Corporate Climate (scam) Pledges Are Evolving Or Something

By evolving, US News and World Report mostly means “dumping them”

Corporate Climate Change Pledges Are Shifting and Evolving

Reporting this week that Starbucks has quietly but aggressively rolled back many of its sustainability targets has turned a spotlight on corporate climate pledges and how they have evolved in recent years.

The Financial Times reported Tuesday that Starbucks has revised or abandoned pledges to cut waste and water use in half, even as it reconsiders a goal to reduce carbon emissions by a similar amount.

The newspaper also reported that Starbucks executives focused on sustainability have been particularly hard hit by job cuts at the company over the last two years.

The news was particularly striking because the Seattle-based coffee giant has cultivated an eco-friendly image for years, making green commitments a central element of its corporate identity.

That Starbucks is doing this shows that even the most extreme companies are realizing that it’s a scam, it costs too much money, and the purpose of the business it to make money. Oh, and that people really care about this stuff less and less in the real world, and consumers do not want to pay for the cult activism of companies

The environmental consultancy firm Trellis recently reported that while Walmart cut its overall carbon emissions in 2025, it has also revised overall green commitments, in some cases postponing the target dates for specific goals.

In July, a New York Times analysis cited Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz along with steel manufacturer ArcelorMittal among corporate giants that “moved the goal posts” when initial climate pledges proved difficult or impossible to honor.

Companies are moving away from placating the climate nuts, because, let’s be honest, while a lot of people care in theory about ‘climate change’, they don’t care that much and companies having pledges means jack squat to them.

Read: Corporate Climate (scam) Pledges Are Evolving Or Something »

Excellent: Judge Rules Islamist Mosque President Can Be Deported

The US has all these people in the nation who are not citizens, just hanging around as “permanent residents”, who seem to hate the US and support terrorism. Would liberals support deporting someone who is a full on supporter of Putin?

US immigration judge allows cold war-era law to deport Wisconsin mosque’s president

An immigration judge has ruled that the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque can be deported under a controversial, cold-war era law the Trump administration has sought to wield against foreign nationals who have been outspoken about Palestinian rights.

Salah Sarsour, a US permanent resident for nearly three decades, was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March. He was released after a federal judge found he had probably been detained in retaliation of his advocacy for Palestinian rights, which the federal judge said would render his detention unlawful.

Despite that ruling, the administration pressed forward and fast-tracked Sarsour’s immigration case – a separate legal track – and on Tuesday night an immigration judge ruled he is “removable”.

Judge Jayme Salinardi, who was brought in from out of state to oversee the case, announced he would be retiring shortly after issuing the decision.

Obviously, his lawyers and the other Islamic terrorism supporters will appeal

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but claimed before that Sarsour was “suspected of funding terror organizations and lying on immigration forms”. He has denied both claims.

In a statement issued shortly after his arrest, the DHS cited Sarsour’s decades-old military court convictions in Israel for, it said, “throwing a Molotov cocktail at the homes of Israeli armed forces and illegally attempting to possess weapons and ammunition”.

Double obviously, the UK Guardian takes his side against Israel, claiming the conviction was coerced and such. He never should have been allowed in the US, and, really, post 9/11, people like Sarsour should have been booted.

Read: Excellent: Judge Rules Islamist Mosque President Can Be Deported »

Awesome: Florida Designates Antifa, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood As Terrorist Orgs

They get it: when will others?

Florida OKs terror designations for CAIR, antifa, Muslim Brotherhood

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), antifa and the Muslim Brotherhood will be labeled domestic terrorist organizations under a new state law, after Florida leaders OK’d the designations at their Sept. 29 meeting.

These designations were in a 427-page packet submitted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for approval by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Cabinet members: Attorney General James Uthmeier, Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson and state Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia.

The packet also named numerous other groups labeled by the federal government as foreign terrorist organizations. (snip)

The law not only allows the state to issue these designations, but also mandates universities to expel students who “promote” these groups. It also restricts schools affiliated with domestic terror groups from participating in the state’s school voucher program, which grants taxpayer-funded scholarships for parents to enroll their child in a school of their choice.

Now, the organizations have seven days after receiving the notice to object to the designation. The group can also petition FDLE to remove the designation, or it can appeal the designation in the 2nd Judicial Circuit.

Is Amtifa a terrorist group? They use violence for political means, which does make them terrorists, rather than simply a criminal gang. CAIR is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is certainly a terrorist group, one which is against everything America stands for. Hell, there’s a reason they are banned in Egypt.

Of course, the Usual Useful Idiots are proclaiming this is Fascism!!!!!, never seeming to understand that the Islamists are using them to push the Islamist agenda.

Read: Awesome: Florida Designates Antifa, CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood As Terrorist Orgs »

If All You See…

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle causing sudden Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Irons In The Fire, with a post on “I repeat, British cops stopped being peace officers a long time ago, now”

Read: If All You See… »

Clear Nail Polish Is Apparently Now Raaaaacist

And you have an uber-white woman as primary writer for the article, with the secondary writer looking like she’s from SE Asia, maybe India

BBC removes article claiming bare nails trend perpetuates ‘White supremacist’ beauty standards

The BBC removed an article that suggested the trend of leaving fingernails unpainted could perpetuate “White supremacist” beauty standards after it drew backlash Saturday.

The original article, “How the bare nails trend became a class issue,” explored the beauty trend of women preferring clear and polished “naked” nails over the more stylish nail designs over the past few years.

The BBC reported that while some consider this trend part of the ever-shifting standards in fashion, critics suggested the image said “something about class” and could potentially stigmatize Black, Latino and Asian communities that popularized heavily designed nails.

“That trend really promotes blankness and this kind of sameness and erasure of culture and identity that is so important to [B]lack and [B]rown communities,” beauty journalist Kristina Rodulfo told the BBC.

“They are often called elegant or tasteful, and these are often usually euphemisms that perpetuate [W]hite supremacist standards of beauty.”

It’s been a while, well, a few years, since this kind of insane garbage was gracing the pages of large media outlets. They mostly go with TDS. But, it does go to show that the Wacko left never gives up on certain ideas.

They don’t need any sort of drugs to be batguano insane moonbats. Anyhow, the BBC originally took it down saying it needed “editorial review”, and now it’s just a 401. The link in the 2nd paragraph goes to an Internet Archive version. From that piece

“I think getting [your] nails done is tacky now, because who’s got an hour to waste?” one 25-year-old tells the BBC, adding, “also, I lift weights in the gym, so I don’t want to snap a nail and waste money.”

But there are those who think the trend – or the way it’s being discussed by some – belies something more sinister.

Sinister? Oh, LOLOLOLOLOL

“The same way that logo bags are considered gauche or quiet luxury is more aspirational, bare nails are considered the trend now.

“The examples are almost always white women or celebrities… [and] they’ll often conflate class and taste with that bareness.”

Get bent. Also, the long nails, especially when they have a point, are nasty.

But, hey, let’s also not forget this recent bit of raaaaacism

Read More »

Read: Clear Nail Polish Is Apparently Now Raaaaacist »

Apparently The Movie Digger Is About ‘Climate Change’

I really had no desire to see the movie, because I really had zero idea what it was about from the promos, and nothing in them enticed me to go see it. The AP has some interesting things to say

Movie Review: In ‘Digger,’ a ‘Dr. Strangelove’ for the climate change era

Just as the fate of the world hangs in the balance in “Digger,” Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s over-the-top, climate-disaster satire teeters on the brink.

It’s an audacious plate-spinning act, juggling exaggerated farce, sober anxieties and an oil-mad Tom Cruise. Iñárritu, an art-house showman, has always delighted in a grandiosity of vision: the long-take backstage circus of “Birdman,” the rugged vistas of “The Revenant,” the metaphysical musings of “Bardo.” You come to an Iñárritu movie for swagger, not subtlety.

And “Digger,” — a “Dr. Strangelove” for the climate change era — isn’t trying to mince words. Its desire to make a statement and shake up its audience may be unlikely to find broad critical favor. But there are times to go big. Can you dig it?

But “Digger” is sharper on the other side of tragicomedy. An impassioned provocation aimed at both politicians and audience members, “Digger” is by any measure an uncommon major studio release — as urgent as “An Inconvenient Truth” but a whole lot more operatic. For better or worse, this is an of-the-moment big swing that’s unlikely to come along again anytime soon. (snip)

Meanwhile, Digger begins fielding calls from a massive oil drilling platform in Greenland. A glacier crack and methane leak from the seabed are worrying scientists, but Digger charismatically cajoles them with baseball metaphors. He asks instead for some “hustle” in increasing the daily barrels pumped.

The article seems to be giving the impression that Digger is a climate cult siding movie in the same way that Dr. Strangelove was an anti-nukes/nuclear war movie, highlighting the dangers of global boiling. But, it’s apparently not funny or sarcastic in the way Peter Sellers was. Maybe that’s why the ads didn’t really show what the movie was about. Even climate cultists mostly do not want to see climate scam movies.

Read: Apparently The Movie Digger Is About ‘Climate Change’ »

Supreme Court Once Again Allows Deporting Illegals To 3rd Party Countries

This is deja vu all over again, after the Court ruled in 2025 that it was OK to send them to 3rd party countries

Supreme Court lets Trump resume deporting migrants to countries not their own

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump’s administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown.

The court granted ?the Justice Department’s emergency request to put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy’s ruling that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy to remove migrants to so-called third ?countries is unlawful. The court also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, with a formal ruling on the policy to follow.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the decision to let ?the deportations immediately resume pending the final outcome of the litigation.

Murphy’s ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to prevent the US government from sending them to third countries without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.

I’m surprised the Majority didn’t write “don’t try to block this again, moron liberal judges”, because you know some dipshit will put a ruling out, right?

The case has been hotly contested since it began, and included findings by Murphy that the administration “repeatedly ?violated, or attempted to violate” his orders. Murphy in 2025 found that the administration had violated another order he issued requiring additional steps before attempting to send ?a group of migrants to South Sudan.

Maybe Murphy should have listened to the Supreme Court to start with.

Read: Supreme Court Once Again Allows Deporting Illegals To 3rd Party Countries »

If All You See…

…is heatsnow because Other People eat meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on “Sharia UK: Essex supermarket has sex-segregated checkout lines”

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: NY’s Climate Scam Act Shot Down In Second Federal Court

I can’t believe I missed this

Second Federal Court Strikes Down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act

On September 23, 2026, a second federal district court struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (the Act), this time in a lawsuit brought by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In United States v. State of New York, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Act is preempted both by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and, independently, by the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. The Court declared the Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoined New York officials from enforcing it.

This new ruling comes less than a month after the Northern District of New York reached substantially the same result in West Virginia v. James. As we reported on September 1, the N.D.N.Y. held that the Act was preempted by federal law in litigation brought by a coalition of states and industry associations. We also previously described the Act and potential legal challenges when it was enacted. (snip)

Like the court in West Virginia, Judge Castel relied heavily on the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., which rejected New York City’s effort to recover climate-related damages from fossil-fuel companies under state tort law because claims based on interstate and global GHG emissions implicate federal interests requiring a uniform rule.

The Cultists said they were “waiting to see” what happened in the Southern District, and, now that the law has been shot down, what now?

The Court also rejected any meaningful distinction between state common-law damages — the claims at issue in City of New York — and a state statute imposing comparable liability. Because interstate air-pollution disputes historically have been governed by federal law, and Congress displaced federal common law in this area through the CAA, the Court concluded that New York may impose such liability only if authorized by the CAA. It found no such authorization.

Notably, the Court held that the EPA’s 2026 rescission of its GHG endangerment finding did not alter the preemption analysis. In the Court’s view, the relevant question is whether federal law authorizes the state regime, not whether the EPA currently chooses to exercise its regulatory authority over GHG emissions.

So, is Gov Kathy Hochul, who takes lots and lots of fossil fueled travel, still looking at options? Probably so, because the Warmists will never give up.

Read: Bummer: NY’s Climate Scam Act Shot Down In Second Federal Court »

Anthropic IPO Warns Of “Existential Risk To Humanity”

This doesn’t sound like a good idea to sell stock

Anthropic warns investors of AI’s ‘existential risk to humanity’ in IPO prospectus, reports say

Anthropic plans to warn speculative investors in its IPO prospectus that its AI models pose a “catastrophic or existential risk to humanity,” several reports said on Tuesday.

The company, which is gearing up for a much-anticipated IPO, dedicated over a third of its IPO filing, or around 80 of 261 pages, to laying out the potential risks of the technology it’s developing and is seeking investment for, according to a report from Reuters. It only used 48 pages to discuss its actual business.

The five-year-old company, known for its frontier language model Claude, warned that AI can have “self-preserving behaviors,” including being able to “resist shutdown,” “conceal or manipulate information,” and carry out behaviors “resembling blackmail,” per the Reuters report.

The company is pursuing a $2 trillion valuation when it goes public and reported in the filing that it made a net loss of $42 billion in 2025. It’s planning to spend $518 billion on cloud, computing, and other infrastructure in the coming year, according to Reuters.

Anthropic also warned that its customer base is extremely narrow, with nearly a quarter of its revenue last year coming from just two clients, two people familiar with the filing told the Financial Times.

This doesn’t really say “Our stock is dope, you should buy it and you’ll make lots of money off of it”, eh? More like “our product will kill everyone, so, what’s the point of funding it?” Perhaps they are betting on Government regulating AI development, which would leave the big companies like Anthropic in a good place while putting the brakes on smaller companies?

OpenAI Says It Will Not Release Newest A.I. Model Over Safety Concerns

OpenAI said on Monday that it would not release its newest artificial intelligence model because of security concerns raised by its researchers, in the company’s latest move to slow down the pace of its technology.

During the testing phase for the new model, known as GPT-6.1 Astra, it showed high levels of what the company saw as deception, or a willingness to mislead users about its actions. The model was also willing to go beyond the original scope of what it was asked to do, without checking back for directions or instructions.

“For anything regarding safety and alignment, there’s a trade-off,” said Saachi Jain, the head of safety systems at OpenAI. The new model “didn’t quite meet the bar in terms of staying within scope and authorization, and how it communicates back to the user about the type of work it’s done.”

It’s easy to Blame the AI, but, come on, they programed it. Whatever it is doing is on the software designers.

Democrats demand leaders of top AI labs hand over incident reports of ‘rogue agents’

Three House Democrats leading their party on artificial intelligence policy are demanding five tech CEOs hand over information about “the growing number of incidents” where rogue AI agents are committing cyberattacks.

“These are incidents that would constitute serious cyber crimes if a human was responsible,” Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Ted Lieu of California wrote to the tech giants in a letter shared first with POLITICO. “That is deeply concerning.”

Why? Do they have Constitutional authority to make theses demands to private companies? I guess if they’re taking federal money, but, otherwise, it’s none of their business.

Read: Anthropic IPO Warns Of “Existential Risk To Humanity” »

Pirate's Cove