If All You See…

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

…is an area flooded from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on fighting knife attacks with racist chicken boxes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Carbon Pricing Is Not The Answer To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something

By William Teach August 17, 2019 – 10:46 am

The “or something” is for Warmists noting just how bad carbon pricing is for “developing nations”, but failing to make the connection to every other nation

Carbon Pricing Is Not a Fix for Climate Change

There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions and address climate change. Unlike many environmental pollutants that have a local or regional impact, carbon dioxide (CO2) is global—there is only one atmosphere. If actions taken to reduce atmospheric emissions in one region result in increased emissions elsewhere, then the one atmosphere suffers.

Some form of carbon pricing—a carbon tax, carbon trading, carbon credits—is favored by many politicians, NGOs, academics and even some in industry. But the reality is that a price on carbon will not be adopted by developing and emerging economies because it makes their energy more expensive, and they are too busy trying to build their economies and lift themselves from poverty.

In the developed world, carbon pricing increases the cost of manufacturing and products, which in turn drives manufacturing to developing nations where it is more affordable because of lower labor costs and less stringent environmental regulations and emissions standards. Global emissions rise in the one atmosphere. Put another way, the good intentions of carbon pricing have an unintended negative impact on climate change. This is not hypothetical. It is happening.

Hmm. Makes energy more expensive. Interferes with economies. Increases cost of manufacturing and products. Surprise? Think this won’t have the same effect in nations other than 3rd World?

However, this Scientific American article by Scott Tinker does make one good observation

So what options does energy science suggest will have a major impact on climate change? Natural gas and nuclear fission replacing coal for power generation in major developing nations such as India, China and Vietnam would have a major impact. Carbon capture, utilization and storage, direct carbon capture from the atmosphere, and perhaps nature-based solutions such as increasing the size of forests would help, especially in fossil-fuel producing regions such as the U.S., Russia, China and the Middle East. Distributed renewable energy in rural areas around the world that are currently off-grid will lower emissions and begin to lift more than 1 billion people out of poverty.

But, the Cult of Climastrology is mostly against natural gas and nuclear. A few of their grand poobahs call for it, but, most have a knee-jerk opposition.

Read: Carbon Pricing Is Not The Answer To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | Comments Off on Carbon Pricing Is Not The Answer To Hotcoldwetdry Or Something | Trackback URL

Bummer: Climate Cultist’s Boat Trip Across Atlantic May Not Be As “Green” As Stated

By William Teach August 17, 2019 – 7:44 am

Sarcasm on a Saturday morning is fun. I actually haven’t mentioned much of this little cultist/climahypocrite who’s certainly being controlled by the big cult members, now seems a good time

Using a different source, as that one is behind a paywall that doesn’t work with Pocket

Greta Thunberg’s two-week trip across Atlantic in ‘zero-carbon yacht’ may generate more emissions than it saves as two of the crew have to FLY to New York to bring the boat back to Europe

Greta Thunberg’s trans-Atlantic voyage in a ‘zero-carbon yacht’ has been rocked by revelations that crew will fly to New York in a gas-guzzling plane to bring the boat back to Europe.

It is claimed that this would generate more emissions than the yacht saves and threatens to leave the 16-year-old’s plans to chart an environmentally friendly route to the United States in tatters.

On Wednesday, the Swedish eco-campaigner left Plymouth on the Malizia II for a two-week journey to the United Nations headquarters where she will address a climate change meeting.

But last night, it was confirmed that two crew will have to fly to the US east coast city to man the 60ft yacht on its return.

‘We added the trip to New York City at very short notice, and as a result two people will need to fly over to the US in order to bring the boat back,’ a Team Malizia spokeswoman told the Times.

She added: ‘The world has not yet found a way to make it possible to cross an ocean without a carbon footprint.’

And a further two sailors who are currently on board the Malizia II with Greta may use air travel to get back to Europe.

One question not being asked is “how is Greta getting back to Europe?” Also “will she be limo’d around in NYC?” And “what’s the carbon footprint of the suite she will certainly be staying in?” Oh, and “who’s paying for all this?” Those special clothes for riding in the boat aren’t cheap. Who’s paying to put her up in the city?

Oh, and when do people get pissed off that a teenage girl is being taken advantage of by a cult?

Read: Bummer: Climate Cultist’s Boat Trip Across Atlantic May Not Be As “Green” As Stated »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Gun Grabber Hot Take: “We Can Ban Plastic Straws But We Can’t Ban Scary Looking Guns”

By William Teach August 17, 2019 – 7:30 am

Does it need to be explained? These people are fighting to allow more illegals, human traffickers and MS-13 thugs into America – while taking guns away from Citizens. The Constitution was written to stop gun grabbers

House Democrat calls for gun control: Cities can ban plastic straws but ‘we can’t ban assault weapons?’

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) on Friday evening expressed frustration with Congress’s inability thus far to pass gun control legislation following a number of mass shootings, arguing the public should put pressure on hesitant Republicans.

“I believe that the will of the American people can overpower obstruction in the Senate by the Senate majority leader in terms of bringing bills to the floor to a vote,” Richmond said on CNN. “We have cities that are banning plastic straws, and we can’t ban assault weapons? That just doesn’t make sense to me.”

In case Richmond has missed it, assault weapons are banned in many areas, such as California. Yet are still used in the commission of a crime. Because these same wahoos banning straws and guns are also soft on criminals.

Read: Gun Grabber Hot Take: “We Can Ban Plastic Straws But We Can’t Ban Scary Looking Guns” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on Gun Grabber Hot Take: “We Can Ban Plastic Straws But We Can’t Ban Scary Looking Guns” | Trackback URL

AOC Says Joe Manchin(D) Will Be A “Big Challenge” In Getting Green New Deal Passed Or Something

By William Teach August 16, 2019 – 3:57 pm

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could not even get one Democrat to vote for the GND resolution when it came up for a vote in the Senate. Almost every single one voted “present”, with a few, like Joe Manchin, voting “nay.” She pitched a fit over the Senate voting on it, even forgetting that it was submitted by co-sponsor Ed Markey, thinking that it was only House legislation. And now

Ocasio-Cortez: Manchin Will Be ‘Huge Challenge’ to Passing Green New Deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) in an interview on Thursday said Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D., W.Va.) role as chairman on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee will make passing the Green New Deal a “huge challenge.”

Ocasio-Cortez sat down for an interview on Thursday with the liberal “Pod Save America” podcast, where she claimed Manchin will be a roadblock to solving the climate crisis. Jon Favreau, who served as a speechwriter for former president Barack Obama and currently co-hosts the podcast, said solving the climate crisis with the Green New Deal “requires a mass mobilization like we haven’t seen since World War II and it requires it urgently.”

“It requires it at a time when our political system is in crisis because one of our parties has been radicalized,” Favreau said. “Where do we begin to make real progress on this when our best hope is Democratic president, 51 senators, no filibuster, and then you are still dealing with Joe Manchin?”

Sure thing, Sparky

“The reason it has to be so sweeping is because we need to give our entire economy, I think, a golden gate of retreat and decarbonization,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “The Green New Deal I think is in many parts is also an economic stimulus package for main street. We had no problem blinking or snapping our fingers and passing the stimulus package, which created a large of amount of political resentment as well because we bailed out Wall Street and did very little for main street. I think this is the answer for that.”

So, it’s not really about ‘climate change’? Huh.

Read: AOC Says Joe Manchin(D) Will Be A “Big Challenge” In Getting Green New Deal Passed Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

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

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on Swedish police warning women “how to behave” after a slew of rapes by Muslims.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Gun Grabbers Don’t Quit: Philly Paper Thinks Shooting Is Prefect Opportunity To Turn The Tide

By William Teach August 16, 2019 – 11:34 am

They don’t ever stop trying to disarm law abiding citizens, eh? Not one thing that they propose would have stopped a hardened criminal with a long rap sheet, who really should have still been in prison except for soft on crime Democrats, from obtaining his weapons illegally and using them against police officers. Maurice Hill’s long rap sheet wasn’t mentioned, nor that he was barred from having a firearm in the first place, in this Philly Inquirer piece

Philadelphia police standoff is an opportunity to turn the tide on gun control | Editorial

Wednesday’s prolonged shootout in North Philadelphia that injured six police officers may be the opportunity to turn the tide on gun control.

A narcotics warrant turned into a 7 ½-hour standoff between police and Maurice Hill, who was barricaded in a Tioga rowhouse with a hand gun and an AR-15. None of the officers’ injuries were life-threatening. Around midnight, the gunman surrendered, a testament to the professionalism of the Philadelphia Police Department.

Once again, the availability of firearms made a bad situation worse, and only by miracle, not deadly.

Philly is top ten, again, in the nation for cities with the most firearms restrictions, which, again, mostly only effect law abiding citizens.

So what should we expect to see from the General Assembly, which has a history both of inaction and of preempting cities from passing their own laws? Not much, despite the fact that a majority of Pennsylvania voters and a majority of gun owners support measures such as universal background checks and banning assault weapons.

None of this would have stopped Hill, who was in possession unlawfully, which is a felony, and surely did not obtain them through an NICS background check.

Gun violence in Philadelphia is an epidemic and demands unity, attention, and action. Every stakeholder in the city — from the police union to the mayor and DA and even the U.S. attorney — needs to send a unified message to Harrisburg: The safety of our people, and our police, is not negotiable.

So, even with all that gun control in place in Philly, gun violence is an epidemic? It’s almost like criminals do not follow the law. But, law abiding citizens do. Which leaves them disarmed.

Super-squishy GOP Senator Susan Collins made an interesting point

“I think the difference this time is we had three incidents so close together. Then look at what happened in Philadelphia as well. And we have the president saying that he is on board. And so my hope is that the Democrats truly want a solution and some progress and that they’re not going to play political games with this issue,” Collins said.

But, that’s all they want to do. They want to disarm law abiding citizens. Nothing that the mayor of Philly nor the Inquirer editorial board suggests would cause any issues for the very same criminals that they are soft on to start with.

Read: Gun Grabbers Don’t Quit: Philly Paper Thinks Shooting Is Prefect Opportunity To Turn The Tide »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

The Green New Deal Leads To Communism In Seattle

By William Teach August 16, 2019 – 7:19 am

Leftist cities have found it fashionable of late to pass their own form of the Green New Disaster, er, Deal, or at least bring it up. You know, instead of fixing problems like poop, garbage, and used drug needles in the streets. Massive homelessness. Exploding rat populations. High cost of living. Poverty. And so forth. The article sadly includes a photoshopped picture of a “coal powered plant”, probably to take some of the impact away from Dori Monson’s piece

Dori: Seattle Green New Deal a big step toward communism

I want to make sure you know what is in this Seattle Green New Deal that the Seattle City Council passed earlier this week.

The King County Council is expected to pass a similar deal because they want to reorder all of us into a government-controlled economy. They want to fundamentally destroy capitalism. I am not exaggerating at all. I do know that economies run in cycles, and we are setting ourselves up for disaster during the next cyclical downturn with these measures.

Let me read to you a CliffsNotes version of the Green New Deal that just passed (for the full text, click here.) I’ve seen the City Council pass some far-Left measures over the years, but even I was stunned at how radical this one is.

First of all, they’re going to set up a 16-member Seattle Green New Deal Oversight Board, along with staff. So right there — a bunch more six-figure jobs that we’re funding. But take a look at who must be on that board.

The 16 appointed members shall be comprised of the following:
1. Eight members of communities directly impacted by racial, economic, and environmental injustices. One of these members should be a tribal member. Two of these members should be between the ages of 16 and 25 at the time of their appointment (Positions 1 through 8);
2. Three representatives of organizations engaged in environmental justice work (Positions 9 through 11);
3. Two representative of labor unions (Position 12 and 13); and
4. Three individuals with depth of experience in greenhouse gas reduction and climate resiliency strategy relevant to cities and their residents, in fields such as public health, infrastructure, sea level rise, or extreme weather events (Positions 14 through 16).

So we’re going to turn over the re-ordering of our local economy to children, labor unions, and people impacted by injustice. It sounds like only three of the people on the board will actually have any expertise in green energy strategies. “Environmental justice work” is just a word salad made up of words you’re not allowed to criticize. If only three of the 16 are in the field, then you know this isn’t about climate change.

But, this was never about ‘climate change’. ‘Climate change’ is not about the slowly changing climate, but, about pushing Modern Socialism, which is very much an authoritarian political belief.

The City seeks to create a fund and establish dedicated progressive revenue sources for its Green New Deal, along with an associated accountability body, that will be used to make investments in communities, prioritizing those impacted the most by economic, racial, and environmental injustice, and ensuring that those most impacted are centered in policies and empowered to make decisions.

That means massive taxation. The highest achievers, the hardest workers will be taxed so that their money can be given to the oppressed groups … all in the name of the planet.

This all looks like something I’d write, excerpts followed by commentary about how crazy it is.

The city also plans to “encourage the consumption of more plant-based foods and locally-produced foods.” So now they’re going to tell you what foods you should eat?

I do like this next idea though. The city wants to “make transit free, reliable, and widely accessible.” Free must mean there will be no taxes for transit. I can get behind this one.

Oh, wait … does free mean they are just going to tax other people to pay for it? I guess I’m still on the hook after all, then. Right now, every time someone rides a Sounder train from Everett to Seattle, they pay about $6 to $8. We the taxpayers pay $110 in subsidies for that ride.

It is what James Delingpole referred to as “Watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside. And this is what most cities are pushing. Which will soon mean more liberals who support this kind of crazy abandoning the cities when it hurts them

(Tulsa Beacon) Have an extra $2,000 you’d like to throw away?

That’s how much the Green New Deal could raise the average household’s annual electric bill, according to a new study from consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. Transitioning all power plants to clean energy — a central goal of the Green New Deal — would cost American consumers a staggering $4.7 trillion over the next two decades. (snip)

The study doesn’t even attempt to measure the cost of the GND’s other, non-climate related reforms, like setting up a single-payer healthcare system or guaranteeing a job to every American. All told, the proposal could cost an incomprehensible $93 trillion — $600,000 per household — according to the American Action Forum.

Come on, Warmists, you’re up for paying, right? And we’ve known that $2,000 cost since February. Funny how most media folks haven’t mentioned it.

Read: The Green New Deal Leads To Communism In Seattle »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Major Papers Who Protected Israel/Jew Haters Upset They Were Blocked From Entering Israel

By William Teach August 16, 2019 – 6:57 am

Both the Washington Post and the NY Times did all they could to protect Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar when they were making anti-Israel and anti-Jew comments, particularly Omar. They excused their nasty words about Israel and Jews, and have ignored their links to groups, such as CAIR, who are anti-Israel/Jew, and would like to see Israel wiped off the map. And have ignored their BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) links, said movement which is really based in Israel and Jew hatred. Personally, I think, and have written so, that Israel should let them in, because they will show that that they are anti-Semites, but, the editorial boards take it to new levels

Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board (featuring racist Sarah Jeong)

What Are Trump and Netanyahu Afraid Of?
Barring Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib shows weakness and intolerance, not strength.

It’s not even really necessary to go beyond the subhead, since the two Democratic Representatives have shown their intolerance towards Israel and Jews. Though that is barely mentioned in the editorial. In fact, most of the piece is about Trump, because Trump Derangement Syndrome.  But, they do have a bit, such as

The visit Ms. Omar and Ms. Tlaib were contemplating was not to Israel proper, but to the West Bank, where they were to visit Hebron, Ramallah and Bethlehem, as well as Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, on a trip co-sponsored by a Palestinian organization, Miftah, that promotes “global awareness and knowledge of Palestinian realities.” A visit was planned to the Al Aqsa Mosque, on what Israelis call the Temple Mount, an especially volatile site in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is little question that their visit would have focused on Palestinian grievances over the Israeli occupation.

Perhaps the Times would like to mention a bit more about Miftah

They were also going to meet with DCI-P, which has links to Islamic terrorist outfits. And their itinerary shows their disrespect for Israel

https://twitter.com/Harry1T6/status/1162050627599568896

But, the Times and the Washington Post forgot to include that type of information

Barring two U.S. lawmakers from Israel is un-Israeli. Trump’s cheering for it is un-American.

(the first four out of six paragraphs are Trump Derangement Syndrome)

Then there’s Mr. Netanyahu, who has dealt a blow to the U.S.-Israeli alliance in service to his prospects of winning a fifth term in next month’s Israeli election. His decision might appeal to his hard-line supporters at home. But as a former diplomat who worked extensively in the United States, he knows that Israel’s interests depend on cultivating strong ties with Republicans and Democrats alike. That stance was already strained by his hostile relationship with President Barack Obama. Now, by barring the two Democratic representatives, he has antagonized a broad swath of American Democrats who might not embrace their view of Israel but will be justly furious at the insult meted out, gratuitously, by an Israeli premier.

Well, Obama was hostile towards Israel and Netanyahu (hey, were are the complaints about Obama interfering in Israeli elections, ala Russia Russia Russia?). And why should Netanyahu care about antagonizing a broad swath of Democrats who are anti-Israel and anti-Jew?

Israel enacted a law two years ago authorizing officials to deny entry to supporters of the BDS movement. That was a sign of weakness: How could a country with a robust pluralistic democracy bar nonviolent visitors based on their political beliefs? That a U.S. president would lend support and credence to such a policy — at the expense of democratically elected members of Congress — is fundamentally un-American.

Why should they allow in people who hate them? The U.S. denies visas to people who hate the U.S. all the time. If someone was calling for the destruction of the U.S., would we let them in (excepting for the United Nations meetings)? No. Of course not. But, the Washington Post doesn’t bother explaining what the BDS movement really is, and has failed to slam either Democrat, nor Dems in general, for their Israel and Jew hatred.

Tlaib will now be allowed in to the West Bank to visit her grandmother, as long as she is not promoting BDS.

Read: Major Papers Who Protected Israel/Jew Haters Upset They Were Blocked From Entering Israel »

Posted in Democrats, Israel, Unhinged Tools | 75 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, Are You A Climahypocrite?

By William Teach August 15, 2019 – 3:19 pm

Despite the yammering of eco, these people are not environmentalists. They are climate cultists masquerading as people who care about the environment. And utter nags to boot

Are you an eco-hypocrite?
Recycling. Electric cabbing. Not eating meat. All in a day’s fighting back for Samuel Fishwick. Well sort of. Welcome to the conflicted life of a London climate helper

The only thing worse than an eco hypocrite is realising you are one. ‘Think of the turtles,’ I said to my friend at a Dulwich pub last December, impounding her plastic straw with the punctilious sanctimony of a teacher confiscating a pea shooter, then showing her the viral video of a sea turtle struggling as a 12cm plastic straw is dislodged from its nostril with a set of pliers. That friend and I haven’t been for a drink since.

Insufferable twits. You can bet it was that friend who stopped all future activities.

Still, I considered sacrificing my social life for sea life a noble cause, driving this plastic straw amnesty with zeal. I wrote newspaper articles about the damage caused by the surfeit of single-use plastics in the marine environment, tweeted about it vigorously and stored the fruits of my enforced cull in my rucksack. Then, one morning, nursing a hangover, I tried one of those paper alternatives that suck all the joy out of a McDonald’s milkshake, reached for one of the plastic straws in my confiscated collection and relapsed. What a sucker.

When it comes to taking an eco-cheat day, I’m in illustrious company. Prince Harry devoted a chunk of the Vogue September issue, guest-edited by his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to espouse their determination to be kinder to the planet by having only two children. But he then drew widespread condemnation for reportedly boarding a private jet to Google’s climate camp in Sicily, alongside A-listers Leonardo DiCaprio and Katy Perry (the last leg of Harry’s journey was apparently by helicopter). Dame Emma Thompson, the actor and inveterate campaigner against climate change, rallied Extinction Rebellion activists from atop a pink boat in Oxford Street — prompting a backlash when it transpired she’d flown 5,400 miles to attend. ‘Unfortunately, sometimes I have to fly,’ she told the BBC, ‘but I don’t fly nearly as much as I did because of my carbon footprint and I plant a lot of trees.’ Extinction Rebellion demands we reach zero emissions by 2025, long before the Government’s promise of 2050. Inevitably, we are falling short.

What’s this we stuff?

Bradbrook points out that figures from climatologist professor Kevin Anderson show that 50 per cent of emissions come from 10 per cent of the population — so the burden should fall less on the individual than the state. Yet a climate of eco-anxiety is taking a toll on mental health. Caroline Hickman, a teaching fellow at the University of Bath and member of the Climate Psychology Alliance, who has been a psychotherapist for more than 20 years, says it’s imperative that we’re more forgiving. ‘That whole drive to perfectionism is worrying, particularly when it’s around young people. We’ve already got an epidemic of self-harming, body dysmorphia and eating disorders in young people, and we don’t need something else to feel bad about,’ she says.

It’s a nice cop out, blaming “the 10 percent”, but, really, so few do anything beyond token steps in their own lives. Maybe they wouldn’t fee so nutso if they practiced what they preach.

Read: Say, Are You A Climahypocrite? »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove