If All You See…

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon bike, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Scepticism, with a post on how climate cultists take over city councils.

Read: If All You See… »

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

‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 10:30 am

This is not the first attempt by the Cult of Climastrology to link any future recession/depression to ‘climate change’. They Warmists have been ramping up this bit of fear mongering as of late, that way when a recession happens, something which comes in cycles, they can Blamestorm you for eating a burger

Climate Change Could Cause the Next Financial Meltdown

Climate change has already been blamed for deadly bush fires in Australia, dying coral reefs, rising sea levels and ever more cataclysmic storms. Could it also cause the next financial crisis?

A report issued this week by an umbrella organization for the world’s central banks argued that the answer is yes, while warning that central bankers lack tools to deal with what it says could be one of the biggest economic dislocations of all time.

The book-length report, published by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, signals what could be the overriding theme for central banks in the decade to come.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to human societies, and our community of central banks and supervisors cannot consider itself immune to the risks ahead of us,” François Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Banque de France, said in the report.

Central banks spent much of the last 10 years hauling their economies out of a deep financial crisis that began in 2008. They may well spend the next decade coping with the disruptive effects of climate change and technology, the report said.

See, it might possibly maybe could perchance be linked/caused by, and, even if the next one has zero to do with ‘climate change’, they’ll make sure you know you should blame the fossil fuels companies. Much like they manufactured a way to blame snow and ice and cold on heat trapping gases.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Economy, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Cause The Next Financial Meltdown Or Something | Trackback URL

US Treasury Secretary Recommends St. Greta Get A Degree In Economics

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 7:52 am

St. Greta of Stockholm would have to actually attend lower school and graduate from that, first

From the link, which is Very Upset that Mnuchin would suggest this

Donald Trump’s treasury secretary has dismissed Greta Thunberg’s call for immediate fossil fuel divestment, saying the 17-year-old activist should go to college and study economics.

In a withering slapdown on the climate emergency movement, Steven Mnuchin pretended not to know who Thunberg was, before dismissing her concerns as ill-informed.

Asked whether calls for public and private-sector divestment from fossil fuel companies would threaten US growth, Mnuchin jibed: “Is she the chief economist? Who is she, I’m confused” – before clarifying that he was joking.

“After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us,” Mnuchin added, at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

It wasn’t that long ago that Warmists said we shouldn’t listen to anyone who didn’t have a degree in climate science. Greta has none, and doesn’t look to be getting close to even attempting to get a degree in anything.

Fossil fuels make the world go round. They allow people to travel inexpensively. They bring all sorts of goods and products. They are an inexpensive way to lift people out of poverty. They enrich people. Until such time as they can be fully replaced, divestment is stupid. “Leave it in the ground” is stupid. Perhaps Warmists should spend their time and money doing research to replace them.

Read: US Treasury Secretary Recommends St. Greta Get A Degree In Economics »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Adam Schiff Explains That Trump Needs To Be Booted From Office In Case You People Re-Elect Him

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 7:13 am

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi is regretting her decision in making Adam Schiff one of the House managers for the impeachment trial? He managed to drag Russia Russia Russia into the mix, and then this

Schiff warns of Russian attack on US mainland, as Day 2 of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial concludes

House Democrats launched into lengthy arguments that broke little ground, if any, in President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday — as the head impeachment manager, California Rep. Adam Schiff, suggested that Russians could attack the U.S. and insisted that removing Trump from office was necessary because the integrity of the 2020 election could not be “assured.”

Trump’s lawyers sat by, waiting their turn, as the president blasted the proceedings from afar, threatening jokingly to face off with the Democrats by coming to “sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces.”

The challenge before the House managers has been clear. Democrats were given 24 hours over three days to prosecute the charges against Trump, trying to win over not just fidgety senators sitting silently in the chamber but an American public, deeply divided over the president and his impeachment in an election year. (snip through paragraphs noting many were bored with the long winded speeches)

Perhaps sensing the ennui in the chamber on Day 2 of the trial, Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, sought to keep the stakes high. He suggested at one point that military aid to Ukraine was essential so the U.S. would not have to fight Russians at home, as soldiers did in the videogame “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.”

“As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here,” Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the political spectrum.

Huh what?

Schiff attracted the most criticism, however, for later making the head-turning argument that Trump must be removed from office by the Senate — rather than by voters in the 2020 election — because it is impossible to be sure the 2020 election won’t be compromised.

“The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” Schiff remarked. He did not elaborate.

OK, don’t believe Fox?

That should pretty darned concerning for everyone. A top drawer elected Democrat saying that you should not be able to vote. He’s also laying the groundwork for Dems to say that the election was fraudulent if Democrats lose. Anytime you hear Democrats yammer about “saving our democracy” think back to Schiff’s statement

“And right here is proof of the Democrats’ plan all along,” Trump campaign director of communications Tim Murtaugh said in response. “Every moment of the impeachment sham has been geared toward interfering with the 2020 election. Schiff is preemptively calling into question the results of an election that is still more than 9 months away.”

Don’t think that Schiff saying voters are too stupid to know what’s best won’t show up in a Trump campaign ad.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff Explains That Trump Needs To Be Booted From Office In Case You People Re-Elect Him »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: Excitable Adam Schiff Tries To Drag Russia Russia Russia Into Impeachment Theater

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 3:02 pm

Democrats just can’t let it go, despite having zero evidence

Adam Schiff Tries to Make Impeachment About ‘Russia Collusion’ Hoax

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) led his opening argument in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on Wednesday by citing allegations of “Russia collusion” that have been debunked.

Schiff tried to argue that the Senate had a duty to remove President Trump from office for allegedly inviting foreign interference by Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election because he supposedly invited Russia to interfere in 2016.

He said:

We also took this step with the knowledge that this was not the first time the president solicited foreign interference in our elections. In 2016, then-candidate Trump implored Russia to hack his opponent’s email account, something that the Russian military agency did only hours later.

Schiff was referring to a press conference in July 2016 at which Trump joked about Russia finding the approximately 33,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had deleted from her illicit private email server. Trump made the joke after being badgered by the press to comment on allegations that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email server. The Clinton campaign had blamed Russia — and had blamed Trump as well. (snip)

The articles of impeachment themselves refer to “Russia collusion,” referring to “President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections,” as if that were somehow an established fact.

This is delusion. This is people living in an alternate universe. They created a Narrative, that Narrative collapsed with the Mueller Report, but, like a deranged Ex constantly checking that person’s social media they can’t move on.

Read: Good Grief: Excitable Adam Schiff Tries To Drag Russia Russia Russia Into Impeachment Theater »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a city that will soon be flooded from a (slowly) rising sea, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the danger of civil disobedience.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Spain Declares Climate Emergency, Plans To Be A Third World Nation By 2050

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 10:30 am

I think they should start implementing the draconian ‘climate change’ policies immediately, show the citizens exactly what they’re in for, rather than slow rolling themselves back to 643AD

Spain proclaims a climate emergency, creates plan of action

Spain’s new government declared a national climate emergency on Tuesday, taking a formal first step toward enacting ambitious measures to fight climate change.

The declaration approved by the Cabinet says the left-of-center Socialist government will send to parliament within 100 days its proposed climate legislation. The targets coincide with those of the European Union, including a reduction of net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

Spain’s coalition government wants up to 95% of the Mediterranean country’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2040. The plan also foresees eliminating pollution by buses and trucks and making farming carbon neutral.

Details of the plan are to be made public when the proposed legislation is sent to parliament for approval.

So, how will this work? Here are Spain’s top 10 exports

  1. Vehicles: US$58.9 billion (17.1% of total exports)
  2. Mineral fuels including oil: $26.7 billion (7.7%)
  3. Machinery including computers: $25.3 billion (7.3%)
  4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $19.5 billion (5.7%)
  5. Plastics, plastic articles: $13.6 billion (3.9%)
  6. Pharmaceuticals: $12.3 billion (3.6%)
  7. Fruits, nuts: $10.4 billion (3%)
  8. Clothing, accessories (not knit or crochet): $9.1 billion (2.6%)
  9. Iron, steel: $8.7 billion (2.5%)
  10. Articles of iron or steel: $8.5 billion (2.5%)

So, all those will have to stop. Because there’s no way they can get to net zero. The automotive one surprised me. Diamler AG, Ford, Nissan, Opel, Peugeot, Renault, SEAT, and VW all make vehicles in Spain. That will have to be stopped. No way to mass produce even pure electric cars with net zero emissions. And everything else goes out on a fossil fueled plane or ship.

Good luck with this.

Read: Spain Declares Climate Emergency, Plans To Be A Third World Nation By 2050 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

St. Greta Says We Only Have 8 Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry Doom

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 9:18 am

And we all need to listen to the teenager with zero degrees and blowing off going to school and getting a basic education, right? (via behind the paywall Twitchy. Nope, not paying for it, I just use Pocket)

As Twitchy’s Greg P notes

Keep in mind, what Greta is saying in this speech is politically impossible. She wants zero emissions. Not net-zero emissions. Just zero emissions, which is actually more honest than the other alarmists who are hoping for technologies that haven’t been invented. Transcript via the NYT

Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.

Because distant net zero emission targets will mean absolutely nothing if we just continue to ignore the carbon dioxide budget — that applies for today, not distant future dates. If high emissions continue like now even for a few years, that remaining budget will soon be completely used up.

Even if St. Greta took a train to Davos, she did not have zero emissions. Walking wouldn’t be zero. It’s also not the first time she pulled this number out of her butt. She trotted it out last September during a climate strike in Montreal. And the only way to even get close to “real zero” is massive government control of everything. She’s just another little (uneducated) Fascist cult member.

Read: St. Greta Says We Only Have 8 Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry Doom »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Senate Approves Impeachment Theater Rules

By William Teach January 22, 2020 – 9:05 am

The Democrats were up to their typical tricks, because they really do not have any sort of actual evidence

Chief Justice Roberts admonishes both sides at Senate impeachment trial, after marathon session erupts into shouting match

A marathon, 12-hour first day in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump erupted into a shouting match well after midnight Wednesday morning, as Trump’s legal team unloaded on Democratic impeachment manager Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. — in an exchange that prompted a bleary-eyed Chief Justice John Roberts to sternly admonish both sides for misconduct in the chamber.

Nadler began the historic spat by speaking in support of the eighth amendment of the day, which was proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., just as the clock struck midnight. The proposal would have amended the trial rules offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to immediately subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

McConnell’s rules, which were eventually adopted in a 53-47 party-line vote at 1:40 a.m. ET Wednesday and largely mirror those from the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in 1999, permit new witnesses and documents to be considered only later on in the proceedings, after opening arguments are made.

But Nadler, who was overheard apparently planning to impeach Trump back in 2018, said it would be a “treacherous vote” and a “cover-up” for Republicans to reject the Bolton subpoena amendment, claiming that “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” Bolton has reportedly described Trump’s conduct as akin to a “drug deal,” and he has indicated he would be willing to testify and provide relevant information.

I do believe that Excitable Jerry forgets how our system of Justice works. As for Bolton? There are reports that some Senate Democrats are privately mulling a Bolton for Hunter Biden testimony. No thanks. Let Joe and Hunter testify, or at least Joe, regarding his dealings with Ukraine. Anyhow, as Marc Theissen points out, if Democrats think Bolton will bring down Trump, good luck with that

Consider the irony: Senate Democrats are hoping that former national security adviser John Bolton — yes, John Bolton — will provide them with the bombshell testimony that brings down President Trump. In other words, they have pinned their hopes on a man they have vilified for years, and whose national security career they sought to destroy. Good luck with that.

It’s a long piece, worth the read, but, here’s something that really stands out

No doubt that is all true. Bolton is a foreign policy professional. But none of this means that Bolton believes Trump committed an impeachable offense. He may very well believe Trump’s decision to withhold lethal aide to Ukraine, and to raise Hunter Biden with Ukraine’s president, was wrong. (If so, he’d be correct). But not every bad decision a president makes is impeachable. I’ll bet Bolton considers President Barack Obama’s decision to release five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for U.S. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl — an act that the Government Accountability Office found was illegal — worse than a “drug deal.” Yet no Democrats called for Obama’s impeachment over it.

You know there was no way the IRS was targeting Conservative groups without Obama’s say so. And Operation Fast and Furious. And so much more. Where were Dems on those? Republicans did not call for his impeachment, either.

Regardless of whether and how Bolton testifies, Trump is going to be acquitted. The fact that Democrats are counting on Bolton to be the hero who rescues the doomed efforts by Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to end Trump’s presidency shows how weak their case really is.

So, no need for witnesses, right, Chuck?

Read: Senate Approves Impeachment Theater Rules »

Posted in Democrats, GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

UN Climahysterics Declare That “Climate Refugees” Can’t Be Returned Home

By William Teach January 21, 2020 – 4:10 pm

And the have the power to enforce this how, exactly?

Climate refugees can’t be returned home, says landmark UN human rights ruling

It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found.

The judgment – which is the first of its kind – represents a legal “tipping point” and a moment that “opens the doorway” to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say.

Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade.

While the judgment is not formally binding on countries, it points to legal obligations that countries have under international law.

“What’s really important here, and why it’s quite a landmark case, is that the committee recognised that without robust action on climate at some point in the future it could well be that governments will, under international human rights law, be prohibited from sending people to places where their life is at risk or where they would face inhuman or degrading treatment,” said Prof Jane McAdam, director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.

Well, good luck with this.

Read: UN Climahysterics Declare That “Climate Refugees” Can’t Be Returned Home »

Posted in Global Warming, UN | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove