…is a horrible giant house when Everyone Else should be living in tiny homes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on someone you would have called crazy 6 months ago.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a horrible giant house when Everyone Else should be living in tiny homes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on someone you would have called crazy 6 months ago.
Read: If All You See… »
The lawsuits keep coming, and the Democrat tyrants keep losing
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down state’s stay-at-home order
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has overturned the state’s stay-at-home order, ruling it “unlawful” and “unenforceable” in a high-profile win for the state’s Republican-led Legislature.
In a 4-3 decision Wednesday, the court ruled that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration overstepped its authority when the state Department of Health Services extended the order to May 26.
The ruling comes after the Legislature’s Republican leaders filed a lawsuit last month arguing the order would cost Wisconsin residents their jobs and hurt many companies, asserting that if it was left in place, “our State will be in shambles.”
The suit was filed specifically against state Department of Health Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm and other health officials, who made the decision in mid-April to extend the state’s “Safer at Home” emergency order. At the same time as the extension, the state loosened some restrictions on certain businesses, including golf courses, public libraries, and arts and crafts stores.
But the justices wrote in their decision Wednesday that “an agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the order does without reaching beyond the executive branch’s authority.”
In other words, it was un-Constitutional. Meanwhile, let’s move a few hundred miles east
https://twitter.com/DeanMeminger/status/1260697038565638147
Read: Wisconsin Supreme Court Knocks Down Stay At Home Order As Un-Constitutional »
We can stop this with a tax, you know
A third of the world could live in places as hot as the Sahara desert by 2070, WEF warns
Three billion people could live in places as hot as the Sahara desert within 50 years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) said on Wednesday.
The warning came after scientists found that a third of the world’s population could be forced to endure “unliveable†circumstances by 2070 if decisive action was not taken to halt climate change.
A research team made up of experts from the U.S., China and Europe analyzed rising global temperatures, comparing them to average climatic conditions over the last 6,000 years. Their findings were published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last week.
Unless moves were made to reverse the damage wreaked on the environment by greenhouse gases, one in three people could live in areas where temperatures matched the hottest parts of the Sahara today, according to the scientific study. This could become a reality within decades, the researchers found, with average temperatures for that percentage of the population projected to be above 29 degrees Celsius (84 degrees Fahrenheit).
I mentioned this “study” previously, but, you know the Cult of Climastrology: they’re going to ramp everything up to 11.
The researchers took population growth projections into account in the study. Today, less than 1% of the earth’s land surface currently experiences this climate, scientists said — but by 2070, almost 20% of the planet’s land area would reach those temperatures.
What’s the penalty for making prognostications of doom that never materialize?
“The crops, livestock and irrigation that are the bedrock of the planet’s food production system were developed, discovered and designed within those constraints,†the WEF’s Sean Fleming said in a blog post. “These, and other critical systems, cannot be expected to function normally outside the environmental niche they grew up in.â€
What this CNBC article is considering is the utter worst case scenario of the study, which is the normal for the “unbiased” media.
According to the scientific study, by 2070 the average person will be living in temperatures 7.5 degrees Celsius hotter than pre-industrial times if climate change goes unchecked, with Africa, South America and Australasia particularly at risk. Extreme weather events could mean droughts, floods, famine and disease became the norm, the researchers warned.
We’ve only seen an increase of .8 to .9 Celsius since 1850, and they say over 6C in 50 years? Lunatics.
Read: Hotcold Take: 3 Billion Will Live In Sahara Desert Like Heat By 2070 »
Is there any penalty for climate cultists being wrong?
Climate tipping point ecosystem collapses may come faster than thought: Studies
The world’s largest ecosystems may alter drastically faster than previously thought, according to a recent study published in Nature Communications, shedding new light on the behavior of climate tipping points.
Real-life cases reveal a pattern: bigger ecosystems collapse at a faster rate than smaller ones. According to the findings, climate tipping points could happen in a matter of years or decades, not on the ecological timescale of hundreds, or even, thousands of years.
Observing this trend, the authors — stressing high levels of uncertainty — forecast that, after a tipping point is passed, the Amazon rainforest could disappear in under 50 years, while Caribbean coral reefs could vanish in 15 years.
“The Amazon could die before I do,†study co-author Simon Willcock, a senior lecturer at Bangor University, pondered upon seeing the results. “I had never sat down and thought it might be gone in my lifetime. It’s quite sobering.â€
Years or decades. Uh huh. This is literally Madame Zelda at the carnival predicting doom, but, the difference is that Madame Zelda is not attempting to change state, national, and international politics and laws.
Leading Amazon experts Carlos Nobre and Thomas Lovejoy, wrote a recent editorial warning that the “Amazon tipping point is here,†based on real-world observations of a drying atmosphere. “We’re on the edge of a cliff,†Nobre told Mongabay. The modeling carried out by Willcock and his colleagues gives us a clearer picture of what a tipping point of this scale may look like.
It’s here, but we won’t know the true result in 50 years or so, hence, there are no repercussions when they are proven wrong, just like with almost ever Warmist prognostication. This is not science.
Read: Ecosystem Collapse Tipping Point May Come Sooner Or Something »
…is a rising sea encroaching on the land because Other People didn’t take the bus to work, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Bat Soup Virus tyranny down under.
Read: If All You See… »
Mary Wildfire has a whole series on what she’s calling “false solutions” to solving the climate crisis (scam). Here’s the end, article 6 of 6
False Solutions to Climate Change: Real Solutions
…
Can we get real solutions and still maintain economic growth, population growth, and the growth of inequality? Are we entitled to an ever-rising standard of living? I believe the answer is no; we need some profound transformations if we are to leave our grandchildren a planet that resembles the one we grew up on, rather than a dystopian Hell world. This is the basic theme of the controversial Michael Moore produced film Planet of the Humans. I see that film as seriously flawed, but agree with its basic message—that it’s time for humanity to grow up and accept limits, get over what I call human exceptionalism, or androtheism—the notion that man is God.
I truly enjoy when the hardcore doomsday climate cultists really say what they want, instead of trimming the edges. Perhaps Mary should explain this to all the youths backing Doing Something about ‘climate change’, see if they’re willing to give up their modern lifestyles.
A veritable cornucopia of false solutions is being pushed these days, not only by corporations and think tanks but by the UN’s IPCC, the international body responsible for research and action on climate. We could have made a gentle transition if we had begun when we first became aware of this problem decades ago, but for various reasons we did not. There is no time left for barking up one wrong tree after another; no time to waste in false solutions. Hence this series pointing out the fallacies behind such proposals as electrifying everything, carbon trading, geoengineering or switching to “gas—the clean energy fuel!â€
That’s what she means by false solutions. What does she really want?
It really doesn’t have to be this way. We can’t smoothly transition to an economic system like what we’re used to, only powered by renewable energy—it’s too late for that. The resources have been wasted and the population is too high. But we could transition to a world where everyone has enough to live on, a world marked by international cooperation, but much less international trade. Relocalizing our economies and dethroning corporations are necessary elements of this transition. Necessary to ensuring adequate resources for all is a reduction in the “standard of living†of the richest half or so of humanity, including virtually everyone reading this.
Most people reading the article are surely going to be middle and lower class. So, yeah, y’all have to give up your standard of living. Everyone would be equal in poverty.
We could supply all of Earth’s nearly eight billion humans with an adequate and varied diet, a shelter sufficient to provide comfort through the year, safe drinking water and sanitary arrangements, and basic healthcare. In other words, basic needs. But some of this would require a lot of people to move, as many areas can’t grow enough food for their current populations. Creating or upgrading shelters so they’re capable of keeping people in cold areas comfortable through the winter, and people in hot areas comfortable through summers, without continuing to burn a lot of fossil fuel or biomass, will require a major upgrading of buildings all over the world—a massive project which will provide a lot of employment but use a lot of resources. This is a more sensible use of the resources than building hundreds of millions of electric cars, though—a well-insulated building will require very little additional energy for many decades.
None of this happens without massive Authoritarian government, which controls every aspect of people’s lives. This is North Korea’s system on steroids.
Meanwhile, we need to transition from the sterile monocultures of modern agribusiness to regenerative agriculture. This means small farms run by families or groups of friends, each growing many crops, rotated frequently, in harmony with some native flora and fauna to keep pollinators and other insect populations healthy, as well as other elements of the ecosystems of which each farm is a part.
Most people do not want to be farmers anymore. Certainly, all these Modern Socialists do not want to, considering themselves to all be urban dwellers. Will they be forced to be regenerative farmers?
Of course, city life has to be changed, and people will be forced to walk, bike, or take public transportation, and only allowed to live near work. And kill off a lot of humans
In the long run, we need to lower our numbers. The fact that in one century nearly all the world’s land vertebrate population has been replaced by humans and our livestock shows that our trajectory is not sustainable.
Mary is still trying to couch this in gentle terms, rather than the reality of mass murder beyond anything ever done.
A larger change we need, radical as this sounds, is to eliminate war.
Good luck with that, dipshit.
The world we could have if we made these changes would be considerably poorer for the people currently at the top of the heap…or would it? We’d have often smaller homes, we’d travel much less, we’d own much less, we’d eat more simply. On the other hand, we could have the kind of community today’s Americans find only in their dreams—the kind of world where we know our neighbors and many of the people we pass as we walk or bike to work. We’d be healthier. We might have much more leisure time, and spend it in pursuits we find meaningful, with friends, rather than in frantic entertainment and travel. We’d have the satisfaction of doing our part to pass on a healing world to our children.
All enforced by Government, right?
This kind of world will fail to make the rich continuously richer, so they will not allow us to bring it into being as long as capitalism and empire reign. Thus, real solutions to climate change—and the other crises—probably require revolution. But not the old limited kind of revolution involving violence and the replacement of the ruling thugs with some new thugs. We need a change much more profound, and much broader than that.
Did she just endorse armed and violent worldwide revolution that makes others revolutions look like minor annoyances? Welcome to the Cult of Climastrology.
Read: Climate Cultist Calls Normal Solutions False, Wants Fast Change To Everything »
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was attempting to double dip on the ballot in case she lost her Democratic primary
AOC removed from union-backed progressive party ballot line in New York
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was booted from the progressive union-backed Working Families Party (WFP) ballot line by a Queens judge, a blow to her potentially competitive Democratic primary fight.
The freshman lawmaker was removed from the primary ballot after receiving only 13 signatures from members of the progressive group that has dubbed itself the “Tea Party of the left” — two short of what she needed to get on the ballot.
Now, she won’t be on the WFP ballot line in the November general election, either, said Martin O’Connor, attorney for AOC’s Democrat opponent Michelle Caruso-Cabrera.
“AOC has hurt working people of the Bronx and Queens with her votes and creates disunity within our party,” Caruso-Cabrera told the New York Daily News. “No wonder why pro-union forces don’t want her, and neither do our neighborhoods.â€
Caruso-Cabrera said the leftist firebrand is out of touch with the needs of her blue-collar district.
The Working Families Party is an independent political party that cross-endorses progressive candidates through New York’s fusion voting system — which allows endorsement across ballot lines –Â to press Democrats to the left and extract concessions without being dismissed by voters as a spoiler.
Well, that is a real shame when she can’t even get enough votes from a hardcore leftist group because she has ended up hurting the Democratic party and jobs for the working class (Amazon jobs), among other issues that she’s created being the darling of Leftist elites across the country. But, then, remember, something like 80% of her funding for the 2018 election came from outside of her district.
Ocasio-Cortez and Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC anchor, are at the front of the race for the Democrat primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District spanning through Queens and the Bronx, trailed by a number of lesser-known candidates. Eight Republicans are also vying for Ocasio-Cortez’s seat, but whoever wins the Democrat primary is essentially assured victory come November in the deep-blue district.
Having a spot on the Working Families Party ballot would have offered Ocasio-Cortez a glimmer of hope should she suffer a defeat from Caruso-Cabrera.
Can Caruso-Cabrera defeat her? Good question. We really haven’t seen polling on this. Not CC will be any better on her votes, it’ll still be party line, but, will mostly like be less loony tunes unhinged Socialist and more standard working class Democrat.
Read: Bummer: AOC Booted From Far Left Working Families Party After Too Few Votes »
Climate cultists have been screeching for years that CO2, what they call “carbon” and “carbon pollution”, is the control knob for Earth’s temperature, and the root of all Evil when released from Mankind. So, if that’s the case, one would think that there would be a dip in global temperatures from the reduced release this year, right?
Fact check: The coronavirus pandemic isn’t slowing climate change
The claim: Drops in carbon emissions aren’t enough to significantly curb climate change
With the coronavirus pandemic shutting down most global activity, a consequent crash in global carbon emissions has been widely reported.
While analysts agree the historic lockdowns will significantly lower emissions, some environmentalists argue the drop is nowhere near enough.
This is really a “fact check” from USA Today, but, let’s look at interesting stuff
“Hey so it turns out that the people of earth accidentally did a global experiment to see if every individual could course correct climate change through mass personal change of habits, and it turns out, no! We can’t!,â€Â a Facebook post shared more than 4,000 times reads.
The post shares a screenshot of another post that links to a Scientific American article with the chatter, “Despite all the ‘natural is healing’ commentary global CO2 emissions have not considerably declined during the pandemic. This suggests emissions levels relate less to individual behavior than larger structural factors only addressable through regulation.”
Are you enjoying your test drive of a Cult of Climastrology policy world? Would you like it if they took care of all those “structural factors”, so, no more shipping of food, clothes, and so forth, among other things? What this is is Warmists looking for reasons to make sure no one questions their “control knob” talking points.
Because changes in the climate are the result of decades of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one year of slightly falling emissions will not counter long-term effects, Hall said.
“Those emissions took place over of the past several decades,†he said. “To affect ongoing and future climate change, the recent emissions drop would have to be sustained over a much longer period than the likely duration of the coronavirus outbreak.â€
Always some sort of excuse.
Emissions would need to drop by more than 25% to see a total drop in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and thus slow an annual global rise in temperatures, Houlton explained.
Even if it was Mankind’s output of CO2 that’s driving this, we’re talking an increase of hundreds of a degree.
Kenneth Gillingham, a climate economist at Yale University, also cautioned that current emissions reductions were not sustainable, because they’re the result of economic fallout rather a planned structural reduction in carbon emissions.
“The positive environmental impacts from COVID-19 are a silver lining but not something to be applauded,†he said. Gillingham was optimistic that some people and businesses would keep new habits like reduced commuting and increased telework after the coronavirus was contained.
Tell you what: let the Warmists do this, and let’s see what happens with them as a control group.
Read: Bummer: Bat Soup Virus Isn’t Slowing ‘Climate Change’ »