St. Greta The Offended Finally Arrives In Portugal For Climate (scam) Talks

By William Teach December 4, 2019 – 7:41 am

I wonder how long it took?

Greta Thunberg Says 3-Week Voyage Across the Atlantic ‘Energized’ Her Climate Change Fight

Climate activist Greta Thunberg arrived in Portugal on Tuesday after a three-week voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, telling cheering supporters that the journey had “energized” her for the fight against climate change.

The Swedish teen, whose one-woman protests outside the Swedish parliament helped inspired a global youth movement, sailed into the port of Lisbon after making a last-minute dash back from the United States to attend this year’s U.N. climate conference.

Thunberg has been steadfast in her refusal to fly because of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by planes, a stance that put her planned appearance at the meeting in doubt when the venue was moved from Chile to Spain a month ago.

“We’ve all been on quite an adventure,” Thunberg told reporters shortly after stepping off the catamaran La Vagabonde, on which she’d hitched a ride back home to Europe. “It feels good to be back.”

Three weeks? Let me ask, do most people have the time to take three weeks to cross the ocean? Will your work give you that much time off? Not too mention the 3 weeks to get back after a vacation? Do you even want to take 3 weeks? Maybe a languid week long voyage on a cruise ship, but, not a tiny sailboat crossing an ocean.

The white 48-foot (15-meter) yacht carrying Thunberg, her father Svante, an Australian family and professional sailor Nikki Henderson sailed into Lisbon amid blue skies, with a small flotilla of boats escorting it to harbor.

Her trip contrasted with the many air miles flown by most of the U.N. meeting’s 25,000 attendees.

Thunberg wanted a low-carbon form of transport to get to the climate meeting, which was switched at short notice to Spain from Chile due to unrest there.

The yacht leaves little or no carbon footprint when its sails are up, using solar panels and hydro-generators for electricity.

It’s funny, Time writers Barry Hatton and Frank Jordans forget to mention the boat’s captain taking a fossil fueled flight across the Atlantic, which wiped out any “carbon pollution” savings.

The article says she plans to stay in Lisbon for a few days before heading to Madrid for the conference. Will she be walking to Madrid, or riding a bike? What’s the carbon footprint of the hotel rooms and all the media following her around? Will she slam the 25,000 in attendance in Madrid, a goodly chunk of whom took fossil fueled trips?

Read: St. Greta The Offended Finally Arrives In Portugal For Climate (scam) Talks »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Whatever Happened To The Bribery Narrative In Democrats Impeachment Document?

By William Teach December 4, 2019 – 7:26 am

The document itself is pretty darned pathetic, and worth the read for some laughs

Adam Schiff’s Report Cites No ‘Bribery’ or ‘High Crimes’; Only Tweets

The House Intelligence Committee report released by chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Tuesday cites no constitutionally permissible grounds for impeachment against President Donald Trump — other than tweets.

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that impeachment shall be for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Notably, the Framers of the Constitution ruled out “maladministration” as a reason.

In Schiff’s 300-page report, Democrats failed to cite any specific grounds for impeaching the president.

Notably, though Schiff and others attempted to argue that the president had possibly committed “bribery” by allegedly asking the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. aid, there is no discussion of bribery whatsoever in the report — other than references to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s claims that Biden might be guilty of bribery because his son was on the payroll of Ukrainian gas giant Burisma.

The only references to any “crimes” allegedly committed by the president is a discussion of “witness intimidation.”

Schiff and his Democrat majority attempt to argue that President Trump committed that crime by tweeting criticism of several witnesses against him, including calling them “Never Trumpers” and drawing attention to their testimony.

The word “bribery” appears just 4 times, and never as an accusation. “Quid pro quo” appears 52 times, and mostly as witness’s words, as stated by people who mostly never heard the call.

Shiffs report never explicitly accuses Trump of “abuse of power.” But even that is not impeachable — firstly because Republicans have argued that Trump was not seeking a political favor from Ukraine, but exercising a constitutional duty to fight corruption and election interference; and secondly because it is not an impeachable offense.

As Sunstein wrote: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.”

Seriously, this is what we get in the document

  • The President Forced Out the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (something which every president can do at any time. Obama sure did it)
  • The President Put Giuliani and the Three Amigos in Charge of Ukraine Issues (well, that seems like a mature thing, right? The 3 Amigos?)
  • The President Froze Military Assistance to Ukraine (Obama froze most aid to Ukraine during his entire administration)
  • The President Asked the Ukrainian President to Interfere in the 2020 U.S. Election by Investigating the Bidens and 2016 Election Interference (so, wait, investigating the 2016 election interference, which really made no difference, is now bad? Or is it just because Trump was looking for evidence that Dems did not want found?)
  • The President’s Categorical Refusal to Comply (Our Constitution makes clear that people do not have to be willing participants in witch-hunts against them, that they have certain Rights)
  • The President’s Refusal to Produce Any and All Subpoenaed Documents and The President’s Refusal to Allow Top Aides to Testify (under this standard, Obama should have been impeached multiple times)

The whole document is cute, with lots of pithy quotes and stuff, but, rather weak on actual evidence of anything beyond Politics As Usual. And, if he wants to try this whole “using office for personal political interests above those of the nation,” expect Team Trump to trot out evidence of Schiff making money off of his own office. Like most elected politicians.

Read: Say, Whatever Happened To The Bribery Narrative In Democrats Impeachment Document? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Good News: Madrid Climate Meeting Is The Point Of No Return

By William Teach December 3, 2019 – 3:00 pm

I was wondering who would trot this kind of stuff out, because it seems like every year’s UN IPCC COP is the last one to Save The World from getting a fever

COP25 really is the ‘point of no return’ in the climate emergency. Here’s why

BTW, once you throw “here’s why” into the headline, you’ve gone all Vox and this is no longer news, it’s activism

It’s a summit that could make or break the world’s climate commitments.

Would those be the commitments that most nations have failed to even get close to?

Around 25,000 people from 200 countries are descending on Madrid this week to attend the COP25 climate change conference. They include dozens of heads of state and government, business leaders, scientists and, of course, activists — including Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg.

So, around 25,000 will take fossil fueled travel? Huh.

That will require most countries to up their commitments ahead of the next COP meeting in Glasgow next November. According to the UN, if we rely only on the current climate plans, temperatures can be expected to rise by 3.2 degrees this century.

Yet, most nations aren’t even close to achieving their much lower commitments, so, good luck!

That sounds scary. Can we do anything to stop this?

Only to an unhinged climate cultist is that scary

Experts say that if the delegates reach a deal on emissions trading, we might just about be able to reach the targets. If they fail, we will definitely trail behind the plan.

That doesn’t mean all is lost — but it does make dealing with the consequences of climate change even more expensive. The later we wait, the more drastic (and pricey) measures will be needed to save the planet.

Basically, this is a redistribution scheme, where 3rd world shitholes, er, developing nations (that never develop) can trade their lack of greenhouse gas emissions to nations that are productive. For cash.

Anyhow, I’m sure there will be plenty of articles about Doom if they don’t Do Something.

Read: Good News: Madrid Climate Meeting Is The Point Of No Return »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 3, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is sea rise encroaching on cities, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on whether it’s possible to blast Iron Maiden too loud (my answer: No. Can never be too loud).

One of my favorites below the fold

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Socialism Is Just A GOP Smear Or Something

By William Teach December 3, 2019 – 10:30 am

Andrew Gillum, who was the mayor of Tallahassee from 2014 to 2018 and the Democratic nominee for Florida governor in 2018, is rather upset that the GOP is accurately describing so many Democrats

‘Socialism’ is a GOP smear. Democrats have to fight back.

A few days after I became the Democratic nominee for governor of Florida, the Republican nominee, Ron DeSantis, visited the historically Cuban neighborhood of Little Havana in Miami and read aloud, in Spanish, from a note card: “El socialismo sería un desastre para la Florida.”

Attack ads and targeted mailers soon followed. President Trump visited Florida three times to amplify the attacks, and his diatribes about the dangers of socialism were broadcast to every home in the state.

The messages used in my race for governor will again dominate the airwaves here and elsewhere in 2020.

It’s time to face a hard truth: We, as Democrats, have allowed it to happen. We have responded to this unfair attack with well-intended, but scattershot, defenses.

Perhaps more than anywhere else in the country, the traumatizing histories of authoritarian socialist regimes are active memories for voters in Florida. For the thousands of Floridians who come from Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua, the word “socialism” is rife with deep pain and anger. Republicans exploit this experience, preying on the fears of immigrants and their families.

If the shoe fits, wear it

Democrats need to make a strong case, and soon, that we are fighting for economic freedom and opportunity — and it is Republican ideas that are diminishing freedom and opportunity for millions.

Now, if you aren’t laughing at that one, I don’t know what will hit your funny bone. This is the party of healthcare run by the Central Government. This is the party that wants to dictate how companies operate and force them to comply with Modern Socialist dictates. They want to control your individual lives via a Green New Deal/climate change policies. They want full governmental control of the energy sector and the economy. They want to take from the producers and give to the moochers. They want government in charge of everything. Excluding abortion, of course. They want no restrictions or rules on that at all.

They want freedom to worship government, and opportunity for them only comes from Government telling others how to operate.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist. Many of the up and coming Democrats, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Realistically, they aren’t so much Socialists, per Political Theory 101, as Progressives, otherwise known as Nice Fascists. In true Socialism, the government mostly stays out of our private lives, and voting is very, very open with few restrictions. Democrats want to control our lives, and do not respect the outcomes of votes when they lose. Hence why I call it Modern Socialism, because too few understand what Progressivism is.

Read: Socialism Is Just A GOP Smear Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Progressive Goals | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

European Union Set To Change Their Whole Economy With Green New Deal Push

By William Teach December 3, 2019 – 7:06 am

The already over-bearing and over-controlling E.U. government is set to increase its control over all things economic dramatically. But, remember, this is all about ‘climate change’, not politics

Europe Set to Overhaul Its Entire Economy in Green Deal Push

The European Union is gearing up for the world’s most ambitious push against climate change with a radical overhaul of its economy.

At a summit in Brussels next week, EU leaders will commit to cutting net greenhouse-gas emissions to zero by 2050, according to a draft of their joint statement for the Dec. 12-13 meeting. To meet this target, the EU will promise more green investment and adjust all of its policy making accordingly.

“If our common goal is to be a climate-neutral continent in 2050, we have to act now,” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, told a United Nations climate conference on Monday. “It’s a generational transition we have to go through.”

These are the main proposals outlined in the draft:

  • Easing restrictions on state aid for companies
  • Changing public procurement rules
  • Considering more ambitious targets for 2030 emissions cuts
  • Penalizing imports from countries with looser emissions controls
  • European Investment Bank to mobilize 1 trillion euros ($1.1 trillion) in climate financing over the next decade

The EU plan, set to be approved as the high-profile United Nations summit in Madrid winds up, would put the bloc ahead of other major emitters. Countries including China, India and Japan have yet to translate voluntary pledges under the 2015 Paris climate accord into binding national measures. U.S. President Donald Trump has said he’ll pull the U.S. out of the Paris agreement.

Well, that should go well, consider how much Europe imports, and considering that the EU economy is already rather lackluster. The devil will be in the details, though, especially using a GND as the basis. A lot will be surely very surprised when it invests massive control in EU bureaucrats to tell companies big and small how they are allowed to operate. And you can bet there will be more taxes.

To ensure that coal-reliant Poland doesn’t veto the climate goals, EU leaders will pledge an “enabling framework” that will include financial support, according to the document, dated Dec. 2. The commission has estimated that additional investment on energy and infrastructure of as much as 290 billion euros ($321 billion) a year may be required after 2030 to meet the targets.

Von der Leyen told the UN meeting that the commission will propose an EU law in March that would “make the transition to climate neutrality irreversible.” She said the measure will extend the scope of emissions trading, and will include “a farm-to-fork strategy and a biodiversity strategy.”

So, they will try to make sure it can never be done away with? That’s rather Fascist. Further, that last line will just mean higher prices on everything. So, good luck, Europe.

Read: European Union Set To Change Their Whole Economy With Green New Deal Push »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Europe, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Quietly Discuss Including Russia Russia Russia In Impeachment

By William Teach December 3, 2019 – 6:52 am

Despite the Mueller report being a big dud after all that moonbattery-mongering from the Democrats (hey, we’re still waiting for all that evidence from Schiff and Nadler and Swalwell they said they have), and it essentially exhonerating Trump from all the “charges”, they’re thinking of including it

Democrats quietly debate expanding impeachment articles beyond Ukraine

House Democrats are debating whether to expand articles of impeachment to include charges beyond abuse of power in the Ukraine controversy, setting up a potential internal clash as the party races to impeach President Trump by Christmastime.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee and other more liberal-minded lawmakers and congressional aides have been privately discussing the possibility of drafting articles that include obstruction of justice or other “high crimes” they believe are clearly outlined in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — or allegations that Trump has used his office to benefit his bottom line.

The idea, however, is running into resistance from some moderate Democrats wary of impeachment blowback in their GOP-leaning districts, as well as Democratic leaders who sought to keep impeachment narrowly focused on allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely.

This shows that the Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine thing has turned into a dud, as well. Democrats also know that there is no way Trump gets booted out of office from the Senate. Perhaps Democrats are hoping that they regain the Senate and can pull the trigger when Trump gets re-elected thanks in part to this whole idiotic impeachment schtick? They’d still need 67 Senators to vote for impeachment.

As far as using his office to benefit himself, well, that would open some serious cans of worms. Perhaps Comrade Bernie could explain how he became a millionaire, a lot of which came from book sales which would only have happened with him being a U.S. Senator. How many Senators and House members could be accused of the exact same thing, using their position to enrich themselves? Don’t think Team Trump won’t attack hard on this, exposing Democrats who have done things to enrich themselves.

Oh, and don’t think Team Trump won’t go after Biden hard for enriching his sons while in office, which was rather corrupt, and part of the point of what Trump wanted investigated by Ukraine. Seriously, Democrats would be making Trump’s point.

Read: Democrats Quietly Discuss Including Russia Russia Russia In Impeachment »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Is Shortening Pregnancies

By William Teach December 2, 2019 – 5:14 pm

See, the whopping 1.5F increase since 1850 is doing Horrible Things

How Rising Temperatures Due to Climate Change are Shortening Pregnancies

It’s bad enough that adults have made a climatological mess of the world. It’s worse that the mess is having a disproportionate impact on kids—who did nothing to create the problem, but are more susceptible to health issues caused by rising temperatures than adults are. Now, it appears, global warming is doing its damage even further down the human age spectrum. According to a new study published in Nature Climate Change, rising temperatures may have a direct impact on human gestational time, increasing the risk of early delivery.

Babies are considered premature when they are born at 37 weeks or earlier. But delivery between 37 and 40 weeks is still not considered ideal, with late-term births correlated to lower birthweight and even potential cognitive development problems later in life. Many variables can cause an otherwise healthy pregnancy to come to term earlier than it should—one is extreme heat.

To study this effect, Alan Barreca, an associate professor at UCLA’s Institute of Environmental Sustainability, and economist Jessamyn Schaller of Claremont McKenna College, analyzed daily temperature and county-by-county birth rates across the U.S. in a two-decade window from 1969 to 1988. That is an admittedly old dataset, but the researchers had little choice.

“In 1989, the vital statistics system started to be more cautious about information it allowed out publicly in order to make it hard to identify individuals precisely by place or date of birth,” says Barreca. “They even began masking some counties. So 1969 to 1988 gave us the most thorough information.”

Um, OK?

In that dataset, the researchers found that on days when temperatures reached or exceeded 32.2ºC (90ºF), the birth rate per 100,000 women increased by 0.97, compared to dates in which the temperature was between 16-21º C (60-70º F). There was a smaller, but still significant, bump of 0.57 additional births per 100,000 women on days that were hot but not quite as sweltering, ranging from 26.7-32.2º C (80-90º F).

Aaaaaaand? That’s barely a blip. And all from a tiny increase in temps, since you had a slight cooling period from the 50’s to about 1979. Ready for doom?

Troublingly, the problem is only likely to get worse. The 1969 to 1988 period was merely the leading edge of the heat spikes the world has experienced in recent decades. As climate change grows more severe—with eight of the ten hottest years on record occurring just in the last decade—more and more babies are likely to be emerging too early into a too-hot world.

Actually, I’m not sure why they care, since most of them are supporters of abortion on demand. Of course, this “study” using old data  … heck, we were in the hippy to disco to big hair and questionable fashion colors eras then … is being breathlessly repeated across the Warmist news media.

Read: Bummer: Hotcoldwetdry Is Shortening Pregnancies »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 2, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on St. Greta’s yacht skipper taking a long fossil fueled trip.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Supreme Court To Hear 2nd Amendment Case Monday

By William Teach December 2, 2019 – 10:30 am

This case is giving the gun grabbers a serious case of heartburn, as we can see from this very long activist article from USA Today

Supreme Court may expand Second Amendment rights despite repeal of disputed gun restrictions

The Supreme Court may be on the verge of expanding gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade. What’s surprising is how it got there.

The court on Monday will hear a challenge to an obscure New York City rule that set such rigid restrictions on transporting legally owned guns that it was repealed in July.

But it turns out that wasn’t what they really wanted. Backed by the National Rifle Association and the Trump administration, the challengers to New York’s abandoned restrictions are hoping the high court refuses to declare the case moot. That would give them a chance to win the biggest Second Amendment victory since landmark rulings a decade ago affirmed the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Faced with a defunct ban on transporting guns outside city limits, the increasingly conservative court majority could render a decision making clear what some justices believe: that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, and that lower courts should view state and local limits on carrying guns in public with skepticism.

I’ve mentioned this case a few times. The City Of New York restricted heavily where law abiding citizens could take their firearms, and, faced with a lawsuit, they did away with the law in an attempt to avoid the Supreme Court making a ruling, as backed by all the gun grabber groups. The Court said they would still hear it.

Enter an extreme rule such as New York City’s, which barred licensed handgun owners from taking their guns beyond its five boroughs, even to second homes or shooting ranges. Federal district and appeals courts upheld the 18-year-old rule, but it looked like a goner at the Supreme Court.

Gun control groups such as Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence feared something else: a decision that would expand public carry rights elsewhere, including in nine states that give law enforcement officials discretion to deny licenses. Those are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii.

This could very much empower the law abiding citizens who want to utilize their 2nd Amendment Right. The article is very much about “oh, those darned Conservatives on the court” and such, but, interestingly, none of these gun grabber groups or states are going after the criminals who use firearms, just the law abiding.

Buoyed by recent victories, gun control groups and their allies worry that what the justices write when deciding the New York case could influence lower courts to strike down other restrictions.

“The court doesn’t have to look like it’s making a big change,” says Adam Winkler, a UCLA School of Law professor and Second Amendment expert. “It can make a big change by setting the foundations for future cases.”

See? It’s all about harming the law abiding.

Read: Supreme Court To Hear 2nd Amendment Case Monday »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove