Scary: Only 13 Countries Have Emissions Reductions Plans That Match Their Promises Or Something

Having plans and actually implementing them are two separate things, but, in Warmist World, action is not necessary. All you really need to do is virtue signal

Only 16 countries have emissions reduction targets matching their promises to avoid catastrophic climate change

Just 16 countries have set clear goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions that will allow them to match their ambitious pledges to tackle climate change.

In a new report, climate experts have warned of discrepancies between big promises made on the global stage and domestic targets backed up by law.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a warning earlier this month of catastrophic outcomes without drastic emissions cuts over the next decade.

In light of this, and with an upcoming major UN summit to discuss the world’s approach to global warming, the authors of the report say nations need to set clear plans about how they are going to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

“We have 12 years to get our act together, and in order to do that you really need to know what you are going to be doing in the next six months, in the next two years, in the next 12 years,” explained Dr Michal Nachmany from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“So you need to set really clear targets in order to know you are on track to meeting those goals.”

I have a clear target: keep doing what I’m doing. Warmists like Dr. Nachmany should have their own, which should involved giving up their own use of fossil fuels and making their own lives carbon neutral, rather than forcing their un-science beliefs on everyone else

In total, 157 countries have made international commitments to slash their emissions under the Paris climate agreement – known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs.

However, to be worth anything these promises must be translated into domestic commitments and policies on renewable energy, green transport and sustainable agriculture to lay out a realistic pathway.

The analysis by Dr Nachmany and Emily Mangan from the World Resources Institute found that nations have been slow to mirror their NDCs in national policies.

So far only 58 countries (from 157) have backed up those commitments with economy wide targets for emissions reductions, and just 16 of those are as ambitious as the ones they promise in their NDCs.

That “historic” Paris Climate Agreement was, for all purposes, voluntary, because so many leaders didn’t want something that they’d have to take back to their legislative branches for approval. And the moment it was passed the hardcore Cult of Climastrology members were already saying it wasn’t enough. It really was simply about claiming they are Doing Something while not really doing something, especially when the citizens will protest when they realize that the results of any policies will make their lives worse, at least in 1st World nations and ones like India and China. The others are just pissed off that the sweet, sweet climate cash isn’t flowing in so they can build more airports and stuff.

Read: Scary: Only 13 Countries Have Emissions Reductions Plans That Match Their Promises Or Something »

Dems Warn Party That Their Messaging Stinks

Might be a little to late to reconsider what their messaging is

Dems warn party message lacks punch

Democrats are sounding growing alarms in the final push before the midterm elections that the party lacks the message it needs to combat President Trump and win back Democratic majorities in Congress.

Some of the comments are positively biting, and illustrate that nerves are on edge less than two weeks before Election Day.

They also hint at the fights that will take place if Democrats under-perform and fail to at least win back the House majority, which would count as a significant disappointment at this stage.

“We haven’t had a real message since the last presidential election so why change it now?” said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis. “We had no message in 2016. We had no message in between. We have no message going into this election…You have to give people a reason to vote for you, not a reason to vote against someone else.”

Democrats think they have a good chance of retaking the House majority despite these problems given the fact that their voting base is fired up to send a message to Trump.

Polls have tightened, however, and there is a recognition that Trump has started to fire up his own base. The narrow path the Democrats once saw for a Senate majority has largely disappeared.

“In terms of a Democratic Party having even a semblance of a message, it’s just not there and that’s the reason this election is going to be unpredictable,” said Kofinis. “Nobody should be surprised if it’s a good night or a bad night.”

The main focus for Democrats is that they Hate Trump. Besides what’s in the graphic above, we can add make sure there are zero restrictions on abortion on demand as well as implement measures that make citizens more reliant on Government, such as through carbon taxes and Single Payer health care/insurance. Does it resonate positively when they reflexively take the side of MS-13 when President Trump denounces them?

Democratic leaders are quick to reject the notion that their message lacks the bite to resonate with voters. Discarding a focus on the president — a focus thought to have backfired in 2016 —their “For the People” agenda features just three broad promises: lowering health care costs, boosting wages and fighting government corruption. It’s those issues, they contend, that voters care most about.

“People ask what are the Democrats for? We are for the people, for lowering their healthcare costs by reducing the cost of prescription drugs. We are for bigger paychecks by building infrastructure of America and we are for better government by reducing the role of money in politics,” Pelosi said Monday.

It’s a cute slogan, but, other than pimping Single Payer, what they usually refer to as Medicaid For All, do you ever hear Democrats talking about this stuff?

Yet Democrats are not all on the same page when it comes to the election-year approach to the president. Ignoring Trump, they argue, is to ignore the elephant in the room.

“There’s one issue in this election: Donald Trump. That is it,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told The Hill recently. “And this election is about whether the country is going to vote for a mid-course correction.”

He’s about the only honest one, because that’s all Democrats care about: their Trump Derangement Syndrome. Doing things like rolling back the economic progress made under Trump and so much more.

Read: Dems Warn Party That Their Messaging Stinks »

If All You See…

…is evil leather which comes from horrible carbon polluting cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Vlad Tepes, with a post on a story with two different versions.

BTW, girl on the left needs to put that thumb in. Not proper horns.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Halloween

Happy Sunday! It’s a gorgeous Fall day in America. The Sun is popping, the geese are honking, Halloween is almost here. Not quite sure who did this pinup, other than a tiny signature which goes nowhere.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Deplorable Climate Skeptic Blog discusses terror attacks and hate speech
  2. Adrienne’s Corner notes that Cesar Sayoc is suddenly a white guy, not a Native American
  3. Bizzy Blog covers a NY town rallying around an American flag mural
  4. Blazing Cat Fur discusses non-functioning bombs and double standards
  5. Chicks On The Right deep dives into the #WalkAway march
  6. Common Cents tells Conservatives to fly their American flags
  7. DC Clothesline has numbers on government dependency
  8. Doug Ross @ Journal notes how we can protect Democrats
  9. Geller Report covers how many women were helped in Afghanistan for $280 million U.S. dollars
  10. Jihad Watch notes a wonderful, super-peaceful Islamic migrant in Canada
  11. Legal Insurrection discusses an actual space force proposal
  12. Maggie’s Farm covers some virtue signaling
  13. Moonbattery has some fun with online moonbat dating
  14. Neo-neocon wonders what #MeToo has wrought
  15. And last, but not least, Pacific Pundit flashes back to when Democrats boo’d Israel

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Toronto Sun: A Carbon Tax Is A Tax On Pollution, Not People Or Something

Except for the fact carbon dioxide isn’t pollution, but a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. The Toronto Sun’s Jim Warren tells us that we need to stop our partisan discourse and just….give in to those who want to increase our cost of living

Carbon tax is about punishing pollution, not people

It’s time to put an end to the heated partisan rhetoric about climate change and carbon taxes.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are to blame. We are debating personalities and politics instead of building a consensus of how we are going to change our lifestyles to save the planet and provide a sustainable planet for our children to live.

A carbon tax is a tax on pollution, not people. It is intended to change your behaviour to reduce global warming.

Change comes with a cost – and people don’t like change – but the way we live our lives presently is not an option if we want to maintain our standard of living.

See? It’s a tax on pollution that…….people pay and is meant to change your behavior by governmental force. And we get a “the debate is over” meme. This is about people who mostly refuse to change their own lives wanting Government to make others live Warmist beliefs.

Warren goes on to say there is blame on both sides. He complains about liberal elites talking at climate summits with celebrity spokespeople not “connecting enough.” And

Trudeau Liberals have failed to communicate what we need to do and why we need to do it in a way middle class Canadians can rally behind.

Al Gore’s movie was a good start. It’s up to Trudeau and other leaders to explain climate change and the sacrifices we need to make in a way that resonates with Canadians in a positive and sustainable way.

Would that be the Al Gore movie with tons of non-science mistakes? And Warren is upset that Conservatives talk about the taxes

Conservatives use fear mongering about taxes, without acknowledging the status quo is completely unsustainable and that doing nothing comes at a greater cost than the carbon tax itself.

Because a tax that artificially increases the cost of living for an issue that is most not science is no big deal

The irony of the current debate is that a carbon tax is actually just the beginning.

The real change we must make is massive and on a scale greater than anything humans have ever done before. It is unprecedented. The speed and action that we must change is actually unimaginable.

What kind of change, Warren? Strange that you leave those details out.

We need to look past what will happen in the 2019 election if we want to have a place to live work and play in 2030.

Remember, we need to “put an end to the heated partisan rhetoric about climate change and carbon taxes.”

Will a carbon tax solve climate change and global warming? No it won’t. But it’s a step in the right direction.

Read: Toronto Sun: A Carbon Tax Is A Tax On Pollution, Not People Or Something »

Bummer: Guy Living In A Jar For ‘Climate Change’ Gives Up

Remember Kurtis Baute, who was going to Make A Point by living in a jar? Well, it didn’t go so well, and, as Eric Worrell points out, this exposed the need for inexpensive, reliable energy

Why this B.C. man sealed himself in an airtight plastic cube for 14 hours

YouTuber Kurtis Baute says he wanted to teach people the ‘base science concepts surrounding climate change’

Spending 14 hours inside an airtight plastic cube with rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels left Kurtis Baute feeling a little loopy.

“It feels physically like the air is a little bit thicker, and that’s partly because it is more massive and also because it’s building up inside your body,” the B.C. scientist and YouTuber told As It Happens guest host Megan Williams.

“And it also slows your mind down. So I felt a little bit out of it and it was kind of harder to focus and harder to do higher-order decision making. It was kind of wild to feel that happen.”

He live-tweeted the experience under the hashtag #KurtisInAJar.

He originally planned to stay in the cube for three days, banking on his plants to absorb most of the CO2 and keep him safe.

But cloudy weather meant the plants couldn’t do their job, and he had to emerge early.

Well, if he had some reliable, fossil fuled/nuclear powered energy for grow lights, things would have been fine. Instead, he tried to live like it’s 1499 to prove something or other, and it didn’t work. And, get this, while the CO2 concentrations would have been caused by mankind, they would have been from him breathing out, not from fossil fuels, hair dryers, vampire energy, etc.

Read: Bummer: Guy Living In A Jar For ‘Climate Change’ Gives Up »

If All You See…

…is horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on why we need a president who’s an American Nationalist.

Read: If All You See… »

EU Court Of Human Rights Declares Defaming Muhammad Not Free Speech

Think they’ll do the same for Christianity and Judaism?

Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

The court’s decision comes after it rejected an Austrian woman’s claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.

The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”

Muhammad married her when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Sure seems like pedophilia. For daring to speak this, the woman, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was fine $547 plus court costs back in 2011, and the appeals have been going through courts since.

Now, you can say this is whataboutism, but, had she been saying negative things about Christianity or Judaism, especially the latter considering the rising anti-Jew sentiment in Europe, does anyone think that the court would have found her at fault in the first place, much less making it to the ECHR? Of course not. It would have been considered free speech. Instead, we are now treated to EU courts operating under Sharia Law when it comes to almost anything related to Islam. She was found guilty of essentially blasphemy.

I guess she should feel lucky that she’s not in a fully Sharia complaint country, otherwise should could have been put to death. Though, one thing not mentioned in the Fox/AP story was that she was also given a jail sentence. Robert Spencer notes what I have

Finally, would the European Court of Human Rights rule that someone deserved a fine and imprisonment for criticizing Jesus? The case wouldn’t even come to them.

This is an important step toward the imposition of Sharia in Europe, as it is a tacit acceptance of Sharia blasphemy restrictions on criticizing Muhammad.

Geller Report digs deeper into the story of Muhammad and his child bride. And Jihad Watch also notes that there are almost 2,000 child brides in the U.K., which is instituting much of Sharia Law, and most are of Muslim descent.

Read: EU Court Of Human Rights Declares Defaming Muhammad Not Free Speech »

US News: NY Suit Against Exxon Also Meant To Extort Other Companies To Act In Cult Approved Manner

I mentioned the lawsuit from the NY State Attorney General’s office against Exxon the other day. Now we have US News and World Report inadvertently letting the cat out of the bag on what part of this is about

Exxon Lawsuit Marks New Strategy in Climate Change Fight
The filing alleging the company defrauded investors is all about climate change – even when it’s not.

A LAWSUIT accusing Exxon Mobil of defrauding investors about the costs of environmental regulation marks a shift in tactics for legal efforts seeking accountability for climate change, employing a strategy that not only promises to be easier to prove but which threatens to brand Exxon as a fraudster and seeks to compel the oil giant to change its ways.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood on Wednesday accused the company of essentially maintaining two sets of books: one that included much higher estimated costs of expected environmental regulations, which the company shared with investors, and another, secret set of much lower calculations that were used to guide the company’s investment decisions, unbeknownst to shareholders. (snip)

The filing is significant because until now fossil fuel companies have largely been able to sidestep lawsuits looking to pin responsibility on them for their role in global warming. And while Exxon shareholders seem an unlikely group to defend in advancing the interests of corporate responsibility with regard to climate change, establishing on their behalf that Exxon committed fraud could go a long way toward that end.

“It closes the loop with respect to corporate management decisions,” says David Hawkins, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If Exxon Mobil knows it’s going to have to be more candid and more accurate about the impacts of climate policy on their business, and they know that investors are going to be better informed as a result of these kinds of inquiries, then they will change their assessment of what are financeable investments and they’ll change their business plans over time.”

So there’s one reason: forcing companies to change how they operate to be compliant with the Beliefs of the Cult of Climastrology. If you don’t do what they say, they’ll sue you from a governmental perch.

Just as importantly, the complaint brought by New York may end up sending a signal to other oil and gas firms: Even if courts are unwilling to weigh in on a company’s role in fueling climate change – and, therefore, the financial debt it owes to those damaged by sea-level rise, drought and other impacts – states could pursue more traditional avenues.

“This is potentially very significant in influencing corporate management, not only at Exxon Mobil, but all fossil fuel producing companies, to think about this more analytically – that they’re not going to be able to make broad, hand-waving claims about how their business is going to do just fine if the world takes climate change seriously,” Hawkins says. “There’s going to be someone looking at our statements, and that means we’re going to have a harder and harder time telling investors that everything is fine when the best analysis says everything is not fine.”

It’s a shakedown. Government extortion. And it should worry everyone who cares about our civil liberties when government comes after people for what those in charge believe is Wrongthink. Those who support these types of actions by government should remember that they could easily end up on the wrong end of these types of suits if they continue unabated.

Read: US News: NY Suit Against Exxon Also Meant To Extort Other Companies To Act In Cult Approved Manner »

Migrant Mob Rejects Mexico Offer To Stay

If these are people looking to supposedly escape the the violence of Honduras, Guatemala, and other Central American nations, then what’s wrong with Mexico? A culture much closer, language is the same, and they are making an offer

Migrant caravan members reject offer to stay in Mexico

Several thousand Central American migrants turned down a Mexican offer of benefits if they applied for refugee status and stayed in the country’s two southernmost states, vowing to set out before dawn Saturday to continue their long trek toward the U.S. border.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto announced what he called the “You are at home” plan, offering shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs to Central Americans in Chiapas and Oaxaca states if they applied, calling it a first step toward permanent refugee status. Authorities said more than 1,700 had already applied for refugee status.

But after one of the caravan’s longest days of walking and hanging from passing trucks, the bulk of the migrants were boisterous Friday evening in their refusal to accept anything less than safe passage to the U.S. border.

“Thank you!” they yelled as they voted to reject the offer in a show of hands in the town of Arriaga. They then added: “No, we’re heading north!”

So, what, exactly, do the want in the U.S. Obviously, we are the better country. No shame in saying that if you’re an American. But they were offered asylum and all sorts of benefits. Even jobs. If they’re worried about the kids, there you go. And, having been offered asylum by Mexico and turned it down, they would no longer be asylum seekers when arriving at the U.S. border. They should be refused entry. You cannot claim to be a refugee then turn down excellent offers.

Now they’re simply a mob marching on our borders, and should be treated accordingly.

Read: Migrant Mob Rejects Mexico Offer To Stay »

Pirate's Cove