Ocasio-Cortez, Dems, Release Green New Deal Resolution

By William Teach February 7, 2019 – 10:46 am

The unhinged Warmist base is already upset that it doesn’t call for the government forcing Everyone Else to stop using fossil fuels in the near future. They aren’t going to like a couple other things

NPR reports

In very broad strokes, the Green New Deal legislation laid out by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey sets goals for some drastic measures to cut carbon emissions across the economy, from electricity generation to transportation to agriculture. In the process, it aims to create jobs and boost the economy.

In that vein, the proposal stresses that it aims to meet its ambitious goals while paying special attention to groups like the poor, disabled and minority communities that might be disproportionately affected by massive economic transitions like those the Green New Deal calls for.

In other words, it means that the resolution, not legislation, is going to absolutely crush the middle and lower classes, especially the very people the bill is supposed to help. As the Daily Caller notes on the release

Ocasio-Cortez’s non-binding resolution calls for a variety of social justice and welfare state goals, including “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security” and “high-quality health care” benefits for Americans.

The resolution calls for “repairing historic oppression” among certain groups, including minorities, immigrants, women, low-income workers, indigenous people and youth collectively called “frontline and vulnerable communities.”

What it does do is find ways to give those crushed citizens more government handouts to offset being crushed, which makes them more reliant and dependent on government, much like a kid is reliant and dependent on getting an allowance from mom and dad. And you can see this is more about social justice warrioring, and pandering and patronizing, of certain groups in word salad

Back to NPR

Importantly, it’s a nonbinding resolution, meaning that even if it were to pass (more on the challenges to that below), it wouldn’t itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years.

See, it’s not legislation, just a resolution, so, after all this coverage of the Importance and historic and stuff, it’s like naming a post office. They aren’t even trying. But, it may be that Pelosi and the other slightly more rational and less unhinged Socialist convinced AOC and the co-sponsors to not push it as legislation, as the old school Dems plan to push other crazy, but not quite as crazy, ‘climate change’ legislation.

Back to Daily Caller

“A six page, non-binding resolution marketed as a ‘War Plan’ proves Congressman Cortez isn’t prepared and hasn’t done her homework,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Running the world’s greatest economy on unicorn farts and rainbow stew all run by masterminds in Washington DC is a fool’s errand,” Kish said.

When will AOC give up her own big carbon ways and go carbon neutral?

OK, let’s see AOC and other Dems take the train home (or, heck, the bus), instead of flying home.

(Breitbart) Next, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey claim that the U.S. is experiencing “a 4-decade trend of economic stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies” — a statement that defies the actual data on economic growth and the revival of manufacturing in recent years, including rising wages for blue-collar workers.

The legislation then laments “erosion of the … bargaining power of workers in the United States” — as if picket lines had something to do with the environment. It also claims that climate change has “exacerbated systemic racial … ” injustices,” among other inequalities.

Getting the idea that ‘climate change’ has almost nothing to do with a changing climate yet? As the article notes “It reads like a Republican parody of the Democratic platform.”

Read: Ocasio-Cortez, Dems, Release Green New Deal Resolution »

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

National Geographic: Sea Level Rise Isn’t As Bad As We Prognosticated, But Doom Is Still Coming Or Something

By William Teach February 7, 2019 – 8:08 am

The Cult of Climastrology doomsayers and computer models have continuously overestimated sea rise. By a lot. They constantly were nowhere near what the actual measurements showed. Such as the 20th Century sea rise being exactly average for what sea rise has been over the last 7,000-8,000 years, which is 6-8 inches per century. Which means that a warm period should be well above the average, since a cool period will be way below, potentially even negative. So….

You really do not have to get beyond the headline and subhead to see the Doom, but we will anyhow

Most dire projection of sea-level rise is a little less likely, reports say
New analysis of Antarctica’s melting glaciers refines our understanding of climate change, while risks of global impacts remain significant.

It’s not exactly news that Greenland and Antarctica are shedding ice at record rates.

But in 2016, an eyebrow-raising idea ricocheted through the scientific community: It was possible, the authors said, that a warmer planet could push the towering ice cliffs at the fringes of the Antarctic ice sheet to essentially self-destruct, collapsing like a set of dominoes.

But two new pieces of research, published Wednesday in Nature, suggest a more measured retreat is likely in the coming decades. Both studies revise the estimates of just how much sea levels will rise by 2100 downward, suggesting that Antarctica could contribute somewhere between about three to 16 inches to the world’s oceans under the “worst case” scenarios.

Adding that to the other components that make up sea level rise—how the ocean expands as it warms (which will likely add about 10 inches), the melt from mountain glaciers (about six inches), and changes to the amount of water stored in lakes and rivers on land (one and a half inches), and the total is still a daunting number somewhere between just under two- to over three- foot range.

So, probably about a foot and a half, which would be what is expected during a Holocene warm period. Even though there has been no acceleration of sea rise increase, just a continuation of what we saw during the 20th Century. Also missing is an proof that what Nat Geo is discussing is mostly/solely of anthropogenic causation.

That is in no way a get-out-of-jail-free card, say the authors of both studies. It’s still an enormous amount of extra water that could slosh up onto coasts, enough to debilitate cities from Boston to Shanghai. But the most drastic impacts of sea-level rise, they say, are likely to kick in only after the turn of the century, giving communities around the world more time to adapt.

So, since their predictions for this century haven’t been panning out, they’re pushing them out past 2100. Huh.

What’s more, changes to the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica could also trigger planet-wide shifts in temperature, ocean circulation, and many other parts of the climate system, says says Nick Golledge, a climate scientist at the Antarctic Research Center of the University of Victoria, Wellington, and the lead author of one of the studies.

“The sea-level estimates maybe aren’t as bad as we thought, but the climate predictions are worse,” says Golledge.

Worse!!!!! But, still no proof that this anything but a normal warm period.

So scientists looked to the past, to periods like the Pliocene, about 3.4 million years ago, or the Last Interglacial, about 120 thousand years ago—periods when the planet was as warm or warmer than today. They tested whether their models matched up with what we knew about how the ice sheets melted and how high sea levels rose at those times in the past.

So, what caused the warming back then? And why is it different from now? Oh, right, we’re just supposed to Believe. Have faith.

Read: National Geographic: Sea Level Rise Isn’t As Bad As We Prognosticated, But Doom Is Still Coming Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 68 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Wants You To Understand Late Term Infanticide Before You Judge It

By William Teach February 7, 2019 – 7:33 am

They forget to mention the part about it being “killing babies for a profit”, for one things (via Twitchy)

From the despicable link

President Donald Trump has called on Congress “to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children.” This came after he first accused New York lawmakers of cheering for “legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth” and then said embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam “would execute a baby after birth.”

With the recent passage of New York’s new Reproductive Health Act and Northam’s voiced support of a measure that would loosen restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy, the phrase “late-term abortion” has appeared in headlines, peppered conversations, fueled social media battles — and now made it into a State of the Union address. But what exactly does this language mean?

CNN spoke with two ob-gyns to explain: Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy at theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization; and Dr. Jennifer Conti, a fellow with the advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Health and co-host of The V Word podcast.

What these two doctors want you to know is that the appropriate language is “abortions later in pregnancy”, not late term abortions. And that they make up only 1.3% of abortions overall.

Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal.

It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.

Except, that’s really not what the NY nor Virginia bills were about, nor what Virginia Gov Northam was speaking about. Nor what many of the just introduced bills are about.

As someone who used to self-identify as anti-choice, I can attest that the biggest misunderstanding about abortion is the framework of hypotheticals vs. reality. All pregnancies carry risks, but some much more than others, and it is the job of the patient to weigh risks and benefits in all medical decisions. Not politicians. Not journalists. Not strangers on Twitter.

Misleading hypotheticals show disregard and contempt for people who have had an abortion later in pregnancy. People who have abortions deserve empathy and understanding, not judgment.

The two pro-late term abortion doctors actually keep flipping back and forth between later term and abortion overall. Yes, there might be a situation where it does save the life of the mother, but most late terms are elective. And how many really consider deeply just having an abortion overall? The pro-aborts keep shooting down waiting periods, which are typically just 4 hours. And, if they didn’t want to be pregnant, then they shouldn’t have had irresponsible, unprotected sex with someone they didn’t want to have a baby with.

Read: CNN Wants You To Understand Late Term Infanticide Before You Judge It »

Posted in Current Affairs, Liberal World | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Word Salad: ““Anthropocene” Is A Dangerous Generalisation Which Ignores White Male Colonial Capitalist Guilt For Global Warming” Or Something”

By William Teach February 6, 2019 – 3:00 pm

Remember, this is all about science, not politics (via Watts Up With That?)

The language of climate change—and the Anthropocene

Hanna E. Morris, a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication who researches environmental communication, explains the sudden rise of ‘Anthropocene’ as the latest buzzword in the climate dialogue.

Climate change, global warming, climate crisis—the operative term for the most pressing global issue seems to change by the year.

It’s how we discuss climate change that intrigues Hanna Morris, a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication, who will soon present a new paper that assesses climate news frames at the annual International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) conference this July in Madrid, Spain. She tackles the rise of the term “Anthropocene” in climate news, which can be summarized as a relatively new word that is meant to mark the beginning of a new epoch defined by human-caused environmental change.

In the paper, Morris argues that the word not only misinterprets the actual share of blame—the oversimplified notion that humans are all equally responsible for climate change—but ties up the problem in a neat, media-friendly bow.

“By eliminating differences,” she writes in the paper, “histories of colonial violence, and the disproportionate burden of environmental harm felt by Indigenous people is neutralized and therefore evaded. The idea of the Anthropocene therefore validates ‘planetary scale’ projects designed by white male capitalists working from an unaddressed imperial logic.”

Colonialism and capitalism, she argues, drove climate change, and are now deciding how to frame who is responsible for it, who is most affected, how it will be solved, and how we should collectively feel about it. (snip)

“So, by saying that we all are to blame and that we all are equally experiencing climate change in a new epoch is a dangerous generalization that wipes away historical context. I worry that European and North American powers are once again perpetuating imperial violence and harm through the idea of the Anthropocene. And I explore this problem across the United States news media in my most recent paper.”

Bernie Sanders was complaining the other day about college costing too much and leaving kids with lots of debt. Maybe they wouldn’t have debt if they weren’t taught the idiocy above, leaving them in position to get a decent job.

Read: Word Salad: ““Anthropocene” Is A Dangerous Generalisation Which Ignores White Male Colonial Capitalist Guilt For Global Warming” Or Something” »

Posted in Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 6, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible rain caused by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Trump choosing American greatness while Stacy Abrams chose Democrat negativity.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats To Hold Hearing On ‘Climate Change’ While Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels

By William Teach February 6, 2019 – 10:30 am

They do realize that the building the are holding the hearing in gets most of its power from coal, right? And that most of the Democrats will and the people who are “testifying” will arrive in fossil fueled vehicles, right?

With The Planet In Crisis, Congress Is Here To Talk About Climate Change

The playing field is now different, with Democrats having won back control of the U.S. House in November. And over the next two weeks, climate change will be front and center on Capitol Hill.

Three House committees have dedicated their first hearings of the new Congress to this issue.

On Wednesday morning, a subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the environmental and economic effects of global climate change. It will be the committee’s first hearing on the climate in six years.

“We are committed to combating climate change and standing up for those left to suffer in its wake,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the committee’s chairman, said in a joint statement with subcommittee chairman Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). “This will be the first of many hearings on this growing global crisis.”

Simultaneously, the House Committee on Natural Resources will kick off a full month of climate-related hearings by examining how climate change is affecting communities around the country.

“What we have not seen from this committee for a decade plus is attention to climate change,” Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in a video posted to the committee’s Twitter page this week. “We’ve seen a pattern of denial, particularly the last two years with the Trump administration. Now we’re at a point, with this new majority that that is going to change.”

How did Pallone, Grijalva, and Tonko get to Washington?

(WLOS) North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is speaking to members of Congress to urge the federal government to take action on curbing greenhouse emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change.

Cooper planned to testify Wednesday before the House Committee on Natural Resources on Capitol Hill. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and other climate change researchers and activists also were slated to speak.

That’s right, he’s taking a long fossil fueled trip, along with Baker. Anyone think they’re flying commercial?

The first piece spent a lot of time whining about a hearing held by Lamar Smith (R-Tx) back in 2017, but, that one included all sides. This one by Democrats appears to only involve members of the Cult of Climastrology. They seem afraid to debate.

The only crisis is the one they’re making up, meant to institute bigger and bigger government, along with taxes and fees.

Read: Democrats To Hold Hearing On ‘Climate Change’ While Using Lots Of Fossil Fuels »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Upset That Trump Didn’t Bother With ‘Climate Change’ In SOTU

By William Teach February 6, 2019 – 8:01 am

Well, Trump kinda did mention it

That’s because the vast majority of the plans to “address” man-caused climate change revolve around policies that would make the dead Hugo Chavez and current Venezuela president Nicholas Maduro happy. Mao and Stalin, too.

The glaring hole in Trump’s address: Climate change

President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night zigzagged between paeans to unity and sops to his hardcore base. He eulogized World War II soldiers and then wheeled on immigrants and leftist rivals at home. But absent amid the nativist demagoguery and partisan jockeying was any reference to the threat looming above all others: climate change.

That’s no surprise. Trump is an avowed climate skeptic who casts environmentalist efforts as challenges to American sovereignty, not ways to stave off a planet-wide disaster. As much of the United States endured a deep freeze last month, Trump took to Twitter to plead for more “global warming.”

Yeah, Trump didn’t even mention it directly. But, hey, looks like Vox is with me on the socialism aspect (not really)

Climate change was the subtext of the State of the Union. It should’ve been the headline.

In his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Trump focused on five main issues: immigration, workers, infrastructure, health care and prescription drugs, and national security.

And he squeezed in a boast about the surge in fossil fuel development in the United States. “We have unleashed a revolution in American energy — the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world,” Trump said. “And now, for the first time in 65 years, we are a net exporter of energy.”

Nobody expected him to mention the consequence of those fossil fuels, climate change. But if he were truly taking on the biggest challenge and opportunity facing America, climate change would be right up there.

It’s the subtext because of the same gobbeldygook Warmists keep pushing, and because a few Democrats brought some extreme Warmists to the SOTU.

The Environmental Defense Fund, which no longer defends the environment, just push hardcore leftism for ‘climate change’, goes with

Trump Squanders Opportunity to Address Climate Change in State of the Union

“For the third year in a row, President Trump has addressed Congress and failed to mention one of the biggest threats facing us – climate change. It was another squandered opportunity to show American leadership for the clean energy future.

E&E News, which is behind the paywall, takes the same tact. The USA Today Editorial Board is also upset that Trump punted on this “big issue”

Climate change. The latest estimates from scientists are that the world’s nations have roughly 12 years to make significant cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions or cause dramatic, unprecedented and irreversible damage to the planet. Predicted consequences include severe droughts, significant coastal flooding and loss of fresh water in areas dependent on mountainous ice caps. Trump is not merely dawdling but carrying the torch for the climate change deniers and celebrating fossil fuel production.

Yes, those same fossil fuels which allow the USA Today to gather, produce, and distribute the news.

Read: Warmists Are Upset That Trump Didn’t Bother With ‘Climate Change’ In SOTU »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Donald Trump, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Abortion Governor Upset That Trump Is Assaulting Murder Of The Unborn Rights Or Something

By William Teach February 6, 2019 – 7:40 am

Let’s remember what the update NY abortion law is about

Cuomo held a ceremony to celebrate the signing of “The Reproductive Health Act” which expands women’s access to abortions up to the points of fetal viability. It also says a woman can abort her child after 24 weeks of development when “there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”

Hamada claimed there is almost no reason to terminate a pregnancy in its third trimester and said the child should be delivered instead of killed.

“There’s absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivering in the third trimester — not a fetal or maternal indication is what we say in medicine,” he said. “If there’s a problem, and there are problems in third trimester, both with the babies and with moms that require delivery, just deliver the baby. We don’t have to kill it.”

Another doctor called this “evil codified”

I hope most average Americans looked on in shock as New York passed a new law that will allow women to end the lives of their own children right up until they are born — if it’s necessary for the “life or health” of the mother. In this case, “health” is defined so broadly that it is meaningless. In other words, in New York there are no protections for the unborn at any stage before they safely exit the womb. The prenatal journey for New York’s next generation just became far more perilous.

What NY’s update does is so far beyond “safe, legal, and rare” it truly highlights that the Democratic Party is the part of abortion first and foremost. And here comes NY Gov Andrew Cuomo in a NY Times opinion piece

Andrew Cuomo: Trump’s Assault on Abortion Rights Must Be Rejected

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Trump attacked the law that New York passed last month codifying a woman’s right to an abortion, and he proposed federal legislation to roll back the protections provided by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The president’s diatribe was part of the far-right’s escalation of its assault on a woman’s constitutional rights.

Trump did call out the late term murderers in the SOTU, saying

“There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days,” Trump said. “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.”

That is what Cuomo and Democrats are against.

It’s worth recalling that in 1999, long before he ran for president, Mr. Trump described himself as “very pro-choice.” Today he claims to be anti-choice, and he shamelessly courts the religious right to win votes.

Too much of today’s political discourse is extreme. But emotions run especially high when politics and religion intersect — as in the debate about a woman’s right to choose. As a Roman Catholic, I am intimately familiar with the strongly held views of the church. Still, I do not believe that religious values should drive political positions.

Murder being against the law is based on a religious value. So is rape. So are many things. Did Cuomo just invoke a religious test? What values are we supposed to let drive political positions?

I just signed the Reproductive Health Act into law to protect against the Republicans’ efforts to pack the Supreme Court with extreme conservatives to overturn the constitutional protections recognized in Roe v. Wade.

So, he signed a massive expansion in the way the unborn can be ripped from their mother’s wombs and have their brains scrambled to protect something which won’t be overturned? That’s a beyond sick take, Andrew.

Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.

So, we could do away with murder laws? Huh. Of course, that’s not what the Constitution of the U.S. nor of NY say. It just goes to show that Democrats will do anything to kill the abortion murder mills going. It is their #1 issue.

Our country is founded on pluralism. The First Amendment defines our most sacred freedoms, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. But the first one listed is freedom of religion. We cannot have true freedom of religion without separation of church and state. And the country cannot function if religious officials are dictating policy to elected officials.

It sure seems like Cuomo is trying to deflect to a position of “you are allowed to have your freedom of religion, but you aren’t allowed to actually practice it, especially in government.” And NY will just keep on killing babies.

Read: NY Abortion Governor Upset That Trump Is Assaulting Murder Of The Unborn Rights Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | Comments Off on NY Abortion Governor Upset That Trump Is Assaulting Murder Of The Unborn Rights Or Something | Trackback URL

Senate Democrats Cool With Allowing Born Alive Babies To Die

By William Teach February 5, 2019 – 3:25 pm

Some will say this is playing politics. Well, of course it is! This is what happens in politics

Senate Democrats Block Bill to Protect Babies Surviving Abortion

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (S. 130) to protect babies who have survived failed abortions. Sasse went to the floor of the Senate Monday to ask his colleagues to pass the bill by unanimous consent, but Democrats objected.

Referencing the recent firestorm created by the Virginia bill known as the Repeal Act, introduced by Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran and supported by Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam, Sasse said:

This place fancies itself the world’s greatest deliberative body, but we would be deceiving ourselves if we ignored the biggest debate that’s been happening in America over the last 36 hours. A public elected official — the Governor of one of the 50 states — has been defending a practice that is morally repugnant. The Governor of Virginia has been defending a practice that is repugnant to civilized people across the entire world.

“Senate Democrats had the chance today to prove they are not the party of infanticide, and instead they doubled down on extremism,” said Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser after Democrats blocked the bill. “The Democratic Party’s agenda of abortion on demand through birth and even beyond is radically out of step with the standards of decency the overwhelming majority of Americans expect from their leaders.” (snip)

The Born-Alive Act states that Congress acknowledges an “infant” born alive during a failed abortion “is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

Twitchy has a long thread which live-tweeted the bill

Alexandra also writes

Democratic senator Patty Murray of Washington objected to the bill on the floor, preventing it from receiving unanimous consent. Murray claimed that the legislation is unnecessary because there are already legal prohibitions on infanticide. Murray was the only Democratic senator to come to the Senate floor this evening and left immediately after objecting.

One thing I would like to know is if she means that Murray was the only one to speak or the only one present. Hopefully, Alexandra will reply to me.

Is this trap legislation? Of course it is. Politicians do this. When a Dem does it, the media proclaims them super awesome. In this case, Dems had two choices: vote for protecting life, or showing how extreme they are when it comes to abortion. They chose the latter.

Read: Senate Democrats Cool With Allowing Born Alive Babies To Die »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 5, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that will soon die from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Deplorable Climate Science Blog, with a post giving an endless summer update.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove