Bummer: 10 Things That “Could” Disappear Due To Hotcoldwetdry

The Climaprognosticators are at it again

10 Things That Could Disappear in Your Lifetime, Thanks to Climate Change

Though some American politicians continue to debate whether climate change is real, scientists have long sounded the warning bells that human-caused global warming is rapidly getting worse. Some warn that we may be close to the point of no return, leaving future generations to deal with the calamitous impacts of earth’s rising temperatures and increasingly extreme weather patterns. (The most alarmist studies claim that climate change will usher in the sixth mass extinction). Unless our society can curb human emissions, here are 10 things that could be gone in the next century:

1. Your future income. Well, not literally all of your income — but a new report by Demos and NextGenClimate estimates that Millennials as a whole will lose up to $8.8 trillion if the world doesn’t act to stop climate change now. Demos president Heather McGhee told DemocracyNow.org that the study analyzed the financial cost of extreme weather events and curbed agriculture production, noting, “when temperatures rise over a certain point, GDP falls. And we know that when GDP falls, wages fall, jobs fall. “

It’s total doom, folks!

2. Pretty much all of America’s national parks. If you like nature, well, prepare to wish it farewell. The National Parks Service just turned 100, and according to a very scary article in theGuardian, it is now hurtling towards an untimely death:

Pretty much all of them! But, don’t say Warmists are hysterics.

3. Millions of people. An increase in extreme weather events like heat waves, wildfires, and infections diseases means that more people are going to die unless we can reverse this trend. TheWorld Health Organization predicts, “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year” from ailments like malnutrition, malaria, and heat waves.

Wait, I thought Warmists would be excited by this, because they keep saying the want population reduction. No?

Then we have

  • 4. The Maldives. Shocking. A place created by higher water levels could be inundated by higher water levels? Goodness!
  • 5. Coffee!!!!!! Total doom!
  • 6. Wine. Prices will totally soar, you know, because wine grapes can only be grown in exactly one climate
  • 7. And chocolate. Romance will totally be dead!!!!!
  • 8. Wild animals. Um, no. Polar bears are doing fine, and koalas have more to worry about from syphillus
  • 9. This village in Alaska. The climate must always stay exactly the same, like it’s done the last 4.5 billion years
  • 10. Most of our glaciers. Yeah, that’s what happens as a glacial period ends

It’s hard to take these nuts seriously, however, their policy prescriptions should be taken very seriously, because it will affect your money and personal liberty.

Read: Bummer: 10 Things That “Could” Disappear Due To Hotcoldwetdry »

Special Snowflakes Have Hissy Fit Over New Gender Confused Signs At UNC

How important are the Bathrooms Wars? On a list of concerns of Americans, probably pretty low. Much like ‘climate change’. And, yes, illegal immigration. Things like the economy, jobs, and wages tend to rank higher. I’m sure you’re shocked.

Yet, these issues keep cropping up, making it into the news, which tends to avoid exposing just how poor the economy is right now. Also, it’s amusing watching these Special Snowflakes lose their minds

(Heat Street) Student activists at the University of North Carolina are hopping mad over the university’s decision to replace their all-gender-inclusive bathroom signs with more mundane ones that comply with federal guidelines. The new signs, the students complain, are not inclusive enough.

“I think people will look at the new signs and think they look similar because you can still use the bathroom whether you’re male or female in accordance with the new signs. But it blatantly excludes people that don’t conform to gender binaries,” student Regan Buchanan told the Daily Tarheel.

“Our old signs didn’t do that. They were inclusive of all gender identities and expressions,” she said.

A university spokesman tells the student paper that the signs at the Campus Y, described as a “safe space” for transgender students, were replaced as part of an effort to change the signage on 150 gender-neutral and single-stall bathrooms across the campus. The new signs feature universally recognized stick-figure symbols for males and females and are necessary because of the large number of international visitors to campus, the spokesman said.

This is what they are concerned with. The new signs are supposedly “hurtful.” Be afraid that these people will soon be released on the general population. They’ll soon be able to put their taxpayer subsidized degrees to use doing things like….well, who will actually hire them? They are a threat for problems and lawsuits.

Read: Special Snowflakes Have Hissy Fit Over New Gender Confused Signs At UNC »

NY Times Openly Sides With Al Qaeda Over Club Gitmo

Guantanamo Bay detention facility has long been a burr in the side of Democrats, as has the use of enhanced interrogation techniques used on members of the terrorist group al Qaeda, who, if Democrats would care to recall, attacked the United States on 9.11.2001, killing almost 3,000 people, not too mention all those who have become sick and even died later from all the pollutants released. They really, really want it closed, and the Islamic jihadis sent off to rejoin the battlefield, to the extent of taking the side of the terrorists, as the NY Times Editorial Board shows

A Stark Reminder of Guantánamo’s Sins

It is haunting, maddening even, to revisit the facts of Abu Zubaydah’s time in American custody more than 14 years after he was detained in Pakistan in the frenzied period following the Sept. 11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner known to have been waterboarded by the Central Intelligence Agency, loomed large in America’s imagination for years as the personification of evil.

On Tuesday, a small group of human rights advocates and journalists got a fleeting glimpse of Abu Zubaydah — the first since his detention — when he appeared before a panel of government officials to argue that he would not be a threat to the United States if he were released from the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba. The hearing, which civilians were allowed to watch part of from a live video feed, is an opportunity to reflect on the shameful tactics employed during years of national panic about terrorism and to reinvigorate efforts to close the prison.

Was waterboarding necessary? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, it was in the backdrop of

And this

Images that Leftists would prefer not be remembered. The utter evil of al Qaeda and people like Abu Zubaydah

Years later, it became clear that Abu Zubaydah wasn’t a top figure in Al Qaeda after all. It also became clear that he had willingly provided insights into terrorist groups when he was interrogated by F.B.I. agents, who treated him cordially. By the time he was turned over to the C.I.A., his knowledge about threats to the United States appears to have been largely exhausted. Yet agency personnel insisted on the need for torture, waterboarding him at least 83 times and subjecting him to other cruelty.

The Times forgot to mention a few things. Abu was, in fact, a big shot al Qaeda member, involved in training, intelligence, and planning. The CIA and FBI under Bill Clinton saw him as a trusted aid to Osama Bin Laden and as having played a key part in the 1998 US embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. He is woven all through the pre-9/11 intelligence. This guy is a very bad dude. And the NY Times is taking his side because he was interrogated with harsh techniques.

Never charged and never tried, Abu Zubaydah has also never been allowed to speak publicly about his ordeal. His American abusers have never been held to account.

President Obama is likely to leave office having failed to close Guantánamo, which he promised to do when he ran for office in 2008, calling it an insult to the Constitution and American values. He has, however, made significant headway in winnowing down the detainee population. Only 61 of the 780 men who have been detained in Guantánamo remain.

And hundreds have returned to the battlefield. Perhaps Obama would be OK with a detention facility near his out-of-office house?

The two people seeking Mr. Obama’s job have staked out opposite positions on Guantánamo. Donald Trump has vowed to keep the prison open, expand it and “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Hillary Clinton has rightly concluded that “over the years, Guantánamo has inspired more terrorists than it has imprisoned.” That outcome could well have been avoided if men like Abu Zubaydah hadn’t been tortured, and if they had been given a chance to contest their detention in a court of law.

Poll after poll sees Americans support keeping Gitmo open. Poll after poll shows Americans support enhanced interrogation of terrorists. It’s only in Progressive World where they are worried about the feelings of stone cold jihadis, to the point of taking their side.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Openly Sides With Al Qaeda Over Club Gitmo »

Most Americans Won’t Act On Climate Change, And The Media Is To Blame Or Something

No, really. So says the ever wacky, cultish leaning, George Soros financed Think Progress (btw, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress has totally been subsumed, and is now just a little tab at the website, rather than a huge part)

Most Americans Won’t Act On Climate. The News Probably Isn’t Helping.
A new study suggests some journalists are missing a key piece of the story.

While a growing number of Americans acknowledge the climate is changing, the issue generally ranks low among voters’ concerns. A scant few have bothered to contact a government official to press for action on global warming.

This is a point of frustration for organizers and academics alike, who contend that lawmakers will only pass strong policies when Americans demand it, and Americans will only demand it if they believe they can affect the political process. At the root of all this grumbling is the question of empowerment. How do you empower citizens to pick up their phones and call their elected officials?

A new study published in the journal PLOS One investigates the effect of news coverage on feelings of empowerment — what social scientists call efficacy.Their findings suggest reporters are missing a key piece of the story.

Most of it is typical gobbledegook we see from Warmists who keep wondering “why the hell does no one care about this?”

Generally speaking, news about climate change does little to promote efficacy. Feldman and Hart’s prior work looked at print and TV news stories on global warming. In the periods studied, doom and gloom dominated coverage—climate change would flood cities, dry rivers and extinguish supplies of coffee beans and avocados. Little of the reporting focused on what people could do to shape climate policy.

Notice, this is all about passing polices that affect Other People. When I see something like “act”, I think of something I can do in my own life. Members of the Cult Of Climastrology think “what can I do to make other people act on my beliefs.”

Read: Most Americans Won’t Act On Climate Change, And The Media Is To Blame Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an ocean angry because Other People refuse to take 2 minute showers, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Intellectual Takeout, with a post on the U of Chicago pushing back on trigger warnings.

Read: If All You See… »

Study: On ‘Climate Change’, Biofuels Worse Than Gasoline

Well, this is a hell of a thing

(Detroit Free Press) The multi-billion-dollar U.S. biofuels industry — promoted and expanded for over a decade by the federal government — may be built on a false assumption, according to a new University of Michigan study published today that is sure to stir all sides in the contentious debate over the industry.

Despite their purported advantages, biofuels created from crops such as corn or soybeans cause the emission of more climate change-causing carbon dioxide than gasoline, according to the study from U-M Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco.

The study is the latest salvo in the expanding battle over whether biofuels, and the farmland increasingly devoted to them, are actually providing the environmental and climate benefits many expected.

Reading on, once the entire life-cycle of biofuels is factored, it is worse for “carbon emissions” than gasoline. Not discussed is whether any of them actually make much of a difference in causing the current Holocene warm period, but, that is a debate for a different day.

There’s also a handy dandy graphic of where corn is going

Also not discussed in the article is the notion that using food for fuel is a bad idea, something even the NY Times noticed a few years back. Using more and more of it helps increase the costs of other foods. Perhaps it is time that the federal and state governments, along with both Republican and Democratic supporters, jump off the food for fuel bandwagon.

Read: Study: On ‘Climate Change’, Biofuels Worse Than Gasoline »

Surprise: Cult Of Climastrology Blames Italy Earthquake On ‘Climate Change’

One of the hallmarks of a cult is their opposition to independent thought, which the further threat to remove any who question the dogma. Then there’s the group think and cognitive dissonance. A focus on an imagined enemy. And let’s not forget circular logic and magical think where everything is linked to their pet cause

People are searching for answers after an earthquake in Italy left hundreds dead, and naturally people are looking to the Internet for guidance. So, did climate change cause the Italy earthquake? While mainstream science is starting to link climate change with earthquakes, the geophysical feedback mechanisms that are in play in a warming climate aren’t well-understood yet.

Back to those studies linking earthquakes to climate change: most of them focus on how earthquakes can add to the greenhouse gas effect feeding into global warming. For example, methane release can occur if the earthquake takes place in an area with a large amount of methane gas pockets, or in areas where fracking is occurring.

The notion of melting glaciers and land rebound are mentioned, but, of course, the article ends with a “we just don’t know right now” after pretty much implying that it was ‘climate change.’ Then we have this

https://twitter.com/JatikaSpeaks/status/768578291624271872

https://twitter.com/Atmvn/status/768539328964358144

https://twitter.com/Mzcoach/status/768565465534705664

https://twitter.com/Poltics1345/status/768524675387392000

Sigh. There is a plate boundary that runs right through Italy, where the African plate is diving under the European plate. This is why rock from the African plate shows up in the Matterhorn. The plate is creating the Alps. This is the cause of the earthquakes. Hey, don’t ask me, ask a geologist

A geologist in Poland says that the magnitude 6 earthquake in central Italy was caused by the slow but constant under-surface movement of the African Plate toward Europe.

Jerzy Zaba of the Silesian University in Katowice, in southern Poland, said Wednesday that a wedge-shaped front of the African Plate is pressing into the Eurasian Plate in the Adriatic Sea region and pushes into the neighboring regions, like Italy’s Apennine Mountains. The tension that accumulates leads to a sudden release in the form of under-surface rock movement that causes earth tremors.

Zaba told Polish PAP agency that the African Plate is moving northwards at the speed of up to 5 centimeters (2 inches) a year.

Cults like to assign the causes of disasters to the actions of their deities or boogeymen.

Read: Surprise: Cult Of Climastrology Blames Italy Earthquake On ‘Climate Change’ »

Trump Softens On Illegal Immigration, And His Fans Don’t Care

It’s not amnesty, though. At least no by name. Just like when George Bush and some Republicans tried to pass a not-amnesty? Or the Gang Of 8 pushed a no-amnesty pathway to citizenship?

(Politico) Amid talk that he is softening his stance on illegal immigration, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reassured his supporters Wednesday night that there will be “no amnesty” for those in the United States illegally.

But Trump added that he has grown increasingly sympathetic on the campaign trail to the plight of individuals who have spent years and sometimes decades in the U.S. illegally but have lived otherwise upstanding lives.

Trump was asked by Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview scheduled to air Wednesday night whether he would amend his previous pledge to remove all illegal immigrants from the U.S. to include an exception for undocumented immigrants who have not committed other crimes.

“No citizenship,” Trump responded. “Let me go a step further — they’ll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there’s no amnesty, as such, there’s no amnesty, but we work with them.”

OK, it’s not-amnesty, just a work-with-them. Most of his hardcore supporters don’t seem to care

(Washington Post) Trump has been signaling for days that he might be open to a “softening” of one of his most extreme immigration positions and no longer call for the deportation of an estimated 11 million immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. He and his aides seemed to be testing the waters, setting off alarm bells among some conservatives who have rallied around his hard-line immigration stance.

But judging from many rally-goers here in Tampa on Wednesday and at an event Tuesday in Austin, many rank-and-file voters will give Trump relatively broad latitude to alter the parameters of his immigration policies.

Cruising Twitter Wednesday, most Trumpites didn’t seem to care. As long as he builds a wall, everything is OK. Except for Ann Coulter, who seems to be having a bit of a meltdown over this, and, as Katie Pavlich goes on to note

Trump’s backtracking on tough illegal immigration measures, including mass deportations, shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it was Trump who called Romney’s comments about self-deportation for economic reasons “mean-spirited” and “maniacal.” It’s also Trump who regularly hires immigrant workers to complete his building projects.

I find this all fascinating. I’ve been called a traitor, cuckservative, and Hillary supporter for noting that while Trump wants to be a wall, he has stood for some type of pathway to citizenship for quite some time, at least for certain illegal aliens. I’ve been told I’m full of sh*t. He called for amnesty at CPAC back in 2013. He started out the campaign calling for a wall while also saying he’s in favor of touchback amnesty.

(Politico) As Donald Trump soft-pedals his once-hard-line immigration rhetoric, supporters of his vanquished primary foe Ted Cruz have one message for Republican voters: We told you so.

Cruz spent the final months of his unsuccessful presidential primary run arguing that Trump was a not-so-closeted liberal whose conservative language on immigration was not to be trusted. Now, Trump says he is open to “softening” the approach to some undocumented immigrants already in this country, a departure from his previous calls for a deportation force.

Trump supporters demonized Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush on illegal immigration, as did Trump. They still go after Cruz, Rubio, and Jeb. Guess who was correct?

Still much, much better than Hillary’s plan, though.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Softens On Illegal Immigration, And His Fans Don’t Care »

Liberals Seem Rather Upset About This “free speech” Thing On Twitter

There is a reason the headline says “free speech” not “Free Speech”, and it’s about the only thing correct in this unhinged Slate article by Special Snowflake Kate Klonick

https://twitter.com/LilMissRightie/status/768498006773624833

Early last week, Twitter announced that it would be using new tools to curb hate speech and harassment on its site. The news came on the heels of atell-all report on BuzzFeed that chronicled how 10 years of dogmatic commitment to “free speech” combined with persistent mismanagement led to the popular social media app becoming “a honeypot for assholes.” Twitter’s former head of news, Vivian Schiller, told BuzzFeed, “The whole ‘free speech wing of the free speech party’ thing — that’s not a slogan, that’s deeply, deeply embedded in the DNA of the company.” That ethos made it all the more difficult to regulate abuse on the site.

But absent from discussion is a more fundamental question: Should we be using the notion of “free speech” to understand online speech at all?

As a general matter, it’s important not to confuse the First Amendment with the broader notion of free speech. Free speech policy is about the First Amendment kind of like how Cheez Whiz is about dairy products: They are related, but fundamentally different. The First Amendment protects “free speech” by saying that the government cannot (with certain important exceptions) prevent you from speaking. But private individuals or corporations, like Twitter, are not covered by the First Amendment and can curate or even censor speech without violating the law. In fact, some have argued that a platform’s right to keep up and take down what’s posted there is its own free speech right. Others have pointed out that not policing for abuse has a chilling effect on speech.

Typically, liberals will tell us that if we don’t like what’s on TV, then change the channel. Don’t like the movie? Don’t go. Of course, when they do not like what’s on talk radio, which is dominated by Conservatives, then it needs to be restricted. Twitter and other social media? Forget blocking and muting, anything that might upset the littler darlings must be shut down. Even though they are engaged typically in political discussions. They just don’t like to have anyone argue back.

Sure, it can get nasty. Ignore them. Mute them. Block them.

One of the main forces governing speech online is the same thing that governs Walter’s speech in his local diner: societal norms. Norms are customary standards for behavior that are shared in a community. They can be self-enforced by a person’s desire to fit in with the group and conform, and they can also be externally enforced by the group when an individual violates the norm. Speaking at a lower volume in a public place is one kind of norm and shaming a person who yells loudly is a way that norm is enforced.

Which is a hoot, considering liberals are working overtime to destroy societal norms, such as allowing confused boys in the girls room, for one.

You know that this is all about shutting down opposing voices. Of course, liberals should be careful what they wish for: they just might get it.

Read: Liberals Seem Rather Upset About This “free speech” Thing On Twitter »

If All You See…

…is an ocean that will rise up hundreds of feet, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on yet another Allahu Akbar attack.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove