Who’s Up For The New Language On ‘Climate Change’?

They might not have had to do this if it wasn’t a) a hyper-partisan political issue and b) an actual scientific discipline dependent on facts and figures and the scientific method (there are a very few who do treat it as a science in practice, but no one wants to listen to them beat down the Cult of Climastrology)

The New Language of Climate Change

Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.

That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.

That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought, debate new weather prediction models and digest all manner of analysis on climatic mutations.

Too late. They decided that it was mostly/solely caused by Mankind, regardless of not having the scientific proof, and decided to run with it. Hence the change from global warming to climate change, and attempts at things like climate disruption and such. It’s so political now that even if it was truly real, as in the man-caused part, you’d never get the skeptics to believe it, and never get the Warmists to make the big changes in their own lives.

It’s dead. The very fact that they have to discuss this says all the world about it.

Educating the public and policymakers about climate change at a time when elected leaders are doubling down on denying that it is happening at all or that humans are responsible for it demands a new lexicon, conference attendees told me—one that can effectively narrate the overwhelming scientific evidence but not get sucked into the controversy fueled most prominently by President Donald Trump.

Which means it’s political.

Read: Who’s Up For The New Language On ‘Climate Change’? »

If All You See…

…is a CO2 dried out world flooding from CO2, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on CNN pushing exclusion of MAGA hat wearers.

Ideas for next week’s theme?

Read: If All You See… »

Open Borders Advocate Totally Knows How To Improve Our Immigration System

Of course, the thing here that Open Borders Sara Ramey, an immigration attorney and the executive director at the very open borders Migrant Center for Human Rights in San Antonio, Texas, fails to note is that illegal aliens aren’t actually part of the immigration system, beyond federal law which states if they are caught they are punished. For a first offense, a small fine and deportation

5 ways the new Congress can improve our immigration system

Whether as part of the government shutdown negotiations or through other legislative efforts, Congress can make a real difference in the lives of immigrants a number of way. Here I’ve outlined five effective steps that can be taken:

  1. Ensure judicial independence (she wants it not subject to the whims of whomever is in office as POTUS. So, who provides oversight? Doesn’t say)
  2. End prosecutions of asylum seekers (and this is the kind of thing which makes all the illegals claim asylum, despite less than 7% qualifying)
  3. Protect domestic violence victims (funny that she doesn’t want to protect victims of illegal alien crime)
  4. Protect family unity and well-being (I’m going to come back to this one)
  5. Eliminate unjustified detention (in other words, release all illegals, because they’ll totally come back for their hearings, right?)

Now, back to #4, in which she writes

Additionally, Congress should stop the administration from charging parents with smuggling their children under 8 U.S. Code § 1324. Congress can pass a law clarifying that bringing a minor child with you does not constitute smuggling, thereby clarifying that we are not a country that penalizes parents and children for wanting to be together.

Remember the days when we were told that we shouldn’t punish the children for the sins of the parents? Sin means “breaking U.S. law,” correct? So, someone has to pay. That would be the parents. The Open Borders advocates are exposing what they really mean, which is “let the kids and parents stay, regardless.” Which incentivizes more to come illegally.

Look at Senator Jeff Merkely (D-Oregon): he’s bringing a mother and child who were separated for two months (under a policy that Obama himself used) after they came illegally. This tells people to come illegally.

Illegal immigrants jump the line, making legal immigrants wait

Despite political and religious oppression under the Soviet Union, my parents waited their turn and legally immigrated to the U.S. They became doctors and saved thousands of American lives.

My Ukrainian aunt, cousin, and other relatives are doctors and other needed professionals. They have struggled constantly to immigrate for decades. Even as other less qualified cross the southern border daily and then cut the line, my family is forced to wait, kept apart by a broken immigration system.

President Trump’s promise of border security offers them hope that one day, illegal immigration may slow down and their turn will come to arrive legally. (snip)

Then again, how can the line to immigrate not take 20 years if there are thousands entering illegally every year? How can our government not be concerned about issuing visas when so many are overstayed, and we don’t have nearly enough personnel to ensure enforcement? Securing our borders and investing in enforcement is not “anti-immigrant” but “pro-legal immigrant.” It would also help countless Americans.

Yeah, but Democrats need gardeners, farm workers, and other low wage, uneducated people who will end up depending on government and voting Democrats. Why would we want people who really want to be American and bring valuable skills and knowledge? Sheesh.

Read: Open Borders Advocate Totally Knows How To Improve Our Immigration System »

Say, Does The Deep Freeze Mean ‘Climate Change’ Is Accelerating Or Something?

OK, I’ve tried to ignore these wonky wackadoodle cultish belief articles, not even bothering with them on Twitter. This one caught my attention, though, for the headline and a specific line

Is deep freeze the latest sign climate change is accelerating?

Hundreds of thousands of fish have choked during Australia’s hottest monthsince records began, swathes of the United States is colder than the north pole, new ruptures have been found in one of the Antarctic’s biggest glaciers and there are growing signs the Arctic is warming so fast that it could soon be just another stretch of the Atlantic.

And so the new year is carrying on where the old one left off, with growing signs climate disruption is accelerating at a more destructive rate than many scientists predicted.

The US deep freeze, which has plunged temperatures in Minnesotato -50C(-58F), may appear to have little in common with the searing heatwave that cooked Marble Bar, Australia, in 49.1C. But the extremes are consistent with theories about how increasing human emissions change major weather systems.

As carbon builds in the atmosphere, the planet warms and the ice caps melt, so the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles flattens out. Although the science is not yet conclusive, many scientists believe this is weakening the jet streams, which are important drivers of weather systems.

So, what caused this?

You think it’s brutally cold in New Jersey today as the polar vortex tightens its grip? Well, luckily you weren’t standing outside in River Vale in Bergen County on Jan. 5, 1904.

That’s when the air temperature dropped to 34 degrees below zero — without factoring in the wind chill. To this day, that insanely frigid reading stands as the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Garden State, according to New Jersey State Climatologist David Robinson, whose office is based at Rutgers University. (snip)

New Jersey’s coldest month on record was February 1934, when the statewide average temperature was only 17.2 degrees, Robinson said. That’s the average of all the daily highs and daily lows in each region of the state.

New Jersey’s coldest year on record was 1904, with a statewide average temperature of 47.8 degrees.

OK, that’s just NJ, and there were plenty of cold records broken this year. But CO2 was below the safe level of 350ppm. And different states will have different records. It just goes to show that weather happens. There’s no witchcraft of CO2 involved. Having a warm period is normal.

Read: Say, Does The Deep Freeze Mean ‘Climate Change’ Is Accelerating Or Something? »

Eric Swalwell (D) Plans To Push “Right To Be Safe” Gun Control Next Week

Obviously, Swalwell forgot to real the actual Bill Of Rights, which restricts government

Rep. Eric Swalwell: ‘Right to Be Safe’ Trumps Right to Bear Arms

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is pledging a gun control vote next week by exclaiming that the “right to be safe” trumps the right to bear arms.

He argues that the “right to be safe” supersedes “any other rights” possessed by Americans:

While the right to bear arms is easy to find in the Bill of Rights, as is the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from government intrusion on private property, etc., the “right to be safe” is elusive. In fact, no such right is declared in the Bill of Rights. Rather, Americans keep themselves safe via the exercise of the whole of their rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and of liberty.

Swalwell is setting the stage for a gutting of our Second Amendment rights. He tweeted, “For too long, an NRA-controlled Congress failed to pass common sense gun laws, instead allowing the most dangerous weapons to be in the hands of the most dangerous people. Predictably, thousands have died. & Congress would respond w/ moments of silence & zero moments of action.”

He did not mention that nearly every mass shooter of the 21st century acquired his guns by complying with all the left’s gun controls–including background checks–rather than going around them. Nor did he mention that the left’s refusal to remove gun-free zones continues to provide a target-rich environment for crazies, and no amount of gun control will change that.

Stalwell also failed to note that California, at the state level, has every gun control the Democrats are pushing at the federal level, and they continue to have high profile attack after high profile attack. Perhaps this is because gun control does not disarm criminals, but the law-abiding citizen.

What are they going to focus on? What’s that you say, going after criminals who use firearms to commit crimes? You’re funny

Raise your hand if you think Democrats will go after law abiding citizens in their hearing.

Read: Eric Swalwell (D) Plans To Push “Right To Be Safe” Gun Control Next Week »

NY Times Circles The Wagons Over Virginia’s Infanticide Bill

Fortunately, and at least for the moment, the Virginia bill which would have codified infanticide at the moment of birth has been defeated. Remember, these are the same types of people who got all squishy over treating stone cold Islamic terrorists meanly. Babies, though? The Democrats are just showing their true stripes on the issue. And along comes Michelle Goldberg in the NY Times, which has this as the featured opinion piece on the web front page

Fake News About Abortion in Virginia

Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.

Oh, she just “handled it poorly”, which is LibSpeak for “she told the truth.” The vast majority of late term abortions are not to protect the mother: they are elective. Exactly what was the need to change the existing law on late term abortions if not to make it that much easier?

Michelle continues on for a bit, attempting to circle the wagons, ending with

Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

In other words, let the child die while it’s lying on a table.

Read: NY Times Circles The Wagons Over Virginia’s Infanticide Bill »

If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on the Dems 2020 platform.

Read: If All You See… »

#TDS: NJ Democrats Pushing Legislation Which Would Require Tax Returns To Be On Ballot In NJ

First of all, I don’t think Donald Trump would care, because there’s little chance of a Republican winning NJ

N.J. Democrats threaten to toss Trump from the 2020 ballot if he doesn’t release his tax returns

Democratic state lawmakers in New Jersey aren’t done seeking President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

Some members of the state Legislature have revived legislation that would require candidates for president and vice president to disclose their tax returns from the previous five years to appear on the ballot in the Garden State.

The bill would also ban New Jersey’s voters in the electoral college from voting for a candidate that did not do so.

That would affect Trump, a Republican who in 2016 became the first presidential candidate in four decades not to release his returns, if he runs for re-election in 2020.

Similar legislation died in 2017 when then-Gov. Chris Christie — a longtime Trump friend and fellow Republican — conditionally vetoed the measure. He called it unconstitutional and dismissed it as a “transparent political stunt masquerading as a bill.”

Second of all, it would be unconstitutional. There is no state’s rights provision for this. The U.S. Constitution sets the specific requirements to be president, and they can’t simply expand on them because they’re having a mental meltdown in the Democratic Party due to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Many other states have introduced similar legislation. And a Democratic congressman from New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-8th Dist., is leading a similar effort in Washington to force Trump’s tax returns to become public.

The effort has been bolstered by Democrats retaking the House after last year’s elections.

And every single one would violate the Constitution. But, then, when have the Dems ever worried about that?

Read: #TDS: NJ Democrats Pushing Legislation Which Would Require Tax Returns To Be On Ballot In NJ »

OCasio-Cortz, Ed Markey Reportedly To Release “New Green Deal” Legislation

Apparently, despite having yammered about it for months and months, legislation is apparently not written yet. Which really doesn’t matter, because it would pretty much be technologically unfeasable

OCASIO-CORTEZ, ED MARKEY ARE ABOUT TO REVEAL A ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ BILL

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey could unveil “Green New Deal” legislation as soon as early February, according to Axios.

Ocasio-Cortez told reporters nine days ago her staff was in the “drafting phase” of legislation to “essentially just define the scope” of the “Green New Deal.” The plan has become a rallying cry on the left and now has the backing of Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls.

Now, it’s clear Ocasio-Cortez is working on a serious legislation push in both houses of Congress, teaming up with Markey, the climate-crusading lawmaker behind the failed 2010 cap-and-trade bill.

Markey’s office said the “Green New Deal” bill hasn’t been finalized and “timing isn’t final yet for next week,” Axios reported Wednesday evening. Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash, who helped write the original draft bill posted online, told Axios legislation is due next week. (snip)

However, not everyone on the left is getting behind a “Green New Deal.” Top House Democrats have not supported the idea, including New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Pallone and other committee chairs have their own legislation they want to push, and don’t see a “Green New Deal” as a viable plan.

“This is something that we should take a look at, but some of it may not be technologically or politically feasible,” Pallone said in early January.

Most of the Democrats running for president support the Green New Deal, but a lot of the old school are looking at measures that wouldn’t essentially be the ‘climate change’ version of Obamacare, ie, a massive increase in the scope and size of the federal government, with massive taxes, fees, and control of citizen’s lives.

“A carbon tax bill isn’t going to be called a Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez recently toldreporters. “It could be part of a Green New Deal, but we have to be sure that we define the scope of what comprehensive Green New Deal legislation would look like.”

In other words, they’ll just call all the taxes something else.

It’d be nice if every single reporter would ask AOC, Markey, etc, what they’ve done in their own lives towards making them carbon neutral.

Read: OCasio-Cortz, Ed Markey Reportedly To Release “New Green Deal” Legislation »

Progressive World: NJ Gov Won’t Help Homeless, As It Costs Too Much

Remember, though, that Democrats are the ones who are totally selfless and just want to help

Murphy torpedoes homeless aid, and top Democrat calls it ‘a cold act on the coldest day of the year’

Gov. Phil Murphy on Thursday vetoed legislation that would have created a more generous housing assistance program for thousands of chronically ill and disabled people in New Jersey, saying the measure would have all but written a blank check the state cannot afford.

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney, the bill’s sponsor and a fellow Democrat, quickly assailed the governor’s decision, calling it “a cold act on the coldest day of the year.”

Sweeney, D-Gloucester — who often clashes with Murphy — noted how the thermometer dipped into the single digits this week.

“Days like this should be a reminder that there are homeless veterans suffering from PTSD, abused mothers with young children, recovering drug addicts and alcoholics who find themselves out on the street and need our help,” Sweeney said.

The bill (S1965) provided up to a maximum of 18 months of “emergency assistance” payments for low-income people, including those deemed unable to work because they are chronically ill and disabled or are taking care of a sick or disabled spouse or child. Any time spent in the program in the prior to seven years ago would not be counted toward the 18-month period, according to the bill.

The legislation earned rare bipartisan support, passing by a 35-0 vote in the state Senate and 70-9 in the state Assembly.

Phil refused to sign it, as it could cost way too much, and he may or may not have a point, and wants to discuss it in the spring. Figures others were looking show it could cost up to another $20 million. And, with the vote counts, the veto will probably be overridden.

Funny thing is, here’s also Murphy

Those are just two of the things Phil supports for illegal aliens. What is the cost of financial aid? What’s the cost to NJ residents for NJ being mostly a sanctuary for illegal aliens? Putting them in K-12? Letting them have driver’s licenses, which could put many in the state run bad driver insurance program, which the citizens pay for in the car insurance?

Read: Progressive World: NJ Gov Won’t Help Homeless, As It Costs Too Much »

Pirate's Cove