Good News: You Can Help Stop Hotcoldwetdry By Washing Your Clothes In Cold Water

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 4:37 pm

I’ve actually had this PBS article sitting in my Getpocket account for a few days, but never got around to reading it in full, nor posting it. Watts Up With That’s? Eric Worrall took the time to read it and found a few howlers

How your brain stops you from taking climate change seriously

Inaction on climate change has been stymied by politics, lobbying by energy companies and the natural pace of scientific research — but one of the most significant barriers is our own minds.

Yeah, it’s pretty much the standard strawman looking at the psychology of why people won’t pay tons of taxes and fees and give up their freedom to government take action on climate change. What’s the excuse for the True Believers?

Finally, there are what Gifford calls “dragons of inaction” — the specific cognitive barriers that dominate someone’s view of climate change.

“The perception of not having control over the situation is certainly one of the biggest” barriers, Gifford said.

Whenever the NewsHour covers climate change, the most common responses we get from those who don’t believe that humans influence climate change point to the ice ages. They cite how the Earth has experienced natural cycles, between extreme cold and heat, for millennia.

Um, it has. That’s not a question. There have been multiple warm and cool periods during the Holocene, especially over the last 7,000 years. Might have to do a photoshop for the dragons of inactions schtick.

For instance, even if many people know that the average American emits about 17 tons of carbon every year, they don’t realize half of those emissions could be eliminated with simple fixes.

And what is one of them?

Washing clothes in cold water can save up to 15 pounds of carbon emissions per load, depending on your washing machine and your energy supplier.

But, see, this is a part of a section about Ignorance (why people don’t know how to live environmentally)

Another of these “dragons of inaction” is ignorance — not in a negative sense, but rather a lack of information. People often recognize that climate change is bad but don’t know quite what to do about it in their own lives.

It’s simple, and I’ve written about Warmists giving up their own fossil fuels usage and making their own lives carbon neutral many, many times. Essentially, give up your modern life. And using a washing machine, which requires the use of a dryer after, should be on the list of banned behaviors. Not using cold water, but just not using one at all.

There are plenty of other bits of nuttiness in the article. Check it out.

Read: Good News: You Can Help Stop Hotcoldwetdry By Washing Your Clothes In Cold Water »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a roof needed to protect the trees from horrible rising temperatures, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Political Hat, with a post on transgender policy and the breaking of the sane.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: U.S. Plant Food Emissions Surged In 2018

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 10:27 am

Trees and bushes and flowers and such are offering their thanks, but, Warmists are not happy, as uber-Warmist Brad Plumer goes on a rant

U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed

America’s carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.

Strikingly, the sharp uptick in emissions occurred even as a near-record number of coal plants around the United States retired last year, illustrating how difficult it could be for the country to make further progress on climate change in the years to come, particularly as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The estimate, by the research firm Rhodium Group, pointed to a stark reversal. Fossil fuel emissions in the United States have fallen significantly since 2005 and declined each of the previous three years, in part because of a boom in cheap natural gas and renewable energy, which have been rapidly displacing dirtier coal-fired power.

Yet even a steep drop in coal use last year wasn’t enough to offset rising emissions in other parts of the economy. Some of that increase was weather-related: A relatively cold winter led to a spike in the use of oil and gas for heating in areas like New England.

But, just as important, as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared. And there are few policies in place to clean those sectors up.

Got that? The economy really picked up and this increased CO2 output, because things were getting done. People were making things and people were buying things.

Demand for electricity surged last year, too, as the economy grew, and renewable power did not expand fast enough to meet the extra demand. As a result, natural gas filled in the gap, and emissions from electricity rose an estimated 1.9 percent. (Natural gas produces lower CO2 emissions than coal when burned, but it is still a fossil fuel.)

If the “renewables” were so great investors would be rushing to build them. But most people do not want to by exorbitant prices for energy.

“The U.S. has led the world in emissions reductions in the last decade thanks in large part to cheap gas displacing coal,” said Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, who was not involved in the analysis. “But that has its limits, and markets alone will not deliver anywhere close to the pace of decarbonization needed without much stronger climate policy efforts that are unfortunately stalled if not reversed under the Trump administration.”

In other words, the Warmists want government to force people to comply.

Read: Bummer: U.S. Plant Food Emissions Surged In 2018 »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

How Much Warming Would The Democrats “New Green Deal” Stop?

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 8:09 am

It must be a lot, right? Right?

OCASIO-CORTEZ’S ‘GREEN NEW DEAL’ WOULD AVERT A ‘BARELY DETECTABLE’ AMOUNT OF GLOBAL WARMING. THAT’S ACCORDING TO EPA’S CLIMATE MODEL

(BTW, it’s not really just hers, she’s just the public face of it)

Democrats are increasingly lining up behind New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a “Green New Deal,” but few, if any, have talked about its actual impact on global warming.

Even if all the Green New Deal’s goals were achieved, it would have a negligible, and likely immeasurable, impact on projected global warming, according to climate model simulation provided by a libertarian think tank.

“I seriously think the effect would — at best — be barely detectable in the climate record,” Patrick Michaels, a climatologist with the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Cato developed its own “Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator” to estimate the amount of warming that might be averted through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide.

The carbon calculator is based on the so-called “MAGICC” climate model simulator, developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.

So, how much warming would a “Green New Deal” avert by the end of the century? Slightly under 0.14 degrees Celsius, according to Cato’s temperature calculator.

If the climate sensitivity is on the low end of 1.5C, then the NGD would only stop 0.08C of warming. And this all assumes that the Cult of Climastrology is correct in that mankind is mostly/solely causing the slight increase in global temperatures.

And all for a cost that is not fully known, but most estimate it to be quite a lot, because it includes all sorts of other things, like a universal basic income

(Quartz) The program would of course be very expensive. It’s hard to estimate how much it would cost, as the details are still murky. Green Party leader Jill Stein estimated that her version of the Green New Deal, which is less ambitious than the one presented by Ocasio-Cortez, would cost $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. Ocasio-Cortez says hers would be funded by debt spending and tax increases.

That doesn’t even include the cost of the national carbon tax they also want, which would require at least a trillion dollars in tax increases, which will lead to rising consumer costs. Not too mention all the things in the NGD, such as new home standards, which would skyrocket consumer costs. Which would hurt the middle and lower classes, and make them more dependent on government. Surprise?

Read: How Much Warming Would The Democrats “New Green Deal” Stop? »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Blames Trump For Illegals Storming The Border Or Something

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 7:51 am

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, both the primaries and the general election, he talked about building a wall and stopping illegal aliens from entering the U.S. He told them not to come. After he won election and took office he did the same. Yet, somehow, he’s at fault for all the illegal aliens coming to the U.S. according to the Editorial Board featuring racist Sarah Jeong

Bordline Insanity
President Trump rained cruelties on immigrants and asylum seekers and now wants hundreds of millions of dollars to address the humanitarian crisis he caused.

Immigrants applies to coming legally. Which most did not. Most do not qualify for asylum even under the relaxed rule. This is where the biased news tag applies

As the government shutdown over President Trump’s demand for border-wall funding moves through week three, the administration is looking to cut a deal with Democrats by emphasizing the deepening humanitarian crisis at the border — a crisis caused in large part by this administration’s inhumane policies, political grandstanding and managerial incompetence.

In a letter Sunday to lawmakers, the White House laid out its latest proposal for addressing the border tumult. The administration called for more immigration and Border Patrol agents, more detention beds and, of course, $5.7 billion to build 234 new miles of border wall. The White House also demanded an additional $800 million for “urgent humanitarian needs,” such as medical support, transportation and temporary facilities for processing and housing detainees.

Translation: Mr. Trump’s mass incarceration of migrant families is overwhelming an already burdened system that, without a giant injection of taxpayer dollars, will continue to collapse, leading to ever more human suffering.

The situation is an especially rich example of the Trump Doctrine: Break something, then demand credit — and in this case a lot of money — for promising to fix it.

Translation: Trump is just supposed to allow every person who shows up at the border to cross in to the country and just let them go on their way.

Open borders.

That’s what the NYTEB is saying. What else is Trump supposed to do? He not only didn’t invite these people to show up, he told them not to. He specifically told the migrant caravans to not come. For those who do make it, the choice is to detain till a hearing or to release them, and the rate of people who show up for their hearing is low. Trump is having to respond to a crisis created by the open borders lobby, which has been protecting illegal aliens for decades and have all but offered an invitation to just come to the U.S. Many were helping the migrant caravans.

So, again, what does the NYTEB suggest we do with all these uninvited illegals? They do not say. But, the only other choice is to let them go vs detaining them. And, then, a couple years from now, Democrats will want to protect those illegals when caught and going through the deportation system, and want to reward them with citizenship, which entices more to come illegally.

Read: NY Times Blames Trump For Illegals Storming The Border Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World, Wonky Media | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Youth Worried Won’t See More Birthdays From Coming Climate Apocalypse

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 9:37 pm

Is it any wonder we see all sorts of articles about ‘climate change’ causing mental health issues? It’s pretty much from people being force fed constant articles about coming doom

Letter: Marylanders in Congress must support climate change initiatives

I just turned 15. How many more birthdays will I be able to celebrate before the Armageddon of climate change occurs?

We have less than 12 years to avert irreversible crisis. Our constitutional rights are being violated, fossil fuels are continuing to be subsidized, climate disasters are occurring all around us, we are suing our government for their failure on climate. (snip)

This month 1,000 activists from the Sunrise movement, a youth organization of young climate activists across the country, sat in at multiple congressional offices to demand a Green New Deal as the top priority for the next Congress. More than 20 members of Congress are already on board with this solution.

Come on, Maryland, we can do so much better! We need all eight Maryland House members to sign on to the resolution. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin has already signed on. If all the other house members claim to care about climate change, then please sign on.

I may not know much about how the government works, but our government should be working for all of us, including young people. Climate change isn’t just an “environmental problem.” Climate change is also a health and education problem. An economic and equality problem. And a community, social justice, and global problem.

Read: Youth Worried Won’t See More Birthdays From Coming Climate Apocalypse »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on race baiters calling the wall white nationalism.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 10:45 am

Remember, though, that his has nothing to do with politics, you guys

From the link

At this past February’s “Alternative Models of Ownership Conference” hosted by the Labour Party in London, party leader Jeremy Corbyn asserted the centrality of energy policy to his vision of socialism: “The challenge of climate change requires us to radically shift the way we organize our economy.” He outlined a radical vision of an energy system powered by wind and solar, organized as a decentralized grid, democratically controlled by the communities that rely on it, and — crucially — publicly owned.

Corbyn’s declaration laid out an exciting and ambitious vision of how socialists can press on climate change. But it also served as a reminder that socialists need to get serious about the politics of energy — lest disaster capitalism continue to shape energy policy. We must get involved in concrete campaigns to transform how energy is governed and push for a just transition to renewable sources. The terrain of energy politics is multifaceted, comprising the production, transformation, distribution, and consumption of energy. Energy sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, sunlight, and wind each entail distinct social and environmental costs related to their extraction or capture, and their subsequent transformation into usable electricity. ….

In this terrain, there are several points of entry for eco-socialist politics. Broadly, our energy vision should center on the three D’s: decarbonize, democratize, and decommodify. Decarbonizing energy sources requires massive political confrontation with the fossil-fuel industry — a movement currently being led by the frontline communities most impacted by fossil-fuel extraction and its transformation — combined with federal and state-level policies that punish carbon emissions and a regulatory framework that encourages transition to renewable sources. Meanwhile, democratization and decommodification — the collective control of energy distribution that treats energy access as a human right rather than an opportunity for profit — are another point of entry. To achieve these ends, socialists must politicize the grid, and propose alternative visions of ownership and decision-making. In the United States, over two-thirds of electricity users are served by for-profit utilities. These private monopolies are often overseen by state-level energy commissions that are ripe for regulatory capture by Big Energy and the fossil-fuel industry. Even where utilities are publicly owned, technocratic governance structures provide limited fora for public input, let alone real democratic control. Building a bridge toward a socialist energy future requires a vision of a system that removes the profit motive from the delivery of utilities services and establishes energy as a universal human right alongside other basic human needs.

Woof! That’s quite a lot to consider, but, it really does come down to a simple concept, which is nationalizing the grid, ie, all energy

As we continue developing our plan to #NationalizeGrid here in Rhode Island, throughout the country, and beyond, we must balance the three pillars of democratization, decarbonization, and decommodification with one another to ensure that each is structurally supported by, and complementary to, the other. This means no public takeover without an understanding of utilities as a basic human right that requires a full transition to renewables. It means understanding that affordability may only be achieved once we have transitioned to a sustainable grid that is democratically owned and managed by the public. And it means the transition to renewables will only satisfy our requirements if that transition is both public and affordable for everyone.

In the Democracy model, Socialism stands for three things, what are called cores: 1st, the notion that the government is going to be heavily involved in the means of production, the economy, right up to owning and controlling sectors. Nationalizing. This is the primary focus of Socialism. The other two cores in the Democracy model, to go with the Economic core, are Moral and Political. The Socialist model features the government staying the hell out of our private affairs in the Moral, and virtually no restrictions on voting in the Political. That’s not what these “socialists” want, though. In the Moral, they want government involved in our lives, and, really, if they control your energy they control you. They’re taking away your choices. In the Political, would they accept people voting against nationalizing the grid? Or would they sue when they lost at the ballot box? The latter, of course.

I’ve stated again and again, as have others, that that this whole thing is a far left political schtick, and has little to do with the economy. How well did the Soviet Union and other “socialist” countries do with actual environmental issues? Really, these people are really Fascists/Authoritarians, who want the government to control everything.

And they never seem to realize that the government will be controlling their own lives, that the bad parts will actually effect themselves.

Read: We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Congress Must Insist On Justice For Officer Ronil Singh

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 7:09 am

Oh, wait, no, the WP Editorial Board aren’t worried about that, they’re worried about a Muslim Brotherhood defending, Islamist reporter

Saudi Arabia’s trial for Khashoggi’s murder is a travesty. Congress must insist on justice.

IT MIGHT not have been a coincidence that as the new Congress convened Thursday, Saudi Arabia announced the opening of a trial of 11 people charged in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. After all, the U.S. Senate so far has come closest to imposing meaningful consequences on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA believes oversaw the 15-member hit team that awaited Mr. Khashoggi when he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018. In December, the outgoing Senate unanimously approved a resolution holding the crown prince responsible for the killing, in spite of his denials and President Trump’s attempts to cover for him. Senators also invoked provisions of a human rights law that will require the administration to issue a finding about Mohammed bin Salman’s responsibility in the coming months.

If the Saudi action was meant to head off further congressional action, it was pathetically weak. The government press agency reported that an initial court hearing had been held and that a state prosecutor planned to seek the death penalty for five of those charged. But the court hearing was not public, and none of the suspects was named. By all indications, not just the crown prince but also other senior officials whom Saudi authorities have previously accused of involvement in the murder have not been charged. Instead, a small group of security personnel, who undoubtedly followed orders when they participated in the attack, are being set up as scapegoats. Those to whom the death penalty is applied will be beheaded, in keeping with the kingdom’s barbarity.

While the murder was terrible, it had little to do with the U.S. other than that Khashoggi did some work for the Washington Post. Yet, the Post, like most other leftist media outlets, isn’t particularly concerned over the recent murder off police officer Ronil Singh by a previously deported illegal alien, who was being helped by six other illegal aliens. This was a direct result of the policies of Democrats, including California’s sanctuary city and state policies

Outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown said the death of police officer Ronil Singh has “nothing” to do with the state’s “sanctuary” status.

Singh, a 33-year-old Newman police corporal, was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant when Singh stopped him on the suspicion of drunk driving early in the morning on Dec. 26. After a two-day manhunt, Mexican national Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 32, was arrested as he was preparing to flee to Mexico, according to authorities. He has been charged with murder.

Brown was asked by ABC-affiliate KXTV whether California’s sanctuary law was at fault. “I think people now are looking to blame somebody because of the terrible things that happened,” the Democrat told the outlet, adding, “but it had nothing to do with the law of California.”

Brown signed a “sanctuary state” bill in 2017 that limits law enforcement officers’ cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

In this case, the law had everything to do with the murder, as law enforcement wouldn’t have been restricted from taking 5 minutes to pick up a phone or sending an email to ICE to come pick Arriaga up. Yes, many illegal aliens commit crimes that have little to do with sanctuary jurisdiction policies, as the illegal hadn’t been caught and released previously. In this case, the blood lies on the hands of Brown and the Democrats who passed the law, and for law enforcement for refusing to do the right thing and contact ICE about someone who is illegally present in the U.S.

So when will the Post demand justice for Singh? When will they demand that Congress take action to make sure things like this won’t happen again? Take action against a state that is blatantly flaunting federal law? Take action against a state that is providing aid and comfort for criminals?

Read: Washington Post: Congress Must Insist On Justice For Officer Ronil Singh »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 34 Comments | Trackback URL

Nancy Pelosi Is Super Excited To Force Presidents To Release Their Tax Returns

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 6:50 am

This is purely over Trump Derangement Syndrome, as he refused to release his tax returns, which are pretty much no one else’s business and not required by the Constitution

Pelosi Introduces Bill to Force Presidents—But Not Members of Congress—to Release Their Tax Returns

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced legislation on Friday that would require the president and vice president and candidates for the presidency and vice presidency to release their tax returns.

The bill, however, would not require members of Congress or candidates for Congress to release their tax returns.

The provision is part of H.R. 1—the “For the People Act”—which Pelosi introduced Friday.

A summary of the bill says that it includes a section titled “Presidential Tax Transparency.” This section, says the summary: “Requires sitting presidents and vice presidents, as well as candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, to release their tax returns.”

In 2017, when members of Congress were calling on President Donald Trump to release his tax returns, Roll Call asked all 535 members of the House and Senateto release theirs. As Roll Call reported at the time, 6 members did release their tax returns as requested by the publication. Another 6 had already released theirs elsewhere. Another 45 members, Roll Call reported, had previously and partially released their tax returns. But 473 members had not released their tax returns and did not respond to Roll Call’s request that they do so.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi was one of the members, Roll Call reported, who had not released her tax returns.

Of course, if it manages to pass the House, it won’t pass the Senate, as there are plenty of poison pills that will cause Republicans to vote against it. Further, let’s say it did pass the Senate: Trump won’t sign it. Further, let’s say he did sign it or Congress was able to override the veto: the Supreme Court would kill it, as the Constitution is pretty darned specific as to the qualifications to be President, and you can’t just expand on that on a whim.

““It’s not a right to privacy that the President has,” Pelosi said. “He’s the president of the United States. There is a question about a Russian connection, politically, personally, financially, to the president; there’s concerns about recent actions by the Chinese government in relation to the Trump Organization.”

“There’s plenty reasons why we need this key to open the door to the information we need to connect the dots,” Pelosi said. “And if they have nothing to fear, then what are they afraid of.”

So, lots of Russia Russia Russia and wanting to go on a fishing expedition, demanding Trump give them his private documents using an old canard, forgetting that it’s up to the nutty Dems to prove that Trump did something wrong, not for Trump to prove that he didn’t.

Read: Nancy Pelosi Is Super Excited To Force Presidents To Release Their Tax Returns »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove