If All You See…

By William Teach February 7, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is a building aging badly due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bizzy Blog, with a post wondering if the media will cover the “Obama wants to know everything” text messages.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Paris Considering Whether To Sue Fossil Fuels Companies Over Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach February 7, 2018 – 10:36 am

This has made the climahypocrites at 350.org giddy (via Watts Up With That?)

Paris explores climate lawsuit against fossil fuel companies

The City of Paris decided today to explore possibilities to sue the fossil fuel industry for causing climate damages, following the example of New York and other US cities.

The city council also decided to lobby other major cities such as London to ban fossil fuels from their investments through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, of which the mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo is president. The council also announced that it will release an update on the progress that has been made since it pledged to divest from fossil fuels in 2015.

“It’s fantastic news that cities like New York and Paris are stepping up to protect their citizens and hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for the harm they cause. This is a major breakthrough for divestment campaigners around the world that have been pushing cities to take a stand against the polluters wrecking our climate,” comments 350.org France Campaigner Clémence Dubois. Fossil fuel companies like Total, Shell, BP, and Exxon are the driving forces behind more and more severe flooding and summer heat waves in Paris, as well as droughts, wildfires, unpredictable seasons and rising sea levels hitting people across the globe.”

This winter, Paris has been hit once more by severe flooding, which the mayor saidwas, alongside recent summer heat waves ‘clearly a question of the town adapting to climate change’. Studies found that the flooding that submerged Paris in May 2016 was made almost twice as likely by human-made climate change. (snip)

The moves by New York and Paris, paired with mayor Hidalgo’s pledge to increase efforts to persuade other major cities to divest, raises the pressure on the London where mayor Sadiq Khan has so far disappointed campaigners to take a strong stand against the fossil fuel industry and deliver on his election pledge to divest London City Hall.

Major cities such as Sydney and Cape Town as well as numerous European capitals including Berlin, Oslo, Copenhagen and Stockholm have already pledged to ban fossil fuels from their investments.

For all this divestment talk, what’s missing is…..can you guess? Of course you can. I write it enough. You think it enough. They aren’t calling for each Warmist to give up their own use of fossil fuels. What the fossil fuels companies should do is refuse to sell fossil fuels to the city governments if they want to play this game. Let’s see how those cities are able to operate without fossil fuels.

And they should call out the leaders of those cities as being hypocrites, telling them to give up their own use of fossil fuels, along with most, if not all, of the leadership of 350.org and all its subsidiary groups.

Watts Up With That highlights this photo credited to Julian Knez

Well before CO2, er, atmosphere carbon, broke 350ppm.

Read: Paris Considering Whether To Sue Fossil Fuels Companies Over Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Paris Considering Whether To Sue Fossil Fuels Companies Over Hotcoldwetdry | Trackback URL

Plight Of DACA Recipient Parents Causing Issues With Immigration Discussions

By William Teach February 7, 2018 – 7:59 am

This should be very simple: we’ve been told time and time again that the “Dreamers” who were brought to the U.S. as children shouldn’t be punished for the sins of the parents. If it’s being admitted that the parents “sinned”, ie, knowingly entering the United States in contradiction to the law, then the parents must pay the penalty. They should have to self-deport prior to any legal status is given to their children

Immigration Talks Stymied By Question Of What To Do About ‘Dreamers’ Parents

The Senate is slated to begin a floor debate early next week on some kind of an immigration bill, though what exactly will be included in that bill remains a mystery. Lawmakers meeting nearly every day to hammer out a compromise say they have yet to reach consensus on any piece of the puzzle, from how many young immigrants known as Dreamers will be granted a path to citizenship to how much funding will go to building new walls on the U.S.-Mexico border to what changes, if any, will be made to the nation’s legal immigration system. Amid this tangle of issues, several senators have told TPM, one piece has emerged as particularly difficult: the status of Dreamers’ parents.

“That’s where I think most of the disagreement comes from,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told reporters. “If you’re going to have the DACA kids addressed, you’re going to have to find a way to address the parents. And you cannot simply say, ‘Well, since you brought your kids in illegally, this gives you a leg up on all the millions of other people who are in line waiting to get in here who have not violated the law. That’s the issue.”

It shouldn’t be. They broke the law. It’s being admitted they broke the law. We would we reward them? Obviously, because, for Democrats and a few Republicans, this is all about legalizing all illegal aliens. Not just the “Dreamers”. They do not care if this is bad for Americans. Bad for wages. Bad for low wage workers. If it displaces Americans from jobs. If it costs American citizens more money. If Americans have had their lives destroyed from identity theft. Nothing matters more than adding over ten million new voters who’ll voted Democrat.

“We’re still working on how we deal with their family members,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) told TPM as she entered an immigration negotiation meeting Monday night. “I think there’s a consensus that citizenship would not be part of that, for parents who brought them into the country against the law. But we’re working to try to figure out a way to make sure the Dreamers want to stay, because they’re not going to want their parents to be deported.”

I say “who cares what the “Dreamers” want?” People who are illegally present in our country do not get to choose nor dictate. People who get busted for petty theft do not get to choose their punishment, either. Nor are they rewarded for theft.

But several hardline Republicans in the House and Senate, many of whom also oppose President Trump’s call for a path to citizenship for Dreamers, say extending any form of legal status to parents would be intolerable.

“If you give legal status to the parents it undermines the entire rationale for the DACA program,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who broke his typical hallway silence to hold forth to reporters on the topic. “Children ought not to pay for the crimes of their parents, but surely the parents should pay for the crimes of their parents.”

“The people in the DACA program were brought here as minors through no fault of their own, before the age of accountability,” he added. “I think you can distinguish them from their parents or other illegal immigrants who made the decision to come here themselves.”

We’ll see if Republicans hold tough on this. If they allow the parents of the Dreamers to stay in the U.S. and get some sort of legal status, they’ll get mauled in the midterms, as Republicans will stay home. Furthermore, giving the parents legal status will simply open the floodgates to giving all the other illegals legal status, with voting citizenship the ultimate end point.

Interestingly, earlier in the article, Alice Olstein writes

The nearly 800,000 young immigrants who have been enrolled in President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program have never been able to sponsor any family members for legal status or citizenship. But if DACA holders are allowed to obtain green cards and eventually citizenship as part of a new immigration reform bill, they may in the future be able to do so.

And that’s exactly one of the reasons that chain migration needs to be ended.

Read: Plight Of DACA Recipient Parents Causing Issues With Immigration Discussions »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Adam Schiff Gets Pranked By Russians, Thought He Was Getting Collusion Material

By William Teach February 7, 2018 – 7:42 am

Excitable Adam Schiff is on a Mission to prove their was collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians….even though that wouldn’t be against the law. Despicable, yes. Illegal? No. But, Don Quixote Schiff will continue tilting at windmills

(UK Daily Mail) The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was the victim of a prank phone call by Russian comedians who offered to give him ‘compromising’ dirt on Donald Trump – including nude photos of the president and a Russian reality show star.

DailyMail.com can disclose that after the prank, his staff engaged in correspondence with what they thought was a Ukrainian politician to try to obtain the ‘classified’ material promised on the call.

On an audio recording of the prank call posted online, Adam Schiff can be heard discussing the committee’s Russia investigation and increasingly bizarre allegations about Trump with a man who claimed to be Andriy Parubiy, the chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament.

The call, made a year ago, was actually from two Russian comedians nicknamed ‘Vovan’ and ‘Lexus’ who have become notorious for their phony calls to high-ranking American officials and celebrities, including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Elton John.

Its existence was first reported by The Atlantic but not how a staff member working for the minority on the House Intelligence Committee pursued the information after the call.

Schiff’s office said the congressman suspected the call was ‘bogus’ from the beginning and reported it to authorities afterward.

But in a recording of the eight minute conversation, Schiff appeared to take the call seriously – or at least played along convincingly – and emails from the Democrat’s staff to the fake politician afterwards said he had found it ‘productive’.

Schiff was willing to collude with Russians/Ukranians to get dirt on Trump to prove collusion.

Interestingly, most of the major media outlets seem uninterested in this story. They were interested when Haley was pranked. By not Schiff, a ranking Democrat deeply involved in accusing Trump of…nothing illegal. Just unsupported collusion. You’d think there would be proof by this time.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff Gets Pranked By Russians, Thought He Was Getting Collusion Material »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Global Temps Might Possibly Maybe Blow Past Paris Climate Agreement Limit Within 5 Years

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 4:19 pm

I should put a reminder on this post for 5 years to see if it comes to pass

Global temperatures could pass limit set by Paris climate deal within 5 years

Global temperatures could surpass a limit set by the Paris climate agreement within the next five years, according to a new forecast by British scientists.

At least one year in the next five could exceed the threshold the deal set of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, the forecast from the United Kingdom’s Met Office says. It’s now likely temperatures will exceed 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, as soon as 2022.

“It is the first time that such high values have been highlighted within these forecasts,” the Met Office said in a statement.

The Paris agreement aims to limit warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius by gradually reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which come from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Global average temperatures already have neared the 1 degree Celsius mark over the past three years. That combined with continued warming from greenhouse gases and natural variations in temperatures means it’s possible for the world to temporarily exceed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark in the next five years, said Stephen Belcher, chief scientist at the Met Office.

One does have to admire the constant scaremongering combined with an included out through weasel words like “could” and “might”. That’s not science.

Read: Bummer: Global Temps Might Possibly Maybe Blow Past Paris Climate Agreement Limit Within 5 Years »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil music player sucking up vast amounts of energy, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Ice Age Now, with a post on record snowfall in Moscow.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Cult Of Climastrology: Cooling Sun Could Offset Warming By Mankind

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 10:30 am

Could this become the next talking point from the CoC? Remember, many of them blamed natural variation for the Great Pause (when they admitted that it actually existed). Many of them blame natural variation when their prognostications fail to materialize. And there are many scientists, and, let’s admit it, some skeptic prognosticators, who are saying that the Earth is due for a dip in temperatures, and expect this to start by 2030. On that, we’ll see. Till then

Scripps: Cooling Sun May Partially Offset Climate Change by Humans

The Sun might emit less radiation by mid-century, giving Earth a chance to warm a bit more slowly but not halting human-induced climate change, according to a new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Our star’s cool down would be the result of what astrophysicists call a “grand minimum,” a periodic event during which the Sun’s magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of Earth. This last happened in the 17th century.

A team of scientists led by research physicist Dan Lubin at Scripps has created the first estimate of how much dimmer the Sun should be when the next minimum takes place, which could be by the middle of this century.

His team’s study, “Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs,” appears in the publication Astrophysical Journal Letters and was funded by the state of California.

This sets the stage for a talking point that the cooling would be much deeper without people like you driving fossil fueled vehicles and daring to eat meat.

The reduced energy from the Sun would set into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer.

The cooling is not uniform. In the last grand minimum, during the 17th Century, areas of Europe chilled –the Baltic Sea froze — while Alaska and southern Greenland warmed correspondingly. (snip)

Lubin’s team predicts a significant probability of a grand minimum in this century because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles resembles the run-ups to past grand minimum events.

It’s always interesting that these Warmists can never admit that the Sun and natural variability could be mostly causing the warming, yet, are so willing to blame those same things for warming, sea rise, ice loss, etc, not going with their computer models.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology: Cooling Sun Could Offset Warming By Mankind »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Canadian P.M. Trudeau Interrupts, Mansplains To Woman Over Use Of “Mankind”

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 7:44 am

Usually, when feminists hear that a man has mansplained something to a woman, they become apoplectic. In this case, they all cheered

(Fox News) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman on her language when she asked a question during a town hall Friday.

The unidentified woman asked Trudeau whether the Canadian government could ease regulations on volunteering with religious organizations, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

“So, that’s why we came here today to ask you, to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind,” said the woman, who was reportedly affiliated with the World Mission Society Church of God.

Trudeau immediately corrected her.

“We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive,” he said.

The crowd clapped after Trudeau’s comments.

In all fairness, the woman showed appreciation to the change for inclusivity, because Canada.

The one thing I can’t seem to find anywhere is whether he actually answered her question.

Unfortunately, that’s not his worst gaffe of the week

The third gaffe was the absolute worst. Here’s what Trudeau said when asked about his government’s troubled relationship with many of Canada’s veterans: “Why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court? Because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”

That’s right. We’re able to give Omar Khadr $10.5 million and throw hundreds of millions into feel good green energy projects, but we’re not “able” to give veterans more.

Peak wokeness?

Read: Canadian P.M. Trudeau Interrupts, Mansplains To Woman Over Use Of “Mankind” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 7:29 am

Some people are pretty upset that a question will ask if people are citizens

(The Hill) Uncertainly is swirling over whether the Census Bureau will be able to get an accurate population count for the 2020 census, as the agency considers a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to add a controversial question about citizenship status to the census questionnaire.

The stakes are enormously high.

Census data is used to redraw House districts, and the number of House seats each state receives also plays a part in determining each state’s number of electoral votes.

Experts say a citizenship question could seriously skew the numbers if people are too frightened to respond.

It’s simple: if you aren’t here legally, you should not be counted. Heck, if you are here legally as someone on a visa or some sort of temporary status, you shouldn’t be counted. The only ones who should be counted are citizens and permanent legal residents.

But given Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, experts say the question would likely make Latinos, who are already hesitant to answer the questionnaire, even less likely to respond.

“We know that 7 percent of the population are people who are foreign born, but not citizens, which is about 22 million undocumented and documented people,” said William Frey, a senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

And those 22 million should not count. Their presence should have nothing to do with the census, which apportions House seats and federal money, among others. However

Vincent Barabba, who served as director of the Census Bureau during the Nixon and Carter administrations, said citizenship isn’t part of the constitutionally mandated census.

“The Constitution says it will be a census of the inhabitants of the states,” he said. “It doesn’t say it’ll be a census of citizens.”

Amendment 14 over-rode part of Article 1, Section 2, which had originally stated

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

That was partly changed to

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

It says to count them, however, it doesn’t say they have to be used to determine House apportionment. In fact, Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the power to direct by law. The law can determine who are Persons. Should non-citizens determine apportionment? No.

Read: Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Illegal Immigration | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Thinks We’re Living In A Mad Max ‘Climate Change’ World

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 3:12 pm

Did you know there’s a reason there aren’t any good ‘climate change’ movies?

It’s Oscar season, and Hollywood is abuzz with chatter about the year’s best flicks, which include films about poverty, racism and war. Not mentioned by prognosticators is 2017’s one big movie about climate change, Geostorm, a sci-fi thriller so thin on story, drama and spectacle, it earned a rating of just 13% on Rotten Tomatoes.

It’s hard to make a good movie, but it seems especially hard to make a good movie about climate change. There are plenty of great documentaries about the carbon crisis — Chasing Coral, The Age of Consequences, An Inconvenient Sequel, to name three released in just the last year — but Hollywood has yet to produce a top-rate drama that is explicitly about global warming. That’s at least partly because climate change doesn’t fit into the blockbuster mold. To understand why, take a look at Star Wars.

Basically, the reasoning is that ‘climate change’ makes a bad villain, and it’s boring as hell. Not mentioned is that most people do not care, and do not want to pay to see a movie pushed by nutty people who are nutty nutters nuttering. Which leads to

The article doesn’t get any better, as you can well imagine. That said, it would be best to encourage Warmists to have no children, that way they aren’t teaching the next generation their insane Beliefs.

Read: NY Times Thinks We’re Living In A Mad Max ‘Climate Change’ World »

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