Even If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’, You Should Totally Be Up For A Carbon Tax Or Something

By William Teach July 1, 2018 – 7:35 pm

It’s funny how the Warmists are always finding new and exciting ways to push one of their main “solutions”, a carbon tax. Here we have Elen Van Velsor, group leader of the Greensboro chapter and North Carolina’s state coordinator for Citizens Climate Lobby, being funny

Ellen Van Velsor: This climate-change plan could work

This news is too good not to share — there is a solution to climate change. At the recent Citizens Climate International Conference, experts from the fields of public health, economics and climate science as well as from the oil, auto, food and utilities industries all called for action on climate change now. And citizen opinion supports their views. The Yale Climate Opinion Study shows that 62 percent of North Carolinians believe that global warming is happening and that more than half of the people in our state are worried.

A solution, people, a solution! It’s about Warmists giving up their own use of fossil fuels and making their lives carbon neutral….oh, wait

Regardless of whether one believes that climate change is caused by human activity, greenhouse gases put our health and economy at risk. The most effective solution is a price on carbon, which is like an insurance policy against risk. We get life insurance, not because we expect to die tomorrow but so that when we do, our assets and our loved ones will be protected. In much the same way, a well-constructed carbon policy protects not only our collective assets, our health and our economy, but it helps create a livable world for those we leave behind. There are no downsides.

Got that? Even if you do not believe the increase in GHGs is mostly/solely caused by Mankind, you should totally agree that an economy killing carbon tax that will increase your cost of living is totally awesome!

Experts from all fields agree the very best insurance we can have is a carbon-fee-and-dividend policy. (snip)

This idea is significantly different from a carbon “tax.” Taxes revert to government coffers. Instead, returning 100 percent of fees to households as a monthly dividend check not only would make rising prices for expenses like gasoline and heating fuel affordable, it would provide additional income for those at the lowest income levels and incentive for people at the highest incomes to reduce their carbon footprint.

Interesting how this again increase the power of government and makes citizens more dependent on government, eh? They’re admitting that the cost of living will skyrocket, but, does anyone actually think that government will give 100% back to the citizens? Please. Regardless, you can call it a fee and dividend policy, it’s still a tax.

Furthermore, a bipartisan carbon-fee-and-dividend policy works through the market rather than through government regulation and is equitable and pro-growth in that it puts money into the hands of those households that are most likely to spend it.

?????? It’s not a market solution of the government is mandating it.

Read: Even If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’, You Should Totally Be Up For A Carbon Tax Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…are wonderful trees which will soon die from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Way, with a post saying good morning.

Why, yes, it is America week on IAYS.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach July 1, 2018 – 9:09 am

Happy Sunday! Another great day in America. The Sun is shining, the birds are singing, we’re coming up on a day of patriotism, and we know how much Democrats hate that. At least for America. This pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Chicks On The Right discusses the Socialist sweetheart being a great lipstick seller
  2. 357 Magnum covers the #WalkAway movement
  3. America’s Watchtower notes the FBI unwilling to hand over Loretta Lynch documents
  4. Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler covers the increasing panicky NeverTrumpers
  5. Bizzy Blog explains that reporters really do not understand guns
  6. Geller Report discusses Sweden being in a low-intensive civil war
  7. Jihad Watch notes a UK politician charged with hate speech for asking if mosques will be monitored for hate speech
  8. Legal Insurrection covers Tom Steyer wanting a nuclear war ’cause Trump
  9. Moonbattery features Nancy Pelosi’s mind unraveling
  10. MOTUS AD features the Democrats really bad week
  11. Powerline has the liberal freakout in 2 minutes
  12. The First Street Journal notes why we need the 1st Amendment
  13. The Lid discusses that the 1st Amendment is supposed to be a weapon
  14. The People’s Cube has fun facts about Maxine Waters
  15. And last, but not least, The Powers That Be discusses that accidental Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Trump Has Accused Dems Of Wanting To Abolish Ice

By William Teach July 1, 2018 – 7:53 am

One has to wonder if the people who write the headlines and subheads actually read the articles. Or is it just about trying to create a Narrative for people who never read the articles?

Front page of the Washington Post this morning

Trump aims to inflict political pain on Democrats over calls to abolish immigration enforcement agency
He accused Democrats of wanting to abolish ICE, the agency charged with detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants, even though only a handful have supported doing so.

See? He accused! ZOMG! How dare he! The headline within the article reads “Trump defends agency charged with detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants”

President Trump on Saturday opened a new front in the immigration debate, diverting attention away from his administration’s treatment of undocumented immigrants to a broader fight over the federal agency charged with detaining and deporting them.

In a pair of tweets from his private Bedminister golf club, Trump forcefully defended the performance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and lambasted Democrats for pushing a “radical left” agenda to abolish it, even though only a handful have publicly supported doing so.

Um, the entire point of the marches about “Families Belong Together” seemed to be about abolishing ICE.

But, hey, Trump’s tweets!!!!!

“To the great and brave men and women of ICE, do not worry or lose your spirit,” Trump wrote in one tweet. “You are doing a fantastic job of keeping us safe by eradicating the worst criminal elements.”

You also had DHS

Twitchy has many that were posted. Somehow, this is all a distraction according to the Washington Post’s David Nakamura

Over the past week, several prominent Democrats have proposed eliminating ICE, citing its unjust treatment of immigrants. Among them were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old Democratic socialist who upset Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a primary election Tuesday, and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

So, Trump accused them of wanting to abolish ICE, and they did! Well, that’s weird. The WP front page made it seem like Trump was making things up.

Nakamura does note deep in the article

Yet other Democrats fear that such a position is fraught for the party as Trump continues to paint immigrants as dangerous to put his political rivals on the defensive.

“I think it’s a winning issue for him,” said Leon Fresco, an immigration attorney who served as an aide to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) during Congress’s unsuccessful effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2013-2014. “If it’s a binary choice and people think it’s the end of immigration enforcement, that’s not a good place for us to be.”

A nationwide protest of ICE and stopping illegal immigration is not a good look for Democrats. Wanting to abolish the primary federal agency for catching illegal aliens is not a good look, either. These are the kinds of things that helped Trump win, and we’ll see if this helps come November and the mid-terms.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/1012712493351948288

More under the fold

Read More »

Read: Washington Post: Trump Has Accused Dems Of Wanting To Abolish Ice »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Washington Post: Trump Has Accused Dems Of Wanting To Abolish Ice | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ (scam) Believing UK Not On Carbon Emissions Target

By William Teach June 30, 2018 – 4:33 pm

The United Kingdom has long been a climastrology nation, especially its leaders, who love the notion of laws that give them more power and more money. UK leaders were big supporters of the Paris Climate Agreement, and were very upset when Donald Trump said the U.S. was going to pull out. They also have had their own laws on this. Certainly, the UK is upholding their Paris pledges and the law, right?

The UK is not on track to meet its carbon emissions targets for the next 15 years

The UK has a target of reducing its carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. To meet this target, the UK also sets “carbon budgets” on how much carbon it can emit in a five-year period.

Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change this week said “the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s”, based on the carbon budgets for that period. The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body which advises the government on emissions targets, and was formed under the Climate Change Act 2008. (snip)

This week, a report by the Committee on Climate Change said “Our conclusion is that the Government’s current plans and proposals are not on track to meet carbon budgets.”

They point out that in its Clean Growth Strategy, “the Government stated that a 5% yearly reduction (in emissions) was required to 2032 to meet the fifth carbon budget. The reduction in 2017 was therefore not on track”—it was around 4% in reality.

We keep seeing these types of articles. Countries like Ireland, France, Germany, Canada, and so many others who have their own climate change laws and regs, ones who signed on to the Paris agreement and decried Trump cancelling America’s involvement, are failing to meet their targets. Surprise?

Read: ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Believing UK Not On Carbon Emissions Target »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Believing UK Not On Carbon Emissions Target | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 30, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible climate killing plastic bottle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on a great self defense story.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Climastrology Models Fail To Account For CO2’s Impact On Life

By William Teach June 30, 2018 – 12:23 pm

It’s always some sort of doomsaying with these people

Climate models fail to account for CO2’s impact on life, scientists say

Increasingly, climate scientists are calling for climate models to focus more on CO2 levels and less on temperature.

In a new study, researchers from the University of Exeter contend warming could slow even as a rise in CO2 accelerates. Not only do current models mostly ignore this reality, study authors suggest they also fail to account for CO2’s myriad impacts on biology — on life.

The thing about warming slowing (not that a 1.5F increase since 1850 is particularly fast to start with) even though CO2 continues to rise is something that’s been making its way around, as yet another excuse for the climate failing to comply with existing computer models. Oh, and the notion that CO2 tends to go up after the temperature rise, not the other way around. But, doom

Because current models use too narrow a range to describe future CO2 concentration, predictions tend to ignore the gas’ impact on plants and animals.

“Higher CO2 concentrations cause increased growth in many plant species,” Exeter researcher Richard Betts said in a news release. “This causes a general ‘greening’ of vegetation, but also changes the makeup of ecosystems — some species do better than others. Slower-growing large tree species can lose out to faster-growing competitors.”

Higher CO2 levels can also cause plants to use less water, which can diminish the impact of droughts on local ecosystems.

“Both of these factors can potentially enhance crop yields, possibly helping to offset some of the negative impacts of climate change — although even if that happens, the nutritional value of the crops can be reduced as a result of the extra CO2,” Betts said. “Rising CO2 also causes ocean acidification which is damaging to corals and some species of plankton.”

See? It can make plants grow more, bigger crops, but, that’s not a good thing or something. They always have to find a way to push doom. And then they wonder why people tune out.

Read: Bummer: Climastrology Models Fail To Account For CO2’s Impact On Life »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: Climastrology Models Fail To Account For CO2’s Impact On Life | Trackback URL

Excitable Nancy Pelosi Pushes Gun Control In Wake Of Newspaper Shooting

By William Teach June 30, 2018 – 8:00 am

Perhaps Nancy could have told us exactly what measures would have stopped the murder at Capital Gazette?

Reacting to newspaper shooting, Pelosi decries lack of gun control as ‘stain on our country’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi decried the lack of legislative action on gun control Thursday after multiple people were gunned down at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Maryland.

“Praying for everyone injured & the families of those lost in today’s shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland,” the California Democrat tweeted Thursday afternoon.

“Congress has a responsibility to take action to prevent the tragedy of gun violence. Every day it fails to do so is a stain on our country,” she wrote.

The bodies weren’t even cold when she tweeted this. Jarrod Ramos, the nutjob who committed the murders, used a shotgun legally purchased in Maryland. Is Nancy now recommending that shotguns be banned? Other than the Australian solution, ie, banning guns almost altogether, what part of the Democrats gun control push would have stopped Ramos? He passed a background check a year ago. He didn’t buy it at a gun show with a loophole. Maryland itself is pretty tough on 2nd Amendment Rights. The gun grabbing Giffords Law Center gives the state an A-. Only about half a dozens states get an A rating from the gun grabbers.

The only thing that might have possibly maybe stopped him, at least from using a gun, was a red flag law, which doesn’t go into effect till October in Maryland. But, even then, would a family member or law enforcement have filed a case?

So, please, Nancy, let us know what legislative priorities would have stopped this? Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. An assault weapons ban and universal background checks wouldn’t have stopped this.

Read: Excitable Nancy Pelosi Pushes Gun Control In Wake Of Newspaper Shooting »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats, Queen Nancy, Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Today In Resistance: Trump Is “Combative” Towards Artists Or Something

By William Teach June 30, 2018 – 7:39 am

Another day, another person having another unhinged hissy fit towards POTUS Donald Trump. Writer David Eggers (I had to look him up. That’s not a criticism, just writes stuff I don’t care about. Does that make me combative towards reading? Regardless, he’s won a bunch of awards, and, unsurprising, been a rather left leaning person) is given a platform in the NY Times to be silly. This is the lead opinion piece on the Times’ front page this morning

A Cultural Vacuum in Trump’s White House
Never have we had a president not just indifferent to the arts, but also combative toward artists.

This White House has been, and is likely to remain, home to the first presidency in American history that is almost completely devoid of culture. In the 17 months that Donald Trump has been in office, he has hosted only a few artists of any kind. One was the gun fetishist Ted Nugent. Another was Kid Rock. They went together (and with Sarah Palin). Neither performed.

Since his inauguration in January 2017, there have been no official concerts at the White House (the Reagans had one every few weeks). No poetry readings (the Obamas regularly celebrated young poets). The Carters began a televised series, “In Performance at the White House,” which last aired in 2016, where artists as varied as Mikhail Baryshnikov and Patricia McBride performed in the East Room. The Clintons continued the series with Aretha Franklin and B. B. King, Alison Krauss and Linda Ronstadt.

But aside from occasional performances by “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band, the White House is now virtually free of music. Never have we had a president not just indifferent to the arts, but actively oppositional to artists. Mr. Trump disparaged the play “Hamilton” and a few weeks later attacked Meryl Streep. He has said he does not have time to read books (“I read passages, I read areas, I read chapters”). Outside of recommending books by his acolytes, Mr. Trump has tweeted about only one work of literature since the beginning of his presidency: Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury.” It was not an endorsement.

Let me ask: do you read? I read about 2-3 books a week. I love reading. Many people don’t. Does that make them combative and oppositional to artists? If you don’t read, does that make you combative and oppositional? I don’t care for poetry. Never have. That doesn’t make me C&O to artists. I don’t go to art showings and such, though I have gone to a few art buildings (the one in D.C. with all the Monet’s is incredible). I haven’t been to a play (the last one was Spamalot on Broadway) in a decade. It’s been awhile since I saw a concert. Does that make me C&O? No.

But, we’re in the world of Trump Derangement Syndrome where everything is The Worst. Eggers has no clue as to what Trump does in his time off, other than some golf. Does Trump have to inform Eggers as to everything he does and likes? Perhaps Trump is a Level 10 Type A who is either working or sleeping. At least Eggers isn’t calling Trump Hitler or a dictator or something

Every great civilization has fostered great art, while authoritarian regimes customarily see artists as either nuisances, enemies of the state or tools for the creation of propaganda. The Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev asserted that “the highest duty of the Soviet writer, artist and composer, of every creative worker” is to “fight for the triumph of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.”

Read: Today In Resistance: Trump Is “Combative” Towards Artists Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

We Have To Totally Rethink Air Transportation And Shipping To Stop ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach June 29, 2018 – 4:06 pm

Let’s start with Warmists giving up their own fossil fueled travel, as well as no more online orders that require packages be sent long distances

Shipping and airline travel must be transformed to stop climate change, scientists warn

Airline travel and long-haul shipping are among the “tough-nut” sectors that will require a radical rethink if humanity is to stand any chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

The world has made significant progress in its efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, but predictably some of the hardest industries to decarbonise have been left largely untouched, according to a new analysis.

Many of these industries currently lack viable alternatives, and will therefore require major investments to get them off the ground and reach the target of zero emissions in the coming decades.

Guess how we get those investments? If you’re thinking “the taxpayers wallet”, well of course

The findings come after the Committee on Climate Change issued a damning report in which it said virtually every part of the UK economy had failed to take steps towards reducing emissions.

While great strides have been made towards making British electricity renewable, transport, construction and other high-polluting sectors had made little effort to meet the nation’s climate targets.

This is a pattern that can be seen around the world, according to the authors of the new study, with key sectors like air travel, shipping and steel and cement manufacture falling behind.

Well, good luck with this. Are we supposed to go back to sailing ships? Solar planes will be pretty much non-starters, due to the weight and power of batteries

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/1008719215715602432

Seriously, how would all the Warmists get to their constant conferences without private jets and limos?

Read: We Have To Totally Rethink Air Transportation And Shipping To Stop ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove