…is a world flooded by carbon pollution, and is that a glacier in the background?, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on documents showing more of Ilhan Omar’s immigration and tax fraud issues.
Read: If All You See… »
Weren’t we told that ‘climate change’ is all about Science? Strange how it always seems to be about politics
THE DEBATES WILL BE ABOUT CLIMATE—DISGUISED AS OTHER ISSUES
SHHHHH. DON’T TELL anyone, but Jay Inslee is going to get a presidential debate focused on climate change.
Inslee, the governor of Washington state and one of two dozen candidates vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, has been agitating for such a single-topic debate for months. Other candidates have signed onto the idea, and activists within the party have amplified the message. But Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said nuh-uh. “I concluded the DNC could not allow individual candidates to dictate the terms of debates or limit the topics discussed,†Perez wrote in a post on Medium.
Starting Wednesday night, when 10 candidates kick off debate season … and then Thursday, when a second tranche gets together … and then over the course of 11 more debates … Inslee will get what he wants. Because every single issue that a presidential aspirant could conceivably talk about is, at heart, intertwined with climate change. Jobs, the economy, national security, immigration, energy, housing—they’re all facets of the same crystal. The science is clear; the politics, less so. It’ll be a climate debate, all right; the question is what the candidates will do about it.
Well, really, this is correct, because the whole ‘climate change’ push isn’t about science: it’s about taking random weather events that happen during a low ranking Holocene warm period and proclaiming Doom, which allows Authoritarian styled politicians to grab more power, more taxes and fees, while limiting freedom. The Cult of Climastrology has taken a real thing, immediately blamed Mankind, and used this to hijack every single issue they can think of.
One of the best reasons to talk about climate change and its effects in an all-Democrat debate might well be to reach Republicans—younger ones, at least. The moderate wing of that party is starting to see climate change as an imminent policy issue and a political vulnerability, especially in places like Miami, site of the debates and deeply vulnerable to hurricanes and rising sea levels. “Younger Republicans are much more open to the Democratic message about this,†Leiserowitz says. “They’re like, how come nobody in our party is talking about it, and when they do, they’re saying it’s a hoax?â€
On the other hand, Democrats will worry about treading carefully so as to not blow up their electoral map. Republicans have been able to couch their lack of action and obstruction on climate laws as economic caution. They’ll say that limitations on greenhouse gases and changes in energy use threaten jobs and economies in parts of the country already in trouble…
Which is why I want them to talk about ‘climate change’ and their policy proposals. It’s easy to whine about it and say we need to Do Something. The minute people start hearing about what the policies will cost them, they tune out and say “no way in hell.” Seriously, 68% say they wouldn’t be willing to pay $10 more a month on their power bill for ‘climate change’. Heck, 43% say they aren’t will to pay $1 more a month.
Read: Hotcold Take: The Democrat Debates Are Really All About ‘Climate Change’ In Disguise »
You know it’s summer, because the Cult Of Climastrology ramps up the doomy prognostications and such from Unhinged to Deranged. And this is a new one
‘Climate apartheid’: UN expert says human rights may not survive
The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheidâ€, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said.
Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said the impacts of global heating are likely to undermine not only basic rights to life, water, food, and housing for hundreds of millions of people, but also democracy and the rule of law.
Alston is critical of the “patently inadequate†steps taken by the UN itself, countries, NGOs and businesses, saying they are “entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threatâ€. His report to the UN human rights council (HRC) concludes: “Human rights might not survive the coming upheaval.â€
All that because of a tiny 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850.
Alston’s report on climate change and poverty will be formally presented to the HRC in Geneva on Friday. It said the greatest impact of the climate crisis would be on those living in poverty, with many losing access to adequate food and water.
“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,†Alston said. Developing countries will bear an estimated 75% of the costs of the climate crisis, the report said, despite the poorest half of the world’s population causing just 10% of carbon dioxide emissions.
“Yet democracy and the rule of law, as well as a wide range of civil and political rights are every bit at risk,†Alston’s report said. “The risk of community discontent, of growing inequality, and of even greater levels of deprivation among some groups, will likely stimulate nationalist, xenophobic, racist and other responses. Maintaining a balanced approach to civil and political rights will be extremely complex.â€
But, hey, if we give up all our liberty and money to the U.N. they can save us, right?
“When Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on New York in 2012, stranding low-income and vulnerable New Yorkers without access to power and healthcare, the Goldman Sachs headquarters was protected by tens of thousands of its own sandbags and power from its generator.â€
Weird how government, which the Warmists want to give even more power and money, wasn’t able to protect anyone. Oh, and city hall and government properties were protected. Guess they are the evil rich? BTW, Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall, and, there has been no repeat of the storm, despite them telling us this was the new normal.
But, hey, climate apartheid. Doom.
Read: Human Rights Might Not Survive ‘Climate Change’, Create Climate Apartheid Or Something »
Trump Derangement Syndrome infused Democrats finally have their wish: Robert Mueller will testify on his big old nothing-burger report, which took over two years to compile and showed….nothing about Trump or any other American colluding with Russia. If Dems think this testimony will help their Russia Russia Russia case, they are very wrong
Mueller subpoena could backfire on Democrats, say political, legal experts
Key Democrat lawmakers who triumphantly announced that Robert Mueller will testify under subpoena next month about his report on alleged Russian collusion may have played right into Republican hands, several legal and political experts told Fox News.
With the former special counsel set to testify on July 17 to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, both controlled by Democrats, President Trump’s most vocal critics hope to have the legendary lawman spell out the commander-in-chief’s misdeeds in sound bites that could fuel an impeachment drive. But given that Mueller ultimately found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and his pledge to not deviate from the 448-page report made public in April, the hearing may backfire.
“The bottom line is, after all of your looking and all the time you had and all the money you spent, did Trump collude with the Russians? No - Do you stand by your report? - Yes,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity late Monday. “It is ‘case-closed’ for me. They can do anything they want to in the House, and I think it will blow up in their face.â€
There’s a chance that this turns into an extremely boring hearing for Democrats, with them trying to ask TDS questions, going off the reservation, barking at the moon, and Mueller just citing the report. Meanwhile
Republicans on the two panels will get their chance to query Mueller about the dubious basis for federal surveillance warrants used to spy on Trump associates, what initially prompted the FBI probe that preceded Mueller’s investigation and, perhaps the biggest question of all: At what point during his nearly-two year probe did Mueller determine Trump did not collude with Russians.
“He can’t refuse to answer questions about the FISA application,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham, referring to a request by the FBI to surveil a member of the 2016 Trump campaign under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Excitable Adam Schiff and other Democrats are out talking about how it will be great for The People to hear from Mueller, even though he released the report, he gave a big statement about the report, for which he said everything you need to know is in the report, and then said that there was no point in testifying in front of Congress. And maybe even the Republican questions are deflected with him referring back to the report. From the Democrats, it just sounds like they want to just keep the Russia Russia Russia schtick going for their deranged base. But, if Mueller is answering questions on things like the FISA applications, this will look bad for Democrats and Obama.
“I think that the price that this testimony will cost the Democrats will be grievous to them,” Geraldo Rivera said. “They will rue the day that Nadler and Schiff let their ambition get ahead of their common sense, their political science, and drag this man back into center stage of the American public.”
Of course, no matter what happens, the Credentialed Media will report this as Bad for Trump, as we all know.
Read: Mueller Agrees To Testify In Front Of House Panels, Could Blow Up Spectacularly In Democrats Faces »
You can almost make a case that they are calling for the end of property taxes
Most Americans agree that the ultrarich should pay more in taxes. But this is often dismissed as self-interest: Tax reform is cutting my taxes, and raising yours.
You know something is seriously rotten about our economy, though, when even the billionaires argue that they should be taxed more.
This appeal to all the 2020 presidential candidates, released in a letter Monday, was signed by moguls who amassed their own wealth, like Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and those who inherited it, like Abigail Disney.
As has been noted again and again, go for it. No one is stopping you. You can easily send a check to the IRS.
The problem, they all agree, is that in the face of profound inequality, huge sums are sitting around untaxed by the federal government, in assets like stocks, bonds, yachts, cars and art.
Like a $590 million yacht with a basketball court, owned by Hollywood’s richest man. Or a 14-foot tiger shark preserved in formaldehyde, worth $8-10 million, owned by the hedge fund manager who inspired the series “Billions.†You get the idea.
In general, we pay taxes when we earn or spend money, but not on wealth itself. As a result, the richest 0.1 percent will pay the equivalent of 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes this year, the letter notes, compared with 7.2 percent paid by the bottom 99 percent.
Sigh. They paid sales tax on those items purchased. Most of which went to the state and local coffers. Just like with the property tax on houses and vehicles. Most people, though, cannot afford to pay the property tax on their house and car up front. So, instead, they are subject to the whims of politicians, who can lower, and raise!, their property tax. Often to pay for things that the citizens do not want or need. And may not help them in the least. Rich people paid a sales tax on the acquisition of their property. Further, take the $590 million yacht. People were paid to build it. A company made money on it. Someone made a good commission selling it. Someone made money designing it. People make money staffing it, maintaining it, and repairing it. People make money stocking it. People make money when it is berthed. And these buffoons want to charge a property tax on the possession of it?
Assets aren’t all sitting around doing nothing: stocks, bonds, property like yachts are moving the economy.
This isn’t about class warfare; it is about a moral, economic and patriotic duty, they argue. Income inequality has grown so extreme that even the uber-rich are taking a stand. It demands a new aggressiveness on the part of government, too.
It’s about class warfare.
Democrats, on the other hand, have a torrent of proposals to address economic injustice, including a plan put forth by Elizabeth Warren to tax wealth. Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke and others have also come out in support of a tax on the wealthiest Americans.
“If you own a home, you’re already paying a wealth tax—it’s called a property tax,â€Â Warren argues. “I just want the ultra-rich to pay a wealth tax on the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts too.â€
So, what happens when the average citizen is paying extra taxes on their diamond wedding rings and small sailboats? You either tax all or none. Otherwise, this violates the Constitution. Further, this would be creating a federal property and sales tax. Democrats should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.
Read: NJ Star Ledger That Rich People Don’t Pay Property Taxes On Items They’ve Already Purchased »
…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing rain clouds, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Diogenes’ Middle Finger, with a post on some very interesting information on Trump’s latest accuser.
Read: If All You See… »
Remember when some Warmists were saying that the Cult of Climastrology needed to turn down the doomy prognostications because they weren’t helping? Of course, most ignored this advice, ones such as Vox’s Sean Illing. But he did get the memo to call it the climate crisis instead of climate change
The climate crisis and the end of the golden era of food choice
Imagine waking up in a world that has become so hot and so crowded that most of what you eat has disappeared from the grocery store altogether.
Or imagine eating only genetically engineered foods or a diet of exclusively liquid meal replacements.
These are scenarios that Amanda Little, an environmental journalist and professor at Vanderbilt University, envisions in her new book, The Fate of Food. Heat, droughts, flooding, forest fires, shifting seasons, and other factors, she argues, will radically alter our food landscape — what we eat, where it’s made, how we pay for it, and the choices we have. If we’re going to survive, she says, we’ll have to reinvent our entire global food system to adapt to the changing climate.
As Little puts it: “Climate change is becoming something we can taste.â€
Sean Illing Which foods might we lose?
Amanda Little The most climate-vulnerable foods include those that are most fickle, needing very specific conditions to grow well, like coffee, wine grapes, olives, cacao, berries, citrus and stone fruits — as well as those that are most water-intensive, like almonds, avocados, and the alfalfa and pasture that feed cattle.
This is when some consumers start to stand up and listen: Yes, your chardonnay and strawberries are on the line.
Doooooooom! Not avocados!
Amanda: None of this means that in the future you won’t be able to eat organic, soil-grown crops or the craft meats you love today. It means that human innovation, which marries new and old approaches to food production, may be redefining sustainable food on a grand scale.
All because the temperature may go up a tiny bit more after the tiny 1.5F since 1850. Hysterics.
Read: The Climate Crisis Will End The Golden Era Of Food Choice Or Something »
In theory, Democrats care about ‘climate change’, so he’s released his own 5 point plan, which is primarily about taking away your use of fossil fuels while he and other big wigs run around the country using a lot of fossil fuels
Jay Inslee unveils 5-point plan to fight climate change
Democratic presidential hopeful Jay Inslee announced a five-pronged plan Monday that’s geared to fight climate change change by ending fossil fuel pollution.
The Washington governor’s plan calls for the end of fossil fuel subsidies, would ban new federal leases for drilling, phase out fossil fuel production, reject new fossil fuel infrastructure and improve corporate climate transparency.
The Democrat’s plan puts climate action at the heart of US. foreign policy, and its goal would be to create 100 percent clean electricity, energy efficient cars and buildings while phasing out all coal plants. It will also create 8 million new jobs in infrastructure, manufacturing and innovation over the next decade, Inslee said.
Most of Inslee’s plans did not work to well while he was actually pretending to be the governor of Washington. Most were shot down in referendums. It is a silly plan, but, then, what would you expect.
But, here’s also Jay
Jay Inslee: ‘I Got a Whole Nother Story to Tell’
On Monday afternoon in the Everglades, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington was on a boat, using his phone to take a photo of an alligator. He was on his way to unveil his latest 2020 campaign initiative: a plan to completely end America’s use of fossil fuels—very on-brand for the Democratic candidate who’s all about climate change. Come Wednesday night, when he takes the stage for the first Democratic debates in Miami, Inslee will try to expand that brand.
Running as the Climate Guy helped Inslee make a splash in a primary field crowded with almost every type of Democrat. He picked a losing fight with the Democratic National Committee over its refusal to host a climate-change-only debate, a fight that has helped him win attention among environmentalists and stick-it-to-the-man enthusiasts alike. But Inslee knows that for as much as primary voters say they care about climate change, he’d probably have trouble getting them to support a single-issue presidential nominee, particularly in a field as diverse as this one.
So Climate Guy knows it’s time to branch out. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is the only top-polling candidate who’ll be on stage with Inslee Wednesday night, and his campaign believes he has an opportunity to stand out, one that he wouldn’t were he sharing the stage with former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Kamala Harris of California, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who are all slated for Thursday night’s debate.
“Climate change is not a single issue, number one,†Inslee told me, sitting at a picnic table in a park outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa, recently, as he ticked through climate change’s impacts on health, national security, food, and more. “And number two, I got a whole nother story to tell,†he began. “Which is one of the most, if not the most, successful governors—with the most successful economy, with the most progressive successes. I got notches on my belt. I got bills to pass, and jobs I’ve created. And every single thing that the other aspirants have talked about, almost everything I can think of, I’ve done. So every speech they’ve given, I’ve passed a bill. I put somebody to work. I’ve financed a college education. I got the Dreamers paid for. I’ve done criminal justice reform. I’ve even made it safe for composting after you’ve passed from this earth.â€
In other words, Jay has realized that this Hotcoldwetdry schitck is not working. In most polls he’s at a whopping 1%. And a guy with his experience would be polling higher, you would think, right? He is a governor. He’s been the Guy In Charge.
But, then, in practice, most Democrats do not care that about ‘climate change’, they want candidates who screech at Trump and push insane policies in an insane manner. Jay is rather mild mannered. Will he start yammering about eliminating college loans debt and medicare for all and amnesty and stuff? Might as well. ‘Climate change’ ain’t working.
Read: Democrat Jay Inslee, Running On ‘Climate Change’, Realizes That No One Really Cares In Practice »
They caterwaul about how bad the conditions are in the detention facilities, yet, they want to play games with the funding
Emergency Aid for Migrants Badly Divides Democrats
Congress is trying to rush $4.5 billion in emergency humanitarian aid to the southwestern border while placing new restrictions on President Trump’s immigration crackdown, spurred on by disturbing images of suffering migrant families and of children living in squalor in overcrowded detention facilities.
But with a House vote on the package planned for Tuesday, some Democrats are revolting over the measure, fearing that the aid will be used to carry out Mr. Trump’s aggressive tactics, including deportation raids that he has promised will begin within two weeks. Republicans are siding with the White House, which on Monday threatened a veto. They oppose restrictions in the measure that are meant to dictate better standards for facilities that hold migrant children and to bar the money from being used for enforcing immigration law.
Those twin challenges have left the fate of the bill up in the air, even as evidence of deplorable conditions at the border underscores both the urgent need for the money and the bitter rift over Mr. Trump’s policies.
“Democrats distrust this president because we have seen his cruel immigration policies and lawless behavior terrorize our constituents,†Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, said on Monday evening as she pleaded with fellow Democrats to support the package. “That is why we have language to stop transfers of money for immigration raids and detention beds. But we cannot allow our anger at this president to blind us to the horrific conditions at facilities along the border as the agencies run out of money.â€
Funny, the Democrats weren’t concerned when Mr. Obama was doing the same thing. He just had the luxury of not seeing the border being totally over-run with people in caravans demanding asylum, which requires detaining them till the case can be adjudicated. Do Democrats want to let them go with a pinky promise to return? Where will they live then? Lowey is correct, though, in that Democrats should put away their Trump Derangement Syndrome for a few minutes and do the right thing.
Hispanic-American lawmakers are particularly split; some are arguing that it is crucial to get the aid to agencies and outside groups assisting migrants at the border, while others say they will not be complicit in sending any money to the very departments that have carried out Mr. Trump’s harsh initiatives against immigrants.
“I will not fund another dime to allow ICE to continue its manipulative tactics,†Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, said on Monday evening on her way into the meeting in Ms. Pelosi’s Capitol office.
ICE isn’t the one operating most of the facilities, that would be Customs and Border Control. Further, ICE must be funded by law. But, hey, when will AOC offer to house the illegals herself?
Essentially, Democrats and all their little groups are all over the place on what they want, and
(The Hill) The White House on Monday threatened to veto House Democrats’ proposal on how to meet its request for $4.5 billion in funds to address the influx of migrants on the southern border.
The House and Senate are considering competing bills this week to meet the Trump administration’s request.
While the Senate version is bipartisan, House Democrats are still trying to round up the votes for their bill amid concerns from Hispanic and progressive lawmakers wary of funding the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
In a statement on Monday, the Office of Management and Budget called the House measure a “partisan bill that underfunds necessary accounts and seeks to take advantage of the current crisis by inserting policy provisions that would make our country less safe.”
That statement is well worth the read, and highlights just how loopy the Democrats are.
Read: Democrats Badly Divided Over Emergency Aid For Illegals At Border »
I’m kinda shocked the always excitable Salon is running this as summer begins. It’s usually reserved for winter time, but, hey, there’s been a bunch of late spring snow, so…
"The paradox of global warming and colder winter…How to explain this to a climate change denier: Winters are colder — because the planet is heating up" #ClimateTwitter #ClimateCultBS https://t.co/5AIPCoVHB4
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) June 23, 2019
From the screed
But will all of this disastrous news make global warming and climate change more difficult to deny? Probably not, because when winter comes, it may be colder than ever, and last longer.
And try to explain this to the denier: the winters are colder — because the planet is heating up.
First, virtually no one is denying that it has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age. We disagree on causation,
Second, they’re actually arguing that a warming planet will now make winters colder and longer. Remember when they were saying that they would be shorter and not as cold? It’s a cult. It has no resemblance to science.
Read: Hotcold Take: Winters Are Colder Because The Earth Is Heating Up »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
