Say, Will ‘Climate Change’ Cause Humans To Go Extinct Or Something?

Humanity has survived millions of years of constantly changing climate. We’ve gone through hot, we’ve gone through ice ages. Humanity has spread from the wilds of Africa to the tips of the world. We live in warm, cool, cold, hot, wet, arid. We live in mountains, we live on plains, we’re on islands, we’re in the middle of continents. Obviously, now, a tiny increase in global temps is Doom

Will climate change cause humans to go extinct?

I see a lot of resources talking about near-term human extinction, or the fact that thanks to climate change my generation will see the end of humanity. How likely is an outcome like this? Is there any hope for our futures?

Anonymous, aged 18. London, UK.

This article is part of I Need To Know, a Q&A service for teenagers by The Conversation. Find out how to submit your questions at the end of this article.

The claim that humanity only has just over a decade left due to climate change is based on a misunderstanding. In 2018, a fairly difficult-to-read report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that humanity needs to cut its carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in half by 2030, to avoid global warming of 1.5°C above the levels seen before the industrial revolution.

What this actually means is roughly, “We have about 12 years before fixing climate change becomes really expensive and tough.”

Humanity can still live in a world with climate change – it’s just going to be more work, and many lives and livelihoods are likely to be threatened. But it’s complicated, because this century we are facing many problems at the same time, and we are more dependent on each other than ever.

So, obviously, the Doomsday Cult of Climastrology has done their job in scaring the mule fritters out of the youths, so, it’s no wonder they are so mentally disturbed about extinction and doom. Heck, we didn’t have this many mental issues when there was a real concern about nuclear war.

Anyhow, if you read the article, you’ll see that they kind of attempt to soft-pedal the doom from ‘climate change’ while also showing doom, but then say the doom isn’t as likely as other doom. So, a total whiplash.

Read: Say, Will ‘Climate Change’ Cause Humans To Go Extinct Or Something? »

New Warmist Idea: Let Jailed Felons Vote To Fight Hotcoldwetdry

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, right? Just because it dove-tails perfectly with the Leftist push to allow felons to vote has no bearing, right? Just a coincidence, right?

ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY IMPRISONED FELONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING

Environmentalists joined the far-left campaign to give voting rights to incarcerated felons, arguing felon voting is crucial to fighting global warming.

“Until each and every one of them have their voting rights restored, the movement for climate justice — and every progressive cause — will be severely disadvantaged,” Sabelo Narasimhan, digital campaign manager for 350.org, wrote in an email to supporters sent Monday.

The group is now part of the effort, championed by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, to allow millions of incarcerated felons to vote. Currently, only Maine and Vermont allow imprisoned felons to vote.

350.org is a far-left environmental group founded by activist Bill McKibben, a staunch Sanders supporter who once called former President Barack Obama a “climate denier” for allowing an oil company to explore for Arctic oil.

“An assault on our democracy and the right to vote directly affects how we address the current climate crisis. When people can’t vote, fossil fuel billionaires win,” Narasimhan wrote in the email. (snip)

Activists argue felon voting will somehow help “compel our elected officials to take real action on the climate crisis.”

350.org isn’t some tiny group: it is, of course, pretty much the biggest Cult of Climastrology sect out there. The entire point is mean to increase the voting totals for Democrats.

Which is an interesting thing to consider: are Democrats really saying that convicted and incarcerated murderers, rapists, and child abusers, among others, hold the same political leanings as the Democratic Party?

Read: New Warmist Idea: Let Jailed Felons Vote To Fight Hotcoldwetdry »

Kamala Harris Wants To Make Companies Guilty Till Proven Innocent On “Wage Gap”

This is why we have a Constitution, to stop this kind of thing (via Twitchy)

That WSJ piece notes

Under Ms. Harris’s plan, every business with 100 workers or more would have to get an “Equal Pay Certification” from the federal government. To earn this gold star, they must “prove they’re not paying women less than men for equal work.”

That means demonstrating, to the satisfaction of some bureaucrat, that any wage gap “is based on merit, performance, or seniority—not gender.” The penalty for failure is a steep fine: “1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist.”

North of 100,000 companies in the U.S. have at least 100 workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Together they employ some 80 million people. How in the name of Post Office efficiency does Ms. Harris expect the government to expertly second guess all of their performance reviews? She says certification must be completed in three years. The process would be run by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has a staff of about 2,000.

And the certification must be redone every two years. Good luck with that.

(Daily Caller) Harris is right that the law prohibits discriminating against men or women in pay, but it does permit a man and a woman to be paid differently for valid reasons. Harris just ignores those reasons, which explain why men on average earn more than women.

When we control for factors such as hours worked each day, education, occupation, seniority, and time out of the workforce, the pay gap shrinks to a few cents. For example, women work fewer hours than men (an average of 8.3 hours compared to 7.8 hours per day) and fewer women work full-time than men. Controlling just for hours worked reduces the pay gap to 11 percent.

Hours worked, industry, and occupation are all choices women make to maximize flexibility or find fulfillment in work. The pay gap is not a sign of rampant gender discrimination, but the impact of the aggregated choices and preferences of women.

It shouldn’t need to be said again and again and again, but, Democrat politicians and big wigs like to lie and pander to their base, and their base has no interest in learning the real facts (to put it nicely). What will they do in situations where it is all about commissions? What if the women are not earning the same as the men? That’s all about work and skill.

What if women are being paid less due to time in position? In my past days in wireless, should a newly hired female store manager have been paid the same as I was, after being in position for 5 years (not too mention the extra money earned from being with the company for a long time)?

Harris aims to solve what is really not a problem. If a woman feels she has been discriminated against, the law is already on her side to pursue legal redress. In a great economy like this one, she can obtain better-paying opportunities. Harris would create big problems for women who value flexibility and non-traditional work opportunities.

Like many on the left, Harris is intentionally exploiting the gender pay gap to promote a liberal agenda that expands government control over the employee-employer relationship. When ideas like this win, women are the ones who will lose out.

Anyone think that more Governmental control of the economy and private sector isn’t really the main reason? This is what these Modern Socialists want.

Read: Kamala Harris Wants To Make Companies Guilty Till Proven Innocent On “Wage Gap” »

Liz Warren Will Stop Weather From Occuring If You Elect Her Or Something

Floods and tornadoes have been happening in the nation since well before we were a nation. They are just things that happen, especially in the Spring when warm, moist air from the south hits the cool/cold air from the north. But, hey, Liz can stop the weather

Hey, if “we” have a moral responsibility, then when will she give up the use of fossil fuels in her own life and go carbon neutral? ‘Climate change’ is so important to her that she only has a little blurb about national security and ‘climate change’ under the “latest announcements” tab on her issues page.

National Security & Climate Change: Climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. But instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it – and making it worse. I have a plan to make the U.S. military more resilient to climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution. My energy and climate resiliency plan will improve our service members’ readiness and safety, all while achieving cost savings for American taxpayers.

Basically, she’ll reduce the effectiveness and readiness of the U.S. military, turning it into climate change warriors. All while reducing their budget massively.

Read: Liz Warren Will Stop Weather From Occuring If You Elect Her Or Something »

If All You See…

…are horrible individual homes when people should be (forced into) living in giants complexes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The H2, with a post on puppers.

Read: If All You See… »

Next To Be Considered “White Supremist”: The #Hashtag

What’s the over/under on the Leftist media falling for this, along with the Liberal base?

From the article

Members of the notorious internet forum 4chan have proposed a new troll campaign aimed at converting the hashtag into a white supremacist symbol.

In a post, on the /pol/ or “politically incorrect” message board, an anonymous user calls on his fellow forum frequenters to begin creating propaganda that incorporates the commonly used pound sign.

“We must start using # to represent the swastika on memes and social media,” the user states.

The far-right campaign, dubbed “Bash the Hash,” a play on the anti-fascist term “Bash the Fash,” aims to remove the ability of sites like Twitter to use the popular symbol.

Remember, these were the same people who created the meme which made the OK sign to be a far-right/white supremacist symbol to see if they could punk the media and leftists. They succeeded 100%. Heck, even when news outlets mentions that it was an operation to punk the media, they still have Outrage in the same articles over the use of the OK sign by someone or some group.

While 4chan’s latest campaign is almost certain to be largely ineffective, the hoax highlights how the battle of ideas is fought in the digital era.

You sure of that? The article has a bunch of tweets where 4chaners are trying to make it happen, including

Read More »

Read: Next To Be Considered “White Supremist”: The #Hashtag »

The Green New Deal Can Provide For America’s Security Or Something

We’ll be more secure while deal with rolling brownouts and blackouts, planned power outages, and giant energy bills under the plan (and lots more bad things, but energy is the specific topic). And the inability to travel very far or often. Thor Hogan attempts to tell us why this would be great

The best sales pitch for the Green New Deal

The Green New Deal has faced a bevy of criticism since its introduction, most of it from climate-denying Republicans. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Sen. Edward J. Markey (Mass.) have led the charge for the proposal with an emphasis on its potential economic benefits as the pathway to victory. But an equally good argument, and one that may even bring skeptics and Republicans into the fold, involves the national security benefits of fighting the climate crisis.

Put bluntly, the Green New Deal is the biggest step we can take toward a more secure America.

For nearly two decades, since 9/11, most Americans have been convinced that Middle East-based terrorism is the greatest threat to our nation. What most of us failed to ask, however, was why we were targeted. After the attacks, cable news anchors asked “Why do they hate us?” without really seeming to care about the answer.

The explanation isn’t particularly complicated. For close to three-quarters of a century, Americans have involved themselves in the domestic politics of many countries in the Middle East, often with little regard for how those actions affected the residents of these nations. Unsurprisingly, this behavior angered many people in the region.

Gotta love the Leftist belief that the attack on 9/11 was our own fault, eh?

Anyway, Thor jumps through an interesting look at oil production since World War II, how it gave power to the Middle East and particularly Saudi Arabia (failing to mention much of America’s problems with our own production is due to Leftist’s blocking drilling and new refineries here in America)

The costs of this decision have been immense. American foreign policy became focused on four objectives: to persuade the region’s oil-producing nations to increase production and avoid embargoes; to provide them with military aid to ensure their internal and external security; to encourage the discovery and development of new oil fields; and to send U.S. military forces to the region if required to guarantee the flow of oil to America’s allies.

As a result, the United States found itself engaged in three petroleum-related wars over a quarter-century, which cost us thousands of lives and at least $4 trillion — costs that never show up at the pump. At the same time, we earned the hatred of millions of people who were oppressed by the autocratic rulers we kept in place to do our bidding. Some of them joined terrorist organizations that aimed to punish the “Great Satan.”

Interestingly, the only war that was really about oil was the one Obama launched with France and Britain against Libya, meant to protect the flow of oil to those two countries when Libya was in a civil war.

This is where the Green New Deal can come in. As a former energy secretary and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, has written, “Every American can make the intuitive connection between global dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissent in Middle Eastern societies, and terrorist attacks on the United States.” Removing ourselves from the region would eliminate this problem. If we depart, anger toward our nation would fade over time, as would the threat to our country.

So, we’re going to drill our own oil, right? Because the U.S. has a ton of proven oil fields. Heck, we can also get a lot from Canada. This would make everything go, right?

Adoption of a Green New Deal would make this possible by providing newly developed clean energy supplies to power electric vehicle fleets as they enter the market en masse. If we don’t need Middle Eastern oil because renewables are providing us with what we require, then we don’t need to intervene in the region in toxic ways.

See? It’s so simple! We’ll simply wave our magic wand and everyone will have electric vehicles in their driveways powered by unicorn farts and pixie dust. It would be great if we (and a goodly chunk of the world) didn’t need Middle East oil: we could leave that region to mostly burn. But, since the world is nowhere close to being able to replace oil with “clean energy supplies” at this time, and won’t be for there’s no telling how long, this is just another pipe dream.

Read: The Green New Deal Can Provide For America’s Security Or Something »

Democrat Groups Plan To Put Abortion Rights Front And Center For 2020

How do you think this will play with the average voter for the 2020 elections?

Democratic groups gear up to use abortion rights as attack on GOP in 2020

Democrats are gearing up to use abortion rights as an attack against Republicans in 2020, seeking to paint the party as too extreme after the passage of sweeping laws restricting the procedure by GOP legislatures across the country.

Presidential contenders, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), are already taking the issue head-on, most recently joining the Democrats’ condemnation of a comprehensive abortion ban signed into law in Alabama that bans the procedure in almost all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Democratic groups are mobilizing as well, hoping to put the abortion debate front and center in state and local races in 2020 as they look to put Republicans on the defensive at a time when the GOP lost the House last year, in large part by losing suburban female voters.

Abortion was already expected to be a key issue in 2020 as anti-abortion rights advocates grow hopeful of overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court after the appointment of two new conservative justices by President Trump.

“We are buckled in. We are ready to go, but we’re not going to be playing defense,” Jennifer Holdsworth, a senior political strategist for the Democratic firm MWWPR, told The Hill.

Holdsworth added that groups such as Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and individual state organizations in Ohio, Missouri, Georgia and Alabama would help “lead the fight.”

Abortion on demand is the #1 commandment for Democrats, and they demand that all people running for office in their party toe the line. But, how will it play pushing the murder of the unborn, which is done mostly because having a baby would be inconvenient, as a giant issue for elections? Especially when Democrats have shown themselves to be massively extreme as of late, defending late term abortion right up to the point where the child will soon be delivered? That they are defending letting a child born alive from an abortion die? Republicans can simply ask any Dem candidate “what restrictions on abortion do you approve of?” to show how extreme they are, because the Democrat will not approve of any.

How will this play for the average voter? You might get polls showing a bare majority in support, but, that doesn’t mean that voters approve of the extreme views of the abortion/murder groups, and certainly do not want it being “front and center.” Especially with all the other extremist stuff Democrats will be running on.

Read: Democrat Groups Plan To Put Abortion Rights Front And Center For 2020 »

Bummer: It’s Too Late For The Green New Deal, So, Have To Go Radical

This would be the Green New Deal that Democrats do not want to actually vote on, and was already pretty darned radical to start with

It’s Too Late for a Green New Deal; Can Other Radical Plans Work?

We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who have articulated the Green New Deal (GND), especially Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement. We needed something that focused attention on how serious climate change has become and the need for government action. The GND has shattered the neoliberal insistence upon incremental, market-oriented climate mitigation.

But, considering the emerging climate science and our diminished carbon budget after at least three decades of denial, and with carbon concentration in the atmosphere higher than it has been in 3 million years, it is too late to speed up the slow transition from fossil fuels to renewables with government facilitated renewable building; too late to build renewables under a Keynesian plan that employs all the workers in transition; too late for a transition that makes money and lets us keep living our present lifestyles.

The author, Bill Henderson at the uber far left Truthout, builds up to the fin

…Fossil fuels must now be kept in the ground. Governments must regulate a scheduled, rapid, managed decline of all fossil fuel production based upon the best science and risk-management expertise.

End use of fossil fuels

Of course, like rejecting “Big Government” as a mitigation option, a government-regulated, managed decline affecting long-term international investment is anathema to the business elites who control our governments and many other institutions in our society. They will have to accept the duty of government to regulate in this emergency and join with all other stakeholders in the climate mobilization.

Massive government control of economies.

Importantly, instead of a plan offered to consumers to buy their support, climate mitigation should be a responsibility of citizens who recognize their duty to limit damage to future generations. We don’t need urgent action on climate to make life more comfortable and secure for the world’s richest people.

Elites jamming through control of our lives in a fashion, dare I say, reminiscent of the Third Reich and Communist China.

Funny how this always boils down to the same Fascist, Authoritarian type governmental systems.

Read: Bummer: It’s Too Late For The Green New Deal, So, Have To Go Radical »

If All You See…

…is horrible pavement used to help move fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on a strange court case.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove