California Governor Threatens To Launch “Own Damn (Climate) Satellite”

Because Donald Trump could conceivably just turn off the ones we have

(Gizmodo) With his latest cabinet picks, Donald Trump has strongly signaled that his administration will do little to combat climate change, which he once called a hoax invented by the Chinese. If the President-elect tries to stop climate research, however, California’s Governor has promised to fight him at every turn.

In a barnburner speech on Wednesday, Governor Jerry Brown vowed to defy any attempt by the future President to “mess with” the state’s earth science programs, telling a group of geophysicists in San Francisco, “We will persevere.”

“We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight,” Brown told the American Geophysical Union to wild applause. “If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite.”

Remember, these are scientists who are supposedly scientists, not activists, not political. Yet, they cheered wildly for a very partisan governor giving a speech, which also included a shot at Rick Perry, who has been nominated to head the Department of Energy

“Rick, I got some news for you,” said Brown. “California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. And we’ve got more sun than you have oil.”

Bringing in tons of illegal aliens to offset all the jobs lost to Texas isn’t quite the growth they need. Interestingly, it is a whole lot easier for companies and citizens in Texas to put up solar panels and solar farm than in California, due to the massive discrepancy between the regulatory systems in the two states.

Read: California Governor Threatens To Launch “Own Damn (Climate) Satellite” »

The Era Of Trump Is Turning Climate Scientists Into Activists Or Something

It’s sudden!

Trump’s skepticism about climate change is turning scientists into activists

Scientists aren’t generally known for their political protests. But like so many things, that’s all changing under the shadow of a looming Trump presidency.

Dec. 12 marked the start of the four-day American Geophysical Union conference, a gathering of climate scientists that isn’t typically known for its raucous itinerary. But on Dec. 13, in between sessions on nonlinear geophysics, seismology, and the study of the earth’s deep interior, many attendees also took to the streets of San Francisco to protest the incoming administration’s stance on climate change. The rally drew hundreds of participants.

And to highlight that notion of climate scientists being non-partisan, they highlight

At the AGU conference, worries abound over future funding for research, jobs, and, of course, Earth. Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University, told NPR he has heard colleagues express “feelings of rage, anger, confusion, fear—they’re all negative emotions.”

But, mostly the money.

“This is a frightening moment,” said Harvard history of science professor Naomi Oreskest at the protest. “We have to get out and explain to people why this science matters.”

Money, jobs, and power.

In fact, a goodly chunk of the “climate scientists” in the public eye have been activists for years if not decades. Many explicitly call for some sort of carbon tax and/or cap and trade scheme (such as Gavin Schmidt, the guy in charge of GISS). They have been caught manipulating data. Many fight tooth and nail to hide their data and methods, which were paid for with taxpayer funds. They show up at protests and rallies, and some of them even get arrested (such as James Hansen, who was director of Goddard at NASA, and who has been arrested while still in the employment of the government).

Yes, there are good people who do good work in a non-partisan way, gathering data, looking at data, publishing data, without getting political. There are more than enough, though, who are partisan hacks, and show that this whole “blame Mankind” schitck is a hustle.

Read: The Era Of Trump Is Turning Climate Scientists Into Activists Or Something »

NY Times, Washington Post, Continue To Push To Overturn Election Results Thru Electoral College

The Times and Washington Post have both published numerous articles, opinion pieces masquerading as articles, and opinion pieces since the election brought us President Elect Donald Trump looking to see what could be done to overturn the election, because they, like their Leftist comrades, cannot accept those results. If the shoe was reversed, had Hillary won the election per the Constitution, we’d be treated to a dose of “look, just accept it, stop the shenanigans.” Instead, we get things like

Why G.O.P. Electors Can Vote Against Trump

With the Electoral College set to meet next week, millions of Americans horrified by the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency have implored red-state electors to vote for Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican. Millions of Americans supportive of Mr. Trump find these efforts galling. But both sides agree on what to call such electors: “faithless.”

This is a loaded label. Is it warranted? Do presidential electors have an obligation to ratify their state’s popular vote?

As a matter of state law, the answer is mixed. Just over half of the states have enacted measures that instruct electors to vote for their party’s designated candidate. The rest have not. And even in the states that tell their electors how to vote, the penalties for disobeying tend to be modest and to go unenforced.

Got that? David Pozen, unsurprisingly a very leftist professor at Columbia Law School, and a guy who has been beating this same bandwagon since November 16, is not only suggesting that electors vote for the person who lost in their state, but, to violate the law in many cases.

The entire piece is about deeming that those who refuse to vote for the winner are not really “faithless”, and that they should vote their own conscience, rather than uphold the will of the people in their respective states, up till it ends by saying we should do away with the Electoral College. But, the main point is that the EC should overturn the results because Democrats do not like them and are unable to act like adults.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr, is also beating the bandwagon that the EC shouldn’t do their job

Memo to the electoral college that votes next Monday: Our tradition — for good reason — tells you that your job is to ratify the state-by-state outcome of the election. The question is whether Trump, Vladimir Putin and, perhaps, Clinton’s popular-vote advantage give you sufficient reason to blow up the system.

They will do anything and say anything to attempt to overturn the results. Look, I still do not trust Trump. He’s had some pretty good picks for his staff and Executive Offices (and a few “eh’s”), but, how will he actually govern? Regardless, he won per the Constitution.

Yet defenders of the electoral college cannot claim that following the state results is an explicit “constitutional” obligation. The Constitution makes no mention of popular election of electors, leaving the manner of their selection to the states. It’s worth asking why the national popular vote should be seen as meaningless while the state-by-state popular vote should be regarded as sacred.

Because part of the rationale for the EC is that it protects smaller states from the tyranny of larger states. It protects the rural areas from the larger urban areas. Because we are a Federal Republic, not a democracy, and States are meant to have more power, and the federal government is meant to have much, much less.

Of course, these aren’t the only pieces. Numerous papers and media outlets are pushing the same. These are just the two leading papers of the nation asking the EC to be faithless. We saw much of this same thing back in 2000, because they didn’t want Bush to win. But, not to this extent. Just deal with it, Democrats. Your horrible candidate lost. To Donald Trump. A guy with no campaigning experience. No government experience. Because your candidate was horrible. Blame Russia, blame Putin, blame this, blame that. You lost. We dealt with 8 years of Obama, you can deal with at least 4 years of Trump.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times, Washington Post, Continue To Push To Overturn Election Results Thru Electoral College »

Late Night Comics Could Have A Big Impact On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Popular Mechanics’ Jeremy Deaton is super enthused

LATE-NIGHT COMICS COULD HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL
IT’S A SERIOUS PROBLEM, BUT A LITTLE LAUGHTER GOES A LONG WAY

By little, he’s probably right, because late night TV is just not that funny.

Last year, ABC News devoted just 13 minutes of airtime to covering climate change in its nightly and Sunday news shows — about as much as CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. This may be as much an indictment of ABC’s news coverage as it is a testament to Stephen Colbert.

“It is certainly notable that Colbert spent as much time as he did on climate change, given that his show is a comedy variety show,” said Rutgers professor of communications Lauren Feldman. “I think it reflects a continuation of the attention he paid to the issue on The Colbert Report.”

Feldman explained that TV satirists are regularly pulling double duty as America’s ambassadors to science — whether geeking out with Neil DeGrasse Tyson or riffing on the latest climate science. Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jon Oliver, Jimmy Kimmel, Trevor Noah and, (until recently) Jon Stewart, have lent valuable airtime to a vital issue that garners too little attention in traditional news programs.

What’s more remarkable than the sheer amount of time given over to climate change is the fact that late-night comics are actually able to make the research accessible — serving up the latest science with a side of humor.

All right, we can stop there. What they’re doing is preaching to the choir, for the most part. How many Republicans do they think are actually tuning in? The vast majority of their audience these days is comprised of liberals, people who think exactly the same as they do. It’s an echo chamber. Do they ever really have discussions where skepticism is discussed? Or just Warmists? In the few cases where Republicans are on, they are challenged and often insulted. When Warmists are on, are they ever challenged to provide rock sold proof? No. And the falling ratings of all these “comic” shows show that the audience is limited.

Read: Late Night Comics Could Have A Big Impact On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on how to not get it.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause Us To Lose Lots Of Things In 2017

This is perhaps one of the most dishonest pieces you can possibly read from the Cult of Climastrology this year, and that’s saying something considering the entire issue is based on a bedrock of lies and falsehoods

What We’ll Lose to Climate Change in 2017
And you thought 2016 was a bad year.

Climate change has become so severe and so obvious that geologists, who typically deal on timescales of millions of years, have hastily named a new epoch: the Anthropocene. Earth’s human-made sixth mass extinction has altered ecosystems even as other ecosystems have been more directly wiped out. The world has been thrown into fast forward and the whiplash will forever change how our planet functions.

It’s important to reiterate that the fossil fuel consumption that causes much of global warming is hardly the only thing throwing ecological systems into disarray. Humans also cause trouble by cutting down forests to make way for farms and cities, polluting air and water with toxic chemicals, and hunting and fishing animals to the brink of extinction or worse. Climate change is more than a CO2 PPM reading.

These human-caused changes are nothing new — we’ve been sculpting ecosystems for tens of thousands of years. But our population has grown so significantly and so quickly while developing tools of unprecedented power, that we’re altering the landscape at an outrageous speed. And when ecosystems are lost, they stay lost. Whatever we build and however we strategically reverse engineer livable spaces, what’s gone is gone.

Hyper-alarmist, and, apparently professional spinner, Jacqueline Ronson, then provides the things that will be lost

  • Precisely 100 Feet of Alaska’s North Coast (yes, this is possible, but, it’s not anthropogenic)
  • The White Rhino and Thousands of Other Species (the white rhino population was decimated due to hunting, not ‘climate change’. Many other species are in trouble due to mankind, but, again, not to Hotcoldwetdry, so, a falsehood)
  • 1000 Square Miles of Surface Water (this is in reference to the Aral Sea, which she blames on ‘climate change’, even as she mentions the real cause, diversion of water for agriculture. There are other reasons, as well, such as poor management and Soviet policies)
  • 1,000,000,000,000 Square Feet of Arctic Ice (Warmists keep making this claim, and now she’s yammering about the Arctic being ice free by 2045. She even claims “For every metric tonne of Carbon dioxide humans release, 32 square feet of ice is lost.” So, then how is the Antarctic growing?)

The Cult is nothing if not utterly dishonest.

Read: Good News: Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause Us To Lose Lots Of Things In 2017 »

Good Grief: Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer Has A “Gay Subtext” Or Something

It’s the holiday season, with Christmas looming large. Insane Social Justice Warriors haven’t been particularly interested in attempting to destroy New Year’s Eve nor Hanukkah, but, Christmas has always been their main target (as long as they still continue to get the day off as a paid holiday, of course). So, of course, we end up with bat guano insane things like this

The Gay Subtext of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer

Thinking back on the children’s Christmas specials of yore with an adult frame of reference can be a little bit dizzying. There is the suffocating consumerist melancholy of A Charlie Brown Christmas, the existential dread of a magical friend’s impending death in Frosty the Snowman, and the political allegory of Heat Miser’s rise to power that is A Year Without a Santa Clause.

But nothing, absolutely nothing, is changed with a close, analytical reading of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the 1964 stop-motion special. I mean, just look at it: Rudolph is totally, absolutely, 100 percent, Neil-Patrick-Harris-French-kissing-Ricky-Martin gay. Anyone who even knows what Queer Theory is can tell you that the subtext of the narrative seems to be a pre-Stonewall contemplation of the power of coming out and embracing sexual minorities into society at large.

If you’re thinking “it can’t possibly go downhill,” nope, sorry!

The film starts in the North Pole, where traditional gender roles are quickly reinforced. Mrs. Claus does all the cooking and nags her husband about not eating enough. The elves, identical in shape and apparel, are at work on Santa’s toys, the boys wearing blue and the girls wearing pink. Rudolph is born to Donner, who immediately hates his son’s red nose and thinks that something so different will keep him from leading a heterosexual life where he pulls Santa’s sleigh and marries a nice doe someday. (snip)

“For a year the Donner family did a good job hiding Rudolph’s — non-conformity,” the narrator tells us, pausing slightly before landing on the right euphemism. This is the closet of Rudolph’s parents devising, which he goes along with thanks to the internalized homophobia that he inherited from both his father and Santa, the superego of the North Pole, who is equally distressed by Rudolph’s difference. Santa even goes so far as to tell Donner that he should be ashamed of his son and try to change him. It’s almost as if Santa is a church elder trying to force Rudolph into conversion therapy.

Of course, Hermey, the elf who wants to be a dentist, is painted as a flaming gay, and

When Hermey and Rudolph run into each other, they reprise their song about being misfits, singing, “seems to us kind of silly that we don’t fit in.” Now that these two young gay men have met each other, they realize that the oppression of sexual conformity they’ve been living under their whole lives is a total sham.

And even Yukon Cornelius is gay, being the first “lumbersexual.”

And the Island of Misfit Toys? That’s right, they’re all part of the LGBT community!

The Abominable Snow Monster? He’s “a fanged embodiment of violent homophobia.”

And Gay Rudolph and company save Christmas because Santa and the rest embrace the differenceness of gayness!

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands.

Read: Good Grief: Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer Has A “Gay Subtext” Or Something »

NY Times: Say, Why Isn’t The DNC Trying To Thwart The Election Results?

Uber-partisan hacks David S. Cohen, a law professor and Hillary supporter, and Dalia Lithwick, a moonbat writer from the always reliably nutball site Slate, really really want the DNC and high ranking Democrats to fight back and deligitimize the election of Donald Trump, overturning the election. At some point, you have to realize that this is the view of the people who work and run the NY Times, as well

Do you like how they used a graphic where the entire country is painted blue for Democrats?

Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans

On Monday, members of the Electoral College will vote in Donald J. Trump as president. Though he lost the election by nearly three million votes and almost daily generates headlines about new scandals, the Democratic Party is doing little to stop him. If you’ve been asking yourself “Where are the Democrats?” you’re not alone.

Since the election, top Democrats have been almost absent on the national stage. Rather, they have been involved largely in internecine warfare about how much to work with Mr. Trump. The Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to encourage a peaceful transition, has gone almost completely dark, with her most notable appearances coming in selfies with strangers. Nobody deserves downtime more than Mrs. Clinton, but while she is decompressing, the country is moving toward its biggest electoral mistake in history.

Then maybe Democrats should have nominated someone better, right?

There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional;

Since when? If that was the case, Democrats would be in big trouble, because what you’d see are lots of electoral votes in states that typically go Democrat splitting those votes, since in places like NY and NJ there are large swaths of non-urban areas that voter Republican. Be careful what you wish for. But, hey, if the shoe was reversed, these same people would be telling us to respect the system.

a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we’ve seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.

Yeah, remember all the riots, violence, and caterwauling from Democrat voters, with Democrats saying nothing to stop them.

Contrast the Democrats’ do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage.

No, Republicans wouldn’t. They would have sucked it up just like they sucked up 8 years of Obama. The partisan hack writers attempt to use Florida 2000 as the rationale, but, the situation was different. But, it did give them a chance to whine about Florida 2000.

As Monday’s Electoral College vote approaches, Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail. Instead, we are once again left with incontrovertible proof that win or lose, Republicans behave as if they won while Democrats behave as if they lost. What this portends for the next four years is truly terrifying.

We did win. The White House, the House, the Senate, a goodly chunk of the state legislatures and executive offices, local races, county races, judge races, sheriff races, and, by extension (well, I guess we’ll see who Trump nominates), the Supreme Court.

Democrats say they love our country and democracy and respect our Constitution, but, the only thing they love is power. And will pull any shenanigans to achieve it. It’s going to be a long 4-8 years with these people writing stuff like this, but, they give great copy for posts, wouldn’t you say?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Say, Why Isn’t The DNC Trying To Thwart The Election Results? »

What Say To Paying For Energy Reliability?

Would you be up for this?

(UK Guardian) Britain is facing the prospect of an energy supply crisis which will see customers having to pay for a higher level of reliability, it has been reported.

Andrew Wright, a senior partner with energy watchdog Ofgem, is quoted as having warned that communities could be split between those who can afford to keep the lights on and those who cannot.

According to the Telegraph, he said there was much less flexibility for suppliers because Britain had lost fuel capacity due to the closure of coal mines.

Wright said: “In the future, not everyone will be able to use as much electricity as they want and there will be a need to rewrite the rules.

“We are currently all paying broadly the same price but we could be moving away from that and there will be some new features in the market which may see some choose to pay for a higher level of reliability.

“One household may be sitting with their lights on, charging their Tesla electric car, while someone else will be sitting in the dark.”

Now, it has been reported that Wright was speaking for himself, not Ofgem, but, regardless, he hits on a salient point: the Cult of Climastrology has been pushing for the closure of coal mines, reducing the use of natural gas and oil, increasing the use of “alternatives.” The latter is typically unreliable at this point, the others are not. The latter is wildly expensive, the others are not. The same CoC is very much against nuclear, and pitches a fit over the use of hydroelectric. What this all means is that, as a possibility, you could end up with some being able to afford reliable energy (in other words, the moneyed class), while others (those in the middle and lower classes) cannot.

This is the end result of what Warmists have been pushing. Rolling brownouts and blackouts. Some being able to afford electricity easily while others suffer. And they all think that none of the negatives will cause problems in their own lives. Perhaps if you are part of the 1% these same Warmists hate it will be no problem. For the rest? They’re own beliefs will cause big problems.

Read: What Say To Paying For Energy Reliability? »

If All You See…

…is an Arctic that is going to soon be totally ice free, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on the meaning of Tillerson for State.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove