If All You See…

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will soon rise up and swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on Liz Warren being doomed and Feministas not understanding why.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

ClimaDoom Today: One Third Of All Plants And Animals Could Maybe Possibly Be Gone In 50 Years

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 10:30 am

We can fix this with a tax, though

Study: One-Third of Plant and Animal Species Could be Gone in 50 Years
University of Arizona researchers studied recent extinctions from climate change to estimate the loss of plant and animal species by 2070. Their results suggest that as many as one in three species could face extinction unless warming is reduced.

Seriously, you could really stop with the subhead. This is simply prognosticating. Madame Zelda at the carnival is not amused

Accurately predicting biodiversity loss from climate change requires a detailed understanding of what aspects of climate change cause extinctions, and what mechanisms may allow species to survive.

A new study by University of Arizona researchers presents detailed estimates of global extinction from climate change by 2070. By combining information on recent extinctions from climate change, rates of species movement and different projections of future climate, they estimate that one in three species of plants and animals may face extinction. Their results are based on data from hundreds of plant and animal species surveyed around the globe. (snip)

To estimate the rates of future extinctions from climate change, Cristian Román-Palacios and John J. Wiens, both in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, looked to the recent past. Specifically, they examined local extinctions that have already happened, based on studies of repeated surveys of plants and animals over time.

Román-Palacios and Wiens analyzed data from 538 species and 581 sites around the world. They focused on plant and animal species that were surveyed at the same sites over time, at least 10 years apart. They generated climate data from the time of the earliest survey of each site and the more recent survey. They found that 44% of the 538 species had already gone extinct at one or more sites.

So, essentially, they are blaming those extinctions all on climate change, rather than on other factors. Nor does the study prove that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Projections of species loss depend on how much climate will warm in the future.

“In a way, it’s a ‘choose your own adventure,'” Wiens said. “If we stick to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, we may lose fewer than two out of every 10 plant and animal species on Earth by 2070. But if humans cause larger temperature increases, we could lose more than a third or even half of all animal and plant species, based on our results.”

By bringing up the Paris Climate Agreement they are showing that this is all political, not science. The Cult of Climastrology always has to have some sort of prognostication of Doom to get everyone to comply with Big Government control.

Read: ClimaDoom Today: One Third Of All Plants And Animals Could Maybe Possibly Be Gone In 50 Years »

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

The Difference Between Republican And Democrat ‘Climate Change’ Plans? Economic Growth

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 7:15 am

There are some Republicans who are Believers in anthropogenic climate change, such as Florida’s Matt Gaetz. Lindsay Graham always was a believer. Many others are just following the winds, thinking that this is truly an important issue, so, are pushing some policies to deal with it. Unlike some lunatics like George Schultz, they are not pushing carbon taxes. Instead….

Economic Growth Defines Climate Change Divide Between Republicans And Democrats

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week gave a glimpse into Republican plans for addressing climate change and the environment issues.

It is encouraging to see Republicans take on environmental issues since they rank as a top concern for independent and moderate voters who are critical to the GOP this cycle. It’s also refreshing to see Republicans taking a fiscally responsible approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.

Poll after poll shows voter support for climate change legislation is dependent on its price tag. Americans want policies that are achievable and that protect economic growth and prosperity along with the environment. That’s why Republicans are right to focus on American ingenuity and innovation over government regulation.

Let me point out again that polls show that the majority refuse to pay more than $10 a month. Others show they do not want to pay more than a $1.

On the other side of the political divide, Democrats deserve some credit for recognizing that the $93 trillion Green New Deal promoted by progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) isn’t just dead legislatively, but has become toxic with voters.

Democrats’ second bite at the climate legislation apple, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act, released earlier this month by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), is closer to the center than previous attempts.

Closer to the center isn’t saying much when the GND is the starting point. The CLEAN Future Act is still very much far left. Or, should we say very far right, because on the political scale Authoritarianism is way to the right, and that’s what they bill is. The only difference between it and the GND is that it doesn’t knock natural gas and nuclear energy out of the picture.

In the House, Republicans are beginning to roll out proposals focused on innovation and nature-based solutions, such as planting 1 trillion trees by 2050 to absorb carbon. Republicans are also working to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans, make our communities more resilient to severe weather activity, and extend tax credits for industrial carbon capture technology.

Republicans also support efforts to expand renewable energy deployment by reducing the regulatory roadblocks that often delay projects to the point where they’re no longer economically viable. Streamlining the regulatory universe is an approach even President Trump supports.

The common denominators among the Republican efforts to address climate change are a faith in competitive free markets, American ingenuity and incentives. Call it a zero-harm approach.

There is nothing wrong with doing R&D, moving technology forward, nor protecting communities. Regardless of your belief in causation of the current warm period, climatic changes can cause issues, so, why not address them? Democrats, on the other hand, are all about Government control. Control of you, control of the economy, control of everything. And taxes and fees. Don’t forget those. One just has to look at the ‘climate change’ plans of all the Democrats running for president, and you see the extremism. The authoritarianism.

Read: The Difference Between Republican And Democrat ‘Climate Change’ Plans? Economic Growth »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, GOP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Heading Into The Elections, More Americans Say They Are Better Off

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 6:54 am

No matter how much Democrats and their media allies attempt to downplay the economy, it’s been pretty good. They try and dink and dunk around the edges, claiming it is only good for The Rich, but, people keep proving Democrats wrong

More in U.S. Say They Are Better Off Than in Past Elections

Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running. In the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, exactly half said they were better off. In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle, an average of 45% said they were better off.

The current results, from a Jan. 16-29 Gallup poll, echo record highs, measured earlier in January, in Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in their personal life and in their assessments of their personal finances.

Relatedly, 52% of U.S. adults say it is easier for them to “go and buy things in the stores” than it was three years ago, higher than in the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, when the figures were closer to 40%.

Of course, Democrats are being moonbat nags

Americans’ perceptions of whether they are personally better off, and whether it is easier to buy things, appear to be influenced much more by their party leanings than by their economic situations. Sixty percentage points separate Republicans’ (89%) and Democrats’ (29%) assessments of whether they are better off than three years ago. Independents are essentially in the middle of the two groups, at 60%. Meanwhile, 64% of those in both upper- and middle-income households say they are better off, as do 49% of those in lower-income households.

But, if you look at the graphic in the post, 60% of Independents say they are better off, a full 14% higher than Obama in 2012, and ten points higher than Clinton 1996, when James Carville said “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is why Democrats can’t really attack Trump on the economy, and, instead, have to offer things like free healthcare, free this, free that. Of course, they don’t like to mention that they are pushing things like higher payroll taxes, massive government interference in all things economy, climate change taxes, etc and so on.

David Winston notes that Democrats are in denial

But it is their second objective that is more problematic for Democrats.  In debate after debate, appearance after appearance, their presidential hopefuls are trying to make the case that, despite a mountain of statistics to the contrary, the economy isn’t working for most Americans. In other words, they’re asking voters, “Who are you going to believe — us or the Bureau of Labor Statistics?”

Elizabeth Warren kicked things off in the first presidential debate by saying, “When you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple. We need to call it out.” Democrats have been doing it ever since.

In last month’s Iowa debate, Joe Biden claimed that “where I come from, the neighborhoods I come from, they’re in real trouble. … The American public is getting clobbered. The wealthy are the only ones doing well, period.”

This might work with their unhinged base, but, most people, including the normal Democrat, isn’t buying.

Read: Heading Into The Elections, More Americans Say They Are Better Off »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Economy | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 4:15 pm

This is the second opinion piece that’s been run in the NY Times in the last week over the Trillion Trees Initiative. Why? Because President Trump is in favor of it, so, the Trump hating Warmists have to poo-poo the idea

Planting Trees Won’t Save the World

One trillion trees.

At the World Economic Forum last month, President Trump drew applause when he announced the United States would join the forum’s initiative to plant one trillion trees to fight climate change. More applause for the decision followed at his State of the Union speech.

The trillion-tree idea won wide attention last summer after a study published in the journal Science concluded that planting so many trees was “the most effective climate change solution to date.”

If only it were true. But it isn’t. Planting trees would slow down the planet’s warming, but the only thing that will save us and future generations from paying a huge price in dollars, lives and damage to nature is rapid and substantial reductions in carbon emissions from fossil fuels, to net zero by 2050.

Focusing on trees as the big solution to climate change is a dangerous diversion. Worse still, it takes attention away from those responsible for the carbon emissions that are pushing us toward disaster. For example, in the Netherlands, you can pay Shell an additional 1 euro cent for each liter of regular gasoline you put in your tank, to plant trees to offset the carbon emissions from your driving. That’s clearly no more than disaster fractionally delayed. The only way to stop this planet from overheating is through political, economic, technological and social solutions that end the use of fossil fuels.

Here’s an idea: every Warmist should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels. Show they rest of us that they can walk the talk, and that it is viable to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Still, carbon pollution from fossil fuels remains the greatest regulatory challenge ever. Globally, fossil fuels provide about 80 percent of the energy powering the global economy today. Yet ending fossil fuel use could also provide huge economic and employment opportunities. Through new spending on infrastructure and research for energy and transportation, the American economy could be transformed for the better and for the long run. For example, all internal flights between American cities less than 600 miles apart could be replaced by high-speed electric ‘bullet’ trains traveling over 200 miles per hour, providing a quicker, safer and cleaner way to get around and built with American technology, steel and workers. The battle against carbon pollution is also a battle for a better America and a better world.

So, what, exactly, does it look like to replace 80% of energy generation with energy sources that can’t compete in any form? Further, where’s the energy coming from for all these trains? And will Warmists mandate these types of trips?

Everyone loves a simple solution, but it is just too tempting to say “let’s plant trees” while we continue to burn fossil fuels. We must not play foolish games with the Earth’s climate: We will all end up paying for it in the end. Regulating carbon pollution down to net zero emissions by 2050 will end the global climate crisis for good.

For all this high falutin talk, this really all boils down to “Trump likes this idea, so, we don’t”.

Read: Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle which causes desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post comparing Mayor Pete and Tulsi Gabbard’s military service.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Extinction Rebellion Plans To Annoy People In London Like Mosquitoes

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 10:30 am

You know the best way to get people on your side, to convince them your policy positions are the best? That’s right, annoy the ever loving sh*t out of them

‘Like mosquitoes’: Extinction Rebellion plans surprises for City of London

Activist group Extinction Rebellion plans to send mosquito-like swarms of protesters to disrupt financial, accountancy and media firms in London this year to mobilise broader popular support for transformative action against climate change.

The goal is to spark a worldwide conversation over how to shift to a low-carbon society in time to avert the most catastrophic impacts, said Gail Bradbrook, a co-founder of the movement, who holds a PhD in molecular biophysics.

“We’ll be like sets of mosquitoes coming into London — the aim is to disrupt the system, not the public,” Bradbrook told Reuters ahead of the publication of an Extinction Rebellion strategy document on Wednesday.

Extinction Rebellion, in common with a “new economics” movement of economists, academics and scientists, argues that a relentless focus on ever-faster economic growth is pushing the world’s ecosystems to breaking point.

“The economic system is acting like a cancer on humanity,” Bradbrook said. “The regulatory system, the accountants, the legal firms support the metastasizing of this cancer.”

Interestingly, they never seem to want to say exactly what type of economic system they want to put in place to replace the exist sorta-capitalist one. I wonder why.

Read: Extinction Rebellion Plans To Annoy People In London Like Mosquitoes »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability Is His Climate Denial Or Something

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 8:26 am

Mother Jones thinks this is what will finally take Trump down, an issue that has, yet again, essentially been relegated to the back burner

Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability Is His Climate Change Denial

A little more than 10 years ago, Donald Trump and his children signed a letter that ran as a full-page ad in the New York Times. In it, they urged global leaders to reach an ambitious climate change deal at the annual United Nations conference.

The position didn’t hold. Months later, Trump said he thought Al Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Prize because of an unusually cold winter. Since then, Trump has tried on many different excuses for ignoring climate change, from calling it an outright hoax on Twitter to claiming in an Axios interview that it’s part of a natural cycle that will “go back like this,” he said, making an ocean-wave gesture with his hand.

But most Americans don’t agree with that assessment. For the last year, there’s been a clear trend in polls finding that climate change is Trump’s most unpopular position, outranking health care, immigration and foreign policy as the issue he gets the worst marks on from registered voters.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll released in late January—smack in the middle of the impeachment trial—asked 2,000 voters about Trump’s performance on a number of issues ranging from jobs, economy, and terrorism to trade, climate, immigration, foreign relations, health care, and draining the swamp. They were the least impressed with climate: More than half—54 percent—gave Trump a D or F, while just 21 percent gave him an A or B. (snip)

Another poll in North Carolina in 2018 showed a spike in Republican voters’ concern about climate change following back-to-back direct hits hurricanes. The American Conservation Coalition, a group representing younger conservatives, has done its own polling of 1,000 voters nationwide under age 35—77 percent of whom said climate change was important to them and that they want to see more solutions from their party.

Of course, this all breaks down on two things. First, when you put ‘climate change’ on a list of actual concerns, it drops to the bottom. Kitchen table issues blow it away. Second, when you start asking people how much they’re willing to pay to “solve” Hotcoldwetdry, Americans are very reticent to pay much out of their own pockets. The majority aren’t willing to pay more than $10 a month.

People may care about ‘climate change’  in theory, but, in practice? Not so much.

Read: Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability Is His Climate Denial Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | Comments Off on Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability Is His Climate Denial Or Something | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie, Mayor Pete Take The Lead In Hew Hampshire

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 8:05 am

Crazy Uncle Joe and Fauxahontas are in deep, deep trouble

New Hampshire gives Klobuchar major boost, puts Biden and Warren on 2020 life support

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont narrowly edged former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg to claim victory in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential primary.

But the biggest winner in Tuesday’s contest – the first primary in the White House race – may well be Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who came in a strong third. Klobuchar finished far ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joe Biden, who are limping out of New Hampshire facing serious questions about the future of their campaigns.

“We love you New Hampshire,” Klobuchar stressed in her primary night speech. “Because of you, we are taking this campaign to Nevada. We are going to South Carolina. And we are taking this message of unity to the country.”

Bernie and Pete both picked up 9 delegates, and Amy picked up 6. Biden and Warren got zero. Everyone is now talking up Amy, wondering where she’s been this whole time. And Biden left New Hampshire for South Carolina even before the polls closed, and we get this from him

Former Vice President Joe Biden would like to remind you just how white Iowa and New Hampshire are.

Before the polls had even closed in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Biden had already left the early primary state for South Carolina. That’s where, even after results showed him in a distant fifth place in New Hampshire, Biden declared he’s far from done with his 2020 run.

While “it’s important” to hear from the first two states in the Democratic primary schedule, Biden declared “we haven’t heard from the most committed constituency of the Democratic Party — the African American community” and “fastest growing segment of society — the Latino community.” “99.9 percent” of black voters “have not yet had the chance to vote in America,” Biden said, and neither did “99.8 percent” of Latinx voters. And a Democrat can’t win the general election “unless you have overwhelming support from black and brown voters,” Biden added.

Of course, calling all the people of NH and Iowa essentially racists is fine for Democrats, since they all seem to have this white guilt. But, Joe sure seems to be assuming all the Blacks will vote for him. We’ll see.

But, what of Mike Bloomberg? Supposedly, moderate Dems are lining up behind him (I thought Democrats hated the 1%?), but, what effect will his stop and frisk comments, where he basically said all blacks are the same criminals, have on his support?

Read: Comrade Bernie, Mayor Pete Take The Lead In Hew Hampshire »

Posted in Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Definitely Not A Cult: St. Greta To Get Her Own BBC Hotcoldwetdry Series

By William Teach February 11, 2020 – 3:00 pm

I thought Warmists told us we are only supposed to listen to people with degrees in climate science?

Greta Thunberg to star in documentary series on climate change

Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg will star in a BBC Studios documentary series that follows her as she travels the world to meet scientists and world leaders to discuss how to tackle the climate crisis.

“Climate change is probably the most important issue of our lives so it feels timely to make an authoritative series that explores the facts and science behind this complex subject,” BBC Executive Producer Rod Liddell said in a statement. “To be able to do this with Greta is an extraordinary privilege, getting an inside view on what it’s like being a global icon and one of the most famous faces on the planet.”

The series will follow the 17-year-old’s “international crusade” against climate change, as she explores what actions can be taken to curb the warming of the planet. Thunberg will meet with scientists, political figures and business leaders to explore scientific evidence. The series will also document her “journey into adulthood,” as she is confronted by “the real world consequences of inaction,” according to the BBC.

The project was announced at the BBC Showcase trade show Monday. No release date or number of episodes have been announced at this time.

Obviously, the show will be completely one side. I wonder how much she’s going to cash in with this series?

Read: Definitely Not A Cult: St. Greta To Get Her Own BBC Hotcoldwetdry Series »

Posted in Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove