You Need To Watch Netflix In Low Definition To Stop ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 28, 2019 – 12:03 pm

Climate cultists might want to rethink this push, because it will surely turn the young folks against the Cult

From the article

Movie nights once required driving to the local video store to rent, rewind and return the latest blockbuster. Now on-demand video content providers offer countless binge-worthy options at the touch of a finger.

But experts say the ease of streaming services comes with a hefty environmental price tag.

Watching a half-hour show would lead to emissions of 1.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, said Maxime Efoui-Hess of French think tank the Shift Project. That’s equivalent to driving 3.9 miles (6.28 kilometres).

Last year, online  streaming produced emissions equivalent to Spain and that amount may double in the next six years, according to the Shift Project.

We’re doomed! I don’t have Netflix, but, I do have Amazon prime

While most of the online traffic—34 percent—is related to streaming videos, on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu, for example, the next biggest sector is online porn.

“Digital videos come in very large file sizes and (are) getting bigger with each new generation of higher definition video,” said Gary Cook of Greenpeace, which monitors the IT sector’s energy footprint.

These younger folks are going to be very upset, since they are rather upfront on their watching of porn. Anyhow, there’s lots of discussion on the increase in streaming, the expected increases, especially adding Disney and Apple to streaming, the size of TV screens, which use more electricity, 4K broadcasts and TVs. So, what can you do?

Experts suggest that viewers disable autoplay and stream over Wi-Fi in lower-definition formats. The  is watching over a 3G connection on a mobile device, said Lefevre.

The Shift Project offers a browser extension that monitors , displaying the amount of electricty used, the CO2 that electricity produces, and how far the user would have to drive to match those emissions.

I don’t turn off autoplay for ‘climate change’, but, because it’s annoying. They keep finding ways around it, though. As for watching in lower definition? Not going to happen.

Read: You Need To Watch Netflix In Low Definition To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

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

People Of The Future Will Be Shocked That Trump Wasn’t Impeached Over The Climate Crisis Or Something

By William Teach October 28, 2019 – 7:30 am

This is a scorching Hotcold Take, where Esquire manages to combine two Leftist moonbat things

Someday, They’ll Be Amazed We Didn’t Impeach Trump Over the Climate Crisis
Yeah, Ukraine. But actively undermining our efforts to combat an existential threat to human civilization as we know it surely qualifies as a high crime.

You almost do not even have to go further than the headline and subhead. Anyhow, after discussing the wildfires in California (which happen every year, including during Obama’s terms, so, why didn’t we impeach him over it?), we get The Crazy, so, do not be drinking anything

…But someday, assuming we make it that far, future generations will surely wonder why we did not remove him from the world’s most powerful office simply because he denied the existence of a fundamental threat to human civilization as we know it. The president has not just said the climate crisis is a Chinese hoax, or suggested he has some different opinion on whether it’s a problem compared to the scientists—you know, people who have devoted their lives to studying this phenomenon. He has actively rolled back our efforts in pretty much every department, to combat a crisis that will upend not just our children’s lives, but our own.

Surely, this constitutes a high crime against humanity. His apparatchiks will laugh at the suggestion now (yes, we will), and call it liberal delusion. But soon enough, they won’t be laughing. The people who actually know a goddamn thing about this say we have 12 years to change course in order to avoid this onrushing doom. The president wants to dig more crap out of the ground. He’d like to force New York State to do it, to abandon its commitment to future generations so some energy executives—who perhaps have some sort of relationship with the president—can make a buck.

 

Read: People Of The Future Will Be Shocked That Trump Wasn’t Impeached Over The Climate Crisis Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barking Moonbats, Donald Trump, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

AP Reminds Us That Obama’s “JV Team” Still Poses A Threat

By William Teach October 28, 2019 – 7:04 am

This is very interesting. When President Bush 43 was prosecuting the war against al Qaeda, we were told that we just needed to kill Osama and the whole thing would fall apart. This was known as the “Queen Bee” theory. When Osama was whacked under Barack Obama, we were told that AQ was dead. In fact, AQ was significantly reduced already due to killing lots of AQ members and making it hard to operate. Osama wasn’t really in control at the time, it was Ayman al-Zawahiri (Osama needed to die, though, with prejudice). But, jihadis were still out there. But, now that the ISIS/ISIL leader was forced to blow himself up, something has changed, as the AP tells us

Islamic State still poses a threat after al-Baghdadi’s death

Eliminating the Islamic State group’s elusive leader gives President Donald Trump a new argument for leaving Syria, but the U.S. military campaign against the extremists is far from finished.

The killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by U.S. forces leaves the Islamic State without an obvious leader, a major setback for an organization that in March was forced by American troops and Kurdish forces out of the last portion of its self-declared “caliphate,” which once spanned a swath of Iraq and Syria.

But the militant group, which arose from the remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq after that group’s defeat by U.S.-led forces in 2008, has ambitions to regenerate again. And it remains a dangerous threat in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

“The bottom line is: This puts the enemy on its heels, but the ideology — and this sounds so cliched — it is not dead,” said Chris Costa, a former senior director for counterterrorism for the National Security Council in the Trump administration.

Key to the Islamic States is its “kill where you are” ethos, encouraging a far-flung network of followers, including those in the United States, to commit violence however and wherever they can. That jihadist message is likely to live on, even with the death of al-Baghdadi.

This is all very interesting. We were told that they were the JV by Obama, and their atrocities were minimized by the media while Obama was in office. Not too mention that the danger from Islamic terrorism was minimized. Heck, this is the type of article that would have CAIR and other useful idiots screeching about Islamophobia, is it not?

According to defense officials in Iraq and Afghanistan who study Islamic State and have watched its movements, the group is growing in power and numbers outside of Syria.

Its flagship affiliate is known as ISIS-Khorasan in Afghanistan, and it is expanding into other countries, including Pakistan, Tajikistan, Iran, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Many of those affiliates have liaisons in the terror group’s hub in eastern Afghanistan.

Radical Islam is constantly growing. It’s being taught in Islamic schools and mosques, on the Internet, through radicalization programs spread from those to get people to join. It’s often subtle prodding and pushing and cajoling. Along with those raised to radicalism in beliefs, with some steps to becoming a jihadi.

Funny how they like to tell us this stuff after ISIS’ leader blows himself up when cornered while a Republican is in office, eh? Oh, and we’re also getting this again

Read: AP Reminds Us That Obama’s “JV Team” Still Poses A Threat »

Posted in ISIS, RoP | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is produce that is terrible because of all the road miles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Newsbusters, with a post on NBC whining about Trump taking a victory lap over the killing of ISIS head.

It’s shorts week.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach October 27, 2019 – 9:35 am

Happy Sunday! Another fantastic day in America. Getting some much needed rain, Halloween is almost here, and my thumb is down to about a 4 for pain. This pinup is by Greg Huldebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15 (just using headlines, still hard to type)

  1. Weasel Zippers covers Joe Biden twice using his position as a Senator to enrich his son
  2. The Right Scoop: Gov. Abbott gives liberal city of Austin a deadline to fix ‘lawlessness’ or the state will do it
  3. The People’s Cube: ‘Democracy dies in darkness’ is a cookbook
  4. The Other McCain: AOC: Fossil Fuels Are Racist or Something
  5. The Lid: Ilhan Omar: Democrats Know “Things Most People Can’t Understand”
  6. The Last Tradition: X22 Report: Pain Coming, It Will Devastating For The Deep State, Watch Those Who Scream The Loudest
  7. The Daley Gator: And then they came for clapping
  8. Powerline: Trump’s winning argument on impeachment
  9. Political Clown Parade: A Very Curious Spectacle: The Trained Parrot And The Democrats’ Holy Grail
  10. Pacific Pundit: At Elijah Cummings funeral, Hag Hillary Clinton calls Trump and Melania King Ahab and Queen Jezebel
  11. Climate Change Dispatch: Expensive Climate Policies Sparked The Chilean Riots, Just Like In France
  12. Jo Nova: The Australian Bureau of Met hides 50 years of very hot days
  13. Real Climate Science: Halloween Climate Crisis
  14. 357 Magnum: I Hope Calif. Enjoyed the High Tech Civilization While It Lasted
  15. And last, but not least, Brass Pills: Man Accused Of Hate Crime For Refusing Sex With UK Trans Woman

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me.

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Continues Impeachment Fantasy, Now With A Way To Block A Second Term

By William Teach October 27, 2019 – 8:38 am

This has fired up the unhinged #Resistance and #NeverTrumpers

Hey, if you can’t beat him at the ballot box under the established rules, right?

(NY Times) With chances rapidly increasing that President Trump will be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate, an intriguing question has reared its head: Could he be ousted only to try to return to the White House in 2020 in a Trumpian bid for redemption and revenge?

Like so much of the coming impeachment showdown, that decision rests entirely with the Senate. The Constitution famously grants senators the sole power to convict and remove a president — something that has never been done. What is seldom discussed is a more obscure clause of the Constitution that allows the Senate discretion to take a second, even more punitive step, to disqualify the person it convicts from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Imposing that penalty would effectively bar the president from reclaiming his old job. In an added twist, tacking on the extra punishment requires only a majority vote in the Senate, not the two-thirds — or 67 senators — required to convict.

For now, the idea of disqualifying Mr. Trump is the remotest of hypotheticals, since it would first require the Senate to vote to impeach and remove him. That seems far-fetched, given how little appetite Republicans in the chamber have shown so far for deserting him, despite the flood of damaging revelations that have come forth in the impeachment inquiry. But if nearly two dozen Republicans did vote to impeach him, it would take only a simple majority to banish him from the presidency for life.

The first is not going to happen, so the second is a pipe dream. And that’s what these Trump haters have: pipe dreams. They just can’t control themselves in their virulent hatred. If Trump came out in favor of abortion, assault rifle confiscation, getting rid of fossil fuels, and the Green New Deal, they’d still find a way to oppose him.

“If the impeachment is based on the Ukraine phone call and activity around that, and the idea is that he is improperly using his office to get dirt on his opponent, the remedy to that is to remove him from office,” said Edward B. Foley, an election law authority and constitutional law professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. “If the fear is the incumbent can’t fight a fair fight, then disable the candidate’s ability to not wage a fair fight.”

Politics is all about quid pro quo, about cajoling other politicians, nations, and people, using a stick or carrot. Move on, folks.

Read: NY Times Continues Impeachment Fantasy, Now With A Way To Block A Second Term »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Donald Trump | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

A Green New Deal Could Transform Our Lives Or Something

By William Teach October 26, 2019 – 4:11 pm

The co-founders of Green New Deal UK, Hannah Martin and Fatima Ibrahim, attempt to spin this as a good thing

How a Green New Deal could transform our lives
How do we move from moments to movements? In the midst of an environmental emergency, the co-founders of Green New Deal UK tell Dazed

As an environmental movement, we can agree there is much to worry about. In the ten years since the original Green New Deal was proposed, there has been no real progress on tackling climate change. In 2019, we are facing a period of huge uncertainty; on the horizon could be a no-deal Brexit, a financial crash or yet another General Election. Yet this is also a period of our history where the opportunities for seismic shifts in public opinion are multiplying and the government are feeling the heat. We’ve seen youth strikes take place almost every month since February and many every week across the UK and organising the largest ever UK climate justice protest in September calling for a Green New Deal as the key solution to this emergency.

Wait, I thought the Paris Climate Agreement was historic? No? Anyway, after a bit of fear-mongering and quibbling and yammering (because they want people to get that they’re doomed unless we Do Something, and our lives will be great if we do, before people tune out), we finally get

Because it is interested not purely in carbon targets but in the flourishing of whole communities, the radical idea of a Green New Deal for the UK could be a positive and unifying answer to these crises. The idea of a Green New Deal saw an enormous surge in support last year when progressive U.S. representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her radical vision for a just transition. But its roots go back deeper. The Green New Deal is a plan first proposed in 2007, as a collective societal mission to transform our economy. It’s an ambitious ten-year national action plan to tackle climate breakdown in a way that improves peoples’ lives and builds a fairer, more democratic society and economy. It would totally decarbonise the economy of the United Kingdom by creating millions of new well-paid, secure, unionised jobs across the country. By overhauling the finance system and surging investment in green industries, it would make sure we provide healthy and fulfilling livelihoods for all workers and communities, including those in high emissions sectors – often those hit hardest by climate crisis.

So, union jobs backed by government force. Overhauling the finance system? How so? From previous yammerings from climate cultists, we know this means a Socialized system where the government controls the economy. “We provide”? That means government is in control of your life.

At the same time a Green New Deal would transform our economy – with greater democratic participation, accountability and common ownership – empowering communities who are currently marginalised. For any climate solution to be truly holistic we must begin to respect natural ecological limits, for example, rewilding and restoring vital habitats and carbon sinks, including forests and wild areas, and ensure the provision of clean water, air and green spaces.

By “common ownership”, that’s cute Soviet style language for “government control”. The 2nd part is more about moving everyone into urban areas from the suburbs and countryside (easier to control and manage people). Think I’m being overboard? This is what decades of watching the Cult of Climastrology would lead you to, as well. They have ulterior motives.

Finally, a Green New Deal would have global justice at its core, supporting all peoples and countries to decarbonise quickly and fairly, in line with timeframes set out by science. The Green New Deal will ensure the UK does its fair share to tackle climate breakdown – and more – to account for historic emissions and the exploitation of resources and communities, particularly those in the Global South.

Are you getting the idea that this isn’t about climate?

Read: A Green New Deal Could Transform Our Lives Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 26, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is and area being turned to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the Left coming after the 1st Amendment.

Clearing the last sweater picture under the fold, so also check out Irons In The Fire, with a post on a really cool find.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Impeachment Is Not Popular In Swing States

By William Teach October 26, 2019 – 10:30 am

Bad news for Democrats. It must have hurt CNN right in the gonads to publish this

Impeachment isn’t popular in Wisconsin and these 5 other key swing states

Poll of the week: A new Marquette University poll from the state of Wisconsin finds that 44% of voters want President Donald Trump impeached and removed from office, while 51% do not want him impeached and removed from office.

What’s the point: A look at the national polls indicate that impeaching and removing Trump from office is at, a minimum, a plurality position. Our CNN/SSRS poll out this week showed that 51% of voters nationwide support impeaching and removing from office compared to 44% who disagreed. The average has the split closer to 48% for impeach and removal and 44% against it.

But as Democrats saw in 2016, presidential elections in the United States are determined via the electoral college, not popular vote. And because Republicans control the Senate and 67 Senate votes are necessary to remove Trump from office, the chance that Trump will be forced to leave the presidency is currently low. In other words, the impeachment saga revolving around Trump remains as much an electoral question as it does a legal one.

Wisconsin, of course, was the most infamous swing state of 2016. It was the tipping point state (i.e. the one that put Trump over the top in the electoral college). When the most accurate pollster in Wisconsin (Marquette) in 2018 reveals that impeaching and removing Trump is not popular, it’s a critical finding.

Importantly, it’s not just this Marquette poll that show that impeaching and remove Trump could be an electoral loser for Democrats (and potential winner for Trump) in the swing states.

Continuing with this sham impeachment schtick, which is simply an extension of their inability to accept that Trump won, could drive voters who refused to vote for Trump last time (but weren’t voting Hillary) to vote for him in 2020

Florida is one of the most important swing states in the nation. Trump won there by only a point in 2016. With 29 electoral votes, Democrats would likely take back the presidency with a win there in 2020. A poll of Florida voters conducted by the University of North Florida out this week shows the divide at 46% in support of impeaching and removing Trump and 48% opposed to it.

Indeed, take an examination of the battleground states that Democrats almost certainly need to make inroads into in 2020. The New York Times and Siena College, 2018’s most accurate pollster, took a poll of voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Arizona. These were closest states in the country that cast their electoral votes for Trump in 2016.

Just 43% of voters in these six states want to impeach and remove from office at this point. The majority, 53%, do not. This means that the margin for not impeaching and removing Trump in these states (+10 points) is running well ahead of Trump’s margin in these states of about 1.5 points. Put another way, impeaching and removing Trump from office in these states is not a popular position.

Go for it, Democrats. It will backfire.

Read: Impeachment Is Not Popular In Swing States »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Donald Trump | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Love The Green New Deal (And Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels)

By William Teach October 26, 2019 – 7:22 am

Most of them prefer that you, the peons, be forced to not use fossil fuels

Daniel Turner: 2020 Democrats love the Green New Deal but embrace fossil fuels to power their campaigns

Each of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has a slogan. The one for Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is “for the people.” Former Vice President Joe Biden says, “Our best days still lie ahead.” Former Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke plays it cool with slang: “It’s Gonna Take All of Us.”

Clearly the polls say Americans want to feel like they are part of the team. Inclusive. A musical montage from a teen movie where everyone chips in and they save the day. But don’t be fooled: These candidates are not like you, and the policies they support are actually bad for regular Americans. In fact, their slogans should all be the same: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Nowhere is this more obvious than when it comes to being green.

As part of their required Federal Election Commission quarterly filings, the candidates disclosed how their finances and each campaign have been spending a lot of money on private jet travel. After all, how else does one get from Iowa to New Hampshire? In coach? Taking off shoes at TSA? With campaign donations picking up the tab, private jets make the campaign trail much better.

For a collective group of Democrats who decry fossil fuels, who embrace the radical Green New Deal, who demand we change our habits and diets to reflect the “existential crisis” of climate change, they sure don’t put their campaign money with their mouth is.

Every one of the 2020 candidates supports the Green New Deal (GND) as part of their campaign, and as a reminder, this radical, socialist proposal of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seeks to make air travel “obsolete.” Air travel is such a no-no amongst environmentalists that “flight shaming” has become a common tactic the green radicals use.

So, why do these candidates get a pass? If they want us to stop flying commercial, why are they justified in flying private?

In reality, it’s not just the presidential contenders, but most of the Democrats, almost all of whom are Warmists. How about the 95 cosponsors in the House? How many travel using fossil fuels?

The Buttigieg campaign said it needs private jets because South Bend isn’t convenient to campaign stops and the mayor has a vigorous schedule. Here’s a question for Mayor Pete: If I live in rural America and am busy, can I get an exemption under the Green New Deal you support?

We all know the answer to that question, plebeian.

Warmists always have an excuse for their climahypocrisy.

What happens when the Green New Deal does make air travel “obsolete” and the 10 million American jobs in the airline industry are lost? What happens when Sanders gets his wish to make fracking illegal by executive order and consequently half our oil and two-thirds our gas comes off the market?

I’ll tell you what happens: You won’t fly home for Christmas. You won’t buy fruit in winter. Cold weather and athletic clothing with lycra and Core-Tex and nylon won’t be affordable. Food prices will skyrocket. Shipping costs will make European goods unaffordable, and speaking of Europe, forget about going. You can’t afford it, because with oil around $200 a barrel, even a cruise is out of the question.

You can bet that all the people who support this anti-fossil fuels push will be Shocked, Shocked! that this has happened.

Read: Democrats Love The Green New Deal (And Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels) »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Democrats Love The Green New Deal (And Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels) | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove