If All You See…

By William Teach October 2, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will soon rise hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Animal Magnatism, with a post on your daily confirmation vote news.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Excitable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz To Introduce “Bipartisan” Bill To Protect Illegal Alien Child Sponsors

By William Teach October 2, 2018 – 10:43 am

It’s all about attempting to protect those who are illegally present in the U.S. while also enticing more to come illegally

Bill would block ICE from arresting immigrant child sponsors

A bipartisan group of lawmakers are seeking to prevent the Trump administration from arresting undocumented immigrants who come forward to take care of undocumented immigrant children who are in the country alone, after CNN reported such arrests were happening.

A bill set to be introduced Tuesday comes as both the number of immigrant children in government custody and the length of time those children are being detained are skyrocketing. The Trump administration’s own policies are at least partly responsible for the increase in both numbers and hundreds of children are being sent to a temporary tent facility in Texas set up to accommodate them.

The bill would bar the government from using a sponsor’s undocumented status as a reason to deny releasing a child to them, and it would prevent the Department of Homeland Security from using information provided by a potential child sponsor to arrest or deport an undocumented immigrant.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, said CNN’s reporting had prompted her to draft the legislation, which will be introduced with at least a dozen other Democrats and GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida.

Oooooh, one Republican, who is about as squishy as it gets on illegal immigration. Think CNN would call it bipartisan if a dozen Republicans and one Democrat were set to introduce a bill on limiting late term abortion?

CNN confirmed last month that dozens of immigrants who came forward to sponsor children out of custody had been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement from July to September, 70% of whom were arrested only on immigration violations.

Perhaps it’s not the best idea to place children with people who have already shown that they’ll violate the laws of the U.S., especially when we know nothing about them. This bill by DWS is actually amending the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to make it so that DHS can never use the information about the sponsors being illegal against them ever. And, it’s interesting that she would use this Act in placing children who were sent by their parents, or trafficked, with people who are unknown.

Read: Excitable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz To Introduce “Bipartisan” Bill To Protect Illegal Alien Child Sponsors »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Excitable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz To Introduce “Bipartisan” Bill To Protect Illegal Alien Child Sponsors | Trackback URL

Christine Todd Whitman: A Carbon Tax is Totally The Free Market Or Something

By William Teach October 2, 2018 – 7:53 am

Christine Todd Whitman, formally governor of New Jersey totally convinces me that man-caused climate change is real, and that mankind is mostly/solely responsible! The original headline was something about Republicans reclaiming our tradition

Gov. Whitman: I’m glad to see Republicans recognizing climate change. Now they must do something

During my time as both governor of New Jersey and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I knew that I’d be judged by my actions. All the speeches and public appearances in the world won’t convince people you’ve done your job unless you produce results.

That’s how we need to judge our elected officials when it comes to climate change.

Because climate change has become needlessly partisan, I am always heartened when a fellow Republican recognizes the seriousness of the issue. More elected Republicans are now publicly acknowledging the truth: climate change is real and humans are the leading cause of it.

However, too many Republican elected officials who know better — even those who have publicly recognized the problem of climate change – are still refusing to go beyond words. The Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress has 44 Republican members, but the vast majority of them continue to vote against real solutions or in support of measures damaging to our environment and health. A recent vote brought before the House of Representatives saw Republicans overwhelmingly reject the idea of making major industries pay for the dangerous pollution they emit in our air. Most frustratingly, these same members have offered no suggestions of their own.

Funny that she’s totally for making Someone Else pay, yet refuses to give up her own big carbon life. Oh, and all this about making major industries pay means those costs trickle down to the consumers, who aren’t rich like Whitman.

Like most Republicans, I am a firm believer in free market solutions. And hearteningly, there are a small number of Republicans bringing market-based approaches to address climate change. Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida did just that when he introduced a bill over the summer calling for a price on carbon pollution that would bring about infrastructure investment, regulatory stability, and tax reforms based on conservative, free market principals. But unfortunately plans like Curbelo’s have been the exception, and not the rule.

She’s using a phrase I don’t think she understands. Implementing a government run tax/fee is 180 degrees away from being a free market solution (though she tries to weasel a bit by leaving out “free”). Free market solution means the market does it, not the government. When the few Republican Warmists out there go down this road, they’re even more disingenuous than the leftists who push this, because the Republicans are supposed to be for an actual free market, not yammer out weasel words in an attempt to increase the size and scope of government.

I am not saying that conservatives should simply adopt the policies of Democrats on climate change. Republicans can stand for a clean environment and market principles. But we can’t stand on the sidelines. We must enter this debate with our own ideas, and push for policies that cut the pollution intensifying havoc across our country and world. And token cuts are not enough, we must reduce emissions and move toward clean energy as fast as the science of climate change demands.

First, this is exactly the Democrats idea. Most aren’t positioning a carbon tax/fee as a free market solution (except for those few who are lying about it being a FMS). Next, why would we do anything when the proof of mankind being mostly/solely responsible is beyond weak and doesn’t rely on the scientific method and testable and reproducible facts. Third, intensifying havoc? Good grief. Wackadoodle.

And to my fellow Republicans who are in the Congress, we must do better. Our party has a great history of environmental protection. Let’s reclaim that.

Ah, that’s where the original headline came from. CO2 is plant food. It’s necessary for life. It isn’t dangerous to humans until you get into the thousands of parts per million in a closed environment. Earth has survived much higher levels, and is doing fine at just over 400ppm.

But, if she’s worried about the environment, then let’s demolish all those big liberal cities with all their fossil fueled vehicles, cities which tend to have much higher carbon footprints than suburban/rural areas, and cause a massive urban heat island effect, and have erased nature.

Read: Christine Todd Whitman: A Carbon Tax is Totally The Free Market Or Something »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming, Idiot GOPer's, New Climate Deniers | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Brett Kavanaugh Once Threw Ice At Someone In College!!!!!1!

By William Teach October 2, 2018 – 7:27 am

This is simply desperate, and comes from the same people who utterly refused to investigate so much about Obama. They had zero interest in his days meeting with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers or his days in college, among others. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover things like Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, and Benghazi, and their coverage usually covered for Obama. But, Emily Bazelon and Ben Protess think they have something with this front page article

Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985

As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times.

The report said that the victim, Dom Cozzolino, “was bleeding from the right ear” and was treated at a hospital. A detective was notified of the incident at 1:20 a.m.

Mr. Dudley denied the accusation, according to the report. For his part, speaking to the officers, Mr. Kavanaugh did not want “to say if he threw the ice or not,” the police report said.

The report referred to the altercation, which occurred at a bar called Demery’s, as “an assault.” It did not say whether anyone was arrested, and there is no indication that charges were filed.

ZOMG!

The outlines of the incident were first referred to in a statement issued on Sunday by Chad Ludington, one of Judge Kavanaugh’s college classmates and a member of the Yale basketball team.

“On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face,” Mr. Ludington said in the statement. Mr. Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University, said he came forward because he believed Judge Kavanaugh had mischaracterized the extent of his drinking at Yale.

Double ZOMG! A college aged kid who gets into an altercation? That’s never ever happened before. He should have been smoking pot and doing cocaine, instead. And consorting with domestic terrorists. Good thing Ms. Emily doesn’t have an agenda or something

Well, huh.

This is sad, sad and desperate. An incident in a bar 30 years ago.

https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1046944333969199105

Let me point out, any, and probably all, of the 6 FBI background checks on Brett Kavanaugh surely include this incident, and they didn’t care.

Read: NY Times: Brett Kavanaugh Once Threw Ice At Someone In College!!!!!1! »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Journalistic Malpractice | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Renowned Climate Scammer Does One Thing To “Reduce” Her Climate Footprint

By William Teach October 1, 2018 – 4:32 pm

Climate scammer Katherine Hayhoe loves to link her supposed belief in Christianity to her belief in anthropogenic climate change. She just doesn’t like to do a lot in her own life

The one thing a renowned climate scientist does to reduce her own impact on the environment

Recently, the news about our planet’s health hasn’t been great.

Studies have pointed out that we may be headed toward a “hothouse” Earth scenario — a catastrophic tipping point that could cause seas to rise another 200 feet, inundating many major cities. Scientists and engineers have now started proposing that we build giant Antarctic sea walls to keep melting glaciers from slamming into our shores.

But not everyone is wallowing in despair.

I’m wallowing in disbelief that anyone would dare trot out the notion that the seas will rise 200 feet in such a manner, positioning it almost like it will happen soon, when the unhinged, anti-science study prognosticates 33-200 feet sometime in the next couple hundred to thousands of years from now. Because they’re totally sure. It’s like if Vegas bookies said two football teams playing against each other will score anywhere from 6 points total to 103.

Anyhow

“The first thing I did, was I said ‘Ok, let’s just look at the light bulbs,'” climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe told Business Insider.

Hayhoe directs the climate center at Texas Tech, and she also consults for cities, water districts, and highway planners around the country about the best ways to prepare for life in a warmer world.

She says if every home in the US swapped one regular lightbulb out for an LED bulb, which uses about 75% less energy, that would reduce emissions as much as taking 800,000 cars off the road. “That’s actually pretty significant,” Hayhoe said. (snip)

“For me as a climate scientist, the biggest part of my personal carbon footprint was travel,” she said. “Because I travel to tell people about climate change. It’s very ironic.” (snip)

Instead, when she does travel, she insists on collecting a critical mass of at least three, four, or five invitations at a time. She tries to consolidate her travel schedule enough so that each talk, averaged out, has the emissions equivalent of an hourlong drive.

I’ve left a bunch out, can only excerpt so much, but, the upshot is that she won’t give up her own fossil fueled flights, she’ll just make each one for a bunch of appearances (and certainly use fossil fueled vehicles to get to each one.)

And, in all fairness, she does try to stay at home and do on-line video presentations when she can.

“Don’t beat yourself up, because none of us can live carbon-free lifestyles yet. We just don’t have the ability,” she said.

Don’t beat yourself up, because we know this isn’t about science.

Read: Renowned Climate Scammer Does One Thing To “Reduce” Her Climate Footprint »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a dreary looking sky full of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a fun post on what the kids were thinking in 1982.

Forgot to mention that it is yoga pants week, a bit of cultural appropriation.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

And Now The Cult Of Climastrology Links Itself To #MeToo

By William Teach October 1, 2018 – 12:01 pm

I’ll be honest, I’m surprised it took this long for the Warmists to make the link, as they typically attempt to hijack everything

Why the #MeToo movement gives me hope we can fix climate change

After smoking and drink-driving, could climate change provide the next big behaviour-change challenge? The latest science tells us that nothing short of rapid, transformative change in our infrastructure and behaviour can prevent the loss of the climate we depend on – yet the message is only now being officially endorsed at the highest scientific level, because the implications are terrifying for today’s political and economic gatekeepers. It means real change, which incumbents always fear.

But are we better at society-wide changes in attitude and behaviour than we give ourselves credit for? And do recent cultural shifts relating to everything from diet to plastics, sexism and attitudes to gender and identity suggest that we might be entering a phase in which more rapid behavioural changes are possible? Research in a new report for a soon-to-be launched international alliance of concerned groups suggests so. (snip)

These examples all provide grounds for hope – but there are signs that something else is happening that might bring even faster shifts in attitude and behaviour closer to what is needed to meet vital climate targets. A mixture of new social movements and social media now seem capable of transforming gradual background shifts into defining moments of change.

They reveal that while change can take decades, these days new social norms can become established almost overnight. From the shift around single-use plastics, to the #MeToo movement and the rise of the vegan diet, things are moving fast. The male-only charity fundraiser went out of business following a single investigative report by the Financial Times into the Presidents Club scandal. Likewise, the tide turned rapidly against male-only conference panels once they began to be named and shamed online.

Proving once again that this whole anthropogenic climate change shtick is not about science, but about control of people’s behavior (as well as implementing taxes/fees) and lives. It’s politics and sociology. And they should be really careful as to what they push, because they could suddenly find themselves in the crosshairs of leftist Outrage, as we’ve seen happen with other pushes.

Read: And Now The Cult Of Climastrology Links Itself To #MeToo »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

California Implements Net Neutrality Law, DOJ Already Suing

By William Teach October 1, 2018 – 6:45 am

From a legal standpoint, this makes sense. From a political standpoint, the DOJ shouldn’t bother, because then we could watch even more companies leave California, showing us the way Big Government works

California just passed its net neutrality law. The DOJ is already suing

The Department of Justice said it is filing a lawsuit against the state of California over its new net neutrality protections, hours after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law on Sunday.

The California law would be the strictest net neutrality protections in the country, and could serve as a blueprint for other states. Under the law, internet service providers will not be allowed to block or slow specific types of content or applications, or charge apps or companies fees for faster access to customers.

The Department of Justice says the California law is illegal and that the state is “attempting to subvert the Federal Government’s deregulatory approach” to the internet.

“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce—the federal government does,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. The Justice Department should not have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our Constitutional order.”

Say goodbye to any fun freebies that are handed out by your wireless phone and cable companies if California is allowed to keep their plan

Loopholes addressed in California’s new law include a prohibition on “zero rating,” which allows carriers to exempt content from certain companies (like their own streaming services) from counting against a customer’s data usage. The prohibition would not apply if a carrier wanted to exempt an entire category of content, like all streaming services. It also bans interconnection fees, which are charges a company pays when its data enters the internet provider’s network.

The FCC says those rules will hurt consumers.

“The law prohibits many free-data plans, which allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans. But notwithstanding the consumer benefits, this state law bans them,” said Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, in a statement.

All those offers from mobile phone providers to stream video and songs from certain companies with no caps would go away in California. This is where the consumer will really feel the pinch, as most Internet providers really do not give you anything free, just discounted prices. It really is a solution in search of a problem, because providers rarely ever do the things that laws like this are trying to stop. When they do, that’s where agencies like the Free Trade Commission step in. Regardless, as more people use their mobile service more and more, they’ll see people in other states get freebies they won’t.

Read: California Implements Net Neutrality Law, DOJ Already Suing »

Posted in Web/Tech | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Democrats Already Questioning Scope Of FBI Investigation

By William Teach October 1, 2018 – 6:28 am

It’s never enough for this crowd

And

Key Democrats Question Scope of FBI Probe Into Brett Kavanaugh

Democrats on the House and Senate judiciary panels are questioning the scope of an FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying a limited inquiry could taint his appointment and open the door for future probes.

“I hope the FBI has free hands over the next week to investigate, and that certainly means to call in all the relevant witnesses,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If they don’t, that’s a real problem,” he said, adding: “If he is on the Supreme Court and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to.”

Nadler’s remarks follow news reports that the FBI won’t investigate the claims of a third woman who’s alleged sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, and that other topics may be off-limits as well.

That 3rd woman’s claim, this being Julie Swetnick, is utterly absurd and not credible in the least. Regardless, we’re seeing that Democrats will not support the results of the FBI probe regardless, and, if they win the House, they will bring endless partisan investigations. And that they will most likely demand even more time to investigate now prior to any Senate confirmation vote. For which the vast majority stated they would vote against Judge Kavanaugh the minute he was nominated. They’re trying to run the clock out.

Read: Surprise: Democrats Already Questioning Scope Of FBI Investigation »

Posted in Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Small Islands Have Big Voices On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach September 30, 2018 – 4:10 pm

No worries, they’ll all be submerged soon. Heck, some are submerged now!

Heck, we were told 30 years ago that the Maldives would be submerged by now. 100% of them are not. Nor is Manhattan, as we were told over 20 years ago. From the article

On the map, their homes are tiny specks in a vast sea of blue, rarely in the headlines and far removed from the centers of power. But for a few days each year, the leaders of small island nations share a podium with presidents and prime ministers from the world’s most powerful nations, and their message is clear: Global warming is already changing our lives, and it will change yours too.

Speaking shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump — whose fiery speech made no mention of climate change — Danny Faure told the U.N. General Assembly this week that for his country, the Seychelles, it’s already a daily reality.

“We see its effects in our eroding coastlines and unpredictable weather patterns,” he said. “We see its effects on our coral reefs and rising sea levels.”

Well, perhaps he shouldn’t have taken a long fossil fueled trip.

Despite its minuscule carbon emissions, Heine said her nation wants to show it, too, is prepared to do its part. The country is aiming to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, a goal most climate experts consider an absolute deadline if the world is to avert runaway warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.

They’ll have to give up pretty much everything to achieve this

Seychelles’ main industries include tourism, fishing, farming, oil drilling and manufacturing. Most manufacturers are small-scale and consist largely of food processing plants. The manufacture of beer, cigarettes, chemicals and furniture, among other items, also plays a significant role within the sector.

Tourism relies on fossil fuels. Oh, hey, oil drilling. Fishing with fossil fueled boats. Furniture to be exported using fossil fuels.

Marshall Islanders know the future of their country, much of which is little over a meter (3.3 feet) above sea level, hangs in the balance. A recent report predicted that the world’s oceans will rise by an average of at least 2 feet (61 centimeters) by the end of the century compared to now. Experts say the actions of the United States, which Trump announced will pull out of the Paris agreement, could play a decisive role in the future of small islands.

Some officials warn that islanders may have to abandon their homes long before they sink beneath the waves, as the cost of rebuilding after every storm surge becomes too great.

Perhaps it’s not a good idea to live on islands that are 3.3 feet above sea level, which rises an average of 8 inches per century over the last 7,000-8,000 years, post giant sea rise from the end of the last glacial age. But, um, the islands mostly couldn’t be created without much higher sea levels, because coral doesn’t grow like that above the sea.

At some point the Cult of Climastrology will fade away.

Read: Small Islands Have Big Voices On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove