies he put forward that were good for the country. But I think it’s fair to say that I regret the vote.”

Cheney, R-Wyo., also blasted House Republicans for elevating Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York to replace her in party leadership, calling it “dangerous” to promote yet another leader who has promoted former President Trump’s falsehoods about the 2020 election.

“What does it say about the party choosing somebody to replace you, who was effectively chosen by Donald Trump and saying what he’s been saying – those very lies you were talking about?” Karl asked Cheney in the interview, which will air in full on “This Week” on Sunday.

“I think it’s dangerous. I think that we have to recognize how quickly things can unravel,” Cheney told Karl. “We have to recognize what it means for the nation to have a former president who has not conceded and who continues to suggest that our electoral system cannot function, cannot do the will of the people.”

So, let me get this straight: Trump was great on Republican/Conservative policy, on the policy substance, and the policies he proposed, but, mean tweets? So she goes on ABC, the enemy of Republicans, to whine and essentially give Democrats a helping hand? And whine about Stefanik on supporting Trump, who had those policies Cheney supported? Liz didn’t attack Elise over actual policy, just over TDS.

And Cheney has been a big distraction, because she was more invested in Orange Man Bad than going after Biden

Joe Biden has proven an elusive target for Republicans. With the Cheney fight over, their focus is back on the president

Shortly after meeting at the White House on Wednesday, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy signaled a renewed effort with an aggressive fundraising text targeting his host, the president.

“I just met with Corrupt Joe Biden and he’s STILL planning to push his radical Socialist agenda onto the American people,” the text said.

McCarthy and other Republicans have said intraparty squabbles, including the drama surrounding Rep. Liz Cheney, distracted them from presenting a unified front against Biden and his big spending plans.

Now, with Cheney expelled from Republican congressional leadership, the GOP and its allies are renewing attacks on Biden on issues such as immigration, taxing the wealthy, foreign policy, and the ability of a 78-year-old man to handle the political world’s toughest jobs.

She was an unneeded distraction. She was not helping in doing her job. If you’ve ever listed to the old Bob and Tom Show, they had a skit called “you’re not helping the show.” Cheney was not helping.

Hopefully that will embed correctly, won’t know till this posts.

Read: Liz Cheney Proves Again Why She Needed To Be Dumped From Leadership Position »

The Hill: Older Generations Need To Sacrifice For The Young On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something

I’m not sure the writers of this screed really thought this through on the sacrifices part, but, they do enjoy linking COVID19 to the climate scam, and using it for their own nefarious purposes

COVID-19 and climate change both require one generation to sacrifice for another

COVID-19 and climate change have multiple similarities. They are both global phenomena that left unmanaged will inflict excruciating human and economic tolls. They also require a similar mix of approaches to solve: international cooperation, innovation, governmental investment, rapid deployment of solutions and acceptance of the science that underlies the risks. But they have one more similarity that attracts less attention: they both require one generation to change behavior in support of another.

For COVID-19, we ask schoolchildren to wear masks all day in socially-distant classrooms or endure endless hours of staring at screens on computers, phones or tablets for virtual classes without social stimulation with their friends. Even worse, some children may be stuck in unsafe, abusive home environments. The risk of death or hospitalization for children is relatively lower, so ultimately their sacrifice is to protect older generations including their teachers, parents and grandparents. The sacrifices made for COVID-19 have also been inequitable, with communities of color disproportionately at risk. The burden from COVID-19 on younger generations has been heavy.

Kids weren’t asked to sacrifice: they were told. They were forced into this period of online classes, not actually going into a classroom situation.

For climate change, society is asking older generations — today’s decision-makers — to build better infrastructure for tomorrow and to change our energy and land use patterns today to reduce and reverse emissions on behalf of schoolchildren and future generations that haven’t been born yet. But unlike the schoolchildren who are sacrificing to protect older generations, the older generations do not seem willing to reciprocate. Rather, today’s leaders put up a fight and resist the necessary changes. Doing so has delayed effective action by decades, inflicting more harm, which again often falls disproportionately on marginalized communities. Delay also increases the cost of responding to climate change. And since carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, delaying action on climate change isn’t just about today’s children, it affects generations of humanity to follow.

Um, if the older generations “sacrifice”, they are going to be leaving the younger with massive amounts of debt, not too mention massive amounts of taxation, a much higher cost of living, and more government control of their lives, businesses, and choices. Is that what the kiddies want?

While the impacts of climate change are being felt today, the scope and scale of future damages largely depend on the amount of future greenhouse gases we produce. Bending the emissions curve to zero requires actions now to mitigate future damages. That time delay disconnects those who must act (today’s decision-makers) from those who suffer the most from inaction (younger people or children who haven’t been born yet).

If we put all the stuff the Cult of Climastrology that the kiddies want they’re going to be very upset with all the aforementioned stuff. They will have to limit their use of energy, including watching videos on their phones, taking videos of themselves doing dumb things, traveling to locations to take silly selfies. Maybe we should just give this stuff to them. Us older folks will mostly be dead or close to in 50 years, as the cult constantly uses, so, no skin off our nose. Except, we would prefer not to live with all the Fascism for the latter part of our lives, nor have all this screw with our money for the latter part of our lives. And, we’re attempting to protect the brainwashed little idiots from making a big mistake for their futures, because we do know better.

If the last 20 years of delay and denial are a useful indicator, that means Generation X and the Baby Boomers are not willing to look out for the future with the same care as they expect, and are receiving, from younger generations right now. The kids are doing their part for COVID-19. Let’s now do ours, and act on climate change.

Sometimes you have to let younger folks make mistakes as a learning experience. If they’re playing with a plugged in toaster while in the bathtub, you stop them, right? If you see them getting in their car to drive it will drunk, you stop them, right?

Read: The Hill: Older Generations Need To Sacrifice For The Young On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »

NC Governor Lifts Most Mask Mandates, Social Distancing And Capacity Limits

While this is very good news, it rather exposes something interesting

NC will no longer require mask, social distancing in most places

COVID dancing penguinsAbout six weeks shy of a year behind face coverings, North Carolinians have more places where they can shed the mask after Gov. Roy Cooper announced on Friday that the state would no longer require masks and social distancing.

Cooper put the state under that mandate on June 24, 2020, with the state’s daily average of new coronavirus cases at about 1,300. Almost a year later and after a January peak of 8,700 new cases per day, North Carolina is back to an average of 1,300 new cases per day.

North Carolina’s change to the mask mandate falls in line with updated guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control on Thursday. The state will still require mask use by all people in public schools, healthcare settings, in childcare, on public transit and in prisons.

All current capacity restrictions in indoor spaces have also been lifted. (snip)

Cooper had originally planned to lift the statewide mask mandate on June 1 – or after two-thirds of adults statewide had at least one COVID shot. As of Friday, more than 50% of adults in the state have received at least one dose of vaccine. More than 35% of adults in the state are fully vaccinated.

So, even though the daily cases is the same as when Cooper enacted the mask mandate, he removed it? What’s different now? Especially since his plan had been to wait for 66% with one vaccination shot (which isn’t really helpful). Could it be it was a political decision back last year? I’ll give Cooper the benefit of the doubt for back then, since he really hasn’t been horrible and dictatorial like many a Democratic governor/mayor throughout this. But, this sure looks like a political decision now. My personal theory is that it is meant to try and stimulate NC’s economy, especially after the pipeline disaster (which is still going on, because foolish people are freaking out and getting gas when they do not need it yet). Why else remove all three?

But, masks being gone is a good thing. I was never a fan, since they enticed people to get too close, and even touch people. Businesses, however, are allowed to keep their own mandates if they choose

(WRAL) After the governor’s announcement, O2 Fitness in Raleigh dropped their pandemic restrictions. This comes as welcome news to gym members like Emily Van Schagen.

YMCA of the Triangle also announced they would be dropping their mask requirement on Friday. The YMCA has also asked that individuals who are not fully vaccinated continue wearing masks.

Lynn Minges, president of NC’s Restaurant and Lodging Association, said Friday’s announcement was good news for business owners.This year has been tough on the restaurant industry, and we’ve had to say goodbye to many local restaurants.

Minges said many businesses will likely still encourage their employees to wear masks. Most likely larger brands, like McDonald’s, will still require masks.

Many supermarkets and businesses said they will require masks, and not just in NC, but states without mandates and are lifting them. Some, like Walmart, say they will only require for the unvaccinated. How will you tell? Will I have to show my vax card, either the paper version or the photos I took? The Washington Post is Very Upset that the CDC lifted their mandate. Which has no force of law, but, is swaying many states (this map doesn’t include the change to NC)

Politics. But, I’ll take it. Though I think it was a mistake to remove distancing. That, washing hands, not touching your face, and not touching other people were probably the smartest ideas.

Read: NC Governor Lifts Most Mask Mandates, Social Distancing And Capacity Limits »

Interesting: Vaccinated People Less Likely To Engage In Public Activities That Unvaccinated

What could be the reasons for this? I know plenty who aren’t vaccinated. Some because they do not take shots like that, not even a flu shot. Some don’t trust that the vaccines haven’t been fully through CDC vetting process. Some just don’t think it’s necessary. Might those be the ones most likely to be in public? The ones I know are the ones going to bars. Me? I do avoid some things. I’m not going to bars, prefer not to eat at restaurants at this time. And, I’m fully vaccinated. Perhaps more vaccinated’s are more cautious? Who know

Vaccinated people far less likely to engage in public activities than unvaccinated Americans: poll

Vaccinated Americans are far less likely to engage in public activities than people who have not yet received the coronavirus vaccine, according to a new Morning Consult poll.

A survey of 879 vaccinated American adults and 1,321 unvaccinated adults found that those who were not inoculated against COVID-19 were much more likely to want to return to normal and engage in public activities. Morning Consult gauged the interest in both groups in returning to public activities, including going to the gym, taking a train, going to a party, attending a concert, going to a wedding, traveling abroad, and going on a cruise. In every possible scenario, the respondents that were not vaccinated were more inclined to participate in these public activities and events.

According to the poll, 43% of unvaccinated people felt it was safe to go to the gym versus only 27% of vaccinated Americans given the current state of the coronavirus pandemic. There were 42% of unvaccinated respondents who would attend a concert compared to 23% of vaccinated. When it comes to attending a sporting event, 42% of unvaccinated are ready to go to the ballpark, and 29% of vaccinated would go to the stadium to support their favorite sports team. There were 54% of vaccinated participants ready to get back to dating, while 43% of respondents were prepared to look for love despite being vaccinated for COVID-19. Speaking of love, there were 50% of unvaccinated people who felt comfortable attending a wedding, but just 38% of Americans who are vaccinated would go to a wedding. The poll found that 45% of unvaccinated people would attend a religious gathering versus 35% of those who were vaccinated.

Hmm. I went back to the gym almost immediately (and some days it could be really busy, certainly beyond the capacity limits set by North Carolina). Yet, I know some who aren’t vaccinated who stay away from the gym. I’m getting nowhere near cruise, but, I did fly for Christmas. And would fly again being vaccinated, even though it felt weird with zero social distancing. A big concert or sporting event? Maybe.

The unvaccinated Americans were most comfortable with dining at a restaurant (63%), shopping at a mall (60%), and renting a car (58%).

I’m good with letting people I don’t know test driving a vehicle without me. But, also, I like having that 15-20 minutes to just chill, and, I think people pay attention to the vehicle more without a sales person around. I can be quiet for 15 minutes, most people can’t, and focus on me.

The survey conducted from May 6-8 also discovered that 88% of vaccinated people said COVID-19 poses a “severe” or “moderate” health risk in the United States, compared with 70% of unvaccinated respondents.

My position has always been, and, even being vaccinated (you still have a small chance of getting COVID), better safe than sorry. It could be a minor case, or one that will mess you up for months. I don’t feel like missing work for weeks, or even months. I really, really, really hate getting sick. But, people can do them. You don’t want a vaccine? That’s on you. Don’t want to distance or take precautions? That’s on you, just don’t get close to me, fist bump me, etc.

Read: Interesting: Vaccinated People Less Likely To Engage In Public Activities That Unvaccinated »

Democrats Considering User Fees To Pay For Their “Infrastructure” Plan

As they force you to be Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside), Democrats are looking to make you pay for it

Democrats open to user fees for infrastructure deal

Some Senate Democrats are open to paying for a compromise infrastructure package by imposing user fees, including increasing the gas tax and raising money from electric car drivers through a vehicle-miles-traveled charge.

Why it matters: By inching toward the Republican position on pay-fors, some Democrats are bucking President Biden’s push to offset his proposed $2.3 trillion plan by focusing only on raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

“User fees have to be part of the mix,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told Axios on Thursday.

“I am generally supportive of what the president is trying to do, but I think his initial unwillingness to include user fees makes it really hard.”

Guess who this hits the most? And why would people want to switch to a much more expensive EV when they are just going to pay more for miles traveled? Punished for “being green”? Raise the gas tax? Kill the economy which is on a razor’s edge.

Anyhow, China Joe met with the GOP and Republicans and

The president agreed: “I am very optimistic that we can reach a reasonable agreement. But even if we don’t, it’s been a good-faith effort that we started.”

He added: “We didn’t compromise on anything.”

Reach an agreement but refuse to compromise? Where’s all that bipartisan we hear about? Where’s Joe’s electric limo and electric helicopter? Why isn’t he riding the train?


Electric Chevrolet Bolt EUV rated at 247 miles per charge

The Chevrolet Bolt EUV just missed the mark.

Chevy had estimated that the all-electric subcompact crossover would receive an EPA rating of 250 miles per charge, but the official number is 247 miles.

That puts the $33,595 Bolt EUV ahead of the similarly sized Kia Niro EV’s 239-mile rating and below the Hyundai Kona EV’s 258-mile rating.

The Niro and Kona have 201 hp motors, compared to the Bolt EUV’s 200 hp unit, and start at $31,065 and $32,765, respectively, after deducting the $7,500 federal tax credit they qualify for.

You can’t just deduct the credit as cash. And that’s a lot of money for small vehicles. With few features.

Read: Democrats Considering User Fees To Pay For Their “Infrastructure” Plan »

If All You See…

…is a perfect area for a solar or wind farm, far from the big cities so you don’t have to look at it, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on the way white people walk on sidewalks being raaaaacist.

Read: If All You See… »

TDS: Ellen Degeneres Blames Trump For Her Show Ending

It certainly couldn’t be the utterly toxic environment reported to be on her show, right? Nor how so many have said she is just really awful? I don’t know how many articles I saw the headlines for last year while scrolling Yahoo News and other outlets that had people coming out of the woodwork slamming her and the environment on her show

Ellen Degeneres denies toxic workplace claims led to her ending talk show, cites climate of hatred under Trump

Ellen Degeneres denied that the allegations of a toxic workplace environment led to her ending her talk show and instead blamed the climate of hatred under former President Donald Trump.

Degeneres made the comments during an interview Thursday with host Savannah Guthrie on NBC’s “Today.”

Guthrie asked if she had trouble making the decision to end her show and Degeneres said she had first thought of ending the show in 2018 because of the hatred during the Trump administration.

“First of all I had been struggling with it for a while. I really did think I was gonna stop season 16, because, it was, if you can remember there was a different president, and it was a different time, and there was a lot of hatred and anger, and stuff,” Degeneres said.

Right, right, sure thing. She’s denied all the allegations, and, in fairness, they were allegations. I rarely ever read any of what she calls “clickbait headlines”, but, most were simply allegations. By a lot of people. Who never brought it up previously. And came out of the woodwork when someone started this. But, there were a lot of people, from stars to people who worked on the show. Regardless, just unhinged to blame Trump.

Read: TDS: Ellen Degeneres Blames Trump For Her Show Ending »

New One: Climate Crisis (scam) Affecting Space Junk

This is a new one, but, then since the Cult of Climastrology is always dragging more and more stuff into their doomsday ideology, it should be expected, and the timing is interesting after that huge Chinese piece of space crap crashed the other day

Space junk could be made worse by increasing climate change

There are more than 160 million pieces of ‘space junk’ floating in Earth’s orbit, with the number continuing to rise. Space junk, which can include debris from defunct satellites and pieces of rockets, is proving to be an increasingly prominent problem. Furthermore, with pieces of space junk travelling at average speeds of 16,777 mph (27,000kmh), even the smallest pieces of debris, including chips of paint, could prove extremely problematic.

Researchers have now said that climate change could be making the situation worse.

Space junk is designed to burn up in the density of the upper atmosphere.

However, rising CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere is causing its density to drop.

Ultimately, the lower atmosphere then has less of a pull to draw pieces of space junk in.

This then leads to fewer objects returning to Earth and burning up in the atmosphere and it stays clogged up in orbit.

A report from the European Space Agency last month said the amount of space junk in orbit could increase by a factor of 50 by 2100.

So, of course this is being touted by The Weather Cult Channel, The NY Cult Times, Cult Futurism, Cult Gizmodo, and so many more. None of whom mention how the the business nor the employees have given up their own use of fossil fuels and gone Net Zero. That’s for Other People to be forced to do. The cult always needs to move the scaremongering forward in order to get the Government to force compliance.

Read: New One: Climate Crisis (scam) Affecting Space Junk »

Bad Behavior has blocked 9363 access attempts in the last 7 days.