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

This Is New: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Double Carbon Pollution From Lakes

By William Teach November 20, 2019 – 7:56 am

It is getting close to December, when the UN IPCC holds its annual Conference On the Parties ‘climate change’ meeting. It’s supposed to still be in Spain, after moving several times from South American nations. And, as it gets closer, the climate cultists typically come out with all sorts of scary prognostications, but, this is a new one, being repeated throughout the news media

CLIMATE CHANGE COULD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FRESHWATER LAKES GIVE OFF, SCIENTISTS WARN

Climate change could double the amount of greenhouse gas emissions given off by freshwater lakes, scientists have warned.

If current global warming trends continue, greenhouse gas concentrations in lakes could rise by 1.5 to 2.7 times, on average, according to a study published in the journal PNAS.

Lead researcher Dr. Andrew Tanentzap of the University of Cambridge’s department of Plant Sciences explained to Newsweek: “Climate change is increasing both forest cover and changing the types of tree species occurring around most of the world’s lakes.

“These changes are important for lakes because they receive large amounts of dead plant material from the lands that surround them.”

You mean Nature is occurring?

Sources of organic matter, like carbon compounds that come from the remains of plants, animals, and their waste products “is particularly large in nutrient-poor lakes that are the most common on Earth,” Tanentzap said.

“Therefore, as vegetation changes around lakes because of climate change, we hypothesized that so too would the role that lakes play in emitting greenhouse gases,” he explained.

To carry out the research, scientists filled containers with different amounts of rocks and organic material, like leaves from deciduous and coniferous plants, and plunged them into the shallow water of Lake Laurentian and Swan Lake in Ontario, Canada. Two months later, they used special equipment to examine the organic molecules in the containers.

How dare nature do this! BTW, there was zero proof offered that this is being caused by the activities of Mankind. Other than researchers filling containers with rocks and organic materials and artificially causing problems with lakes, of course.

But, this is all your fault. You can fix this by paying a tax and giving up your freedom.

Read: This Is New: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Double Carbon Pollution From Lakes »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on This Is New: ‘Climate Change’ Could Maybe Possibly Double Carbon Pollution From Lakes | Trackback URL

GOP Rep Mike Turner Says Volker’s Testimony Essentially Destroyed Democrats Ukraine Narrative

By William Teach November 20, 2019 – 7:37 am

What is the Democrats narrative these days, anyhow? They had run with quid pro quo, but, after poll testing it in focus groups, they switched to bribery. Especially since Americans will surely learn, if they don’t already know, that quid pro quos are the way politics, especially international ones, are done. And then they might want to know why Trump wanted Joe Biden investigated, and, really, why he wanted investigations in Ukraine, as they relate to the Russia Russia Russia investigation. But, if their narrative is bribery…

(Breitbart) Turner took a moment during Tuesday evening’s hearing to blast the hearsay evidence that Democrats have largely relied on – and used – as a basis for their entire impeachment inquiry:

A lot of people talking about their perceptions, their beliefs – their feelings even – what they heard and their understandings and their thoughts. Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Kent, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman had conversations with each other and with other people and all had a whole bunch of hearsay.

But I can assure you this boils down to just one thing. This is an impeachment inquiry concerning the President of the United States, so the only thing that matters – besides all these people talking to each other and all their feels and all of their thoughts and understandings – it really only comes down to, what did the President of the United States intend, what did he say, and what did the Ukrainians understand or hear.

The Washington Post is claiming that the three witnesses undercut Trump’s defense. But, all they had was perceptions and feelings, no actual, substantive proof. I think the Post (and lots of other outlets) missed this part

Rep Mike Turner: “So I get to ask you. You had a meeting with the President of the United States, and you believe that the policy issues he raised concerning Ukraine were valid, correct?”

“Yes,” Volker said.

“Did the President of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to the Ukraine unless there were investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?” Turner asked.

“No, he did not,” Volker said.

Oops. It’s kinda funny that Democrats are upset that Trump would want an investigation into the 2016 elections, isn’t it? Do they have something to hide?

Did the Ukrainians ever tell you that they understood that they would not get a meeting with the President of the United States, a phone call with the President of the United States, military aid, or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?

“No, they did not,” Volker said.

Turner noted that Volker’s answers essentially dismantled the Democrats’ entire case for impeaching Trump.

“Pretty much, Ambassador Volker, you just like took apart their entire case,” Turner said.

Double oops.

Nothing went particularly well for Democrats yesterday, as it was all about beliefs and feelings, just like it has been going. There really is nothing that makes you go ZOMG, impeach! Unless you are a hardcore Democrat. Up today is Gordon Sondland, who is now being called the most important witness, as the previous Most Important Witnesses have flamed out.

Read: GOP Rep Mike Turner Says Volker’s Testimony Essentially Destroyed Democrats Ukraine Narrative »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, GOP | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If We Don’t Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ We’re Doomed In 10 Years Or Something

By William Teach November 19, 2019 – 4:19 pm

I thought we were already doomed 20 years ago? And 15 years ago? And 10? 5? Today? Or was it in 2100 or 2050? Anyhow, the same experts who prognosticated doom which didn’t come to pass are still doing it

Painfully slow hurricanes, deadly heat, and cities without water: What the climate crisis will look like in the next 10 years, according to experts

We only have a decade to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

That’s the warning the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put out last year. But so far, nations are not slashing emissions enough to keep Earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — the threshold established in the Paris climate agreement.

“What we know is that unabated climate change will really transform our world into something that is unrecognizable,” Kelly Levin, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute’s climate program, told Business Insider.

Doom!

If Earth warms more than 1.5 degrees, scientists think the world’s ecosystems could start to collapse.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we’d all have a wonderful Christmas. What happens when the temperature doesn’t rise to 1.5C? We’re only at .6C since 1850.

Even if nations stick to the goals they set under the Paris climate agreement, emissions will still likely be too high, according to the IPCC.

Wait, I thought Paris was historic and awesome. No?

So far, most countries are not on track anyway.

So then what’s the problem with the U.S. pulling out?

The globe’s ice caps will continue to melt, and crucial ice sheets like the one in Greenland might start down an irreversible path toward disappearing completely.

Like they’ve been doing since the end of the ice age 20,000 years ago?

That will lead to more sea-level rise — about 0.3 to 0.6 feet on average globally by 2030, according to the US’ National Climate Assessment.

The norm, once again, is 6-8 inches of sea rise per century over the last 8,000 years, so, that sounds entirely average. Anyway, the doomy prognostications continue on and on and on, and, remember, this is all about science, not politics

“That means we need politicians who are willing to act in our interest rather than on the part of vested interests,” Mann said. “Voting in the 2020 election is probably the single-most important thing we can do to address climate change.”

Huh.

Read: If We Don’t Do Something About ‘Climate Change’ We’re Doomed In 10 Years Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach November 19, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible streaming service causing mass carbon pollution which causes extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the Democrats wishful thinking.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Chick-fil-a Surrenders To LGBTQ, Won’t Give To Salvation Army

By William Teach November 19, 2019 – 11:29 am

There really was no reason to surrender, seeing as these hardcore moonbats were probably not even patrons to start with, but, they have managed to piss off a lot of Chick-fil-a supporters

Chick-fil-A no longer donating to 2 organizations accused of anti-LGBTQ+ views

Chick-fil-A has announced it will focus on donating to initiatives that further its “mission of nourishing the potential in every child” in 2020 — and that it will no longer be giving to two organizations that it had previously received backlash for donating to in previous years: the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and The Salvation Army.

The brand issued a news release on its blog, The Chicken Wire, announcing the current focus for the Chick-fil-A Foundation. In the coming year, the chain’s charitable arm hopes to “deepen its giving to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger.”

“Through these initiatives, Chick-fil-A Inc. and the Foundation will provide approximately $32 million in total cash gifts in 2020,” the news release read.

And you know what they get for surrendering to the SJWs?

As Twitchy points out, it’s a small account, but, the tweet got a lot of traction, and, subtweets are showing that the SJWs don’t care, they want to drive Chick-fil-a out of business. There are also plenty of tweets along both lines. You cannot win with SJWs when you capitulate. If you apologize, say you’re sorry, give them what they want, give in, they’ll just come at you harder.

Chick-fil-a may come to regret giving in. Seriously, the Salvation Army? How much great work have they done for so many people?

Read: Chick-fil-a Surrenders To LGBTQ, Won’t Give To Salvation Army »

Posted in Good Move Slick | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

California Says It Will Stop Buying Toyota, GM, Chrysler Vehicles Over Emissions Spat

By William Teach November 19, 2019 – 7:12 am

This begs the question “why are they buying fossil fueled vehicles in the first place when they hate fossil fuels?”

California to stop buying GM, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler vehicles over emissions fight

California said on Monday it will halt all purchases of new vehicles for state government fleets from GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and other automakers backing U.S. President Donald Trump in a battle to strip the state of authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.

Between 2016 and 2018, California purchased $58.6 million in vehicles from General Motors Co , $55.8 million from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV , $10.6 million from Toyota Motor Corp <7203.T> and $9 million from Nissan Motor Co <7201.T>.

Last month, GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and members of the Global Automakers trade association backed the Trump administration’s effort to bar California from setting its own emission standards, which are significantly stricter than the Trump Administration proposal’s preferred option.

GM spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said in a statement it was unfortunate that California will stop buying its electric Bolt.

“Removing vehicles like the Chevy Bolt and prohibiting GM and other manufacturers from consideration will reduce California’s choices for affordable, American-made electric vehicles and limit its ability to reach its goal of minimizing the state government’s carbon footprint, a goal that GM shares.”

So, what will they purchase? Honda doesn’t sell to government. You’re left with Ford, which doesn’t really make cars anymore, they are focused on SUVs and pickups. You could still go with the more expensive Lincoln and Buick. There’s also Nissan. Will the government of California start buying $125 thousand Teslas? Should they be buying any, though? How about Volkswagen?

Starting in January, the state will only buy from automakers that recognize California’s legal authority to set emissions standards. They include Ford Motor Co , Honda Motor Co <7267.T>, BMW AG and Volkswagen AG , which struck a deal with California in July to follow revised state vehicle emissions standards.

So, the list is down to Ford, which, again, really doesn’t make cars. Honda doesn’t sell to government in bulk or direct, though their Insight and Accord Hybrid would be perfect. BMW, which would be really expensive, and VW, which have high maintenance costs and cheated on emissions.

You also have to wonder why they are buying $100 million in cars yearly. Why are they not keeping the cars more than a year or two? Further, California is already having energy supply problems: how do they expect to charge the plugin vehicles?

Read: California Says It Will Stop Buying Toyota, GM, Chrysler Vehicles Over Emissions Spat »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Narrative Fail: Majority Do Not Want Trump Removed

By William Teach November 19, 2019 – 6:50 am

After all these years of crying Russia Russia Russia and now Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine the Democrats have blown their narrative. They’re out there freaking out over a phone call which was simply normal, one looking to solve the corruption of the Russia investigation, running a sorta impeachment theater, they have the media covering for them, but…

Most Americans break with Trump on Ukraine, but just 45 percent think he should be removed: poll

A wide majority of Americans said that President Trump‘s actions involving Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden were “unacceptable,” but most do not want him removed from office, according to a new poll.

In an NPR-Marist College poll published Tuesday, 70 percent of respondents said that Trump was wrong to solicit a Ukrainian criminal investigation into Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, as the former vice president mounts a 2020 presidential bid.

Still, just 47 percent of Americans said that Trump should be impeached by the House, and just 45 percent said that the Senate should convict the president and remove him from office. Forty-four percent said that Trump should not be removed from office or that they were unsure, while 46 percent said that the House should not vote to impeach the president.

Think about that: the Democrats and their media allies have convinced a wise swath of Americans as to what the call was about, namely, Trump demanding that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden in order to get military aid, which, of course, was not what the call was about, nor the whole thing. They’ve managed to get citizens to not think “say, why would Joe need to be investigated? What was he doing with Ukraine, and how did his unqualified son get that job?” You know if the parties were reversed the focus would be on Joe, were he a Republican.

But, for all the focus, for getting people to believe the narrative, just 45 percent say he should be removed, which is pretty much the party breakdown for Democrats. The poll numbers are not going to go up: the Democrats have taken their shot, it’s been mostly a big nothingburger, and they have nothing else. Just farts on TV.

They have set a standard for the GOP to impeach a future Democrat president for minor things, though.

Read: Narrative Fail: Majority Do Not Want Trump Removed »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove