…is water flooding the ,and from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Small Dead Animals, with a post on a horror show.
I have a few leftover photos, so I put them under the more tag, so, let’s add a few links.
The Other McCain has the sexual harassment apocalypse.
Victory Girls Blog has people glamorizing communism.
Political Clown Parade has the DNC seeking workers to compromise national security.
Read: If All You See… »
Warmists were a little late with their doomsaying on ‘climate change’ while using Halloween as a prop, but, hey, better late than never
Just in Time for Halloween, Scientists Are Preparing for a Vampire Bat Invasion in the U.S.
Tis the season … for stockpiling copious amounts of garlic, crosses and holy water to fight vampires. Vampire bats, to be specific.
OK, maybe that’s just in the movies, but according to Popular Science, vampire bats may soon swarm the United States in droves unseen since 5,000-plus years ago. The likely cause? Climate change.
Oh, wait, what’s this?
Fossils found in California, Florida, Texas and Arizona (among other states), dating back to approximately 5,000 to 30,000 years ago, indicate that the vampire bat once lived in the U.S. when it was a much warmer place. The species is currently found throughout Mexico, Central America and South America, but research shows that the Desmodus rotundus population is on the rise, pushing into new territory in both North and South America. The bats may bring new variants of rabies along with them.
So, the rest of the article likes to blamestorm Mankind for rising temps, but, um, what caused this previously? Nature, you say? Huh. Of course, Warmists have their anti-science talking points to tell us why, showing that they are part of a cult.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund goes on to tell us about the 5 scariest aspects of ‘climate change’, which is the real Halloween horror story or something. Still no actual scientific proof of being mostly/solely caused by Mankind.
Grist has the Halloween of the future, and says you’re not going to like it.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is recommending you reuse your Halloween pumpkins to stop food waste to stop Hotcoldwetdry. You know, the ones that have been sitting outside for a week or two. Yuck.
The Union of Concerned (Climahysterical) Scientists says the spookiest costume of 2017 is the fossil fuel company executive.
Yeah, that one deserved a facepalm.
Finally, Yale Climate Connections does something you know I despise, namely, interjecting Hotcoldwetdry into real environmental issues. The headline is A common ingredient in Halloween candy is contributing to climate change. Of course, this is also a way for Warmists to attempt to ruin Halloween. What it’s about is the use of palm oil. I’ve noted many times that the creation of palm oil farms has led to clearcutting forests and jungles, and, beyond the normal loss of animals, birds, lizards, etc, there is the intentional slaughter of animals like orangutans. So, yes, palm oil is a real environmental issue.
Read: Spooky: U.S. To Prepare For ‘Climate Change’ Caused Vampire Bat Invasion »
Here’s the latest scareathon from the Cult of Climastrology, which is being repeated all over the “news” media. The UK Guardian, UK Independent, Chicago Tribune, HuffPost, Reuters, and so, so many more. Here’s the USA Today
Climate change is already having an extraordinary impact on human health worldwide — affecting the spread of infectious diseases, exposing millions to air pollution and heat waves and dramatically reducing labor productivity, according to a report released Monday.
“The human symptoms of climate change are unequivocal and potentially irreversible,” the report by the British medical journal The Lancet says, and the situation is so serious that significant gains by modern medicine and technology are being undercut.
“The delayed response to climate change over the past 25 years has jeopardized human life and livelihoods,” the report says.
While most previous similar studies have covered the potential impact of climate change on future public health problems, the Lancet report goes a step further and illustrates how it is no longer a future threat but a present one.
The direct effects of climate change “result from rising temperatures and changes in the frequency and strength of storms, floods, droughts and heat waves — with physical and mental health consequences,” it says.
They are, of course, blaming this mostly/solely on Human activities which release “carbon pollution”, and the solution is …. I know you’ll be shocked … more Government!
Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change, said “the Lancet Countdown’s report lays bare the impact that climate change is having on our health today. It also shows that tackling climate change directly, unequivocally and immediately improves global health. It’s as simple as that.”
They forget to mention that Figueres (besides using lots of fossil fuels to travel around the world) is chair of the Lancet Countdown advisory board, and yet another in a long line of Warmists who demand that Government solve this. The Guardian link above is her little opinion piece on the Lancet study, where she loves that many cities are starting to ban fossil fueled vehicles in their limits, and wants the political leadership of nations to Do Something.
But, why does the name “Lancet” sound familiar? Well, they were the folks where the “half-million killed in Iraq” talking point came from. They actually were saying there were 655,000 killed, using a statistical study method that was beyond shoddy and utterly exaggerated. The “study” was a political opposition document, not a serious scientific/health one.
And we should pay credence to this new one on Hotcoldwetdry as the Iraq body count one. It’s a bunch of mule fritters looking to push lawmakers and politicians and such to enact more governmental control. That’s what the entire ‘climate change’ movement is about.
Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Is Here And Causing Major Health Concerns »
I’ll be honest, these Mueller indictments are something I really do not care about all that much. For one thing, what do they have to do with Russia Russia Russia? These allegations are all from before campaign season, and really have nothing to do with the narrative that “Russia changed the whole election!” Did the Russians keep Hillary from visiting several swing states she needed to win? Or make her insult coal country and call a massive segment of the U.S. population “deplorables”? After all these months, the charges, which may or may not be valid, show that Mueller and team spent their time not finding anything about Russia Russia Russia collusion. And they show that a Special Prosecutor with no specific directed task is simply going on expeditions.
And if John Podesta and his brother get caught up in this? While amusing to have such high profile Democrats get nailed, that would have little to do with the Russia collusion narrative.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post apparently can read minds
Upstairs at home, with the TV on, Trump fumes over Russia indictments
President Trump woke before dawn on Monday and burrowed in at the White House residence to wait for the Russia bombshell he knew was coming.
Separated from most of his West Wing staff — who fretted over why he was late getting to the Oval Office — Trump clicked on the television and spent the morning playing fuming media critic, legal analyst and crisis communications strategist, according to several people close to him.
The president digested the news of the first indictments in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe with exasperation and disgust, these people said. He called his lawyers repeatedly. He listened intently to cable news commentary. And, with rising irritation, he watched live footage of his onetime campaign adviser and confidant, Paul Manafort, turning himself in to the FBI. (snip)
This portrait of Trump and his White House on a day of crisis is based on interviews with 20 senior administration officials, Trump friends and key outside allies, many of whom insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.
None of these “people close to Trump” are named. There are also several instances of unnamed Republicans making doomy sound bites. It’s one thing to use an anonymous source to protect them, it’s quite another to manufacture salacious stories using tons of anonymous people that may not even exist. And that’s what this is. The only ones that are named are those who stood strong
“This has not been a cause of great agita or angst or activity at the White House,†said Cobb, the White House lawyer overseeing Russia matters. He added that Trump is “spending all of his time on presidential work.â€
This is the problem with the media: they make allegations and pronouncements and such, but do not back it up with names. Are we just supposed to believe this without proof? Well, yes, in their world.
Initially, Trump felt vindicated. Though frustrated that the media were linking him to the indictment and tarnishing his presidency, he cheered that the Âcharges against Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were focused primarily on activities that began before his campaign. Trump tweeted at 10:28 a.m., “there is NO COLLUSION!â€
But the president’s celebration was short-lived. A few minutes later, court documents were unsealed showing that George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy adviser on Trump’s campaign, pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about his efforts to broker a relationship between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The case provides the clearest evidence yet of links between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.
Which is also a bunch of mule fritters. Padadopoulos tried and tried and tried to set up meetings, and was constantly shot down by Team Trump. He was a low level advisor. Oh, and there was no criminal collusion. It’s, get this, not against the law to talk with people from other countries. And in this case, this doesn’t even show non-criminal collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, just one person who wanted to show he was awesome to the Trump campaign.
Remember, most of the same people who are going on about this, are the same people who defend Hillary and her server along with selling U.S. uranium to Russia.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Washington Post: Trump Fumed Over Mueller Indictments Or Something »
This comes via Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, where he notes that Excitable Bill McKibben wants to Blame Trump
Could Trump break up the United States?
My debut novel comes out next week — it is (I hope) a funny chronicle of my home state of Vermont contemplating secession. But I can’t stop wondering if our erratic president has sown so much division that the vision of a truly United States may start to blur for real, not just in fiction — if scenes like the ones from the recent secession referendum in Catalonia might lie in our future too.
We live at an unprecedented moment, when Washington has abandoned its usual unifying role: We have ceased all federal efforts to deal with climate change, even as it takes its toll on California, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. The White House is trying systematically to dismantle our not-very-robust health care system, even as the nation’s life expectancy starts to slip. Congress fixates on cutting taxes on the rich, even as inequality reaches record heights. Our president indulges in race-baiting, even as our population accelerates its long demographic shift. Every one of those trends is impossible to maintain, and yet that’s where we are — and, daily now, new hard-right federal judges come on board, locking in place those outdated attitudes.
But it’s also possible that the unprecedented weirdness continues — even into another presidential term. And if it does, it’s worth asking what else unprecedented will start to happen. My guess is that many places will start cutting whatever ties they can with D.C. and try to figure out how to go it increasingly alone. My novel not withstanding, secession probably won’t begin in a small, graying state like Vermont (the threat to Social Security payments would likely be threat enough). But, say, California?
Read: Warmist Bill McKibben Wonders If Trump Could Break Up The USA Or Something »
…is an evil refrigerator with evil greenhouse gases, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on the reality of sea rise.
Read: If All You See… »
As typical, Warmists don’t seem to understand how this whole capitalism and free market thing works. Well, maybe that’s not fair: they understand, and they want to destroy them in favor of government running everything. While failing to understand that when government is picking winners and losers, we all end up losers in the end
WSW: Climate Change, Capitalism And The Government’s Role
Journalist and author Christian Parenti says what American capitalism needs is a new round of “creative destruction†and investment. He says making those investments in renewable energy would help the economy and mitigate the impact of climate change.
Parenti, who also teaches in the Economics Department for John Jay College at City University of New York will speak at Western Michigan University on Thursday November 2nd at 7:00 in Knauss Hall.
Parenti says the high rates of economic growth in the 1950’s were largely caused by post World War II rebuilding. He says now the government needs to replace the fossil fuel industry with a clean energy infrastructure.
Well, that’s interesting. He wants to do away with the very thing that allows him to go to Michigan from New York. Does anyone remotely think he’s planning on walking or riding a bicycle?
Despite talk of a “free marketâ€, Parenti says in reality the U.S. has developed a mixed economy with government influence in many sectors. He says the federal government could end drilling for oil and coal mining on public land, and subsidies for fossil fuels. Parenti says the government also has influence by what it purchases. He says a carbon tax would help, and while Congress isn’t likely to enact one anytime soon, Parentis says a de facto carbon tax could be enacted now through the federal Clean Air Act. He says fines on businesses for burning fossil fuels would serve as an incentive to develop sustainable energy.
There it is in a nutshell: Government control. Warmists love this stuff.
Interestingly, another article that I ran across discusses how Congress should be passing this stuff, rather than regulations that often really aren’t authorized by legislation, like the CAA.
With major global implications at stake, shouldn’t our nation’s climate policy be discussed, debated and acted upon in Congress, as opposed to being left to an unelected bureaucracy to apply an outdated law? While climate change itself is considered a settled matter, how our nation responds is anything but settled.
It’s settled, you guys! If that was the case, why are we still discussing it decades later?
What has become abundantly clear is that there is widespread disagreement in Congress, the Supreme Court and now two successive administrations in how to address climate change. Given its global impact, these types of monumental decisions need to be made in the halls of Congress as the elected body to identify, discuss and act as representatives of the people.
Guess it’s not settled. Anyhow, as you can guess, this piece is also about enabling Government to take control. Funny how it always comes down to this from Warmists, eh?
Read: On ‘Climate Change’, Government Should Totally Make Capitalism Work »
Many seem to be getting squishy when it comes to doing something about DACA, about the Dreamers
(The Hill) Senators are moving away from the White House’s long list of demands as they try to negotiate an agreement on a key Obama-era immigration program.
Trump decided to nix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and released a seven-page list of immigration “principles†outlining what the administration wants as they jockey for leverage ahead of negotiations with Capitol Hill.
But senators — while acknowledging they support the “merit-based†immigration reform favored by Trump and conservatives — have appeared cool to the wide-raging plan advocated by the White House.
They warn that an overly broad package would sink the chances of an agreement on undocumented immigrants brought into the country illegally as children, commonly referred to as “Dreamers.”
“I do support merit-based immigration reform but what I don’t want to do is get back into the morasses of comprehensive immigration reform. That’s why I think the … simpler and more easily accomplished goal would be to marry up some fix for the DACA beneficiaries with a border security and enforcement bill,†Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said in response to a question about the administration’s plan.
John McCain doesn’t even want to read what the White House is asking for. He’s all for just giving Dreamers legal status with minimal border security. Regardless, this begs the question as to how much of what the White House asked for will the Republican Senate blow off? Trump knows that in a negotiation, you ask for the world, and settle for the moon. Trump and the White House are certainly not expecting to get all the things they asked for. But, they certainly expect some of them to make it through.
I agree, we should not make this into a comprehensive type bill, but, if Dreamers want some sort of legalized status, there has to be some enforcement and security measures to offset. And I still say that part of it should be that the people who brought the Dreamers illegally should have to self deport before any legalization occurs. If we aren’t supposed to punish the kids for the sins of the parents, well, then, the “sinners” need to be punished.
Trump, meanwhile, says he would “love†a DACA deal but wants wall funding — considered a non-starter for Democrats and some Republicans.
“We’re looking at DACA,†Trump told reporters this week. “We’ll see what happens. I’d love to do a DACA deal. We have to get something very substantial for it. Including the wall, including security, including a strong border.â€
If Republicans go with the amnesty route without substantial stuff back, they can kiss 2018 goodbye, along with all the donations.
Read: Will GOP Blow It On DACA Fix? »
See, on one hand, Democrats tell us that women are strong, that they can stand on their own two feet and compete, they’re enabled. Then they tell us that women are hothouse flowers in need of having Someone Else pay for all their things and give them stuff, and that the government should force businesses and private entities to comply, along with the government giving them stuff. It’s even more fun when it’s Democratic men being the ones who are Demanding that government force business and private entities to give them things like birth control, and come up with Reasons to do so, as we see in this NY Times op-ed by Bryce Covert
The Economy Can’t Grow Without Birth Control
This month, 41 Democrats introduced a bill with a simple mission: It would undo the Trump administration’s recent change to the Affordable Care Act that paves the way for virtually any employer to deny its employees access to contraception without a co-payment. Before President Trump’s new guidance, the law required nearly all employers to offer workers health insurance plans that include contraception without cost. But the new rules, effective immediately after the announcement, allow any employer to request that the government let it opt out based on religious or moral objections.
In a statement on the bill, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said that “birth control is about being healthy and financially secure.â€
Indeed, while access to contraception is clearly about women’s health, it also profoundly affects the economy. The easier it is for women to obtain birth control, the more able they are to gain education and employment. That has been enormously important for the economy. The opposite, however, can be just as true. Mr. Trump has promised economic growth at rates we haven’t seen in decades. His actions on contraception are at odds with that.
This is the way Democrats think: that having Someone Else be forced to pay for contraception is the same as availability. And that those Someone Else’s deeply held beliefs must be sublimated, and plain ignored, in order to provide free birth control, abotifacients, and sterilizations to women. Because in Liberal World, women aren’t strong enough, aren’t good enough, aren’t capable of earning the small amount needed to pay for birth control monthly.
The ability to opt out of offering no-cost contraception, then, is not just about religious objections. Obamacare lifted an enormous financial burden that women alone had to bear. Before the A.C.A., 85 percent of health insurance plans at large companies offered contraceptive coverage, but most required at least a co-payment. Individual women paid about $250 a year. Now the president has given insurance companies a way out of taking on that burden.
In other words, Democratic male Covert and the NY Times think that women can’t afford $250 a year, because they aren’t strong enough, so, sure, let’s force religious entities to give up their 1st Amendment Rights.
We don’t know yet how many employers will opt out of providing their employees with no-cost birth control under Mr. Trump’s rule change. Women who work at the employers that do opt out could face yet another barrier to staying in the labor force.
In other words, no one is really doing this, except for a few who are religious based. It’s Blamestorming at it’s worst, and treating women like children who must be coddled and controlled, while inventing an excuse to blow off people’s morals and religious beliefs.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times: The Economy Can’t Grow Without Free Birth Control For Women Or Something »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
