United Nations Approves Of Internet “Cyber-Crime” Resolution That Could Restrict Freedom Of Speech

By William Teach December 29, 2019 – 7:55 am

The United Nations has long out-lived its usefulness, being a hive of dictators and scum, who attempt to institute globalist controls on citizens reminiscent of the old Soviet Union and China, which are the two main nations behind this

U.N. Approves China-Backed Internet Convention, Alarming Rights Advocates

(AFP) — The United Nations on Friday approved a Russian-led bid that aims to create a new convention on cybercrime, alarming rights groups and Western powers that fear a bid to restrict online freedom.

The General Assembly approved the resolution sponsored by Russia and backed by China, which would set up a committee of international experts in 2020.

The panel will work to set up “a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” the resolution said.

The United States, European powers and rights groups fear that the language is code for legitimizing crackdowns on expression, with numerous countries defining criticism of the government as “criminal.”

Which means that Democrats here will certainly support this, due to their reverence of Government, never quite realizing what it means for their own lives.

China heavily restricts internet searches to avoid topics sensitive to its communist leadership, as well as news sites with critical coverage.

A number of countries have increasingly tried to turn off the internet, with India cutting off access in Kashmir in August after it stripped autonomy to the Muslim-majority region and Iran taking much of the country offline as it cracked down on protests in November.

“It is precisely our fear that (a new convention) would allow the codification at an international and global level of these types of controls that’s driving our opposition and our concerns about this resolution,” a US official said. (snip)

Human Rights Watch called the UN resolution’s list of sponsors “a rogue’s gallery of some of the earth’s most repressive governments.”

You can bet that nations like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and so forth approve of this. Many European nations are behind this, as well, as their beliefs in Progressivism (nice Fascism) increase. And it is a hell of a reason to never allow the Obama era Net Neutrality, which is anything but neutrality, to be instituted, as it grants the central government massive new powers and controls over the U.S. Internet.

Read: United Nations Approves Of Internet “Cyber-Crime” Resolution That Could Restrict Freedom Of Speech »

Posted in UN, Web/Tech | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

LA Times Editorial Board Explains Just Why #NeverTrump Should Support Trump On ‘Climate Change’ And Energy

By William Teach December 28, 2019 – 3:09 pm

If #NeverTrump, and, of course, I’m refering to those who consider themselves conservatives/libertarians/Republicans, would sit back and look at the record rather than the personality, they’d be cheering

Editorial: President Trump’s very bad year on climate change hurts us all

A few weeks ago the world received the United Nations’ Emissions Gap Report 2019, which again laid out in jarring detail how much humans have heated up the atmosphere through carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Not only is the science incontrovertible, but the impacts already are playing out before our eyes, and it’s probably too late, given the fast-rising temperature and political realities, to fully corral the problem. But it’s also inarguable that the world must act anyway — quickly — if it is to avert climate change’s most damaging effects, and that we desperately need innovative, persuasive and courageous political leaders to show the way.

This is all interesting, since Los Angeles would collapse without fossil fuels. Anyhow

Yet over the past year, and in the face of these ever more dire reports and warnings about the crisis that confronts us, President Trump has blithely continued to push policies and regulatory rollbacks that will increase carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Another study released in November warned that despite the overwhelming evidence that the world needs to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, humankind will in 10 years be producing twice as much coal, oil and natural gas as it can safely consume and still limit the most severe impacts from human-caused global warming. That is disastrously wrong-headed. Governments around the world should be pursuing policies that will significantly reduce production and consumption while investing to support faster innovations in creating, distributing and storing renewable energy. Instead, Trump’s policies are designed to further increase U.S. production of oil and natural gas as part of his effort to make the U.S. the dominant producer of energy in the world.

So what did the Trump administration do this year to exacerbate the situation? It eased restrictions on the drilling of oil and gas wells in some sensitive habitats and drastically expanded the amount of federal lands available for leases by the oil, gas and coal industries (as well as mineral mining, which creates a different set of problems by exposing sensitive land to degradation). As part of that expansion, it shrank the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah and issued an executive order opening nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling (which the administration put on hold after legal setbacks). Trump loosened regulations limiting methane emissions at drilling sites. And after a Republican-led Congress in 2017 lifted the 35-year-old ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the administration moved this year to fast-track leases even as legal challenges work their way through the courts.

via GIFER

The Trump administration also this year finalized its rollback of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have further restricted greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, and replaced it instead with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, a dubiously named policy that would do the opposite of what it seems to promise. The new rule not only contributes to global warming but seeks to shore up a domestic coal industry already dying because of market forces. (Other forms of energy production are cheaper.) The administration also reversed the Obama administration’s rejection of permits for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline that will increase the flow of tar sands oil from Alberta to U.S. refineries.

Looks like some excellent reasons to support Trump, eh?

Read: LA Times Editorial Board Explains Just Why #NeverTrump Should Support Trump On ‘Climate Change’ And Energy »

Posted in Donald Trump, Energy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 28, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible dog causing terrible heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the left’s incessant racism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

While More Voters Say They Care About Hotcoldwetdry, Will They Go To The Polls?

By William Teach December 28, 2019 – 10:46 am

Well, in most votes, belief in Doing Something about anthropogenic climate change hasn’t driven people to the polls, except to vote against Doing Something. I doubt 2020 will be any different, but, the Cult of Climastrology can always hope

More voters than ever say the climate crisis is their top priority

A growing share of voters list climate and the environment as their top priority, according to a new poll from the Environmental Voter Project.

Of the registered voters surveyed, 14 percent named “addressing climate change and protecting the environment” their No. 1 priority over all other issues, compared with 2 to 6 percent before the 2016 presidential election.

Climate and environment voters are also the most motivated to vote in 2020, saying they are willing to wait in line an average of an hour and 13 minutes at the polls.

“There are almost 30 million climate voters out there who are already registered to vote. That’s a huge constituency,” said Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the project, which aims to identify inactive environmentalists and turn them into consistent activists and voters.

“That’s like four times the number of NRA members. It’s enormous, and a lot of that growth has happened over the last two to three years.”

ZOMG! More than the NRA!!!!!!

The poll compared survey responses to public voter file records and found that infrequent voters are more likely than frequent ones to assign a higher importance to climate and the environment.

That suggests environment advocates could benefit from getting more climate-minded voters to the polls with some easy fixes, such as awareness campaigns for early and absentee voting. A quarter of infrequent voters were not aware they could vote early, and 29 percent weren’t aware they could vote absentee. Voting by mail could also increase environment voter turnout.

Of course, when you explain to these infrequent voters that they’d be voting to raise their cost of living, cost of energy, take more money out of their pockets, and limit their freedom, liberty, and choice, that could change the dynamics. Because the Warmists pushing this stuff keep forgetting that ‘climate change’ is popular in theory, not in practice. And, if they think this is going to help defeat Donald Trump, well, good luck with that!

Read: While More Voters Say They Care About Hotcoldwetdry, Will They Go To The Polls? »

Posted in Global Warming | 36 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Very Few Medical Schools Teach ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach December 28, 2019 – 7:08 am

Most likely because medical schools deal with actual science, not cultish beliefs

Despite Climate Change Health Threats, Few Medical Schools Teach It
Heat, mosquito-borne diseases and air pollution are medical issues that should be viewed through a climate lens, advocates say

Despite the threat climate change poses to human health, very few medical schools have made it a part of their coursework.

The International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations recently conducted a survey of medical schools in 118 countries. Of the medical schools reviewed, the IFMSA found 15.9% have made climate change a part of their curricula.

Dr. Renee Salas, an emergency room doctor and climate change researcher at the Harvard Global Health Institute, said she was not surprised by the results. Through her work at Harvard, she has tried to incorporate climate change into the teachings of U.S. medical schools.

Salas said the survey shows there is an opportunity to train the next generation of physicians so they have the skills necessary to practice in a future where global warming affects every aspect of their jobs.

“Climate change is truly that threat multiplier,” she said. “It impacts, in my opinion, every facet of how we practice medicine.”

Even if the Modern Warm Period was mostly/solely caused by the actions of Mankind (it’s not), doctors already learn about things like heat stroke and diseases and such: there’s not need for them to be indoctrinated into learning about weather and cult doctrine.

Salas echoed that idea, saying that schools can add climate change to lessons of asthma and other conditions.

“My approach is all they need to do is add a climate lens to what they’re already teaching,” she said.

This solution has its own hurdle, as there are few climate experts currently in the medical field. That’s why Salas says medical schools need to focus on collaboration and developing electronic curriculum that could be used to more easily spread growing knowledge from existing experts.

Looks like the Cult of Climastrology is attempting to take over the medical field.

Read: Bummer: Very Few Medical Schools Teach ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Super Excited About Senate Trial Not Being About GOP Party Loyalty Or Something

By William Teach December 28, 2019 – 6:56 am

The Editorial Board is squeeing over ultra squishy Lisa Murkowski, calling her the conscience in the Senate….but, then they and other Democrats used to think that Ted Kennedy, who left a woman to slowly drown while he worked on his alibi, and Robert Byrd, a former high ranking KKK member, were consciences in the Senate

A Stirring of Conscience in the Senate

(many many paragraphs attempting to defend the way the House held it’s impeachment theater)

But Mr. McConnell’s pledge to place the Senate at the president’s service puts other Republicans in an awkward spot — at least those still interested in maintaining a modicum of independence or integrity. And this week, a thin crack in conference unity appeared.

In an interview that aired on Christmas Eve, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told an Anchorage TV station she was “disturbed” by Mr. McConnell’s pledge to coordinate with the president’s legal team. It would be wrong to “prejudge” this matter, she said. “To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense.” Mr. McConnell, she lamented, had “further confused the process.”

Ms. Murkowski is known for her independence and has proved unafraid to buck her party and her president, including opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court last year. That said, her criticism should not be taken as a sign that she will vote to remove Mr. Trump. Ms. Murkowski has also criticized the House’s impeachment inquiry as flawed and rushed.

No one likes her.

But in a Republican Party so cowed by this president, with most lawmakers too timid to question even his most grotesque behavior, Ms. Murkowski’s expression of concern sets her apart. The senator is sending a message, to her constituents as well as to Mr. McConnell, that she does not want to be viewed as a rubber stamp for a preordained acquittal. She takes her public duty more seriously than party loyalty, and she can be pushed too far.

If only more of her colleagues felt the same.

Right, right. Where’s the NYT editorial about party loyalty in the House? I don’t remember any editorials praising Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey for voting against the silly articles of impeachment, and Tulsi Gabbard for voting present, bucking party loyalty in what was a foregone voting conclusion. What will the Times have to say about any Democrats who vote against impeachment in the Senate? You know the vast majority have already made up their minds to vote for impeachment.

Read: NY Times Super Excited About Senate Trial Not Being About GOP Party Loyalty Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Donald Trump, GOP, Wonky Media | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

We Only Have 10 Years Left To Save The Planet Or Something

By William Teach December 27, 2019 – 3:46 pm

And Warmists have ideas!

10 years to save planet Earth: Here are 6 imaginative climate change solutions

A giant parasol that hovers high in orbit to block the sun. Refreezing the melting poles by making submarine-sized ice cubes. Pumping extra carbon dioxide deep underground for indefinite storage. Spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to form clouds to artificially cool the Earth.

As global warming becomes direr – and nations dither about decreasing emissions – could these controversial technological fixes known as geoengineering buy us time to move away from burning fossil fuels?

Scientists say that transition needs to be well underway in the next 20 years. While geoengineering isn’t a replacement for moving to a carbon-neutral economy, it’s increasingly been seen as something we need to explore as a stopgap.

We don’t have much time, said Hugh Hunt, an engineering professor at Cambridge University in England, where he directs the Center for Climate Repair.

He compares geoengineering to the often harsh and sometimes dangerous chemotherapy used to treat cancer.

“I’m no more pro-geoengineering than someone working on chemotherapy is pro-chemotherapy. But if someone has cancer, you try chemotherapy,” he said.

And the ideas?

  • Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere
  • Creating clouds with sulfur
  • Dump iron shavings into the ocean
  • A giant sunshade orbiting the Earth
  • Refreeze the polar ice caps
  • Wrap glaciers in thermal blankets

Anyhow, when Doom fails to arrive in 10 years, does this mean we won’t have to see and hear stories on climate doom?

Read: We Only Have 10 Years Left To Save The Planet Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 27, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a gym that is great to reduce obesity which is Bad for climate change (but this is also fat shaming), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on a New Year’s resolution to Not Be Hitler.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

New California Law Will Give Illegal Aliens Subsidized Healthcare

By William Teach December 27, 2019 – 10:30 am

Hey, remember when Democrats were freaking out about conservatives saying that Dems wanted to give illegals all sorts of free healthcare? When they went off on Joe Wilson when he said that Obama lied regarding Ocare and illegals? Good times

New California law to provide subsidized healthcare for undocumented immigrants

Under the new law SB 104 California will offer government subsidized health benefits for undocumented immigrants under the age of 26.

Previously only undocumented immigrant children could apply. It’s part of new funding for MediCal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom says there will be “An additional $450 a month in subsidies reducing premiums by 25%. No state in America does that.”

To qualify, an applicant must make less than 138% of the federal poverty level, which is $17,200 for an individual and $35,500 for a family of four.

Guess who’s paying for this?

“The state has taken numerous steps over the years to accommodate people who are in the country illegally,” says Ira Mehlman from the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

He says the program will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

“In Sacramento they continue to make choices that will further discourage the middle-class from remaining in California and further encourage more people to come and settle illegally,” says Mehlman.

This would actually seem to violate federal law, specifically 8 USC 1324.

Read: New California Law Will Give Illegal Aliens Subsidized Healthcare »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology Now Wants To Question Private Home Ownership

By William Teach December 27, 2019 – 7:15 am

In many Democrat areas, they are attempting to force multi-family housing in areas that are typically single family in suburban and rural areas, because single family housing is raaaaacist and bad for ‘climate change’. The Nation wants to take it even further

From the screed

This fall, California residents awakened to a new reality of inconvenience and terror. In early October, the utility companies Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison all announced precautionary power shutoffs for thousands of customers, prompted by especially hot, dry conditions and forecasts for strong winds.

This is all based on the fires in California, and the author spends a lot of time on them, building up to

But few are discussing one key aspect of California’s crisis: Yes, climate change intensifies the fires—but the ways in which we plan and develop our cities makes them even more destructive. The growth of urban regions in the second half of the 20th century has been dominated by economic development, aspirations of home ownership, and belief in the importance of private property. Cities and towns have expanded in increasingly disperse fashion, fueled by cheap energy. Infrastructure has been built, deregulated, and privatized, extending services in more and more tenuous and fragile ways. Our ideas about what success, comfort, home, and family should look like are so ingrained, it’s hard for us to see how they could be reinforcing the very conditions that put us at such grave risk.

To engage with these challenges, we need to do more than upgrade the powerlines or stage a public takeover of the utility companies. We need to rethink the ideologies that govern how we plan and build our homes.

From the early years of this continent-wide republic, federal policies such as the Homestead Act of 1862 rewarded private home ownership and pioneering activities such as making individual claims on land. Programs such as the “Better Homes in America” campaign in the 1920s attempted to make private property ownership a moral issue in addition to a financial one, linking home ownership with upstanding citizenship and family values, as a presumed bulwark against communist class collectivity.

And to prove that it’s not a bulwark they want to take away private home ownership. OK. Of course, the author has to include private home ownership as raaaaacist, hatred of the poor and people of color, single family homes being Bad, inequity, etc

The valorizing of homeownership and property rights results not only in increased exposure to climate-change-fueled fires, but also in our inadequate responses to them.

Good grief. Anyhow, this keeps going and going and going

In California, that would mean more than moving away from fire-prone areas. It would require planners, designers, and community members to consider planning for fire alongside issues of health and accessibility, social services, physical beauty, and other aspects of environmental sustainability and climate protection. “Defensible space” could mean protecting more than an individual structure; it could scale up to protect a neighborhood, or better yet, an entire district. At the same time, such zones of defense could be designed to address other aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation: They could include green infrastructure for water infiltration and “soft” flood protection, as well as ecological linkages, such as drought-resistant, non-fire-fueling vegetation to protect biodiversity and lessen urban heat islands. These “green” zones could be planned around community centers and libraries, public institutions that have already become important places of refuge and mobilization in times of disaster.

Oh, your Betters will plan everything for you, and you’ll live in an urban commune.

Even with the threats of climate change and rampant fire looming, the ideals of the American dream that have been instilled for more than 150 years will be difficult to dispel. Those ideals have blinded us to other possibilities. Given the scope and scale of the climate crisis, it is shocking that we are being presented with so few serious, comprehensive alternatives for how to live. We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities.

Nope, nope, don’t say this is communism/Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism/Etc.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology Now Wants To Question Private Home Ownership »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove