…is a world run wild due to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting that Liberals do not approve of free speech for pro-life people.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a world run wild due to climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting that Liberals do not approve of free speech for pro-life people.
Read: If All You See… »
It’s highly amusing when the grievance monster victimhooders start whacking each other
At pride events, protests claim prejudice, exclusion
Gay pride marches in New York City, San Francisco and in between this weekend will have plenty of participants – and also protests directed at them from other members of the LGBT community, speaking out against what they see as increasingly corporate pride celebrations that prioritize the experiences of gay white men and ignore the issues continuing to face black and brown LGBT people. (snip)
In Minneapolis, organizers of the Twin Cities Pride Parade planned for this Sunday asked the police department to limit participation following the acquittal of police officer Jeronimo Yanez in the death of Castile. The openly gay police chief said the decision was divisive and hurtful to LGBT officers, which the organizers acknowledged. But Twin Cities Pride Board Chairwoman Darcie Baumann said the decision was made to be sensitive to those grieving after the verdict “and seeing those uniforms brings angst and tension and the feeling of unrest.”
The cops should bow out completely, but, then, that would just allow the violent lefties to run roughshod over each other and other people.
The recent flare-up of racial tensions comes as no surprise to Isaiah Wilson, director of external affairs for the National Black Justice Coalition, one of the few national groups focused specially on black LGBT rights.
He said the broader LGBT-rights movement “has been whitewashed” – dominated to a large extent by white gay men.
“Black queer and trans folks have always been there, but our contributions have been devalued,” Wilson said.
Victimhood Society being victims
“The real test will be, can the LGBT movement own up to its historic legacy of racism and evolve to be more accountable and inclusive of people of color?” Minter, a transgender man, wondered. “If not, then it will cease to be a major political movement.”
They can’t help themselves. They have to be victims and throw out racial grievance mongering even amongst themselves. Get the popcorn.
New York City spokesman James Fallarino said if there are any disruptions or protests during the event, “We’re going to make sure we do everything in our power to respect the people who are disrupting or protesting and to respect their message.”
That sounds like NYC will stand back and allow the same type of violence and vandalism we’ve seen during many other Leftist protests. Have fun, Democratic Party run cities!
Perhaps now the EPA could spend its time dealing with real environmental issues
(Business Insider) Members of a key Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee were told in a conference call on Wednesday that the Trump administration wants a “de-emphasis” on climate change across the agency, according to two people who were on the call.
Speaking to members of the Board of Scientific Counselors , EPA officials from the Office of Research Development said that “climate change will be de-emphasized by the administration,” according to Peter Meyer, who resigned from one of BOSC’s five subcommittees in May.
The 30-minute conference call — led by Robert Kavlock, acting assistant administrator of the ORD — largely focused on praising members of the key scientific review board and encouraging non-renewed members to reapply for their seats, according to Meyer and Elena Craft, a member of one of BOSC’s five subcommittees. Both were on the call.
Well, that’s strange, an administration not wanting to spend time on a fake issue.
Read: Bummer: EPA Told That ‘Climate Change’ Would Be De-Emphasized »
I’ve made my position clear: I do not like this Senate version of Paul Ryan’s healthcare bill. It’s not repeal and replace. It doesn’t accomplish what we were promised.
The NY Times Editorial Board, though, finds itself trotting out tired old talking points, because they have little else
It would be a big mistake to call the legislation Senate Republicans released on Thursday a health care bill. It is, plain and simple, a plan to cut taxes for the wealthy by destroying critical federal programs that help provide health care to tens of millions of people.
By this measure, the NYTEB is saying that Obamacare was not a health care bill, it was a “tax the hell out of everyone, including the rich, bill,” because what the GOP bill does is rescind all the taxes embeded in Ocare. The Internet front page and Opinion page subhead reads “The bill’s real aim is to cut taxes for the rich.” The EB makes zero attempt to actually explain the first paragraph nor subhead in the follow six paragraphs.
Interestingly, the repeal of all those taxes will help quite a few, if not all, of the very rich people who serve on the NYTEB, and the NY Times itself, especially if they offer the so-called Cadillac plans to their employees.
They do mention the taxes in paragraph two to a tiny degree.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and other Republicans have pitched the bill as a fix for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. But their true ambition is not to reform Obamacare, which, whatever its shortcomings, has given 20 million Americans access to health insurance. If passed in its current form, the Senate bill would greatly weaken Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides insurance to nearly 69 million people, more than any other government or private program. It would do this by gradually but inexorably shifting more of the financial burden of Medicaid to states, in effect, forcing them to cover fewer people and to provide fewer services. Over all, the Senate would reduce federal spending by about $1 trillion over 10 years and use almost that much to cut taxes for rich families and health care companies.
This is dog whistle talk to their unhinged base, which says it hates the rich (but relies on the rich to keep the Democratic Party running). Democrats love dividing people. But, how this would help “The Rich” is never explained.
Would it help the rich? Sure. So many of the taxes are meant to penalize people for doing well, and what Democrats consider “The Rich” are singles making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000 a year. Rolling back the OCare taxes will help them. It’s also significantly help small business owners, young people who do not want health insurance (a bad choice to not have insurance, but, I thought Democrats liked choice?). Taxes on health insurers gets passed on to consumers. Taxes on tanning. Taxes certain medical devices. Taxes on flexible spending accounts (which can hurt special needs kids).
All the NYTEB does is a typical knee-jerk freakout. But, what they really told us is that Obamacare was a tax everyone bill.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times: The GOP Healthcare Bill’s Real Aim Is Tax Cuts For The Rich Or Something »
One would think that a Warmist outlet like the Washington Post would approve of solar power on Trump’s wall, if the wall has to be built. Alas, Trump Derangement Syndrome
WaPo Points Out Flaws With Solar Power After Trump Suggests Putting Panels On The Border Wall
The Washington Post is very skeptical of President Donald Trump’s proposal to cover the U.S.-Mexico border wall he’s promised to build with solar panels.
The paper was quick to point to past reporting on the pitfalls of using solar panels to help pay for a border wall. It’s a big turn from WaPo’s usually positive stance on solar panels as a way to fight global warming.
They’re super supportive, but not to the point of putting solar panels on its own office building and trying to rely solely on it
WaPo’s Dino Grandoni wrote that “experts who have taken the solar-paneled border wall proposal seriously say such a structure would have significant issues.â€
“Vertically fixed panels could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent,†Grandoni wrote, referring to a Financial Times article from February.
Grandoni also pointed to a past WaPo report by Sophie Yeo, which noted that “solar panels degrade over time†and the “requirements dictated by the security aspects of the border wall — bricks and spray paint, for example — could further reduce efficiency.â€
You know, if Trump would spend lots of time talking about how much he supports solar and wind power you could bet that all of a sudden the Cult of Climastrology would find reasons to be against solar and wind. Heck, if he stated that the Paris Climate Agreement was awesome, all the supporters of the PCA would come out against it.
Read: Oops: Washington Post Notes Problems With Solar As Part Of TDS »
…is an angry sea that will rise up in righteous indignation because some people won’t accept carbon taxes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post on what it’s like living in an Avacado Republic.
Read: If All You See… »
Another day, another bit of cultish insanity
Dying Of Heat Could Soon Be A Reality For 30% Of The Population
If “dying of heat” was just an expression before, it has now become a sad reality due to the acceleration of climate change.
A team of researchers at the University of Hawaii in Manoa has examined the scientific literature and identified 783 cases of death due to extreme heat throughout the globe from 1980 to 2014.
People have always died from the heat. 783 cases over 24 years doesn’t seem like much.
They then analyzed the data using various weather parameters recorded during the heat waves, such as air temperature, humidity, and wind speed.
They deduced that high temperatures coupled with humidity were the determining factor in making a heat wave potentially deadly because it affects our body’s ability to regulate temperature.
The researchers determined that based on the temperature and humidity levels that can be deadly, about 13% of the world’s continental surface area is at risk, and that area contains about 30% of the world’s population.
Welcome to planet earth. But, this is not about that, of course: it’s about Hotcoldwetdry
According to the authors, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, three-fourths of the world’s population will be at risk of potentially deadly heat waves by 2100.
In the worst-case scenario, which is if we don’t get a hold on climate change, global warming will increase by 38 degrees in 2100, putting 47% of the world’s countries and 74% of the population at risk.
Um, what? 38 degrees? I’m assuming that’s a typo, and it should be 3 degrees, but, this is the Cult of Climastrology, so, you never know.
In the best-case scenario, supposing we can reduce our emissions to 1 degree, the potentially deadly heat zone would still affect 27% of the globe, and about half the world’s population by the end of the century. At this point, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but we can certainly minimize the impact.
So a minor 1 degree (doesn’t specify whether C or F) could mean that 50% of the world’s population could be under threat from dying? Nutjobs. Pure and simple, nutjobs.
Read: Claim: 30% Of World Population Could Be Under Threat From Dying From The Heat »
The Washington Post got it’s hands on a draft copy, and, while there are a few interesting and good things in, it is far, far, far away from an actual repeal and replace
(Washington Post) Senate leaders on Wednesday were putting the final touches on legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system by dramatically rolling back Medicaid while easing the impact on Americans who stand to lose coverage under a new bill.
A discussion draft circulating Wednesday afternoon among aides and lobbyists would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s taxes, phase down its Medicaid expansion, rejigger its subsidies, give states wider latitude in opting out of its regulations and eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
The bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes aimed at pleasing moderates. While the House legislation tied federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income, as the ACA does. The Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill,\ but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also removes language restricting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.
There’s not a lot more that you need to know. It appears to mostly mimic the House bill, with a few changes, and said House bill was not a repeal and replace, more of a tinker here and there. Getting rid of all the taxes? Great. The rest? Well, it doesn’t really get the government out of the way when it comes to healthcare, it doesn’t empower the relationship between doctors and their patients, it doesn’t make it easier for people to obtain lower cost and usable health insurance, and it still has a penalty/mandate, among others. It doesn’t empower the states that much, and it doesn’t allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. It really doesn’t do much.
Perhaps when we see the actual bill we will see the words “H.R. 3590, also known as as Public Law 111 – 148, ie, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is hereby repealed”, and have it replaced with the ideas Republicans have been saying for years, rather than the stupidity of the House bill. Don’t hold your breath.
Read: Senate Healthcare Bill Seems Less Repeal And More Tinker »
Carbon taxes are apparently about changing your behavior – as written by people who refuse to change their own (via Watts Up With That?)
Are Carbon Taxes The Solution To Global Warming?
There is a belief that taxes (such as carbon taxes) are punitive or punishing, hence the misconception that carbon taxes aren’t part of the solution set useful for climate change.
This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion.
Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior, along with regulations. In behavioral economics, there’s something referred to as induced demand. This is a directly observable behavioral trait of groups. If something is cheap, people will figure out how to use it and more of it will be used. You can see this with building new roads which become congested almost immediately and you can see it with dumping sewage into rivers instead of treating it where that is allowed by lack of regulation and penalty.
Yet, taxes are not meant to be either punitive or for modifying the behavior of the citizenry. At least not in the American system. But, this is what Progressivism is about. Using Government to force compliance. They should remember one thing: what goes around comes around. What happens if Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, decide to impose a tax that is meant to modify the behavior of liberals? One that, say, taxes green energy projects in Democrat cities and states? Or lays a higher tax on mass transit? Who will this affect the most? Or, how about a moving tax for people who move from Blue states to Red states?
A couple are considering the purchase of a car, the second largest single expense most people have after their home. They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like. The price of gasoline and projected future price of gasoline is part of the conversation. A 20 mile per gallon car might cost a couple close to $1,600 in annual gas bills at $2.40 a gallon. A carbon tax might raise that to $3.00 a gallon which would increase their annual gas costs to perhaps $2,000, about $400 more. Meanwhile, a 50 mpg PHEV or a full electric car could drop their annual gas expenditure substantially. Filling up with electricity is half as expensive as filling up with gas at $2.40 a gallon on average in the USA, and closer to a third as expensive at $3.00. That means that buying an electric car might save them $800 without a carbon tax or up to $1,200 with a carbon tax. $1,200 is $100 a month. For most couples that’s material. They’re more likely to make a decision to buy a Chevy Bolt or a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3 instead of a gas car. They have a choice and are incentivized to make one choice over the other. This doesn’t penalize them, but it does shift behaviors to preferential ones.
This is Government forcing people to behave in a certain manner for essentially Wrongthink. This is why we have a 10th Amendment, and a Constitution that restricts the actions of the federal government. And, don’t forget that “what goes around comes around.”