…is an ocean that will rise up and cause islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Trump, lemons, and lemonade.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an ocean that will rise up and cause islands to tip over, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Trump, lemons, and lemonade.
Read: If All You See… »
You rarely see the Wall Street Journal engaging in Warmism, but, they do often allow opposing voices, in this case Brian Deese and Jeff Zients, both of who work for the Obama admin, who confuse the word “enlist” with “forced by government”
Enlist the Market in the Climate-Change Fight
Standardized disclosure of climate risk will help secure long-term value for investors and taxpayers.…
This year’s World Economic Forum Global Risks Report declared the “failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation†the “risk with the greatest potential impact in 2016.†Yet financial markets suffer from an alarming lack of standardized and comparable climate-risk information, which keeps investors and policy makers from accurately incorporating these risks into their decisions. Combating climate change requires not only leveraging bold action by governments to cut carbon pollution, but also harnessing the power of market forces with clear, uniformly disclosed assessments of climate-related economic risks.
Enlisting is voluntary. This is more along the lines of being drafted
Likewise, the administration recently proposed requiring that all companies doing business with the federal government publicly disclose what they know about their climate-risk exposure. This information will be a factor in taxpayer-funded contracting decisions. The administration is also working to increase disclosure of climate risks that America’s more than 140 million pension beneficiaries face in their investments. And we now require that our agencies consider and publicly disclose climate risk when undertaking other major federal actions, like leases of public resources, issuance of permits, and investment in infrastructure.
Funny how members of the Cult of Climatrology always want Other People to be forced into Compliance and bear the burden for the beliefs of Warmists via Government.
This Big Government movement goes on for a while, finally ending with
The stakes for our economy are too high to stand still or move backward. This is the moment to accelerate efforts to understand, measure and standardize disclosure of climate risk and put that understanding to use. Doing so will help to secure long-term value for investors and taxpayers; improve market efficiency and stability; strengthen the resilience of our communities; and help the world combat climate change.
Other than confusing enlist with conscript, there’s another word missing, which you can easily see when reading the headline: “free”. As in “free market”. Because anthropogenic climate change has little to do with science and almost everything to do with increased government dominance. In this case, ncreased regulation, increased economic control of the markets, dictating how they act.
Read: We Totally Need To “Enlist” The Market In The Climate Change Fight Or Something »
We’re having a really, really special election this year
(The Hill) Half of all voters say they definitely won’t consider voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to a new Morning Consult poll.
The poll also found that 45 percent of voters said they definitely wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton.
The number for Trump is exactly 50%, to be clear, once you check the link.

As you can see, Hillary leads in the definitely will vote for category 35-29%. The numbers are marginally bad, but, here’s something to consider in Trump’s favor
Among independents, 23 percent said they supported Clinton and 30 percent said they backed Trump.
Here’s the thing: this election should have been relatively easy, with the Democrats nominating one of the worst candidates of all time. She’s shadier and more paranoid than Richard Nixon, yet doesn’t even have the accomplishments of things like important legislation than Nixon. Her charitable foundation barely spends 10% on charity, and is more of a slush fund for the Clinton’s who also use it as a pay for play system with foreign governments and private entities. She has less transparency than Obama. Her health is most likely poor. She’s unexciting and really doesn’t like speaking to crowds. She treated the press like garbage, and has even smacked around her own supporters.
Yet. Trump. There may be time, but, it’s very limited.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Poll: People Really Hate The Thought Of Voting For Either Hillary Or Trump »
…are trees that will die from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on no ethics at Clinton.com.
It’s Hawaiian week!
Read: If All You See… »

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in the awesome nation of America. The birds are singing, the sun is shining, football is close to being back for real. This pinup is by Gil Elvgren, with a wee bit of help.
What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15
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 »
Liberal activists and Obamacare supporters have been telling us for years that Ocare is not really meant to be a platform for single payer, and anyone who says that is engaged in a conspiracy theory. They aren’t really looking for that, you guys, all they want is to make sure citizens have affordable health insurance, and Ocare is doing so darned great that there’s no reason for a public option. Hence the reason no one is calling for a public option. Not Bernie Sanders. Not Hillary Clinton. Not the NY Times, Washington Post, elected Democrats. No one. Certainly not Obama. Right?
Just a reminder: Congress isn’t going to fix Obamacare (or enact single-payer) any time soon https://t.co/lyIOCwV2el pic.twitter.com/kLtBjZtCRu
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) August 20, 2016
There’s an odd sort of complacency, and even smugness, in some progressive circles over the problems being created by the flight of private insurers like UnitedHealth and Aetna from participating in the Affordable Care Act’s purchasing exchanges. It is being widely noted that this is precisely the sort of contingency that a “public option,†originally supported by the president and most congressional Democrats but abandoned in the final legislation to get it through the Senate, was designed to address. In the most prominent “told you so,†Bernie Sanders has predictably commented that the leverage of private insurers over Obamacare shows why we instead need a single-payer system that abandons private insurance entirely.
The collapsing support from insurers in the exchanges is not a bug, it is a feature, much like most provisions of Ocare. It’s all designed to a) put people more under the thumb of government and b) move towards full single payer.
Of course, NY Mag’s Ed Kilgore is very upset that Republicans will block any fixes to Ocare, because it apparently needs a lot of repairs. Seriously, why didn’t anyone point out all the potential problems before this travesty was passed over the objections of the citizens?
That is all well and good, but the very same political problems that prevented the adoption of a public option (much less “Medicare for allâ€) in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats controlled Congress by comfortable margins have gotten worse, not better. Yes, if Hillary Clinton is elected in November she has already announced support for adding a public option to Obamacare, and there’s a decent chance she will bring a narrowly Democratic Senate along with her. A Democratic House, however, remains a very long shot, and even if it happens, getting something as controversial as an Obamacare “fix†through a closely divided Congress is at best an even longer shot. Yes, in theory, something like an increase in insurance subsidies to lure the private companies back in could be enacted via a budget reconciliation bill that is immune to a GOP Senate filibuster. But progressive Democrats who want to abandon private insurance entirely aren’t likely to go along with that, and it’s doubtful a major structural reform could be accomplished without the kind of legislation that could be filibustered (barring elimination of the filibuster altogether).
Those political problems would be the public not wanting government run health care, not wanting Ocare in the first place, and elected Democrats mostly not wanting to expose their ultimate agenda, which the progressive base was pushing, namely, government run health care.
So even if they hate Obamacare’s structure and the very existence of private health insurance, progressives should hope against hope that private insurers hang around and that the ACA continues to function. Much of the coverage gains achieved by Obamacare were via state Medicaid expansions that are unlikely to be revoked, at least in the bare majority of states that enacted them. So the picture is not all bleak. But it’s politically unseemly and morally questionable for progressives to enjoy the problems bedeviling the ACA, even if they told us so.
In other words, Progressives should be circumspect over their ultimate plan of single payer, and celebrating the collapse of Ocare in order to push single payer overtly should be put on the back burner.
Oh, but don’t forget, Democrats had been telling us that Ocare was doing super awesome
These new studies show that Obamacare is actually working incredibly well: http://t.co/EUa37Zq2rw
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) December 7, 2014
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Mag: It’s A Real Shame Republicans Won’t Allow Single Payer »
…is a place that should have glaciers, but Other People drove fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on Democrats blaming health insurers for Obamacare’s failings.
Since I also uploaded a picture of Michelle Waterson, who didn’t seem to make the Olympics, at least nowhere I can find, lets’ also check out Victory Girls Blog, with a post on Obama insulting Louisianans dealing with floods.

Read: If All You See… »
The always unhinged Think Progress is rather vexed by Trump heading to Louisiana
Trump Tours Flood-Ravaged Louisiana But Thinks Climate Change Is A Hoax
On Friday morning, Donald Trump toured southeast Louisiana, a region that has been ravaged in the past week by historic rainfall and devastating floods. Late last week, slow-moving weather systems dumped more than two feet of rain over a 48-hour period, leaving more than a dozen dead and at least 40,000 homes damaged. (snip)
But Trump’s visit, coupled with his calls for sympathy for the victims of the flooding, is ironic, considering his denial of climate change, which is expected to increase the likelihood that devastating floods like the one in Louisiana will occur.
“Climate change has already been shown to increase the amounts of rain falling in the most intense events across many parts of the world, and extreme rainfall events like this week’s Louisiana storm are expected to grow increasingly common in the coming years,†Bob Henson and Jeff Masters explained over at Weather Underground. Which is to say that while climate change can’t cause a single weather event — and while floods certainly would occur in a world without climate change — global warming is making the odds of these extreme events more and more likely.
Of course, when there are dry conditions, Warmists will also say that ‘climate change’ will make the odds of these extreme events (you know, weather, which happens regardless) more and more likely. No matter what happens, these cultists will invoke ‘climate change’. It’s what they do.
And TP isn’t the only outlet going Warmbat: the Washington Post thinks this is the perfect time to talk about Hotcoldwetdry. Which is not surprising, as they’d rather talk about that then why Obama kept golfing and doing parties and fundraisers while people were dying and houses were being flooded.
The Sierra Club released an unhinged press release through the far left Common Dreams whining that Trump is a “study in ignorance and reckless disregard” over ‘climate change’.
There’s plenty more like this, all Very Concerned about AGW and wanting to slam Trump, yet, showing an utter lack of empathy for the victims who are trying to pick up their lives right now. The victims are being used as props. Shameful.
Read: Good Grief: Trump Tours ‘Climate Change’ In Louisiana »