…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… »
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.â€
“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,â€Â 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 »
And those ads are targeting the Democrats and their pro-illegal alien policies, which has made many Democrats very upset
Republicans Are Spending Unprecedented Sums to Attack Democrats on Immigration
Despite outrage over family separations, Democrats don’t seem to see immigration as a winning issue.
Well, yes, advocating for their beliefs in open borders, legalizing all illegal aliens, saying they do not support the law breaking illegals but then actually working to protect them, not securing the border, abolishing ICE, and so much more does not play well outside the hyper-liberal enclaves
There is a simple reason why Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s views on sanctuary cities shouldn’t have a major impact on North Dakota voters: The state doesn’t have any sanctuary cities.
Yet when President Donald Trump held a rally in Fargo in June, he made sure to attack Heitkamp for supporting what he called the “deadly, very very dangerous, horrible†cities. In August, the National Republican Senatorial Committee devoted an entire ad to the issue.
The attacks are part of a coast-to-coast GOP strategy to hold onto congressional majorities by playing into Republican base voters’ fears about immigrants. A new CNN analysis (worth clicking the link to read the article) finds that about $124 million has been spent on more than 280,000 immigration-related TV ads this year. That is more than a fivefold increase from the $23 million spent on immigration ads in House, Senate, and governor’s races during the 2014 midterms.
Republicans are largely responsible for the spending increase. In August, ads for Republicans were more than five times as likely as ads for Democrats to mention immigration. A study by the Wesleyan Media Project found that 25 percent of Republican TV ads in 12 Senate races mentioned immigration—second only to gun policy—between January and July. Only 3.8 percent of Democratic ads mentioned immigration during that period. On Facebook, Republican ads highlighted immigration more than any other issue.
Democratic strategists seem to agree that they’re better off focusing on President Donald Trump and other policy issues. A memo from the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist Third Way obtained by the New York Times advises Democrats to spend “as little time as possible†talking about immigration. After doing interviews over the summer, the authors concluded that “even the most draconian of Republican policiesâ€â€”including Trump’s family separation policy—were unlikely to help Democrats in states that Trump won in 2016. On the other hand, the memo sates, “Sanctuary attacks pack a punch.â€
Even in California, most Democrats are staying away from discussing illegal immigration, which is what this is primarily about. Only a few hyper-leftist Democrats like Kevin De Leon, running to unseat Diane Feinstein, are willing to discuss their beliefs now that election season is in full swing. They were more than happy to yammer about abolishing ICE months and months ago. Now? Not so much.
But, consider something else: not only are Democrats mostly avoiding discussion on anthropogenic climate change, they aren’t even getting memos about staying away from that loser issue. It’s not a non-starter: it’s a ghost. There are really very, very few articles discussing climate change in the midterms. Because no one really, really cares except some elites who want to ram the big government agenda of taxation, fees, and control of citizens and private entities down the throats of citizens.
Read: Democrats Seem Rather Upset That Republicans Are Running Lots Of Ads Attacking Illegal Immigration »
Catherine Rampell is in high dudgeon in a Washington Post op-ed
States are taking action on #MeToo. Why isn’t Congress?
A year ago, the #MeToo movement went viral.
First came the naming, shaming and ousting of powerful men accused of sexual misconduct. Then came awareness of the prevalence of such misconduct, and of the intricate methods — the threats, the legally enforced silence — used to keep victims from speaking out.
Then came the righteous fury.
But, to date, the expulsions and outrage have not coalesced into anything resembling a successful federal policy agenda — to, you know, keep such problems from happening again.
In fact, over the past year, Congress has done (almost) nothing to address the systemic problems that lead to workplace sexual misconduct. Federal lawmakers haven’t even managed to enact a bill that would hold their own misbehaving colleagues accountable, let alone bad actors elsewhere in the country.
Except, um, sexual harassment is already on the books as being against the rules according to federal law and has been for quite some time. Sexual assault on federal property is already on the books as being against the law. And that is pretty all Los Federales should do, because the laws themselves are best enforced at the State level.
She does have a point on it happening in Congress itself, though.
Here in California, however, where the governor just signed several laws addressing workplace sexual harassment, things look different. Also in Vermont, Michigan, New York, Tennessee, and at least six other states and three localities.
And that’s where the law should reside. Not the federal government. They aren’t there to enforce those laws.
Some have simply expanded the universe of workers covered by anti-harassment legal protections. Federal workplace anti-harassment law generally does not extend to employers with fewer than 15 employees, or to independent contractors, interns, volunteers or grad students. Five jurisdictions (four states and New York City) have plugged some of those gaps.
Four states newly bar or limit the ability of employers to force sexual harassment victims into arbitration, an often secret process whereby arbitrators are incentivized to be friendlier to the side that offers repeat business (hint: it’s not the employee). Forced arbitration clauses can also prevent multiple victims from banding together to bring a class-action suit.
The problem here is that Democrats want everything to emanate from the federal government. It’s a dangerous concept, allowing Washington to essentially control all aspects of everything.
As for protecting future victims, states are exploring new reporting requirements, such as mandating that employers report misconduct claims or settlements to a government office, to make it easier to identify patterns.
Incidentally, the Empower Act, a federal bill with bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, incorporates many of these features. Yet it languishes on Capitol Hill, a full year after the public learned how toxic the secrecy around sexual misconduct can be.
Well, it might have been nice for the government to have all the data on the toxic amounts of sexual assault within the Left leaning entertainment industry, would it not? Oh, and would it require institutions like the California General Assembly be included, as there are massive amounts of accusations against members there, too.
What is being forgotten is that so many of those federal laws protect the accused for a reason: the Bill Of Rights. Just because someone claims they are a victim of sexual assault/harassment doesn’t automatically mean the accused loses their rights, which is where the #MeToo “movement” wants to go.
Read: Washington Post: Say, Why Isn’t Congress Taking Action On #MeToo? »
I warned you about using hair dryers and ice makers, about refusing to grow your own veggies and give up eating meat
‘Hotter hot spells and colder cold spells’: climate change already making mark on Manitoba
If you think Manitoba will be sheltered from the dire consequences of global warming, or that a few extra degrees might actually be good for this frozen province, think again, say climate change experts.
We may even be feeling them now in the form of the dreary, cold fall the province has been experiencing, says one scientist.
The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a gloomy report last week, saying that the world is only a couple decades away from facing significant food shortages, extreme weather, and mass migration if we can’t prevent global temperatures from reaching a critical threshold.
For Manitoba, that means more extreme weather patterns, like this summer’s scorching hot temperatures — but also colder, more extreme winters, said David Barber, a University of Manitoba scientist and Canada research chair in arctic system science.
“The probability is that we’re going to get hotter hot spells, and colder cold spells, wetter wet spells and dryer dry spells because we’re changing the probability distribution of those types of climate systems,” he said.
See? It does everything. Which is exactly what a member of a cult would espouse.
“That’s a problem for us, because we evolved on this planet because of the stable climate system that we’re in right now.”
By “stable” does he mean the warm periods and ice ages over the last few million years? Or about the flipping back and forth between warm and cold periods over the last 20,000 years as the ice age ended?
This latest report highlights the urgency for governments to act quickly, Hull said.
“This problem is so big now, that it really is requiring concerted policy effort to enable us to shift away from this fossil fuel dependence — and profound shift is what we’re talking about here.”
Funny how it comes down to government force, wouldn’t you say?
Read: Your Fault: Manitoba To Have Hotter Hot And Colder Cold Spells From ‘Climate Change’ »
…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which has caused the seas to meet the roads, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on socialism failing every time.
Read: If All You See… »
This is what happens when society not only tolerates mental illness, but applauds it, celebrates it, condones it, encourages it
Playing fetch on all fours might seem like an unusual activity for an adult, but one man who identifies as a dog says it has brought him closer to his husband.
Tony McGinn, known as ‘Tony Bark’ to his friends, says he has been into animal role-play his entire life, and refers to himself as a ‘human pup’.
The 30-year-old, who was born female and is transgender, is supported by his husband and ‘handler’ Andrew who accompanies him to regular play dates with other role-players in their hometown of Los Angeles. (snip)
‘I think everyone should feel comfortable exploring the limits of their creativity and imagination and most of us have grown up in a culture that strongly discourages you from taking it too far.
‘I appreciate that I am married to someone who encourages me to explore my imagination and my interests wherever they lead and I try to do the same.’
The couple have known each other since 2009 and have three dogs of their own, which they refer to as ‘bio dogs’.
But that doesn’t mean Tony doesn’t think of himself as a ‘real dog’. He states confidently that he ‘identifies as a dog’ and says pet play is about getting into the head-space of the animal.
People like this should be in mental institutions. But it is the natural progression of Trans Theory. Remember, these are the people Democrats want voting.
Here’s the video if you can stomach insanity.
Read: Peak 2018? Gender Confused “Man” Identifies As A Dog »
This reminds me of the time that the NY Times came to the realization that using food for fuel is a Bad Idea (it’s worth reading the full article, as it still applies today). Of course, that was during the Obama administration (4/7/2011), so there was no hint of Blaming Obama. Now we have the Washington Post Editorial Board coming to the same realization, though, it seems more due to Trump resistance than anything else
Doubling down on the biofuel boondoggle
FOR MORE THAN a decade, the United States has pursued the foolhardy energy policy known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in 2007, the RFS illustrates the sad-but-true principle of Washington life that bipartisanship is no guarantee of wisdom. In a nutshell, the RFS required the nation’s petroleum refiners to blend ever-increasing quantities of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, into gasoline, purportedly to promote energy independence and fight climate change.
Never mind that the United States has meanwhile become a major oil exporter, due to a production boom. Never mind that the environmental harms of ethanol arguably outweigh its benefits, because it takes massive amounts of energy to distill ethanol from corn — and massive amounts of fragile farmland to grow that crop. Never mind that diverting resources into corn production for ethanol raises the price of food. Never mind all that, because 39 percent of Iowa’s corn crop goes to create nearly 30 percent of all U.S. ethanol. And Iowa is a swing state with six crucial electoral votes and a first-in-the-nation presidential caucus; whatever Iowa wants, Iowa gets, from politicians of both parties.
All excellent points. Biofuels from agricultural sources are pretty much a bad idea. It’s worked well with sugar down in Brazil, but, even there, you have massive soil erosion, air pollution from burning the fields, and it uses a lot of water to produce. And it still doesn’t have the power of gasoline.
But, wait, here we go
Hence President Trump’s announcement, on the midterm-election campaign trail in Iowa, that he would, in effect, double down on this decreasingly justifiable policy. Mr. Trump declared that the Environmental Protection Agency will draft regulations allowing the year-round sale of motor fuel containing 15 percent ethanol, as opposed to the 10 percent limitation in effect for several months a year because of air-pollution concerns related to summertime atmospheric conditions. This would incentivize gas station owners to install pumps capable of delivering the fuel, thus boosting ethanol sales.
Trump was obviously doing this as he stumped in the areas where ethanol production is popular, and the editorial points this out, but, the WPEB never had a problem with Obama calling for more ethanol, issuing more ethanol mandates, nor backing massive subsidy increases for ethanol, among others.
I don’t like ethanol. It’s bad for food prices. It’s bad for the environment. It is bad for climate change. If you believe in man-caused, it puts out massive amounts of CO2. If you’re not a big believer in AGW, well, it actually helps with land use changes which artificially change the localized weather and temperatures in a myriad of ways, such as clear-cutting. It doesn’t provide the fuel power like gasoline that would make you say “OK, it has these problems, but, it’s worth it, but, let’s try and keep it as clean as possible.” I try and avoid gas stations which I know actually use that “may include up to 10% ethanol” and have 10%, because the car doesn’t run as well.
But, this editorial shows that the WPEB is against it simply because Trump is pushing it. Perhaps someone can find an editorial where they were against using food for fuel. I don’t remember one, and I would have posted it. I can’t find one in a search. This is kind of a low level Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Trump came out in favor of an assault weapons ban or became pro-illegal, they’d find a way to be against those things.
Read: Suddenly, Washington Post Is Against Using Food For Fuel (’cause Trump) »
Trackback URL
Republicans hoping to get elected/re-elected should read this article and constantly bring up illegal immigration themselves, putting Democrats between a rock and a hard place
(Breitbart) Democrats running for re-election in the 2018 midterms are being advised to not speak about the issue of immigration as consultants admit the zero-enforcement, open borders positions of the Democrat Party are unpopular with swing voters.
In a memo obtained by the New York Times, left-wing consultants with the Center for American Progress and the think tank, Third Way, advised Democrats running for election to spend “as little time as possible†talking about the immigration issue facing the nation, where more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the country every year.
The New York Times reported:
“Sanctuary attacks pack a punch,†says a four-page memorandum, prepared by the liberal Center for American Progress and the centrist think tank Third Way, that has been shared at about a dozen briefings for Democrats in recent weeks. The New York Times obtained a copy of the memo, whose findings are based on interviews and surveys conducted over the summer. [Emphasis added] (snip)
Democrats, the strategists who prepared the memo advised, could neutralize the attacks if they responded head-on. But they should spend “as little time as possible†talking about immigration itself, and instead pivot to more fruitful issues for Democrats like health care and taxation. [Emphasis added](snip)
“It is very difficult to win on immigration with vulnerable voters in the states Trump carried in 2016,†the strategy memo said, arguing that “even the most draconian of Republican policies,†such as family separation and threats to deport the Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — failed to sway most of them. [Emphasis added]
Who would have thought that policies pushing for people to be able to illegally cross our borders/overstay their visas and face no consequences could be unpopular with the average voter? Who would have thought that putting illegal aliens over actual U.S. citizens would be unpopular? Who would have thought that allowing illegal aliens who have committed crimes to go free and protesting them being detained and deported by ICE would be unpopular?
Meanwhile, Democrats have geared up for the 2018 midterm elections by running on a platform that would abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which would end all immigration enforcement across the United States. Three in four swing voters oppose the Democrats’ “abolish ICE†initiative.
That plays well only in the hardcore Democrat areas, but, as politicians screech about this, voters in swing states read what those Democrats want to do, and will want to know if the Democrat running in their area wants the same and will vote against them. Local news is broadcast nationally now, and it is easy to find out what the Democratic Party actually wants.
Read: Democrats Advised To Stay Away From Talking About Illegal Immigration »
The Cult of Climastrology keeps thinking, hoping, wishing, that ‘climate change’ is suddenly going to make a difference at the ballot box and sweep in politicians who will take the scam seriously and implement all sorts of draconian, Big Government, authoritarian rules, regulations, and law. Keep dreaming, guys
‘We need some fire’: climate change activists issue call to arms for voters
Campaigners say more than 15m people who care about the environment did not vote in the 2014 midterms – can they create a ‘green wave’ this November?
No.
Among the motivating issues for voters in US elections, the environment is typically eclipsed by topics such as healthcare, the economy and guns. But the upcoming midterms could, belatedly, see a stirring of a slumbering green giant.
“The environmental movement doesn’t have a persuasion problem, it has a turnout problem,†said Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the Environmental Voter Project, which is aiming to spur people who care about the natural world and climate change to the ballot box. “This group has more power than it realizes. In the midterms we want to flood the zone with environmentalists.â€
Any such voting surge would go some way to heeding the increasingly urgent warnings from scientists about climate change. A major UN climate report released this week said the world risks worsening floods, droughts, species loss and poverty without “rapid and far-reaching transitions†to energy, transport and land use. (snip)
Americans of voting age who care strongly about the environment have been unusually reticent to make their voice heard, for reasons that are still unclear. Stinnett said demographics are part of it – the young, Latinos and black people are simultaneously most worried about climate change and least likely to vote – but this doesn’t explain the full story.
“It’s hard to figure out why,†he said. “Even among young people, for example, environmentalists are less likely to vote. The environmental movement has done a lot of things to change the way we eat, travel and work, but it hasn’t flexed its political muscles yet.
It’s easy to figure out. Poll after poll after poll show that ‘climate change’ is a minor care amongst all voters. It typically ranks right there among the bottom 2-3 issues. And the younger voters who are targeted have historically not bothered to show up at the ballot box. Even doomsaying climate change can’t drive them, because they say they care, but their belief is not particularly strong. There’s little adherence, as it is termed in Political Science.
A year prior, no questions on climate change were put to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton during three presidential debates. Trump has subsequently ignored the issue in office, save the odd disparaging tweet, while overseeing an administration that has systematically dismantled climate, air and water pollution regulations.
And virtually no Democrats are talking about it now. No one really cares. This is what all the spreading awareness since 1988 has wrought: no one really cares, except the elites who are trying to create a more authoritarian government.
Read: The Midterms Could See A Groundswell Of Climate Change Voters Or Something »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.