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… »

Climate Change Scam Scientist (Who Blocks Everyone) Talks Respectfully

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 »

Surprise: Democrats Introduce Gun Ban Bill

Who saw this coming? (via Twitchy)

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?

Read: Surprise: Democrats Introduce Gun Ban Bill »

NY Times: If You’re A Patriot And A Christian, You Should Support A Clean Dream Act Or Something

If only Joseph W. Tobin, the archbishop of Newark, NJ, would spend as much time and passion on opposing abortion on demand, something Jesus Christ would surely be against

If You’re a Patriot and a Christian, You Should Support the Dream Act

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls on us to welcome and protect the stranger. This should not be hard to do when the stranger is young, blameless and working hard to make this country a better place.

There are nearly 700,000 young men and women in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who could soon be at risk for deportation. These “Dreamers” live in our neighborhoods, attend our schools, fight for our country and contribute to our workplaces. Our leaders in Washington, including President Trump, have a moral obligation to try to protect those who came to our nation as children with their parents, and who are Americans in every way.

We do protect the stranger. Those who enter our nation in compliance with our laws. But, hey, since the archbishop finds them blameless, the parents must be blamed, right? So he’s good with deporting them? Anyhow, we have zero moral obligation to protect the so-called Dreamers. We owe them nothing. Zip. Nada. Dropping the name of Jesus doesn’t somehow make it OK that they came to this nation illegally and continued to reside in the U.S. illegally, all while taking jobs and college placement from U.S. citizens, using up taxpayer money that should go to U.S. citizens, and demanding, Demanding!, that we give them stuff and citizenship.

Our elected officials need to stop trying to pass a large immigration bill that combines protection for Dreamers with other divisive issues, like money for border enforcement and the wall and new rules to limit immigrants’ ability to sponsor family members. Using the plight of Dreamers to introduce measures that otherwise would not pass on their own merits is especially cruel, as it leaves these young people hostage to the wider debate on our broken immigration system.

Instead we need a “clean” Dream Act to help these youths now. After all, the reason Congress is even debating immigration at this point stems from the Dreamers’ own courage in advocating a solution consistent with our best democratic traditions.

Of course he’s going to push for legalization with no accompanying security. The NY Times wouldn’t have give the archbishop a platform otherwise. Security is not divisive: legalization of illegal aliens who aren’t particularly humble nor appreciative is. Tell you what: let’s pass a clean bill. It gives Dreamers legal status for 3 years, then they have to leave, just like so many on legal visas.

If the Dreamers are deported, it will do great harm to this country. According to the (uber far left) Center for Migration Studies of New York, the two million or so young people who could be covered by a Dream Act have integrated successfully into our society. Sixty-five percent work, with over 70,000 self-employed. Eighty-eight percent speak English exclusively, very well or well. Nearly 30 percent have attended college or earned a college degree. They have lived in the United States an average of 14 years and are parents to 392,000 American citizen children. Removing them would hurt our country economically and socially. It is not an option.

The majority haven’t graduated college. But, hey, if I was stealing from the archbishop’s parish for 14 years, that would be OK, right, because it was a long time, right?

At this moment, however, there seems to be no sanity or progress in the pursuit of a solution for the Dreamers. That is why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging all Catholics and others of good will to phone their senators and House members today and implore them to pass the Dream Act. Catholic teaching calls for all people to make a commitment to uphold the dignity of every person and to work for the common good of our nation. It is both our moral duty and in our nation’s best interest to guide our lawmakers in this matter.

Perhaps they could get off their butts and spend the time to do their moral duty to end abortion on demand.

As far as the patriotism part, there’s nothing in the article about it. It’s just a canard in the headline.

That Congress and the Trump administration tried and failed once to protect Dreamers does not let them off the hook. This is not about the next election but about the family next door. We need to restore confidence in our government and in our identity as an immigrant nation by passing a Dream Act.

If you want to restore confidence in our government, then we’d have the government fully enforcing the laws that have been passed. Which means deporting the illegals.

Read: NY Times: If You’re A Patriot And A Christian, You Should Support A Clean Dream Act Or Something »

Warm Weather Totally Proves ‘Climate Change’ From You Eating A Burger

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

Your Evil Milk Consumption Is Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

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 »

California Sanctuary City Mayor Decided To Warn Illegals About Upcoming ICE Raid

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 sources” — in a press release on Saturday, “not to panic our residents but to protect them,” Fox 2 reported.

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 »

A Reasonable Compromise On Gun Control Part 2

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 Ban
  • Ban the manufacture, sale, and transfer of magazines higher than 10 rounds starting the date the legislation passes
  • Require background checks on all weapons purchased at gun shows before the purchaser takes ownership of the weapon (the so-called gun show loophole)
  • Background checks would be required for all weapons purchases and transfers, including private and from family member to family member. If it has been more than two months since the last purchase, another check is required
  • No more than one firearm purchase at a time. No more than one per month
  • Ban private ownership of all automatic weapons, excluding those few who qualify for the the ATF stamp.
  • Ban bump stocks
  • Heavy criminal penalties for converting a weapon to automatic
  • An automatic 5 year sentencing extension any time a firearm is used in a crime, with no time off for good behavior
  • Allowing school employees to have access to firearms on school property and/or more armed security on campus
  • A national 7 day waiting period for the purchase of all handguns, 3 days for rifles (with a provision that in certain cases, such as someone who’s life is being threatened can get an immediate check and permit from law enforcement. Provided they pass the check)

In return I want

  • Ban all late term abortions (except in real cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger, and the doctor must legally sign off on a specific, and legally binding, form)
  • Require parental notification for abortions for all women under 18
  • Require parental consent for all under 16 (which could be over-ruled by a judge)
  • Disallow all federal funding for abortion, including at Planned Parenthood. Want one? Pay for it yourself
  • Do away with all federal funding for operations that perform abortions
  • Require a 48 waiting period from the time a woman requests an abortion
  • All abortion facilities must adhere to medical facility guidelines. They should be at least as safe and clean as a veterinarian facility, should they not?
  • Yearly inspections of abortion facilities
  • Doctors against abortion should not be forced to perform them

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?

Read: A Reasonable Compromise On Gun Control Part 2 »

If All You See…

…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… »

Pirate's Cove