Climate Anxiety Has Created A New Dating Trend: Thunberging

By William Teach February 28, 2020 – 7:03 am

These people are totally serious, not crazy, and not part of a cult. So they say.

How climate change inspired a new dating trend: ‘Thunberging’

Climate change is having a pretty big effect on our lives right now.

From impacting our decisions about having a family (one in 10 young couples cited climate change as their reason for deciding against children), to our wardrobes and our wallets.

And now our dedication to protecting the environment is infiltrating the dating world by spawning a new trend – ‘Thunberging’.

According to OKCupid, who coined the term, ‘Thunberging’ is where daters bond over their shared passion for environmental issues.

Named after climate change activist Greta Thunberg, of course, Thunberging effectively refers to singletons connecting over their desire to make a difference environmentally. (snip)

“With climate change becoming a major talking point globally, we’re finding more and more people’s passion for the planet is becoming a steamy subject,” a spokesperson for OkCupid says.

“It’s no surprise to learn that young Gen Z and millennial daters care about climate change, but within the last year alone, these singletons are matching on the basis of this topic more than ever.”

The UK Guardian has created a whole dating profile in their article. Because it’s totally sane to name a dating phenomena after an underage girl who looks 12.

OK Cupid should charge anyone who is a climate cultist an extra fee for using their site, a climate dating tax. And require that any who go on a date pay a carbon offset fee, and prove that they didn’t travel in a fossil fueled vehicle and ate no meat. Anyhow, totally not a cult, right?

Read: Climate Anxiety Has Created A New Dating Trend: Thunberging »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Say, Let’s Call It The Trumpvirus

By William Teach February 28, 2020 – 6:51 am

Remember, Democrats get very upset when Trump supporters say they are using the Coronavirus for their nefarious political purposes. They’re running article after articles, opinion piece after opinion piece, telling us how Doomed we are and that Orange Man Bad. Paul Krugman has a pretty hot take about when a pandemic meets a personality cult, and the Washington Post editorial board is whining about “mixed messages”, you know, as President Trump attempts to keep people from panicking. And don’t forget about all the pieces linking Coronavirus to ‘climate change.’ But, then, there’s Gail Collins

At least during the Bush 43 years most of the Credentialed Media attempted to hide their derangement syndrome most of the time. Unless you were Maureen Dowd. Gail has lost it

So, our Coronavirus Czar is going to be … Mike Pence. Feeling more secure?

“I know full well the importance of presidential leadership,” the vice president said as soon as he was introduced in his new role.

Totally qualified. First criteria for every job in this administration is capacity for praising the gloriousness of our commander in chief.

Yeah, when you think of Mike Pence you maybe don’t think about Pandemic Fighter Supreme. But as President Trump pointed out repeatedly, he has already run Indiana.

Well, it probably could have been worse. Having a czar does make you feel there’s somebody in charge. At least Trump didn’t come before the cameras and announce solemnly, “Today I’m asking every American to cross your fingers.”

There they go, making up stuff again.

Our president had to be going crazy over a problem that involves both declining stock prices and germs. This is the guy, after all, who thinks shaking hands is “barbaric,” who is followed around by aides bearing sanitizer. During his press conference he told the story of a fever-ridden supporter who gave him a hug. Do you think it was an apocryphal fantasy? Either way, the idea has been haunting him forever.

Um, people’s hands are pretty nasty. Just look at the conditions of their smartphones. Remember, people are using their smartphones while sitting on the john, and, maybe they wash their hands, but, they are not cleaning their phones.

(lots and lots of whining which is totally not political because the media is non-political, you know)

Azar just chuckled. Actually, people, this is probably not a theme we ought to be pursuing. Chances are, if the president is encouraged to mix the subjects of coronavirus and Mexico walls, he’ll suddenly announce that we need a barrier much bigger and thicker and more expensive, so it can stop the flow of immigrant germs.

Deranged.

Read: NY Times: Say, Let’s Call It The Trumpvirus »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools, Wonky Media | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Florida Schoolkids Want Someone Else To Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ (scam)

By William Teach February 27, 2020 – 3:00 pm

I suggest with start with turning off the heat to the school. Then do away with fossil fueled school buses, make the kids walk. And then vegetarian meals in the cafeteria (FYI, Polk refers to Polk County, Florida, where the schools are located)

Polk students on climate change: ‘You can’t just sit around’

One girl and one boy had braces on their teeth — unmistakable symbols of adolescence. Another girl wore a temporary tattoo of a heart on her forearm.

In short, they gave the appearance of being utterly typical seventh-graders.

The five youngsters, all students at Bok Academy in Lake Wales, spoke with unfailing politeness to their teachers and to two adult visitors on a recent day. But they displayed a certain bewilderment with the collective adult world, at least on one matter: climate change.

“It really frustrates me there’s people that don’t want to be doing things about it, and how hard it can be to convince them that this is a big deal and that we need to be doing something,” said Ava Unzueta, 12.

“Greta Thunberg, she’s really young, but I think it’s good that she’s trying to educate people on climate change because young kids like us, we like to listen to other young kids,” Ava said. “Like when our parents try to tell us stuff, you know how stubborn we can be and we don’t always like to listen. But I think if it’s coming from another young person, we’re more inclined to understand. And it’s our future, so climate change, it can affect adults but it’s going to affect most of us because that’s going to be our lives.”

Awesome! Let’s listen to the kid who has no degrees, is blowing off school, and has no real knowledge.

Autumn Taylor, 13, admired the way Thunberg has committed herself to warning others about the potential effects of climate change.

“You can’t just sit around when you know something’s happening,” Autumn said. “If you’re passionate about it, do it when you can. Don’t just wait for someone else to do it. Age is just a number.”

OK. No more smartphones, no more fossil fueled trips anywhere, grow your own food, no hair dryers, limited to 3 minute showers, oh, and half your allowance (and earnings if you have a job) will be confiscated. Y’all good with that, kids? Perhaps you should consider what it is exactly that the Cult of Climastrology actually wants to accomplish, and it’s not stopping a tiny increase in CO2.

Read: Florida Schoolkids Want Someone Else To Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil fossil fueled vehicle that should be restricted for Other People, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The People’s Cube, with a post on Comrade Bernie doubling down on his support of Comrade Castro.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Scottish Government Votes To Patronize Women By Giving Them Free Feminine Products

By William Teach February 27, 2020 – 10:30 am

Obviously, the Scottish government thinks women are not capable of earning enough money to buy pads and tampons. Rather a sexist opinion, right?

Scotland’s parliament just voted to make pads and tampons ‘free.’ CBS News reported ‘the US could be next.’

Scottish parliament voted almost unanimously on Wednesday to provide “free” feminine hygiene products to anyone who needs them, by offering pads and tampons in certain public spaces to the tune of an estimated $31 million annually.

The move makes Scotland the only country in the world to offer “free” sanitary products to all women, and CBS News — citing a proposed bill by a Democratic congresswoman from last year — reported that “the U.S. could be next.”

Reuters reported that “The Period Products (Free Provision) Scotland Bill passed through its first stage with 112 votes in favor, none against and one abstention.” The second stage involves members offering amendments to the legislation.

As it stands now, the proposal would mean the Scottish government would pay to make sanitary products available free of charge at places like pharmacies and community centers “for anyone who needs them,” according to the BBC. The country already has a federal policy of providing such products at schools and universities.

In other words, the money will just magically appear from the Money Unicorn to pay for this. It certainly won’t be all the taxpayers, right?

The bill’s sponsor, Monica Lennon, celebrated the measure as a “milestone moment for normalizing menstruation in Scotland and sending out that real signal to people in this country about how seriously parliament takes gender equality,” The Washington Post reported.

Scotland’s new law is in response to the movement against “period poverty,” the concept that not all women and girls can afford sanitary products. A gender-equality activist movement has taken hold of the issue, arguing that it is the government’s responsibility to provide feminine hygiene products to the public or at the very least reduce or remove so-called “tampon taxes” on such items.

Let’s be honest: despite all the SJW yammering, this is really about patronizing women in order to attempt to buy their votes. Nothing more, nothing less. If Democrats truly attempt this here in the U.S., there will be all sorts of flowery talk but it will still be about buying votes using Other People’s money. But, as they, and the Scots, are doing this, they’re basically saying that women are too stupid to be able to earn the small amount of money necessary for these products.

Read: Scottish Government Votes To Patronize Women By Giving Them Free Feminine Products »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

CEI Report States Green New Deal Would Cost Households Almost $75,000 Per Year

By William Teach February 27, 2020 – 8:05 am

Here’s Excitable AOC

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1232772838861484037

Yet, she is still not demanding that it be passed. I wonder why?

Report: Green New Deal Will Impose A $75,000 Per Year Cost On Swing-State Households

Americans in nearly a dozen swing states could expect to spend roughly $75,000 per year if the Green New Deal is ever implemented, according to a report Wednesday from a conservative nonprofit group.

The Green New Deal would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania, among others, a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted. CEI worked with Power the Future and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on the report. (snip)

“Our analysis shows that, if implemented, the Green New Deal would cost for American households at least tens of thousands of dollars annually on a permanent basis,” Lassman said.

“Perhaps that’s why exactly zero Senate Democrats, including the resolution’s 12 co-sponsors, voted for the Green New Deal when they had the chance,” he concluded.

In my business, we use a training program which also talks about cutting metrics in half, such as, “returning customers close at 63%. Don’t believe that? Cut it in half. 31.5% is still better than the closing percent of a brand new customer.” Of course, cutting that $75k in half is still not good

Other reports have made similar findings. The Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over 10 years, a report from right-leaning group American Action Forum (AAF) noted in 2019.

All told, that amounts to $36,100 to $65,300 per American household per year to meet the lofty proposal’s goals, AAF reported in February 2019. The plan initially intended on producing widespread high-speed rail, guaranteed jobs, universal health care and refurbishing every building in the country.

Heck, cut the $36,100 in half. Are you excited to pay that? How about you, Mr./Ms. Warmist? You good with that?

And why are you not demanding a vote, AOC?

Read: CEI Report States Green New Deal Would Cost Households Almost $75,000 Per Year »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | 39 Comments | Trackback URL

Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Grants From Sanctuary Jurisdictions

By William Teach February 27, 2020 – 7:50 am

This has made many an Open Borders advocate very upset

Appeals Court: Trump Can Withhold Funding from Sanctuary Cities

A federal appellate court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s administration can, in fact, withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that insist on shielding criminal illegal aliens from arrest and deportation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Trump administration has the authority to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary jurisdictions due to their failure to meet federal requirements that include abiding by federal immigration law.

The Second Circuit Appellate Court wrote in their introduction:

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States.

In question was the Trump administration’s withholding 2017 Byrne Program Criminal Justice Assistance grants from the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia for their failure to meet federal immigration requirements due to their sanctuary policies.

In other words, if they want the money, they have to actually enforce the laws.

(Washington Times) Judge Reena Raggi, a Bush appointee to the court, said government has a valid interest in getting state and local officials to cooperate with Homeland Security — and, under the law, a tool to do so. She said jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate are flouting federal law.

“There is something disquieting in the idea of states and localities seeking federal funds to enforce their own laws while themselves hampering the enforcement of federal laws, or worse, violating those laws,” she wrote in the opinion for the three-judge panel.

However, it might work better to just arrest and charge all those state, county, and local officials who are involved with violating federal laws on illegal immigration, but, that never seems to happen.

And here are the whiners violating federal law but still wanting that money

(NY Times) “President Trump’s latest retaliation against his hometown takes away security funding from the number one terrorist target in America,” Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City said in a statement, “all because we refuse to play by his arbitrary rules.”

“We’ll see President Trump back in court,” he added. “And we will win.”

Gurbir S. Grewal, the attorney general of New Jersey, said he was “disappointed by the ruling” and he, too, indicated that the fight was not over.

“It’s unfortunate that the federal government has decided to weaponize the federal grant funding process in order to carry out the president’s anti-immigrant agenda,” Mr. Grewal said, “but I’m confident that we will ultimately prevail in the courts.”

Enforce federal immigration laws. Heck, simply cooperate when ICE comes calling. Be passive. And then the money would flow. But, instead, these jurisdictions intentionally violate federal immigration law, actively look to thwart federal immigration agents, let illegals go when they would go after legal US citizens, shield illegals, make communities less safe by releasing hardcore criminals, etc. I’m betting de Blasio wouldn’t give money to companies and groups that wouldn’t cooperate when he was in lower level politics. And probably not now as mayor of NYC.

Want the money? Cooperate.

Read: Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Grants From Sanctuary Jurisdictions »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

University Of California Warmists Demand Colleges Prioritize ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach February 26, 2020 – 3:06 pm

I have some ideas for them to incorporate it

New UC president must prioritize addressing system’s climate change shortcomings

only continued to bring the heat.

The current UC President, Janet Napolitano, announced last year she would be stepping down in August. Soon after, a special committee was formed to review potential candidates and recommend an appointment to the Board of Regents.

At a town hall hosted by UC Berkeley as part of the presidential search, Board of Regents Chair John Pérez said the board would consider climate change in their process of selecting a new president.

The decision came only after the UC San Diego Green New Deal sent a petition containing roughly 2,000 signatures from members across all UC campuses to the regents.

But despite the UC’s hesitant commitment to including climate change on the docket, the regents have yet to add the issue to the official selection criteria.

The UC hasn’t exactly been convincing in its attempts to portray itself as an entity that prioritizes mitigating its contributions to climate change – and its recent actions haven’t helped bolster its image. The regents shouldn’t be discussing the pressing issue of climate change in an apathetic manner, especially given their large platform and ability to influence universities beyond California. And stating that climate change will be considered in the selection of a new president isn’t anywhere near sufficient in proving that the UC is serious about asserting itself as a proponent against the climate crisis.

Hey, if the kids really want something done

All the UC schools can turn off their heat and AC. Shut down the school buses and make the kids walk or ride a bike or skateboard or something. Make the kids pay an extra fee (carbon tax) to attend college and each class. Make them plant trees or other manual labor for the WiFi which uses energy. Restrict the use of hair dryers in the dorms. Turn off the power to the dorms after 11pm. Limit showers in the dorms to 3 minutes. And so forth. Make the kids practice what they preach.

Read: University Of California Warmists Demand Colleges Prioritize ‘Climate Change’ »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach February 26, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is corn which will soon go extinct from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on Comrade Sanders wanting to help black people by legally allowing them to sell drugs.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Say, What Can The Coronavirus Teach Us About ‘Climate Change’?

By William Teach February 26, 2020 – 10:30 am

Well, it can certainly teach us that these Warmists are nutballs and their cultish beliefs make them link everything to their cult, but, I doubt that’s what David Wallace-Wells at NY Mag means

What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Climate Change

…

Not all that long ago, climate change was a story unfolding only in the future tense. Now that it has begun roaring into the present with a terrifying fury, the matter of reducing warming through decarbonization (often called “mitigation”) has been displaced, to a degree, in the public conversation among policymakers, advocates, investors, and futurists. There is more and more talk now, instead, about what’s called “adaptation” — not how to reduce carbon emissions to limit warming, but how to adapt to a world defined by climate pummeling in ways that would allow us to endure those blows. This shift has been most pronounced among the world’s conservatives — it has been the basic response of Australian prime minister to his country’s devastating fires, for instance — but it is not a perspective confined to the right. Recently, the New York Times considered the plan, advanced by the Army Corps of Engineers, to construct a sea wall, enclosing all of New York harbor, that would stretch for 6 miles and cost at least $100 billion. In South Florida, they are also talking about flood walls, but there the Army Corps is proposing building them not off the coast but on the mainland, leaving all of Miami Beach — and the states’ other barrier islands — exposed. In Europe, they’re talking about damming up the entire North Sea — a 400-mile barrier in two parts, to be built at a cost in the hundreds of billions.

We have to go to the 8th paragraph, the final one of the screed, to find out the headline

An even better contemporary illustration about the dilemma of adaptation — or, really, the false choice between adaptation and mitigation — may come not from the challenges of climate change but the coronavirus. In the scariest projections, 70 percent of the world could be infected by COVID-19, with probably 2 percent of those numbers dying from the disease — a worst-case scenario of 100 million or so deaths. But while even these scenarios spare the overwhelming majority of the species, of course they are also horrifyingly large death tolls, and therefore not an argument for complacency but for vigilance — from both public-health officials and workaday citizens. Quarantines are imperfect tools in the fight against diseases like this, and yet of course we would prefer to see the problem contained, to the extent it can be, rather than watch it grow as quickly and expansively as possible, trusting we could clean up the mess on the other side. The health infrastructure we have today (in certain parts of the world at least) is one reason that the death rate is as low as 2 percent; the health infrastructure we are building today (construction of new hospitals, the deployment of military resources, research in pursuit of a vaccine) may drive that figure lower, perhaps even to zero, over the course of the next year or so. But those facts alone — or, rather, the partial hope that they represent — is not a reason to forego action today. Best of all, of course, would have been if we could have avoided the virus in the first place.

Read: Say, What Can The Coronavirus Teach Us About ‘Climate Change’? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove