St. Greta Says Extinction Rebellion Should Break Laws During Protests

By William Teach October 18, 2019 – 7:14 am

You already had one of the co-founders (who’s also a massive climahypocrite) commit an act of vandalism, so, sure, everyone listen to the unhinged teenager. Sadly, a lot of the climanutters will

Greta Thunberg suggests Extinction Rebellion protesters should break the law during demonstrations

Greta Thunberg has told Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters that they should consider breaking the law so they can continue their demonstrations.

Police this week imposed a section 14 order on XR, meaning any group of two or more people linked to the group’s Autumn Uprising is banned.

The move, which was taken after Londoners began to grow irritated by the disruption on the streets, was swiftly condemned by human rights groups and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Now, teenage climate change campaigner Greta has suggested XR protestors continue on regardless.

She said: “If standing up against the climate and ecological breakdown and for humanity is against the rules then the rules must be broken.”

What the XR wankers will see is St. Greta advocating law breaking overall, not violating the order against their protests. Of course, do Leftists really need any motivation to become violent? This is the way all their protests move.

Mr Reed (who’s a spokesperson for XR), a PR worker from London, said the intention was not to “inconvenience hard-working people”, and said he did not think the apparently unsympathetic mood on the platform was indicative of a decrease in public support despite many posts on the XR London Facebook page expressing concerns that the stunt was counterproductive and should not have gone ahead.

He said: “It is not our intention to target individuals or inconvenience hard-working people.

“We’re in a life or death situation right now.

Once you’ve framed this in those terms, it means anything goes.

Yeah, they’ve caused the entire area to blocked, causing problems for everyone just trying to go about their daily lives.

Read: St. Greta Says Extinction Rebellion Should Break Laws During Protests »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

There’s A Disconnect Between Washington And Heartland On Syria/ Turkey Clash

By William Teach October 18, 2019 – 6:59 am

Outside of Washington and the hyper-political watchers, does anyone really care?

Tom Bevan: Rally response shows a ‘disconnect’ between Washington and the heartland regarding wars, military

There is a “disconnect” between Washington, D.C. and the rest of America regarding Syria, this according to RealClearPolitics.com co-founder Tom Bevan who was reacting to President Trump’s rally.

“I was just in Washington yesterday and we spent all week talking about Syria and the Kurds,” Bevan said on “The Ingraham Ingraham” Thursday. “And you saw the disconnect on display with Trump out in the heartland, now making his case and the response that he got about bringing troops home, rebuilding the military to keep it strong.”

During the rally the president addressed his decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria a decision that many Republicans have been critical of.

“Endless wars, they don’t stop. They don’t stop. They go on forever,” Trump told the rally crowd. “These wars brought mass chaos, instability, destruction and death. Today, we choose a different path.” (snip)

“It’s something that he did run on. It’s something that has widespread support across the country. I think the only thing that Trump, you know, runs the risk of here is if ISIS reconstituted itself and starts creating some havoc before his election next November,” Bevan said. “But just if that doesn’t happen, there is widespread support and it’s a definite disconnect between what what people in sort of the heartland think, a real America, versus what everybody is talking about inside the Beltway.”

At the end of the day, does pulling the small number of U.S. troops out of Syria and giving Turkey, a NATO member, the green light to intervene move the needle with most outside the Washington bubble? Is this something they are thinking about, caring about, talking about, reading about? A lot of people were probably surprised we had that many military members in Syria, considering Obama was saying there would be no boots on the ground, that Democrats were against putting boots on the ground. Now you have crazy Dems like Wesley Clark, the general who became a darling of the Democrats over the Iraq War, when the Dems wanted us out of Iraq, telling us to stay in Syria.

(Real Clear Politics) But wait a minute. Turkey is a NATO member. Were we prepared to go to war with an ally to defend this strip of land held by the Kurds? Even if the Turks had an ulterior motive of seeking to punish their traditional enemy, the Kurds, were we willing to sacrifice American lives to take sides in that conflict?

Also, how exactly do we distinguish between the U.S. invading Syria several years earlier for our “national interest” and what the Turks are doing now for their own perceived “national interest”?

But then there are the Kurds…

We don’t want them to become the victims of genocide the way the Armenians were at the hands of the Turks in the last century, but what kind of commitment can Americans make to police Syria into the foreseeable future? Are we supposed to keep our soldiers at risk forever to prevent war between enemies who have irreconcilable differences?

What were a few dozen soldiers going to do? And do the people outside of the Washington bubble really care what’s going on, despite the media drumbeat? Nope.

Read: There’s A Disconnect Between Washington And Heartland On Syria/ Turkey Clash »

Posted in Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

London Commuters Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 3:40 pm

Now, if they did a poll of the people at the train station, I bet a goodly chunk would say that they Care about ‘climate change’. They just don’t care enough to have their morning commute ruined

From ABC News

At least four climate change protesters were arrested after fights broke out at subway stations during Thursday morning’s commute in London as demonstrations by the Extinction Rebellion group movement disrupted services and enraged travelers.

British Transport Police said in a statement that the arrests were made after three stations were affected by simultaneous protests, resulting in delays for two underground lines. The protest was part of a series of demonstrations beginning last week by Extinction Rebellion, also known as XR, an environmental movement that aims to disrupt daily life in order to push the public and governments to take action on climate change.

At Canning Town station in east London, commuters threw drinks at one protester who was walking on top of a train before pulling him off and launching into a fight, video shared on social media shows.

“One commuter shouted ‘I need to get to work, I have to feed my kids,’ when the protestors initially went up,” Mahatir Pasha, a reporter for NBC News’ British partner ITN, said in a tweet.

I’ve always thought that the best way to get people on your side is to piss them off. Right?

At the Shadwell station, where activists glued themselves to a train, video shared on Twitter shows angry travelers yelling at two protesters, calling them hypocrites. “You’re stopping an electric train. Are you guys really that f****** stupid?” one man said, with another person pointing out the light rail service helps the environment.

Everyone will be totally willing to change their lives due to this idiocy, right?

Read: London Commuters Have Had Enough Of Extinction Rebellion »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on the DC middle school mashup, Pelosi and Trump edition.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 23 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: After Target Raised Their Minimum Wage, They Reduced Employee Hours

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 10:30 am

Seriously, did anyone see this coming?

(The Blaze) Target announced two years ago that it would raise the companywide minimum wage to $15 per hour by the end of 2020, winning plaudits from progressives and advocates for an increased minimum wage.

Now, with just one year before Target is scheduled to hit the magic $15 mark ($13 is the current minimum wage), it turns out that raising the minimum wage has impacted many Target employees in the exact way that opponents of mandatory minimum wage increases predict.

CNN Business spoke to numerous current and former Target employees who revealed their hours at the retail giant have been cut since Target announced its push to increase the store’s minimum wage, which for many employees means they lose their health insurance benefits. Target offers health benefits to employees who work more than 30 hours per week.

One employee, Heather, told CNN that when her hourly pay rate increased, management cut her total work hours.

“I got that dollar raise but I’m getting $200 less in my paycheck,” she said. “I have no idea how I’m going to pay rent or buy food.”

Other employees, Caren and Michael, told CNN their hours were cut substantially. Caren said she lost her health insurance — forcing her to quit her job — while Michael has had to pick up a side job just to make ends meet.

There are two choices when raising wages in a situation like this: cut hours or increase prices. Start raising prices and people go elsewhere.

One of the reason hours are being cut is the development of retail automation, namely in the form of the self-checkout line.

“They really cut those hours back from them with the introduction of self-checkout,” a former store director told CNN.

Automation has no salary. It has a cost, but, over time, that cost is less than that of multiple employees. And, as the article points out, Target is hiring a lot more people, mostly part time, since they do not get benefits, which is a big cost savings for Target.

There’s a price to be paid for being Woke. Target was happy to be all Woke when they raised the wage. See, there’s a third choice when companies do this: take it on the chin in terms of profit. Most aren’t willing to do that, though.

Read: Surprise: After Target Raised Their Minimum Wage, They Reduced Employee Hours »

Posted in Economy | 31 Comments | Trackback URL

Democracy May Be An Obstacle To Climate Action Or Something

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 8:19 am

We’ve already established that a chunk of the Cult of Climastrology is against actual democracy, and would prefer an authoritarian style government. This is just another nail in the coffin (via Watts Up With That?)

Both conservatives and liberals can agree on action on climate change

We tend to assume that democracies, over the long arc of history, work towards progress and justice. But with an issue like climate change, we’re running out of time.

It may come as a surprise, but at the moment, democracy may be an obstacle to the rapid action we need on climate change.

Democratic governments naturally swing back and forth between conservative and liberal control. But environmental issues are increasingly associated with liberal values exclusively in countries like Canada and the United States.

The transition from a liberal government to a conservative one often leads to a relapse of environmental policies, including program cuts, delays and even outright rejections or silencing of the science underlying climate change.

Now, in all fairness, the writer, Christian Elliott, a PhD Student and Researcher, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, attempts to find a way to make sure that climate action continues regardless of which party is in charge, be it the U.S., Canada, or other countries with democracy roots.

Environmentalism is often cast by conservatives as a “regulatory science,” a project of big government. Yet any cursory scan of prominent policy ideas about climate run the gamut of the philosophical spectrum, from initiatives that rely on market innovation and dynamism to complex regulatory regimes, taxes and public sector transformations.

First, ‘climate change’ is not the environment. Second, if one is going to site something like that, it’d be nice if the readers could see it for themselves. That link is behind a firewall. Third, in later paragraphs, Elliot blames this all on meanies like fossil fuel companies and think tanks. Perhaps he should read all the polls about people not wanting to pay for ‘climate change’ out of their own pockets.

We have real world examples of this approach at play. Though by name the “Green New Deal” is associated with large-scale American public investment and thus “big government,” it’s also sensitive to the plight of citizens that might otherwise embody a conservative anti-environment sentiment.

That’s gaslighting. The entire thing is all about massive government intervention in our lives.

In the face of close federal elections, environmentalists may double down on their partisanship. But in the long term, environmental advocates should be thinking strategically about how to engage and build coalitions with voters on the other side of the spectrum, and how to combat and undermine negative stereotypes and frameworks generated by those who benefit from keeping conservatives out of the movement.

Right, right. Try engaging a Warmist on Twitter or other social media. They’ll block you. Or in comments sections. Many media outlets have outright banned Skeptics from commenting, and they will not allow their material on their sites. TV stations will often refuse to allow Skeptics to debate. There’s little attempt to bring us over to their side. Warmists talk a big game, but, they cannot debate their position, they cannot offer rock solid evidence that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by the actions of Mankind via greenhouse gases, they say the debate is over, and they want democracy voided in order to get their way.

Read: Democracy May Be An Obstacle To Climate Action Or Something »

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

Have A DUI? Gun Grabbers Want You Denied A Firearm

By William Teach October 17, 2019 – 8:00 am

Remember, gun grabbers aren’t actually grabbing guns, they just want common sense gun reform, and they definitely never move goal posts

Drivers With DUIs Shouldn’t Be Armed

(BTW, the original headline, which shows at Google News and you can see in the permalink, is Gun Control Laws Should End Sales To Drivers With DUI Convictions)

The combination of guns and alcohol is especially dangerous, and far too little has been done to address it. Federal law doesn’t restrict access to guns by people with a history of alcohol abuse, and fewer than half of U.S. states impose prohibitions of this kind. The risks to public safety are increasingly clear, and the issue demands more careful attention than lawmakers have allowed up to now.

There’s a close parallel. Over a span of years, evidence accumulated to show that domestic abusers are significantly more likely to kill somebody using a gun. The data showed that millions of American women have been threatened with a gun or shot by a domestic partner. Gradually a consensus formed to support denying firearms to convicted abusers. Federal and state laws were adopted to that end.

To be sure, they’re less effective than one would wish. The U.S. Senate’s failure to enact comprehensive background checks makes it much too easy for prohibited people to get a gun. On average, from 2006 to 2014, at least 760 Americans were shot dead each year by a spouse, former spouse or dating partner. Even so, federal and state laws designed to keep guns away from abusers make a difference.

Said comprehensive background checks wouldn’t make a difference, because people purchasing legally acquired firearms from another person in a private transaction without a background check is rare. It’s often a failure of government to report the information to the background check system which would deny a person.

Today, the links between alcohol abuse and firearm violence are also well established. “The research consistently shows that alcohol abuse is associated with violence toward self and others,” stated a comprehensive 2013 report by a consortium of leading researchers. Millions of firearm owners are binge drinkers — and among American men, deaths from alcohol-related firearm violence are on par with those from alcohol-related motor-vehicle accidents, according to a 2015 study.

Who would have guessed? Drunken gunplay is as lethal as drunken driving.

And both are illegal. Yet, these same people aren’t attempting to ban alcohol and motor vehicles, right?

Drunken-driving offenses help to identify only a subset of problem drinkers. However, like gun owners with convictions for domestic abuse, gun owners with DUI convictions are a discrete and dangerous group. For lawmakers eager to make progress against gun violence, they’re too good a target to ignore.

So, you were out with your significant other, had a few drinks, thought you were fine, got pulled over and blew a .09, just over the limit. You are then convicted of DUI. You are an upstanding citizen otherwise, work hard, do not even drink that often. And because of this you are denied your firearm. If you already have one, will the government demand you turn it in permanently? That seems implied.

The very interesting thing is that these gun grabbers are also supporters of illegal immigration, and keep telling us that illegals convicted of DUI are not bad people, that it’s a minor thing, and that the illegals should be shielded from ICE as to not be deported. That illegals with DUIs should never be deported, because it’s not a felony, nor a violent crime. Yet, they want to take away Citizens’s firearms for DUIs.

Read: Have A DUI? Gun Grabbers Want You Denied A Firearm »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 3:09 pm

This is how it begins. The Left is out in the streets, marching for something. They keep pushing the boundaries, till the violence ensues

Extinction Rebellion co-founder arrested after smashing ministry window

A founder of the Extinction Rebellion pressure group was arrested Tuesday after climbing the building housing Britain’s transport ministry in central London.

Gail Bradbrook climbed the building with a sign that read “HS2 is our climate emergency” above the revolving doors. HS2 is a high-speed rail line that will connect London with other UK cities.

Bradbrook, invoking the example women’s suffrage activist Emmeline Pankhurst, then tried to smash a window with a hammer and screwdriver. She was later brought down by a police climber.

Another activist tried to lock herself to the transport ministry but was arrested.

And now that the co-founder has done it, how many others will do the same?

‘Hypocrisy’ of Extinction Rebellion founder’s 11,000-mile trip to Costa Rica as she boasted of taking a luxury long-haul holiday on social media

The founder of the eco-activist group Extinction Rebellion boasted of a luxury long-haul holiday on social media just three years ago.

Gail Bradbrook racked up 11,000 air miles when she flew to Costa Rica in 2016 to stay at the £2,500 luxury New Life Iboga resort.

But Dr Bradbrook’s Central American trip had a carbon footprint of 2.6 tonnes – a quarter of the amount that the average Briton emits in a whole year.

She posted on Facebook that her holiday was ‘filled with nature and the warm sea’ and sightings of exotic wildlife including iguanas and monkeys that ‘smash mangoes on the roofs’.

Paul Scully, the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, told The Sun: ‘This is blind hypocrisy from a group that’s spent days blighting people’s travel plans.’

It’s always about forcing Other People to live the life, never themselves.

Read: Totally Peaceful (And Hypocritical) Extinction Rebellion Co-Founder Arrested For Smashing Window »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a beach which alternates between hot and cold due to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on the police officer running against Jew hater Ilhan Omar.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 16, 2019 – 10:27 am

It would probably be more helpful to prove using the Scientific Method, using actual evidence and facts and such, but, hey, this isn’t about science

‘It’s a crisis, not a change’: the six Guardian language changes on climate matters

A short glossary of the changes we’ve made to the Guardian’s style guide, for use by our journalists and editors when writing about the environment

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

Climate change is no longer considered to accurately reflect the seriousness of the overall situation; use climate emergency or climate crisis instead to describe the broader impact of climate change. However, use climate breakdown or climate change or global heating when describing it specifically in a scientific or geophysical sense eg “Scientists say climate breakdown has led to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes”.

If it’s such a crisis, why is the Guardian still using fossil fuels to gather news? Why are they not telling us that their operations, including their Internet server, are powered solely by renewables?

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

The OED defines a sceptic as “a seeker of the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. Most “climate sceptics”, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, deny climate change is happening, or is caused by human activity, so ‘denier’ is more accurate.

I’m still waiting for that overwhelming scientific evidence. The trope of “CO2 has gone up while warming has occurred” is not proof.

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
‘Global heating’ is more scientifically accurate. Greenhouse gases form an atmospheric blanket that stops the sun’s heat escaping back to space.

Yes, they do, but, how much of the warming has been caused by those released by Mankind? That is one of the arguments. Since a goodly chunk of that release from Mankind comes from agriculture, what would the Crisismongers have us do? Starve?

In order to keep below 1.5C of warming, the aspiration of the world’s nations, we need to halve emissions by 2030 and reach zero by mid century. It is also likely we will need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by the large-scale restoration of nature. It is a huge task, but we hope that tracking the daily rise of CO2 will help to maintain focus on it.

Well, good luck with that.

Read: UK Guardian Wants To Change Language On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 17 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove