Climate Kids Should Hijack The Impeachment Movement Or Something

By William Teach June 15, 2019 – 4:45 pm

Because, remember, the ‘climate change’ movement isn’t political, it’s all about science!

Green New Deal “Climate Kids” Should Hijack the Impeachment Conversation

A wise old political adage says, “When you’re ‘splainin’, you ain’t gainin’.” We need a new, ad hoc version to wake up “climate kid”supporters of an existentially crucial Green New Deal, now sitting politely bored—as through their principal’s speech—while Democrat elders crowd them off stage with their heated-but-trivial Mueller-based debate on whether or not to impeach Trump. I propose this: “When they’re ‘splainin’, you ain’t gainin’.” It’s frankly depressing to see passionate, idealistic kids hold still like respectable middle-aged Rotarians while adults with shallow, juvenile agendas waste civilization’s ever-more-precious time and dominate the floor.

Hey, climate kids, it’s time to act like kids and get seriously rowdy. This is one “adult” conversation you desperately need to disrupt. And not merely disrupt but actually hijack. The future of the Green New Deal—and therefore of civilization itself—may depend on you remembering that you’re still kids and therefore totally smashing up what the old farts had planned. You’ve already earned your maturity street creds by your incredibly sane, responsible climate activism; it’s time to have some delinquent, disruptive, old-fart-torturing fun. (snip)

But my pet disruption idea—impeaching Trump for his extremist attack on climate—already takes care of the respectability element. See, you won’t be disrupting the conversation just to disrupt it; you’ll actually be contributing something highly relevant—or as overpaid respectable attorneys say, “on point.” In fact, far more on point than what the purported grownups are saying. Therein lies the special beauty of my climate impeachment scheme: it’s rationally and morally sounder than anything the so-called adults are pushing, while having the added juvenile thrill value of pissing them off to the maximal max.

As a passive-aggressive old fart desperately clinging to the last tatters of youth, I passionately relish that juvenile thrill value. I believe the relevant juvenile joy here is called “hostile obedience”: obeying so totally and pointlessly that your very obedience is an act of satiric ridicule toward your “respectable” elders. What you’re obeying is the ardent desire of “progressive” Democrat elders to impeach Trump—who richly deserves impeachment. But your stated reason for impeaching him—his way-beyond-criminal climate policy—makes a cosmic mockery of the far shallower reasons put forth by his conventionally progressive would-be impeachers.

Read: Climate Kids Should Hijack The Impeachment Movement Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 15, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon type of transportation, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on the lunatic fringe.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

New Jersey Looks To Make Their Gun Laws Even Tougher

By William Teach June 15, 2019 – 10:39 am

This should have the criminals totally shaking in their boots. But, there is one somewhat good thing

N.J.’s already tough gun laws could soon become even more strict

New Jersey’s already tough gun laws are on the way to becoming even more strict.

A state Assembly panel on Thursday approved eight new gun control bills, including a controversial measure on smart guns — handguns that can only be fired by their designated owners. Other proposals would require all handgun ammunition sales to be recorded and compel many people with firearms in the state to undergo regular safety training in the Garden State.

The bills cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee with Democrats voting yes and Republicans voting no.

“These new bills will ensure that law enforcement, state entities, and gun store owners will work together to reduce gun crimes and gun trafficking in our communities,” said Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, D-Camden.

The smart gun bill (A1016) would require Garden State retailers to have personalized handguns on their shelves for sales.

New Jersey first tried to require this in 2002. But Democrats, who lead the Legislature, say that law — which requires that only personalized handguns be offered for sale in New Jersey three years after they’re on the market in the U.S. — actually stifled the development and delayed the sale of so-called childproof handguns.

They want to repeal the law and replace it with one that would require every retailer offer at least one personalized handgun model for sale. This, they hope, will shake loose the research and development they say was stymied by gun rights advocates who didn’t want to start New Jersey’s three-year clock.

“If you want to see smart guns develop, keep your hands off of them and let the markets develop,” Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said at Thursday’s hearing as he urged lawmakers to vote against the bill, along with several others.

Look, I know a lot of gun owners are against so-called smart guns, but, a lot of that has to do with the NJ law. Think about it: if you could have a firearm that only you could fire (and designated people, if necessary) and it was reliable: would you want it? It would make theft of firearms almost impossible. It would mean that bad players would have a really, really tough time getting firearms illegally. And harder to use them. And, it would limit a lot of the gun grabber’s power.

Of course, a lot of what NJ is doing is making it harder for law abiding citizens, rather than criminals with things like

Require places that sell handgun ammunition to track their ammunition sales and report them to the State Police (A5455). They would also be required to make sure people purchasing handgun ammunition are 21 years old, which is the legal age for buying a handgun.

Heck, if I lived there I’d just drive to Pennsylvania or Delaware. California is looking to do the same thing.

Read: New Jersey Looks To Make Their Gun Laws Even Tougher »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

U.S. Military Emits More Carbon Than Many Countries Or Something

By William Teach June 15, 2019 – 7:10 am

Leftists have long hated the U.S. military, and have tried many times to significantly reduce the funding. Now they’ll be going after them over their carbon footprint

The Pentagon emits more greenhouse gases than many countries, study says

The U.S. government plays a big role in contributing to climate change, which has grown increasingly a part of our daily lives and is threatening the planet, a new research study found Wednesday.

The Pentagon produced 59 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 alone, more than Sweden and Denmark, according to a study released by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs.

The study finds the Pentagon’s emissions to be “greater than many smaller countries’ total greenhouse gas emissions” in any year from 2001 to 2017.

“If it were a country, it would have been the world’s 55th largest greenhouse gas emitter,” says lead author and Boston University political scientist Neta Crawford, who is a part of Brown’s program, adding that the Defense Department is the world’s single largest consumer of oil.

Of course it comes from a Modern Socialism college like Brown. I wonder what the carbon footprint is for the college?

Department of Defense spokeswoman Heather Babb declined comment to USA TODAY about the study, but said in a statement the Department of Defense energy program’s chief priority is supporting the ability to carry out its mission to deter war and ensure national security.

The DoD makes it possible for idiot Warmists at Brown to have the freedom and modern lifestyle to write stupid studies

The study also notes the greenhouse gas reduction efforts made by the Pentagon, but Crawford writes that there is “a lot of room to reduce emissions” in the military: it would make a noticeable difference if the Pentagon started rethinking whether certain missions are necessary.

She told USA TODAY that everyday Americans can affect missions by urging their congressmen to “close [military] stations that are at risk” to climate change and to “rethink procurement of those thirsty [fuel-guzzling] weapons.”

In other words, close most bases and do away with tanks, mobile gun platforms, ships, and so forth. All the things that keep America free for idiots to make these type of pronouncements.

Read: U.S. Military Emits More Carbon Than Many Countries Or Something »

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

Abortion Insanity: Rep. Will Hurd Bounced From Cybersecurity Conference Over Abortion Stance

By William Teach June 15, 2019 – 6:47 am

Rep. Hurd is one of the most knowledgeable people in Congress when it comes to cybersecurity. Also, if he were a Democrat, people would be screaming about racism, as he is Black

From a Fox News article

Rep. Will Hurd, R-Tex, will no longer be speaking at cyber security conference after critics expressed outrage over his voting record on women’s issues.

Hurd, a former undercover CIA officer and an advocate for cybersecurity on Capitol Hill, was invited to speak at Black Hat, one of biggest cyber security conferences in the country, being held in Las Vegas in August. But Tech Crunch security editor Zach Whittaker highlighted on Thursday what he described was Hurd’s “terrible voting record on women’s rights.” It includes voting against funding for Planned Parenthood, programs supporting women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields, and his support on restricting late-term abortions.

Black Hat initially defended its decision to invite Hurd, saying in a statement “Hurd has a strong background in computer science and information security and has served as an advocate for specific cybersecurity initiatives in Congress,” adding that he will offer a “unique perspective” at the conference.

But, because he’s a Republican and doesn’t support abortion on demand

“Black Hat has chosen to remove U.S. Representative Will Hurd as our 2019 Black Hat USA Keynote. We misjudged the separation of technology and politics,” Black Hat told Tech Crunch. “We will continue to focus on technology and research, however we recognize that Black Hat USA is not the appropriate platform for the polarizing political debate resulting from our choice of speaker,”

Black Hat vowed that the conference is “still fully dedicated to providing an inclusive environment and apologize that this decision did not reflect that sentiment.”

The only ones making this “polarizing” are the unhinged abortion supporters, who are so unhinged and fragile that they cannot listen to a speech on a completely unrelated topic. And Black Hat should be ashamed for caving to the Outrage Mob

Read: Abortion Insanity: Rep. Will Hurd Bounced From Cybersecurity Conference Over Abortion Stance »

Posted in Current Affairs | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a world flooded from Other People’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post wondering when a terrorist attack is not a terrorist attack.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Canada Needs To Boost Its Carbon Tax To Meet Paris Climate Agreement Target Or Something

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 11:05 am

Funny how they always want more money, eh?

Ottawa needs to boost carbon tax by $50 a tonne to meet emissions reduction targets: budget officer

The federal government would have to levy an additional carbon tax worth as much as $50 a tonne on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to achieve Canada’s emissions reduction targets, the parliamentary budget officer (PBO) said in a report released Thursday.

Canada is a signatory to the Paris climate agreement, which committed virtually every country to lowering emissions to try to halt the effects of climate change. Under that agreement, Canada has committed to lowering emissions by some 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

In real terms, that would mean lowering GHG emissions from 732 megatonnes to 513 megatonnes by 2030, a target initially pitched by the former Conservative government and agreed to by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna at the Paris climate talks.

The PBO said the problem is the government’s current policies and measures just aren’t enough to get the country to that promised level. Under the PBO projections, based on the government’s current carbon tax and other promised policy fixes, Canada will only get to 592 megatonnes — leaving a shortfall of 79 megatonnes.

But the PBO said Ottawa would have to go further still with the addition of a separate, more broadly based carbon tax, starting at $6 per tonne in 2023 before rising to $52 per tonne in 2030.

That would be on top of the current carbon price, which is worth $20 per tonne of emissions this year and rises incrementally to $50 by 2022.

It also would mean those living in those four provinces, and those living in provinces with their own pricing mechanisms, would have to pay as much as $102 per tonne by 2030 to ensure Canada hits the Paris targets — which are meant to keep the planet from warming more than 2 C from pre-industrial levels.

And what could happen?

A total carbon price of $102 per tonne — which includes the government’s carbon price and this new, PBO-suggested levy — would result in an additional hike to gas prices of as much as $0.23 per litre by 2030. (big snip)

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the PBO report demonstrates that the current Liberal environmental policy is inadequate, arguing that the carbon tax will cost Canadians more but will stop well short of helping Canada meet its Paris targets.

“Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax would need to be $102 per tonne … that’s five times more expensive than it is today, meaning Canadians will pay more for groceries, home heating and gasoline prices will jump 23 cents a litre,” Scheer said in a statement.

Surprise?

Of course, this never really seems to hurt the rich politicians who pass these ‘climate change’ rules and laws, eh?

Read: Canada Needs To Boost Its Carbon Tax To Meet Paris Climate Agreement Target Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Politico: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Trap For Democrats

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 7:01 am

Conservative Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, is not helping by telling the reality of the issue, but, really, Democrats won’t listen in the first place

For the Democrats, Climate Is a Trap

The more the climate debate changes, the more it stays the same.

Polls show that the public is worried about climate change, but that doesn’t mean that it is anymore ready to bear any burden or pay any price to combat it.

If President Donald Trump claws his way to victory again in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, his path will likely go through abortion and climate change, two issues on which the Democrats are most inflamed, confident in their righteousness and willing to embrace radical policies that appeal to their own voters much more than anyone else.

Climate is a watchword among the Democratic presidential candidates — and an enormous downside risk. Once everyone on your own side agrees about an issue, and once you are convinced that you are addressing a planet-threatening crisis that will become irreversible in about a decade’s time, prudence and incrementalism begin to look dispensable.

There’s no doubt that climate is a top-tier issue for Democrats. In a CNN poll, 96 percent of Democrats say it’s very important that candidates support “taking aggressive action to slow the effects of climate change.” Its doubtful that mom, baseball and apple pie would poll any higher.

It’s also true that the public is adopting climate orthodoxy. According to a survey by climate change programs at Yale and George Mason, 70 percent believe that climate change is happening, and 57 percent believe that humans are causing it.

It’s easy to overinterpret these numbers, though. While a big majority of Democrats see climate change as a problem, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found only 15 percent of Republicans and — more important — just 47 percent of independents do.

What those polls never note is how much is being caused by Humanity. I’ve noted many times that I think Mankind bears a small burden, mostly having to do with land use and the urban heat island effect, with another small part being from various greenhouse and other gases. Anyhow

Of course, saying climate change is a problem doesn’t cost anyone anything. An AP/University of Chicago poll asked people how much they were willing to pay to fight climate change, and 57 percent said at least $1 a month, or not even the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Other surveys show people aren’t willing to pay more than $10 a month to solve Hotcoldwetdry.

The political experience of other advanced democracies is a flashing red light on the climate. In Australia last month, the opposition lost what was supposed to be “the climate change” election, against all expectations. In May, the New York Times ran an article headlined, “Australia’s Politics May Be Changing With Its Climate.” Polling showed that about 60 percent of Australians called climate change “a serious and pressing problem,” and thought the government should address it “even if this involves significant costs.”

It turned out that it was one thing to tell that to pollsters and another to vote to make it happen. The opposition promised a 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions with no serious pain while the conservative governing coalition focused on the cost, and won.

It was, again, the second time this decade where voters destroyed the party pushing ‘climate change’ policies, the other being the Queensland elections in 2012. Further, Lowry mentions the yellow vest strikes and riots in France when the government attempted to jack up the cost of fuel even more. BTW, that movement is still going strong.

After going through a bit more, Lowry writes

All this should counsel caution rather than apocalyptic rhetoric and policies, although Trump has every reason to hope it doesn’t.

Caution is not something Democrats are known for, nor the Cult of Climastrology. Just like with abortion, they will over-reach, and when they start accidentally explaining just how much their ‘climate change’ policies will cost and how much choice and freedom will be lost, it’s going to be pretty ugly.

Read: Politico: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Trap For Democrats »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: U.S. Seizes On Iranian Tanker Attacks

By William Teach June 14, 2019 – 6:45 am

See, the problem according to CNN’s Stephen Collinson is not that the Iranians attacked tankers, but that Trump and his people are seizing

US seizes on tanker attacks to up the stakes with Iran

When a US Secretary of State is as swift and unequivocal as Mike Pompeo was in blaming Iran for brazen attacks on two fuel tankers in the Gulf of Oman, he begs an equally blunt question.

What is the United States going to do about it?

Just over 12 hours after reports broke in slumbering Washington about the new crisis, Pompeo appeared in the State Department Briefing Room to significantly raise the stakes.

“It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said.

He cited intelligence, weapons used, the required expertise and sophistication of the assault and previous attacks to conclude it was the latest assault by Iran on “freedom-loving nations.”

Pompeo offered no evidence for his accusations. He did not allow questions so journalists could challenge his assertions. And his decision not to allow a few days to elapse for a full investigation left no doubt about US intentions.

He left the room after warning the “United States will defend its forces, interests, and stand with our partners and allies to safeguard global commerce and regional stability.”

Later on Thursday night, US Central Command released a video that it claims shows a smaller Iranian boat sailing up next to the tanker to remove an unexploded mine. An individual stands up on the bow of the boat and can be seen removing an object from the tanker’s hull. The US says that object is likely an unexploded mine.

Here’s the video

But, wait, it could all be a false flag!

Apart from Pompeo’s swift warning to Iran over the attacks and the CENTCOM video, there has not yet been any independent international assessment that blames Iran or its proxies for the attacks — though suspicion is hanging heavy on the Islamic Republic.

The Trump administration’s documented record of perpetrating falsehoods means it inevitably faces a higher bar for its statements on an issue as critical as Iran. Memories are also still fresh of botched intelligence that led the US into war with Iraq.

And all sorts of Democratic Party voters are trotting out their conspiracy theories, such as

Murray is a former British ambassador.

Anyhow, what will happen? Time will tell. Iran should realize, though, that Trump is not Obama. Trump won’t sit idly by while Iran brazenly attacks. He’s not Obama, who sat back meekly while Iran seized American naval boats and held the U.S. Navy personnel hostage.

Read: Hot Take: U.S. Seizes On Iranian Tanker Attacks »

Posted in Current Affairs, Iran, Wonky Media | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Carbon Tax Proposal Clears Final Committee, Full Vote Next

By William Teach June 13, 2019 – 3:25 pm

They should put this up for a referendum instead of a general assembly vote, and see how that goes. Usually, the carbon tax legislation loses. But, hey, this is vastly left leaning Oregon, so, let them suffer under the policies they push

Oregon’s Major Climate Change Proposal Clears Final Committee

A sweeping proposal for sharply curbing Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades is headed to a vote on the House floor.

In a brief hearing Wednesday, the Legislature’s full budget committee passed House Bill 2020 out on a 13-8 partyline vote. The bill would institute a cap-and-trade program in the state beginning in 2021, and gradually reduce emissions until 2050.

The vote was significant. Roughly a decade after policymakers first began thinking about putting a price on emissions, Democrats’ most detailed proposal for doing so is within two votes of becoming law.

That doesn’t mean it is clear of challenges. In recent days, lobbyists for manufacturing companies have exerted pressure on Democrats to pull support from the bill. And in a move clearly meant to send a signal, backers of an effort to revoke a new tax for schools announced a $1 million contribution shortly after the vote. Capitol sources say the group has offered to pull back on the referral effort if key lawmakers would abandon the cap-and-trade bill.

Elected Democrats actually do not want to give The People of Oregon a chance to vote on it themselves

Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, made his third unsuccessful effort in as many meetings to have an emergency clause stripped from the bill.

The clause ensures the bill would take effect when it’s signed by Gov. Kate Brown, rather than three months after the end of legislative session. But it would also prevent opponents from gathering signatures to refer the law directly to the ballot. Republicans have argued that denies voters their fundamental rights.

Democrats love the notion of Direct Democracy, except when they know they’ll lose.

Read: Oregon Carbon Tax Proposal Clears Final Committee, Full Vote Next »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove