Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question

I wonder why?

Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

Ten Democratic candidates for president took the stage in Atlanta to talk impeachment, health care, the economy, paid leave, and, oh yeah, our overheating planet.

Those hoping for a debate heavy on what Bernie Sanders called “the existential threat of our time” were surely disappointed. Climate change was awarded a single question, though candidates found chances to bring it up throughout.

Moderators from MSNBC and the Washington Post opened the night with a question about impeachment. Healthcare and the economy also dominated the conversation (no surprise there). About halfway through the night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked the debate’s only question about rising temperatures. Many viewers care deeply about climate change, she said, then Maddow offered up a question from a viewer in Minnesota: What do candidates plan to do about it, and how do they aim to drum up bipartisan support for their plan?

The question went to a frontrunner, naturally. Just kidding. Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii got first dibs. Gabbard said she aims to prioritize climate action if elected, a promise that would be easier to take at face value if she wasn’t the only candidate on stage who hasn’t unveiled a comprehensive plan to combat rising emissions. To be fair, Tulsi introduced the OFF act, a bill to wean the United States off fossil fuels, in Congress last year. Tom Steyer, the billionaire who runs a progressive advocacy group called NextGen America, got a chance to take a stab at the climate issue next and made a more passionate case for action.

“Congress has never passed an important climate bill ever. That’s why I’m saying it’s priority one,” Steyer said (an echo of Governor Jay Inslee’s line: “If it’s not number one it won’t get done.”) Steyer was the only candidate on stage who said he aims to declare a national emergency over climate change as president.

A few others had an answer, but, really, it was a minor interruption in the flow and ebb of the unhinged moonbattery. A few tried to weave Hotcoldwetdry into the mix, but

Climate change has been the topic of less than 10 percent of the questions asked at each of the previous four debates, and this debate was no different. But the fifth debate did demonstrate once again that candidates are ready to talk climate, even if moderators aren’t.

Could there be a reason why ‘climate change’ is barely covered?

Most only care in theory. Start talking about how their taxes will go up, their cost of living will skyrocket, their freedom and choice will be curtailed, they’ll be forced to drive certain vehicles (if they can afford them), they’ll be restricted from flying, unemployment will spike, they’ll be forced to drastically reduce their meat intake, etc, people say “no thanks.”

Read: Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question »

U.K. Labour Party Chair Threatens To Blacklist Companies From Stock Exchange Who Fail To Act On ‘Climate Change’

Remember, this is all about science, not the Cult of Climastrology’s Progressive (nice Fascism) politics

Climate Hysteria: Labour to Ban Companies from Stock Exchange for ‘Failing to Act’ on Climate Change

The Labour Party’s Marxist Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has threatened that businesses will be banned from the London Stock Exchange if they fail to act on climate change.

The Labour Party will make the issue of allegedly man-made climate change — a voter-friendly way of pushing hard-left redistribution politics — its “overriding priority”, according to far-left MP John McDonnell, who laid out a series of radical proposals for the climate and the economy, should Labour take control of Parliament.

“If we are meet the climate change target to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we need to ensure that companies are pulling their weight alongside government,” he told an event in London on Tuesday.

Vowing to “rewrite the rules” of the economy, McDonnell said that under a Labour government, the Corporate Governance Code would “set out a minimum standard for listing related to evidencing the action being taken to tackle climate change”.

“For those companies not taking adequate steps under Labour they will be delisted from the London Stock Exchange,” warned McDonnel.

I’d like an apology from all those who said I was nuts back during the early years of this Century, when I flipped from Warmist to Skeptic, proclaiming that this whole thing was about hardcore Leftist politics, that they want to increase taxes/fees, control citizens, control private entities, control the energy sector, and control the economy. That this is really a very far right movement over into the Authoritarian model. The further left you go on the political scale the less government you have, the further right the more dominant government is. Though, we can certainly call this communism and socialism in practice, rather than the Political Theory 101 version.

Read: U.K. Labour Party Chair Threatens To Blacklist Companies From Stock Exchange Who Fail To Act On ‘Climate Change’ »

Associated Press Seems Surprised That GOP Isn’t Abandoning Trump Over Impeachment Theater

Despite the news media attempting to spin the hearings yesterday (Anand is Time’s editor in chief)

along with most other days, because yesterday ended up hurting the Democrat Narrative (all he had was his own thoughts), the AP is confused

In wake of impeachment testimony, no signs yet of GOP cracks

Congressional Republicans are showing no overt signs of abandoning their support for President Donald Trump, the latest demonstration of how Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has left the two parties inhabiting different political universes.

Democrats reveled Wednesday over Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony that Trump was requiring a “quid pro quo” — specifically, a public Ukrainian commitment to investigate Democrats in exchange for a Trump Oval Office meeting that their newly elected president badly wanted.

Yet GOP lawmakers minimized Sondland’s appearance, saying his revelations about how Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had delivered Trump’s demands to diplomats hadn’t changed their minds. Sondland said they later realized that Ukrainian investigations were also Trump’s price for the embattled country to receive U.S. military aid already approved by Congress.

“A meeting, which is a nothing-burger?” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said of one of Trump’s demands. “The president can meet with whoever he wants to meet with, for a good reason or no reason at all.”

Seriously, a meeting is what it came down to. Nothing else. Why would the GOP start cracking? So far, there’s been nothing but hearsay and inner thoughts. No actual evidence. It’s just kabuki theater

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a sophomore lawmaker who won his closely divided Omaha-based district by 2 percentage points last year, said even Sondland’s appearance left him still thinking that Trump hadn’t committed an impeachable offense.

“The key word is he said he presumed, hadn’t heard it firsthand, it’s the same old thing,” Bacon said of Sondland’s testimony. Bacon said impeachment is on voters’ minds but leaves partisans on both sides entrenched in their views about Trump.

There has been nothing offered that would impeachment level, even if we were to believe the random thoughts of people who mostly do not have first hand knowledge of what is just standard politics.

But, hey, the media is doing a wonderful job in avoiding exactly why Joe Biden was included in the list of who and what Trump wanted information on.

Read: Associated Press Seems Surprised That GOP Isn’t Abandoning Trump Over Impeachment Theater »

Bummer: 1 In 3 Millennials Want Secret Santa Banned

Yes, yes, Secret Santa can cause some anxiety, which is why rules are typically established, but, it is minor anxiety. No big hoo hoo. But, hey, Millennials

From the article

Some millennials want “Secret Santa” canceled.

A study found that Secret Santa gift exchanges trigger anxiety in many millennials. Dr. Ashley Weinberg, a psychology lecturer at the University of Salford in Manchester, claimed the holiday gift swap triggers anxiety in those who overspend because they don’t want to appear “stingy.”

The study from Jobsite found that 26% of millennials admitted to dipping into savings or overdrafting their accounts to fund an office gift. Around 17% reported that they “felt judged” by their co-workers based on the gift they chose to contribute. In total, 78% of millennials felt they contributed “more than they should” to an office party gift compared to 58% of the rest of the workforce.

Nearly 1 in 3 millennials want to see Secret Santa banned. Weinberg explained that anxiety surrounding the gift exchange is one factor pushing millennials to want to give Secret Santa the boot.

“If you’ve grown up in a world where social media is at your fingertips and those kinds of social judgments are being made fairly constantly, suddenly you’re even more aware of what others might be thinking. Naturally, that’s going to spill over into all kinds of areas, particularly something that can be a social taboo when you think about maybe not giving, or maybe questioning why people are giving,” Weinberg said.

Read: Bummer: 1 In 3 Millennials Want Secret Santa Banned »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat caused snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on a lawsuit filed over Adam Schiff colluding with Politico.

Read: If All You See… »

‘Climate Change’ Could Kill Off Red Apples Or Something

It’s always some prognostication of doom from the Cult of Climastrology. They never seem to offer any sort of positive message like

Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

They also like to duck having discussions and debates. But, anyhow, on to Maybe Future Doom

How climate change could kill the red apple

The archetypal apple is – no two ways about it – red. There may be yellow apples or green apples in the grocery store too. In some places, you might even find varieties that are striped or mottled with a profusion of hues, like the gorgeous Cox’s Orange Pippin.

But red – or occasionally, pure, sharp Granny Smith green – is the colour of apples in most alphabet books. It’s an interesting detail, because apples were not always so resolutely monochrome. (snip)

Intriguingly, colour also depends on temperature. To get an apple that’s fully red, temperatures must stay cool, Chagne says, because if they climb to above about 40C (104F), MYB10 and anthocyanin levels crash. In the Pyrenees region of Spain, he and his colleagues found normally vividly red striped apples were completely pale after a particularly hot July. As temperatures warm, he suggests, it could become more difficult for apples to turn red. (snip)

Perhaps the threat that climate change poses to the red apple will be counterbalanced by our sheer determination to breed them, even if it takes expensive breeding programmes. Even before we understood the genetics, colourful apples exerted a strong pull on humans. John Bunker, an apple collector based in Palermo, Maine, has rescued numerous forgotten breeds from extinction. These include apples that used to be grown a century or more ago before orcharding became so Delicious-focused, including the magnificent Black Oxford, an apple whose red is so dark you might mistake it for an enormous plum before seeing its brilliant white flesh. “The colours are phenomenal. And I think that for some people including myself that was the original attraction,” he says.

In fact, the majority of the article has zero to do with red apples, or any color of apples. It’s really about the history of apples and their colors, what growers might do that has nothing to do with climate, just attracting consumers. The word “climate” appears twice: once in the headline and the other in bold above. But, this is climate cultism, having to interject this into every story.

Apples will be fine. Climate cultists? They need an intervention.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Kill Off Red Apples Or Something »

This Is New: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Double Carbon Pollution From Lakes

It is getting close to December, when the UN IPCC holds its annual Conference On the Parties ‘climate change’ meeting. It’s supposed to still be in Spain, after moving several times from South American nations. And, as it gets closer, the climate cultists typically come out with all sorts of scary prognostications, but, this is a new one, being repeated throughout the news media


Climate change could double the amount of greenhouse gas emissions given off by freshwater lakes, scientists have warned.

If current global warming trends continue, greenhouse gas concentrations in lakes could rise by 1.5 to 2.7 times, on average, according to a study published in the journal PNAS.

Lead researcher Dr. Andrew Tanentzap of the University of Cambridge’s department of Plant Sciences explained to Newsweek: “Climate change is increasing both forest cover and changing the types of tree species occurring around most of the world’s lakes.

“These changes are important for lakes because they receive large amounts of dead plant material from the lands that surround them.”

You mean Nature is occurring?

Sources of organic matter, like carbon compounds that come from the remains of plants, animals, and their waste products “is particularly large in nutrient-poor lakes that are the most common on Earth,” Tanentzap said.

“Therefore, as vegetation changes around lakes because of climate change, we hypothesized that so too would the role that lakes play in emitting greenhouse gases,” he explained.

To carry out the research, scientists filled containers with different amounts of rocks and organic material, like leaves from deciduous and coniferous plants, and plunged them into the shallow water of Lake Laurentian and Swan Lake in Ontario, Canada. Two months later, they used special equipment to examine the organic molecules in the containers.

How dare nature do this! BTW, there was zero proof offered that this is being caused by the activities of Mankind. Other than researchers filling containers with rocks and organic materials and artificially causing problems with lakes, of course.

But, this is all your fault. You can fix this by paying a tax and giving up your freedom.

Read: This Is New: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Double Carbon Pollution From Lakes »

GOP Rep Mike Turner Says Volker’s Testimony Essentially Destroyed Democrats Ukraine Narrative

What is the Democrats narrative these days, anyhow? They had run with quid pro quo, but, after poll testing it in focus groups, they switched to bribery. Especially since Americans will surely learn, if they don’t already know, that quid pro quos are the way politics, especially international ones, are done. And then they might want to know why Trump wanted Joe Biden investigated, and, really, why he wanted investigations in Ukraine, as they relate to the Russia Russia Russia investigation. But, if their narrative is bribery…

(Breitbart) Turner took a moment during Tuesday evening’s hearing to blast the hearsay evidence that Democrats have largely relied on – and used – as a basis for their entire impeachment inquiry:

A lot of people talking about their perceptions, their beliefs – their feelings even – what they heard and their understandings and their thoughts. Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Kent, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman had conversations with each other and with other people and all had a whole bunch of hearsay.

But I can assure you this boils down to just one thing. This is an impeachment inquiry concerning the President of the United States, so the only thing that matters – besides all these people talking to each other and all their feels and all of their thoughts and understandings – it really only comes down to, what did the President of the United States intend, what did he say, and what did the Ukrainians understand or hear.

The Washington Post is claiming that the three witnesses undercut Trump’s defense. But, all they had was perceptions and feelings, no actual, substantive proof. I think the Post (and lots of other outlets) missed this part

Rep Mike Turner: “So I get to ask you. You had a meeting with the President of the United States, and you believe that the policy issues he raised concerning Ukraine were valid, correct?”

“Yes,” Volker said.

“Did the President of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to the Ukraine unless there were investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?” Turner asked.

“No, he did not,” Volker said.

Oops. It’s kinda funny that Democrats are upset that Trump would want an investigation into the 2016 elections, isn’t it? Do they have something to hide?

Did the Ukrainians ever tell you that they understood that they would not get a meeting with the President of the United States, a phone call with the President of the United States, military aid, or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?

“No, they did not,” Volker said.

Turner noted that Volker’s answers essentially dismantled the Democrats’ entire case for impeaching Trump.

“Pretty much, Ambassador Volker, you just like took apart their entire case,” Turner said.

Double oops.

Nothing went particularly well for Democrats yesterday, as it was all about beliefs and feelings, just like it has been going. There really is nothing that makes you go ZOMG, impeach! Unless you are a hardcore Democrat. Up today is Gordon Sondland, who is now being called the most important witness, as the previous Most Important Witnesses have flamed out.

Read: GOP Rep Mike Turner Says Volker’s Testimony Essentially Destroyed Democrats Ukraine Narrative »

If We Don’t Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ We’re Doomed In 10 Years Or Something

I thought we were already doomed 20 years ago? And 15 years ago? And 10? 5? Today? Or was it in 2100 or 2050? Anyhow, the same experts who prognosticated doom which didn’t come to pass are still doing it

Painfully slow hurricanes, deadly heat, and cities without water: What the climate crisis will look like in the next 10 years, according to experts

We only have a decade to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

That’s the warning the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put out last year. But so far, nations are not slashing emissions enough to keep Earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — the threshold established in the Paris climate agreement.

“What we know is that unabated climate change will really transform our world into something that is unrecognizable,” Kelly Levin, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute’s climate program, told Business Insider.


If Earth warms more than 1.5 degrees, scientists think the world’s ecosystems could start to collapse.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a wonderful Christmas. What happens when the temperature doesn’t rise to 1.5C? We’re only at .6C since 1850.

Even if nations stick to the goals they set under the Paris climate agreement, emissions will still likely be too high, according to the IPCC.

Wait, I thought Paris was historic and awesome. No?

So far, most countries are not on track anyway.

So then what’s the problem with the U.S. pulling out?

The globe’s ice caps will continue to melt, and crucial ice sheets like the one in Greenland might start down an irreversible path toward disappearing completely.

Like they’ve been doing since the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago?

That will lead to more sea-level rise — about 0.3 to 0.6 feet on average globally by 2030, according to the US’ National Climate Assessment.

The norm, once again, is 6-8 inches of sea rise per century over the last 8,000 years, so, that sounds entirely average. Anyway, the doomy prognostications continue on and on and on, and, remember, this is all about science, not politics

“That means we need politicians who are willing to act in our interest rather than on the part of vested interests,” Mann said. “Voting in the 2020 election is probably the single-most important thing we can do to address climate change.”


Read: If We Don’t Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ We’re Doomed In 10 Years Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible streaming service causing mass carbon pollution which causes extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the Democrats wishful thinking.

Read: If All You See… »

Bad Behavior has blocked 7263 access attempts in the last 7 days.