Pirate's Cove

What’s most interesting is that the same people pushing carbon taxes and fees on fossil fuels companies refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. They want Everyone Else to pay the price for their beliefs. In this case, we have Khalid Pitts, co-owner of Cork Wine Bar & Market, along with Roger Horowitz, co-founder of Pleasant Pops, pushing a carbon fee. Both companies surely use lots of fossil fuels to deliver their products, particularly in the case of a wine bar, where wines would come from around the world

A climate-change policy that grows the economy and benefits D.C. residents

…

So we wonder: How can D.C. businesses and residents do our part to address our climate crisis? The answer: We need to get off carbon-based fossil fuels, the main source of climate change, as fast as possible. But we need to “decarbonize” our city’s economy in a way that supports business growth without burdening our residents, especially the low- and moderate-income residents who are many of our neighbors.

Which is why we support a novel policy under consideration by the D.C. Council called the Climate and Community Reinvestment Act. It would require fossil-fuel companies doing business in the District to pay a fee for every ton of carbon dioxide they put into the atmosphere. The policy would then rebate the overwhelming share of the collected revenue — hundreds of millions of dollars — to D.C. households and small businesses such as ours. A recent economic study shows that this “fee-and-rebate” policy would cut carbon emissions nearly 23 percent in the city while expanding the District’s economy, creating more jobs and raising the incomes of most Washington residents, especially the poor and middle class.

First, they are silently admitting that this policy would jack up the cost of living for D.C. residents, which is already pretty darned high. The government caused COL increase would only be partially offset by refunding money back to residents. In the real world, good luck with that. They’ll find plenty of uses for that money and plenty of excuses why those uses are better than a refund.  Said refund is supposed to be at least 80%, but, 20% “would be invested directly into a “green bank” or other programs to help residents and businesses finance solar panels or efficiency upgrades.” Good luck with this.

They’re kinda silent on exactly how increasing costs on citizens and businesses will create more jobs and raise incomes. The Bunch Of Mule Fritters Climate Scam Act Climate and Community Reinvestment Act is rather vague, as well.

The pollution reductions are achieved by simply making dirty-energy suppliers pay their fair share. D.C. restaurants are not allowed to dump their trash into the street each night. But oil and gas and coal companies can dump carbon pollution into our atmosphere for free. Charging a fee of $20 per ton of pollution starting in 2019 (rising to $150 by 2032) will ensure that those fuels are gradually priced out of the D.C. market. Wind and solar and energy efficiency will prevail.

What will happen is that people will simply go outside of D.C. to purchase fuel. Which will harm gas station owners, which, remember, nowadays tend to be convenience stores, selling a huge range of products. These stores will close, putting people out of work. Only so many can relocate, due to a saturated market. Residents of D.C., though, will have a tougher time getting fuel. Their power bills will skyrocket. But, hey, if D.C. residents want to damage their economy and increase their COL, that’s on them.

These same leaders joined Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) in pledging that the city would defy President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement by achieving Districtwide greenhouse gas reductions that match the Paris goals. A local carbon fee-and-rebate policy is the single best way to honor that pledge.

Of course there had to be some #Resist. They really want to harm their lives for this. Let them.

Read: D.C. Residents Want To “Decarbonize” To Save The Economy Or Something »

OK, OK, the study is about bearded dragons. Might as well be about Warmists

Climate change could be making lizards less intelligent, finds study

Exposing lizard eggs to warmer temperatures during incubation makes the individuals that hatch from those eggs less intelligent, according to new research.

Bearded dragons, a popular pet species, are surprisingly smart reptiles, but this study suggests that their brainpower could be threatened by global warming.

To investigate the effects of heat on intelligence, scientists at the University of Lincoln incubated a clutch of bearded dragon eggs at the elevated temperature of 30°C, while keeping another clutch incubated at the more normal temperature of 27°C.

So, they artificially increased the temperature well beyond what has actually happened since 1850, which is a .9 to 1.0 Celsius increase. Anyhow, they raised the dragons, then tested them, and claim that the ones from the warmer egg clutch took longer to perform the tasks.

Intelligence is a useful attribute. If it is threatened by climate change, then so too is the survival of these reptiles.

In Warmist World, everything is threatened by Hotcoldwetdry. Now they just have to prove that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Jo Nova points out that this “study” involved 13 eggs from the same clutch being split in two. Not much of a survey sample. She also has a fun graphic noting that the Bearded Dragons must have been genius’ during the last ice age.

James Dellingpole is also making fun of this climahysteric study. Because it is mock-worthy. They could do one on Warmists, but, then, we see real world examples of this idiocy daily.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Make Warmists Dumber, Study Says »

There are Warmist prognostications, and then there are Warmist Prognostications (via Watts Up With That?). We start with this Toronto Now “article”

Are we headed for near-term human extinction?

….

The take-away

Out of control climate change means feedback mechanisms may accelerate beyond any capacity of human control. The occurrences discussed in this article are five of some 60 known weather-related phenomenon, which can lead to what climate scientist James Hansen has termed the “Venus Syndrome,” where oceans would boil and the surface temperature of earth could reach 462 degrees Celsius. Along the way humans could expect to die in resource wars, starvation due to food systems collapse or lethal heat exposure.

Given all that remains unknown and what is at stake with climate change, is it irresponsible to rule out the possibility of human extinction in the coming decades or sooner?

Moving on to

Will humans be extinct by 2026?

And there are several graphics to go with the long insane (scam) post, such as

As David Middleton writes at WUWT?

There really is no way to describe this sort of nonsense without using a word that rhymes with petard. The author, Sam Carana, presents this table to itemize the sources of 10.02 °C by 2016.

I don’t know. These people are worse than the rhymes with word. At least they’d have a legitimate excuse, unlike Warmists.

Read: Good News: Humans To Be Extinct From ‘Climate Change’ By 2026 »