…is snow caused by too much heat from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the Left’s war on masculinity.
Read: If All You See… »
…is snow caused by too much heat from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the Left’s war on masculinity.
Read: If All You See… »
Typical scaremongering and climaderangement from the Cult of Climastrology
(Motherboard) Vancouver prides itself on being a coastal city, nestled between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific. Like every other part of the world, it’s under threat from climate change, as warming temperatures cause sea levels to creep ever-higher. The city is looking at many options to hold back the rising water—and for the first time, retreat from the coast is one of them.
This week, Vancouver officials put out a report laying out plenty of options to deal with sea level rise, including barriers, dykes, and seawalls. But it also suggests that, at least in some parts of the city, they may want to consider just getting people out of the way. The option of retreat from the coast is on the table in Vancouver, and other cities might soon follow. (snip)
According to the report, retreat in Vancouver would involve the city buying up residences and other property and ‘re-naturalizing’ them. This means essentially allowing them to flood, in order to protect other areas. Of course, many residents of the city—where the average price of a detached home is well over $1 million—may not be eager to up and move. (snip)
Doug Smith, who is Vancouver’s director of sustainability, said that while retreating from sea level rise is “really a last case or worst case scenario,†it was important to present all available options as the city decides how to tackle the problem.
“It’s on the table, and I think just from a due diligence perspective we need to have that honest conversation with people,†he said.
Yes, let’s have an honest conversation, via the old meme about a picture saying 1,000 words at .12 feet over 100 years

That comes from NOAA. ‘Nuff said.
Read: Vancouver Considers Abandoning Coast Line From ‘Climate Change’ »
Democrats have been crowing about how Donald Trump was going to have to go to court after the election, positioning a federal lawsuit as a criminal case, thinking that it could land him in jail. Neither is going to happen
(Politico) A woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her two decades ago when she was a 13-year-old aspiring teen model has again dropped a federal lawsuit over the alleged assaults.
The accuser, identified in the lawsuit by the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” was expected to appear at a news conference in Los Angeles Wednesday, but that appearance was abruptly canceled.
In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings
Here’s my problem with this case and all the other allegations: none seemed to have gone to the police. None seemed to have filed charges against Trump. Then, suddenly, decades later, they come up with allegations.
The accuser’s lead attorney, Thomas Meagher of New Jersey, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. He filed a one-page notice dismissing the case Friday evening in federal court in Manhattan. No explanation was given for the action.
The UK Daily Mail notes in an article that names her and has her picture
She claimed her motivation to tell her story was to expose Donald Trump to stop him from becoming president.
‘We would have a rapist in the White House. I would feel horrified every single day if I stay in this country,’ she said, in dramatic terms.
Sounds more like she’s just trying to stop Trump. As for a rapist in the White House, that’s what you get if Hillary is elected.
But she also said that in 1994 she had no idea who her attacker was and that it was only when she watched The Apprentice that she came to believe it was Trump, claiming that she could not forget her attacker’s face.
So, zero proof. It could very well be that Epstein raped/sexually assaulted her, because he is a scumbag who’s been under investigation for luring underage girls and served time for soliciting prostitution.
Oh, and Epstein has lots of links to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Huh.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Woman Who Accused Trump Of Rape Quietly Drops Lawsuit »
…is an evil plastic water bottle causing the seas deoxygenate you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on al Qaeda threatening election day attacks.
Read: If All You See… »
It couldn’t possibly be that no one really cares. Oh, no. Not in Warmist World
(Grist) Why don’t we talk about climate change more?
To find out, Greta Johnson and Tricia Bobeda — hosts of WBEZ’s Nerdette podcast — brought climate scientist Heidi Cullen to talk to 13 Chicago families about climate change and its dangers.
They found that people are scared of climate change — for good reason — and that makes them shut down:
One Loop resident admitted “climate change is important.†But when we asked if he’d think and talk about it more after having Cullen at his kitchen table, he replied, “Nope.â€
If he did, he said, he’d just walk around depressed all the time.
So, based on one person, we now know that we generally do not talk about the issue….and what they mean is talk about it to come up with Solutions…. because we’re too scared and we shut down and it makes us depressed. Or something
Still, we persist in avoiding the topic. “In a lot of ways, I think this project affirmed many of my own concerns and fears about climate change,†Johnson told Grist. “I know it’s something I should be concerned about, but it’s also just so overwhelming and theoretical that it’s difficult to contemplate.â€
Theoretical. More like prognostication for Madame Zelda at the carnival. This does all show that members of the Cult of Climastrology are all nuts, and are attempting to make everyone else as nutty as they are.
I always enjoy a Special Snowflake who hasn’t even entered the Real World yammering on about Important Things
If you don’t believe in climate change, then you will be on the wrong side of human history. The science and evidence for rising sea levels, arctic ice melting and man-made fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is so unequivocal that it’s baffling a presidential candidate has invalidated the phenomenon. Even though theories on global warming have been around for more than a century, it didn’t become a political issue until recently.
Of course, Leftists love trotting out the wrong side of history thing. Perhaps it’s because their support of the Soviet Union and communism, Islamic radicals, and slavery, among other things, showed they were on the wrong side, so, they’re projecting a bit. As for “unequivocal”? Correlation is not causation, as the saying goes.
Today, in the scientific community, about 97 percent of climate scientists believe there has been anthropogenic climate change.
When someone trots out the 97% falsehood, you can go full stop. Anything after that is a lie, and simply cultish beliefs. Skipping to the end of English Major Ezra Solway’s missive
While the problem is deeply rooted in shortsightedness, there is some reason for optimism. President Obama has made it his last mission in office to help combat climate change by instituting the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. What can you do to help? Instead of taking everything the media shows at face value, go educate yourself. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio recently released a documentary on the crisis called Before the Flood, which elucidates many of the problems our society faces. Let’s be more conscientious and leave this beautiful world intact for many future generations to come.
So, nothing about reducing your own carbon footprint? About giving up fossil fuels? How about beer? College kids love beer. It’s bad for ‘climate change’.
It’ll be interesting to see what these Warmists do when they’re beliefs end up on the trashheep of history.
Read: If You Don’t Believe In ‘Climate Change’ You’re On The Wrong Side Of History Or Something »
Seriously, there’s absolultely no reason to consider impeaching Hillary if she wins the White House, right? She’s an angel who does nothing wrong! And no one nor party has ever talked like this during an election season, right?
Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat
Donald Trump and other embattled Republican candidates are resorting to a particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic in the closing days of the campaign — warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.
Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous. In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.
How dare this occur in politics! I mean, goodness, certainly Democrats weren’t threatening to investigate and impeach George Bush during the 2004 election season, right?
In a rational world — you know, one that values comity and progress in the national interest — this line of argument would be seen as incendiary at worst and hopelessly wacky at best. Not so in Trumpland, where the candidate himself warns (as he did in Miami on Wednesday) that a Clinton victory would “create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis,†raising the specter that government would be severely hobbled by congressional Republicans’ open-ended investigations and a determination to impeach Mrs. Clinton. All this even if she was fairly elected by a majority of American voters.
It’s so mean!
As nonsensical as this strategy appears, these threats could cause real damage by encouraging Republicans in the next Congress to effectively take the government hostage, exacting revenge by making sure that nothing Mrs. Clinton proposes ever comes to pass. President Obama put it well in underlining the dangers. “Right now, because a lot of them think that Trump will lose, they’re already promising even more unprecedented dysfunction in Washington,†he told North Carolina voters this week. “How does our democracy function like that?â€
Considering Obama’s avoidance of engaging the duly elected legislative branch while using executive orders that are often dubious and blocked by the judiciary branch, Obama’s the last person who should be speaking on democracy.
Beyond simple hypocrisy, the Republicans’ impeachment threat demonstrates their gathering disrespect for democracy. If they can’t gain control of government fairly, they’ll simply undermine it. It is the clearest warning yet that voters must deliver a firm rejection of the politics of division that Mr. Trump represents.
Or, it could be that Republicans see an utterly untrustworthy person who blows off national security for her own “convenience” (we all know that her email server was about much, much more), left Americans to die in Benghazi, consorts with people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, used her position at State to engage in pay for play, enriching herself and her family, sold out US interests to Russia (uranium deal), used her so-called charity to enrich herself, and so much more.
Where was the NY Times Editorial Board when Democrats were working hard to undermine President George W. Bush? Nowhere to be found. They didn’t seem to care about disrespect for democracy then.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times Is A Bit Concerned Over This Impeachment Threat Against Hillary »
Personally, I’d prefer that we just start the whole thing over, but, whatever
(The Hill) A major gambling website says nearly all wagers on the presidential election in the last 48 hours have been on Donald Trump to win.
Irish bookmaker Paddy Power on Tuesday said 91 percent of bets on the election in the last two days have been backing Trump, the Republican nominee.
In the past 48 hours, 91% of bets on the US Election have been on Trump. He's into 9/4. And we've already paid out on Hillary. Uh-oh. pic.twitter.com/pGEkHMbrF2
— Paddy Power Politics (@pppolitics) November 1, 2016
Huh.
“We’re not reaching for the rosary beads just yet but if money talks, and it usually does, it’s telling us that Trump still has a puncher’s chance and he’ll be leaving us with some very expensive egg on our face if he does manage to pull it off,” spokesman Féilim Mac An Iomaire said in a statement.
Of course, I have to wonder if these bets are based on thinking that Trump will really win, or if people are putting down long-shot bets looking for a big reward should he win, like putting a few bucks down a 30-1 horse to win.