Some San Francisco Restaurants Take On ‘Climate Change’ Surcharge To “Unf*ck The Planet”

By William Teach January 24, 2020 – 10:30 am

I’m sure all Woke San Francisco residents are willing to pay for it, right, along with the already higher prices from all the city initiatives, like raising the minimum wage, right?

Select SF Restaurants Tack On ‘Optional’ Surcharge to Fight Climate Change

Diners in SF are likely sick of surprise surcharges at this point — and many have argued that local restaurants long ago should have just rolled those “SF Mandates” charges into their prices and stopped surcharging us. But some of the city’s fancier spots have joined in a new initiative to fight climate change that involves a new, additional 1% surcharge on checks.

It is called the Restore California or Zero Foodprint surcharge, and the group behind it is the Perennial Farming Initiative, a group started by Anthony Myint and Karen Leibowitz, who co-founded Mission Chinese Food, Commonwealth, and The Perennial in SF — the latter two of which shuttered in 2019. The mission, as Eater reports, is to collect funds and then distribute grants to “help local farmers implement climate beneficial farming practices,” while also helping restaurants to “reduce and offset their carbon footprint.” In short, the group is seeking to “unfuck the planet,” as they say on a signup page. The program is working in cooperation with California’s Healthy Soils Program, and the California Air Resources Board, and the first grants are expected to be dispersed in May 2020.

The SF restaurants so far participating include Atelier Crenn, Benu, Cala, Chez Panisse, Flour + Water, Flour + Water Pizzeria, Mission Chinese Food, Mister Jiu’s, Namu Stonepot, Mikkeller Bar, The Progress, and State Bird Provisions (see the full list here). And, because the surcharge is optional, if you spot it on your bill and you don’t want to pay it, you can ask your server to remove it.

Given that at several of these spots — especially Atelier Crenn and Benu — a dinner bill can easily rise above the $1000 mark, a $10 surcharge is not insignificant but also not likely to make much of a difference to those dining there. At more mid-range spots, though, yet another surcharge may not be so welcome, no matter how noble its purposes. Eater notes that five-month old Mission spot Great Gold (which opened in August in the former Foxsister space) has already nixed the surcharge due to diner complaints.

I’d love to see a survey of how many actually notice it, and of those that do, how many pay it. Seriously, if this is so important to the restaurants, why don’t they pay it out of their profit, rather than attempting to hit up patrons? Though, in a super Woke progressive SJW climate cultist area like San Fran, they should all want to do their part, right?

Read: Some San Francisco Restaurants Take On ‘Climate Change’ Surcharge To “Unf*ck The Planet” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Davos, Says Hotcoldwetdry Fight Like Last Stand Of The 300

By William Teach January 24, 2020 – 7:04 am

He actually made another comparison, which makes me glad that he wasn’t president on that day, despite voting for him in 2000

From the link, which forgets to mention the private jet Gore took to Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore believes the climate crisis is getting worse “way faster” than most people realize, describing it as a “challenge to our moral imagination.”

Delivering closing remarks at a World Economic Forum panel session on Wednesday, Gore spoke passionately about the climate emergency.

At one stage, the co-founder of Generation Investment Management compared the scale of the crisis to a number of infamous historic events.

It is “way worse” than many realize and intensifying “way faster” than people appreciate, Gore said.

“This is Thermopylae. This is Agincourt. This is Dunkirk. This is the Battle of the Bulge. This is 9/11,” he added.

This. Is. Stupid.

Read: Al Gore Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Davos, Says Hotcoldwetdry Fight Like Last Stand Of The 300 »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater

By William Teach January 24, 2020 – 6:50 am

What is Impeachment Theater? It’s just an extension of the long scream from Democrats when they realized that Trump beat Hillary by the rules, and they just can’t accept it

Schiff pleads to Senate GOP: ‘Right matters. And the truth matters.’

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, made an impassioned effort to break through to Senate Republicans on Thursday night in his closing argument by exhorting them to remove President Trump from office because “you know you can’t trust” him “to do what’s right for this country.”

Senate Republicans have said for months that there are nowhere close to 67 votes in the upper chamber to convict Trump on articles of impeachment, yet Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, pleaded with them follow their consciences.

“Do we really have a doubt about the facts here? Does anybody really question whether the president is capable of what he’s charged with? No one is really making the argument, ‘Donald Trump would never do such a thing’ because of course we know that he would, and of course we know that he did,” Schiff said after a marathon day of presentations.

House prosecutors on Thursday presented a litany of facts and arguments to support their charge that Trump abused his power.

Well, not so much in terms of Facts

Tom Cotton: Republicans are surprised at how ‘flimsy’ the impeachment case is

Sen. Tom Cotton, who was required to sit through the entirety of Wednesday’s marathon Senate impeachment trial session, said on Thursday that “it certainly seems to drag on late into the night as House Democrats repeat themselves time and time again.”

Cotton, R-Ark., made the comment on “America’s Newsroom” on Thursday, adding that if House Democrats “had strong evidence though, I think they’d simply present that evidence and let it speak for itself, but they don’t.”

“That’s why what we heard yesterday were repetitive arguments over and over again based on little more than hearsay, and the House Democrats’ objections to Donald Trump being the president,” he continued. (snip)

“One thing I’ve seen as I’ve listened to these House Democrats for the last few days is just how flimsy the evidence is to support their case, based primarily on hearsay. And again, repeating themselves over and over again, because they don’t have the evidence that would just speak for itself.”

He added that he thinks his Republican colleagues are also surprised at how “flimsy” the impeachment case is.

Cotton noted that House Democrats “keep saying they have an overwhelming case.”

“If they had an overwhelming case, they wouldn’t be demanding that the Senate do the work that the House wasn’t willing to do, subpoenaing documents and witnesses and going to court if necessary to enforce that,” he said. “The Democrats refused to do that in the House because they wanted to rush this through to try to hurt the president’s reelection chances.”

Democrats do not really have any case except Orange Man Bad.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff, Other Democrats Forget To Argue Facts In Impeachment Theater »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, GOP, Unhinged Tools | 66 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One

By William Teach January 23, 2020 – 3:22 pm

Climate cultist Ramin Skibba makes an interesting admission while attempting to argue something else

Opinion: Climate Change Is a Political Crisis, Not a Reproductive One

THE CLIMATE STRIKES led by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and youth groups around the world have achieved great strides, growing rapidly and drawing attention to the dire climate dilemma we face today. A majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and want people to address it right now, according to a recent CBS poll.

But one popular proposal to emerge, that people should have fewer kids, probably isn’t the climate panacea that would-be parents would like to believe. Going childless will do little to derail the main drivers of climate change, and asking millennials to take on that burden — as if the problem’s their responsibility — only lets the fossil fuel industry’s juggernaut off the hook.

The idea of foregoing children to mitigate climate change is essentially an extension of arguments that call for individuals to help save the climate by changing their consumer behavior — say, by switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, installing solar panels, eating less meat, or buying fuel-efficient cars. But it would surely take decades to substantially reduce the world’s population by going childless, if that is even an achievable and desirable societal goal, and we’re already set to overshoot the world’s carbon budget — the level of cumulative carbon emissions that would result in reaching the critical threshold of 2 degrees Celsius of warming — in the 2030s. Climate change is a structural problem involving politics and economics, not personal choices, and solving it will require huge political and economic changes.

See? It’s all about politics. It’s about instituting wholesale changes. Which most Warmists do not like to actually mention, because that would drive people away when they learn of the big government dominance, socialism, Fascism, taxes, fees, etc.

But a focus on population inevitably puts the burden of climate change on the backs of poorer people and people in developing countries — who tend to drive global population growth — despite them not being a major cause of global warming. No one would blame climate change on Ugandans or Afghans, even though the population growth rates in those countries are among the highest in the world. Neither would anyone blame it on the Latin American immigrants contributing to the U.S.’s (slower) population expansion. Population growth in the U.S. isn’t being driven by high-income, high carbon-emitting families having more children.

That, though, is a good point. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Warmists who do want to limit population growth in 3rd world nations, their own form of Eugenics to go with their racism/bigotry.

Environmentalists and advocates for climate action want to protect and preserve the Earth for future generations, not just current ones. Let’s stay focused on the root causes of climate change. Our climate crisis is not primarily a reproductive crisis but a political and economic one. If you’re passionate about tackling climate change, you might make a tiny difference with your individual consumer and reproductive choices. But the biggest lifestyle choice you can make to combat climate change is not to forego having a kid, it’s to become a climate activist — and raise your kid to become one too.

Warmists always want to shift from personal responsibility to walk the talk to making said wholesale changes to the political and economic systems. The chumps who believe in the scam should really sit down and do some critical thinking as to why the main Cultists want these changes, and think if this would better their lives and those of their descendants, or take away their money, freedom, and choice.

Read: Surprise: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Political Issue, Not A Reproductive One »

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

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
Pirate's Cove