If All You See…

…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… »

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

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 »

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

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 »

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

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 »

Senate Democrats Cool With Allowing Born Alive Babies To Die

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

NY Times Warmists Offer An Energy Wish List For Congress Or Something

I don’t want to be too dismissive towards Warmists Justin Gillis and Hal Harvey, nor laugh at their absurdity too much, as there is nothing inherently wrong with alternative energy. It’s just that they’re living in a la la land

An Energy Wish List for Congress
Here’s how lawmakers can accelerate the clean-energy economy.

Because most in the private sector do not actually care that much about unreliable, expensive alternative energy.

First, Senators Murkowski and Manchin should try to establish a firm consensus in Congress that the nation must, at minimum, double its annual spending on energy research and development. They could establish this intent in the legislation, then push as a committee for the appropriations. Business and scientific leaders, including Bill Gates, have been pleading with Congress to triple the budget for years. The sum being spent for both basic and applied research now, less than $6 billion a year in the Department of Energy budget, is paltry compared to the scope of our energy and climate problems. The United States risks falling behind China and other countries in energy technology.

Why don’t these private sector leaders, like Bill Gates, start ponying up their own money for R&D, along with development? Why is it necessary for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on what often end up as boondoggles, and often leave a destroyed, polluted area behind? But, I will say that I would rather that federal dollars go to R&D over just slapping up construction, which I’ve been noting since the time of Obama’s Stimulus.

Second, the federal tax breaks that support installation of renewable energy technologies like wind turbines and solar panels should be extended for five years. Congress should also lift caps on federal tax credits for electric cars. Under current law, these incentives will be phased out in the next few years; they should go eventually, but not until the technologies are more widespread.

Do you know who this tends to help the most? The rich people who buy more of this.

Ms. Murkowski and Mr. Manchin should specifically seek a rapid expansion of offshore wind farms. That would require tax breaks to jump-start that industry, as well as a mandate that the Trump administration accelerate offshore leasing. The technology of offshore wind production, developed largely in Europe, has improved significantly in recent years; immense turbines, planted far from shore, can each supply electricity for up to 8,000 homes. States like New York and Massachusetts are already making big plans for offshore wind, but Congress and the president could speed things up. As the market expands, costs will fall and the tax breaks can be phased out.

And you can bet that the very same Democrats supporting this will want to block the construction, as it would despoil their sea views. So will shore home owners, shore cities, and environmental groups.

Third, Congress ought to make it easier to build new high-capacity power lines across the country. This sounds rather technical, we know, but it is vital. As wind turbines and solar farms become a bigger part of the electricity mix, one of the best ways to offset their intermittent nature will be to transmit power over longer distances — if the wind is not blowing in Kansas, it may well be blowing in Oklahoma or North Dakota. But state parochialism is slowing the construction of the needed power lines.

First, environmental groups will sue over the transmission lines, as they’ve done many times. Second, they’re all but admitting that wind and solar are unreliable.

Finally, we urge Mr. Manchin and other coal-state senators to recognize that the coal industry has gone into long-term decline; coal is simply losing market share to natural gas and renewable energy. The fair thing to do is to fund a transition package for coal miners and their communities, conceptually similar to what Congress did when it passed a buyout program for tobacco farmers when a federal support policy ended.

Again, I’m no big fan of coal, but, what do your replace these jobs with? You can replace a tobacco field with, say, corn or tomatoes.

Interestingly, there is no recommendation for reliable energy, like next generation nuclear and natural gas.

Read: NY Times Warmists Offer An Energy Wish List For Congress Or Something »

Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs

This would negatively impact the criminals who use firearms how, exactly? Those few nutjobs hell bent on creating a mass shooting situation won’t care, most seem to not expect to live. Your average criminal won’t care, because they’re surely stealing ammo and/or the money to buy it. This is aimed squarely at the law abiding citizens who hunt, shoot for sport, and want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Funny how everything Democrats propose is about causing issues to the law abiding, eh? (via Twitchy)

https://twitter.com/Jilchrest/status/1092519429232095243

How much ammo law abiding citizens have is none of her business. Kerfuffle Actual tweeted “I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but people need lots of ammunition *to practice shooting* so that if they do have to protect themselves, they manage to shoot straight.” Jarod wrote “How much ammo does one need for home defense? American police officers (who are thoroughly trained with firearms, I might add) only hit their target about 20-30% of the time. Think about that. Quit disregarding the Constitution.”

Others point out that people will just drive to other states to purchase. Not hard to leave Connecticut, is it?

But, it’s not really a 50% tax increase. It makes the tax rate 50%

There’s a pretty big difference in going from the state sales tax of 6.35% to 9.525%, which is a 50% increase, and making the sales tax 50%. Instead of paying a few extra cents on a box of ammo, you’ll be spending dollars. Which adds up.

Read: Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs »

Unsurprisingly, The Green New Deal is A Massive Expansion Of Government

We’re getting more and more details on the so-called Green New Deal, and it keeps being exactly what we thought it would be, a government initiative to make the government bigger, all while the people who subscribe to it fail to make substantive changes in their own lives

‘Green New Deal’ details emerge, as Ocasio-Cortez preps big reveal of WW2-level mobilization

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday unveiled new details on the so-called “Green New Deal” she plans to introduce in a matter of days, as she worked behind-the-scenes to rally congressional support for the proposal that could cost as much as $7 trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is set to unveil the plan with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, told her fellow representatives in a letter that the Green New Deal calls for a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II.”

“Next week, we plan to release a resolution that outlines the scope and scale of the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the letter, adding that the country’s near-total economic transformation should take approximately ten years. (snip)

The Green New Deal proposal would lead to national net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, according to Ocasio-Cortez’s letter, “through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers,” while also generating millions of “good, high-wage jobs.” Details of the letter were first published by Bloomberg.

Through it all, the Green New Deal would additionally “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities,” according to Ocasio-Cortez.

Sounds less like an “environmental” plan and more like something released by Lenin, Mao, or Stalin.

While there is no legislative text yet available for the Markey/Ocasio-Cortez proposal, a draft circulated by Ocasio-Cortez last week called for a committee to be formed to create a plan, and lays out a framework that includes eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and agriculture, while “dramatically” expanding energy sources to meet 100 percent of power demand through renewable sources.

Which either means massive federal government control over the private sector, control of the food you can eat, control over what can be manufactured, or massive price increases from forcing the private sector to be “carbon neutral” and use unreliable, expensive “renewables.”

To cover what would presumably be a gargantuan cost, it envisions financing by “the federal government, using a combination of the Federal Reserve, a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks, public venture funds and such other vehicles or structures that the select committee deems appropriate, in order to ensure that interest and other investment returns generated from public investments made in connection with the plan will be returned to the treasury, reduce taxpayer burden and allow for more investment.”

That’s a nice, generic way to say that the Government would now be fully in the banking business using your money. Strange how the solutions to ‘climate change’ involve the massive expansion of government, eh?

Not that this has a chance in hell of passing. If it even makes it out of the House (not necessarily a sure thing, as it looks to go too far too fast for the slightly less nutty Nancy Pelosi type Democrats), it will only make it out of committee in the GOP controlled Senate if Mitch McConnell wants a show vote on it.

Read: Unsurprisingly, The Green New Deal is A Massive Expansion Of Government »

Waste From Hurricane Florence Is Still Filling Landfills, So Let’s Drag Hotcoldwetdry In To The Mix

Hurricanes happen. Tropical systems happen. They pretty much always have, at least during the time of Mankind and our memory. There’s no reason to assign motives of witchcraft, er, carbon pollution to it. But, then, this is a cult

Waste from Hurricane Florence continues to overwhelm landfills

More than four months after Hurricane Florence battered the state, rivers of waste are still flowing to landfills in eastern North Carolina in volumes that their managers say they have never before seen.

Uprooted trees, broken furniture, sodden carpets, soggy sheet rock, smashed fencing, crushed carports and moldy clothing make up the mix of items destroyed by the September storm and subsequent flooding.

The trash piling up at some sites may not be disposed of until summer — or perhaps not until next year. Caravans of trucks are bringing new waste daily, and solid waste workers are logging major overtime to keep up with the load. (snip)

Landfills are built to last for decades, with capacity for expansion by digging new crypts, or “cells,” as old dumping areas fill up and max out. A single hurricane that knocks off a year from a landfill’s life expectancy is not generally a cause for concern, said Morton Barlaz, a N.C. State University landfill expert and head of the university’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering.

But as global warming increases the intensity and frequency of hurricanes, and as population increases every year, some landfills are going to fill up earlier than planned. Officials will be forced to either build more landfills or truck the waste away — a costly and sometimes difficult endeavor.

North Carolina has barely been touched by tropical system since the big 2005 season. We’ve gotten some brushes on the Outer Banks, but not much else. I guess the Cult of Climastrology is back to their “bigger and stronger and more frequent” prognostication. And this may happen for the next 10-15 years, as the cycle of more systems starts, after the cycle of not much since 2005 ends. There’s nothing man-caused about it.

Read: Waste From Hurricane Florence Is Still Filling Landfills, So Let’s Drag Hotcoldwetdry In To The Mix »

Pirate's Cove