It’s Politics, Not Science, Which Can Solve Hotcoldwetdry

Further reinforcement that this whole thing has little to do with science, and everything to do with far left Progressive (nice Fascism) policies

Science can’t solve climate change — better politics can, former IPCC scientist says

It’s not every day you hear that the climate change debate needs to be “more political and less scientific” — but that is exactly what Mike Hulme is calling for.

It’s not every day that you hear the cat let out of the bag

The 2015 Paris agreement was declared “a victory for climate science“, but Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — is not convinced that the Paris deal will work.

In fact, he said he thought climate change was in danger of becoming a “fetish” and that rallying cries to “save the planet by limiting global warming to 2 degrees” could distract us from the “political logjam” in front of us.

Meanwhile, representatives of the 197 countries that signed on to Paris are making fossil fueled trips to Bonn, Germany, to yammer on again. What’s that carbon footprint for the thousands who will head to Bonn?

The professor is arguing that rather than global agreements, there needs to be agreements between small areas, like cities and town. This is also something that the Progressive gun grabbers are attempting to do with gun control: implement draconian, people controlling regulations at the localized level.

“Sometimes, framing actions as [tackling] climate change will not bring people into a community meeting. But framing it as making savings on energy bills will gain more traction,” said Macquarie University geographer Donna Houston, who hosted a postgraduate workshop with Professor Hulme in Sydney last week.

Her research found that when local councillors or community members were trying to gain support for climate action, they sometimes gave it a different label, such as “sustainability”.

“It was often easier not to refer to climate change,” she said.

In other words, bullshit people in order to allow government to force them to change their behavior.

They can’t convince us that AGW/ACC is real, that mankind is mostly/solely behind the small increase in average temperatures and that this is super bad, and they can’t even convince most Warmists to practice what they preach, so, lies to force compliance.

Read: It’s Politics, Not Science, Which Can Solve Hotcoldwetdry »

Peak 2018? Women Won’t Date Men Who Yell At Alexa

The thing about Peak 2018 is that there is no longer a peak: it’s just one short jump from one Everest sized peak to the next by the SJWs/virtue signalers. Everything is The Worst in their world, and they have to let everyone know that they’re Offended and Outraged, and they expect you to jump on the bandwagon and be Offended and Outraged

I Don’t Date Men Who Yell at Alexa

When Jeremy barked orders at his personal assistant, she didn’t flinch, but I did. Something about the sound of his sharp, commanding tone—directed not at me, but still, at a woman—repulsed me. In the few weeks we had been dating, he had never spoken to me this way. But could he? Hearing Jeremy make ungrateful demands didn’t make him seem powerful or important. He sounded entitled and difficult, like someone who enjoyed commanding for the sake of commanding. He would ask her to do things he could easily do himself, almost as if to prove that he could. Surely, it would take less time to reach out and hit the light switch by the door than to bark “ALEXA. LIGHTS ON” every time he entered the apartment.

So began my habit of noting how men speak to their devices. Not all men are as bad as Jeremy, of course. There was also the sensitive Southern gentleman who tenderly asked Google to play him a thunderstorm (the “hey” added a welcome salutation, lessening the abruptness), and the workaholic surgeon who courteously entreated Alexa to order more paper towels. (His lilting tone turned “Alexa?” into a request rather than a command.) Smart speakers have only been around a few years, but they are rapidly becoming pervasive—with 1 in 6 Americans now owning one, up 128 percent from January 2017, it’s clear my smart home etiquette pet peeve is something I’ll continue to grapple with.

Anyone who tends to speak loud to their home assistant, raise your hand. My hand is up. And, regardless of pitch, yeah, you are ordering it to do something. Because it’s a freaking machine. It’s not a real person. Why do I have to explain this? Because it’s 2018, and some people are bat guano insane.

With the newly announced Echo Dot Kids Edition, Amazon seems to be recognizing similar concerns—but in children, not dates. The kid-friendly Alexa will include a “Magic Word” feature, which will offer “positive reinforcement for using the word ‘please’ while asking questions.” It’s not a moment too soon, with parents deeply worried about the effects of smart speakers on children’s social development. How does having an in-home helper who doesn’t expect a “please” or a “thank you” affect their manners? Will interacting with something—or someone, as it might feel to a child—so compliant make them excessively bossy? Are smart homes turning kids into “raging assholes,” as this 2016 blog post contends? The long-term implications of growing up in a smart home are untested and hard to predict.

Oh deal Lord, these people are nuts. Next up, they’ll probably complain about people speaking loud at their in-car voice system (I always tell people to speak in a regular voice, don’t yell at it).

One thing that is already clear: The way people speak to Alexa, Cortana, and Siri already changes the way I see them. It matters how you interact with your virtual assistant, not because it has feelings or will one day murder you in your sleep for disrespecting it, but because of how it reflects on you. Alexa is not human, but we engage with her like one. We judge people by how they interact with retail and hospitality workers—it supposedly says a lot about a person that they are rude to wait staff. Of course, waiters are more deserving of respect than robots—you could make or break a worker’s mood with your thoughtlessness, while Alexa doesn’t have moods (she only cares about yours). But the underlying revelation is the same: Who are you when in a position of power, and how do you treat those beneath you?

Just stop, please. Stop.

Perhaps if Alexa were Alex (and Siri, Sir) this wouldn’t be so unsettling. It’s hard to listen to a man call out a woman’s name followed by a command—it’s even harder not to wonder if the tone of the command was in any way influenced by the gendered word preceding it, with gender shown to have a big role in how people perceive bots. Maybe if we stop giving robots default female names and voices, as many have argued, I would feel less irked by men’s tone toward them. But perhaps, most disconcerting of all, men would be less rude to them if they sounded like dudes.

It’s a machine. And, men, and women, would speak to them in the same manner if they had a male voice. Because the vast majority of us understand it’s a machine with no feelings. And aren’t looking for something to be Offended and Outraged over. If only these same O&O people would put their energies into dealing with real things, like, say, bad/uncaring drivers. I’m outraged by the ever growing thing of blowing off stop signs. People not even doing slow and goes. When doing that, they aren’t even really taking the time to truly look both ways. I’m not going to dwell on this, done it enough in Real Life, but, one would think that if these people do not care about other people, they’d at least care about themselves and the tens of thousands of dollars they spent on an automobile.

Read: Peak 2018? Women Won’t Date Men Who Yell At Alexa »

USA Today: Big Panel Of Trump Supporters Think Trump’s Lying About Stormy Daniels, And Don’t Care

This is what passes for “journalism”: asking some Trump supporters about Stormy Daniels

Trump voters think he’s lying about Stormy Daniels. And no, they don’t really care.

Yes, they think President Trump’s lying about Stormy Daniels. And no, they really do not care.

Americans who voted for the president say they don’t believe his denial of the adult film star’s claim that she had a 2006 affair with Trump, the same year that Melania Trump gave birth to their son Barron. But that hasn’t tempered their sky-high support for the president. Neither has the Russia investigation into possible collusion tied to Trump, which they see as an increasingly transparent charade that’s wasting tax dollars and distracting from his agenda.

That’s according to the USA TODAY Trump Voter Panel, a free-floating focus group of 25 people nationwide who cast ballots for the president and now weigh in on the his performance every few months.

An entire story positioned as being all Trump voters based on a group of 25 people. Over 61 million voted for Trump.

“I’m not in the man’s pants. I don’t know what he did when he pulled them down,” Monty Chandler, a disabled veteran from Church Point, La., says of Daniel’s claims. “The only evidence is her, the hush money. We’re human. We all sin. And he tried to cover it up.”

He’s equally dismissive of the Russia-related allegations, echoing Trump’s descriptor of the investigation as a “witch hunt.” (snip)

“Once you’re a believer and supporter, you stay with who you believe is going to do everything correct,” says JoAnne Musial of Canadensis, Penn. “He’s going through hell, I’ll tell you that: I know of no other human in office who could go through what he’s going through.”

Fifteen of the respondents say they think Trump had a tryst with Daniels, with three saying he did not and three still unsure. Four did not respond. Of the panel’s seven women, six belive Trump stepped out on his wife, with several chalking it up to “boys will be boys” behavior.

“I hate to say this, but it’s a male thing,” laments Patricia Shomion of Mount Gilead, Ohio. “I think he’s mostly lying to himself, that he can’t bring himself out to say, ‘Well, I did, but it’s gone.’”

And while most believe Trump had an affair over 10 years ago, virtually none find that relevant to his presidency: Just one claimed the scandal had put a dent in their support.

That’s because no one really cares, except in the Leftist media. It’s immaterial. If it happened, it happened well before Trump became president. Consider that no one in the media was really caring to delve into Obama’s use of drugs, including cocaine and marijuana (illegal under federal law), prior to entering politics. They didn’t care to delve into his time at Columbia. They cared very little to delve into his relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne, both unrepentant terrorist bombers.

These same people had little interest in investigating Fast and Furious, whereby the administration allowed guns to be purchased and then run across the border into Mexico and losing track of them. Said guns were used to kill to federal border agents, lots of Mexicans (and harming lots of Mexicans), and were even linked to a jihadi attack in Paris. They weren’t interested in most things Obama. They truly were lapdogs. Imagine Trump doing the same things Obama did: how would the media react? How would they react if Trump tried a gun running program like F&F and have it go wrong the same way? Yeah, there’s your answer.

If Trump had a tryst with Daniels, who does care? Daniels never claims it was anything but consensual. Just like the so-called collusion, there’s nothing there there.

And the media wonder’s why their credibility is shot.

Read: USA Today: Big Panel Of Trump Supporters Think Trump’s Lying About Stormy Daniels, And Don’t Care »

Surprise: New Study Makes Case For Governmental Control Of Fossil Fuels Usage

Funny how this all boils down to ever increasing Big Government, eh?

New study makes the case for supply-side climate change policies

A pair of economists, Fergus Green of the London School of Economics, and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute have published an interesting paper that attempts to integrate and synthesize the economic and political attributes of restrictive supply-side climate policies.

The paper, “Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies,” is a long read and at the same time, advocates the need for a universal climate policy “toolkit,” one that goes beyond focusing on restricting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

And according to David Roberts, writing for Vox, the two economists may be onto something that climate activists have long been campaigning for – shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals. (snip)

The economists argue that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.

“In our experience,” the authors write, “the climate policy community has for too long been excessively narrow in its preference for certain kinds of policy instruments (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade), largely ignoring the characteristics of such instruments that affect their political feasibility and feedback effects.”

I think we should start by banning all city, county, and state governments from using fossil fuels for their operations that have voted for ‘climate change’ policies, even if just a resolution in support of something like the Paris Climate Agreement.

Read: Surprise: New Study Makes Case For Governmental Control Of Fossil Fuels Usage »

If All You See…

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

The blog of the day is Geller Report, with a post on Berkeley considering stripping funds from College Republicans.

Read: If All You See… »

Cult of Climastrology Is Powered By Child Labor In Africa

The Cult of Climastrology keeps saying that ‘climate change’ harms women, children, the poor, and minorities the most

They also tell us that “developing nations” are hurt the most and will bear the brunt and stuff. So, 4 out of 5 (via Twitchy)

Carmakers and big tech struggle to keep batteries free from child labor

Car and tech companies are scrambling for supplies of cobalt, a mineral they need to power electric vehicles and smartphones. But they have a problem: Much of the cobalt used in lithium-ion batteries comes from a country where children work in mines.

A CNN investigation has found that child labor is still being used to mine the valuable mineral at some operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This country produces about two-thirds of the world’s cobalt and is estimated to sit atop half of the globe’s reserves.

There have been warnings about child labor before – Amnesty International highlighted the problem in 2016 and Glencore (GLNCY), a leading cobalt producer, said last month that some small mines in the DRC are using children.

The problem may be getting worse. Rising demand has led cobalt prices to quadruple in the past two years, and that helped boost production at so-called artisanal miners in the DRC by 18% in 2017, according to Andries Gerbens at Darton Commodities.

Of course, black kids in Africa aren’t minorities, but, the 1st World Warmists who drive this whole thing think of all who aren’t white liberals/progressives/Marxists/Socialists as minorities. And all sorts of car manufacturers, and Apple, give some sketchy platitudes about attempting to maybe possibly Do Something, but, really, it doesn’t seem that many of the greenie-weenies buying electric cars and such care beyond platitudes and talking points.

Ethics schmethics, the Warmists would be very upset if they actually had to pay a whole lot more for their beliefs. What’s a little child labor to keep their costs for Virtue Signaling down?

So, yeah, the climate change scam is hurting the poor, minorities, and kids. Manufacture one crisis, and it creates another.

BTW, despite the graphic, give it up to Tesla, which gets its cobalt from the Philippines and Canada. Of course, we may still find that Panasonic, the supplier for the Philippines batteries, uses child labor.

Read: Cult of Climastrology Is Powered By Child Labor In Africa »

NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns

Repeat after me: “Democrats are totally not looking to take away people’s Rights to purchase firearms, we just want to make it more difficult for Bad people to get firearms”

Lawmakers want to raise age to buy rifles, shotguns in N.J.

You may soon be barred from legally buying a rifle or shotgun in New Jersey until you turn 21.

The latest gun-control bill introduced by Democratic lawmakers in the New Jersey Legislature would raise the minimum age to obtain a permit to purchase either weapon in the Garden State from 18 to 21.

That would match up with current state law that requires people to be 21 to buy handguns from licensed dealers.

It’s the latest in a string of bills sponsored by Democrats make New Jersey’s already tough gun laws even tougher — an effort that has increased in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting and other massacres.

The sponsors of this measure — state Assemblymen Roy Freeman, and Andrew Zwicker, both D-Somerset — said the goal is to prevent gun violence.

“There is no easy solution to the proliferation of gun violence in this country, but there are measures we can take to help keep people safe,” Freiman said in a statement. “Bringing the rules on rifles and shotguns in line with the rules on handguns can help. If you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, the same standard should apply to rifles and shotguns.”

There’s no evidence offered that this type of restriction in any way causes issues to the criminals that use firearms in the vast majority of shootings. They try and make a link with

The lawmakers cited data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which show 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides four times more than those who are 21 or older.

“Research shows that the adolescent brain is still maturing in the teenage years, which is why teens often make decisions instinctively and without weighing the consequences,” Freiman said.

But, where’s the proof that the firearms had been purchased legally? How many of the shooters are gang bangers and/or just scumbags, mostly residing in Democrat run cities, who stole the firearms or procured them illegally in another manner? As someone in the comments notes “Is that all 18 to 20 year olds or is that 18 to 20 year old legal gun owners? Because if it’s the former and not the latter, it’s a pretty meaningless statistic.” That would be nice to know.

But, what this is is an attempt from Democrats to Do Something, regardless of whether it will create the desired outcome. When 18-20 year olds continue shooting others willy nilly, despite being banned from buying firearms, will the NJ lawmakers then….raise the purchase age to 25? And this all just shows that Democrats will institute gun bans in dinks and dunks.

Women aged 18-20 living alone/scared about being assaulted should take comfort that their ability to defend themselves is being taken away in the interest of something or other.

Read: NJ Considers Raising Age To Buy Rifles And Shotguns »

Surprise: Iran Lied About Their Nuclear Program

This is shocking news, shocking. Though it is interesting how the NY Times puts it, in that “Israel says”, as opposed to tens of thousands of documents say

Israel Says Secret Files Prove Iran Lied About Nuclear Program

Revealing a huge archive of stolen Iranian nuclear plans, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accused Iran on Monday of lying for years about its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

Days before President Trump was to decide whether to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Mr. Netanyahu presented records from a secret warehouse in Tehran, making the case that Iranian leaders had deceived the international nuclear agency when they insisted their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Israeli spies seized the documents in an overnight raid in January, a senior Israeli official said.

But Mr. Netanyahu did not provide any evidence that Iran had violated the nuclear agreement since it took effect in early 2016. That suggests that the Israeli prime minister — who has opposed the deal since its inception, and even went to the American Congress to try to block it — was hoping that the disclosures would bolster Mr. Trump’s resolve to scuttle the agreement on May 12.

Wow, it took 3 whole paragraphs before Ronen Bergman, David M. Halbfinger, and David E. Sanger attempted to find a way to defend the horrible deal, which removed tons of sanctions, saw Obama give Iran well over a billion dollars, and allows them to essentially create nuclear weapons starting around 2026.

After offering more political observations, and comments from Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, we finally get some details

“These files conclusively prove that Iran is brazenly lying when it said it never had a nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Netanyahu said, pointing to copies of what he said were 55,000 printed pages and 183 compact discs.

He said Israel had passed the information on to the United States, which “can vouch for its authenticity.”

Mr. Netanyahu said that Iran had intensified its efforts to hide evidence of its weapons program after signing the nuclear deal in 2015, and in 2017 moved its records to a secret location in Tehran that looked like “a dilapidated warehouse.”

If they’re doing this post-deal signing, then, that would rather make them non-compliant.

American intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that Iran suspended the active portion of the bomb effort after the beginning of the Iraq war, in 2003, and Mr. Netanyahu confirmed that in his presentation. But he said that other elements of what Iran had called “Project Amad” went ahead, directed by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian scientist.

The documents he showed were not the first to leak out of the Iranian archives, or to document Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s role.

A decade ago, in early 2008, the chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency gathered diplomats from around the world to a meeting at the agency’s Vienna headquarters and showed them images from a similar trove, including sketches of bomb designs and memos and budget documents from Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s project. That presentation included sketches of a “spherical device” that could be detonated using high explosives, similar to plans Mr. Netanyahu showed on Monday.

And that’s the way the article goes: Iran being shown to be in non-compliance, and attempt by the NY Times to defend Iran. They’re rather soft on telling us about the 55,000 pages of documents, images, and videos on almost 183 CDs indicating that Project Amad has continued to operate out of a secret location in Tehran, mentioning Project Amad, the whole point, just once.

As Ed Morrissey notes

Netanyahu offers four conclusions from the sample he revealed in his presentation:

  • Iran lied about never having a nuclear weapons program
  • After the deal, Iran preserved their research and have expanded it
  • Iran lied to the IAEA and violated the terms of the nuclear deal
  • The nuclear deal is based on lies.

Here’s a conclusion that Netanyahu is too diplomatic to state out loud: The people who signed onto this deal are saps. It also points out the fecklessness in leaving the ballistic missile program outside of the original deal.

“Saps” is being way too kind. In the summer of 2015, “John Kerry, then secretary of state, assured reporters that American intelligence agencies had “absolute knowledge”about Iran’s past efforts to build a nuclear weapon.” All the people in Obama’s admin, along with Obama himself, told us that Iran was super cooperative, and that this deal was awesome. The Iran deal was essentially Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, and it’s all based on lies.

Read: Surprise: Iran Lied About Their Nuclear Program »

Warmists Seem Pretty Upset That Companies Being Sued Would Dare Fight Back

Inside Climate News’ David Hasemeyer seems pretty upset that The Law allows entities to actually defend themselves and fight back

In Cities v. Fossil Fuels, Exxon’s Allies Want the Accusers Investigated

The elbowing for advantage between ExxonMobil and the California cities and counties suing the oil giant for billions of dollars in climate change damages has spread to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Exxon alleged in a Texas court earlier this year that in selling municipal bonds, the local governments may have withheld critical information from buyers about their vulnerability to sea level rise. That would cast a poor light on the cities’ claims that Exxon knew about climate risks but ignored them in its own financial disclosures.

Now two industry-friendly groups are turning the tables and asking the SEC to investigate the cities and counties for possible fraud. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers complained to the SEC’s Public Finance Abuse Unit of a breach of federal disclosure laws.

The two conservative trade groups have been attacking the credibility of the cities and counties for months though blistering blog posts and social media assaults. CEI blogger and senior fellow Marlo Lewis, Jr. wrote in a post titled “ExxonMobil Strikes Back” about the bond argument: “The  California officials are either falsely alarming the public or scamming their bondholders. As my colleague, attorney Christopher Horner might say if he were conducting the deposition, ‘Which time were you lying?'”

OK, so, I’m going to accuse Inside Climate News of (insert horrible thing here) and sue. According to the screed, they can’t fight back. That works, right?

What the Warmist jurisdictions want to do is hide their activities while trying to shakedown the fossil fuels companies. I still say that Exxon and the others should simply refuse to sell their products to the governments suing them.

Read: Warmists Seem Pretty Upset That Companies Being Sued Would Dare Fight Back »

If All You See…

…is a horrible, resource sucking dog causing a horrible 1.5F increase in temps, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on cultural appropriation, prom edition.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove