You Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle Are Causing *Spins Wheel* More ‘Climate Change’ Homelessness

Warmists will always find a way to link their cult to everything

Climate Change Is Already Helping To Drive Up Homelessness

We already can reasonably expect that climate change will increase gentrification in the future, as people with money who get pushed by rising seas on the coasts seek replacement housing further inland.

But climate change is already causing housing problems. It helps increase homelessness.

Earlier in December, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released its annual report on homelessness, this year called The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. Here’s a summary paragraph:

Homelessness increased (though modestly) for the second year in a row. The number of homeless people on a single night increased by 0.3 percent between 2017 and 2018. The increase reflects declines in the number of people staying in emergency shelters and transitional housing programs being offset by increases in the number of people staying in unsheltered locations. Between 2017 and 2018, the unsheltered population increased by two percent (or 4,300 people).

Anyway, back to reality. The question is why, at a time when the economy is supposedly doing so well, an increasing number of people find themselves without a permanent home. One reason is that, as often discussed here, the economy concentrated benefits upward. Those who had got.

Can the author name one person pushed away from the coast by the slightly rising seas, which, as I’ve mentioned ad nauseum, is way lower than expected during a Holocene warm period?

Another reason is the ongoing upward march of rental housing costs. More U.S. households are renting their home than in the last 50 years. That has helped create a growing rent burden that threatens financial security for millions.

That has nothing to do with a changing climate, natural or man-induced.

Falling into homelessness is much easier to happen than often supposed, as millions have found. Buckling under the weight of the financial burden can be one reason. But there are others. As the HUD report noted, close to 1% of the homeless counted in January when the agency takes its sample were in shelters for people displaced by national disasters, whether Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate, western wildfires, or some other storm or event. And many of these events showed greater destructive power tied to climate change.

We are in the early stages of seeing effects from climate change and already there is evidence of weather driving people from homes. For a more recent example not included in the count, look at the Camp Fire disaster in northern California. In 11 days, wildfires destroyed almost 14,000 residences. A one-day count can miss many people who have lost their housing.

Hurricanes, storms, and wildfires happened well before fossil fueled vehicles, before the industrial revolution, and haven’t gotten any worse due to “carbon pollution.” You just have more people in the way.

The numbers of homeless likely will only go up due to climate change. And when you don’t have a home, you have a hard time keeping a job, raising a family, and building wealth.

“Likely.” Prove it.

Oh, and the same people pushing the climate change scam also like tons of illegal aliens and un-secured borders, meaning there is less money to take care of our own people.

Read: You Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle Are Causing *Spins Wheel* More ‘Climate Change’ Homelessness »

Super-Warmist Is Super Excited For Economy Crash To Save Us From ‘Climate Change’

This is nuts, but, do you expect different from the Cult of Climastrology?

Seriously, this is where he goes (the article was written by Eric)

There’s evidence that an economic downturn could be good for the planet. The rare times the world has successfully temporarily stabilized or decreased annual emissions were during economic recessions like 1990-93 and 2008-09.

Recessions can force a rethink of the status quo; they demand efficiency and innovation. In short, during a recession, the economy must figure out how to do more with less. That’s exactly the challenge we face now that the science is absolutely clear that radical change is our only hope to stop climate change before irreversible tipping points kick in.

But, for those who are slamming him, many aren’t reading the article

But while our capitalistic, growth-based economy is still closely tied to fossil-fuel use and a sustained downturn would likely reduce emissions, the whole truth is not so simple. Economic hardship doesn’t just hurt the rich, who are (by far!) the world’s biggest carbon emitters. Economic downturns hit hard in places with large inequality like Miami and Puerto Rico, which are also slated to bear some of the biggest burdens of climate change.

Not only would another recession impact unemployment, it could result in a shift in priority away from long-term challenges (like climate change) and onto short-term survival. And because governments have a bad habit of choosing austerity as a tool for cutting spending, it’s likely the rich will try to pass off the burden of their mistakes on the backs of the working class.

He does note that downturns hurt actual people. However, it does seem like a secondary concern, since Eric jumps into class warfare and the notion that people will ignore Doing Something about ‘climate change’ (even more than they do now).

Climate change is much more terrifying than a potential recession. Still, we SHOULD care about the volatility of the stock market and a looming recession — at the very least, it should make us pay attention to the fragility of our current system and provide excuses for rethinking the way things work.

In other words, like so many Warmists, he wants to change the economic system. He doesn’t say to what, but, I understand the old Soviet Union had a pretty low carbon footprint, at least from the average citizen.

Read: Super-Warmist Is Super Excited For Economy Crash To Save Us From ‘Climate Change’ »

Sheriff Blasts California Sanctuary Laws For Murder Of Police Officer

So far, California officials have arrested eight on charges surrounding the murder of Newman, California police Cpl. Ronil Singh, who was shot dead early Wednesday. One is Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who is a Mexican national illegally present in the U.S. His girlfriend and brother have both been apprehended for aiding and abetting. We know that at least his brother is in the country illegally. Further, his other brother and a coworker have been arrested for being accessories after the fact.

Both are illegally present. And three others have been arrested for aiding and abetting. No word on their legal status as of yet. But, the chances of them being illegally present are pretty high.

Watch–Sheriff: California ‘Provided Sanctuary’ to Illegal Alien Arrested for Alleged Cop Killing

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson says the alleged murder of 33-year-old Newman, California police officer Ronil Singh “would have been prevented” if not for California’s “sanctuary state” law that shields criminal illegal aliens from deportation. (snip)

On Friday, during a news conference, Christianson noted that Perez Arriaga should have been deported out of the United States but that California’s sanctuary state law prevented law enforcement from contacting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency about the “known” gang member.

“This could have been preventable. And under S.B. 54 in California, based on two arrests for DUI and some other active warrants that this criminal has out there, law enforcement would have been prevented, prohibited from sharing any information with ICE about this criminal gang member,” Christianson said. “Ladies and gentlemen, this is not how you protect a community.”

“This is not how you assure the people who live in our community, regardless of their ethnicity, their culture, their race, any of that, that they live in a safe community,” he continued.

“This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE and … law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh,” Christianson said. “I’m suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasn’t restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.”

“If he wasn’t here, he wouldn’t have been driving drunk and it wouldn’t have been reported to Officer Singh and the encounter … potentially never would have occurred,” Christianson said.

“My point is, why are we providing sanctuary for criminals, gang members? It’s a conversation we need to have,” Christianson continued.

It’s a conversation that most California Democrats do not want to have. Neither of California’s two Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, have mentioned it. Nor has Nancy Pelosi. They have yammered about the illegal alien children who have died in custody after being dragged two thousand miles with poor food, little water, little shelter and other bad hygiene.

In fact, I cannot find one California federally elected Democrat who has mentioned the murder of the officer, including the high profile ones like Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Juan Vargas, Ted Lieu, Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee, Jackie Speier, and Eric Swalwell.

Nor has California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Current Ca. gov Jerry Brown doesn’t tweet that often, but incoming gov Gavin Newsome does, and would you be surprised no mention or statement on the murder?

Read: Sheriff Blasts California Sanctuary Laws For Murder Of Police Officer »

Diane Feinstein Wants To Know What’s Going On With The Uninvited Migrants

She’s a peach

That tweet is via Twitchy, but, she was already yammering to the news yesterday, which is all over the news now

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California called Thursday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing after two children died in the custody of Customs and Border Protection.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, made her request in a letter to GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is set to chair the committee in the new year.

“These heartbreaking incidents are sadly consistent with previous reports of widespread abuse of children in immigration custody and the judgment of medical and mental health organizations that Border Patrol facilities are not adequately staffed or equipped to properly care for children,” Feinstein’s letter read.

As noted earlier, the timeline of the custody of the uninvited migrant in question shows that the CPB was doing all they can. Last I checked, they aren’t doctors, nor did they provide the medical care. The migrant kid was taken to a hospital, twice, for that.

In her letter, Feinstein cited the deaths of the two children along with reports of a hospitalized 5-month-old and murdered children in Tijuana.

She said she had reached out to McAleenan “but have not received answers to explain why these deaths occurred.”

It’s very simple: Democrats and all their organizations are making it clear to people that if they show up the U.S. will take care of them, to hell with our laws, and to hell with the Americans who should receive the help first. Perhaps DiFi should take a look at the massive homeless problem in San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities in her own state.

Democrats create this type of problem by not standing strong on immigration. They do the complete opposite of deterring it, so, anything bad that happens is on Democrat heads.

Read: Diane Feinstein Wants To Know What’s Going On With The Uninvited Migrants »

If All You See…

…is a horrid fossil fueled vehicle causing weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on feelings.

Read: If All You See… »

Some Scientists Are Trying To Make Us Care About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Thirty years of spreading awareness, which includes a goodly chunk of the media being leftists who Believe, and still people do not believe enough to Do Something. They just aren’t willing to give up their modern lives, their liberty, nor see their cost of living skyrocket

How some scientists are trying to get us to care about climate change

Despite life-or-death warnings to curb climate change, the western world isn’t responding as urgently as many climate scientists are hoping.

Rising sea levels and the recent string of record-breaking global temperatures aren’t resonating enough, a conservation scientist and educator said in a phone interview with CTVNews.ca.

“Showing photos of decimated coral reef will tug at your heartstrings, but I’m not sure if it will actually change the way you vote or the choices that you really make,” said Sanjayan Muttulingam, CEO of Conservation International, a non-profit that works to protect natural resources for people’s livelihood and food.

This seems to be confirmed by the alarming admission from scientists that Canada is nowhere close to its own targets in fighting climate change. According to Muttulingam, westerners would change their behaviours if they “fully appreciated how this is impacting their own lives in a real way.”

CTVNews.ca spoke to Muttulingam and a climate change economics professor who both say they’re part of a growing cohort attempting to answer people who are bluntly asking: “Who cares? How’ll this actually affect me?”

And the non-rabid believers, the casual members who have the same beliefs as the hardcores but haven’t transitioned to genuflecting to Al Gore daily, can see that the “solutions” will cause problems in their own lives. Really, it’s something they read about and more on.

They’re hoping to re-frame the scientific conversation by explaining how climate change is ruining the things people love and impacting their personal finances.

“Science isn’t science, until it’s communicated,” Muttulingam argued. But by failing to always put “humans at the centre of the equation,” he believes scientists inadvertently misjudged their audience.

“When it starts hitting our pocketbooks, our jobs, or the health of our children, that’s when you are going to start seeing consumers more willing to act than ever,” he said.

Nice! They’re going to give the “let’s try and scare the crap out of people” talking points a try. Considering they’ve been trying this for 30 years, I don’t think it’s going to work.

Read: Some Scientists Are Trying To Make Us Care About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Hard-Left’s “New Green Deal” Divides Democrats

This is what happens when they keep replacing moderate and somewhat far left elected members with far, far, far left ones. Call them Progressives, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, whatever, they are all believers in the big, big, big State

‘Green New Deal’ divides Democrats intent on addressing climate change

One week after House Democrats triumphed in the election, Rep. Nancy Pelosi extended her hand to the party’s energized left wing by promising to revive the select committee on climate change.

The move thrilled activists who, joined by incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had protested in Pelosi’s office that day. And word of reconstituting the panel, which was revered among Democrats for helping produce the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, was greeted as a sign of the party’s commitment to aggressive climate action in the next Congress.

But the committee will not have authority to approve legislation and is not expected to have subpoena power – unlike its 2007 version. The committee’s influence will be limited by Republican control of the Senate and President Donald Trump’s rejection of climate science. While Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has called on the committee to draft a “Green New Deal” to get the country off fossil fuels by 2030, its work may not carry weight with the powerful standing committees in the House.

The coming battle will test liberals’ clout as tensions between the activist left and the Democratic establishment underscore the ideological and strategic rifts that will affect the party ahead of the 2020 presidential primary.

“We should have a robust debate of ideas . . . then we figure out how to come to a consensus so that we are effective and are able in 2020 to defeat Donald Trump,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. “The worst thing we could do is stifle a very vigorous debate because of a deference to protocol or precedent.”

Congressional Democrats are united on the need to combat man-made climate change, but there is debate over what solutions to pursue and how aggressively in the era of divided government.

So, they all want to Do Something, but you have many who are realists and realize that ramming through policies that will cause problems withe lives of citizens, mostly low and middle class Americans, will not help them get re-elected. They are happy to talk about man-caused climate change and say “we need to do something!!!!!!!!” but doing something is loser policy. Virtually every time a poll is conducted climate change comes in near the bottom or at the bottom for things that concern voters.

The few somewhat rational Democrats left surely also realize that this New Green Deal is a pipedream, and it would look really bad to attempt to force citizens to give up fossil fuels while Democrat members of Congress run around the country and world using fossil fuels.

They’ll spend a lot of time yammering about this, holding their meetings, with the more responsible (politically) elected Democrats, along with re-election advisors, trying to hold back some of the Stateist’s worst offers.

Read: Hard-Left’s “New Green Deal” Divides Democrats »

Surprise: Migrant Brought Child In Order To Gain Easier Access To America

Most outlets running this story, including the Washington Post, are noticing this big admission. There’s actually a bigger one

PARENTS OF 8-YEAR-OLD MIGRANT WHO DIED BROUGHT BOY FOR EASIER US ENTRY

The mother of an 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody has revealed her family’s reasons for bringing the boy on the dangerous trek to the U.S. border.

In an interview with Reuters, Catarina Alonzo said that her husband took her son with him to the border in the hopes that the child would afford them easier entry into the United States.

Instead, 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo became ill and passed away.

“Lots of them have gone with children and managed to cross, even if they’re held for a month or two. But they always manage to get across easily,” Alonzo told Reuters through sobs.

In other words, they were taking advantage of the generosity of the U.S.A. Felipe developed the flu while in custody, and the timeline of their custody, as provided by, shockingly, CNN, shows that they were treated extremely well while in custody.

Alonzo said that her husband, an agricultural worker, wanted to get to the U.S. to find better work to pay off his debts. He also hoped that he could enroll Felipe in a higher quality school.

Notice, she is saying that he didn’t come to the U.S. to be a part of our great nation. No, he just wanted to work and get his child better education. Again, taking advantage of the U.S. while apparently not caring a whit about truly joining. There comes a point where we have to stop being the welfare for people from around the world. Democrats, and some squishy Republicans, want to prioritize the lawful status for people like this over those who apply for citizenship because they love America and want to be a citizen.

Read: Surprise: Migrant Brought Child In Order To Gain Easier Access To America »

NY Times Warmist: Forget The Carbon Tax Now (Till We Can Ram It Through)

Many may remember the name Justin Gillis: he’s a long time hyper-partisan reporter who pushed the man-caused climate change scam in the regular news section. Now he’s over in the opinion section doing this

Forget the Carbon Tax for Now

The angry graffiti have been blasted off the Arc de Triomphe with water jets, leaving unnaturally white patches scarring the base of France’s national monument. The husks of incinerated cars have been cleared from the streets, the glass from shattered store windows swept up. The government has taken steps to appease the demonstrators, which may be working.

With a bit of calm upon us, now would be a good time for those of us concerned about climate change to engage in some introspection.

The violent demonstrations that flared this fall in France were a culmination of decades of rising anger among the working class, it is true, but they were triggered by plans to impose a tax hike on gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump in the name of fighting climate change. Only three years ago, French monuments were bathed in green floodlights to celebrate a global deal negotiated in a Paris suburb to limit emissions; now we are scraping ugly slogans off those monuments.

Days before the French fury boiled over in November, voters in one of most liberal American states, Washington, once again rejected a plan to tax emissions of carbon dioxide in the name of fighting climate change.

These tax proposals all spring from basic economic theory. If people and companies are abusing a public good — in this case, by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — the answer, economists tell us, is to put a price on that activity that reflects the harm and encourages the development of more benign alternatives. Because most of the gases that cause climate change contain carbon in some form, the shorthand term for this policy is a “carbon price.”

Yet the climate movement has, I fear, turned this potentially useful tool into a fetish. Discuss any aspect of the emissions problem these days and you will quickly hear somebody say, “A price is the answer,” or equivalent words. You hear that from the lips of politicians, from newspaper editorial boards, from utility executives and even from the heads of oil companies.

Gillis spends many more paragraphs noting how the carbon tax push is a fetish, how it has failed, and how the Cult of Climastrology can push other things, such as “green” building codes (failing to note that these will drastically increase the cost of homes and other buildings). He also notes that these carbon taxes, which translated into expensive gas in Europe, haven’t stopped people from driving.

But just because a stiff carbon price is, in theory, the biggest tool in the toolbox, I am not sure that means we have to whip it out first. Many other tools are available. A policy known as a clean-electricity standard, which would require that a certain share of electricity generation come from low-carbon sources, could get us a long way in the United States. Republicans have shown some interest in it in the past. Stricter building regulations are also needed the world over.

Maybe we need to use those techniques to convince people that emissions really can be cut without wrecking the economy or further impoverishing the working class. Then, having proved that, we would pull the big tool out last.

In other words, frog in a boiling pot. A dink here, and dunk there, and eventually the CoC can slam people with a carbon tax. Of course, that’s rather what happened in France, where the Frogs noticed the boiling water and burned the kitchen down. The CoC just won’t give up on their ideas, which are all designed to…well, you know, I’ve written it enough.

Read: NY Times Warmist: Forget The Carbon Tax Now (Till We Can Ram It Through) »

If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert and coming right up to our homes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on people you know possibly being a threat.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove