Bonnie Prince Charles Warns We Only Have 10 Years Left To Solve ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 7:08 am

Whatever happened to the whole 12 years left thing, which would mean we are still 11 years off? But, hey, we’re at yet another tipping point

Prince Charles talks about climate change, says humans only have 10 yrs to ‘change the course’

CHRISTCHURCH: Prince Charles warned Friday that time is running out to address the impact of climate change as he prepares to visit one of the Pacific island nations most-affected by global warming.

As he wrapped up a six-day trip to New Zealand ahead of three days in the Solomon Islands, Charles said the need for climate action was urgent.

“We have reached a tipping point and we still have the ability to change course, but only 10 years,” said the first in line to the British throne, who has been a passionate environmentalist for decades.

He said climate change was a scientific fact, rejecting suggestions from sceptics that “scaremongering” was dominating the debate.

“We have abused nature, exploited her and given her nothing back in return,” he told an audience at Christchurch’s Lincoln University.

“Nothing is sacred anymore, we are reaping a loss of biodiversity and experiencing the impacts of climate changes. We urgently need to pay the mounting debt.”

If it’s such a fact, referring to the anthropogenic part, then why did he take a long fossil fueled trip from Great Britain to New Zealand? Does anyone think he flew commercial? And how is he traveling around New Zealand?

He and wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, will have the chance to see the impact of climate change at close quarters when they make their first visit to the Solomon Islands on Saturday.

New Zealand is essentially south of Australia. The Solomon Islands are essentially north of Australia. So, looks like Charles, his wife, and their whole entorage will be taking a long fossil fueled plane trip there, as well. And climate cultists wonder why they are accused of being hypocrites? They have massive carbon footprints, refuse to reign them in, yet are out there scaremongering, always demanding government policies that are on Other People.

Oh, and when will they start trotting out 5 years left? I’ll give it till next summer.

Read: Bonnie Prince Charles Warns We Only Have 10 Years Left To Solve ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 51 Comments | Trackback URL

California Court Nixes Law On Tax Returns For Primaries

By William Teach November 22, 2019 – 6:48 am

Remember when California passed a law that required anyone who wanted to be on the state primary ballot to release their tax returns, a law that obviously targeted Donald Trump? Well, even a People’s Republik Of California court thought it was pretty bad

California high court strikes down state law targeting Trump tax returns

California’s highest state court on Thursday struck down a law that would have required President Trump to hand over his tax returns as a condition to appearing on the state’s ballot for the Republican primary.

In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court held that key portions of the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, signed in July, violated the state’s constitution.

The law also requires gubernatorial candidates to disclose their tax returns for ballot access, but the California justices did not address that portion of the law.

The ruling comes ahead of the Nov. 26 deadline by which candidates would have needed to disclose their tax returns in order to appear on the state’s March presidential primary ballot.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court sided with the California Republican Party over California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D).

The court argued that the law creates an additional requirement that is in conflict with the state constitution’s “specification of an inclusive open presidential primary ballot.”

It’s like the California general assembly and Governor Newsome, who signed it, didn’t read the California Constitution. Or, just ignored it.

“The Legislature may well be correct that a presidential candidate’s income tax returns could provide California voters with important information,” the court said in its ruling. “But article II, section 5(c) embeds in the state Constitution the principle that, ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.”

Remember, previous governor Jerry Brown, as hardcore leftist as the come, refused to sign it because it was un-Constitutional. Tax returns are not something embeded in either California nor U.S. Constitutions as requirements, and the General Assembly can’t just arbitrarily decide to add something in just because they have a derangement syndrome. They just can’t get over Trump winning the 2016 election.

Read: California Court Nixes Law On Tax Returns For Primaries »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Politics | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Latest Excuse Why Charlie’s Angels Failed? Marketing

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 3:36 pm

It couldn’t have anything to do with a film that is all Woke, features 3 characters who are simply unbelievable as action movies stars (Tom Holland of Spiderman is great, but, how would he do as an action movie star without super powers?), no sexy in sight (isn’t that what the Angels were about? Women kicking but and being strong and being Women?), and, did I mention that the characters were unbelievable?

Top right pic: anyone scared? The Angel on the right looks like she’s in junior high. And then there was all the Wokeness. Anyhow

(Digital Spy) Charlie’s Angels’ own writer-director Elizabeth Banks herself has officially sounded the death knell: the soft reboot starring Kristen Stewart is officially a flop. On a budget of $48 million, Charlie’s Angels earned only $8.6 million over its US opening weekend. Ouch.

There is a multitude of factors contributing to the box-office success of a movie, and there is an argument that a film’s receipts have no bearing on its critical, or cultural, merits. Unfortunately, the world at large sees bad box office performance as the direct result of a bad film.

A perfect example of this is Terminator: Dark Fate, which underperformed at the box office despite being a solid action film in a franchise beloved by many. All the factors were ripe for success, yet it petered out at under $300 million worldwide.

Unlike the Terminator franchise, which has had many failed sequels and reboots before, Charlie’s Angels has enjoyed a relatively positive spotlight in pop culture. Even the 2000s reboot, which has not aged well, is still looked back upon with rose-tinted glasses by many.

So what went wrong for Elizabeth Banks and her new angels Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska? In our opinion: marketing.

Right, right. It goes on to proclaim that the market was all wrong. Perhaps it was that the actresses picked were wrong, everyone knew it was all Woke, and that it was just bad. Apparently, just like Terminator. But, let’s revisit a paragraph, the one which caught my eye in this whole thing

There is a multitude of factors contributing to the box-office success of a movie, and there is an argument that a film’s receipts have no bearing on its critical, or cultural, merits. Unfortunately, the world at large sees bad box office performance as the direct result of a bad film.

If you’re making an arthouse movie or something similar, well, sure, box office performance might not matter. But, they won’t show it in a big theater if the theater won’t make money. And, as stated so many times “Get woke, go broke.” Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry aren’t getting it. They’re putting out mediocre films as blockbusters (and a few actual big movies here and there), and the rest are pretty much almost straight to video. It’s barely worth going to the movies anymore.

And, let’s remember, The Joker, which was definitely not PC nor Woke, is the first R rated movie to bust a billion dollars.

Read: Latest Excuse Why Charlie’s Angels Failed? Marketing »

Posted in Film | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is snow that will soon be a thing of the past, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on your feel good stories of the day.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 10:41 am

I wonder why?

Climate change gets a single question at the fifth Democratic debate

Ten Democratic candidates for president took the stage in Atlanta to talk impeachment, health care, the economy, paid leave, and, oh yeah, our overheating planet.

Those hoping for a debate heavy on what Bernie Sanders called “the existential threat of our time” were surely disappointed. Climate change was awarded a single question, though candidates found chances to bring it up throughout.

Moderators from MSNBC and the Washington Post opened the night with a question about impeachment. Healthcare and the economy also dominated the conversation (no surprise there). About halfway through the night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked the debate’s only question about rising temperatures. Many viewers care deeply about climate change, she said, then Maddow offered up a question from a viewer in Minnesota: What do candidates plan to do about it, and how do they aim to drum up bipartisan support for their plan?

The question went to a frontrunner, naturally. Just kidding. Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii got first dibs. Gabbard said she aims to prioritize climate action if elected, a promise that would be easier to take at face value if she wasn’t the only candidate on stage who hasn’t unveiled a comprehensive plan to combat rising emissions. To be fair, Tulsi introduced the OFF act, a bill to wean the United States off fossil fuels, in Congress last year. Tom Steyer, the billionaire who runs a progressive advocacy group called NextGen America, got a chance to take a stab at the climate issue next and made a more passionate case for action.

“Congress has never passed an important climate bill ever. That’s why I’m saying it’s priority one,” Steyer said (an echo of Governor Jay Inslee’s line: “If it’s not number one it won’t get done.”) Steyer was the only candidate on stage who said he aims to declare a national emergency over climate change as president.

A few others had an answer, but, really, it was a minor interruption in the flow and ebb of the unhinged moonbattery. A few tried to weave Hotcoldwetdry into the mix, but

Climate change has been the topic of less than 10 percent of the questions asked at each of the previous four debates, and this debate was no different. But the fifth debate did demonstrate once again that candidates are ready to talk climate, even if moderators aren’t.

Could there be a reason why ‘climate change’ is barely covered?

Most only care in theory. Start talking about how their taxes will go up, their cost of living will skyrocket, their freedom and choice will be curtailed, they’ll be forced to drive certain vehicles (if they can afford them), they’ll be restricted from flying, unemployment will spike, they’ll be forced to drastically reduce their meat intake, etc, people say “no thanks.”

Read: Bummer: Democrat Debate Sees Only One Hotcoldwetdry Question »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

U.K. Labour Party Chair Threatens To Blacklist Companies From Stock Exchange Who Fail To Act On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 7:34 am

Remember, this is all about science, not the Cult of Climastrology’s Progressive (nice Fascism) politics

Climate Hysteria: Labour to Ban Companies from Stock Exchange for ‘Failing to Act’ on Climate Change

The Labour Party’s Marxist Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has threatened that businesses will be banned from the London Stock Exchange if they fail to act on climate change.

The Labour Party will make the issue of allegedly man-made climate change — a voter-friendly way of pushing hard-left redistribution politics — its “overriding priority”, according to far-left MP John McDonnell, who laid out a series of radical proposals for the climate and the economy, should Labour take control of Parliament.

“If we are meet the climate change target to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we need to ensure that companies are pulling their weight alongside government,” he told an event in London on Tuesday.

Vowing to “rewrite the rules” of the economy, McDonnell said that under a Labour government, the Corporate Governance Code would “set out a minimum standard for listing related to evidencing the action being taken to tackle climate change”.

“For those companies not taking adequate steps under Labour they will be delisted from the London Stock Exchange,” warned McDonnel.

I’d like an apology from all those who said I was nuts back during the early years of this Century, when I flipped from Warmist to Skeptic, proclaiming that this whole thing was about hardcore Leftist politics, that they want to increase taxes/fees, control citizens, control private entities, control the energy sector, and control the economy. That this is really a very far right movement over into the Authoritarian model. The further left you go on the political scale the less government you have, the further right the more dominant government is. Though, we can certainly call this communism and socialism in practice, rather than the Political Theory 101 version.

Read: U.K. Labour Party Chair Threatens To Blacklist Companies From Stock Exchange Who Fail To Act On ‘Climate Change’ »

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

Associated Press Seems Surprised That GOP Isn’t Abandoning Trump Over Impeachment Theater

By William Teach November 21, 2019 – 7:22 am

Despite the news media attempting to spin the hearings yesterday (Anand is Time’s editor in chief)

https://twitter.com/Flying59Vette/status/1197276537445335045

along with most other days, because yesterday ended up hurting the Democrat Narrative (all he had was his own thoughts), the AP is confused

In wake of impeachment testimony, no signs yet of GOP cracks

Congressional Republicans are showing no overt signs of abandoning their support for President Donald Trump, the latest demonstration of how Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has left the two parties inhabiting different political universes.

Democrats reveled Wednesday over Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony that Trump was requiring a “quid pro quo” — specifically, a public Ukrainian commitment to investigate Democrats in exchange for a Trump Oval Office meeting that their newly elected president badly wanted.

Yet GOP lawmakers minimized Sondland’s appearance, saying his revelations about how Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani had delivered Trump’s demands to diplomats hadn’t changed their minds. Sondland said they later realized that Ukrainian investigations were also Trump’s price for the embattled country to receive U.S. military aid already approved by Congress.

“A meeting, which is a nothing-burger?” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said of one of Trump’s demands. “The president can meet with whoever he wants to meet with, for a good reason or no reason at all.”

Seriously, a meeting is what it came down to. Nothing else. Why would the GOP start cracking? So far, there’s been nothing but hearsay and inner thoughts. No actual evidence. It’s just kabuki theater

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a sophomore lawmaker who won his closely divided Omaha-based district by 2 percentage points last year, said even Sondland’s appearance left him still thinking that Trump hadn’t committed an impeachable offense.

“The key word is he said he presumed, hadn’t heard it firsthand, it’s the same old thing,” Bacon said of Sondland’s testimony. Bacon said impeachment is on voters’ minds but leaves partisans on both sides entrenched in their views about Trump.

There has been nothing offered that would impeachment level, even if we were to believe the random thoughts of people who mostly do not have first hand knowledge of what is just standard politics.

But, hey, the media is doing a wonderful job in avoiding exactly why Joe Biden was included in the list of who and what Trump wanted information on.

Read: Associated Press Seems Surprised That GOP Isn’t Abandoning Trump Over Impeachment Theater »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, GOP | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: 1 In 3 Millennials Want Secret Santa Banned

By William Teach November 20, 2019 – 3:39 pm

Yes, yes, Secret Santa can cause some anxiety, which is why rules are typically established, but, it is minor anxiety. No big hoo hoo. But, hey, Millennials

From the article

Some millennials want “Secret Santa” canceled.

A study found that Secret Santa gift exchanges trigger anxiety in many millennials. Dr. Ashley Weinberg, a psychology lecturer at the University of Salford in Manchester, claimed the holiday gift swap triggers anxiety in those who overspend because they don’t want to appear “stingy.”

The study from Jobsite found that 26% of millennials admitted to dipping into savings or overdrafting their accounts to fund an office gift. Around 17% reported that they “felt judged” by their co-workers based on the gift they chose to contribute. In total, 78% of millennials felt they contributed “more than they should” to an office party gift compared to 58% of the rest of the workforce.

Nearly 1 in 3 millennials want to see Secret Santa banned. Weinberg explained that anxiety surrounding the gift exchange is one factor pushing millennials to want to give Secret Santa the boot.

“If you’ve grown up in a world where social media is at your fingertips and those kinds of social judgments are being made fairly constantly, suddenly you’re even more aware of what others might be thinking. Naturally, that’s going to spill over into all kinds of areas, particularly something that can be a social taboo when you think about maybe not giving, or maybe questioning why people are giving,” Weinberg said.

Read: Bummer: 1 In 3 Millennials Want Secret Santa Banned »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat caused snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on a lawsuit filed over Adam Schiff colluding with Politico.

Read: If All You See… »

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

‘Climate Change’ Could Kill Off Red Apples Or Something

By William Teach November 20, 2019 – 10:30 am

It’s always some prognostication of doom from the Cult of Climastrology. They never seem to offer any sort of positive message like

Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

They also like to duck having discussions and debates. But, anyhow, on to Maybe Future Doom

How climate change could kill the red apple

The archetypal apple is – no two ways about it – red. There may be yellow apples or green apples in the grocery store too. In some places, you might even find varieties that are striped or mottled with a profusion of hues, like the gorgeous Cox’s Orange Pippin.

But red – or occasionally, pure, sharp Granny Smith green – is the colour of apples in most alphabet books. It’s an interesting detail, because apples were not always so resolutely monochrome. (snip)

Intriguingly, colour also depends on temperature. To get an apple that’s fully red, temperatures must stay cool, Chagne says, because if they climb to above about 40C (104F), MYB10 and anthocyanin levels crash. In the Pyrenees region of Spain, he and his colleagues found normally vividly red striped apples were completely pale after a particularly hot July. As temperatures warm, he suggests, it could become more difficult for apples to turn red. (snip)

Perhaps the threat that climate change poses to the red apple will be counterbalanced by our sheer determination to breed them, even if it takes expensive breeding programmes. Even before we understood the genetics, colourful apples exerted a strong pull on humans. John Bunker, an apple collector based in Palermo, Maine, has rescued numerous forgotten breeds from extinction. These include apples that used to be grown a century or more ago before orcharding became so Delicious-focused, including the magnificent Black Oxford, an apple whose red is so dark you might mistake it for an enormous plum before seeing its brilliant white flesh. “The colours are phenomenal. And I think that for some people including myself that was the original attraction,” he says.

In fact, the majority of the article has zero to do with red apples, or any color of apples. It’s really about the history of apples and their colors, what growers might do that has nothing to do with climate, just attracting consumers. The word “climate” appears twice: once in the headline and the other in bold above. But, this is climate cultism, having to interject this into every story.

Apples will be fine. Climate cultists? They need an intervention.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Kill Off Red Apples Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Food and Drink, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove