Say, What Would A Real Climate Plan Look Like Or Something

I’m sure you’ve heard of the term “tell” before. It’s often used when playing poker, and one definition is “an unconscious action that is thought to betray an attempted deception.” There’s a big tell in this Mother Jones screed by Excitable Kevin Drum

What Should a Climate Change “Plan” Look Like?

David Roberts has a point here:

Anyone with a 3-digit IQ can do a bit of googling and come up with a set of policies to reduce carbon emissions. But a plan—now that’s a different thing. A plan has to be an actual course of action with both a goal and a chance of success. We should be able to line up your plan with all the others and extract two numbers about each one: (1) emission levels in 2050 if the plan works, and (b) consensus probability that the plan will work.

My plan would include measures that force anyone how has shown belief in anthropogenic climate change, ie, they think it is at at least 55% caused by Mankind (most think it is almost all caused by Mankind) to give up their own use of fossil fuels, except for taking public transportation. No more cars, no more minivans, no more trucks, no more airplane flights. They wouldn’t be allowed to live in a home of more than 500 square feet. They would have to be sterilized so that they do not bring any more “world killing” kids into the world. They wouldn’t be allowed to eat meat more than once a week. Their paychecks would have large garnishments to cover their carbon taxes. That’s good for a start.

Kevin has other ideas. He wants us to “think international”, “focus on getting the biggest bang for the buck”, and “lots of shared R&D”. That last one I agree with, even though I think mankind is causing less than 25% of the minor temperature increase during the Modern Warm Period, as it would lead to better and lower priced clean energy, which is never a bad thing, and could help with many other things.

Regardless, it was his other one that is the “tell”

Forget the free market. There’s no profit in addressing climate change. In fact, the profit is almost entirely on the other side. This means that any plausible plan has to include lots of government subsidies: subsidies for solar, subsidies for wind, subsidies for electric cars, subsidies for reforestation, etc. Basically, you should accept that virtually every policy you support will happen only to the extent that the government subsidizes it.

In other words, what you really have here is a takeover of the economy by the government. And how to pay for it? A massive carbon tax, though Kevin admits it wouldn’t work. And

There are plenty of other possibilities. The main thing is to be rigidly realistic at all times. If you ask too much of people, they won’t support your ideas no matter how great they are. And even if they do, they aren’t likely to respond appropriately to the scale of the problem on their own. I haven’t, after all. Neither have you. But that’s OK: climate change won’t be affected much by personal action anyway. It’s too big. Like a war, it requires action on a governmental scale. Unlike a war, however, it has no human enemy to spur citizens to accept the sacrifice it takes to win. It’s up to us to come up with an alternative.

So, it’s all about Government. There’s an old saying which Warmists should always keep in mind: Be careful what you wish for. You might actually get it.

Read: Say, What Would A Real Climate Plan Look Like Or Something »

Old, White Democratic Socialist Who Hates America Announces Bid To Be President

Can Bernie Sanders regain the magic of the 2016 run, before the DNC stacked the deck to knock him out and allow Hillary her attempt at coronation? Especially when there are so many leftist nutjobs running?

‘The Bern’ returns: Bernie Sanders announces entry into crowded 2020 Democratic field

Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for president again.

The independent from Vermont made the announcement about 2020 Tuesday morning in an interview with a public radio station in his state.

“We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it’s time to move that revolution forward,” Sanders said.

Sanders also sent a campaign email announcing his that he will once again seek the Democratic nomination, jumping into an already crowded field of nearly a dozen candidates, with many more expected to join. (snip)

In his last campaign, Sanders labeled himself a democratic socialist and focused on social and economic justice, a platform seen as too radical by many in the Democratic Party establishment.

This time around, those same ideas – such as Medicare for all, a livable minimum wage, free college tuition – have been embraced by mainstream candidates seeking the Democratic nomination.

Here’s the opening video of a guy with three homes who’s upset that Other People make lots of money

And here’s a part of his announcement email, which is similar to the above video (full text is at the first link above)

Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

In other words, fundamentally transforming the United States into Venezuela. Every complaint in the rest of his message should be though of with the notion of “transforming our country”.

Read: Old, White Democratic Socialist Who Hates America Announces Bid To Be President »

Sixteen Open Borders States Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration

It would have been so easy: allocate the funds for the section of wall that Trump and immigration authorities wanted to build, especially since prior Congressional legislation authorized the construction of the wall. But, no, Democrats aren’t interested in security our borders

(Fox News) The attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

The litigation, brought before a federal trial court in the Northern District of California, seeks an injunction to prevent Trump from shifting billions of dollars from military construction to the border without explicit congressional approval. The suit also asks a court to declare Trump’s actions illegal, arguing that Trump showed a “flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution” by violating the Constitution’s Presentment and Appropriations Clauses, which govern federal spending.

The litigation additionally includes allegations that Trump is violating the National Environmental Policy Act, by planning to build a wall that could impact the environment without first completing the necessary environmental impact reports.

The attorneys general specifically argue that the border wall does not “require[] use of the armed forces,” as mandated under 10 U.S.C. section 2808, the federal law which governs construction projects during national emergencies. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan reportedly said this week he isn’t sure there is a military necessity at the border, or how much the agency would need to spend.

Except, Congress has specifically authorized construction of a border wall numerous times, including back during the Bush administration, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

In addition to Maine, California, and New York, the group of states also includes Delaware, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico.

So, essentially open borders states. States which would rather patronize illegal aliens than take care of lawful U.S. residents.

Will the suit succeed? Ultimately, it will surely end up at the Supreme Court. No matter what Democrats say, Trump is not an idiot, and the Emergency order is surely based on actual statute and law, which is why the open borders states are adding things like the National Environmental Policy Act.

Read: Sixteen Open Borders States Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration »

‘Climate Change’ Is Causing Frayed Nerves Or Something

The attack on Jussie Smollett caused frayed nerves, too. It was also a hoax

Climate Change Isn’t Just Frying the Planet—It’s Fraying Our Nerves

Over the last year, Rebecca, a 35-year-old woman living in Washington, DC, had been losing sleep over the seemingly endless flow of apocalyptic environmental news. She fretted about the Trump administration’s loosening of emissions regulations and the United Nations’ dire predictions about climate change. In October, she sought help from a psychiatrist who put her on an antidepressant. “It sort of saps your emotional reserves,” she says, “this constant background feeling of anxiety.”

Forty percent of Americans reported hearing about climate change in the media at least once a month in 2015, and about half said they were worried about the topic that year, making it “a powerful environmental stressor,” according to a 2016 federal report. And that’s not the only way global warming causes psychological problems: A recent report from the American Psychological Association and Washington-based nonprofit ecoAmerica details some of the effects of natural disasters on mental health, including social disruption, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Research suggests that heat waves affect our neural regulation, weakening our ability to regulate our emotions, and that people are more aggressive and less empathetic during warm periods. As Stanford University researcher Sanjay Basu put it to me, “We kind of lose our cool.”

So, let me see if I have this correct: the Cult of Climastrology manufactures an issues, fearmongers on it non-stop, then people become so loony that they get mental and physical issues, at which point they blame the issues on ‘climate change’? Right? This is like when you drink too much then talk yourself into feeling sick to the point of throwing up.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Causing Frayed Nerves Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil moo cow causing horrendous flooding, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on “dignified jobs.”

BTW, I love the look on the cow’s face, like “lady, what in the heck are you doing? Is Instagram that important?”

Read: If All You See… »

Gun Grabbers Continue Their Gun Grabbing Ways In NC And Illinois

One thing the gun grabbers keep telling us is that they do not want to take away our guns, they just want to make things “more safe”. Yet, they keep going after the rights of law abiding citizens, rather than after criminals. Starting off with the Greenville Reflector out of North Carolina

State bill misfires on safety, takes aim at gun owners

Under the guise of preventing mass shootings, North Carolina lawmakers tried to chip away at the Second Amendment this week.

State Rep. Christy Clark, D-Mecklenburg, called a Thursday press conference at the General Assembly to introduce the Gun Violence Prevention Act, a grab bag of restriction that range from the ineffectual to the unconstitutional.

Among other provisions, the bill would require all gun owners to purchase firearm liability insurance, ban the sale or possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks, raise the age to purchase so-called assault weapons from 18 to 21 and require permits for the purchase of long guns in addition to handguns.

Insurers could pay damages to victims of accidental shootings and may also pay legal costs for insured gun owners who fire a weapon in presumed self-defense and face criminal prosecution or lawsuits. Some gun owners choose to buy insurance for their own peace of mind, and the National Rifle Association partners with an insurer to sell NRA-branded policies.

Proponents compare firearm insurance to car insurance. But operating a motor vehicle on public roads is considered a privilege, while keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right. Government can and already does impose more restrictions on driving than owning a gun.

Unsurprisingly, this is being pushed only by Democrats

Many North Carolinians — and indeed, most gun owners — are sympathetic to reasonable reforms such as enhanced background checks, but this bill is no common-sense compromise. The insurance requirement is a gargantuan government power grab that misfires on curbing gun violence and instead takes aim at law-abiding Tar Heels.

Fortunately, its chances in the Republican-controlled General Assembly are nil. That should give little comfort to the many Democrats who own guns for hunting and home protection and would rightly bristle at an insurance mandate.

The House Democratic Caucus and N.C. Democratic Party must abandon this paternalistic push. Claiming to represent the disadvantaged can’t be reconciled with a bill that would make poor people pay a premium in order to lawfully own a gun. Don’t they deserve to feed their families through hunting and keep handguns to defend those families from intruders?

Laws like this do not affect criminals, only the law abiding. Yes, some idiots who were otherwise law abiding do dumb things, and they should be punished. Why are the rest of us being punished?

Read: Gun Grabbers Continue Their Gun Grabbing Ways In NC And Illinois »

Green New Deal Looks To Control What You Eat

The supporters of the Green New Deal keep telling us that the resolution is all about protecting the environment and saving the planet from having a fever. Funny how it seems to control so much of our personal lives, including what we eat

THE GREEN NEW DEAL ISN’T JUST ABOUT ENERGY, IT’S ALSO ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT AMERICANS EAT

The Green New Deal isn’t just a climate change manifesto targeting U.S. energy, it also looks to drastically change how food is produced and, ultimately, what Americans eat.

“I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” Nic Loris, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey introduced highly anticipated Green New Deal bills in early February, calling for “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years through a radical transformation of America. The bills also call for a slew of new social justice and welfare programs totally unrelated to global warming.

The accompanying FAQ’s reference to eliminating “farty cows” sent ranchers into a panic, fearing Democrats were taking aim at their livelihoods. Environmentalists have targeted the beef industry for years, and concern over methane only gave activists more ammunition.

“Farty” was eventually deleted — in fact, most of the methane cows emit is from burping, not farting. The entire gaffe-riddled FAQ was eventually taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff amid the ridicule.

Just because it was removed doesn’t mean that is not where they want to go with it. Remember, it wants to “work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers … to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.” This means “government telling ranchers and farmers how to operate and what they can raise and grow.”

Cows and other ruminant animals are a major source of methane — a byproduct of their unique digestive system. Livestock and their manure cause about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. agricultural sector, according to Breakthrough’s senior agricultural analyst Dan Blaustein-Rejto.

So any effort to cut U.S. agriculture emissions would necessitate dealing with cattle and dairy operations. With Ocasio-Cortez claiming humanity only had 12 years before catastrophe, what wouldn’t a concerned climate activist be willing to do? (snip)

In fact, the 2018 United Nations report behind Ocasio-Cortez’s 12-year-to-apocalypse deadline said “dietary shifts away from emissions-intensive livestock products” as one of the societal changes needed to keep future warming under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Remember, there is a big push by Warmists to get meat out of our diets. They’re constantly yammering on about this, anywhere from forcing people to go meatless at least a day or two a week to simply forcing everyone to be vegetarian.

The resolution calls for “supporting family farming,” “investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health” and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

This is the government controlling all forms of food production and distribution. This is what the far left Modern Socialists want: government control of everything. Surprisingly, they never think that these policies will hit them in their own lives.

Read: Green New Deal Looks To Control What You Eat »

NY Times Seems Upset That GOP Is Calling Democrats Socialists And Baby Killers

Yet another case of a thinly veiled opinion piece masquerading as a news story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, in which she’s upset that the GOP is calling Democrats what they are. There are never any complaints when Dems say Republicans hate the poor, are complete racists, nor want to throw granny from a cliff. They only complain over things that are true

Republicans Already Are Demonizing Democrats as Socialists and Baby Killers
(web front page headline is Republicans are demonizing Democrats as left wing radicals on the economy, abortion and Israel)

In the 116th Congress, if you’re a Democrat, you’re either a socialist, a baby killer or an anti-Semite.

That, at least, is what Republicans want voters to think, as they seek to demonize Democrats well in advance of the 2020 elections by painting them as left-wing crazies who will destroy the American economy, murder newborn babies and turn a blind eye to bigotry against Jews.

The unusually aggressive assault, which Republican officials and strategists outlined in interviews last week, is meant to strangle the new Democratic majority in its infancy. It was set in motion this month by President Trump, who used his State of the Union address to rail against “new calls to adopt socialism in our country” and mischaracterize legislation backed by Democrats in New York and Virginia as allowing “a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.”

Then last week, Republicans amped it up, seizing on a Twitter post by a freshman representative, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, which even some Democrats condemned as anti-Semitic, and ridiculing the “Green New Deal,” an ambitious economic stimulus plan unveiled by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist. Suddenly even Jewish Democrats were abetting anti-Semitism and moderate Democrats in Republican districts were Trotskyites and Stalinists.

This sure does look like it belongs in the opinion section, does it not? Ms. Stolberg lies about the NY and Va late term abortion bills. Omar is a Jew and Israel hater, as are quite a few Democrats, just like so much of their base, especially college kids and the recently graduated, where it is fashionable to be anti-Israel – remember, Dems are pushing the BDS movement hard – and BDS leads to Jew hatred.

A ton of them, especially those elected within the past few elections, are pure Socialists. They admit it. There are plenty of older ones around, as well. The GND deserves every bit of scorn it gets. I wonder if Ms. Stolberg will find it funny when there’s no gas to gather the news, energy is too expensive to operate in full, and the government nationalizes the Times? Because one of the first things Socialists want is direct control of information dissemination.

In the Senate, where five Democrats are already running for president, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, announced he would force a vote on the measure, drawing howls from Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, who slammed the move as a “cynical stunt” intended solely to put Democrats, including the presidential candidates, on the spot. A vote in favor of the Green New Deal could help them court progressives in the primary vote, but hurt in a general election.

If the GND is so great, and it is the ultimate form of what we should term Modern Socialism (true Socialism features control of the economy, including owning the means of production, by government. It also has the govt staying out of our private lives. Do Dems look like they are trying to keep govt out of our lives? Other than allowing abortion on demand, of course), then why would it hurt Dems in the general election? Why are so many of these Democrats vulnerable now?

But Democrats must be careful not to let those exaggerations take hold. They are well aware that their path to keeping the majority runs through districts like Ms. Bustos’s, which the president carried in 2016.

This is a circling the wagons for Democrats piece.

“Of course I can see them trying to drive a wedge between the people in our districts, the people who are in more moderate districts,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, a centrist Democrat from New Jersey and a chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. “That’s why it’s really important that we make sure that we govern from the middle.”

Too late. We’ve already seen the direction of Democrats. They want to pass all sorts of far left legislation as well as witchhunts against Trump.

Way more silliness in the article, worth the read. Suffice to say, Democrats are everything Stolberg is trying to say they aren’t.

Read: NY Times Seems Upset That GOP Is Calling Democrats Socialists And Baby Killers »

USA Today: Republicans Pounce On Green New Deal

See, the problem, according to Ledyard King in an article that is in the Politics section, not Opinion, is not that the Green New Deal is a massive bit of Progressivism which requires an enormous increase in the size and scope of government. Nor that it requires ridiculous, unsustainable, economy killing amounts of spending and taxation. Nor that it takes giant amounts of liberty, freedom, and choice away from citizens. Nope. Its’ that the GOP doesn’t think this is a good idea

Green New Deal: Republicans talk up climate change plan – but not because they like it

Republicans are talking a lot about the Green New Deal after its rollout on Capitol Hill earlier this month by liberal Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It’s not because the GOP supports the transformation of the electric grid away from fossil fuels to renewable energy called for in the progressive Democratic plan to combat climate change. Or because Republicans agree with the approach the plan lays out for boosting Americans’ economic security and giving people access to affordable health care.

Just the opposite.

GOP officials think the road map offered by Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and longtime environmental advocate Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., will help them hammer their criticisms of Democratic economic policies they contend would move the country toward socialism.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., convinced the plan is a loser for Democrats, announced Tuesday he’s planning to bring up the measure for a Senate vote “to give everybody an opportunity to go on record to see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”

That would mean putting several Democratic senators who are running for president, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, in the position of angering progressive voters if they don’t back the plan or turning off those independents who view it as too liberal.

ZOMG, they might have to actually vote for this plan! How horrible!

But opening up a discussion on the Green New Deal carries risks for Republicans as well, said former Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican who co-founded the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.

“When Republicans controlled Congress, this was not getting attention,” Curbelo, who does not support the Green New Deal, told USA TODAY. “That’s going to change and everyone soon will have to go on the record, not just expressing what they’re against but what they’re for.”

Forcing Warmists to go on record is not a bad thing for Republicans. Warmists, including Curbelo, do not want to have a discussion or debate, they want to give a lecture. They want to dictate. Forcing Warmists to defend the GND resolution is not something they want to do.

Read: USA Today: Republicans Pounce On Green New Deal »

If All You See…

…is an inland sea created by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS A.D., with a post on a special type of moron.

It’s “posting extra photos sitting around in the IAYS folder” week.

BTW, I just have to wonder if AOC is actually a GOP plant, designed to make the Democrats look as insane as they really are. Seriously, no one can be that stupid, that deluded in real life and get elected, right? Right?

Read: If All You See… »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4381 access attempts in the last 7 days.