…are trees dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on why the Woke establishment hates The Joker.
Read: If All You See… »
…are trees dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on why the Woke establishment hates The Joker.
Read: If All You See… »
This is an interesting take, as part of it is attempting to blow up the Skeptic argument that yes, climate change is happening, it’s just that it is mostly/solely caused by Nature, and turn it sinister. In a way that only a cult/pseudo religion can do
There are three types of climate change denier, and most of us are at least one
Last week, amid the cacophony of reactions to Greta Thunberg’s appearance before the United Nations Climate Action Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “prominent scientists†sent a registered letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The letter, headed “There is no climate emergencyâ€, urged Guterres to follow:
…a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
The group, supported by 75 Australian business and industry figures, along with others around the world, obviously rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. But this missive displays remarkably different tactics to those previously used to stymie climate action.
The language of climate change denial and inaction has transformed. Outright science denial has been replaced by efforts to reframe climate change as natural, and climate action as unwarranted.
However, this is just another way of rejecting the facts, and their implications for us. Denial can take many forms.
I love that the article includes the angry, unhinged photo of St. Greta.
In his book States of Denial, the late psychoanalytic sociologist Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial. Although his framework was developed from analysing genocide and other atrocities, it applies just as well to our individual and collective inaction in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence of human-induced climate change.
The first form of denial is literal denial. It is the simple, conscious, outright rejection that something happened or is happening – that is, lying. One Nation senators Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, among others, have at one time or another maintained this position – outright denial that climate change is happening (though Senator Hanson now might accept climate change but denies any human contribution to it).
It is tempting to attribute outright denial to individual malice or stupidity, and that may occasionally be the case. More worrying and more insidious, though, is the social organisation of literal denial of climate change. There is plenty of evidence of clandestine, orchestrated lying by vested interests in industry. If anyone is looking for a conspiracy in climate change, this is it – not a collusion of thousands of scientists and major science organisations.
The second form of denial is interpretive denial. Here, people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, one might say climate change is just a natural fluctuation or greenhouse gas accumulation is a consequence, not a cause, of rising temperatures. This is what we saw in last week’s letter to the UN.
Almost no one is saying that the climate hasn’t changed. It has. But, this is positioning it as people being Evil for denying that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind (interestingly, the people who aren’t “deniers” are doing almost nothing in their own lives).
The third and most insidious form is implicatory denial. The facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else. What is denied or minimised are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. We fail to accept responsibility for responding; we fail to act when the information says we should.
Well, that is interesting, because, getting beyond the squishy feelings involved, wouldn’t this be the position of most Warmists, who fail to act within their own lives to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their own lives carbon neutral? This is what AOC referred to as climate delaying.
This is fantastic. If the ballot measure doesn’t pass, it’s a hilarious blow to the Cult of Climastrology. If it does pass, they are essentially self-owning themselves by destroying their ability to use energy
Ballot Measures Could Let Voters Act on Climate Change
IF lawmakers again fail to pass a law regulating Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions next year, voters could be called on to do it.
Three initiative petitions filed with the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office Monday would require the state to phase out electricity sources that contribute to global warming, and transition to a carbon-free economy by 2050, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported .
If they proceed to the November 2020 ballot, the measures would likely usher in a bruising ballot fight. But one of the organizations spearheading the efforts, clean energy coalition Renew Oregon, is hoping the measures instead add urgency to next year’s legislative session.
“Our priority will continue to be the cap-and-invest bill,” said Brad Reed, a spokesman for Renew Oregon. “We will put all of our energy to that. But we cannot afford for the state and for the people to not have bold climate action next year.”
The carbon cap bill has been in the works for over a decade, and was the focus of a tussle in the Legislature this year. The proposal flamed out amid a walkout by Senate Republicans and disunity in Democratic ranks. Opposition to House Bill 2020 was stiff among some business groups and rural voters.
So, first off, it’s cute how the carbon tax is now called “cap and invest.” I’m guessing the “invest” part is about enriching government coffers and such, while giving a pittance back to the citizens who would be sca-rewed!!!!! by the energy cost rise, which would devastate the cost of living. I wonder how many Warmists would quickly leave the state of Oregon?
Second, what in the heck is a carbon free economy? The state would not be able to operate without fossil fueled vehicles doing all sorts of things, I’m sure you can imagine what. Will they ban all fossil fueled vehicles from private ownership? How will they stop the US Post Office from delivering? How about USPS, FedEx, and now Amazon? How about all the fishing and passenger boats? Will they stop use of all the airports in Oregon (and there are even more which are private)? How about the four US military bases in Oregon, as well as the National Guard bases? How about all the imports coming in on ships powered by fossil fuels? And tourism?
Seriously, how utterly boned would the state be if the initiative to be 100% carbon free passed? Actually, I’d love to see it pass, so that it could be a lesson in either 1) failure to make it happen or 2) screwed beyond belief and living like it’s 1499.
Read: Oregon To Potentially Give Some ‘Climate Change’ Ballot Measures A Whirl In 2020 »
This is a real shame, you know?
The United Nations is running low on liquid assets and may not have enough money to cover staffers’ salaries next month, according to Reuters.
“This month, we will reach the deepest deficit of the decade,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to the UN’s General Assembly Budget Committee on October 8. “Our work and our reforms are at risk.”
Member states have not been paying the organization owed monies, and it has affected the UN’s bottom line. Without that influx of funds, Guterres said the UN is at risk of “entering November without enough cash to cover payrolls.”
There are 193 member states in the UN. As of this writing, only 129 have paid their regular contributions to the regular budget. At the end of May 2019, Guterres said the organization was in arrears for $492 million.
“We are at a tipping point,” Guterres said, “and what we do next will matter for years to come.”
Such a shame. I wonder who those countries are?
According to the Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. contributed over $10 billion to the UN in 2017. That accounts for approximately one-fifth of the UN’s budget. Agencies that received the greatest amount of money were the World Food Program, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
The U.S. is responsible for 22 percent of the budget, which this year equals more than $3.3 billion. That means the U.S. owes $674 million for the 2019 budget alone. It still owes around $381 million for past budgets.
So, the U.S., which is the number one provider for the U.N., is shamed in this and the Reuters article, as well as the others based on the Reuters report? Did anyone even get close to our $10 billion? Perhaps we should evict the UN from the extremely valuable property in New York.
Perhaps they should stop pissing so much money away on climate change scam stuff. It’d be a real shame if they weren’t able to put on their yearly exotic vacation known as the Conference On The Parties in December, eh?
Read: Bummer: United Nations Is Short On Cash Since Member Nations Aren’t Paying Their Fair Share »
You can put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the adults. But we can solve it with hope (and lots of taxation)
Treatment for climate anxiety is hope
World Mental Health Day is a time to break down the stigma around mental health issues and remind Australians that seeking support and treatment is the right thing to do.
But as I look at how some of us are talking about the mental health of a young woman from halfway across the world, it’s clear we have a long way to go.
Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg made a powerful and emotional speech at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York a couple of weeks ago, challenging world leaders to explain their lack of action on climate change with the question: “How dare you?”
Greta’s visible distress sparked a non-stop stream of speculation about her mental health and Asperger’s diagnosis.
Our own Prime Minister weighed in on this by insisting that he wants children in Australia to “feel positive about their future”, and cautioning against “raising the anxieties of children in our country”.
As a mental health professional I couldn’t agree more with Mr Morrison: Children deserve to feel positive about their future. Extreme anxiety is bad for their mental health.
So then why are Warmist making people like St. Greta even more nuts? Do you actually think it is healthy what they are teaching her and having her do? Where are the adults saying “go to school. Be a kid. The world is not ending”?
But while he is trying to address the problem with tall tales about Australia’s climate track record, the only appropriate cure here is actual climate action and emissions reductions.
I thought the answer was “hope”? No?
I’m part of a group of mental health professionals called Psychology for a Safe Climate, and we conduct workshops for people with climate anxiety and grief.
Climate anxiety has real health consequences, and we must get serious about treating it. Empty words aren’t going to make people feel better; hope is.
The only antidote now is tangible climate action.
Writer Charles Le Feuvre is simply helping spread and grow so-called climate anxiety among the kids, harming their mental health. Perhaps we should be taxing the hell out of these climate groups.
Read: Warmist: Kids Are Feeling Bad About Their Futures, Let’s Make It Worse »
…are leaves changing from an early/late Fall due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on the new gender of “traitor.”
Read: If All You See… »
I’ve written about Excitable Matt Gaetz and his ‘climate change’ ideas a few times. His silly ideas haven’t changed. Pimping St. Greta won’t help earn him support
‘How dare you!’ Why the House hasn’t voted on climate change
If you listen closely, you can hear a 16-year-old girl’s cry for help. “How dare you!”
Her young voice echoes hauntingly through the air as it falls on the ears of those crazy enough to clog up intersections in Washington, D.C., and cities across the world.
Those in the room last week at the United Nations listening to her desperate cry for help applauded. What else can they do? They clap because it looks like they care. They applaud something they say they believe, but will never act on.
World leaders and transnational elites take off from the UN, Davos, and global climate forums in high-pollution private jets, washing their hands of responsibility. After speaking their piece, they leave without solutions, leaving future generations holding the bag, and facing the reality of more frequent hurricanes, higher temperatures, and increased air pollution.
I wish climate change wasn’t real. I wish I could do what many other politicians are doing: sitting back, relaxing, and talking about how great the Green New Deal is — how anything short of such a $93 trillion boondoggle is somehow betraying the world’s children. Meanwhile, floor speeches and exhortations to “think of the children†do nothing to make progress, or make concrete progress toward solving climate change.
Interesting, because Matt has never mentioned giving up his own use of fossil fuels, including for flying to and from D.C. He represents Florida. As a sidebar, mentions of the Green New Deal in the news have virtually dried up, and are usually in articles that are on other subjects as sidebars.
The Left pretends to care but does nothing. The American people care, too, and want us to do something.
A growing number of people realize the threat of climate change. A recent Gallup poll showed 44% of adults in the United States care a “great deal†about the threat of climate change; another poll found that 65% of Americans were at least “somewhat worried†by it. Democrats, take note: another recent poll shows that young people are increasingly willing to cross party lines to find solutions.
We don’t have to be divided. We can work together. We can solve this together.
When I introduced the “Green Real Deal” earlier this year, my vision was to start a national conversation to figure out innovative, practical ways to reduce emissions, and preserve the earth for generations to come.
My proposal is meant to decrease dependence on the federal government for climate solutions. I believe every state in our great nation should take it upon itself to find innovative solutions to reduce carbon emissions.
Let’s not forget all the polls that say that most U.S. citizens wouldn’t want to pay more than $10 a month to solve Hotcoldwetdry. Remember this one from the end of September?
Another emerging theme from the survey is that people do not want to spend their own money to combat climate change. Thirty-seven percent do not want to pay any additional taxes, and only 14 percent are willing to pay even $1 more a month.
Since the GND promotes a 100 percent switch to renewables, we also asked whether people would be willing to pay more in various costs to support such a switch. A resounding 70 percent of respondents said they are unwilling to pay more in electric bills, 66 percent are unwilling to pay more in taxes, and 67 percent are unwilling to pay more in food costs to see a shift to 100 percent renewable energy.
Now, Gaetz’s plan is not that bad, as far as man-caused climate change plans goes. He’s all in on nuclear power. It is meant to limit the input and control by and of the federal government. All the taxes and fees that Warmists usually love are missing (Gaetz has never supported a carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.). All the big government dominance and decrees in controlling our lives are gone. However, it would still cause the price of living to rise. And it is all based on a false believe that mankind is mostly/solely causing the current low level warm period.
The problem is not that we lack solutions. The problem is that the same people who won’t even vote on their own ‘Green New Deal’ would rather block traffic in Washington, D.C., than stand up, take action, and pass meaningful legislative solutions.
Because most people like the notion of Doing Something in theory, but, in practice, they do not want to give up their own modern lifestyles nor pay more to “solve” the climate scam.
Read: Republican Warmist Matt Gaetz Loves Him Some St. Greta, Pushes His Own Hotcoldwetdry Ideas »
But, hey, we should take guns away from law abiding citizens, right, Beto?
Not again.
I visited Kansas City in August—and everyone I met was warm, generous, and welcoming. My heart is with all who are impacted by this tragedy. Together, communities like ours, which have been victims of gun violence, will lead the way in ending this epidemic. https://t.co/2EkrgqPwAz
— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) October 6, 2019
Universal background checks wouldn’t solve this, because he’s already barred. Taking away people’s “assault weapons” wouldn’t matter, as he didn’t use one.
(Fox 6) One of the two men accused of opening fire inside a Kansas bar early Sunday, killing four people and wounding five others, was arrested Sunday afternoon while the other remained at large, police said.
Javier Alatorre, 23, and Hugo Villanueva-Morales, 29, were each charged with four counts of first-degree murder, police in Kansas City, Kansas, said in an early Monday release. Alatorre was arrested late Sunday afternoon in Kansas City, Missouri, but police were still looking for Villanueva-Morales, who is considered “armed and dangerous.†Bail for each was set at $1 million.
The two men, both with criminal records, apparently had a disagreement with people inside Tequila KC bar, left, and then returned with handguns a couple hours later, police spokesman Officer Thomas Tomasic. The shooting was captured on surveillance video, which police weren’t releasing. (snip)
Villanueva-Morales had a pending third-degree assault charge in Missouri. Alatorre, meanwhile, had past convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement in Kansas and for driving while intoxicated in Missouri. He also had pending charges in Missouri for tampering with a motor vehicle, possession of a controlled substance and resisting or interfering with arrest, detention or stop. And in 2017, an order of protection had been ordered, barring him from abusing, stalking and possessing a firearm.
It gets even more fun with Alatorre
(KC Star) Last month, Alatorre sought to get his bond reduced so that he could get out of jail. The prosecutor objected to his request, saying that Alatorre was a flight risk and danger to the community.
“The defendant has repeatedly shown this Court that if released there is no guarantee that he will appear for his next scheduled hearing,†the prosecutor argued in a court filing.
“Specifically, the defendant’s bond has been revoked on two separate occasions for failing to appear at scheduled Court hearings.â€
Prosecutors said Alatorre has committed new crimes while out on bond and that pending cases and bond conditions had no effect on the defendant’s actions.
Despite the objections, a judge granted Alatorre’s request and set his bond at $3,500 — without paying anything at all.
Then the judge released Alatorre on his on own recognizance.
In July, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered new rules regarding bond, requiring judges to first consider non-monetary conditions of release and require money only if necessary.
This is the kind of thing that Democrats like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are pushing, no-bond releases. How’d that work out?
The only thing missing is being in illegal alien status. I doubt we’ll find that with Alatorre, too many articles without, but, we do not have that much on the other perp.
But, anyway, you need to turn in your firearms over this, you big passing a background check and having no criminal history person, you.
Read: Kansas City Shooting: At Least One Of Shooters Was Barred From Owning A Firearm »
The UK Guardian, certainly one of the most sympathetic major papers in the world, is running an interesting photo essay on the XR nutters arrested
"I hope we will learn to live a very different way of life to what we have learned under capitalism".
This isn't really about climate, is it? https://t.co/xatoWdZRLB
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) October 7, 2019
From the link
People joining Extinction Rebellion (XR) are trained in how to conduct themselves peacefully when participating in direct action.
According to Hallam, direct action has several aims and objectives. One is to cause disruption and financial costs to the state to build pressure for political change. Another is for individuals to show their commitment – that they are willing to sacrifice their liberty for the cause. Increased disruption and more people arrested creates a bigger impact.
The training explains the possible legal implications of getting arrested. Once people have been informed about this, it is up to them to decide if they are willing to get arrested or not. If they sign up, they become part of the growing list of arrestables.
If they’re peaceful, then why are they putting themselves in a position to be arrested? They may not be assaulting anyone, but, they are causing all sorts of problems for other people.
“I am very happy to be able to use my privilege as a white elderly woman this way and I will be back in London in October.â€
No, no, this is non-partisan, definitely not a Leftist thing. And here we go
Phil Kingston, 83, retired probation officer and lecturer in social work at Bristol University
Kingston was arrested for his part in a protest disrupting the DLR at Canary Wharf in April.
“It’s really very hard for many elders to break the law, because of the culture we have been brought up in – unlike younger people now,†he says. “The things I do, I do for my grandchildren and other lifeforms and future generations. Whatever the future situation, I hope we will learn to live a very different way of life to what we have learned under capitalism.â€
See, Phil got his (off the back of the government teet), but now wants others to not get theirs. You look at this photo (go to the link a midway down for full size)
and you realize how many are wearing clothes and using smartphones made via capitalism, shipped from around the world via capitalism. And how many trees are they killing with their signs? Alos
Extinction Rebellion: the arrestables – a photo essay https://t.co/Mok5rRTphM
— Guardian Environment (@guardianeco) October 7, 2019
I know that Blacks only account for a bit over 3% in the UK, but, XR is very, very white. Just 2 blacks represented in that photo. No Asians.
Read: Extinction Rebellion: Not Really About ‘Climate Change’ »