Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

There have been lots and lots (and lots) of hot takes on President Trump serving fast food, which he paid for out of his own pocket, to the Clemson Tigers football team, which won the national championship (something not mentioned in the article.) Of course, Warmists gotta do Warmist, as we get Robert Gebelhoff in the Washington Post

Donald Trump’s fast-food presidency

President Trump couldn’t welcome the Clemson University football team Monday with food typically served at the White House, given that caterers there were furloughed under the partial government shutdown. So he did what many other Americans do when their options are limited: He ordered out.

The president celebrated the fast-food display — complete with mounds of hamburgers, fries, pizzas and, to be fair, some boxed salads — and, of course, boasted about paying for it himself. The reception, no doubt, was an attempt to make the president more relatable, but if anything, his cornucopia of greasy indulgence should serve as a symbol of his presidency.

Robert goes on to yammer about food deserts and nutrition and stuff, because people can’t have a day with some less than healthy food (fun fact: the majority of these fast foods have no MSG, as explained by my allergist. I’m big time allergic, to the point of going to the doctor or worse. Subway and Firehouse subs are a big no no for me. Processed meats) before diving into

But food isn’t the only aspect of life where Americans overvalue instant gratification and ignore the massive challenges looming on the horizon. The Trump administration embodies that mind-set.

Take climate change. Trump’s opponents advocate taking on some of the long-term costs associated with remedying global warming now, either by implementing some type of carbon tax or using taxpayer money to subsidize cleaner energy. Trump’s strategy is not merely to ignore the problem but to deny that it’s even happening. The short-term economic benefits of carbon-based energy are just too tantalizing for the president’s conservative base to give up, so he parades around talking about a “war on coal” and promising that coal jobs will reappear — as if the president has power to control the market forces that have cut into the coal industry.

Oh, and Robert dives into immigration and other stuff. All because of some fast food.

Read: Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon bicycle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS A.D., with a post on the Democrats fight club.

Read: If All You See… »

New Warmist Solution: Ban Energy, Cows, And Fossil Fueled Vehicles

Think this will go over well, including with most Warmists? This is the kind of Warmist screed that actually gets worse the more you read it

One simple — but really hard — solution to stop climate change

There may actually be a way to keep the worst of climate change at bay, but it’s going to take a herculean effort, according to a new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.

Climate change is well underway already, the time to act and limit its human causes is now, many studies have shown. This latest report maps out what it may take to get there.

It posits that if the world was to phase out its “carbon-intensive infrastructure” at the end of its design lifetime starting from the end of 2018, there’s a 64% chance that the planet’s peak temperature can remain below the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Above that, scientists predict the planet will see even more extreme weather events such as wildfires, droughts, floods, massive animal die offs and food shortages for millions. The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree Celsius.

To keep the global median temperature within this optimal 1.5 degree-Celsius limit, according to this study, change would have to happen across all sectors, not just in the energy sector. Power plants would need to be replaced, but so would gas and diesel-fueled cars, aircraft, ships and industrial plants. Even cows would have to go — essentially, anything that contributes to global warming.

Under this scenario, infrastructure such as power plants wouldn’t have to be scrapped and replaced with a non-carbon emitting technology — at least, not immediately. The researchers are talking about a “design lifetime.” In the case of power plants, the average lifetime based on historic data, is about 40 years. The average lifetime of a car on the road now is more than 11 years, according to Consumer Reports, but could last for about 200,000 miles, or 15 years, US estimates show. Once they wear out, stop working or die, they’d be replaced with technology or products that do not contribute to climate change.

So, once that lifetime is hit, no more. Period. Which means that the federal government would have to declare that no more fossil fueled vehicles would be allowed to be manufactured and sold. Which means that cows and pigs and dogs and cats and more wouldn’t be allowed to have babies. No more ships and aircraft. No more manufacturing plants. Heck, no more human babies.

These people really are bat-guano insane.

Read: New Warmist Solution: Ban Energy, Cows, And Fossil Fueled Vehicles »

Proposed Oregon Gun Laws Are Worse Than You Thought

I noted the other day that a bill submitted by Oregon State Senator Rob Wagner (D) would limit people to magazines that hold no more than 5 rounds, and that people would be restricted from purchasing more than 20 rounds per month. It gets even worse, which means other Democrat run states will give this a whirl

Tough Gun Control Bill, To Oregon Senate

Scheduled to appear this year in front of the Oregon Senate is SB 501, a bill that would dramatically change firearms laws in Oregon. The bill was authored by Students for Change, a gun control advocacy group of Lake Oswego teenagers that assembled after the Parkland, Florida massacre.

If passed as the bill now stands, Oregon gun laws would be among the strictest in the country. The piece of legislation calls for anyone purchasing or receing a firearm to obtain a state-issued permit, punishable by 364 days imprisonment, a $6,250 fine, or both. The bill also requires gun owners to secure all firearms not carried by or within reach of the owner via trigger locks or locked containers, a violation would carry 30 days jail time, a $1,250 fine, or both. The law would also require background checks for purchasing or receiving ammunition, mandatory reporting to police within 24 hours of firearm theft, and 14 day background checks for gun purchases and transfers.

None of this would affect criminals. Just law abiding citizens. Most people do not keep their firearm on or near them while at home. But, they know where they are if they need them. However, they would have to be locked up, making them worthless when needed. Further, how would the Authorities know? Will they be making spot checks?

Perhaps the most sweeping changes that this bill proposes are magazine capacity regulations and ammunition sales limits. As the bill exists, it would prohibit most “large-capacity magazines,” which it defines as all magazines, fixed or detachable, capable of holding more than five rounds. Exempted from the ban would be fixed .22 caliber magazine tubes and fixed lever-action rifle magazines. The bill contained no language exempting shotguns from the ban, which sometimes hold seven shells in a fixed magazine tube. This legislation would presumably outlaw most revolvers, which usually hold six rounds. The penalty for violating this section of the law would be 364 days in prison, a $6,250, or both. Currently, the strictest state magazine capacity laws in the U.S. limit to ten rounds, and exist in a handful of states including California and New York.

The legislation would outlaw most shotguns and revolvers. And there is no grandfathering in the bill as proposed.

SB 501 would also limit ammunition sales to 20 rounds a month, per person. Rounds sold at shooting ranges would be the exception, but all rounds purchased must be fired on site. Ammunition is very commonly sold in packages of 25. Some states have ammunition laws that include permitting and prohibited round types, but a 20 round limit would be the first state law barring ammo purchase at a certain amount.

The bill as proposed also raises the age of purchase to 21 for all firearms, and makes it very difficult and very complicated to purchase. Any criminal conviction would disqualify a person. Got caught with a beer at the park? Convicted of that minor offense? Barred.

Of course, there aren’t many guns one would be allowed to actually own that are usable. Matt Vespa writes “So, in other words, if this passes, the only legal firearms you could own in Oregon were the ones the Louis and Clark expedition probably carried when they rolled into the area in the 1800s.” That might be a bit much, because that bottom rifle in the picture comes with a 5 round magazine, like many hunting rifles. This would ban the majority of handguns, though, unless the manufacturers start making mags that will only hold 5 rounds.

Expect other Democrat cities and states to start looking to do the same. Because this was always about banning guns.

Also expect lots of lawsuits and court challenges.

Read: Proposed Oregon Gun Laws Are Worse Than You Thought »

CBS News: It Would Totally Be Super Hard To Build The Wall Or Something

For a country that has built tons of skyscrapers, giant aircraft carriers, and put men on the moon, I’d think building a bit of wall would be easy peasy. But, in Liberal World, things like this are just too hard. Of course, the point here is to find any reason to not build the walls from the Open Borders crowd

Why it would be hard to build a border wall

The border wall is more than just a proposed barrier between the U.S. and Mexico; it was central to President Trump’s presidential campaign, and the obstacle in the way of ending the longest government shutdown in American history.

But while “build the wall” is a simple catchphrase, the logistics of doing so are complex. Much of the border is composed of rugged terrain, with a combination of deserts, mountains and rivers demarcating the line between the two countries.

If Mr. Trump obtains the funds to build the wall, either through an appropriations bill passed by Congress or calling a national emergency, the wall isn’t the only thing that will need to be constructed: Some of the border is so remote that the government would have to build new roads to get there, according to a Defense official.

At the easternmost part of Texas, where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico, there are no fences, and the nearest road is three miles away. The U.S. side is a wildlife area, relatively close to a beach resort.

Due to the rugged terrain elsewhere on the border, particularly the more mountainous areas in the west, the closest border roads are dirt paths carved by border patrol agents.

OK, I’m totally convinced! Why would America want to do something mildly difficult?

The inaccessibility of the border is only one challenge to its construction. According to the Defense official, the federal government controls only 400 miles of the border. The remainder is private property. It could take six to nine months for the government to declare eminent domain, which is the power of the federal government to take private property for public use. It is likely that proclaiming eminent domain would also face legal challenges.

Or, they could offer a good price for that land. But, Trump isn’t trying to build a wall/fence along the entire border. Just portions, to go with existing barriers.

Furthermore, even if a wall were to be built, drug dealers often find other ways to get drugs into the U.S., such as smuggling them through entry points or building extensive tunnels. When Mr. Trump visited McAllen, Texas, last week to visit border patrol agents and discuss border security, they expressed support for the wall. However, the border patrol agent in charge showed an image of a tunnel illegal immigrants had carved — under a wall.

Barriers are not perfect. But, they stop most. Hence the reason people put them around their homes, around businesses, around government buildings.

Read: CBS News: It Would Totally Be Super Hard To Build The Wall Or Something »

Your Fossil Fueled Vehicle Use Is Causing Earth To Tilt More Or Something

This is how a cult reacts, taking an ordinary, normal occurrence of the natural processes of the Earth and dragging it into their dogma

Earth’s tilt may speed up global warming – study

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, was led by Richard Levy from GNS science and Victoria University of Wellington, and Stephen Meyers of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States.

The team of scientists were studying how the Antarctic ice sheet is influenced by changes to how the Earth moves in space.

Richard Levy said that the study confirmed a connection between these astronomical changes and changes in the size and extent of the Antarctic ice sheet.

“If your tilt is high, basically it points the poles more directly at the sun so they get warmer, so at a high tilt you’ve got much more heat coming in to the polar regions.”

The ice sheet is buffered by these warmer waters by sea-ice but as emissions continue to rise, that sea-ice is slowly disappearing, making the ice sheet more vulnerable to melting, Mr Levy said.

“Where we sit right now, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 400 parts per million – they haven’t been that high for millions of years – human activity, anthropogenic activity have pushed CO2 up to the point where we’ve actually jumped back into the miocene, back into this time when CO2 was high such that sea-ice disappeared.”

Read: Your Fossil Fueled Vehicle Use Is Causing Earth To Tilt More Or Something »

If All You See…

…are trees choking on too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Joe’s Crab Shack learning a valuable lesson in economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something

And this still doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible, either

Snowpack In The West Has Resisted Climate Change But That Won’t Last Forever

For the last 35 years, the snowpack in the West’s mountains has resisted the impacts of global warming. But that could soon change, according to a new study out of Oregon State University.

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that although climate change should have caused a steep decrease in snowpack, naturally occurring, decades-long weather variations shielded the Cascades, Sierras and Rockies from some of the effects. Although snow stations have recorded some decline, it hasn’t been statistically significant. But according to the study, without this natural weather variation, snowpack in Oregon could have declined between 18 percent and 54 percent over the last 35 years.

The West has a wet season and a dry season and relies on wintertime snowpack for summertime water, so this could have drastic impacts on the region. Nick Siler, a climate scientist at Oregon State University and an author on the study, says that Oregon could be hit particularly hard when this trend reverses because it tends to snow in Oregon when temperatures are close to freezing, not far below freezing. It wouldn’t take much warming to tip that snow to rain. (snip to end)

“I don’t want to give the impression that we’re predicting an immediate shift into a regime where snowpack is going to become quite scarce. But my strong feeling is that in the last 35 years, the trends that we’ve seen are not a good predictor of the trends we’re likely to see over the next 35,” says Siler. “When exactly these significant declines will appear is impossible to say.”

So, this is looking in a crystal ball, ie, Warmist computer programs, and making a prediction that is in contradiction to what has been observed for 35 years. Which dovetails into another of all things Warmist

HOW TO CONVINCE A CONSERVATIVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

new study offers another promising approach, which takes advantage of our desire for internal consistency. It finds that “conservative participants who first acknowledge several general contributions of science subsequently report significantly stronger beliefs in climate science.”

This suggests that having people first recognize the value and importance of science in general makes it harder for them to subsequently dismiss one branch of scientific research.

You get the gist of where they’re going, so, first off, they’ve been running these types of things for well over a decade, once they realized that people were no longer buying what they were selling, that people were opting out of Cult of Climastrology belief. Second, they so often avoid the central question of causation, and reading further in the article, it again avoids it. Hey, I believe in climate change, I just do not believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it.

Second, the science itself doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it, and studies like the snowpack one do not help prove it. It’s based on something that hasn’t been observed and future-based fear mongering. And, again, even if it does start happening, that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. What the members of the CoC do is simply assume anthropogenic causation without science.

Read: Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something »

Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It

I wonder if the Washington Post Editorial Board, which was super enthused to roll back presidential powers delegated from Congress, will be upset with this ruling

Trump birth control coverage rules blocked nationwide

A federal judge on Monday put a nationwide hold on Trump administration rules that allow more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia agreed with a lawsuit originally filed by Pennsylvania, citing the potential harm to states should the rules be enforced.

Numerous citizens could lose contraceptive coverage, Beetlestone wrote, resulting in the increased use of state-funded contraceptive services, as well as increased costs to state services from unintended pregnancies.

The rules, scheduled to take effect Monday, would change a mandate under 2010’s Affordable Care Act by allowing more employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptive coverage to women by claiming religious objections. Some private employers could also now object on moral grounds.

The ruling was initially applicable to only the states involved in the lawsuit, but was extended to all. The thing is, as has been noted many times, said ACA, ie, Obamacare, did not offer any guidance at all on contraception, sterilization, nor abortifacients. Go find a copy of the bill, and search for the word contraception or for “birth control”, or anything similar. There is nothing in the text. The rule was made out of thin air using what Team Obama and HHS thought they could get away with. This is exactly what the Washington Post Editorial Board was complaining about.

Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, called the court ruling a “victory for the health and economic independence of women” and the rejection of a Trump administration move to violate a federal law that requires insurers to cover the services.

“Congress hasn’t changed that law, and the president can’t simply ignore it with an illegal rule,” Shapiro said.

There is no law for Congress to change, as, again, it wasn’t in the law. It’s a rule. Out of thin air.

That’s the new North Carolina Attorney General. And, yes, if women want to make all the rules, they should pay for it. It doesn’t have to be this hard, though. If private entities want to offer insurance that includes contraception, they should be free to do so, and if they want to offer plans without, they should be free to do so. Just like they are free to offer dental and eye care plans. To choose this and that. Most, I suspect, will choose plans with contraception. The employees will just pay higher premiums and/or deductibles. Because this ain’t free. Everything added into an insurance plan has a cost.

And those who do not choose to offer should be left alone. That’s their choice. But, Democrats do not like real choice. It is their way or the highway, and their way is about Government force.

Read: Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It »

Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms”

You know all the Democrat talking points about not wanting to take away your guns? About that

From the link

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

While short on details, Northam’s announcement said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the “sale, purchase, possession, and transport” of undefined “assault firearms” including “any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

On the bright side, Republicans have a slim margin of control in the Virginia general assembly, so there is a good chance this fails to pass. Unless a few Republicans join Democrats, because the GOP has a one vote majority in the House of Delegates and two votes in the Senate.

What’s interesting is that more and more Democrats are feeling emboldened to show their cards on their “gun control” agenda, which is disarmament of law abiding citizens. The Virginia GOP should announce legislation that restricts Northam’s protective detail to weapons that only hold less than 10 rounds, and no “assault rifles.” Let’s see how he likes that.

Read: Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms” »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4843 access attempts in the last 7 days.