Democrats Are Super Excited Over Triumphant Victory On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Remember, the Democrats passed their silly climate legislation which was beat down by many Cult of Climastrology groups as being worthless/not doing nearly enough. Also, remember that Democrats did not want to vote on Obama’s Paris Climate Agreement

Triumphant, eh? It won’t get a vote in the GOP controlled Senate, and if Cocaine Mitch put it up for a vote, Democrats would object that it was a stunt and vote “present.” And, let’s say it did pass the Senate: Trump would veto it. So, this is going nowhere. Triumphant, eh?

Let’s remember that a main point of HR9 is to rescind Trump following the rules in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement (which we cannot really be in, since it is dubious that a president can put the country in any agreement such as this without Congressional approval, which is why the entire thing is non-binding). Democrats did not like being forced to vote on it back in 2015, again, calling it a stunt to put them on the record. This is really just red meat for their unhinged base.

When will Elected Dems pledge to give up their own use of fossil fuels? How about turning off the power to the House side of the Congressional building and to parts of the office buildings, since the power mostly comes from a coal fired power plant?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

37 Responses to “Democrats Are Super Excited Over Triumphant Victory On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    So you’re pissed because the House passed a bill??

    Earlier you were pissed because they wouldn’t vote on a resolution.

    Go figure.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      This is a STUNT! Wouldn’t you agree. Mitch McConnell forced a vote on the Green New deal knowing the dems would not vote.

      This is a STUNT knowing the bill is DOA but will put the GOP on record as being against climate change.

      Gosh even a poll by fox that was commissioned by the leftist Shep Smith puts AGW at only 6 percent concern for voters. Plus or minus 3 percent.

      Go figure when the left pulls a stunt your fine with it but when the right does it your apoplectic. Remember politics is all about maneuvering.

      Additionally the Kyoto treaty was a treaty requiring the senate to ratify it. The Paris agreement was just that an AGREEMENT that did not require congress. Obama said YES. Trump says no.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        But let’s understand the actual issue. The world is warming as a result of CO2 we’ve all added to the atmosphere. This warming is having, and will continue to have, deleterious effects on humans.

        The scientific debate is long over. The political debate is about what, if anything, to do about it. Political posturing is about garnering or maintaining political power, allowing the group in power to set policy. Some policy is to benefit the people as a whole, most policy is to benefit the rich.

    • formwiz says:

      It’s a joke. The bill forbids Trump from leaving the Paris accords.

      Leaving any agreement like that is an Executive function.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    And here’s a good read:

    “We are not taught, and it is rarely mentioned, that the Constitution the founders crafted was designed to secure economic power for themselves, and that economic power has been the ultimate foundation of political power for all of human history.

    Political power ultimately resides with those who control our access to a means of living. When that access is controlled by the few, the result is plutocracy—a reality deeply embedded in both U.S. and world history.”

    or, The Golden Rule: He who has the Gold, makes the Rules.

    “The wealthy White men who stepped forward to lead the war for America’s independence from Britain put their lives and fortunes on the line. Their leadership liberated the original 13 colonies from British rule to birth a new and independent nation. It was not, however, a totally selfless act. In so doing, they also freed themselves from deference to and taxation by the British crown, while positioning themselves to subsequently write the rules by which the new nation would govern itself. They had no intention, however, of sacrificing the privilege that came from their ownership of lands stolen from Native Americans, slaves abducted from Africa, and other commercial, manufacturing, and financial assets that gave them their distinctive social, economic, and political power and privilege.”

    • formwiz says:

      That good read is just another Commie screed. Like the bear suit never left.

    • Kye says:

      The “wealthy White men” who stepped forward to lead the war to America’s independence were the only people who could or are you suggesting blacks, Mohammadans and Chinese had the knowledge and wherewithal to accomplish it? And they didn’t “step forward” they stepped up to do what no men of any color had ever done before in the history of man: create a nation wherein the People ruled the government and not vice versa.

      They never once suggested their sacrifices and blood were a selfless act and for anyone to to suggest any act for good must be selfless” by some ones judgement is ludicrous and bigoted. The lands were not “stolen” from anyone they were won in war. It’s called conquest and it’s as old as man himself. They also did not “abduct” slaves the Mohammadans did. And again the Founders did not invent slavery since just as conquest is as old as mankind so is slavery. So stop bitchin’ about the imperfection of man and pointing the finger at the ones who actually tried to do something about it.

      And as usual you expect men who worked and fought and killed and bled for commercial, manufacturing and financial assets to willy-nilly give them up because 250 years later some douche-bag leftist will label keeping what one owns as “privilege”?

      You leftists are the privileged ones. You get to live in a prosperous and free country and attain whatever goals you are capable of because my family fought and killed for it. You ungrateful privileged pompous fools.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        There are two kinds of historical revisionism. The first kind is shoehorning history into some progressive narrative, i.e making it about ‘oppressor vs. oppressee’ or ‘moar diversity’ or ‘wimmins are teh strong’ or ‘hooray for gays’, etc. Which is essentially a rewrite to make progressives comfortable so they can continue to pretend they’re not living in tiny little boxes and that they only thing that’s progressing is their own ignorance.

        And then there’s the other kind of revisionism when somebody suspects that previous historians got something wrong and it needs to be fixed.

        — Oregon Muse

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        All that thinking men ask is for Cons to recognize the inherent privilege of being a white man. Thank you for unashamedly acknowledging that Europeans conquered the Americans who were already here. Where did those early Americans come from?

        Do you feel that taking what you desire by force is an ethical behavior? If a guy gets the jump on you and takes your car, do you just accept it? You lost. Would you track him down and take it back or would you enlist the help of the government?

        Our Constitution, and our policies that spring from it, support the rich and try to keep the working classes happy with scraps. Just because it’s been that way for centuries doesn’t make it right, does it? Our tax, labor, trade, immigration, intellectual property, financial sector, bankruptcy, worker safety, environmental laws, regulations and policies all tilt to support the rich and corporations.

        In the current 10 year recovery, the rich are getting super rich, the working class are getting low paying jobs to help the rich get richer.

        Why do we have so many poor people in the “best economy” evah? Why is our debt sky-rocketing?

        Thanks to your family for their service. I’m also grateful to my family members for their service. Libs, cons, Christians, gays, TGs, atheists, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, Blacks, whites, men and women comprise our military.

  3. Mangoldielocks says:

    But let’s understand the actual issue. The world is warming as a result of CO2 we’ve all added to the atmosphere. This warming is having, and will continue to have, deleterious effects on humans.

    Please explain what deleterious effects on humans additional co2 will have?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Sea level rise, changing growing seasons for crops, changing fresh water availability, increased energy demands (e.g., for cooling), decreased ocean pH and changes is fisheries, extinction events (plant and animal species while adaptable do not “evolve” quickly) droughts/wildfires/flooding, climate refugees (e.g., if agrarian areas lose the capacity to support the population – droughts floods temp changes – the population will migrate), changing infectious disease patterns.

      Human civilizations evolved over the past 12,000 years or so during the Holocene epoch when the world’s climates were relatively stable. The “modern” world – autos, A/C, aircraft, computers, universities, highways, disease control etc – is hardly 2 centuries old. We’re pushing the Earth’s temperature greater than it has been during human civilization, and certainly greater than “modern” humanity has ever experienced.

      This is not to suggest that global warming will cause human extinction or destroy the planet, but rather will make our already troubled existence even more troubled. We’re going to run out of fossil fuels eventually, we might as well start winding them down now.

      It’s more likely that a giant asteroid will be our demise.

      • formwiz says:

        This is not to suggest that global warming will cause human extinction or destroy the planet

        Oh, my stars and garters, is Jeffery backtracking on his climate frenzy and his insistence we go all Commie?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Oh, Edward D., whatever on Allah’s green Earth are you prattling on about now?

          How desperate are you for attention that you have to make up scheisse?

          Do you think avoiding human extinction should be our only objective?

          (Is referring to you as Edward D. OK? No commies should be able to track you down from that info.)

  4. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    ~97% of greenhouse gasses come from natural sources and there is nothing we can do about it.

    –Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.
    And there is nothing we can do about it.

    –Besides greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are but a fart in the wind of global warming when compared to the variation in energy imparted by the sun due to solar cycles. 
    And there is nothing we can do about it.

  5. Mangoldielocks says:

    What level of CO2 is harmful to humans?

    Normal CO2 levels in the environment are between 350-500 parts per million (PPM).

    Plants directly benefit from increased levels up to 1500-2000 PPM.

    At 3000 PPM, CO2 becomes toxic to plants, and at 5000 PPM, it becomes toxic to humans.

    I find it difficult to realize that 500-600 PPM of co2 is in any way harmful to mankind and is benefiting plant life drastically. AGW is BULLSHIT and the science is not settled.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Atmospheric CO2 retards loss of IR radiation into space, causing the atmosphere to warm. This very basic physical principle is why Earth is not covered in ice.

      Calling global warming BULLSHIT, even in all caps, is hardly an argument. Science is never settled, as scientific theories are never formally proven. Can you cite scientific evidence to invalidate the theory that increased atmospheric CO2 will cause the retention of heat?

      The atmosphere is warming, the oceans are warming, the increased CO2 is from burning fossil fuels (not termite belches or ant farts), IR radiation is absorbed by CO2… Where is the disconnect in your understanding?

      We understand your frustration/anger and throwing up your hands and calling it all BULLSHIT because the concept is at odds with your religious or political ideology.

      Why do you think the Earth is warming? Or do you even understand that the Earth is warming? What evidence, if any, would convince you that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?

      • formwiz says:

        Atmospheric CO2 retards loss of IR radiation into space, causing the atmosphere to warm. This very basic physical principle is why Earth is not covered in ice.

        No, the sun does that. CO2 is a heavy gas that stays close to the earth to aid in photosynthesis. Any 4th grader knows this.

        The atmosphere is warming, the oceans are warming, the increased CO2 is from burning fossil fuels (not termite belches or ant farts), IR radiation is absorbed by CO2

        The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

        Why do you think the Earth is warming?

        It’s May in the Northern Hemisphere.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          No offense to 4th graders, but measurements taken mid-troposphere (~ 6 miles up) shows CO2 levels similar to those taken at Mauna Loa (2 miles) and at sea level. In fact, CO2 is about 400 ppm throughout the troposphere.

          Can you cite evidence demonstrating that CO2 is only near the surface? Thanks.

          I didn’t claim the sky was falling.

          Has it been May in the Northern Hemisphere all over the Earth for the past century?

          Is there one person here serious about discussing global warming?

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        Once again you said: But let’s understand the actual issue. The world is warming as a result of CO2 we’ve all added to the atmosphere. This warming is having, and will continue to have, deleterious effects on humans.

        Then all the things you listed were things that have been happening for centuries. We are not talking about the earth warming. You were talking about the deleterious effects on humans. A degree and 1/2 of heat is not going to do all the things the scientists predict in their dire consequences for mankind.

        co2 will not rise beyond 550 ppm by 2100 and as you can see plants love more co2 and a warmer planet will increase growing seasons not shorten them. Everything about the the negative effects of climate change is stupid and misdirection. A WARMER and longer growing seasons means MORE FOOD, not less.

        The AGW debate is tiresome. Its like debating the popular vote when we elect presidents by electoral college to insure that small states are not trampled by large states. Its a tiresome debate.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          I agree that debating AGW is tiresome. Which is why I state facts, conclusions and predictions based on facts.

  6. Mangoldielocks says:

    Here Jeffy I will help you out so you dont have to waste time looking at facts on both sides of the aisle.

    See I am not afraid to show both sides of the debate. However most of what they list here has been happening for 1000’s of years and as far as pollution I will grant that POLLUTION IS BAD. BUT CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. This is bait and switch from the AGW crowd trying to conflate co2 as POLLUTION.

    Once again this goes back to URBAN vs Suburban vs Rural debate. the URBAN areas want the other two areas to pay for everything because their life SUCKS, because they pack themselves in like sardines then complain about a shrinking world.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Thanks for the article. Do you not trust the Union of Concerned Scientists? Do you think global warming is a commie hoax?

      Anyway, let’s agree that CO2 is not a pollutant. So what? The increase is causing the Earth to warm regardless of what you call it. The current level is likely the highest in 1,000,000 years.

      Not sure why you conflate global warming with urban vs rural. Urban life doesn’t suck – it’s where the jobs are. You might not choose to live in a high-rise (and neither would I!) but many people do. Maybe more and more people can leave urban centers with the new “internet” economy. Global warming affects everyone, rural, urban, seaside, suburban, farmers, ranchers and hermits.

  7. Mangoldielocks says:

    Science is never settled, as scientific theories are never formally proven. As said by Jeffy but in this same thread he said and I quote:

    THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE IS LONG OVER. However if the debate is over but theories are never formally proven then how can the debate be over?

    In fact physcists are still debating Einstein’s theory and Newtons theory of gravity has had its ups and downs. Einstein had a serious problem with quantum physics and some of his theory has been amended.

    Stephen Hawking once hailed as the next great mind After Einstein made a statement regarding his pet theory: I WAS WRONG.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Actually the debate is not about the greenhouse theory.
      The ignorant little fella keeps stating matter of factly that MANKIND is causing the Earth to warm yet he nor anyone else can actually prove that statement…

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        It’s a FACT that the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil-fuels. There is no evidence that fossil-fuels are decomposing naturally to CO2 and H2O. The amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere (and oceans) is consistent with the amount of CO2 emitted from humans burning fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil).

        CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the IR wavelengths, warming the atmosphere and oceans.

        The Earth is warming.

        Where does this break down for you?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Yes! The theory of AGW can be refuted with evidence! That’s the beauty of the scientific method. It’s just that it becomes more and more unlikely as supporting evidence accumulates. The likelihood that mechanisms other than greenhouse gases are causing the warming is remote.

      Is the theory of gravity proven? No. But few would jump out of an airplane and expect to float. See?

      So what is your argument? That since scientific theories are never proven that we can never act?

      • Mangoldielocks says:

        Your scientific theory is replete with as you put it PREDICTIONS.

        I predict Donald Trump will win the 2020 election based upon all the evidence presented before me. However a lot can change between now and then that could change my prediction.

        to destroy the globe based upon predictions which even if true will not affect the world in any significant way is preposterous.

        Again you rely upon PREDICTIONS based upon a single theory. CO2 is warming the atmosphere. Agreed. Greenhouse gases do that. The rest is PREDICTIONS based upon as you put it EVIDENCE.

        What is the evidence? Show me the evidence that is used to predict your future.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          Climate models have been wrong for as long as they have been using them. EVERY PREDICTION by all your scientists using existing EVIDENCE have not come true. Or at least 90 percent of them. Perhaps they get one or two right based upon the theory of chaos.

          Perhaps with the new quantum computers they will have enough computing power to accurately predict the future but once again if this is true then they can accurately predict the future of many things which makes PREDICTION nothing more than a Hypothesis and not a theory.

          • Mangoldielocks says:

            Based upon EVIDENCE if you smoke you get lung cancer. If you are around second hand smoke you get lung cancer. Yet this is not true. Most people who smoke do not end up with lung cancer. Most people around second hand smoke do not end up with lung cancer and yet an entire industry was nearly destroyed based upon PREDICTIONS that did not come true.

            If we do not include air bags in cars you will die in a collision yet many thousands die in collisions each year even with air bags deploying. The evidence suggests….but is in error and certainly not iron clad.

            If you become paralyzed from the neck down you will never walk again and yet people do in fact walk again after becoming paralyzed from the neck down. GUESSING is the same thing as predicting. The evidence suggests, however the evidence can be wrong and oft times is wrong.

            AGW is basing their fear mongering upon Predictions based upon INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE. This is the rub. This is why the science is not settled and this is why it will never be settled until they can prove that co2 is harmful to humans in the PREDICTED QUANTITIES before carbon fuels are no longer even used on this planet.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Smoking increases the likelihood that you’ll get lung cancer (90% of lung cancers are in smokers), oral cancer, bladder cancer and other cancers.

            For non-smokers, 2 out of 1000 are likely to develop lung cancer. For smokers, over 200 out of 1000 would be expected to develop lung cancer. Does that seem like a bad predictive model to you? Having never been a smoker I can’t assess the rewards of smoking, but having known more than one person who died from lung cancer, I’d guess it’s not worth the risk.

            Would you agree that at least part of the reason deaths/mile driven has dropped dramatically is improved safety features (seat belts, air bags etc) in autos?

            The duration of paralysis depends on the nature of the injury. Inflammation and swelling can result in temporary paralysis while transections of the spinal cord usually results in permanent injury.

            Predictions are not guesses. Which smoker will develop lung cancer can not be predicted, but it’s clear a smoker is more likely to die early than if one didn’t smoke.

            The Earth is much more likely to continue warming than it is to stop. Anti-warmists make the excitable prediction that carbon taxes will destroy the economies and are communism, but there is little evidence to support that claim.

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    See. There’s nothing to worry about. The glaciers, oceans, satellites, arctic and Greenland ice sheets have it all wrong!

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      I am glad we can agree. Since they are adding ice, and since most likely we are going to enter a global cooling phase anyway since that other guy that was here steered me to the grand solar minimum stuff thats happening with the sun. Never the less, Geological records say it will take 10’s of thousands of years to shed 40 percent of their ice in a sauna like earth. That is FACT. That is SCIENCE. Earth will not even remotely resemble a sauna in 100 years so you can relax. Your not going to die.

      You guys have compressed 15000 years of geological time into 50-100 years. Fear mongering Insanity. The science is not settled if this is your contention and your Evidence does not point to any where near the catastrophe your settled scientists predict.

  9. david7134 says:

    Jeff used observation to make a conclusion about his religion. So, let’s pull up some past history to show how wrong he is. Until recently it was thought that you developed malaria from swamp gas. Seems reasonable. If you lived near a swamp and inhaled the contaminated air, you developed the fever illness that we call malaria. If you lived away from that swamp, you likely would not get malaria. So, this follows exactly the reasoning that Jeff uses. In fact, if you were bitten by mosquitoes in most areas of the world you would likely not get malaria. But bites by mosquitoes in swamps caused malaria. Again fits with Jeff’s reasoning and this was even supported by scientist and the best thinkers in the world, again fits with Jeff’s principals. But suddenly someone discovered that certain mosquitos living near swamps carried bugs that cause malaria. But wait, these people telling the great scientist they were wrong resulted in their being ostracized and spurned so the road was not easy for the people fighting to establish the truth.

    Women in the ancient world knew that if the mashed up rotten bread and applied the substance to a wound, that they could keep the wound from festering. It wasn’t until much later that a radical scientist developed penicillin with this similar situation. What happened to the women? Jeff and his group burned them at the stake. They weren’t scientist.

    Jeff has not demonstrated a single fact that is one evidence. Any data that he has is worthless. The world is warming, it has been doing so for thousands of years. Is there a spike, yes, big deal. There is zero firm evidence that CO2 is causing warming, it could be that warming is causing increased CO2 . There is no evidence that man is causing the increased CO2. A single eruption of a large volcano would generate more CO2 than humans.

    Now, Jeff, you love saying that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Then what. Does the little molecule that is a trace has hold the radiation? You need to complete the thought as absorption of infrared is often used in quantitative analysis but I don’t remember a thing about the little molecule being so hot, yes I am well aware a man 150 years ago called CO2 a green house gas, but the mechanism needs to be better developed.

    Then the core issue of all this is a desire to form a new tax. How does a tax change the climate? You and others have said it would be a small tax. I use an analogy for this small tax. Get a chess board. Put a penny on the first square each day double the number of pennies on the empty square. There is not enough money to get to the last square. That is what your small tax would do. Finally, world communistic government has been the desire of most people in your religion.

  10. Mangoldielocks says:

    Rising co2 increases the likely hood that the planet might warm, but there is a miniscule chance that it will create any problems in the forseeable future until the world can develop alternatives to bio-fuels.

    90 percent of lung cancers are smokers yet only 20 percent of smokers get lung cancer. You proved my point. Just because you smoke does not mean you will get lung cancer and yet the government destroyed an industry because of cancer for the insurance companies. Do you really think anyone else cared if you got lung cancer beside the insurance companies?

    Additionally how many people worry about drug addicts? They have a very high instances of dying untimely deaths but we would rather TAX fossil fuels than save millions of sick and diseased souls we can see in front of us, camping on our sidewalks and crapping on our streets.

    Once again. AGW is a scam designed to get money. Otherwise you would be championing real issues. Like drug addiction, drug interdiction, stopping the flow of drugs into our nation. Instead you want to tax the world into poverty so that a 100-1000 scientists can keep getting their endowments and a dozen corporations can make trillions off of windmills. See guys like Hanson and Mann never expect anyone to take them seriously, but they do expect the money to keep flowing into their coffers as they live in million dollar homes with huge carbon footprints.

    EVEN if they drive electric cars and use wind and solar to heat where did that car, those batteries and the wind and solar come from? FOSSIL FUELS. Everything in their homes are made from fossil fuels. Everything they eat is brought to their dinner table with fossil fuels.

    But thats okay. Cigarette smoking is more dangerous than bringing the worlds economy to a grinding halt and choking the food supply to billions in the name of saving a few molecules of co2.

Pirate's Cove