Climate Weenies Sue Washington State For More ‘Climate Change’ Regulations

By William Teach February 17, 2018 – 12:08 pm

They won’t give up their own use of fossil fuels and carbon footprints, they just want you to be forced by Government to give up yours, and they’re shamefully using children

(AP) Environmental activists are suing Washington state, the latest state-level effort to boost use of renewable energy.

Thirteen children backed by the non-profit Our Children’s Trust filed a lawsuit on Friday in King County Superior Court to force the state to end its reliance on fossil fuels. The only way to do so would be for the state to move toward producing all of its energy through renewable means by 2050, Andrea Rodgers, one of the lawyers that filed the case, said in an interview. (snip)

“We appreciate the governor’s work; but while words are important, they’re not everything,” Rodgers said. “The emissions in Washington are still substantial. We still have transportation and energy systems that are dependent on fossil fuels. We need a complete transformation.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are children that range in age from 7 to 17.

Wouldn’t it be funny if they won and the judge ruled that the state of Washington may no longer use fossil fuels for operations? All those state owned cars and trucks and boats that could no longer be used, etc and so forth. The state would have to spend an enormous amount of money to replace all that. Guess who pays? Those children that range in age from 7 to 17. Who would probably leave the state because their taxes and cost of living skyrocketed. Which is what would happen anyhow if they win their lawsuit.

It seeks to make the state establish a plan to “stabilize the climate system and protect the vital natural resources on which plaintiffs and future generations will depend.” It also charges that an existing law that obligates the state to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 to 1990 levels, and by 2050 to 50 percent below 1990 levels or 70 percent below the state’s projected emissions that year, still permits “dangerous” levels of those gasses.

They’re fighting to raise their power costs, food costs, clothing costs, home costs, and so forth. And to make everyone else Comply.

Read: Climate Weenies Sue Washington State For More ‘Climate Change’ Regulations »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Business World Is Totally Livid With Trump’s Immigration Train Wreck Or Something

By William Teach February 17, 2018 – 7:36 am

The entire business world, you guys, according to Bess Levin at Vanity Fair (black bold hers. Red is mine)

THE BUSINESS WORLD IS LIVID OVER TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION “TRAIN WRECK”
The president’s DACA sabotage is doing him no favors in corporate America.

Despite claiming over and over that he has a “big heart” where DACA recipients are concerned, that he wants to come up with a solution before the March 5 deadline he set, and that if lawmakers came to him with an agreement, “I will be signing it,” Trump this week chose to torpedo Congress’s best stab at a bipartisan deal. With four proposed Senate bills to protect the Dreamers from deportation, the White House chose to “work vigorously to oppose” a centrist bill that had the best chances of passing, with the Department of Homeland Security claiming it amounted to “mass amnesty for over 10 million illegal aliens.” While the Common Sense Coalition measure, sponsored by eight Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent, would have provided $25 billion for border security, including Trump‘s precious wall, it would have done so over a period of 10 years and not immediately, [as the man-child in the Oval Office has demanded. “I don’t think the president helped very much,” Senator Lindsey Graham, told The New York Times, adding, “As long as the president allows Steve Miller and others to run the show down there, we’re never going to get anywhere.” Thanks to Congress’s paralysis, experts estimate that more than 100 DACA recipients are losing their status daily. And Trump’s pals in corporate America are pissed.

“I’ve been very worried for quite a while that I was watching a train wreck in slow motion, and yesterday we had that train wreck,” Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an alliance of small businesses, told the Financial Times. Echoing the sentiment was Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, who noted: “We have people who are working here contributing to our society. Many of them are in the manufacturing sector. We don’t want to lose those folks. And frankly our country shouldn’t want to lose those folks—especially in manufacturing where we have 364,000 open jobs.” Earlier in the week, Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein said in interview, “I couldn’t bear the idea of sending outside the country someone who grew up here his or her entire life,” adding that “over time, immigrants add to the economy because they bring in skills,” a data point the administration would rather not hear. To that end, the Cato Institute estimates that if the employers lost all of their DACA employees, it would set businesses back $6.3 billion in worker-turnover costs.

Interesting. That’s the entire corporate world. Goldman Sachs (I thought liberals hated GS?), the president of the National Association of Manufacturers (what does the rank and file think, and why isn’t the NAM looking to attract Americans?), and an illegal aliens supporting group, ImmigrationWorks, which places illegal aliens and non-US citizens over US citizens.

You’d think a guy who just delivered a billion-dollar tax break to corporations would remain invested in keeping those corporations happy. But of course, Trump doesn’t deal in facts, so such negotiating points will be lost on him.

So, keeping corporations happy means legalizing all those illegals so they can work low level, low pay jobs? I thought Dreamers were super smart and totally awesome. No?

Funny how Liberals always want to put Americans after illegal aliens.

Read: The Business World Is Totally Livid With Trump’s Immigration Train Wreck Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World | 41 Comments | Trackback URL

CNN Decides To Scaremonger On Florida Gun Laws

By William Teach February 17, 2018 – 7:20 am

In some areas, such as Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, California, New Jersey, New York, there are are massive gun restrictions. Heavily burdensome. Yet, interestingly, there are a lot of crimes that occur which involve the use of a gun. But, hey, CNN

You don’t need a permit or license to buy a gun in Florida. (And you don’t have to register your gun either)

The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people, has put the focus on Florida’s gun laws. For instance, the state doesn’t require a permit or a license for someone to own a gun.

Here are some facts about the gun laws in the Sunshine State, from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action:

  • The right to bear arms is found in the first article of Florida’s constitution: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed…” (OMG, right to use firearms to protect oneself!!!!!)
  • You don’t need a permit or license to buy a gun, nor do you have to register a firearm. (come back to this)
  • You don’t need a permit to conceal carry a rifle or shotgun, although you do need it to conceal carry a handgun. (how do you conceal a rifle or shotgun? Open carry is not allowed, except for hunting)
  • The state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services must issue a concealed weapons license to an applicant as long as the person meets a certain set of requirements, including being a US citizen, being the age of 21 or older, not having a felony conviction and demonstrates competence with a firearm.
  • You can buy as many guns as you want at one time, because Florida doesn’t regulate that either. (and you have to pass a background check)
  • Gun sellers don’t have to get a state license to sell firearms. (They need a federal firearms permit, and must meet state requirements)
  • The state does require a three-day waiting period before you can buy a gun.
  • And Florida does not regulate assault weapons, .50-caliber rifles and large capacity ammunition magazines. (like most states. You can buy a .50 in most states, they’re just really expensive, and the ammo is really, really expensive. Has anyone used one for a crime spree?)

The permit/license thing is a canard. It doesn’t matter if you have one, as you’ve gone through a federal background check to be able to purchase the firearm. My handgun is not registered with the state of North Carolina nor with Wake County. Only one county in NC requires registration, being the heavily Democratic run Durham County (which has lots of “gun crime” in the main city of Durham). This is all fear-mongering and misrepresentation.

The Giffords Law Center, a gun-control advocacy group that tracks firearms legislation, gave Florida an “F” grade for its gun laws in 2016. The law center says Florida has 12 gun deaths per 100,000, the 25th-highest rate in the nation.

Florida also has the “stand your ground” law, which the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action describes as a person having no “duty to retreat” if they’re attacked in a place where they have a legal right to be.

ZOMG, you can actually protect yourself? How rude!

Read: CNN Decides To Scaremonger On Florida Gun Laws »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Wonky Media | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Networks Spent Very Little Time On A Subject Most People Don’t Care About

By William Teach February 16, 2018 – 3:27 pm

Perhaps if the Credentialed Media wasn’t spending all their time on Russia Russia Russia and #Resist, they’d have time to cover a subject few people actually care enough about to make changes in their own lives

Networks spent 260 minutes on ‘climate change’ in 2017. Most of it was actually about Trump.

Last year’s weather was among the most extreme on record. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria devastated U.S. states and territories and will cost homeowners, business and taxpayers $265 billion. Add on the damage from California’s biggest wildfires in state history and no fewer than 12 other billion-dollar disasters, and 2017 was the costliest weather year on record, according to NOAA.

Operative word: weather. Weather isn’t climate. Except when Warmists want to try and make a (scam) point

Climate scientists agree global warming is playing a role in our weather. It’s making storms, droughts and floods more extreme. Amid the chaos, the Trump administration itself issued a report last year that said not only is climate change affecting our weather but also there’s no other explanation for climate change than we (humans) are to blame.

If that were the case, one would think the Washington Post would stop killing trees to make its paper edition and stop using fossil fueled vehicles to deliver it. Anyhow, here it comes

Despite all this, network news largely took a pass on covering climate change in 2017, according to new analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America. Corporate news networks aired six segments that mentioned the link between extreme weather and climate change. PBS, which is nonprofit, aired nine segments alone.

Perhaps the bigger takeaway from the analysis was that, even when climate change was mentioned, Trump was the subject that dominated the news last year. Networks devoted 260 minutes to climate change in 2017, but nearly all of it was in relation to President Trump and his administration’s actions on the issue, something Media Matters calls “a major oversight in a year when weather disasters killed hundreds of Americans, displaced hundreds of thousands more, and cost the economy in excess of $300 billion.”

To be clear, the 260-minute tally is the combined corporate network coverage of climate change; the survey includes ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news and Sunday morning programs, as well as “Fox News Sunday,” which airs on both the Fox network stations and Fox News cable station.

And the majority of that coverage was focused on the Trump admin and Hotcoldwetdry. Really, most do not care. It’s a dying cult, one devoid of facts and science.

Read: Bummer: Networks Spent Very Little Time On A Subject Most People Don’t Care About »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 16, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible evil fossil fueled vehicle causing heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on a Jeep ad causing Offendenitis.

Since the above failed to post yesterday, and I didn’t notice till late (was out on the links), a second blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Left’s make believe victimhood. Madison Chock is below the fold

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

The “Warming Hole” In The South Is ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach February 16, 2018 – 10:48 am

And the cold weather means people aren’t going to Believe in anthropogenic climate change atmosphere cancer

Snow-covered beaches? Chilly iguanas? They are part of a mysterious ‘hole’ in global warming

Frigid iguanas in Florida. Snowball fights on North Carolina’s beaches. Recent winters have delivered a bitter chill to the Southeast, reinforcing attitudes among some that global warming is a fraud.

But according to a scientific study published this month, the Southeast’s colder winter weather is part of an isolated trend, linked to a more wavy pattern in the jet stream that crosses North America. That dipping jet stream allows artic air to plunge into the Southeast. Scientists call this colder weather a “hole” in overall global warming, or a “warming hole.”

“What we are looking at is an anomaly,” said Jonathan M. Winter, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth College and the principle investigator in the study. “The Southeast is the exception to the rule.”

Winter and lead author Trevor F. Partridge, a Dartmouth graduate student, say this year’s extreme cold in Southeast could be a product of the warming hole. “It is the same mechanism that causes this bitterly cold air to come down,” said Winter.

What the study does is blame Mankind’s use of fossil fuels and CO2 output for the cold weather dipping down, which apparently started in the 1950’s, when we actually were seeing a cooling pattern, and CO2 was below the “safe” 350ppm

The Southeast’s warming hole has been studied many times before, but the Dartmouth study in Geophysical Research Letters nails down some of its key features. The study concludes the trend started in the late 1950s, and is concentrated in six states — Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. Nearby states are also affected, such as east Texas, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina.

And what does this cause?

Either because of coincidence or cooler climes, residents of these states tend to be relatively doubtful that global warming is happening and is largely caused by human activities, according to surveys compiled by Yale and George Mason universities.

It’s rather shocking that cold weather would make people think that anthropogenic climate change is a bunch of mule fritters, eh? The Cult of Climastrology just keeps trotting these types of studies out, when, if they really want to convince us Skeptics, they should practice what they preach in their own lives. They won’t, though.

Read: The “Warming Hole” In The South Is ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

All DACA Plans Fail, Leaving Plight Of Dreamers In The Air

By William Teach February 16, 2018 – 7:08 am

Let’s start deporting them and put American citizens first

(NPR) The Senate failed to pass any immigration legislation before a self-imposed Friday deadline, leaving lawmakers with no plan to address the roughly 700,000 immigrants who stand to lose legal protections as early as March 5.

The defeat follows a rocky 24 hours of negotiations on a bipartisan bill that failed following a veto threat from President Trump. By a 39-60 vote, senators rejected a White House-backed plan that became a partisan lightning rod after Trump insisted his plan was the only one he would sign.

It’s rather shocking that only 39 Republicans voted for the plan. I suspect we’ll find that they were all the usual pro-illegal alien squishes like Lindsay Graham. But, what NPR is failing to say is that these were votes to end debate and go to an actual vote on passing the bill, which is the the same with the next one

Republicans abandoned the bipartisan plan following the White House veto threat. That plan, negotiated by a group of roughly 22 Republicans and Democrats, would pair a 12-year path to citizenship for all immigrants eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with $25 billion in border security spending and limits on which family members the beneficiaries can sponsor for citizenship.

The bill failed 54-45, with all but three Democrats voting in favor. Among those voting against the bill was California Democrat Kamala Harris. A large share of the DACA population lives in California and Harris was under intense pressure from immigrant rights activists to oppose the bill.

It is shocking that 51 Republicans would vote to end debate and move forward with a passage vote for this terrible bill which would have given Democrats eventual citizenship for Dreamers in exchange for a slight possibility that a wall might be built in the future. Also that Democrats mostly blew this bill off. It was the best they were going to get. There’s no chance of a “clean” immigration bill, not even one that simply codifies DACA and never allows them to be permanent residents or citizens.

Tensions were high as senators began to rally around Trump’s demands on Wednesday. A visibly frustrated Grassley vented to reporters that Democrats needed to drop their opposition to the family-related portions of the bill and embrace the only offer Trump has embraced.

“The Democrats have been pleading for months and months and months for justice on this,” Grassley said. “Now you’ve got a compassionate president who has gone way beyond what they ever thought he would do. Why would they turn it down?”

Because 1) they want to keep this going as a wedge issue, and 2) if something is fixed, they want to make sure that more illegals will come into the nation, and push for them to be give free citizenship. Democrats put illegal aliens over U.S. citizens on a constant basis. They want open borders. They do not care about criminals coming into the nation, nor that so many illegals steal the identities of citizens and damage the lives of citizens.

If Democrats are refusing to accept significant requirements from Trump in exchange for significant legalization of Dreamers, then let’s move on. The Dreamers and their parents shouldn’t be here in the first place. If they had snuck into Disney, they’d all be escorted out. They wouldn’t be allowed to stay, and be given food, merchandise, shelter, and free rides.

Read: All DACA Plans Fail, Leaving Plight Of Dreamers In The Air »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

So, Of Course The Washington Post Is Calling For The Ban Of “Weapons Of War”

By William Teach February 16, 2018 – 6:49 am

This is all they know how to do. This is what they want to do. Ban “assault weapons”, then move on to banning other weapons and ownership. Because it works well in California and Chicago

Ban these weapons of war

….

That the suspected 19-year-old gunman in the Florida shooting was able to legally purchase an AR-15 rifle despite concerns about his mental health, a social media fixation with guns, alleged involvement with a white-nationalist group and boasts about killing animals underscores the complete failure of America’s political class to come to grips — or even to try to come to grips — with gun violence. Said teacher Melissa Falkowski, who sheltered 19 students in a classroom closet during the shooting, “The frustration is that we did everything that we were supposed to do . . . and still to have so many casualties. . . . I feel today like our government, our country has failed us and failed our kids and didn’t keep us safe.”

No question there were several factors contributing to Wednesday’s shooting. The accused shooter is a troubled young man with a history of discipline problems. Those who knew him, as well as people in law enforcement, appear to have responded inadequately to signs of danger.

Sounds more like a problem with the person, not the gun. Oh, and it’s interesting that blame was placed on the people who knew him.

But here is the key fact: This country has no monopoly on troubled young men. We have no monopoly on hate groups. We aren’t the only place where people miss signs of danger in troubled young men. What distinguishes the United States from the developed world is our open market in the weaponry of war — in weapons whose chief purpose and selling point is their obscene ability to kill as many people as possible in the shortest burst of time.

Should we ban six shooters? How about bows and arrows? Knives? Swords? They are all weapons of war. The burst thing is cute, an attempt to make people think that the guns are automatic. Citizens are mostly forbidden from having the types of gun actually used by the military, ones which can shoot more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger.

Is it any surprise that the weapon used in this week’s carnage was the same style of semiautomatic assault rifle that was used with deadly efficiency at a concert in Las Vegas, a Texas church, an Orlando nightclub, a Connecticut elementary school? These weapons designed for combat, accompanied by multiple ammunition magazines, have become the weapons of choice for mass shooters. It is time for a national ban on their sale and possession. Now, before the next set of parents face the unimaginable agony of the phone call that never gets answered.

All weapons are designed for combat. That’s why they’re called “weapons.” The last assault weapons ban did not work. The latest incarnation wouldn’t, either. And people could still get the exact same gun in a separate form. Just because it’s not scary looking doesn’t mean it won’t fire the same bullets at the same rate of fire (one per trigger pull).

Say, maybe if the Washington Post’s buddies in Hollywood and the entertainment industry could stop glorifying the use of assault weapons in gratuitous ways in their movies and tv shows. Oh, and perhaps the Democratic dominated education system could stop destroying morals, start teaching responsibility, stop teaching “if it feels good, do it”, and end the idiocy of teaching kids to take great action when one is Offended.

Read: So, Of Course The Washington Post Is Calling For The Ban Of “Weapons Of War” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Wonky Media | 38 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate (scam) Scientists Have Grim New Warning Or Something

By William Teach February 15, 2018 – 4:34 pm

Don’t they always have some sort of grim new warning? Or grim warning based on talking points that haven’t yet appeared but Totally Will Any Day Now?

Scientists Just Issued a Grim New Warning on Climate Change: ‘We Are Not Prepared’

New research shows that countries around the world are falling short of greenhouse gas goals in the Paris climate deal, and the consequences will likely be unprecedented extreme weather.

Published in the journal Science Advances this week, the study found that the likelihood of extreme heat, dryness and precipitation will increase across as much of 90% of North America, Europe and East Asia if countries do not accelerate their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are not prepared for today’s climate, let alone for another degree of global warming,” says study author Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University professor of earth system science.

Read: Climate (scam) Scientists Have Grim New Warning Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate (scam) Scientists Have Grim New Warning Or Something | Trackback URL

Super New Warmist Idea: Carbon Neutral Mortgage

By William Teach February 15, 2018 – 10:30 am

But, should Warmists actually be buying homes? Perhaps a tiny home (I actually love watching those tiny home shows. The end product is pretty cool), but, say, anything over 700 square feet certainly is a no no.

From the link

While sustainable finance has largely focused on providing financial products and tools to investors and businesses, we’re beginning to see more opportunities arise for consumers to support and shape the development of a more sustainable economy. One example of this is the emergence of the so-called “green” mortgage, a loan product that allows borrowers to reduce their utility bill costs by allowing them to finance the cost of incorporating energy-efficient features into a new housing purchase or the refinancing of existing housing.

Building on this concept, Carbon Credit Capital (CCC) and Residential Home Funding Corp. of America (RHF) have developed and brought to market a new mortgage product that mirrors its generic counterparts save one key difference. The Carbon Neutral Mortgage ensures that the fees borrowers typically pay to banks and underwriters upon closing their loans are instead put towards carbon offset projects to fully mitigate the projected carbon footprint of owning and operating the home, for the life of the loan.

CCC and RHF put together a package of carbon credits for borrowers equal to the estimated amount of carbon emitted by a similarly sized house over the course of one year, and subsequently, the life of the loan. Calculations are based on square footage and state energy data. The Carbon Neutral Mortgage is currently available in New Jersey, and is expected to expand to more states later this year.

You just know that there’s a scam there, and someone is making more money off gullible Warmists.

Read: Super New Warmist Idea: Carbon Neutral Mortgage »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove