Deranged Warmist Names New Creature After Trump

Remember, though, that politics has nothing to do with science

Blind creature that buries head in sand named after Donald Trump

A newly discovered blind and burrowing amphibian is to be officially named Dermophis donaldtrumpi, in recognition of the US president’s climate change denial.

The name was chosen by the boss of EnviroBuild, a sustainable building materials company, who paid $25,000 (£19,800) at an auction for the right. The small legless creature was found in Panama and EnviroBuild’s Aidan Bell said its ability to bury its head in the ground matched Donald Trump’s approach to global warming.

Trump’s distinctive hair has already led to comparisons to a poisonous furry caterpillar and a golden-plumed pheasant, while a yellow-crowned moth was called Neopalpa donaldtrumpi in 2017. (snip)

The newly discovered creature is a caecilian and its naming rights were auctioned to raise money for the Rainforest Trust. The scientists who found the 10cm amphibian have agreed to use the name Dermophis donaldtrumpi when they officially publish the discovery in scientific literature.

Bell said: “It is the perfect name. Caecilian is taken from the Latin caecus,meaning ‘blind’, perfectly mirroring the strategic vision President Trump has consistently shown towards climate change.”

The funny part is that these scientists take long fossil fueled trips to search for new species. And that their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so great that Trump now has something that is named after him and will be for thousands of years if not more.

Read: Deranged Warmist Names New Creature After Trump »

Democrats Promise “Dawn Of New Era” On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Do they understand that this will be a mostly wasted effort? That they’ll have lots of speeches and votes and such and then the legislation will die in the Senate?

Democrat led U.S. House to take on climate change says Markey

A Democratic majority in the U.S. House in January will mark the “dawn of a new era” in fighting climate change, according to U.S. Sen. Ed Markey.

Markey held a morning meeting Monday at his Boston office with representatives of more than 20 environmental groups to discuss priorities for the new Congress. Addressing reporters afterwards, he outlined an agenda that includes items that have yet to become law at the state level: a transition to 100 percent clean energy, and a carbon-pricing system.

Along with achieving 100 percent clean energy within the next 20 years and laying down markets for putting a price on carbon, Markey’s climate action priorities include promoting energy efficiency, halting fossil fuel exports, and ushering in offshore wind, which he described as the next frontier in clean energy.

Markey, a Malden Democrat, is set to serve in a Senate that remains under Republican control, while this year’s midterm elections ushered in a new Democratic majority in the House. The flip in House control means the dynamic is now different in Washington, Markey said.

“A green agenda can come out of the House of Representatives that then empowers the senators who care about these issues, including Republicans, because it will no longer be a bottled up agenda,” he said. “This agenda is now about to become real. It’s about to become alive.”

First, if Markey remembers, it was primarily Democrats from his state, Massachusetts, who blocked the Cape Wind project for well over a decade. Second, and more importantly, nothing Markey proposes will make it out of committee for a vote. When the people get a vote, they turn down any type of carbon taxing scheme. Halting the exportation of a fully legal commodity? Expect massive lawsuits if that passed, which it won’t. It won’t even get a vote, unless Mitch McConnell wants to embarrass Democrats and show them for the big government wankers they are.

100% clean energy in 20 years? Not unless someone creates something new. If offshore windfarms are so great, why aren’t Cult of Climastrology towns and states, such as California, slapping them up all over?

“We are going to save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation,” he said.

Say, has Mr. Markey stopped using fossil fuels himself?

Read: Democrats Promise “Dawn Of New Era” On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

New Wake County Sheriff Releases Illegal Aliens, Invites ICE To Have Larger Presence, Make Visible Arrests

In the era of Trump, where ICE is fully allowed to do the part of their job where they detain illegal aliens, what happens when jurisdictions are sanctuary’s for illegals and/or release illegals with ICE detainers on them? Well, ICE starts operating more heavily in those jurisdiction, ends up making more visible arrests, and often ends up arresting way more illegal aliens, with lots of the so-called good ones being swept up in operations. Good move, Sheriff Baker

16 released from jail after Wake sheriff ends participation in immigration program

Since being sworn in more than a week ago, Wake County Sheriff Gerald Baker has followed through on his promise to end the county’s participation in the federal 287(g) program.

Wake County had been one of only six in North Carolina that partnered with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer to federal custody people who have been arrested and are believed to be in the U.S. illegally.

Baker said he made the decision not to participate in the immigration program because he wants to see difference in the trust between law enforcement and Hispanic communities.

“At this point, the sheriff is not going to be honoring those requests of detaining individuals from ICE,” legal advisor Rick Brown said.

Just two weeks after Baker was sworn in, 16 people under ICE detainers have been released after either serving their standard time or posting bond.

An additional 79 people remain in custody on state charges, but the sheriff said he will not honor those ICE detainers either.

We know nothing about any of these illegals and what their crimes were, but we start with a basic one: they are unlawfully present in the U.S., a federal offense.

ICE has gone on record responding to Baker’s stance, saying his decision will not decrease its presence in Wake County.

“In fact, residents should expect a more visible ICE presence in the Raleigh-Durham area, as ICE will now have no choice but to conduct more at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at work sites,” ICE said in a statement.

ICE also said that collateral arrests should be expected as a result of increased arrests in neighborhoods and worksites.

That is not an idle threat. It’s not a threat. It’s a promise. We’ve seen ICE do this in many areas that want to get frisky and play the “a detainer is a request, not a judge’s order, so we’ll release the illegal, regardless of what their crime is.”

Perhaps some of the illegals are the nice ones who did not do anything more than have a DUI or something. Or, perhaps they have been charged with raping a 13 year old girl. Or committed hit and run. Committed statutory rape. Had more than a pound of cocaine. How about one deported 10 times charged with rape? Those are just a few examples of illegals arrested in Raleigh. The area surrounding Raleigh is a hotbed for illegals.

Next up is Sheriff Baker, Democrats, Dem activists, and the news media whining about ICE making all sorts of very visible arrests and raids and scooping up tons of illegals.

Read: New Wake County Sheriff Releases Illegal Aliens, Invites ICE To Have Larger Presence, Make Visible Arrests »

Nancy Pelosi, Surrounded By Armed Security, Promises Swift Action On Restricting Gun Rights Of Lawful Citizens

What makes her think any of this will pass the Senate, or even be signed by President Trump?

‘Boldly and Decisively’: Pelosi Promises Swift Action on ‘Commonsense’ Gun Control

Democrats will act “boldly” to bring “commonsense” gun control reforms to the table, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

“The new Democratic majority will act boldly and decisively to pass commonsense, life-saving background checks that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” Pelosi said, Politico reported Monday.

With Pelosi’s support, Democrats coalesced to create a gun reform proposal that would require federal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales, Politico reported.

They have this in California. Yet, they still have shootings, lots of them, in uber-Stateist California. This type of bill won’t stop anything. Virtually no shooting occur due to a private transfer with no background check. As Splinter notes

That’s well and good for the House, but given the newly bolstered Republican majority in the Senate, it’s safe to assume that any gun control legislation will be effectively dead on arrival once it reaches the upper chamber, to say nothing of the Trump White House.

Of course, this is just the beginning, and, interestingly, nothing that the Democrats have trotted out or even just thrown against the wall goes after criminals who use gun illegally. Nor criminals who illegally possess guns. Nor criminals. Everything is aimed at law abiding citizens. I’m looking forward to the Dems over-reaching.

Read: Nancy Pelosi, Surrounded By Armed Security, Promises Swift Action On Restricting Gun Rights Of Lawful Citizens »

If All You See…

…is horrific heat snow created from an extreme Arctic, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on red flag laws.

Read: If All You See… »

Amazon Feels Heat From Cult Of Climastrology Employees On Transparency Or Something

Basic fact: Amazon could not survive without fossil fuels and a giant carbon footprint. How are all those products delivered? Many come from overseas. Think about the vast amounts of electricity used to run the operations. Yet

Amazon feels heat from employees on climate change and disclosing its efforts

Storm-driven data-center outages, production disrupted by flooding, forest-fire smoke choking workers at the corporate headquarters — already in 2018, Amazon has experienced at least a half dozen notable disruptions to its operations connected to climate change, according to a group of employees urging the company to be more transparent with its response to the global threat.

About 16 Amazon employees, who are also company shareholders thanks to stock-based compensation, have filed a shareholder resolution asking the company’s board of directors to publicly report on how the Seattle-based commerce giant “is planning for disruptions posed by climate change, and how Amazon is reducing its company-wide dependence on fossil fuels.”

While Amazon has taken steps toward reducing its carbon emissions and even has set a goal to one day power all of its global infrastructure with renewable energy, some employees and observers don’t think the company has gone far enough, fast enough. But they can’t tell for sure, and see its recent actions — such as procuring a fleet of 20,000 diesel-powered delivery vans — as unconvincing.

“It’s pretty clear immediately that they’re the least transparent” of the big tech companies, said Rebecca Deutsch, with climate-advocacy group 350 Seattle, which has parsed the climate disclosures and policies of several major corporations and estimated Amazon’s delivery-related emissions. “Based on what they’ve released so far, they’re the furthest behind in trying to transition off of fossil fuels.”

Let’s face facts: they can’t. There is no way to ship all those products without fossil fuels. But reality and the Cult of Climastrology are unfamiliar with each other.

Seattle 350 undertook its own effort to quantify the carbon emissions from Amazon’s 2017 global-shipping operations, based on data the company discloses about the number of packages it delivered to Prime Members and publicly available data from UPS and FedEx – major Amazon suppliers that disclose average emissions per package.

As we can see, this is being driven by a big moneyed, Elitist driven organization, one which produces nothing of value itself, in order to force a company to comply. Very Fascist of them.

Read: Amazon Feels Heat From Cult Of Climastrology Employees On Transparency Or Something »

Bummer: Organic Food Is Worse For ‘Climate Change’ Than Conventionally Farmed Food

Hipsters and Instagram influencers everywhere hardest hit, along with Cult of Climastrology members who hate modern food

An inconvenient truth? Organic food’s impact on climate change in the spotlight following critical report

Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food due to the greater areas of land required, according to a new study. Researchers have developed a new method for assessing the climate impact from land-use, and used this, along with other methods, to compare organic and conventional food production. The results show that organic food can result in much greater emissions. But some points of the study are being challenged by advocates in the organic farming sector.

The researchers – involving the Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden – created the novel metric for calculating the carbon footprint of specific land use.

“Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference. For example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent,” says Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor from Chalmers, and one of those responsible for the study.

The reason why “organic food is so much worse for the climate” is that the yields per hectare are much lower, primarily because fertilizers are not used, notes the research.

The bigger part of all this is that money, probably from taxpayers, was wasted looking at this subject.

And, of course, the organic producers do not like the study, but, they couldn’t actually dispute it.

The researchers do recognize that organic farming does not use fertilizers and the goal is to use resources like energy, land and water in a long-term, sustainable way. Crops are primarily nurtured through nutrients present in the soil and the main aims are greater biological diversity and a balance between animal and plant sustainability. Only naturally derived pesticides are used.

Yes, they’re farming like it’s 1499. The more modern methods generally mean that the food is much safer, doesn’t have diseases or bugs, there is a higher crop yield, and it’s modern.

“The arguments for organic food focus on consumers’ health, animal welfare and different aspects of environmental policy. There is good justification for these arguments, but at the same time, there is a lack of scientific evidence to show that organic food is in general healthier and more environmentally friendly than conventionally farmed food, according to the National Food Administration of Sweden and others,” says a PR statement from the researchers.

Well, it’s certainly not better for the climate, if we’re to use the Warmists talking points about carbon footprints and such.

Read: Bummer: Organic Food Is Worse For ‘Climate Change’ Than Conventionally Farmed Food »

NY Times: Russia Trolls Helped Elect Donald Trump Or Something

The NY Times’ Michelle Goldberg thinks she’s on to something. But, it forgets a central point: this provides zero proof of collusion

Yes, Russian Trolls Helped Elect Trump

This year, researchers at Ohio State University tried to measure the impact that fake news had on the 2016 election. They based their analysis on a postelection survey in which they’d asked voters 281 questions, three of which were intended to determine their exposure to online disinformation.

Respondents were asked to rate the accuracy of statements claiming that Hillary Clinton was suffering from a serious illness, that she’d approved weapons sales to the Islamic State as secretary of state, and that Donald Trump had been endorsed by Pope Francis. “Belief in these fake news stories is very strongly linked to defection from the Democratic ticket by 2012 Obama voters,” wrote the researchers, Richard Gunther, Paul A. Beck and Erik C. Nisbet. Even after controlling for variables like ideology, education, party identification and dislike of Clinton, they found that believing a fake news story made people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2012 significantly less likely to vote for Clinton in 2016.

That’s interesting, because she received over 400,000 more votes than Obama did in 2012. Trump received 2 million more votes than Mitt Romney, and, get this, won them in a few more states than Hillary. Did Russian Instragram bots posing in barely there bikinis holding cups of coffee in the woods keep Hillary from going to Wisconsin? Did Russian bots dropping posts on Facebook make her pass out on 9/11, which is where many of the Hillary is seriously sick memes came from?

The study’s authors don’t claim a clear causal link between propaganda and voting; it’s possible that people who rejected Clinton were more open to misinformation about her. It’s hard to believe, however, that at least some of them weren’t affected by a social media ecosystem saturated with deliberate lies.

Is Michelle talking about the NY Times and there 100% negative news on Donald Trump and 100% positive for Hillary Clinton or the Russia trolls?

Russian propaganda, one of the reports found, had about 187 million engagements on Instagram, reaching at least 20 million users, and 76.5 million engagements on Facebook, reaching 126 million people. Approximately 1.4 million people, the report said, engaged with tweets associated with the Internet Research Agency. “The organic Facebook posts reveal a nuanced and deep knowledge of American culture, media and influencers in each community the I.R.A. targeted,” it said.

There is no way to quantify exactly what this barrage of disinformation and manipulation did to American politics. But it should be obvious that what happens online influences our perceptions of, and behavior in, the offline world. People have committed horrific acts of violence based on Facebook propaganda. The Islamic State has used Twitter to recruit alienated Westerners.

You mean the people who Obama called the JV Team, and grew tremendously after his Big Libyan Adventure? You can bet that the NY Times had more influence on the election than some Russian trolls.

In an election decided by a rounding error — fewer than 80,000 voters spread over three states — Russian trolling easily could have made the difference. It’s mortifying and preposterous that fake news ruined America. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Now, prove it. That’s where the rubber meets the road. Prove it. Here’s Nate Silver, who is catching major league flung moonbat poo for daring to show the reality (via Twitchy)

Michelle yammers about Instagram. Consider that 80% of Instagram users are outside of the US. And there are 95 million photos and videos are shared on Instagram per day. 95 million. So these Russian trolls had 187 million engagements? That’s nothing. Were they posting sexy selfies with political views?

The very fact is that the Russians tried, but, did they actually have much of an influence? Did they change the election? No. Just like Obama and Hillary didn’t make a difference on the election in Russia. Nor did Obama change the outcome of the Brexit referendum in Britain. You can bet The NY Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the Leftist Hillary supporting media had more of an influence.

Read: NY Times: Russia Trolls Helped Elect Donald Trump Or Something »

Say, Why Don’t Washington Voters Want To Be Carbon Taxed Out The Wazoo?

A big case of Someone Else syndrome

Why Do Washington Voters Struggle With Climate Change Policies?
Despite environmental awareness and the public’s apparent desire for reform, statewide initiatives keep failing

Attempts to tax carbon emissions have twice failed on Washington state ballots and efforts in the Legislature have been stalled. And while activists say they’ll continue to push for greener policies, some researchers are suggesting the way these policies are constructed must be rethought. (big snip)

Aseem Prakash and Nives Dolsak are professors at the University of Washington who focus their research on climate policy. In an opinion piece published in The Hill, they write that while climate change itself will disproportionately affect poorer sections of society, climate activists have been unable to use that information to their advantage and are facing a populist backlash in France. Moreover, they point to this same trend in the U.S. In a November Gallup poll, only 2 percent of respondents listed environmental issues as the most important problem facing the U.S.

In an interview with Seattle Weekly, the pair said as people are forced to rank their list of priorities, climate change begins sliding down the list. When people are asked whether they support climate change, most people will say they do, but when asked if they think they should pay for measures to reduce it, support drops.

Dolsak said there is a strong sense of “we the people should not be taxed, it should be the corporations that should be taxed,” and added that “there is a sense of urgency, policy has to happen, but we the consumers should not be bearing the cost of policy.”

Now, lots of Warmist groups and “climate researchers” will whine about fossil fuels companies and groups spending money to defeat these types of policies and initiatives, because Leftists only like spending money when it agrees with their views (because they are rather Fascist), but it really does come down to the notion that lots of people believe we should Do Something about man-caused climate change, they’re just unwilling to pay for it (much like with healthcare) themselves. Someone Else should pay for it.

They also never seem to understand that if Someone Else is getting nailed with carbon taxes, those extra costs will be passed on to consumers.

Read: Say, Why Don’t Washington Voters Want To Be Carbon Taxed Out The Wazoo? »

If All You See…

…are horrible carbon pollution clouds causing sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watcher Of Weasels, with a post on some of the newly uncovered FBI texts, which even threaten physical harm to Trump.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove