Warmists Are Concerned Over CO2 Emissions From Wildfires

They seem less concerned over the plight of humans and wildlife, because these people are deranged

Climate change: Worries over CO2 emissions from intensifying wildfires

Rising numbers of extreme wildfires could result in a significant increase in COâ‚‚ emissions, scientists warn.

That could mean attaining the Paris climate agreement’s goal of keeping global temperature rise well below 2C could become harder, they say.

Present emission-cut pledges by countries are projected to increase the average global temperature rise by more than 3C by the end of the century.

That would lead to dangerous climate change impacts, experts say.

These include sea level rise, drought, wildfires, among other extreme events.

“We can’t neglect the emissions from wildfires,” says Ramon Vallejo, a scientist specialising on fire ecology with the University of Barcelona.

“Particularly now that we are seeing intense wildfires all around the world.”

I’m sure we could solve this with a tax. Really, no matter what happens, these cultists link it to their cultish beliefs.

In fact, there are fewer wildfires now

and they are burning less land. This has members of the Cult of Climastrology claiming

The Evolving Wildfire Threat: Fewer, Larger Fires

Yeah, they tried this with hurricanes, and major hurricane activity dried up for over a decade.

Read: Warmists Are Concerned Over CO2 Emissions From Wildfires »

Surprise: Major Warmist Study On Ocean Warming Has Big Errors

Who would have thought that the Cult of Climastrology would put out a study with major errors designed to prop up their apocalyptic prognostications?

More certain than they really are

(Daily Caller) The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday.

Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study.

Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature. (snip)

So, while Keeling said they still found there’s more warming than previously thought, there’s too much uncertainty to support their paper’s central conclusion that oceans absorbed 60 percent more heat than current estimates show.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling told The Union Tribune. “We really muffed the error margins.”

It’s a whopper of an error, and it sure appears as if someone was calling them on the errors in their doomsaying study. The only big question is, did they know about it beforehand, and try and pass it on like a chef trying to sell their slightly undercooked protein to the expediter, or was this just a missed error? With the CoC, one can never ignore their intentions.

And even if the oceans are warming a lot, it doesn’t prove mostly/solely anthropogenic causation.

Read: Surprise: Major Warmist Study On Ocean Warming Has Big Errors »

Where Are The Opinion Pieces Blasting Hillary And Stacey Abrams For Not Accepting Defeat?

There have been lots of opinion pieces blasting President Trump for complaining about the horrible, horrible, no good, trying to steal the election actions in Florida and a few other areas by Democrats. But, strangely, none on this

(Daily Caller) Tucker Carlson aired a clip of Hillary Clinton in 2016, criticizing then-candidate Donald Trump for allegedly claiming that things were “rigged” whenever they did not go his way — and Carlson then showed Clinton doing the same thing for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams on Thursday night. (videos available at the link)

“The race for governor of Georgia was tight for months, you probably followed it. But it finished in the end pretty much exactly where the polls predicted it would finish. The Republican, Brian Kemp, defeated the Democrat Stacey Abrams by about one and a half percentage points. In a big state that’s an awful lot of votes. For reasons she hasn’t really explained though, Stacey Abrams has refused to accept those results. Her allies are now claiming the election was stolen,” Carlson began.

Carlson then aired clips of Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton saying that they only way Kemp could’ve won would be if they somehow cheated.

“If she’d had a fair election, she already would have won,” Clinton said on Tuesday while speaking at the LBJ School of Public Affairs of the University of Texas.

He continued, “That’s election fraud. It’s a serious charge and it’s telling that nobody making that charge has provided any evidence that it actually happened, no detail at all. Most remarkable of all though is that Hillary Clinton is one of the voices in this course. We keep track and we remember Hillary’s view just two years ago. Here’s what she thought of losing candidates who claim the election was rigged.”

The show then aired a clip of Hillary Clinton from a presidential debate back in October, 2016.

In the video, she said, “Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him. That is not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. He is a denigrating, he’s talking down our democracy. And I for one, am appalled.”

So, where are the pieces blasting Hillary, Stacry, and other Democrats from the Credentialed Media? Well, Dems are hoping to manufacture a win in Georgia, for one thing

Only on AP: Abrams prepares push for new Georgia Gov. vote

Stacey Abrams’ campaign and legal team is preparing an unprecedented legal challenge in the unresolved Georgia governor’s race that could leave the state’s Supreme Court deciding whether to force another round of voting.

The Democrat’s longshot strategy relies on a statute that’s never been used in such a high-stakes contest. It is being discussed as Georgia elections officials appear to be on the cusp of certifying Republican Brian Kemp as the winner of a bitterly fought campaign that’s been marred by charges of electoral malfeasance. (snip)

Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, Abrams’ campaign chairwoman, is overseeing a team of almost three-dozen lawyers who in the coming days will draft the petition, along with a ream of affidavits from voters and would-be voters who say they were disenfranchised. Abrams would then decide whether to go to court under a provision of Georgia election law that allows losing candidates to challenge results based on “misconduct, fraud or irregularities … sufficient to change or place in doubt the results.” (snip)

She already faces a narrow path to the governor’s mansion. Unofficial returns show Kemp with about 50.2 percent of more than 3.9 million votes. That puts him about 18,000 votes above the threshold required to win by a majority and avoid a Dec. 4 runoff. The Associated Press is not calling the race until state officials certify the results.

Abrams would assert that enough irregularities occurred to raise the possibility that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.

In other words, she wants to count votes that were thrown out because they were illegal, unreadable, too late, and so forth.

Lawrence-Hardy agreed the law requires a quantitative analysis. She said Abrams’ team doesn’t have a list of 18,000 disenfranchised voters. The evidence, she said, would consist of hundreds, if not thousands of such examples, along with data analysis of projected lost votes based on other problems, such as a lack of paper ballots at precincts where voting machines broke down and voters left long lines.

Double in other words, they’re just pulling it out of thin air. Every election has issues, going all the way back to when elections started.

Just concede gracefully, Ms. Abrams. She won’t.

Read: Where Are The Opinion Pieces Blasting Hillary And Stacey Abrams For Not Accepting Defeat? »

It’s Snowing, So Of Course The Warmists Blame ‘Climate Change’

Let’s be clear: early snow and cold doesn’t mean natural climate change is sending us to the next Holocene cold period. There’s always variability. But, apparently the snow and cold is caused by heat trapping gasses

More under the more tag

Read More »

Read: It’s Snowing, So Of Course The Warmists Blame ‘Climate Change’ »

We Can’t Agree On Gun Control Because People Don’t Listen Or Something

Washington Post writer Jen Zamzow actually attempts to provide a balanced point of view, but misses two big thing (I’m using the NJ.com reprint)

Why we can’t agree on gun control. Hint: Because you don’t want to listen

In the wake of yet another mass shooting — this time claiming the lives of at least 12 people in Thousand Oaks, California –  it’s painfully obvious that the United States has a problem with gun violence. In our current political environment, it’s also obvious that little can be done about it.

Sixty-one percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws, according to a recent Gallup poll, but this statistic hides a strong partisan divide: Eighty-seven percent of Democrats support tougher gun laws, while only 31 percent of Republicans do. How can we solve the gun violence problem when Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to come together on anything these days, let alone on an issue as politically divided as gun control?

If we want to overcome the political divide on guns, we first need to understand why we have it. The cause of partisan conflict is generally not a lack of evidence or an inability to understand it. In fact, for contentious issues, having a greater understanding of the information can actually increase belief polarization, leading people with opposing views to end up even further apart.

Jen dives into all sorts of things, like psychology, the way our brains are wired, party affiliation, and more. This is the same type of stuff they attempt to trot out for why we won’t Do Something about ‘climate change.’ That said, they first big thing she’s missing is that she’s approaching this from a position of “we must have gun control.” That right there will get pushback.

Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.

However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick.

See? It’s assumed that we have to have gun control, so, the gun grabbers should listen more to find out something something garble garble.

Which is issue two. Those of us who are “resistant” have listened. We know what these “gun-safety advocates” want. The disarming of law abiding citizens. Again, California has every bit of law in place that the gun grabbers have pushed, and more, yet, there are still shootings.

The “gun-safety advocates” want more and more laws, right up to the Australian solution (banning and confiscation), yet, the existing laws aren’t being fully enforced. We saw this with the failure to implement California’s red flag law with the latest mass killer.

We know what the gun grabbers “gun-safety advocates” want: to make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to engage in their 2nd Amendment Right, while at the same time the GSAs want to go easier and easier on criminals. I’ve listened to the GSAs: I don’t need to listen to more to know what they want.

This is from the comments at NJ.com

Read: We Can’t Agree On Gun Control Because People Don’t Listen Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Coyote Blog, with a post on a transpartisan approach to healthcare reform.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Are Demanding House Democrats Investigate Exxon Over ‘Climate Change’

Good idea. Let’s have people who use way more in terms of fossil fuels than the average citizen investigate a fossil fuels company

Environmentalists Urging New Democratic Congress To Investigate Exxon

An influential environmentalist organization is urging the upcoming Congress to investigate ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel companies regarding their alleged contribution to man-made climate change. (snip)

350.org, an environmental activist organization, is circling a petition that encourages Democratic lawmakers to investigate ExxonMobil over its knowledge and contribution to climate change. The accusations ring very similar to the #ExxonKnew campaign that’s been waged for several years against the major oil company.

“Launch a congressional investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel corporations for propagating confusion and denial about the scientific truth of climate change and for hiding the risks posed by their business activities to the planet,” read a portion of 350’s letter demanding “real climate leadership” from the upcoming 116th Congress.

Jamie Henn, a 350 co-founder, told Axios that an investigation into Exxon and other big oil companies should be a priority for the House Technology, Science and Space Committee.

Here’s an idea: if Warmists do not like fossil fuels, then they do not have to use them.

Democrats are already planning to dive in come next year and hold hearings on ‘climate change’. Would they attempt the same types of investigations we’ve seen in states? Most likely not. Exxon and other fossil fuels companies are beating back all sorts of legal assaults, and, most likely, the House Democrats are going to go full overreach after Trump, having no time to overreach by going after Exxon.

Regardless, what this is about is attempting to use the power of Government to go after entities involved in Wrongthink. Nothing Fascist about that, eh?

Read: Warmists Are Demanding House Democrats Investigate Exxon Over ‘Climate Change’ »

Democrats Who Didn’t Want Obamacare To Apply To Them Now Want Vote On Single Payer

Harken back to the early days of Obamacare, when we learned that members of Congress and their staffs were exempt from Obamacare, and that they wanted nothing to do with being in it. Now we get

Left wants a vote on single-payer bill in new Congress

Progressive Democrats are pushing for a vote on a controversial health-care bill after the party takes control of the House early next year.

But the left’s push for “Medicare for all” legislation would likely divide Democrats and pose a headache for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is poised to become Speaker in the next Congress.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who is co-chair of the Medicare for All Caucus in the House, told supporters on an organizing call Tuesday night that simply expressing support for the idea is not enough.

“When we have that majority, we need to make sure that we put it to use,” she said.

Yet, many other House Democrats, including members of the leadership, are not on board with the idea of government-run universal health insurance.

Supporters say they are going to push for a vote and organize grass-roots efforts to pressure Democratic holdouts to sign on to the legislation. However, any floor vote would probably fail, with all Republicans and some Democrats rejecting the measure.

In all fairness, a decent chunk of these hardcore Progressives (nice Fascists) were not in Congress when Ocare was passed. And Ocare was really just a stepping stone to move towards Single Payer, which is really what Medicare For All is. A government run and dominated system.

Republicans used Medicare for all — otherwise known as single-payer — as a leading area of attack on Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections. They touted a recent cost estimate by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which put the bill’s price tag at $32 trillion over 10 years.

If they’re saying $32 trillion, the real cost is probably more like $50 trillion. Not too mention the declining standard of care. Don’t forget, even tiny Vermont couldn’t make it work, as the costs derailed the whole thing. But, Democrats do not care. They don’t care about the quality of your healthcare or access to it. Nor your health. This was shown by Obamacare and the implementation. It’s all about patronizing people to get them beholden and controlled by the government. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s what Democrats do.

That said, they might be setting themselves up for an inter-party fight with the old guard who realize this is a bad idea, and further create a situation where their push for single payer helps lose the House and makes sure Trump wins in 2020.

Read: Democrats Who Didn’t Want Obamacare To Apply To Them Now Want Vote On Single Payer »

The Republicans Are Dancing To Trump’s Autocracy Tune Or Something

There’s an old article from 2006 entitled The Left, Online And Outraged, which was about how George W. Bush and his administration were making lefty bloggers absolutely barking moonbat deranged. They were obsessed. It starts

In the angry life of Maryscott O’Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O’Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O’Connor’s reputation is as one of the angriest of all. “One long, sustained scream” is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

Kinda like the official opinion writers for the Washington Post, which would include Excitable E.J. Dionne

Will the Republican Party keep dancing with autocracy?

When a national leader urges that votes be ignored, or that an election result he doesn’t like might best be set aside, we label him an autocrat or an authoritarian.

When it’s President Trump, we shrug. Worse, many in his party go right along with his baseless charges of fraud.

We are in for a difficult two years. Surviving them will require that Republican senators take seriously the pledge they made in their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” What we have seen so far is not encouraging.

Interesting. We all remember reading the op-eds from E.J. blasting Obama for doing whatever he wants with his phone and pen after he lost the House in 2010, right? Or that elected Democrats and the Dem voters ignored his Executive Orders? Oh, and, hey, if EJ wants Senators to take their oath of office seriously, then he should be pushing for all to pass legislation that stops the foreign invasion that illegally crosses our borders.

E.J. goes on to trot out more of the old Florida 2000 derangement syndrome over Bush winning it fair and lawfully. He forgets to include the relevant information on how Gore and company were trying to skirt state law.

All this is about more than Trump’s obvious meltdown since an election that was bad for him and his party — and gets worse as more votes are tallied. It is about whether Republicans are willing to contain and, when necessary, oppose a man who repeatedly demonstrates hostility to the rules, norms and constraints of constitutional democracy.

Now do Obama.

Trump yammers on Twitter. Obama actually implemented rules that blew off those constraints.

Of course, what E.J. really wants with this bit of #TrumpDerangementSyndrome is to count every single vote in Florida regardless of whether they are legal. He wants all the irregularities that have occurred to be ignored. The saying should be “count every legal vote.” If the things going on in those Democrat run voting precincts was reversed and was happening in a Republican run one, you can bet E.J. and the rest of the media would be outraged. And they’d be right to be outraged.

BTW

Looking back through the last few months, the vast majority of his op-eds are about Trump. The rest usually involve Trump. Refer back to The Left, Online And Outraged.

Read: The Republicans Are Dancing To Trump’s Autocracy Tune Or Something »

Well, What If We Gave The Anti-Shark Shark’s Guns?

The gun grabbers might want to ignore this lunatic, but, then, most of the other gun grabbers are lunatics (via Twitchy)

But, hey, perhaps David would back the bans on catching sharks and skinning their fins off, after which they are just dumped back in the sea. Bad for the biosphere. Reduces the population, which is necessary.

Read: Well, What If We Gave The Anti-Shark Shark’s Guns? »

Pirate's Cove