Warmists Drag Frosty The Snowman Into Their Cultish Beliefs

They have to ruin everything

Prevent Frosty’s climate change Christmas — Madeleine Para

I hope never to see “Frosty’s Climate-Change Christmas” on TV, as joked about in the “FoxTrot” comic strip last Sunday. But the cartoon made me think about communicating with children about climate change.

As a former first-grade teacher, I always felt children should be allowed to just be children, and I was pretty careful to not overload them with thoughts of a grim future. On the other hand, adults need to face problems and work together to solve them.

And there’s good news. Recently, two Republicans and three Democrats in the House of Representatives did just that. Led by Ted Deutch, D-Fla., Francis Rooney, R-Fla., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn., they worked together to craft the strongest bipartisan carbon pricing legislation in a decade, called the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Already two more sponsors have joined the original five, and I hope that Wisconsin’s congressional delegation will join them. This is sensible legislation that will benefit all Americans.

For Frosty and the children who love him, and for the millions of Americans who want to see reasonable solutions to the pressing problem of climate change, I hope we see swift action on this legislation. Find out how it works at energyinnovationact.org.

This bit of climanutbaggery was by Madeleine Para of Madison, which I would assume to be Madison, Wisconsin, as this is a Wisconsin paper, the State Journal. They fail to identify her, almost making her seem just like some any-old citizen, but, there is a Madeleine Para who is the Program Director of the uber-left Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

Yes, because Frosty would melt when the North Pole stays below freezing. (full size here)

Read: Warmists Drag Frosty The Snowman Into Their Cultish Beliefs »

If All You See…

…is the remains of extreme weather from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on the revenge of the swamp.

It’s Santa week!

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Gil Elvgren

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America. The Sun is shining, the ducks are quacking and splashing and making lots of duck noise, and we’re just nine days from Christmas. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Climatism discovers all the climate refugees
  2. No Tricks Zone covers data showing that the global temp has dropped since 1850
  3. America’s Watchtower notes data scrubbing of Peter Strzok’s phone
  4. Blazing Cat Fur covers incoming Congress member Rashida Tlaib promising to wear traditional Palestinian garb
  5. Chicks On The Right covers the Blame Trump narrative for the death of the illegal alien child taking a big hit
  6. Creeping Sharia notes the media and most of Congress ignoring the victims of Sharia law
  7. DC Clothesline has the Border Patrol arresting lots of sex offenders in just one day
  8. Diogenes’ Middle Finger discusses NY’s newest AG thug
  9. Happy 42nd birthday to Jamie Jeffords at Eye Of Polyphemus!
  10. Geller Report notes the tolerant, loving Muslims in Germany
  11. Legal Insurrection covers yoga being banned over cultural appropriation
  12. LL 1885 notes NC Gov Roy Cooper vetoing the voter ID legislation
  13. Moonbattery covers moonbattery reducing the Boy Scouts to brink of bankruptcy
  14. MOTUS A.D. notes the left melting down over Melania’s blond locks
  15. And last, but not least, Powerline discusses the settled science of latte liberals

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Nations Agree To Report Their (Non) Progress To “Historic” Paris Climate Agreement

No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still a pig

Nations Agree On Rules To Put Paris Climate Agreement Into Action

Nearly 200 countries have agreed on a set of rules to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, a crucial step in implementing the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The rules describe in detail how countries will track their emissions and communicate with each other about their progress in the coming years and decades. But it stops short of committing them to the more ambitious emissions reductions necessary to slow climate change.

The meeting in the heart of Poland’s coal country unfolded in the shadow of a stark scientific reality about the threat posed by rising temperatures and in the midst of global political upheaval. In the months leading up to the meeting, a series of reports from the world’s scientists showed that global emissions are not just continuing to rise, but that nations are not on track to limit the rise of global temperatures enough to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. (snip)

One of the most fundamental parts of the so-called rule book negotiated at the talks is a section on transparency, which governs what information governments must disclose to each other about their greenhouse gas emissions. Not all countries agreed going into the talks about how much information they should be required to share about their progress — and as a result, the inner workings of their economies.

The final rules set a timeline for countries to update each other, and includes highly technical guidelines for what types of information they must provide, such as sources of emissions and explanations of their internal analyses.

Let’s put that in clear language: it does virtually nothing to implement the Paris climate agreement, it simply obligates nations to say “here’s what we haven’t done in reducing our carbon emissions.” It doesn’t actually obligate nations to honor their commitments to (destroy their economies) follow through on those reduction. Nor will they. They haven’t done so so far. There were less than a handful of countries that hit their Kyoto Protocol targets. Most were not even close.

But the talks also left many issues unresolved, including whether countries will commit to transitioning even more quickly to clean energy sources, and how much richer countries will help poorer countries pay for that transition.

Which upset the moocher countries, who want that sweet, sweet redistributed climate cash, which allows them to line the pockets of the elites, build more airports, get more fossil fueled vehicles, and not be beholden to the countries giving them the money.

The Malaysian delegation called for more money to flow from countries like the U.S. — the world’s largest economy and the second largest polluter — to help pay for damage caused by climate change, saying, “We owe this to the poor and vulnerable who are paying sometimes with their lives in our part of the world.”

See? When 1st World nations would give nations assistance, they expected something in return. Now turned it into something where nations feel they are owed this cash, with no beholding.

(Reuters) Nearly 200 countries overcame political divisions late on Saturday to agree on rules for implementing a landmark global climate deal, but critics say it is not ambitious enough to prevent the dangerous effects of global warming.

Just imagine how much carbon pollution could have been avoided if 15,000+ people hadn’t taken long fossil fueled trips to a meeting which complains about fossil fuels.

Read: Nations Agree To Report Their (Non) Progress To “Historic” Paris Climate Agreement »

NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Why? David Wallace-Wells, who forgets to tell us anything about giving up fossil fuels and going carbon neutral in his own life (I’ve asked him on Twitter, and fully expect to be blocked), explains

You, Too, Are in Denial of Climate Change

You, too, are in denial.

We all are, nearly every single one of us as individuals, even those of us who are following the bad news that suggests “the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve”; every nation, almost none of them meeting their climate commitments, and most (not just the United States) publicly downplaying the threat; and even many of the alliances and organizations, like the IPCC, endeavoring to solve the crisis. At the moment, negotiations at the organization’s COP24 conference, meant to formalize the commitments made in the Paris accords two years ago, are “a huge mess,” perhaps poised to collapse. Last month, scientists warned that we had only about 12 years to cut global emissions in half and that doing so would require a worldwide mobilization on the scale of that for World War II. The U.N. secretary general has warned that we have only about a year to get started. Instead, on Election Day, voters in deep-blue Washington rejected a modest carbon tax and those in crunchy Colorado rejected a slowdown of oil and gas projects. In France — conservative America’s cartoon of unchecked left-wing-ism — the worst protests in 50 years were provoked by a proposal to increase the gasoline tax. If communities like these won’t take action on climate, who, in the next dozen years, will?

But perhaps it should not be surprising that, even in many of the world’s most progressive places, even in the moment of acknowledged environmental crisis, a sort of climate NIMBYism prevails. The cost of inaction is sort of unthinkable — annual deadly heat waves and widespread famine, tens of millions of climate refugees, global coastal flooding, and disasters that will cost double the world’s present-day wealth. And so we choose, most of the time, not to think about it. This is denial, too, whatever you check on a survey about whether you “believe” the climate is changing.

He is sorta correct: lots of people like him Believe, but refuse to do anything in their own lives. They always want Someone Else to bear the burden for their beliefs. These are called “hypocrites.”

Another is that even those of us who believe in warming, and believe it is a problem, do not believe enough in it. The flat-Earth equivalents, those 14 percent, are simply not a large-enough constituency to matter — when not being elevated so dramatically by fossil-fuel money, like puppets buoyed up by oil fumes. But the rest of us are only moderately worried, perhaps in part because we imagine the worst impacts of climate change will hit elsewhere. Forty-one percent of Americans believe climate change “will harm me personally” — actually quite a high number, in absolute terms, but considerably lower than the 62 percent who believe it will harm those in the developing world or the 70 percent who believe it will harm future generations. But thinking climate change will only hit elsewhere, or only in the future, pummeling others but sparing you — these are delusions, too, ones powered by many of the same coping mechanisms that give rise to outright denialism.

There really is a simple explanation: most in the middle and lower classes who say they care, even care a lot, do not care enough to ruin their own lives for what is essentially an elitist issue, one for which we see those elites never making substantive changes in their own lives. The old Instapundit saying of “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis (in their own lives)” applies perfectly. These same people will not give up their own use of fossil fuels, won’t give up meat, won’t stop flying to see Grandma for Christmas, won’t stop taking fossil fueled trips for vacation, won’t spend $10,000+ to put solar panels on their homes, won’t buy a $125K electric car, won’t stop using AC, and won’t agree to be taxed out the ying yang, among others.

Read: NY Mag: Almost Everyone Is In Denial Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing all the trees to have lots of food then die from eating too much, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on the extreme feminists having the answer to toxic whiteness.

Read: If All You See… »

TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House

There’s zero legal nor Constitutional basis to attempt to obtain Trump’s tax returns, which would those of a private citizen at the time, but, Democrats do not care

House Democrats to seek Trump tax returns: Pelosi

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that members of congress from her party will seek to obtain President Donald Trump’s tax returns when they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January – a move the White House is likely to strongly resist.

The House Ways and Means Committee will “take the first steps” toward obtaining the documents, said Pelosi, who has the backing of her members to become speaker of the House next month. As it is likely to be a challenging process, it will be up to the committee to figure out how to proceed, she said.

“There is popular demand for the Congress to request the president’s tax returns,” she told reporters in the Capitol.

“I’m sure the White House will resist and so the question is where do we go from there,” she said.

Trump defied decades of tradition when he refused to release his tax records as a candidate and after his victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. No law or rule compels a president or candidate to disclose their returns, but nearly every nominee and president has done so in recent decades.

As they prepare to take over majority control of the House, Democratic leaders have tried to walk a fine line in articulating their goals. They have said they plan to pursue policies popular with their voter base, but have also said they will not shy away from examining Trump, his personal business dealings and his presidency.

It’s a witch hunt, and under the law Congress has no right to obtain the tax returns of any citizen without a damned good reason, not a fishing expedition. This may be good red meat, er, sorry, upscale tofu for the Democratic Party base, but, how will it play out in Middle America when they see the House Democrats attempt to get those private tax returns in this manner? People already see Congress as authoritarian: this would very much help Trump in 2020.

The records would provide congressional investigators from various House committees with information crucial to efforts to determine if Trump’s business generates conflicts of interest.

Witch hunt. Fishing expedition. Hypocrisy

Facing questions about why she and other top Congressional officials won’t release their tax returns, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) downplayed her previous demands for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release his, calling the issue a distraction.

As recently as Wednesday, Pelosi had strongly urged Romney to provide further disclosure of his tax returns. But today, while maintaining Romney should release more documents because of “custom” and “tradition,” Pelosi said the issue was trivial compared with economic issues.

“We spent too much time on that. We should be talking about middle-income tax cuts,” Pelosi said after answering two questions about the issue.

The Minority Leader faced questions about the issue after a McClatchy News report showed only 17 of 535 Members released their tax returns when asked.

Why isn’t she releasing her own? As well as the rest of Congress? Show the people how you become a multi-millionaire on 174K per year. Pelosi has been in office since 1987, yet has a net worth of over $29 million.

She and the other Demonutters should remember that Team Trump can use the same laws to obtain the Dems tax returns.

Read: TDS: Dems Look To Get Trump’s Tax Returns When They Take Control Of House »

Congressional Budget Office Super Enthused To Push $1 Trillion Carbon Tax

It was just one idea thrown out by the CBO to plug the deficit gap, but, it is easy to see that this is all political and nothing to do with the environment


It’s been just nine days since the French government abandoned plans to increase the carbon tax on fuel, and the congressional budgeting arm is suggesting a $1 trillion tax on carbon dioxide emissions to close the budget deficit.

“This option would impose a tax of $25 per metric ton on most emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States,” reads a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released Thursday. “The tax would increase at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of 2 percent.”

The CBO suggested a carbon tax as one of “121 options that would decrease federal spending or increase federal revenues over the next 10 years.” The CBO published several reports looking at the budgetary impacts of a carbon tax.

However, the CBO’s carbon tax suggestion comes after French President Emmanuel Macron and lawmakers were forced to scrap plans to raise fuel taxes after weeks of violent protests. Those protests also spread to Brussels, where protesters clashed with police over fuel tax rises. (snip)

“Many estimates suggest that the effect of climate change on the nation’s economic output, and hence on federal tax revenues, will probably be small over the next 30 years and larger, but still modest, in the following few decades,” the CBO reported.

“Uncertainty about the effects of climate change — and the potential for unlimited emissions to cause significant damage — grow substantially in the more distant future,” the CBO contended.

And that is the CBO becoming political and showing their membership in the Cult of Climastrology in pushing this tax. Recommending raising taxes which will do harm to the middle and lower classes is a Bad Idea.

Read: Congressional Budget Office Super Enthused To Push $1 Trillion Carbon Tax »

Federal Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional

Don’t get too excited, because it would have to go to the Supreme Court again. So we can get Chief Justice Roberts to do the wrong thing again

Citing change in tax law, judge rules entire health-care law unconstitutional

A federal judge in Texas threw a dagger into the Affordable Care Act on Friday night, ruling that the entire health-care law is unconstitutional because of a recent change in federal tax law.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor overturns all of the sprawling law nationwide.

The ruling came on the eve of the deadline Saturday for Americans to sign up for coverage in the federal insurance exchange created under the law. If the ruling stands, it would create widespread disruption across the U.S. health-care system — from no-charge preventive services for older Americans on Medicare to the expansion of Medicaid in most states, to the shape of the Indian Health Service — in all, hundreds of provisions in the law that was a prized domestic achievement of President Barack Obama.

President Trump, who has made the dismantling of the ACA a chief goal since his campaign, swiftly tweeted his pleasure at the opinion. “As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!” the president wrote just after 9 p.m. “Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions.”

Later, the White House issued a statement on the ruling, saying: “We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place.”

Congressional Democrats have said that they plan to Do Something, which most likely means passing something even more extreme. The few moderates, Blue Dog Dems, and plain old Liberals will want something a little stronger than Ocare. The more hardcore ones, of which there are now a lot, perhaps even a majority, will push for their single payer Medicare For All plan.

“Once the heart of the ACA — the individual mandate — is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall,” the lawsuit said.

In his 55-page opinion, O’Connor agrees. He writes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, saying that it “can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’ tax power.”

The judge also concludes that this insurance requirement “is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA.”

And that has always been at the heart of the matter, despite what the liberals and Chief Justice Roberts ruled: the tax is un-Constitutional, and there was no severability built in Obamacare. Rule one part un-Constitutional, the entire thing is un-Constitutional.

Interestingly, many insurers and health insurance groups are upset with this ruling. It’s almost as if they see themselves making lots of money from Ocare, eh?

What happens now? The time to kill Ocare was in 2012, before it went into effect. Now that so many depend on it, it must be replaced. But with the Senate controlled by the GOP and House the Democrats, what could they possibly agree on?

Read: Federal Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional »

Federal Court Seriously Quotes Children’s Cartoon Movie In Pipeline Decision

I’ll admit, I’m not a big fan of this pipeline due to the area it travels through (though, really, lots and lots and lots of pipelines do the same and nothing bad happens), but the reason it was killed is absurd

Court tosses permit for pipeline to cross Appalachian Trail

A federal appeals court has invalidated a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to cross two national forests, including parts of the Appalachian Trail.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found Thursday that the U.S. Forest Service “abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources” when it approved the pipeline crossing the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests, and a right of way across the Appalachian Trail.

The ruling quoted “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss, saying the Forest Service is trusted to “speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”

Read: Federal Court Seriously Quotes Children’s Cartoon Movie In Pipeline Decision »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5898 access attempts in the last 7 days.