…is a world turning to desert form Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on yet another fake bit of Islamophobia.
Read: If All You See… »
…is a world turning to desert form Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on yet another fake bit of Islamophobia.
Read: If All You See… »
It’s scary!!!!! And Bad Weather never happened before fossil fuels
Here’s how wine and climate change go scarily hand-in-hand
Get ready to whine.
If you didn’t think this year could possibly get any worse, you’re wrong.
On top of all your existing 2016 worries, you now have to deal with the horrifying reality that global wine production has fallen by 5 percent.
As a result of extreme weather events, the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) reported that since 2015 there have been steep drops in wine production throughout the southern hemisphere.
During a recent press conference, OIV Director General Jean-Marie Aurand announced the troubling news that 2016’s wine production is among the lowest in the past 20 years.
Oh, noes!
(UK Guardian) Global wine production is expected to fall by 5% in 2016 because of “climatic events†causing steep drops in production in most of the southern hemisphere, particularly Chile and Argentina.
Wait, did it fall 5%, or expected to fall 5%? Both articles are based on exactly the same report. So, which is it? Does it really matter, though? As, no matter what, members of the Cult of Climastrology will be pimping doom and gloom.
(Fox News) Floods, drought, frost and hail cut into world wine production this year across Europe and South America, but the quality of the 2016 vintage shouldn’t unduly suffer.
Frost? So, colder temperatures? As far as the rest, weather happens. Some years are great, others, not so much. America was up 2%, while wine growers in South America were hit hard. Italy, France, and Spain saw their exports surge. There’s no mythical god of carbon pollution involved, just things that have always happened in climate.
Read: Global Wine Production Is Doomed From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »
See, because if you don’t support a guy who was “very” pro-abortion not that long ago, who was “pro-choice in every respect“, who is a big fan of Planned Parenthood, and is able to take 5 positions in 3 days on abortion, well, you must be a big supporter of abortion!
(Red State) Seeing the writing on the wall, Trump’s adoring media gimps… er… surrogates went into spastic fits of angst on Thursday morning.
Laura Ingraham, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and everybody’s favorite sensei, Sean Hannity, discussed the final presidential debate, and took outrageous aim at the Never Trump holdouts.
“They’re standing with the woman who stood up there today and said, ‘I’m hundred percent for Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion,” Ingraham said in reference to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton‘s performance Wednesday evening at the third and final presidential debate.
“That’s what ‘Never Trump’ stands for, I guess,” she said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion. Fantastic.”
Ridiculous and insulting.
It is. But, this is the way Hannity and the Trump Train runs. They’ve been doing this since the early spring, especially when Trump hit the magic number of primary delegates. You either supported Trump, a guy who was a Democrat not that long ago (2011), and held many Democrat positions, and, yes, was a big donor to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, or you wanted Hillary elected, and were a traitor and a RAT. In no way did the Trumpites attempt to persuade people to vote for Trump. Heck, Trump said he didn’t need Conservatives, he’d woo Bernie Sanders supporters (how’s that worked out, BTW?).
Susan Wright continues
People like Ingraham, Hannity, and the other Trump devotees are trying to scare, bully, or shame principled voters into accepting their candidate. It doesn’t work that way. Nobody isowed our vote. It has to be earned. Trump has shown himself unprofessional, unqualified, and wholly unworthy of our sacred trust.
Hillary is no better. We’re not voting for her, either.
The transcript further shows Hannity losing it even more
Hannity interjected, “Get off their ass! Just say it. Tell them to get off their ass and stop being a bunch of crybabies.”
“I’m so tired of all those people. They don’t deserve any more discussion until the day after election. Then I got a lot to say about [House Speaker] Paul Ryan and the rest of them,” Hannity said.
Much like Trump, Hannity, who used to call himself a Reagan Conservative (does he do that anymore? The limited time I’m willing to tune in anymore hasn’t yielded a mention in the past months) is acting much like Trump, wanting to burn the whole thing down if he doesn’t get his way. Heck, if Trump manages to win, they’ll still want to burn the GOP down, which, let me think, is doing the job of the Democrats! Dissension is not allowed in Trump World. People like Hannity are acting like hardcore Lefties, who have long required that you toe their line or be destroyed.
What you have are people who say their conservatives supporting a man who is anything but a conservative, who is simply patronizing them with supposed conservative talking points, with a record that is contradictory. Maybe they’re trying to convince themselves? Who knows. What we do know is that every time Republicans start thinking “well, perhaps I can vote Trump as a vote against Hillary”, we either get Trump saying something stupid or unhinged people like Hannity saying something nasty.
As Susan end with “you own this.” Trumpites do. They could have chosen someone who polled well against Hillary.
Read: Hannity Loses It Again, Accuses NeverTrump Of Supporting Abortion »
Seriously, Politico writer Kenneth P. Vogel blames Wikileaks for the poisoning, not Hillary, with that headline
Donald Trump is pointing to a stream of hacked emails as proof that Hillary Clinton would be a compromised president, but a surprising number of progressives are drawing similar conclusions — albeit for atotally different reasons.
Some of the left’s most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,†“pompousâ€, “naiveâ€, “radical†and “dumb,†calling some “freaks,†who need to “get a life.â€
There are more than personal feelings and relationships at stake, though.
If polls hold and Clinton wins the presidency, she will need the support of the professional left to offset what’s expected to be vociferous Republican opposition to her legislative proposals and appointments. (snip)Liberal groups and activists are assembling opposition research-style dossiers of the most dismissive comments in the WikiLeaks emails about icons of their movement like Clinton’s Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders, and their stances on trade, Wall Street reform, energy and climate change. And some liberal activists are vowing to use the email fodder to oppose Clinton policy proposals or appointments deemed insufficiently progressive.
Hillary is in it for herself, and, much like she has caustic words for those who support Donald Trump, such as “deplorables”, she doesn’t really care for the activists and such on the left. But, finding out how Hillary and her people really think is not the fault of Wikileaks: it’s the fault of Hillary and her people.
Is releasing stolen material bad? Of course. Liberals used to love this, though, when the information was about Republicans, especially George Bush and his administration. Or about the US military. They said it was perfectly OK when it was about our government, highlighting the bad things it was doing. They loved it when Edward Snowden was releasing material showing how much our government was spying on US citizens. Most of the stuff released about Hillary was essentially government.
Regardless, it’s not Wikileaks at fault: don’t blame them for the misconduct of Hillary and her people. It just provides more proof that Hillary hates the little people, who can’t pony up millions of dollars for pay for play access.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Silly Headline Of Day: “WikiLeaks poisons Hillary’s relationship with left” »
Seriously, this had to go to court to be recognized
(Star Tribune) Â The Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a felon sentenced to five years in prison for the possession of a small BB gun, ruling Wednesday that the air-powered weapon is not a firearm.
Though the decision vacates the conviction upheld by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, it is not broad-sweeping. The ruling only covers Minnesota’s felon-in-possession statues, not someone who chooses to actually fire it.
Since 1977, the state’s two appellate courts have repeatedly agreed with the Legislature that a BB gun is a firearm when involved in various crimes, such as drive-by shootings. (snip)
The Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that the plain meaning of “firearm†does not include an air-powered BB gun. A firearm, it ruled, is defined as a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder. A BB gun can’t be defined in that way because it doesn’t use explosive force, according to court records.
The court said it was up to the legislature to determine the definition of a firearm, noting that things like nail guns work on the same principle as a BB gun, yet aren’t considered firearms.
Ramsey County Attorney John Choi said he was disappointed with Wednesday’s ruling, which would force the dismissal of any pending cases in which a felon was alleged to be in possession of an “air-powered†firearm. Choi called on the Legislature to provide further clarity on the issue.
“For the public’s sake, there should be a clear prohibition and serious penalties for felons who carry ‘air-powered’ guns,†Choi wrote in a statement to the Star Tribune. “These ‘air-powered’ guns are not yesterday’s Daisy Riders. They look identical to popular handguns, have immense firepower, and too often are involved in criminal activity or tragic events.â€
It would be wise for the legislature to look at penalties for those who use air-powered guns as props for intimidation and crimes. Some of them are so realistic looking that even the most knowledgeable gun owners have no idea. But, they aren’t firearms.
Read: Surprise: Minnesota Supreme Court Determines That BB Guns Are Not, In Fact, Firearms »
…are horrible farm animals causing giant hurricanes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on SJWs opposing camouflage.
Read: If All You See… »
Shifting goal posts from the Cult of Climastrology, especially regarding sea rise, from “Scientific American”, which used to deal with science, not reading tea leaves and crystal balls
Exposed: The Climate Fallacy of 2100
If we do not plan, now, to limit carbon emissions beyond this century, we will foolishly raise the oceans dramatically for thousands of yearsIt’s shocking for me (Robert) to accept that my home could be wiped out by greatly rising seas. That’s because I live on a hill north of San Diego, 45 feet above sea level and more than a mile inland from the coast. Equally shocking to me (Dan) is that the current coastline of my beloved Mendocino County, California, could largely disappear, a place where I spend weekends with my daughters exploring rivers that run inland, deep into wine country. These inundations won’t happen this century, but that is little solace. At the rate the world is going, land so dear to our hearts could slip under the sea and stay there for thousands of years.
At the 20th Century rate of 8 inches of sea rise, it would take, what, 67 centuries to get to 45 feet? Scary stuff. Notice the shifting goal posts of doom at the end.
That hurts. Most of us believe our homes, our towns, our cities will be here for centuries and millennia to come. And why not? In Europe and across Asia millions of people live in cities that are thousands of years old. Indeed, inspired by European permanence, Robert’s family built garden walls from stone and fondly looked forward to passing on the land to hoped-for-grandchildren, and theirs, and so on.
They will be, because the warming, for one thing, won’t continue. The normal pattern is for a cool period sometime in the next few centuries.
That idea, however, now seems flawed to both of us writing this article. Strong, new research indicates that anyone or anything tens of feet above the sea today may one day face an unbeatable force, whether a country home near San Diego or a skyscraping condo in Miami. Although shorelines are forever evolving, these changes can be predicted directly, and are due to needlessly excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a relatively brief, recent period of time.
How has the public not been made clearly and painfully aware of this? Why does fierce debate over climate miss so glaring a threat? The misperception, the widespread disbelief and the fallacy are rooted in a grave error in our thinking about time.
Because people who yammer on about world ending doom hundreds, if not thousands, of years in the future that makes no scientific sense are generally ignored as utter quacks.
The many models that have projected scenarios about future climate change generally forecast only to the year 2100,
We could probably stop there. Once the computer models appear, you know you’re in for a major league ration of mule fritters
or at times merely to 2050. As a result, public discussions have been mostly about “X degrees of warming†or “Y feet of sea level rise†to the end of this century. We have accidentally but notably limited our thinking, causing us to miss striking impacts that arise beyond this limited and artificial, specific time horizon.
It is fair to say that citizens and politicians intend for Miami, and indeed the whole State of Florida, to exist well beyond 2100. Same for New York City, Boston, Washington D.C., London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, Mumbai and so on. Yet the same people discount staggering losses these places face beyond 2100. That’s wrong, and immoral too.
Immoral! If that’s the case, all Warmists should immediately stop using fossil fuels, in order to save a house 6,700 years in the future. It’s for the children.
They won’t. They’ll just shift their goal posts. Because the current ones keep failing.
Read: Good News: CO2 From 150 Years Ago Dooms Us Thousands Of Years In The Future »
The Blaze’s Christian Datoc noticed this bit from the debate, calling it “nonsensical”
Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her way through answering a question on gun control during Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate.
Clinton first told moderator Chris Wallace that while she is a strong believer in the Second Amendment, she also believes “there can be, and there must be reasonable regulation.â€
“I want people who shouldn’t have guns not to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family,†she continued. “When I think about what we need to do, we have 33,000 people a year who die from guns. I think we need comprehensive background checks, we need to close the online loophole, close the gun show loophole.â€
Any smart thinking person understands the fallacy of the 33,000 number. We already have pretty comprehensive background checks. The gun show loophole is a canard.
“There are other matters that I think are sensible that are the kind of reforms that would make a difference that are not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment,†Clinton added. “You mentioned the [District of Columbia V.] Heller decision, and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case.â€
“What the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns,†she elaborated. “They wanted people with guns to safely store them, and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many other, and I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.â€
Got that? D.C. enacted draconian laws that heavily restricted law abiding citizens from purchasing guns to save toddlers, per a woman who has dozens of armed security personnel hanging around at all time, some carrying, at times, weapons that are illegal for most citizens to purchase and carry.
Like most Democrats, Hillary will spin her way from her real opinion on guns, which is to remove them from the hands of law abiding citizens. Don’t forget, she thought that Australian style gun control, ie, banning most and confiscation, is an idea worth looking into. She should lead the way, and disarm her protection.
Read: Hillary: D.C. Just Wanted To Protect Toddlers From Guns With Their Super Restrictive Laws »
Who watched the debate, raise your hand. OK, good. I watched for about the first 40 minutes, before I realized that game 4 of the Dodgers-Cubs was on, and never really went back to the debate. Trump started strong, but, really missed some big opportunities to hit back at Hillary with facts that matter. He really whiffed early on when the questions turned to the economy. Then there was this, which has sent the NY Times editorial board into apoplexy (not that they need much impetus when they’re writing about a Republican. It’s what they do)
Donald Trump’s Contempt for Democracy
Donald Trump turned, in the third and final presidential debate, from insulting the intelligence of the American voter to insulting American democracy itself. He falsely insisted there were “millions of people†registered to participate in the election who did not have the right to vote and declared he would not commit to honoring the outcome.
Dead people voting in Chicago and illegal aliens were very upset by Trump’s comments.
Hillary Clinton was clearly shocked that he was attacking the very foundation of the republic, the American tradition of peacefully transferring power. “That’s horrifying,†she said, rightly. At one point, Mr. Trump even said, outrageously, “She shouldn’t be allowed to run.â€
She should be in front of jury, if not in jail. The fix was in, and almost anyone else would have been prosecuted.
Mr. Trump arrived at the debate in Las Vegas after days of making venomous attacks on the democratic process, and by implication, the voters’ ability to make sound choices. Asked about whether he would accept the election result, he tersely answered, “I will look at it at the time.†In rejecting his answer, Mrs. Clinton noted that Mr. Trump is a chronic complainer when he loses, even in an Emmy award competition. But applying his loser’s lament to an American presidential election is a far different proposition than whining about a TV show. “He is talking down our democracy,†Mrs. Clinton warned.
Oh, noes, he might not accept the results!!!!!! Here’s what he actually said, via the transcript
Trump: I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I’ll look at it at the time. What I’ve seen, what I’ve seen, is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing. “The New York Times” actually wrote an article about it, but they don’t even care. It is so dishonest, and they have poisoned the minds of the voters. But unfortunately for them, I think the voters are seeing through it. I think they’re going to see through it, we’ll find out on November 8th, but I think they’re going to see through it. If you look —
That keeps going for a bit, winding through the things the NYTEB complains about and spins a bit. Just search “horrifying” in the transcript, and it starts a bit up the page. Because this is not the point. Many Republicans are rightly raising what Al Gore did in 2000. And they’re correct.
Al Gore and his people refused to accept the results of Florida 2000. Even though 27 of the 28 voting precints with issues were run by Democrats, they kept pushing and pushing, taking it too court, trying to circumvent the law. And the media did not want the illegal recounts to end. They wanted Gore. Gore never has fully accepted the loss, nor have so many Democrats. They’re still writing articles about it. They’re still saying that the election was stolen. They same the same about Ohio 2004.
And going into the 2004 elections, Democrats were talking about not accepting the results if Bush won. Wait, wait, let me write the name like Democrats: B*sh. Or B***. Or even ****. They also like the pResident. And Occupier in Chief. Everything was about having George Bush as the illegal resident of the White House (along with utter Bush Derangement Syndrome). They talked about not accepting the decision if McCain won in 2008.
Hillary and her team didn’t want to accept the results of the 2008 Democratic Primary, and, instead, fought right to the end, when they were demanding a floor count. They were complaining about massive voter fraud during the primary, mostly from Team Obama.
This is politics, folks. It’s a dirty, nasty business. All sides engage in shenanigans, and claim the other side engages in shenanigans.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Big Takeaway From 3rd Debate: Trump Hates Democracy Or Something »
Notice that the headline didn’t include my typical, “Or Something”
(Huffington Post Green) Halloween is fast approaching and you know what that means: candy, candy, candy— and some chocolate bars, too.
But you might want to think twice before biting into a tasty treat. Some sweets are harmful to our planet and helping to kill off the critically endangered orangutan.
This Halloween, zoos and conservation groups across the country are encouraging consumers to choose confectionary made from sustainable palm oil or no palm oil at all.
You might think this is typical enviroweenie talk, but, I’ve discussed palm oil before. Rain forests and jungles and such are being destroyed through much of the world, particularly in Asia and the western Pacific, which has created a huge habitat loss, with those creating the palm oil farms even going as far as paying poachers to kill the animals, including orangutans.
Skyrocketing demand for palm oil has come at a steep cost to the Earth. The equivalent of 300 football fields of rainforest is destroyed every hour to make way for palm oil plantations, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature. This deforestation has decimated the populations of many vulnerable creatures, including the orangutan, Sumatran tiger and Sumatran elephant. And it’s contributed in no small way to climate change.
Interestingly, some of the skyrocketing usage of palm oil is to create replacement fuels for gasoline. It’s not just candy and cookies and foods.
There are also lots of human rights issues and other environmental issues involved, as well. I’ve leave it up to you to read the article in full, noting that many candy and food companies have stated they will either not use palm oil or only use sustainable (in other words, where the environment is not being destroyed and animals no slaughtered), and end with
Colorado’s Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has created a free sustainable palm oil shopping guide app, aimed at helping consumers find products made by companies that are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.
There are things that we all, as consumers, can do to protect the environment. You don’t have to be a believer in anthropogenic climate change, just a lover of the environment.