Next On The Warmist List To Be Banned: Short Haul Flights

Funny, because Warmists won’t give up their own flights voluntarily. Perhaps we should ban long haul flights, which would stop them from attending taxpayer funded climate conferences in far flung exotic vacation spots

Should short-haul flights be banned? Climate change is a major issue in elections in Europe and Australia

Not long ago, Europe’s young urban residents used to brag about their latest adventures on the other side of the planet, in Asia, Australia or the Pacific.

These days, you better be quiet about that, or at least make it clear that you feel a bit conflicted about how you got there.

The phenomenon has a name: “flight shame,” or “flygskam,” in Sweden, “flugscham” in German, and “vliegschaamte” in the Netherlands. Amid mass youth protests for more decisive climate action in Europe and around the world, younger people especially have started to examine their own lives — and their roles in driving up emissions. Globally, about 2 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions are connected to aviation. Planes’ efficiency has increased over the last few decades, meaning that a trip from Berlin to New York City, for instance, emits far less CO2 than two or three decades ago. But international air travel has also increased, eclipsing those gains.

Earlier this year, European travel agencies first started to notice a drop in flight bookings, a development they quickly named the “Greta impact” — in a reference to 16-year old Greta Thunberg, whose climate protest, including a refusal to fly, has inspired thousands around the world.

The debate over whether to abandon air travel or not — which regularly features on top of European news sites — has now also reached global politics. Ahead of European elections next week, in which 400 million people will be eligible to vote, the issue is quickly becoming a key topic.

Here’s an idea: if these Warmists buffoons do not want to fly, then don’t fly. Instead we get this from two jerks running for European Commission president

On Thursday, during a televised debate, the election’s top candidates, the Social Democrat Frans Timmermans, and his conservative contender Manfred Weber both advocated for finding ways to reduce short-haul aviation. Timmermans even said he would support a total ban on such flights, which took viewers across the continent by surprise and significantly upped the stakes, even though it remained unclear how short-haul flights would be defined.

The question both candidates responded to appeared to primarily relate to domestic flights, but there is no official definition for what constitutes a short-haul flight.

When will they give up their own use of short haul flights? There may be no definition, but, I’d think hopping from EU nation to EU nation would fit the bill. Perhaps they can take the trains, which take a lot longer, and, yes, they are mentioned in the article. We can travel like it’s the 1800’s.

Read: Next On The Warmist List To Be Banned: Short Haul Flights »

UK Guardian Changes Style Guide On ‘Climate Change’ To Be Even More Unhinged And Alarmist

Good news, my style guide won’t be changing. They’ll still be “warmists” and the “Cult of Climastrology”, with the more general terms moonbat and unhinged tools thrown in here and there, and perhaps “alarmist”

Delingpole: Guardian Invents Scary New Name for ‘Global Warming’ — ‘Global Heating’

The Guardian newspaper has decided to change the name ‘global warming’ because it doesn’t sound scary enough.

From now on, the Guardian‘s editor-in-chief Kath Viner has ordered, ‘global warming’ is to be called ‘global heating.’

This, apparently, will more closely reflect the “scale of the climate and wildlife crises” now afflicting Mother Gaia.

The use of the names ‘climate science denier’ or ‘climate denier’ for ‘climate sceptic’ makes a nonsense of Ms Viner’s claim that the Guardian is trying to be more ‘scientifically precise and rooted in facts’.

For a start, it presupposes that ‘climate science’ is a field with a fixed view of how climate works – which simply isn’t true. There are lots of competing theories on what it is that drives climate. While climate alarmists insist that recent warming is primarily man-made and driven by anthropogenic CO2, many other respected scientists believe it is due to a combination of factors, ranging from solar activity to cycles in the deep ocean.

There is, in essence, no such thing is a ‘climate science denier’ because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of ‘climate science’.

There are a few who do deny that there has been any climatic changes since 1850 (end of Little Ice Age), but, they are a tiny minority. The rest of us will say there have been changes, it’s just that we’re skeptical of the Warmist position that the slight increase in global temperatures (1.5F since 1850) is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, particularly its use of fossil fuels causing “carbon pollution.”

That said, would not those who claim to Believe but fail to act in their own lives be denying their own beliefs?

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1129330642720829441

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1129372213411483654

From the UK Guardian

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

“Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we’re in,” she said.

In other words, even more unhinged. You be you, Guardian.

Read: UK Guardian Changes Style Guide On ‘Climate Change’ To Be Even More Unhinged And Alarmist »

Mnuchin Tells Democrats To Pound Sand On Trump’s Taxes

Democrats just won’t give up on their Quixotic adventure to obtain Trump’s taxes for partisan personal purposes, but, so far, this bit of moonbattery is going nowhere

Mnuchin rejects Democrats’ subpoena for Trump’s tax returns

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Friday rejected a subpoena from House Democrats demanding President Trump’s tax returns, setting the stage for a court battle over the documents.

Mnuchin said the House Ways and Means Committee’s request “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose,” citing the legal advice of the Justice Department in denying the demand.

“We are unable to provide the requested information in response to the Committee’s subpoena,” Mnuchin wrote.

Last week, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the committee, issued subpoenas that gave Mnuchin and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig until Friday at 5 p.m. to turn over Trump’s financial records. House Democrats have expressed confidence the law requires the IRS to permit them to access the tax returns, a position supported by numerous legal experts.

The relevant statute that authorizes Congress to see tax returns of U.S. citizens and businesses requires said “legitimate legislative purpose”, and wanting to see them because Democrats are mad Hillary lost and Trump won is not a legitimate reason. If it ever goes to court, Democrats will eventually lose (after finding a friendly judge at first), because they have no legitimate reason other than Orange Man Bad. This leads to another Washington Post article

No Mueller, no McGahn and stalled investigations leave House Democrats frustrated 

An increasing number of House Democrats are frustrated by their stalled investigations into President Trump, with an uncooperative chief executive, their own leader’s reluctance about impeachment and courts that could be slow to resolve the standoff.

Democrats have yet to hear from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who led the nearly two-year investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election and possible involvement with the Trump campaign. Even with negotiations, the earliest Mueller could testify would be next month.

And any hopes of former White house counsel Donald McGahn facing a congressional panel on Tuesday are slim, as the White House moves to block all current and former aides from cooperating with congressional inquiries.

Weighing all options, Democrats have raised the specter of imposing fines or jailing people who ignore subpoenas, extreme measures that have prompted some legal experts to wonder whether Democrats have a strategy for this constitutional conflict.

Mueller did speak: it was in a 400+ page report that most Democrats failed to read, because it didn’t give them what they want. And most of their investigations are simply of the butthurt variety from losing in 2016. Keep tilting at windmills, Dems, you’ll guarantee Trump’s re-election.

Read: Mnuchin Tells Democrats To Pound Sand On Trump’s Taxes »

The Mental Health Community Is Bracing For Eco-Anxiety Or Something

So, let’s see: people start yammering about an issue, which may or may not be a concern. Then it is hijacked by elements of the far left, especially once the Soviet Union falls and all the supporters have to find something new to focus on to create Giant Centralized Government. The all run with stories of coming doom, they get the media to follow along, then the schools. Others continue to trot out Coming Doom, then they wonder why some people are losing their minds. BTW, this is from Rolling Stone. Remember when they used to be counter culture, rather than toeing the government line?

How the Mental Health Community Is Bracing for the Impact of Climate Change
“Eco-anxiety” and trauma from natural disasters will be on the rise along with sea levels

….

The mental health impact of climate change is a one-two punch: There will be increasing anxiety about the future, as well as an increasing number of people undergoing the trauma of climate catastrophes like flooding and hurricanes. As predictions become more dire — in October, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set a 12-year deadline for us to avoid warming the planet a disastrous 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and just last week the UN reported a million species are now at risk of extinction — more and more people are facing existential distress. In his new book The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells notes that climate anxiety has also been called “climate grief” and “climate depression.” “While it may seem intuitive that those contemplating the end of the world find themselves despairing, especially when their calls of alarm have gone almost entirely unheeded, it is also a harrowing forecast of what is in store for the rest of the world, as the devastation of climate change slowly reveals itself,” he writes.

Climate anxiety is a relatively recent phenomenon, but the concern is spreading. A Yale survey in December found nearly 70 percent of Americans are “worried” about climate change, 29 percent are “very worried” — up eight percentage points from just six months earlier — and 51 percent said they felt “helpless.” “Historians will say that groups of people have faced very difficult, tumultuous times,” says CPA’s Janet Lewis, who has a private practice near Ithaca, New York. “But human beings have never faced this before.”

The Good Grief Network, a nonprofit for collective mourning, in 2016 launched a 10-step programfocused on eco-anxiety and climate grief. In March, a group of “birthstrikers” in the UK announced they wouldn’t have children out of concern for the livability of the planet where they’d be raising them. Cooper’s patients are fearing for the safety of children they’ve already had. “One person wanted to flee and go somewhere, but the reality is, there really is no place that’s a respite from what is happening,” she says.

Organizations like CPA are also focused on stopping the threat at the source. The group recently led the APA to divest completely from fossil fuels, and they’d like to see the rest of the country follow. “This is a health issue, and whether or not it’s been politicized we have a responsibility to advocate for the health of our patients and the population, and certainly not collude with the denial of science,” Lewis says, talking about her willingness to discuss global warming in her practice. She believes humanity’s better traits will lead us, in the end. “We care about other people, we care about our surroundings, our future and our family’s future,” she says. “Everybody, except for the extreme minority of people who are actual psychopaths, cares.”

Good news: if you aren’t a raging idiot who believes in future doom from ‘climate change’, you’re a psychopath.

Read: The Mental Health Community Is Bracing For Eco-Anxiety Or Something »

If All You See…

…are glaciers that will totally melt away because Other People refuse to move to cities and ride buses, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post noting that the death penalty is a just punishment for some.

Read: If All You See… »

TDS: Grumpy Cat Has Passed

Sad News

From NBC News

Grumpy Cat — real name Tardar Sauce — shot to fame as a figurehead of online culture thanks to her permanent frown apparently signaling displeasure at anything and everything.

The official Grumpy Cat Twitter account announced that she died on Tuesday due to complications from a recent urinary tract infection.

“Grumpy Cat has helped millions of people smile around the world — even when times were tough,” the statement said.

https://twitter.com/CantersDylan/status/1129351218315386882

But, wait, what’s this?

Read More »

Read: TDS: Grumpy Cat Has Passed »

The Green New Deal Doesn’t Go Far Enough Or Something

Peter Fiekowsky, Founder and President of Healthy Climate Alliance, has Ideas, and provides a really big goal post shift

The Green New Deal Doesn’t Go Far Enough. Here’s Why (Op-Ed)

In early February, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced the Green New Deal (GND), a sweeping resolution that addresses the dual challenges of income inequality and climate change, and the first government policy document aimed at curbing climate change as one of its goals.

This is significant. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in October 2018 stated that there will have to be some removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere — the first and most vital step in restoring the climate — in order to avoid the very worst impacts of climate change (including massive die-offs of coral reefs, flooding, hurricanes, wildfires and widespread droughts).

Climate restoration is the principle of removing CO2 to get back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels, specifically below 300 parts per million (ppm), and restoring the world’s ecosystems, such as increasing ice in the Arctic. In spite of the IPCC warning, governments and mainstream nongovernmental organizations have not targeted climate restoration in any meaningful way to date.

Up till this point, the Cult of Climastrology positioned 350ppm as the save threshold. Hence we have a group named 350.org, one of the biggest of the CoC groups out there, if not the biggest. You have to go all the way back to around 1900 for CO2 to be around 300ppm. Is everyone willing to give up their modern lives to make this happen?

Anyhow, the point of the piece is

In line with the IPCC report, the GND set several 10-year targets that include keeping global temperatures less than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, meeting 100% of the country’s energy needs through renewable and zero-emissions energy sources, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. But the proposal also exceeds those goals by specifically calling for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and restoring natural ecosystems.

It’s promising that the GND includes the removal of some atmospheric CO2, but the resolution stopped short of setting a specific target. That’s a mistake. In order to restore a healthy climate, society should set a goal of reducing CO2 to levels less than 300 ppm by 2050. That means removing roughly a trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere (depending on how quickly emissions of the gas are reduced); a feasible goal, but one that will only be met if governments, scientists and private enterprise join forces.

So, it doesn’t go far enough in setting goals to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and destroy the economy. Has he considered that AOC refuses to demand a vote on the GND, got upset when they voted on it in the Senate, and has even said that it’s more of a roadmap and not meant to be voted on?

Oh, and say good by to sodas and other carbonated drinks

Companies tackling this challenge have developed technologies that can take CO2 directly from the air, and they’re improving in efficiency every year. In order to finance the removal of CO2, they usually convert it into commercial products, although, with one exception, they don’t have markets large enough to finance the removal of significant amounts of CO2. Moreover, when these companies insert captured CO2 into products such as fizzy drinks, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and green fuels, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. To make a real impact on the climate, we must permanently sequester the carbon.

Anyhow, as the piece continues to the end, he’s not particularly happy with capitalism and wants more private money used, which would only come from massive taxation schemes, because Warmists sure don’t want to spend their own money, right?

Read: The Green New Deal Doesn’t Go Far Enough Or Something »

Ilhan Omar Whines About Being Silenced, Complains About Trump “Droning” Jihadis

See, folks, point out the anti-Israel and anit-Jew sentiments of her and Rashida Tlaib, including the direct quoting of their own words, is “silencing”, for which she has her SJW Victim Card phrases down perfectly

Ilhan Omar Says Attacks On Her And Rashida Tlaib Are ‘Designed To Silence’ Muslim Voices

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said President Donald Trump and other right-wing politicians and pundits’ attacks on her and fellow Muslim congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are meant to “silence” Muslims.

“I tell my sister Rashida Tlaib that her and I have the strength to endure any of the mischaracterization or efforts to distort and vilify and mischaracterize our message,” Omar said Tuesday in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

She added that such attacks were “designed to silence, sideline and almost eliminate [the] voice of Muslims from the public discourse.” (snip)

“When someone like the President tweets something like that, it’s not an attack only on myself, but an attack on all Muslims… women of color… on immigrants and refugees,” Omar said Tuesday of Trump’s misleading tweets about her 9/11 comments. “That message was being used to vilify anyone who shared an identity with me… to say you don’t belong.”  (big snip)

“We must be united in our diversity,” Omar said Tuesday about her joint op-ed with Schakowsky. “We can’t allow people to [pit] us against one another.”

While she plays the Victim Card, perhaps Ilhan can point out which Muslim country allows diversity? And those who don’t criminalize being LGBTQ? And don’t criminalize blasphemy and apostasy?

Regardless, no one wants to silence her, because, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she keeps coming up with the crazy

(Breitbart) Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), during a House panel hearing on Thursday, complained that U.S. President Donald Trump has dramatically intensified American airstrikes in her native Somalia that have killed hundreds of members of the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab.

Describing herself as “an African on this committee,” she suggested that the Trump administration should “reassess” the way it deals with al-Shabaab and other jihadis in Somalia.

Her comments came during a hearing by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Omar told the Trump administration witnesses invited to testify:

I just wanted to really get into this horrific reign of terror and its spread in Africa, and we oftentimes are really dealing with this issue, and it seems that we are attempting to drone it to death. … In Somalia, particularly in dealing with al-Shabaab, since President Trump has gotten elected, the number of drones have increased, but the number of attacks al-Shabaab has been able to carry out has also tripled. We also know the same to be true for Boko Haram.

On the African continent, the United States military only carries out direct airstrikes in Libya and Somalia. The U.S. does not directly target the Nigeria-based Boko Haram group, but it does support local efforts against the jihadis.

Where were her complaints when Mr. Obama was droning jihadis? Why does it seem she’s more upset about Islamist jihadis being killed than anything else? Really, the only people who are trying to silence her would be Democrat leadership, such as Nancy Pelosi, because Queen Nancy knows that when Ilhan speaks it tends to be bad.

Read: Ilhan Omar Whines About Being Silenced, Complains About Trump “Droning” Jihadis »

Trump Cancels Almost $1 Billion For California’s Train To Nowhere

Yeah, this would be that high speed rail boondoggle that is way, way, way overbudget, which almost no one will take (via Twitchy)

At the link, we can see someone stomping their foot

California Gov. Gavin Newsom immediately pledged to take the administration to court.

“The Trump Administration’s action is illegal and a direct assault on California,” he said in an emailed statement. “This is California’s money, appropriated by Congress, and we will vigorously defend it in court.”

Yeah, no, it’s the money of the citizens of the United States. Let Gavin use California’s money for this project.

Read More »

Read: Trump Cancels Almost $1 Billion For California’s Train To Nowhere »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat snow caused by Someone Else taking a long fossil fueled trip, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on a bill allowing illegal aliens to work in Congress being passed in committee.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove