…is a jungle that will soon disappear from carbon pollution atmospheric cancer, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on sounding crazy when trying to explain the gender confused craziness.
And a doubleshot under the fold, clearing out the last photo I downloaded, so, also see Legal Insurrection, with a post on Covered California doing a bit of rationing.
Read: If All You See… »
For those who are big supporters of the Obama era Net Neutrality rule from O’s FCC, do you really, really think it’s a good idea to give the government a massive say in how the Internet acts? Is it really a good idea to treat it as a public utility, like the phone system from the 1940’s? Because nothing could go wrong, right? They wouldn’t get a bee in their burr and decide to get a little wild, right? You love your memes, right?
(Moonbattery) Many take open communication on the Internet for granted. They shouldn’t. The free Internet will not last unless there is major pushback against attempts to put it in a straitjacket, like the European Union’s Article 13:
Article 13 of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, to give it its full name, is an attempt to reshape copyright law for the internet age. It’s based around the relationship between copyright holders and online platforms, compelling the latter to enforce tighter regulation over protected content. …
The Article stipulates that platforms should “prevent the availability†of protected works, suggesting these ISSPs will need to adopt technology that can recognise and filter work created by someone other than the person uploading it. This could include fragments of music, pictures and videos. …
The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has previously warned that: “Some requirements contained in Article 13 can enable abusive behaviour, thereby threatening freedom of expression and informationâ€. Last October, 56 leading academics published a set of recommendations on the proposed directive, including claims that Article 13 is “incompatible with the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms and the obligation to strike a fair balance between all rights and freedoms involvedâ€.
All those memes you like to spread around? Most would be illegal under Article 13. Would you be happy that your ISP would be monitoring your every move on the Internet? That they’d be checking every upload to make sure it is Compliant? When you give up power to government, they will use that power. And then mission creep slips in, and you wonder what happened.
Read: The EU’s Article 13: Why Government Controlling The Internet Is A Bad Thing »
Nice that this pope cares more about a mythical issue way more than the murder of the unborn. How often does he talk about that? Summon Liberals to the Vatican to talk about it? Did you hear the Pope chiming in about the recent vote in Ireland to allow abortion on demand? Anyhow, remember, folks, this is totally about science.
Pope summons oil execs to Vatican to talk climate change
Pope Francis will meet with some of the world’s oil executives next week, likely to give them another moral nudge to clean up their act on global warming.
Climate change policy and science experts are cautiously hopeful but aren’t expecting any miracles or even noticeable changes.
The conference will be a follow-up to the pope’s encyclical three years ago calling on people to save the planet from climate change and other environmental ills, Vatican spokesman Greg Burke confirmed Friday. Cardinal Peter Turkson, who spearheaded the encyclical, set up the June 8-9 conference with the executives. The pope himself will speak to the leaders on the second day of the summit, organized with the University of Notre Dame, Burke said.
Officials at the Vatican and Notre Dame would not disclose who is coming. BP, however, confirmed that its CEO Robert Dudley plans to attend, and Exxon Mobil said CEO Darren Woods would be there. Woods said this week that his company is trying to balance the risks of climate change with growing demand for energy to raise living standards in the developing world.
It is rather amusing that the Pope is summoning oil execs to take fossil fueled trips to the Vatican to discuss Hotcoldwetdry from the use of fossil fuels. And the Pope came back in January from taking long fossil fueled trips to Chile and Peru. And plans on trips to Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and India this year. Will he be walking? Biking? Taking a horse? Rollerblades?
Dana Fisher, a sociologist who studies environmentalism at the University of Maryland, said the pope is cementing his leadership on climate.
“He certainly is trying to lead for the planet and lord knows we need it,” she said.
Gary Yohe, an economics and environment professor at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said the executives might feel compelled to listen to the spiritual leader of nearly 1.3 billion Catholics.
“This is not somebody you can ignore,” Yohe said. “It might be a come to Jesus moment for them.”
Totally not a religion.
Read: Totally Not A Religion: Pope Summons Oil Execs To Talk ‘Climate Change’ (scam) »
Remember how this younger generation was going to go to the polls and vote to wipe out guns in America? Never mind
(Daily Caller) Six percent of Americans aged 15 to 34 consider gun control the top issue facing the country, according to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV poll reported on Wednesday.
That number is down from a high of 21 percent who considered it the top issue in March, according to the poll.
Four in 10 surveyed still gave the government an “F†grade on handling gun control issues.
These numbers come in as March For Our Lives organizers like David Hogg remain in the news, most recently for pressuring Publix to end contributions to Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam over his support for the National Rifle Association.
The poll was taken between April 23 and May 9, and surveyed 939 youths, a rather long time to take a poll. Must not have been getting the results they wanted. Regardless, you have to wonder where that number has dipped to now. Of course, how would they make an informed decisions when 52% “say they rarely or never read or watch news about the midterm elections”?
Read: Bummer: Gun Control Not What Young People Care About Anymore »
And this is a big, big problem
5 reasons why you should care about the lack of BME cyclists in London
Earlier this week, Will Norman, London’s walking and cycling commissioner, said something that shouldn’t be at all controversial – and that, in truth, isn’t even very original.
According to Norman, London’s cyclists are too white, male and middle-aged. This is backed up by evidence. While 41 per cent of London’s population is black or from an ethnic minority, only 15 per cent of cyclists are, according to Transport for London figures. Moreover, only 27 per cent of London’s cyclists are women.
Norman went on to say that for cycling to be considered a success in the capital, it must be taken up by a more diverse population, which, coincidentally, I also said last month in the New Statesman.Â
BME is “Black and minority ethnic”.
To the online mob, this is just another case of the liberal elite seeing racism in everything (WT-it is). Cyclist critics of Norman have argued that if more money is spent on cycling infrastructure, it will lead to a more diverse population of cyclists. Others acknowledge the problem, but say it is low on the priority list.
Here’s why they are wrong:
You’re welcome to read it, but, really, what are they going to do: force BME’s to ride bikes? Restrict white, middle age males (WMAM) from doing so? OK, so one of their plans is to spend more public money through the Walking And Cycling Commission (think on paying people for this job) on letting BMEs know about the bikes. As if they don’t already. Has it occorred to any of these Liberal World weenies that perhaps they don’t want to bike? What then? Will they force compliance? Again, tell the WMAM’s that only some may use the bikes?
And, yes, they are seeing raaaaacism where it doesn’t exist. Were the BME’s complain? Or just eh White Liberal Elites who would not dare use a bike?
Read: Bummer: Too Many Of London’s Cyclists Are White Males »
…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle causing horrible carbon pollution clouds, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post noting that insurance doesn’t mean you have health care.
Read: If All You See… »
But, this isn’t about what you’re thinking, nor what I though when I first saw the headline. It’s not about creating a Narrative where you can still blame ‘climate change’ when the temperatures do not comply with prognostications. Oh, no
Climate change won’t heat the planet equally
You’ve probably heard what happens when there’s a snow flurry in Texas. Things get weird. The roads aren’t built for it. Highways close, kids stay home from school, people panic.
In places closer to the equator that usually see only slight variations in temperature, the consequences of global warming are likely to be far more extreme. The outsize vulnerability of the world’s poorest people to damaging effects of climate change like droughts and floods is well established. It’s harder for people to overcome disasters in regions without the resources and infrastructure that are plentiful in wealthier parts of the world.
Now, a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters adds insult to injury. By mapping economic and social development to climate models’ “signal-to-noise ratioâ€â€”which compares normal local temperature fluctuation (noise) to overall increases to average local temperatures (signal)—the authors determined that the poorest populations on the planet will experience more perceptible climate change than the richest. In other words, in places with already fragile social and ecological systems, climate change won’t just be harder to deal with, it will actually be more noticeable, and worse.
Wait, what? How’d we get from what we’re told is Totally Science, You Guys, to “mapping economic and social development” to climastrology computer models to “poor people are hosed because Al Gore flies a private jet”?
So, by “won’t heat the planet equally”, this screed from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is supposed about science, became all about Left wing identity politics.
Read: Hotcoldwetdry Won’t Heat The Planet Equally Or Something »
I don’t support Rosanne Barr. I did not watch her show when it first aired, and didn’t watch it now. First, I do not find her funny, I find her schtick annoying. Second, I generally did not care for most sitcoms. Third, I also do not care for most shows (and books) that are highly political, even if they support my views. Moving on, what Barr wrote on Twitter was extremely rude, and unnecessary.
Then there’s Samantha Bee. I do not watch her show, either. First, I know she’s an uber-liberal foreigner who should mind her own business. Second, just the title of the show, Full Frontal. It’s a non-funny way of using sex. Third, the show is unhinged. But, consider that what she said, calling Ivanka Trump a “feckless c*nt”, was scripted, practiced, performed, filmed, and broadcast. No one even considered “hey, this could be a really bad idea.” Rosanne’s was off the cuff.
Yet, Rosanne’s show is cancelled, and Bee’s wasn’t. Both apologized. And Bee received an award. Bee has lost a few sponsors, and should be losing others. Well, really, if Left and Right were treated the same, her show would be cancelled.
This is part of the bias. Let’s look at the other. The Washington Post features zero articles on Bee this morning. But, they do have two separate ones on Barr, one of which, an opinion piece, says Barr should blame Trump. On the opinion page, zero Bee, multiple Barr. At the NY Times we get
Samantha Bee and TBS Apologize for Ivanka Trump Slur
While the one on Barr was
After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Canceled by ABC
Treated rather differently, eh? The Times had even attempted to defend Bee with
So the crude term was ok because there were seven noble minutes before it?
— Edward Martin (@_EdwardMartin) May 31, 2018
Then the USA Today
I assume you'll post a similar article when someone calls Chelsea a feckless c*nt.
Hahaha no, we both know you'll never do such a thing. I hope you enjoy the dragging that you so richly deserve and will absolutely receive.
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) May 31, 2018
This whole thing perfectly shows the media bias, in an industry that is roughly 90% Democrat.
Listen, politics is a dirty, nasty business covered with a veneer of civility. When someone says “My esteemed colleague from X”, what they usually mean is “the asshole from X”, if they’re talking about the other party. We’ve seen fights on legislative floors around the world. In the British Parliament, they will hiss and boo. In the U.S., we’ve had duels. With pistols. Sure, it’s been awhile, but, the game of politics is hardcore. And politicians are not always the best of people.
Most who get involved understand all this. You better have some thick skin. But, what we constantly see is that a Republican/Conservative does something or says something, and then the media clutches their pearls in manufactured apoplexy. It’ll be all over the news constantly, and the opinion pages will be blaming all Republicans. But, then, a Democrat does/says something horrendous, and, when it’s not crickets, we tend to see things like defenses of the Democrats, circling the wagons, and even putting the blame on Republicans, with headlines like “Republicans pounce..” Our pearl clutching is in a mock manner, because we know the business of politics is dirty. We’re just exposing that the business that was giving a specific mention in the 1st Amendment is essentially an arm of one political party.
Read: The Difference In Media Responses To Barr And Bee Is A Perfect Example Of The Bias »
And by “not much has changed”, it means support has gone down, as the Dallas Morning News gives a little spin
Santa Fe shooting likely didn’t change Texans’ views on gun control, polling shows
The shooting at Santa Fe High School does not appear to have changed the minds of Texans who support or oppose stricter gun laws, a new Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows.
According to the poll, which was conducted the week after the shooting, 49 percent of Texans support stricter gun laws in the U.S., while 45 percent oppose it. In an April poll asking Texans about gun laws, 55 percent supported stricter regulations while 41 percent opposed it.
“The tragedy at the Santa Fe school south of Houston changed few opinions among Texas voters about gun control,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll, said in a news release. “Support for gun control in general is down slightly, while support for background checks for all gun buyers is virtually unchanged.”
A six point change down supporting stricter gun laws and a 4 point swing up shows that views did, in fact, change. Fernando Ramirez at the Houston Chronicle gets it right in showing that support for more gun control has dipped.
More than 90 percent of Texans — gun owners or not — support universal background checks for gun buyers.
The vast majority of us do support them. We’re just concerned what the gun grabbers will do with their version of universal background checks, mostly in how they might make it much, much harder for law abiding citizens to engage in their 2nd Amendment Right, especially through new restrictions. And how the gun grabbers will see UBCs as just a step along the road to what they really want.
Texans also seem to favor more armed personnel at schools, Brown said.
“While 51 percent of Texas voters want to arm teachers and other school officials, 87 percent of voters want armed security officers in the schools,” he said.
Even the liberal Texans seem to realize that we should protect the schools. Here are some of the other details of the poll
#Texas Voter support for various gun proposals https://t.co/iuhqDdXn4E GRAPH pic.twitter.com/18M7yQrFHx
— Quinnipiac University Poll (@QuinnipiacPoll) May 31, 2018
Read: Post Santa Fe Shooting, Not Much Has Changed On Texan’s Opinions On Gun Control »
Trackback URL
There’s shark jumping, which the Cult of Climastrology does daily, then there’s Shark Jumping
Climate cultist Adam Frank: "my colleagues and I have just published a first study mapping out possible histories of alien planets, the civilizations they grow, and the climate change that follows" https://t.co/4bCN0MdFAd
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) May 30, 2018
One would really think this was a parody site, but, no. Seriously, just look at the headline and subhead in that tweet
(The Atlantic) The universe does many things. It makes galaxies, comets, black holes, neutron stars, and a whole mess more. We’ve lately discovered that it makes a great deal of planets, but it’s not clear whether it regularly makes energy-hungry civilizations, nor is it clear whether such civilizations inevitably drive their planets into climate change. There’s lots of hope riding on our talk about building a sustainable civilization on Earth. But how do we know that’s even possible? Does anyone across the cosmos ever make it?
Remarkably, science has now advanced to point where we can take a first step at answering this question. I know this because my colleagues and I have just published a first study mapping out possible histories of alien planets, the civilizations they grow, and the climate change that follows. Our team was made up of astronomers, an earth scientist, and an urban ecologist. (big snip, which I recommend reading)
So, what did the model tell us? We saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off.†As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.
These people
As I explore in my new book, Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth, our dawning realization that we are profoundly shaping Earth’s future provides us with the impetus to stop acting like cosmic teenagers with power but little wisdom. From that perspective the true narrative of climate change isn’t some small, local drama of Democrats vs. Republications or business interests vs. environmentalists. Instead, it’s a cosmic test, one that gives us a chance to join those who successfully crossed this burning frontier—or the chance to be consigned to the scrap heap of civilizations too shortsighted to take care of their own planet.
Read: Shark Jumping: Scientists Tell Us They Know How Aliens Solve ‘Climate Change’ »
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.
