‘Climate Change’ To Make Danger Of Tsunamis Greater Or Something

By William Teach August 18, 2018 – 10:30 am

This is your fault for taking a fossil fueled trip to the beach and riding fossil fueled boats and jet skis

New tsunami risk for Hull as experts say ‘absolute worst case’ predictions weren’t bad enough
Hull has already been hit by tidal surges but climate change means it is at greater risk from huge waves

With much of Hull lying below sea level and with the East Yorkshire coast eroding at an alarming rate the risk of more tsunamis is not good news.

The risk of the devastation caused by the huge waves is bigger than previously estimated because of climate change, according to new findings.

Tsunamis are destructive fast-moving waves that can be triggered by earthquakes, mountain slides, or meteor impacts.

But now because of sea-levels rising the risks for coastal communities around the world are growing, Plymouth Live reports.

OMG, this is horrible!

It is not clear if Hull has ever been affected by a tsunami throughout its history, but the city has been badly affected by tidal flooding.

So, it’s never happened going back thousands of years, but, a town that’s below sea level has been affected by flooding? Shocking!

But a new study by researchers suggests what was previously assumed to be the ‘absolute worst case’ regarding tsunamis now appears to be ‘modest’ for what is predicted in some locations.

The new findings show the likely increase of flooding would also move further inland than previously estimated from tsunamis following earthquakes.

Stop. Just stop.

For the study, Dr Weiss and his colleagues created computer-simulated tsunamis at current sea level and with sea-level increases of 1.5 feet and three feet in the Chinese territory of Macau.

You had me at “computer-simulated.” Not to be outdone, we have this from an Irish paper

Tsunamis will become more common and more ferocious with global warming, scientists warned after a study found that worldwide sea-level rises will increase the risk of coastal cities being wiped out.

Smaller earthquakes that currently pose no serious tsunami threat could unleash waves capable of decimating coastal cities.

It’s all about linking naturally occuring events to the Cult of Climastrology and predicting doom, yet, these same people won’t make their lives carbon neutral. Go figure.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ To Make Danger Of Tsunamis Greater Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 27 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Immigrant Ordered Leave U.S. Is Not An “Object For Removal” Or Something

By William Teach August 18, 2018 – 7:33 am

According to the law, he is. And, perhaps he shouldn’t have violated the law, which has made his wife, Amy Gotlieb, write this cute little opinion piece

A message to ICE: My husband is not an object ‘for removal’

This month, my husband, Ravi Ragbir, received a new appointment letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason for the appointment, the letter said, is “for removal.”

“For removal,” as if Ravi, a prominent immigrant-rights activist and the person I love and have chosen to spend the rest of my life with, were a broken vacuum cleaner set out in the trash with a note for the Department of Sanitation to take him away.

An immigrant from Trinidad, Ravi has lived in the United States for almost 25 years and has faced the threat of deportation since 2006, when his green card was taken away after he completed a sentence for a wire-fraud conviction (which he is challenging in court). Under the Trump administration, the threats of deportation have escalated. In January, he was detained during a routine check-in with ICE and was incarcerated for 18 days in a detention center under threat of immediate deportation. It was only because of massive amounts of community pressure and quick work by his lawyers that he was released. He remains in the United States because of the federal judges who recognize that he should be here with his community as his case continues.

Let’s go back to that part about a conviction for wire fraud. Ravi actually came to the United States illegally, but somehow earned a green card. His green card was taken away, meaning he has no lawful status in the U.S. He could have taken the time to apply for citizenship prior to that wire fraud conviction (he can challenge it all he wants, it was back in 2000), but, not, he didn’t. We have laws in place, and, if he and his wife do not like them, too bad.

Ravi is my family — loved and respected by so many. But according to ICE — the same agency that faces accusations of abuse, racial profiling and violations of civil rights — he must be removed. Removed from his community and removed from the people he loves.

Go with him. And next time alert him to the fact that wire fraud is against the law. This rests squarely on his shoulders. And, it’s not ICE ordering deportation: it’s a judge that approves this.

I have been an immigrant-rights attorney for 20 years, but the cold, annihilating language of “removal” chills me now more than ever. The word replaced “deportation” in 1996 as part of a large and ultimately devastating overhaul to our immigration laws signed by President Bill Clinton. The legislation made it both easier to deport people and more difficult for people to adjust their immigration status legally. It created mandatory detention and deportation, and drastically limited the authority of immigration judges to consider a person’s good qualities when deciding a case.

As an immigration lawyer and immigrant-rights activist, I have been advocating for the repeal of those laws and have regularly spoken out about their impact on immigrants. In the past, I have refused to use the word “removal.” It has always seemed so flat and distant from what deportation really means: exiling someone from their family and their community.

She’s more worried about the word than people who have consciously broken U.S. federal law.

As anyone who knows Ravi would agree, my husband is the type of person this country should be welcoming. To do that, we need to abolish the agency that has stripped immigrants of their dignity. And we need to repeal laws that tear apart families and create an immigration system that supports our values of love, respect and community. Because, after all, no one should be treated as if they were disposable.

So, we should be welcoming people who come to this country illegally, commit actual crimes which hurt other people, then demand we legalize him and others? No. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agrees, refusing to issue a stay of deportation on August 15th.

Read: Bummer: Immigrant Ordered Leave U.S. Is Not An “Object For Removal” Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: Was It Illegal To Revoke Brennan’s Security Clearance?

By William Teach August 18, 2018 – 7:16 am

The headline asks the question. The subhead and opinion piece by Jeffrey H. Smith, former general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, state it was

Was It Illegal for Trump to Revoke Brennan’s Security Clearance?
The president not only violated the former C.I.A. director’s First Amendment rights but also made it harder for the government to draw on his expertise.

President Trump’s unprecedented decision to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency — and his publicly stated intention to consider revoking clearances of a list of other administration critics — raises fundamental questions about national security, presidential authority and the First Amendment.

I believe the president has grossly abused his authority and violated Mr. Brennan’s First Amendment right to speak freely. The president’s actions are therefore unconstitutional and demand a response from Congress.

He can feel this way all he wants, but no one has a 1st Amendment right to a security clearance, and taking his away now that he’s no longer in government doesn’t stop him from expressing his opinion in the least. This is just another crazy, manufactured bit of idiocy from the same people who had zero problem with the IRS targeting Conservative groups. And then there’s this

https://twitter.com/KrisParonto/status/1030229119722835968

Trump is shutting down Brennan’s ability to speak so much that he’s all over Twitter, Facebook, the network #resist shows. And

https://twitter.com/KrisParonto/status/1030278280719544320

Back in 2014, everyone was saying that Obama should fire Brennan for doing things like spying on members of the U.S. Senate, trying to prosecute them, and a host of other things.

The president’s statement on why he ordered the revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance is based on the assumption that the former C.I.A. director holds a security clearance only as a courtesy so that current senior officials may consult with him. That may be one reason, but it may not be the only one: For example, someone with Mr. Brennan’s experience may be employed in a position that requires a clearance.

So revocation might make it harder for Brennan to parlay his security clearance into making money? Not much of a rationale, eh?

Obviously the president needs to be able to revoke security clearances, when justified: The First Amendment does not protect an individual holding a clearance who discloses properly classified information without authorization — even if done in the course of criticizing the president or his policies. Mr. Trump’s statement justifying his revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance makes no such allegation.

Just because it’s not justified to Liberals, who wanted Brennan fired in 2014, doesn’t mean you’re right.

Free political speech is at the very apex of constitutional protections. Disagreement and dialogue are at the heart of our democracy. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a 1988 opinion, the Supreme Court has “been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.”

No one has a right to a security clearance. Otherwise, where’s mine? Where’s yours? And no one is saying Brennan cannot say what he wants.

Read: NY Times: Was It Illegal To Revoke Brennan’s Security Clearance? »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Carbon Pollution Infused Beer Is Killing Off Bloody Mary’s Which Help With Your Beer Hangovers

By William Teach August 17, 2018 – 3:24 pm

This is simply horrible. Horrible. What are we going to do?

Bloody Marys Kill Hangovers, but Climate Change May Kill the Bloody Mary

Grub Street went deep on the impact of climate change on the surprisingly large number of ingredients that go into a Bloody Mary on Wednesday. It’s an great piece but the news isn’t good for enthusiasts of the drunk’s favorite soup.

The experts Grub Street spoke to agreed that the ingredients that make up Bloody Marys may be threatened by our changing climate, as tomatoes, vodka, Worcestershire sauce, and more could be impacted by climate change, which would in turn impact a bartender’s ability to make a half-decent Bloody Mary if your goddamn hangover won’t subside and can someone tell me why the sun is so fucking bright?

Perhaps the news will be enough to get out the brunch crowd vote — one bar manager that Inverse spoke with says Bloody Marys and other drinks with produce could increase in price by about 15 percent in her location due to a rise in produce and vodka costs for the establishment.

(blah blah blah)

Clearly, if we want to continue enjoying Bloody Marys, the beloved boozy brunch beverage, we’ve got to get serious about climate change before it’s too late to save the booze.

These people. Sheesh.

Read: Your Carbon Pollution Infused Beer Is Killing Off Bloody Mary’s Which Help With Your Beer Hangovers »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on NY State’s first clown.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

The Climate Is Totally Changing Because You Wear Clothes Or Something

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

Do you wear clothes? Do you like fashion? Well, all that extreme weather is your fault!

From the screed

With the help of the UN, the world’s USD 2.5 trillion USD fashion industry is shifting to more sustainable business models which can help fight climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

The fashion industry, including the production of all clothes which people wear, contributes to around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions due to its long supply chains and energy intensive production.  The industry consumes more energy than the aviation and shipping industry combined.

Shifting practices in the fashion industry to reduce carbon emissions is key to limiting warming to as close to 1.5°C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

In addition to its carbon intensive supply chain and production processes, the fashion industry consumes a great deal of other precious resources.

See? It’s all your fault….wait, 1.5C? The Paris Agreement was on 2C. Did they just arbitrarily decide to change it? Anyway, not your fault for buying and wearing clothes, it’s the fault of those who make them.

From a truly environmental point of view, changing practices is not a bad idea, because there is a lot of water and material waste in production, along with the waste of used clothing going to landfills. But, that’s environmental, and has very little to do with anthropogenic climate change.

Read: The Climate Is Totally Changing Because You Wear Clothes Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Louisiana Punishes Two Anti-2nd Amendment Banks Over Road Project

By William Teach August 17, 2018 – 7:04 am

Will other 2nd Amendment supporting states follow along and do similar things?

(Washington Times) A Louisiana commission voted Thursday to block two banking giants from taking part in a new highway project, moving to punish the companies for gun control policies they adopted after the Parkland, Florida, school shooting this year.

Citigroup and Bank of America had said they would work only with retailers who agreed to new restrictions on gun purchases — rules stricter than what federal law requires.

Louisiana’s bond commission said it wouldn’t tolerate that kind of bullying over a constitutional right and voted 7-6 to block the companies from gaining a piece of the financing for a $600 million highway plan.

The vote was a win for pro-gun advocates looking to make inroads in a debate that is increasingly spilling into the corporate arena, and comes as major service companies and social media giants move to adopt anti-firearms policies.

“If you have zero respect for the U.S. Constitution, then you don’t need to do business with the state of Louisiana,” said Sen. John N. Kennedy, a Republican who cheered his state’s move from Washington.

Good for them to step up and fight back for the Rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. Perhaps companies will sit up and take notice. Because Democrats are not giving up on their anti-gun stance

ms and overwhelmingly supports expanded background checks.

“Generally.” Yet, these same Democrats are seemingly against all crackdowns on those who possess and use firearms illegally, most often in Democratic Party run cities and states. They’re soft on criminals, but tough on law abiding citizens.

Read: Louisiana Punishes Two Anti-2nd Amendment Banks Over Road Project »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Awesome | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

AG Sessions Looks To Speed Up Deportations Of “Immigrants”

By William Teach August 17, 2018 – 6:52 am

Many wonder where Jeff Sessions is on some issues, but, when it comes to illegal immigration, he has been working hard to kick them out. Here’s Reuters point it out using somewhat misleading language. Which we’re all used to. You’d think that they’d get the message, along with the rest of the media, that no one is buying their schitck

U.S. attorney general issues order to speed up immigrant deportations

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday sought to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants, telling immigration judges they should only postpone cases in removal proceedings “for good cause shown.”

Sessions, in an interim order that was criticized by some lawyers, said the “good-cause” standard “limits the discretion of immigration judges and prohibits them from granting continuances for any reason or no reason at all.”

Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice and the attorney general can intervene. Sessions, a Republican former U.S. Senator appointed by President Donald Trump, has been unusually active in this practice compared to his predecessors. (snip)

Critical in showing “good cause” is whether a person is likely to succeed in efforts to remain in the United States, either by appealing for asylum or receiving some form of visa or work permit, Sessions said on Thursday.

That makes quite a bit of sense. If they aren’t going to succeed, or there’s little chance of succeeding, kick those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. out toot-sweet. Immediately. Of course, this makes those who are supposed to be representing Americans very sad

Stephen Kang, an attorney with the ACLU immigrants rights project, described Sessions’ order as “troubling” and one of a series that “has moved in the direction of restricting due process rights for individuals who are in removal proceedings.”

What he’s actually saying is that the chance of the illegal disappearing back into America after being caught would be reduced. Tough. We have laws.

Read: AG Sessions Looks To Speed Up Deportations Of “Immigrants” »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on AG Sessions Looks To Speed Up Deportations Of “Immigrants” | Trackback URL

Bummer: Judge Tosses Kids’ Lawsuit On ‘Climate Change’ In Washington State

By William Teach August 16, 2018 – 2:45 pm

Cue the sad face

Judge Dismisses Youth Climate Change Lawsuit in Washington State

A group of young climate advocates who sued the state of Washington to force it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lost their case on Tuesday when a judge sided with the state and agreed to dismiss it.

The judge urged them to pursue their cause through other channels.

King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott wrote that the issues at the heart of the case are political and should be considered by the state’s legislative and executive branches, not settled by its courts.

The Washington lawsuit is one of nine state-level cases involving youth advocates supported by Our Children’s Trust, the group leading a federal youth lawsuit that heads to trial in a U.S. District Court in Oregon this October. Like the federal suit, known as Juliana v. U.S., the state lawsuits accuse the government of failing to protect the children from the dangers of climate change and pushing policies that favor fossil fuel use.

This type of thing is meant to go through the legislative branch, where people make law, not courts, which rule on whether law is Constitutional. Regardless, this has made the Warmist/Climahypocrites very upset, and they want Something Done. Well, they have their chance coming up

Will Washington State Voters Make History on Climate Change?

This November, voters in Washington State may do what no group of people—in or outside the United States—has done before.

They will vote on whether to adopt a carbon fee, an aggressive policy to combat climate change that charges polluters for the right to emit carbon dioxide and other potent greenhouse gases.

Their decision will reverberate far beyond the Olympic Peninsula. If the measure passes, Washington will make history, becoming not only the first state in the union to adopt a type of policy called a carbon tax—but also the first government anywhere to do so by ballot referendum.

Carbon tax or cap and trade, several states already have them, and they’re driving up the cost of living. But, if Washington voters want this, that’s on them. Perhaps they should give up their own use of fossil fuels individually if they vote for it. The last time they tried this in 2016 it failed. I’m not find any real polling on the issue, but, if they want a fee/tax/whatever language they want to use, go for it. Don’t cry when prices skyrocket and businesses leave.

Read: Bummer: Judge Tosses Kids’ Lawsuit On ‘Climate Change’ In Washington State »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a world covered by carbon pollution created sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on a Dem gun grabber getting all shooty.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove