Reproductive Justice Needs To Be Part Of Hotcoldwetdry Research Or Something

By William Teach March 7, 2020 – 7:30 am

Warmists keep claiming that ‘climate change’ is all about science when Skeptics say it’s all about politics, then Warmists prove us right again and again

Integrating a Reproductive Justice Framework in Climate Research

Climate change is reshaping weather patterns, economies, and social structures and fundamentally altering the planet. The question is no longer why or if climate change is happening but how communities around the world will respond in order to safeguard human health, safety, and freedom.

While climate change affects both women and men, the way it is experienced differs significantly by gender. As a result, academic researchers, government agencies, and think tanks are making efforts to integrate a gender-specific lens into their climate research—an approach known as gender mainstreaming. While gender mainstreaming has led to more extensive research on the connection between climate change and women’s health and well-being, there is still more work to be done to capture these intersecting issues. Specifically, there is a dearth of research that uses a reproductive justice framework to better understand and respond to the inequitable effects that climate change has on women. Indeed, not all women experience climate change similarly, so simply applying a gender lens is oftentimes insufficient.

Coined by women of color activists in 1994, the term reproductive justice refers to a human rights framework that emphasizes a person’s right to have children or not and to parent the children they do have with dignity and in a safe environment. It links reproductive rights with social justice and demonstrates how the intersecting forms of oppression that some women—particularly Black, Latina, and Indigenous women—experience can affect their bodily autonomy and parenting decisions. These forms of oppression include facing discrimination in the health care system; being denied access to services based on income or immigration status; living in unsafe and unhealthy environments; or experiencing disparities in pay and overall economic security.

Let’s put this in plain English, rather than Barking Moonbat: they want to have the right to get pregnant through unsafe, irresponsible sex, then abort that baby willy nilly. And they’re linking the abortion on demand movement with doomsday Cult of Climastrology. Everything else mentioned later in the article, such as “poor menstrual health and hygiene,” are all diversions from the real issue, abortion, which is no surprise, being that this screed comes from the Center For American Progress, about as far left as you’re going to get.

And, pretty much everything the mention requires massive amounts of Big Centralized Government. Surprise?

Read: Reproductive Justice Needs To Be Part Of Hotcoldwetdry Research Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Stores Have To Limit Toilet Paper Purchases From Panic Buying

By William Teach March 7, 2020 – 7:14 am

Down here in the South, and, let’s face it, many other places, if a winter storm is predicted people run to the store and buy milk, bread, water, and eggs. Same thing for a potential tropical storm. One time I saw the cookie aisle wiped out. Oh, and don’t forget to get the beer. The funny one is people buying microwave meals, when the power can go out. Also, I’ve been through plenty of storms, hurricanes, tropical storms, snow storms, ice storm, big thunderstorms, where the power goes out, and never needed to buy water. On several occasions there was no power, no cable, no phone (landline and wireless), yet, water stays on. Anyhow

‘It’s crazy’: Panic buying forces stores to limit purchases of toilet paper and masks

Rationing supplies. Overwhelmed delivery workers. Toilet paper protected by security guards.

This is the new reality for some retailers that are having to take drastic action to limit the number of toilet paper rolls, face masks and hand sanitizer bottles each person can buy as customers stockpile goods over fears of the novel coronavirus outbreak.

Australian supermarket chains Woolworths and Coles both began limiting toilet paper purchases to four packs per person this week. Costco Australia is also restricting how much toilet tissue, disinfectant, milk, eggs and rice each customer can buy.

In the United States, Kroger (KR) says it is capping individual purchases of “sanitization, cold and flu-related products,” while Home Depot (HD) is curbing the number of face masks in single orders placed online and in stores.

In the United Kingdom, Boots is limiting the purchase of hand sanitizer to two bottles per customer, and UK online grocer Ocado has advised customers to place orders further in advance in the wake of “exceptionally high demand.”

I can see wanting disinfectant, but, the rest? How is all that TP going to help you? Hand sanitizer won’t protect you. Face masks are for people who already have the flu (pretty smart to go to Home Depot for them, but, are they medically sound, or just to protect from dust and stuff during home building?).

At a Coles supermarket in Brisbane, Australia on Wednesday, toilet paper was completely sold out. One worker at the store told CNN Business that his shift had been hectic as customers mobbed the aisles.

When a new delivery of toilet rolls arrived that afternoon, workers didn’t even have time to unpack the goods before shoppers swooped in, he said.

Is this an Australian thing?

Sigh.

Read: Good Grief: Stores Have To Limit Toilet Paper Purchases From Panic Buying »

Posted in Current Affairs, Good Move Slick | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: “More Accurate” Climate Model Projects Worse Doom

By William Teach March 6, 2020 – 3:22 pm

Funny how things always get more and more doomy with this cult, eh?

More accurate climate change model reveals bleaker outlook on electricity, water use

By 2030, global warming alone could push Chicago to generate 12% more electricity per person each month of the summer.

If the city generated any less electricity, it would be risking a power shortage that may require drastic measures to avoid rolling blackouts, according to projections from a model designed by Purdue University researchers.

That estimated increase is larger than previous projections because it takes into account how consumers use electricity and water at the same time. The model also considers a wider range of climate features that affect this mixed use, such as humidity and wind speed, making predictions more accurate. (snip)

In a study published Thursday (March 5) in the journal Climatic Change, the collaborative team applied this model to five other cities in the U.S. Midwest: Cleveland; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis; Madison, Wisconsin; and Minneapolis.

As a whole, the model projected that the Midwest will be using 19% more electricity and 7% more water. And that’s just during the summer.

So, doom? Anyhow, the “model” looked at this and that and some more, all in order to prognosticate doom

The model uses artificial intelligence to make predictions on climate change impact. As a learning algorithm, the model is fed years of data from a region’s utilities and weather services and then trained to predict changes in electricity and water use given certain climate-change scenarios.

These scenarios are when the earth’s temperature increases by 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius above its mean temperature during the pre-industrial period, approximately 1881-1910.

So, grab your crystal balls, kids!

Read: Surprise: “More Accurate” Climate Model Projects Worse Doom »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 6, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a climate killing dog, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on shopping in San Francisco.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Why Aren’t Young Folks Voting? Voter Suppression Or Something

By William Teach March 6, 2020 – 10:30 am

Every election cycle we are treated to all sorts of young folks who want Stuff Done and say they’ll vote this time and we know that they tend to vote Democrat because life hasn’t smacked them around yet, but, their votes tend to disappear come election day. Why?

Young People Aren’t Turning Out to Vote — but It’s Not Because They Don’t Care

The short answer? Voter suppression — which takes countless forms, including voter I.D. restrictions, inflexible work and school schedules that prevent citizens from taking time to vote, lack of civics education in schools, the sudden closing (or changing) of polling places, lack of childcare or eldercare, and hours-long wait times to cast a vote. A plethora of factors make voting in America less a thing everyone participates in, and more a competitive sport that seems to demand more training and planning than our systems currently offer.

“Instead of blaming young people and assuming they are tuned-out due to narcissism or apathy, we should work together across generations and institutions to remove voter impediments and implement best practices,” said Yael Bromberg, Chief Counsel for Voting Rights of The Andrew Goodman Foundation and Principal, Bromberg Law LLC. She explained that there are a range of obstacles placed in young peoples’ paths to vote, including the “over-reliance by young people on provisional ballots,” voter identification laws, and the issue of accessible polling locations. Bromberg conducted studies on youth voting rights and the twenty-sixth amendment, which also cited cuts to early voting and same-day registration, voter intimidation by election officials sharing misinformation, and gerrymandering as factors that threaten the youth vote.

Dismissing the 18 to 29-year-old voter demographic as apathetic or lazy does a disservice to the country: Instead of acknowledging the barriers that make it difficult or even impossible to vote, critics take the simpler route, rejecting a demographic as non-participatory rather than grappling with solving the systemic issues.

I’m 52: I’ve never had a problem getting to the voting booth. I’ve never had an issue with having a proper ID. Never had an issue with school or work schedules, especially with early voting. “A lack if civics in schools”? Which Party runs most of the education system? I never needed teachers to teach me how to vote, because it is freaking easy. You do research, which is a lot easier now than back in the 80’s and early 90’s, then you go vote. How hard is that? Why is it that people 30+ can deal with all these factors, including childcare and long wait times and such, yet, 29 and under can’t?

BTW, if you’re 21+, you aren’t a young person. You are a pure adult. And, with all this whining and Victimhood, we’re supposed to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds?

Mercedes Molloy, 19, a student at The New School, had her mother mail her the absentee ballot after it was sent to her parents’ house. After informally polling her peers at school, she found a lot of her college classmates were registered, but they didn’t vote because their ballot wasn’t sent to their college address it was sent home. The lack of guidance around absentee voting proves to be a “challenge for out of state students, specifically first-generation college students and first-time voters,” she said.

I had zero problem getting and mailing my ballot, attending ECU in NC while still being registered in NJ.

What this is really about is creating Excuses for when Trump wins in November.

Read: Why Aren’t Young Folks Voting? Voter Suppression Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Elections | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

I Agree With St. Greta: EU Should Set Their Hotcoldwetdry Targets For 2020

By William Teach March 6, 2020 – 7:16 am

No, really, I think this is a great idea

Greta Thunberg tells EU to set emissions reduction goals for 2020

The EU’s executive unveiled a planned climate law to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.

“We cannot just have goals for 2030 or 2050. We also need them for 2020 because right now, if high emissions continue like today’s business as usual, then the remaining budget will be gone before we will even have a chance to deliver on those targets,” Thunberg said.

She’s right, you know, at least in terms of setting goals for 2020. Not for her Reasons, but, simply because the EU should be required to practice what it preaches. It’s super-easy to set these far flung goals, which so often get ignored or done away with. Walking the climatalk right now? That’s hard.

Anyhow

Thousands expected to join Greta Thunberg in Brussels climate march

Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg will be among the 5,000 demonstrators expected to march in the latest school strike for the climate in Brussels.

Organisers called for the participants to gather at Gare Centrale as they prepare to set out through Brussels at around 2:00 PM.

Police said traffic disruptions were to be expected from 1:30 PM and last until around 4:30, as the demonstrators make their way from downtown Brussels to the Parc Du Cinquantenaire.

I wonder what kind of environmental mess they will leave, and how many will be coming to the march in fossil fueled vehicles.

Read: I Agree With St. Greta: EU Should Set Their Hotcoldwetdry Targets For 2020 »

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

NY Times: With Liz Warren Dropping Out, The Democrat Party Is Rather Sexist

By William Teach March 6, 2020 – 6:58 am

You knew this was coming, right? That Liz Warren dropping you would be blamed on sexism, right? Strangely, few Liberal pundits mention where said sexism is coming from

I mean, sure, some are blaming President Trump, because #TDS, but, no one blamed sexism on Klobuchar dropping out. Or other women. It’s good to know that Queen Nancy thinks Democrats are sexist

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1235631947289776128

Anyhow, the NY Times analyzes, meaning this is an opinion piece, why there are only old white males left for Democrats (forgetting about Tulsi)

Was It Always Going to Be the Last Men Standing?

In the end, the pink wave carried two white men ashore.

Since Donald J. Trump won the presidency, women’s rage has fueled the Democratic Party. Women created new political organizations, led protests, ran for office and voted for Democrats more than they ever had before. A record number of female lawmakers now serve in Congress. After years of being considered a political liability, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has emerged as a party icon and, in 2020, multiple women ran for president.

For the first time in history, Americans saw a diverse group of female leaders pursuing the country’s highest office, an elite sorority that included former prosecutors, senators, a combat veteran and even a self-help celebrity.

And, for the first time in history, a majority of Democratic voters rejected them all. As the party moves toward picking a nominee, the last man left standing will be, most certainly, a man.

“The narrative that somehow women are less electable than men seems to still be an issue. It’s very disgusting really,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, who was one of Senator Kamala Harris’s campaign co-chairs. “In 2020, we should have a woman as our commander in chief.”

Strangely, the Times article never truly casts Democrats as sexists. Despite them being the ones primarily voting in the primaries.

After Ms. Warren announced her bid at the end of 2018, Democratic strategists fretted over whether the misogyny they argued helped cause Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 could take down another woman nominee.

Wait, I thought it was Russia Russia Russia which beat Hillary.

At events for Democratic candidates over the past year, many women said that they were more aware than ever of sexism in their own lives and in the culture at large, because of the #MeToo movement and heightened focus on gender parity. All of that awareness, though, became an obstacle to electing a female president. They knew how sexist the world was, some said, and they couldn’t take the risk.

Darned misogynistic Democratic Party voters. (or perhaps they weren’t interested in all the Victimhood from people like Liz)

In the Super Tuesday contests, Ms. Warren ranked third among female voters, losing to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mr. Sanders by more than 10 percentage points. She did, however, win 30 percent of white college-educated women, the largest share held by any of the candidates, according to exit polls.

Perhaps they just didn’t really like Liz. Nope, nope, gotta be sexism and the patriarchy.

“We are so hungry to replace the occupant of the White House that a certain portion of Democratic Party was not willing to take the perceived risk of having a woman lead the ticket,” said Gov. Kate Brown, the first female governor of Oregon in more than two decades, who questioned whether gender was influencing voters’ decisions at a private meeting with Democratic governors after the Iowa caucuses. “It’s as straightforward as that.”

See? Sexism. They don’t trust women or think women are good enough to win. The one I would be worried about is Tulsi Gabbard, who is young, attractive, well spoken, not over-the-top, avoids most political pissing matches, has well reasoned comebacks, and while left, is not as crazy left as the rest. Yes, she has some issues, but, she could have attracted a lot of middle ground voters and perhaps taken enough purple states to win. But, she isn’t a crazy Modern Socialist, so, Dems don’t want her. Because Dems are sexist.

Read: NY Times: With Liz Warren Dropping Out, The Democrat Party Is Rather Sexist »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Oops: Sweet, Sweet, Redistributed Climate Finance Not Reaching Most Vulnerable

By William Teach March 5, 2020 – 3:11 pm

I know, I know, you’re shocked that all that pledged, donated, and forcibly taken climate money isn’t making it where it’s supposed to go

Analysis shows climate finance not reaching most vulnerable

People in some of the world’s poorest countries are receiving as little as $1 each a year to help them cope with the impacts of the climate crisis, despite rich countries’ promises to provide assistance.

Climate finance is intended to help developing countries cut greenhouse gases and protect their people from the consequences of climate breakdown, and forms a core part of the Paris agreement. Rich countries pledged more than 10 years ago to provide $100bn (£77m) a year to the poor by 2020, but it is not certain that these commitments are being met. (snip)

A new analysis of climate finance by the charity WaterAid suggested that existing climate finance is not reaching the poorest and most vulnerable, who are likely to be worst affected by the climate crisis. The charity’s report found that half of all countries receive less than $5 per person per year in climate finance.

Yemen received about $1.17 for each of its people per year on average between 2010 and 2017, WaterAid’s analysis found, despite the country being ranked at 29th in the world’s most vulnerable to the impacts of climate breakdown.

The figure for Sudan was $1.33, despite it being the seventh most vulnerable country in the world. Angola, another of the 50 most vulnerable, received $1.58 per person per year over the period, and the Central African Republic – 16th in the most vulnerable ranking – received $1.61 per person per year.

So, where’s it going? The article really doesn’t say. And why aren’t Warmists running out and giving their own money, and time, to help these nations, rather than cruising around in their fossil fueled vehicles for a 1 mile trip to the grocery store?

Read: Oops: Sweet, Sweet, Redistributed Climate Finance Not Reaching Most Vulnerable »

Posted in Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 5, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful low carbon sail boats for when the world floods, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on a Canadian high school teacher being reprimanded for insulting Islam on Facebook.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Is Coronavirus Doom A Taste Of What’s Coming From ‘Climate Change’ (scam)?

By William Teach March 5, 2020 – 10:30 am

Why, yes, the doomsday Cult of Climastrology is continuing to find ways to link their doomsday cult to Coronavirus

Is Coronavirus And Its Economic Impact A Taste Of What’s To Come With Climate Change?

No.

Up until recently, the stock market has been skyrocketing while our planet is visibly sinking under the weight of human consumption. Thus, it is fascinating to watch the correction taking place under the weight of the deadly COVID-19 this week, though arguably nowhere near as economically severe as the consequences of climate change in the coming decades.

It’s interesting that this is in Forbes, which is primarily about economic prosperity. You know what we need to solve all this is? Stateism

To solve this impending frog in the pot, physical and financial catastrophe, collectivism is what is needed; to come together and address problems for the greater good of society. This does not come naturally to Americans though, as we still appear to be fighting an emotional version of the conflict with our former British overlords that is now 250 years old.  The culture spawned by this initially real, and now tired emotional war is the very thing that keeps us divided and unable to address problems collectively, and we call it our individual liberty and freedom. The freedom to carry a gun in case the government comes back to take our land. The freedom to burn as much fossil fuel as we want and drive as far, wide, and recklessly as we wish with little personal cost.  In fact, the individual freedom and liberty culture is actually very much rooted in freedom from responsibility towards our fellow people, and our planet. (snip)

If you are a government, put a social framework in place and make dispassionate decisions, clearly express desired outcomes, and work with partners in the private sector to change or collaborate on responsible solutions.  If you are in the private sector, and are playing to win the long game, assume the new standards and lead with social responsibility as your #1 North Star versus just following interim financial gain. Do so, and in the new world of public-private collaboration for the social good, you will have an opportunity to play, and win. COVID-19 will pass, but our climate challenges are the issue for this century and likely beyond if we are able to get there.

If we all give up our liberty and freedom, and money, to government, we could solve this! Hooray, Modern Socialism.

Then we have

Why don’t we treat the climate crisis with the same urgency as coronavirus?

Because coronavirus is real, climate change mostly/solely caused by mankind is a scam

Imagine, then, that we felt the same sense of emergency about the climate crisis as we do about coronavirus. What action would we take? As the New Economic Foundation’s Alfie Stirling points out, a strict demarcation between the two crises in unwise. After all, coronavirus may trigger a global slowdown: the economic measures in response to this should be linked to solving the climate crisis. “What tends to happen in a recession is policy-makers panic about what the low-lying fruits are; it’s all supply chains and sticking plasters,” he tells me. During the 2008 crash, for example, there was an immediate cut in VAT and interest rates, but investment spending wasn’t hiked fast enough, and was then slashed in the name of austerity. According to NEF research, if the coalition government had funded additional zero-carbon infrastructure, it would not only have boosted the economy but could have reduced residential emissions by 30%. This time round, there’s little room to cut already low interest rates or boost quantitative easing; green fiscal policy must be the priority.

To quote Glenn Reynolds, I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis in their own lives. Since so few Warmists practice what they preach, kinda hard to believe this is anything but a push for Stateism.

Read: Say, Is Coronavirus Doom A Taste Of What’s Coming From ‘Climate Change’ (scam)? »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove