Huh: Fired Climate Wacko Scientists Crowdfund Climate Wacko Website

By William Teach July 2, 2026 – 7:15 am

It’s almost like they didn’t need federal government money

After Trump axed federal employees running climate site, thousands crowdfund its comeback

Federal employees who were axed during waves of cuts by the Trump administration have fought back against the dismantling of a key climate science website, Climate.gov, and put up a new site, Climate.us, that can now do everything the original did.

The site, with millions of users each year, was known for colorful charts that anyone could freely download and that simplified giant sets of data, such as temperature readings. Now it refers to another page and is no longer being updated.

Daniel Swain, a UC Agriculture & Natural Resources climate scientist, called the resources available at Climate.gov “the most efficacious dollars spent by NOAA on public-facing science, possibly ever.” He has used graphics from the former website on his popular weather blog.

Rebecca Lindsey was the editorial lead and program manager for Climate.gov until February 2025, when her position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was eliminated by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. She explained that the online resource was “a bridge between scientists, data and the public.”

Lindsey and her team have now rebuilt the bridge piece by piece, if just a bit further downstream.

Do you know what I find even more interesting: that none of the rich Warmists, all those Hollywood folks, etc, didn’t pony up the money to run the site instead of doing a crowdfund. Also, what are the Warmists rebuilding the site doing for jobs?

The group has raised some $380,000, about $100,000 of which came in the last week. They also have recruited 80 scientists who are willing to volunteer as subject matter experts and fact checkers. It’s enough to keep the work going through February while they seek more long-term funding.

How about they get jobs? Or, is no one hiring for this?

Read: Huh: Fired Climate Wacko Scientists Crowdfund Climate Wacko Website »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Bummer: 7 More Wackos Sentenced To Jail Over ICE Shooting Protest

By William Teach July 2, 2026 – 7:00 am

Too bad, so sad

Court sentences 7 more to prison over shooting at Texas immigration detention center

Seven people were sentenced to prison Wednesday on federal terrorism charges over a shooting at a protest outside a Texas immigration detention center, a week after eight others involved were sentenced to decades behind bars.

All but one of those sentenced in Fort Worth on Wednesday had pleaded guilty to charges related to the July 4 shooting outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas. The sentences ranged from nearly two to 15 years in prison.

Eight others who were convicted at trial last week were handed lengthy sentences, including a former Marine reservist who received a 100-year prison term.

Prosecutors said the group’s actions — including bringing firearms, first aid kits and wearing body armor — signaled nefarious intent, and U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman — one of two justices presiding over the sentencings — noted Wednesday that the center is located in a residential neighborhood.

These Antifa wackos were used to getting away with it under the Biden admin. Not under the Trump admin

The six defendants sentenced Wednesday who did not stand trial had pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists. Some of them were at the protest that night while others were accused of helping Song avoid arrest after the shooting.

Nathan Baumann was sentenced to almost two years in prison Wednesday after apologizing in court for vandalizing vehicles at Prairieland.

“There is no justification for what I did,” Baumann said.

Yeah, he’s bummed now that he got caught.

Read: Bummer: 7 More Wackos Sentenced To Jail Over ICE Shooting Protest »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Climate-Health Industry Totally Needs Money Or Something From Climate Doom

By William Teach July 1, 2026 – 4:39 pm

Weird how it’s always either money or power. Or both

The Climate-Health Crisis Needs Money, Not More Declarations

On the day France recorded its hottest temperature on record, a coalition of health ministers, officials and advocates huddled in a sweaty, half-full auditorium in Paris to take stock of a campaign they have spent a decade waging: the fight to put human health at the centre of the world’s response to climate change.

The meeting was a high-level gathering of the Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health (ATACH), the WHO-hosted network of 106 countries launched at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021.

Convened under France’s G7 presidency, the summit’s task was to look ahead to COP31 in Antalya in Türkiye in November, to gauge what fights the health community should place at the top of its agenda. (snip)

While part of the meeting carried the air of a victory lap, it was also a reckoning with the one thing recognition has not delivered: money.

“Finance is the weakest one, and I think this is a key point for this meeting,” said Elena Villalobos Prats, the WHO official who built much of ATACH’s architecture.

Have they considered holding fundraisers? Selling candy bars or something? Raffle tickets? Why is it always the taxpayers who have to pay for this cult scam?

WHO now ranks climate change as the first of six priorities in its current programme of work, and its officials insist the economics are settled too. “At an absolute minimum, every dollar that you invest gets you $4 back,” Campbell-Lendrum said.

Yeah, that’s a scam

The French Development Agency puts the cost of adapting the world’s health systems to climate change at $22 billion. The UN climate body’s estimate runs higher, at $26.8 billion to $29.4 billion a year by 2050.

At COP29, wealthy nations agreed to provide $300 billion a year by 2035, against the $1.3 trillion the developing world said it needed. Health receives a fraction of a fraction of that, capturing roughly 2% of adaptation funding and 0.5% of multilateral climate finance, a share that has not moved since Glasgow.

The collapse of aid budgets, led by the United States, has tightened the squeeze. “The world just feels a little bit meaner,” Watts said. “We’re entering into a bit of a rough patch. It’s going to last for a couple of years, and everyone knows what it feels like in their own national context.”

Wild how all these nations say they want to Do Something but mostly depend on the US paying for it.

Read: The Climate-Health Industry Totally Needs Money Or Something From Climate Doom »

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 1, 2026 – 1:00 pm

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is IOTW Report, with a post on the RNC suing Nevada Dems for allowing non-citizens to vote in state elections (I’ve been saying this is exactly what Dems want to happen)

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Politico: Unhinged, America Hating Socialists Winning Says Democrats Want Fighters

By William Teach July 1, 2026 – 10:30 am

This is possibly the looniest piece from a major Credentialed Media outlet on what happened in Colorado

Colorado’s insurgent wave proves Democrats want fighters

An anti-establishment avalanche blanketed Colorado on Tuesday night.

Across the Centennial State, the candidates who cast themselves as fighters against the old-line Democratic establishment soared to victory — the clearest proof yet that the base’s fury at their leaders extends far beyond the five boroughs, following insurgents’ major victories in New York City last week.

Colorado democratic socialist Melat Kiros scored a stunning victory over 15-term Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who was first elected before the 29-year-old Kiros was born, while Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser defeated longtime Sen. Michael Bennet, losses for two of the most dominant Democratic figures in the state. Both winners were viewed as longshots just weeks ago, but Kiros and Weiser successfully positioned themselves as the true scrappers while painting their opponents as Washington insiders who were too beholden to the party machine, with little to show for their years in office.

“For decades Democrats have failed to meaningfully deliver for working families,” Kiros said in an interview after the race was called. “We have to root out the corruption and get money out of our politics … It’s not about popular support, it’s about political will — and that means we have to vote out any of the incumbents that are standing in our way by taking that kind of corporate PAC money.” That includes, she added, not supporting House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for speaker.

Funny, because all these DSA wacko are taking lots and lots of money from PAC alternatives.

Kiros lost her job as an attorney after writing an op-ed slamming the backlash against critics of Israel’s government, and she launched her campaign nearly a year ago with an ad portraying herself as a fighter who would deliver change. She painted DeGette, a reliable progressive vote but low-profile member, as someone who wasn’t “fighting back like they should.” In the two-minute ad, Kiros referred to the need for a fighter six times — which she carried over into her victory speech Tuesday night.

Interesting. A little lacking regarding Israel

(Fox) Kiros, a PhD student and lawyer, was fired from a New York firm in 2023 after publishing an open letter, arguing that pro-Palestinian student protesters calling for the elimination of Israel were not antisemitic and appearing to defend Hamas.

She has also described the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks against the Jewish state as the “inevitable consequence of apartheid” and declined to characterize the deadly firebombing of protesters in Boulder last year who were urging the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza as antisemitic.

Kiros has also suggested the United States deserved 9/11.

“Inevitable in the sense that we destabilized a lot of the Middle East that forced people to believe that another act of violence was the only response,” Kiros told 9News when asked if she thought the terror attack was “the inevitable consequence of American foreign policy.”

DeGette wasn’t exactly moderate, she quickly became a wacko Progressive during her long time in Congress, but, apparently she wasn’t wacko enough in this District, the most liberal in the state. Apparently, the whitest, too

Look at all those AWFLs, and, yeah, I’m including the liberal men in that.

Read: Politico: Unhinged, America Hating Socialists Winning Says Democrats Want Fighters »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

NC Legislature Looks To End Tax Breaks For New Solar Projects

By William Teach July 1, 2026 – 7:15 am

And you know what happens without massive tax breaks? Solar projects stop

North Carolina House committee advances bill ending tax break for new solar projects

A North Carolina House committee on Tuesday approved legislation that would eliminate a long-standing property tax break for new utility-scale solar projects, advancing a proposal supporters say will return millions of dollars to local governments. Some are concerned the move could slow new energy development at a time when demand is skyrocketing.

The proposed committee substitute for House Bill 1213 would repeal the state’s 80% property tax exclusion for solar energy systems placed into service on or after July 1, 2027. Existing solar facilities would continue receiving the exemption.

The House Finance Committee approved the measure on a 12-8 recorded vote, sending it to the House Rules Committee.

Rep. Jimmy Dixon, R-Duplin, said the tax incentive, created in 2008 to help establish North Carolina’s solar industry, has outlived its original purpose.

“The solar industry in North Carolina has matured greatly over the last 16 years,” Dixon told lawmakers. “It’s becoming an adult, and it should act on its own as an adult.”

I’ll be honest, even though the GOP full controls the GA, I’m not sure this will pass, and the governor will veto it if it does pass. Which is kinda funny, because Democrats usually love ending tax breaks for companies. Maybe they could dial the breaks down to 20-30%? Couldn’t hurt, right?

Supporters said repealing the exemption would strengthen local tax bases, particularly in rural counties where large solar projects are concentrated.

Joy Hicks, director of advocacy and policy for the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, said counties statewide forgo about $40 million in property tax revenue each year because of the exemption. She said Edgecombe County alone loses roughly $2.5 million annually.

Of course, without those massive tax breaks they won’t be getting new projects. That’s just the way it works.

Read: NC Legislature Looks To End Tax Breaks For New Solar Projects »

Posted in Global Warming, Taxation | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Obligatory “Trump Loses Birthright Citizenship Case For Illegals Case”

By William Teach July 1, 2026 – 7:00 am

I’m really not that surprised

SCOTUS Affirms Birthright Citizenship, Rejects Trump’s Executive Order

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 on Tuesday to reject President Donald Trump’s reform of the nation’s birthright citizenship policy, which now grants the huge prize of citizenship to nearly all infants born in the United States, even if the parents are illegal migrants or temporary visitors.

The long 194-page Trump v. Barbara decision says Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The  was 6 to 3 against Trump, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that Trump and other politicians can change the rule via legislation.

“Citizenship, then and now,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Roberts and Barrett were, of course, the ones who hosed this, but, I also had concerns that the Court would essentially say that the Executive Branch cannot make it happen with an EO. We can argue the validity of the phrase about being subject to the jurisdiction, and how the people who wrote the 14th said it didn’t apply to foreigners having kids here, but, it is what it is. It really is up to the Legislative Branch to codify who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, something they really weren’t concerned with back when the 14th was passed. They thought there would be common sense. That said, members of foreign governments are blocked form their kids born on US soil getting US citizenship. That said, the chances of Congress being able to pass something are somewhere between zero and none.

Sens. Cotton, Paul Rip SCOTUS Birthright Citizenship Ruling, Propose Constitutional Amendment Eliminating It

Republican U.S. Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rand Paul of Kentucky are blasting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming birthright citizenship, and both are calling for a Constitutional amendment to end the practice.

However, passing such an amendment requires the approval of two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate. That margin is almost impossible because nearly all Democrats and many GOP business-minded politicians support mass migration into Americans’ politics and economy.

Sen. Cotton averred that “Birthright citizenship was never intended to benefit illegal immigrants,” and urged Congress to pass his “Constitutional Citizenship Act to ensure only the children of those here lawfully are granted citizenship.”

Cotton’s legislation would make children of illegal immigrants, terrorists, and foreign spies ineligible for birthright citizenship.

Well, that won’t happen, either. Perhaps if two thirds of state legislatures forced it, but, that has never happened as of yet.

Read: Obligatory “Trump Loses Birthright Citizenship Case For Illegals Case” »

Posted in Constitution, Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Let There Be Shred

By William Teach June 30, 2026 – 3:00 pm

Just not in the mood for politics, strife, ‘climate change’, controversy, so, how about some shred?

Seriously, this is the kind of song they needed when all the thrashers started in the mid-80s.

Read: Let There Be Shred »

Posted in Music | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 30, 2026 – 1:00 pm

…is a cloudless, super hot sky from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on a poll on most Democrats wanting to live overseas.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Supreme Court Rules POTUS Has Authority To Remove “Independent Agency” Heads

By William Teach June 30, 2026 – 10:30 am

How can an agency in the Executive Branch be “independent” from the president?

Justices Overturn 1935 Precedent, Backing President’s Power to Remove Agency Heads

The Supreme Court on Monday handed President Trump a sweeping victory over the administrative state, ruling that Congress cannot shield the heads of independent regulatory agencies from presidential removal, and overturning a landmark 1935 precedent that had underpinned the modern regulatory framework for nearly a century.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter arose from the President’s firing of two Democratic-appointed Federal Trade Commission commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, at the start of his second term. Trump cited his constitutional authority under Article II rather than any cause recognized by the FTC’s governing statute, which permits removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the FTC’s for-cause removal protection is incompatible with the Constitution’s vesting of executive power in a single President. Officers who exercise executive power, the Court held, must remain accountable to the President — and accountability requires the ability to remove them at will.

The ruling explicitly overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had carved out an exception to presidential removal authority for agencies exercising so-called quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. The Court found that characterization had never made sense and had become increasingly untenable as the FTC’s powers expanded to cover virtually every corner of the American economy.

The decision’s reach extends well beyond the FTC, potentially exposing the leadership of dozens of independent agencies — including the SEC, CFTC, and NLRB — to at-will presidential removal.

If the POTUS doesn’t have control of an agency that what is the POTUS? The only way to shield these people is to pass a law out of the Legislative Branch and have a POTUS sign said law. Or refuse to sign but not veto, allowing it to become law with no action. The above article does briefly mention that SCOTUS held that the president has less power to fire a member of the Federal Reserve in a companion ruling, but, mostly because Lisa Cook was not given time to respond. More on that here.

And another big ruling that Trump lost

SCOTUS Rules 5-4 to Permit Counting of Mail-In Ballots that Arrive After Election Day

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that state laws allowing for the counting of mail-in ballots after election day are not in violation of federal law, a blow to the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s administration.

On Monday, SCOTUS issued a 5-4 ruling that permits states to count mail-in ballots — sent on or before election day — that are received by state election officials after election day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Two principles are important here. First, post-election-day receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election-day statutes,” the Court writes:

Well, I kind of agree. If they were postmarked, and there really must be a clear, real postmark, then they should be counted per state law, since the Constitution gives states this power to set laws. I also understand this point by Alito

But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand. [Emphasis added]

Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date. Under the challenged Mississippi law, however, the collection of ballots continues for five more days, and therefore the “election” is not held until the end of that period. Because federal law requires that the election occur on election day, it preempts Mississippi’s statute. [Emphasis added]

But, unless the Court wants to rule to kill vote by mail and early voting, the laws, federal Constitution, and state Constitutions allow mail in. This will allow for challenges over postmarkes.

Read: Supreme Court Rules POTUS Has Authority To Remove “Independent Agency” Heads »

Posted in Constitution | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove