…is a river that is flooding and land that is drying, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Proof Positive, with a post on the anniversary of the 1st World Trade Center attack.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a river that is flooding and land that is drying, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Proof Positive, with a post on the anniversary of the 1st World Trade Center attack.
Read: If All You See… »
This is Katharine Hayhoe to pretty much every skeptic who engages her in debate

Here is her in the “news”
A climate scientist talks—respectfully—to climate-change skeptics
How did you begin trying to communicate to the skeptics about climate change?
It began inadvertently. I met my husband at the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at the University of Illinois, when we were both in graduate school. We had been married six months or so before it dawned on us that we weren’t on the same page when it came to climate change. (snip)
Back then, 17 years ago, the issue was not as politicized as it is today. And we had another advantage: we not only loved each other, but we respected each other. I knew that he was a really smart person. He knew that not only did I share his faith, I was a practical person. I wasn’t somebody who wanted to ruin the economy to save the whales.
One conversation didn’t resolve our differences overnight. But over the course of months, through exploring the evidence and the implications together, he came to agree that climate change is real and human-caused and that the impacts are serious enough to warrant taking action.
How was that conversation like the others you’ve had since with people who deny climate change?
It was my first experience of starting from a place of mutual respect and shared values. And that, I realized, is the key to success: not just then but even more so today, when climate change has become one of the most politically polarized issues in the United States.
Kinda hard to have a discussion when you block everyone who disagrees with you.
I’m not even going to get into, again, her hijacking of Christianity to push her cultish beliefs.
Read: Climate Change Scam Scientist (Who Blocks Everyone) Talks Respectfully »
Who saw this coming? (via Twitchy)
House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons https://t.co/wdFEB8LcIu pic.twitter.com/ZnAfVw6azA
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) February 26, 2018
From the article
House Democrats have introduced a bill banning semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said.
The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation†of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15.
On the surface, people need to not get too bent out of shape regarding what appears to be a total ban on all semi-automatic rifles and pistols. The actual text doesn’t necessarily say that. It spends the majority of the time listing exactly which rifles and shotguns are banned and which are not banned (page 25 to 121). The proposed legislation is over 100 legislative pages long. However, there’s a bit of inserting language about semi-automatic pistols that could be concerning.
The government is utterly exempt from this law, with the ability to get as many assault rifles as the want.
Also, the bill seem to ban all magazines over 10 rounds, and may or may not grandfather ones purchased prior to 2018.
It also requires that all banned scary looking rifles be kept in a locked storage cabinet unless literally being carried. The FBI couldn’t be bothered to investigate the Parkland shooter. Of course they or other government agencies will have time to come by, right? Because you have to register it.
You can still buy this the bottom one, which works exactly the same as the banned top one

It’s funny that Democrats always go after the law abiding citizen, rather than the criminal, eh?
A couple weeks back, cold weather was proving anthropogenic climate change from you refusing to go vegan and keep your home set to 59F. Now
Warm weather helping experts prove climate change
Last Tuesday was the warmest recorded day in February for Cincinnati, with temperatures reaching upward of 79 degrees.
This breaks the 72-degree record set two years prior, according to the National Weather Service.
This past week, winter weather across the nation has undergone abnormal patterns. Many eastern states reached temperatures well into the mid-70s.
These warm winters are increasingly becoming the norm. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017 was the third-hottest year on record, with 2015 being the second and 2016 being the first.
With current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decreasing regulations on fossil fuel industries, some are becoming more concerned about climate change issues. Man-made climate change has become a divisive political topic and some are reluctant to relate these patterns to global warming.
Do you know what this proves? Nothing. It neither proves that it’s mostly/solely man caused nor mostly/solely natural. It doesn’t prove that it could be any percentage. It simply proves warming. Which has happened many times during the Holocene (and other points during Earth’s history). But, it doesn’t matter to Warmists, because they have a non-science Narrative
As global carbon emissions continue to rise, so does the correlation with rising temperatures.
“Global carbon production is higher than ever, and we’re not stopping — we’re emitting more than ever,†Ray said.
First, if you’re writing “carbon emissions”, you’ve left the realm of science and gone to politics. It’s carbon dioxide. Second, what did previous warm periods correlate with? They weren’t driving fossil fueled vehicles back during the Roman Warm Period. This is all unhinged, cult-like dogma from people who mostly won’t give up their own use of fossil fuels and reduce their own carbon footprints.
Read: Warm Weather Totally Proves ‘Climate Change’ From You Eating A Burger »
…is an evil fossil fueled tractor, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Ice Age Now, with a post on Brazil’s year without a summer.
Apparently, someone had a hissy fit about the previous photo, grabbed an old one.
Read: If All You See… »
Warmists are very, very upset that peasants in China dare to drink delicious, good for you, wholesome milk
China wants to lead the climate-change fight. It better solve its milk problem.
In its effort to lead the global push against climate change, the world’s second-largest economy has assigned soldiers to tree-planting duty, spent billions of dollars on cleaner energy (pdf), and has actively pushed some of its cities away from using coal.
Still, China has yet to figure out what to do about one of its biggest environmental hurdles—its demand for milk.
That’s because the world’s most populous country is expected to almost triple its consumption of dairy across the next 30 years, according to a study published this month in the journal, Global Change Biology. To figure out just how much the world would be impacted by China’s appetite for dairy by 2050, a team of researchers led by the Chinese Academy of Sciences set out to assess what factors in the country would drive milk consumption and measure the ultimate impact.
In short, the rising demand for for dairy in China will increase the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions coming from dairy herds by 35%, it’ll require 32% more land be dedicated to dairy, and it will boost nitrogen pollution from production by 48%, according to the study.
Isn’t it interesting that these 1st World Warmists always come up with ways to attempt to deny Other People the same things they themselves had? Will these same Warmists deny their own kids milk?
Read: Your Evil Milk Consumption Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Wouldn’t it be fun, and funny, if Los Federales decided to charge her with violating 8 U.S. Code 1324/1325 in protecting illegal aliens?
(Fox News) The mayor of a sanctuary city in California issued a warning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be conducting a raid in the area as soon as Sunday — ratcheting up tension with the feds while giving her constituents an early heads-up.
Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, shared the warning — which she said she “learned from multiple credible sourcesâ€Â — in a press release on Saturday, “not to panic our residents but to protect them,â€Â Fox 2 reported.
— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) February 25, 2018
It’s right there in the news release: to protect illegal aliens from arrest. That is a violation of federal code.
The feds detained at least four people Sunday, a program manager for the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Education Network told the San Francisco Examiner, although the paper noted it was unclear if the detentions were related to any broader ICE operation.
Schaaf during a news conference on Sunday also said she told mayors of other Bay Area cities of the impending ICE sweep, SFGate reported.
If she gave that warning based on information she received from ICE, there could be, and should be, penalties.
Oh, hey, you know what would be more fun? President Trump should say that he won’t send ICE into Oakland, which would cause illegal aliens to stream into the city, causing all the problems that mass illegal immigration causes.
Read: California Sanctuary City Mayor Decided To Warn Illegals About Upcoming ICE Raid »
Back on January 9th, 2013, I wrote a quick piece offering some compromises on gun control. At the time, Democrats were pushing hard for gun control, in the wake of a few incidents and with Obama about to start his second term. Of course, they’re pushing hard for more gun control now, despite an almost complete failure of government at multiple levels to stop the Parkland school shooter. Apparently, there were at least 22 more calls to the Florida shooter’s school than had been disclosed by the Broward Country Sheriff’s Office (not sure why Buzzfeed calls Cruz “suspected Florida shooter”: he was caught and admitted it). Unsurprisingly, the calls for gun control, banning, and confiscation have led to record numbers of attendees to Florida gun shows.
Anyhow, in the spirit of compromise, I’ll again offer a few things, updated a bit
Reinstatement of the original 1994 Assault Weapons BanIn return I want
I think that’s eminently fair, a nice compromise. What do you think? You liberals would be willing to put some common sense reforms on the abortion industry for some common sense gun control reforms, would you not? This is stricter than I offered back in 2013.
Of course, let’s face it, abortionistas won’t agree to any of this. Despite abortion appearing nowhere in the Constitution, unlike firearms and other weapons (why can’t I carry a sword around?), they feel that abortion is a Right, and there should be zero restrictions nor regulations on it. They’ve pitched massive fits over requiring an abortion facility to have medical standards. They do not even want inspections. Ever. Abortion on demand is the #1 commandment of the Democratic Party.
Realistically, for gun reforms, I’m actually good with everything except the first two, assault weapons ban and magazine restriction. I could compromise on the latter at 15, which would cover the vast majority of handguns which come with larger mags.
I’d also like to see New Jersey repeal it’s smart gun law, which has kept them off the shelves and limited research and development. If a proper smart gun could be developed that would work 99 times out of 100, and could fire at least a 9mm bullet, that would be great.
Lastly, I’ve mentioned this at times here and in comments at other sites, but, I’d like to see gun owners attend at least a quick training on the proper use and safety for firearms. This would be required for the very first purchase, and for every gun purchased every 4 years. And, it should be a requirement that people take and pass concealed carry classes to get that permit. It’s required here in N.C., but many states are really, really loose.
Anyhow, do you think the abortionistis would be willing to compromise?
…is horrible carbon pollution snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on Chicago’s continuing crime problem.
It’s girls in nature week!
Read: If All You See… »