Bummer: Democrats Hope For ‘Climate Change’ Agenda Greatly Reduced

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 8:00 am

How can we really even know what it is, when they rarely even mention ‘climate change’ while campaigning for the midterms? It’s about the least important issue for voters. And for those who care, the minute you explain it will cost them money and raise their cost of living they’re like “yeah, never mind”

Dems damp down hopes for climate change agenda

Democrats are unlikely to pursue major climate change legislation if they win the House majority, despite a growing body of evidence suggesting time is running out to address the issue.

This represents a shift in strategy from when House Democrats last controlled the chamber. In 2009, they passed cap-and-trade legislation, which subsequently died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The game plan for next year, House Democrats say, is more incremental steps and hearings.

With President Trump in the White House and Republicans favored to keep the Senate next year, climate legislation would face stiff headwinds, and pushing it could spark backlash from the right — both now and after the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

Considering those “constraints,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Democrats should “focus on the practical and the opportunistic” to make short-term progress while fighting for bolder measures — “the aspirational goals” — over the longer term.

Their aspirational goals are to implement a tax/fee scheme which enriches government coffers while instituting methods giving government more control over citizen’s lives.

The office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a fierce environmentalist who ushered the cap-and-trade bill through the lower chamber almost a decade ago, declined to comment about the Democrats’ future climate plans. Pelosi has been touring the country stumping for Democratic candidates, with a focus on economic and health-care issues. (snip)

Not all Democrats share that view. Faced with more data on a warming planet — and the role of human activity in exacerbating the trend — some lawmakers want the party to use its would-be majority to push a bold, sweeping package to hike the cost of carbon emissions. (snip)

“I do think we need to go big,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “I’m all for incrementalism in policy. We do lots and lots of it, and it’s a good way to move forward. But this situation is so serious that we can’t do it in little steps.” (snip)

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a co-chairman of the bipartisan, 90-member Climate Solutions Caucus, rejected the notion that pricing-up carbon is beyond reach, even in the current political environment. He’s pushing for a bipartisan carbon-fee bill that, if passed by the House, would then put pressure on Trump and Senate Republicans to act.

See, most Democrats are like Pelosi: they aren’t campaigning on anthropogenic climate change, and they barely, if ever, mention it in their speeches to their leftist peeps. But, they still want to push these Big Government solutions. Which is why, even though ‘climate change’ is typically one of the lowest polling cares for voters, you cannot ignore it. It’s a stealth issue that isn’t about science, but Big Government control.

Read: Bummer: Democrats Hope For ‘Climate Change’ Agenda Greatly Reduced »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Doesn’t Matter Because She Identifies As Native American

By William Teach October 18, 2018 – 7:48 am

There have been plenty of hot takes in attempting to defend Elizabeth Warren and her claims of Native American ancestry, but this is 2018, so you get things like this from Alondra Nelson, president of the Social Science Research Council and a professor of sociology at Columbia

Elizabeth Warren and the Folly of Genetic Ancestry Tests

This week, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts announced that geneticists had analyzed her DNA and proved her longstanding claim that she has Native American ancestry. Senator Warren had caved in to months of ridicule by President Trump, who mocked her using a racist term and ultimately refused to believe her “useless” DNA test.

The question is not whether her DNA analysis is accurate. It’s whether it can tell us anything meaningful about identity. The truth is that sets of DNA markers cannot tell us who we really are because genetic data is technical and identity is social. The science in question is a form of chromosome mapping similar to that used in the billion-dollar genetic ancestry testing industry in the United States. That testing draws on incomplete data about human genetic diversity.

In this case, the “reference set” included samples drawn from 37 people “from across the Americas with Native American ancestry.” Nevertheless, this genetic analysis did locate five chromosome segments that strongly suggest indigenous ancestry. In his report, the geneticist Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University cautioned that it did not “provide complete coverage of all Native American groups.” This is a limitation of the technology, but it also has political implications.

Indigenous communities have long engaged in a “politics of refusal,” according to a Mohawk anthropologist, Audra Simpson. They have opted out of research and commercial endeavors that seek to assemble genetic samples of their communities. And they refuse to support practices that reduce Native American ancestry, culture and history to mere segments of DNA. Tribal sovereignty and indigenous authority determine membership and indigenous understandings of community.

Senator Warren’s genetic-ancestry results suggest she has a Native American ancestor, most likely more than six generations back. But a few segments of a person’s genome that indicate she may have indigenous ancestry does not make her Native American. To be Native American is to be a member of a tribal community and recognized by that community as such. DNA cannot vouchsafe tribal identity or any other community affiliation.

Well, in that case, Warren’s claims are fraudulent, as no Native America groups are providing membership to Fauxahontas.

When we’re faced with difficult issues about the past that bear on the present, it is tempting to take these tests as proof of identity. But these genetic tests cannot confirm social dynamics. Identity is socially, politically and legally determined, even if shaped by genetics. Yet, genetic ancestry testing does not offer insights about these dynamics. So we can’t look to DNA to settle debates about identity.

In all fairness, if Prof. Nelson is attempting to defend Senator Warren, she’s not doing a very good job. But this is less about actually defending Warren than it is about propping up the notion of Identity. This is how we get nutters believing they are the opposite biological sex, and saying they are black when they clearly aren’t. How you get a “trans man” identifying as a dog.

Read: Hot Take: Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Doesn’t Matter Because She Identifies As Native American »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 46 Comments | Trackback URL

Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 3:58 pm

If there was anything to actually see, you can bet it would come out prior to the midterms. And if we see zero leaks, you know that it is all a big nothingburger, one which has been hanging round for two years (via Twitchy)

(Bloomberg) Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections as he faces intensifying pressure to produce more indictments or shut down his investigation, according to two U.S. officials.

Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice, according to one of the officials, who asked not to be identified speaking about the investigation. (snip)

With three weeks to go before the midterm elections, it’s unlikely Mueller will take any overt action that could be turned into a campaign issue. Justice Department guidelines say prosecutors should avoid any major steps close to an election that could be seen as influencing the outcome.

That suggests the days and weeks immediately after the Nov. 6 election may be the most pivotal time since Mueller took over the Russia investigation almost a year and a half ago. So far, Mueller has secured more than two dozen indictments or guilty pleas.

And most of those indictments have zero do with RRR. Many are of old “crimes” and process crimes. And, really, all based on manufactured evidence, such as the dossier, and Democrat caterwauling. If this wasn’t political, the investigation would have been shut down over lack of any evidence. And, regardless of DOJ guidelines

https://twitter.com/jbcousins92/status/1052537300415115265

Read: Russia Russia Russia: Mueller Plans To Release Initial Findings After Midterms »

Posted in Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is vegetation dying from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post noting what hasn’t happened in Texas since campus carry was passed.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 10:30 am

Where are all the 3rd Wave Feminists who should be complaining about a biological male taking something else away from women?

(Daily Caller) A woman who lost a world-championship cycling race to a biological male who identified as a transgender woman criticized the result as unfair.

Jennifer Wagner said it was “definitely NOT fair” that she was forced to compete against Rachel McKinnon, the male cyclist, in the women’s event.

McKinnon, representing Canada, won the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles on Sunday.

Wagner, a Houston-area doctor, took third place behind McKinnon and Dutch cyclist Carolien van Herrikhuyzen.

“I was the 3rd place rider. It’s definitely NOT fair,” Wagner wrote on Twitter Monday in response to a comment about the race.

Looks like two women and a man on the podium. In fairness, the 2nd place winner (who should have been first)

Van Herrikhuyzen, said McKinnon won an “honest race.”

“No one is a transgender to steal anyone’s medal. We had an honest race under [Union Cycliste Internationale] rules. If you compete you accept the rules, otherwise, don’t compete,” van Herrikhuyzen wrote in response to a Twitter commenter.

Well, the rules are stupid in allowing a fake woman to compete against real women.

McKinnon, a professor at the College of Charleston, accused Wagner of “transphobia” for her opposition to racing against men.

I have no problem stating my “phobia” against people with mental illness. How about you?

Read: Biological Woman Not Pleased That Gender Confused Won Women’s World Cycling Championship »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 8:46 am

Democrats, and some squishy Progressive Republicans, keep trying to make a carbon tax happen. Funny that they never include themselves in the plan

A carbon tax is a good idea — so long as it doesn’t come with industry handouts

Exxon Mobil made a bit of a splash Tuesday when it announced a $1-million, two-year donation to the Republican-led Americans for Carbon Dividends, an organization pushing for a national tax to help curtail emissions of atmosphere-warming carbon. A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy and driving investment toward carbon-free alternatives. It’s a sound approach, one this page endorsed more than a decade ago, and better than the related cap-and-trade plans, which California has used since 2012.

But the plan that Exxon Mobil is throwing its money at — pocket change, really, for a corporation that made nearly $20 billion last year — is less than it seems. Called the Baker-Schultz plan after two of its authors, former Republican secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz, the plan calls for gradually increasing the per-ton carbon tax to reduce the risk of market shock, and for returning the proceeds to consumers on a per-capita basis through the Social Security Administration. Everyone gets the same amount of cash, but those who use less carbon-emitting energy will pay less tax — giving them a powerful incentive to conserve. So far, all good. And a set rate helps companies better anticipate their costs; businesses like stability and predictability.

But there’s always a but, it seems. The Baker-Schultz plan also includes a waiver that would let oil companies and other emitters off the hook for past acts contributing to global warming, preempting the many lawsuitsfiled against them. And it would undo the Clean Power Plan and other federal regulations covering carbon dioxide emissions. That makes this sound less like a smart plan to reduce carbon than a toxic quid pro quo — “OK, we’ll go for a carbon tax if these lawsuits go away and we get sharper deregulation.” Another plan, pushed by the Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups, would similarly escalate the per-ton tax over time and return the proceeds in a per-capita dividend, without the corporate giveaways. That’s a better option.

Both plans stink, because you’re taxing something that hasn’t been proved scientifically to be causing an actual problem. Unless you consider sociology and political science “science.” Further, that last plan would see the government to refund 4/5ths of the money to the consumer to cover the cost of living increase, with an acknowledgement that the money refunded still wouldn’t cover the cost of living increases to citizens.

Whatever approach might ultimately gain traction, it will be a useless gesture unless the tax is sufficiently high to compel changes in producer and consumer behavior. How much is too little? How much is too much? We’re not going to pretend we know — there are experts who can make that calculation. But this is an area in which compromise isn’t much of an option. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change warned, without near-immediate and drastic action to curtail the rise of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mankind faces a dire environmental future. Rising seas, more severe weather patterns — a lesson just reinforced by Hurricane Michael — deep agricultural impacts and worse droughts and flooding.

Funny how this debate always seems to come down to elitists wanting government to force people to comply with beliefs. About increasing the power of government over citizens, private entities, and economies.

But, if the LA Times editorial board is upset about the use of fossil fuels – as they put it in paragraph one “A carbon tax is aimed at making the burning of fossil fuels — which releases carbon — more expensive, and thus directing consumer behavior away from carbon-spewing energy” – then the carbon tax should apply to news gathering organizations, especially newspaper. They use vast amounts of fossil fuels to go out and gather the news, anywhere from local to around the world. They use vast amounts of energy to broadcast the news, often from fossil fueled sources. And newspapers, like the LA Times, are the worst, as they kill lots of carbon pollution sucking trees to produce their newspapers for distribution, and use vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute said papers. So, let’s include the news industry in the list of which companies get taxed.

I bet the news organizations will flip a lid if they were included. Because Warmists always Someone Else to pay the price for their beliefs. Never themselves.

Read: LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Climahypocrites, Global Warming | Comments Off on LA Times Loves The Notion Of A Carbon Tax On Other Companies | Trackback URL

Pelosi: Dems Will Tackle Gun Control And Amnesty If They Win House

By William Teach October 17, 2018 – 8:30 am

She wants to make sure you’re disarmed while hooking up her spark of divinity folks in MS-13

Pelosi Outlines Dems’ Priorities if They Take House: Gun Control, Immigration

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said the Democrats would prioritize new gun control legislation and protecting illegal immigrants if they regain control of the House of Representatives after the midterms next month.

Democrats will look to pass a gun background check bill and protect Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, Pelosi told Politico. She also said the Democrats would try to pass campaign finance reform and lower drug prices.

Of course they will. Democrats hate law abiding citizens using their 2nd Amendment Rights and love people who are unlawfully present in the United States who suck up money and resources that should go to lawful citizens.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) has listed five investigations the Democrats would launch if they win the House, saying they “will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

Schiff wants to investigate whether the Russians have financial leverage over President Donald Trump. In the House Judiciary Committee, Schiff said Democrats will look into “abuse of the pardon power, attacks on the rule of law, and campaign finance violations.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, suggested before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed that the committee would investigate him for “any credible allegation, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

And the rest will be about revenge investigations for things that they think feel might be there, and would set a dangerous precedent for future congresses. They never really consider whether doing something will come back to bite them when the GOP does the same thing. Then the Dems squawk that “that’s not fair”, kinda like with the nuclear option.

Read: Pelosi: Dems Will Tackle Gun Control And Amnesty If They Win House »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Warmists Keep Pimping Taxes As A Solution To ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 6:05 pm

I hate to keep going to this same well again and again and again, but, they keep going to this same well ad nauseum

The most powerful force for fighting climate change – now

This was first published by the Wall Street Journal.

Last week gave the world a ghastly climate show-and-tell.

First came the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirming that our climate is already changing rapidly and telling us we have a dozen years to act if we are to manage the risk of ecological and economic devastation. Then Hurricane Michael came ashore in Florida after growing from Category 2 to Category 4 in less than 24 hours – showing one reason scientists are so concerned.

The screed offers 3 “solutions”, of which includes

Stop letting companies pollute for free. In most of the world, there is no economic incentive for corporations to reduce pollution. But if they had to pay every time they put a ton of emissions into the atmosphere, they’d find creative ways to reduce pollution

By itself, a tax on pollution doesn’t guarantee reductions, so any carbon pricing policy must include enforceable limits to ensure emissions are cut as much as the science demands. As the work of the Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus makes clear, pricing carbon is a much cheaper way of hitting climate goals than command-and-control regulations.

So, wait, they might not work, but, let’s do it anyhow? Huh.

And, Big Government progressives Republicans are joinin in on pimping it, too

In an era of climate urgency, we need a carbon tax

…

As world policy makers cast about for solutions, one that is winning increasing attention is a steadily increasingly tax on carbon dioxide emissions, centered on fossil fuels. Details would need to be worked out, but the tax would likely be levied on refiners, or at the point of entry into the country. The IPCC report says that “a price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation.”

Under some proposals, the carbon-tax revenue would be rebated to consumers. A tax would provide an economic incentive to switch to greener power while also spurring innovation. Such a plan is being pushed by former Republican secretaries of state James Baker and George Shultz, former Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen, and former Clinton Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, among other notables. At least three Nobel Prize winners in economics have also endorsed the idea. There’s solid support for such a plan among the public at large.

Baker and Shultz have been pimping their plan for years now, and Shultz just published another call for a carbon tax, which was spread all over newspapers, which surely led to the above Boston Globe screed. Funny how it always comes down to, as I’ve written ad nauseum, higher taxes/fees, a higher cost of living, and more Government.

EcoWatch has a fascinating article on whether taxes/fees even work, which mentions

Studies, however, indicate that greenhouse gas emission reductions from carbon taxes have been mostly underwhelming.

Consider that the EU has tons of these, and virtually no EU country is even close to fulfilling the Paris Climate Agreement obligations, and, really, their CO2 output has increased.

Read: Surprise: Warmists Keep Pimping Taxes As A Solution To ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible building materials that make the temperature skyrocket, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on why a Democrat was forced to resign (it’s pure Liberal World).

Here’s the curvy lady!

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Doom Today: It Could Maybe Possibly Make Beer More Expensive

By William Teach October 16, 2018 – 10:30 am

The Cult of Climastrology has spun the wheel and decided this is their point of attack today

Thanks To Climate Change, You May Need To Shell Out More For Beer, Study Finds

Climate change has been blamed for the wild swings in agricultural crop yields, but it could also result in a doomsday scenario for drinkers: Beer, the world’s top-consumed alcoholic beverage by volume, may at some point be out of reach for hundreds of millions of people around the world, according to a new study.

In the study, published Monday in the scientific journal Nature Plants, researchers from the University of California, Irvine and other institutions around the world attempted to study climate change’s impact on crop yields of barley, the main ingredient in beer, by examining “periods of extreme drought and heat.”

“These extreme events may cause substantial decreases in barley yields worldwide,” the study said, adding that average yield losses could range from 3% to 17% depending on the severity of the conditions.

Decreases in the global supply of barley could lead to “proportionally larger decreases” in the barley used to make beer and ultimately lead to “dramatic regional decreases in beer consumption in countries such as Argentina,” the study said.

The researchers also estimated that beer prices could almost triple in countries like Ireland. For instance, a six-pack of beer might cost $20 more for consumers in Ireland in an extreme drought situation, the study said.

There are many, many, many, many articles (they keep going on) pimping this “study” which comes from the University of East Anglia (which has done a bangup job with their predictions, and where the Climategate emails originated from), but, um, most forget something

Climate change is set to leave those with a taste for beer thirsty in coming decades as it shrinks yields of barley, the top grain used to make the world’s most popular alcoholic drink, a study published on Monday said.

Extreme weather events featuring heat waves and droughts will occur as often as every two or three years in the second half of the century if temperatures rise at current rates, the study noted.

That’s right, this is about scaremongering on something that may possibly maybe we’re not sure but we’ll publish anyhow happen decades from now. And if it doesn’t, and it most likely won’t, no one will have remembered the doomsaying prognostications from 2018.

Read: Climate Doom Today: It Could Maybe Possibly Make Beer More Expensive »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove