Know What We Really Need? A Revolution On ‘Climate Change’

No, seriously

We Don’t Need a ‘War’ on Climate Change, We Need a Revolution

This year is on track to become the hottest ever recorded, and a growing number of environmentalists are using a particular type of language in response. Some are calling for a huge “mobilization” to “combat” climate change. In an article in the New Republic in August, Bill McKibben, the unofficial spokesperson of the climate movement in the United States, insisted in very literal terms that, we are at war with climate change.

In the United States, we are familiar with war metaphors; and they are often politically useful. We have been through wars on poverty, drugs, cancer and even Christmas. In these cases, metaphors are understood as metaphors, but when McKibben points to territory ceded, space invaded, cultural loss and human suffering, he intends to be taken at face value: “It’s not that global warming is like a world war,” he writes. “It is a world war.”

(blah blah blah, social justice, climate justice, raising taxes, yammer yammer yammer)

For this reason, Naomi Klein has called for solutions that go beyond the technological. She emphasizes, not just green energy, but also “people power.” Her most recent book and film, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate,” feature a number of grass-roots movements resisting the forces that threaten people’s relationships with their environment — sometimes even in the name of “green” solutions, such as hydroelectric dam projects. We want to follow Klein’s lead in shifting the conceptual focus from technologies of power to relations of power. Despite his recent rhetoric, McKibben follows a similar course.

We urgently need to motivate action, but given the ambiguities and dangers surrounding war rhetoric, we need better orienting language. Perhaps, as some have suggested, “revolution” is the better path.

In other words, it’s just like so many of us Skeptics have been saying: this is all a left wing Progressive (nice fascism) movement to essentially change everything away from capitalism in the economic mode, forming a government dominated economic system. Call it Marxism, socialism, whatever you want. It’s all about government control. Espoused by people who, shockingly, get paid for their work.

Read: Know What We Really Need? A Revolution On ‘Climate Change’ »

Which Climate Change Costume Are You Wearing This Halloween?

You probably thought that the Cult of Climastrology had forgotten to drag Halloween into their silly beliefs. Of course not. And you can totally take Halloween to the next level

Take Halloween to the next level with these 5 statement costumes

Eco-themed Halloween costumes are definitely in. After all, it’s a night devoted to terror and excess. But how do you stand out in a sea of BP oil spills and sexy Ken Bones?

This year, don’t just dress like an environmental catastrophe. Act like one, too. Science has spit out some nasty (and terrifying) stats about our changing world lately. We have a few suggestions for ways you can be equally obnoxious this year. Just remember — it’s for the planet.

So, we get things like

Costume: Farty scape-cow

Fact: Methane emissions are 60 to 110 percent higher than we thought. Double, double, toil and trouble. Fires burn, and the cauldron is certainly bubbling. We’ve been underestimating methane emissions from oil, coal, and natural gas exploration by 20 to 60 percent, says a new study in Nature. Creepy.

Act it out: Cattle take a lot of the blame for methane emissions, but fossil fuels are big emitters, too. Explain this to partygoers while wearing your best cow suit and spritzing gag fart spray.

Sounds like you’ll be the life of the party. Bet you’ll have a lot of invites to next year’s party.

You can also go as

  • Wildfire
  • Average June
  • New York underwater (this is a group project)
  • Pissed off wilderness

Doesn’t this sound fun?

Halloween is all about getting scared, and pissing people off, for educational reasons. So rock that jerky costume. Wear it with pride. And tomorrow, crowdfund against pollution — or plant a native, organic, and water-wise garden — or support family planning and sexual education in your community. Yes these stats are spooky-sad, but get into it, have fun, definitely don’t light yourself on fire, and remember there’s still plenty we can do.

I never knew that Halloween is about pissing people off for education reasons. As for plenty you can do, of course this doesn’t require you to actually go carbon neutral in your own life. You can still drive a fossil fueled vehicle to the Halloween party where you’ll annoy everyone.

Read: Which Climate Change Costume Are You Wearing This Halloween? »

The FBI Director Is Damaging Our Democracy Or Something

Alternate headline: Woman who knows quite a bit about thwarting transparency an damaging national security is upset. Jamie Gorelick, along with Larry Thompson, has written a typical moonbat piece for the Washington Post. You remember Ms. Gorelick, right? She was one of the 9/11 Commission members, who, we soon found out, was personally responsible for instituting the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence during the Bill Clinton administration, making it oh so much easier for al Qaeda to plan and practice for their 9/11 attacks.

Both are big Hillary Clinton supporters

James Comey is damaging our democracy

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics.

So, it sounds like they should approve of the investigation. Of course not. And, of course, it’s only a section of the DOJ that is investigating, namely, the FBI. Loretta Lynch’s DOJ wants nothing to do with investigating Hillary. If she was a Republican, well, things would be different

It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Again, you know that if Hillary was a Republican, this op-ed would have a much different tone, which would be cheering this action.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

This would be like the refs deciding that they will not call any penalties, no matter how blatant, in the last 5 minutes of a close Super Bowl. Grab a facemask, mug a receiver, knock a quarterback out with a late hit to the head? Nope, sorry, last 5 minutes.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them.

Traditions are apparently more important than pesky things like law, order, investigating criminal conduct. All the complaints end with

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

Interesting. People like Democrat voter Gorelick have no problem when the news media, seemingly an arm of the Democratic Party, release information (sometimes totally false and made up) against members of one political party. Does that not damage our democracy in the same manner? If the answer is no, why not? Would it be better to limit all last minute releases till after the election? We could put a moratorium on all transparency from, say, three weeks out from the election. Would that work? For Democrats, transparency is only something that should be practiced when it hurts Republicans.

Of course, the Washington Post is going full bore barking moonbat. We see opinion pieces like

And so many more. Again, imagine this had been about Trump. The media would have cheered.

Fortunately, the media is also keeping the story alive with their indignant stories and opinion pieces, which is probably the last thing Hillary wants. Whoops.

(formatting of blockquotes fixed)

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The FBI Director Is Damaging Our Democracy Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a horrible laundry basket which leads people to using electronic and evil washing machines, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on wind farms causing stress and loss of sleep.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Patriotic Pinup Bill Randall

Happy Sunday! A wonderful day in the once and future nation of America. Just a day away from Halloween, which, sadly, is not election day. It should be, at least this year. This pinup is by Bill Randall, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. The Other McCain has suggestions on what to do with Hillary
  2. The Geller Report notes Sweden banning Christmas lights to avoid offending Muslims
  3. The First Street Journal discusses voting with a clear conscience
  4. Shot In the Dark notes that some animals are more equal than others
  5. Patterico’s Pontifications says that Hillary owns this alone
  6. Neo Neocon covers the purpose of the income tax
  7. Moonbattery notes Bill de Blasio blaming food carts for global warming
  8. Jihad Watch wonders when the Islamophobia will end in Nigeria
  9. Fire Andrea Mitchell covers a newspaper calling on Hillary to resign
  10. DaTechGuy explains why he thinks Comey reopened the Hillary investigation
  11. Blazing Cat Fur notes some college students upset by a “Rally For America”
  12. Bizzy Blog has a feel good story for the day
  13. American Power covers American fears of violence on election day
  14. The Deplorable Climate Science Blog notes that symptoms of cooling and warming are the same
  15. And last, but not least, Legal Insurrection notes the irony of the DOJ warning the FBI

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

NY Times: Know What’s A Scandal Too Far? “Carlos Danger”

You can always rely on the NY Times, be it in their news or opinion sections (which often seem to be the same thing), to provide some progressive silliness to just about everything

A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty

In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a second presidential run.

Then Carlos Danger happened.

Anthony D. Weiner, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired moniker.

The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs. Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named Sydney Leathers.

Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama. Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

See? This is a scandal too far. Apparently, what Weiner did is Bad, and could effect Hillary, potentially forcing her to let Huma go. Too be clear, what Weiner has done is very bad, and potentially criminal. But, it’s apparently not too far when it comes to Hillary not only standing by Bill Clinton when he’s credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, but actively working to destroy the women who made the accusations.

It’s not a scandal too far when there’s a proven pay for play scandal between Hillary, the State Department, and the Clinton Foundation.

It’s not a scandal too far that the Clinton Foundation only spends 6% on actual charity. That they take lots of money from horrible countries that treat women and gays terribly. Selling US uranium rights to Russia after massive donations to the Foundation. And so much more.

It’s not a scandal too far when Hillary implements her own private server outside the government chain, passing national security material through the server which had little security, hiding the server, deleting emails in violation of subpoena, stripping security markings, wiping the server, not turning emails over, and so much more. Hillary, as Sec of State, should have known better. But, she blew off training’s on security.

And so, so much more. Weiner is a scandal too far, though.

Meanwhile, do you know what’s troubling to Hillary?

Treating Mr. Comey as a threat to her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton took aim at the law enforcement officer who had recommended no criminal charges less than four months earlier for her handling of classified information as secretary of state.

“It’s pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information right before an election,” Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in Daytona Beach, Fla. “In fact, it’s not just strange; it’s unprecedented and it is deeply troubling.”

Strange and deeply troubling. Not like her setting up the email server in the first place. Or her husband sexually assaulting women. Getting oral sex from an intern in the White House. Keeping a woman, Huma Abedin, around who has deep links to the Islamic group the Muslim Brotherhood, which treats women terribly. All the lying from Hillary. Etc and so forth.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Know What’s A Scandal Too Far? “Carlos Danger” »

If All You See…

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing hot and cold days, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Feral Irishman, with a post on a Hillary supporter finding out the meaning of “unintended consequences.”

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Have A New Phrase: Climate Radicalization

It flows off the lips, eh? (via Watts Up With That?)

‘The atmosphere is being radicalized’ by climate change

Climate change’s impacts on extreme weather and society are becoming increasingly clear and undeniable. While we are making progress in solving the problem, we’re still moving too slowly, and one of the two political parties governing the world’s strongest superpower continues to deny the science. This led astrophysicist Katie Mack to make the following suggestion, related to a common refrain from Donald Trump and Republican Party leaders:

https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/789817185287811072

Radicalized! Then, as Eric Worrell writes at Watts Up With That?, “… [snip: boring list of rehashed climate claims] …”

These are but a few recent examples of climate extremes amplified by human-caused global warming. These extreme events will only come with greater frequency and intensity as the planet continues to heat up.

The only way to curb these impacts is to cut the carbon pollution that’s intensifying them. As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away. Only by admitting we have a problem and taking steps to address it can we avoid a catastrophic outcome.

By “taking steps,” uber-Warmist Dana Nuccitteli (who’s also a big oil consultant) doesn’t mean that people should de-carbonize (another Warmist catch-phrase) their own lives, the whole list of giving up their own use of fossil fuels and stuff, no, he means big government controlling our lives and taxing the hell out of us.

Of course, as Alun Jones notes in the Guardian comments “How about “climate science radicalization” to best describe what’s going on?”

Read: Warmists Have A New Phrase: Climate Radicalization »

Super Cold Winter Days Are Now ‘Climate Change’

No matter the question, the answer from the Cult of Climastrology is “climate change!!!!!” And then they jump in their fossil fueled vehicles to go to a demonstration, using their energy sucking smartphones, tablets, and computers, and drinking out of plastic bottles. Over at the George Soros funded Think Progress, Warmist Alejandro Dávila Fragoso is incensed over the latest “report” on the polar vortex

Brace yourself for a bitterly cold winter, as climate change shifts the polar vortex
Scientists have long said global warming will bring extreme weather.

It’s coming back.

The polar vortex that shocked the northeast with extremely cold days may bring more bitterly cold winters to North America, according to a new study.

According to the study, over the past 30 years, the polar vortex has weakened, in part due to Arctic sea-ice loss linked to human-caused climate change. That weakening has prompted a shifted toward Europe and Asia in February. This means unusually cold days may become more common in February and March, the Weather Channel reported. At the same time, Europe is facing warmer winters.

So, warmer and colder. No matter the question, the answer is always to deem it man-induced climate change. They can’t help themselves. This is what people in cults do.

Scientists have long said global warming will bring extreme weather. This is what it looks like.

Of course they did. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, lack of snow, cold records, hot records, you name it, they’ll blame it.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts a warm, dry winter for much of the country, according to the U.S. Winter Outlook published last week. But that doesn’t mean the polar vortex won’t be capable of bringing record cold days.

So, if most of the winter is dry and warm, and a few days are bitterly cold, it’s your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle and using a hair dryer. And refusing to give up your hard earned money to Government, along with your liberty and modern lifestyle.

Read: Super Cold Winter Days Are Now ‘Climate Change’ »

Times, Post Seem Rather Upset About FBI Reopening Hillary Server Case

By now you’re surely familiar with the FBI bringing back it’s examination of the Hillary email server case. Powerline wonders if this is about Huma Abedin committing perjury, but, I’m not sure that Comey would announce the inquiry in this manner for just perjury, not this close to the election, no matter how close she is to Hillary. Hilariously, Hillary stated

“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important national election of our lifetimes. Voting is already underway in our country,” Clinton said. “So the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.”

“We don’t know what to believe. And I’m sure there will be even more rumors,” Clinton said. “That’s why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they’re talking about.”

This from a woman who created a private server outside the control of the State Department, didn’t tell anyone about it, had no regards for transparency (nor national security), deleted 33,000 emails when she learned that it was under subpoena in contradiction of the law, obfuscated and delayed all investigations, and did everything to gum up the works. Lied about it. Humorously, the DNC and John Podesta are also calling for transparency from the FBI. They never did for Hillary, of course.

And then we get this from the NY Times editorial board (which, of course, minimizes the whole case, which, really, would have been sent to a grand jury for anyone not named Hillary Clinton)

Mrs. Clinton, as she has acknowledged, is responsible for this mess, which led Friday night to a gobsmacking headline on CNN: “Weiner Sexting Probe Leads F.B.I. to Review Clinton Case.” If she is elected, she will do well to recall that line should she ever consider being less than forthcoming. Her apparent effort to blunt scrutiny by means of that private server has only led to far more damaging scrutiny and suspicion, with no end in sight.

But Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July, “The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve details even more urgently today.

See? This is mostly the Comey’s fault, and suddenly transparency is required. From the FBI. Of course, the NYTEB has barely asked for the same from Hillary during this whole time, and, certainly, you can imagine the resulting editorials, including on the reopening of the case, had she been a Republican, and they would have been vastly different.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post Editorial Board, which had previously only chided Mrs. Clinton over her poor conduct, questions the timing

POLITICAL TENSION is running high in the United States, extraordinarily so, we’d say. And so it behooves everyone in a position of official responsibility to do everything he or she possibly can to help maintain stability — while avoiding all avoidable provocations — until the bitter competition between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump runs its ugly course on Nov. 8.

That is the context for Friday’s announcement by James B. Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that his agency is again looking into Ms. Clinton’s private email server in light of newly discovered emails “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Mr. Comey may have had good reason to inform Republican committee chairmen in Congress of the review, but his timing was nevertheless unfortunate, given its potential to affect a democratic process in which millions of people are already voting.

Obviously, their concern is for Hillary’s POTUS chances. They certainly weren’t concerned with the provocations of so far unfounded accusations against Trump, ones which have no actual hard proof that he sexually assaulted anyone decades ago. Just someone saying. Imagine, again, the difference had Hillary been a Republican. They would have cheered this reopening, saying it is good for our democratic process.

Of course, the WPEB does their own schtick in saying that Hillary did not wrong (federal statutes, like the Espionage Act, notwithstanding)

Mr. Comey found himself in a bind when his investigators turned up additional, previously unexamined Clinton emails, apparently on devices belonging to top aide Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner, seized during an FBI probe of the latter’s alleged sexual misconduct with a minor. (As if this could not get any more bizarre.) If Mr. Comey failed to tell Congress before Nov. 8 about his decision to review them, he would be accused — again — of a politically motivated coverup. By revealing it, he inevitably creates a cloud of suspicion over Ms. Clinton that, if the case’s history is any guide, is unwarranted. Hence Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s not unreasonable demand that Mr. Comey “immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining.”

What they’re upset over is that this could hurt Hillary. Can you imagine finding this out after the election, one she had won?

The interesting question not being asked is what happens if she wins, and then the FBI decides to recommend prosecution prior to Inauguration Day.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Times, Post Seem Rather Upset About FBI Reopening Hillary Server Case »

Pirate's Cove