…is the rising oceans coughing up mass amounts of seaweed which could only be killed by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Climate Etc, with a post wondering if sea rise is accelerating.
It’s hump day, and that’s Emmanuelle Vaugier, Canadian hotty.
Read: If All You See… »
I wonder if Warmists will comply in their own lives
(Canada Journal) Europeans need to eat less beef and consume less dairy products in order to reach the EU’s climate goals, according to a new study by Swedish researchers.
“Reductions, by 50 percent or more, in ruminant meat (beef and mutton) consumption are, most likely, unavoidable if the EU targets are to be met,†according to the findings published in the Food Policy journal.
Chicken and pig is supposedly OK. Until it isn’t, of course.
Dairy products are also problematic, according to the study. Producing 1 kilogram of protein from dairy results in emissions four times greater than for an equivalent amount of poultry.
“EU and US consumption of cheese and other dairy products is among the highest in the world. If we were to replace some of the dairy with vegetable products, such as oat milk, we would have a better chance of meeting our climate targets,†Wirsenius said.
Here’s the question: how do they Make This Happen? So far, most Warmists refuse to give up their own consumption of beef and dairy. What is the mechanism necessary to force people to drastically reduce their intake of beef and dairy? I know you know the answer.
Read: Beef And Cheese Consumption Must Be Drastically Reduced To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »
Hillary Clinton should be thanking her lucky stars that her only competition for the Democratic nomination is Bernie Sanders
(Breitbart) According to the latest poll conducted by Gallup, the most common responses to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are “liar†and “socialist.â€
Fifty-one percent of voters had a negative reaction to Clinton, in keeping with Gallup’s tracking of her overall unfavorability rating.
Forty percent of initial reactions to Clinton are negative, ranging from “liar†to “thiefâ€:
Well, that’s not good. From the Gallup link
Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.
She is dishonest. She is a liar. She put America’s national security at risk, and put real lives at risk, with her illegal homebrew server.
Right now, she’s out there whining about why there’s one standard for her and another for everyone else regarding her speeches to Wall Street. Well, as Bernie responded, he’s never given paid speeches where he kept the money. For one thing, that’s illegal. For another, it’s Hillary who’s making a big deal of taking on Wall Street. Republicans aren’t. And she’s the one who raked in quite a bit of cash giving speeches to Wall Street companies.
And her next concern will be her former and current aides being questioned under oath about their role in setting up that illegal server. As John Sexton notes
The problem for Clinton is that, if the judge grants this request, the depositions will drag on through election day. And that means the story itself will drag on even if the FBI does not recommend the DOJ pursue prosecution for mishandling of classified material.
Hillary and her peeps can blame this all on the vast right wing conspiracy all they want, but, few are buying it. Even Democrats have to know that this is a big problem. But, who else do they have?
Read: Poll: Number One Reaction To Hillary Is “Dishonest/Liar/Don’t Trust Her/Poor Character” »
The Nevada caucuses are over, and Donald Trump took it handily, garnering 45.9% of the vote, which gives him another 12 delegates. Rubio was at 23.9%, while Ted Cruz had 21.4%, and each receives 5 delegates. The Washington Post’s Phillip Bump knows why Trump keeps winning: anger
How Donald Trump dominated Nevada, in one word: Anger
Donald Trump won New Hampshire, a moderate Northeastern state that prides itself on its sober analysis of the candidates at hand. Donald Trump won South Carolina, a conservative Southern state with a number of religious voters. Donald Trump has now won Nevada, a Western state with its own eclectic mix of Republican voting groups.
Trump won them all. According to preliminary entrance poll data reported by CNN, he won every age group and every education group and both genders — and even every racial and ethnic group. About 1 in 10 Nevada Republicans were Hispanic. More than 4 in 10 of them backed Donald Trump (according to entrance polls with a notably large margin of error).
What’s the theme here? What’s the thing that’s turned Donald Trump from the never-gonna-happen outsider of last June into the how-can-he-be-stopped candidate of February?
Nevada offers one hint: Anger.
Bump is actually on to something
Nevada Republicans are mad at the government. This probably isn’t too much of a surprise, given that it’s also the home of the family of Cliven Bundy, but it’s still remarkable how much angrier it is than previous states. Voters were mad.
And voters didn’t want a politician to address that anger. Six in 10 Nevada Republicans said that they were looking for the next president to be someone from “outside politics.” That’s 6 in 10 of a “huge” turnout, by the way. And 70 percent of them voted for Donald Trump.
Yes, voters are angry. Republicans are angry over the way Obama has stepped on, to put it nicely, the Constitution and the nation. They’re angry about the lousy economy. Sure, unemployment is low (once you look beyond the huge numbers of people who dropped out of the jobs market in despair), but wages are way down. No one complains about the fight for $15 folks being angry. The media didn’t complain about Occupy Wall Street being angry. We have this horrible Iran deal. Obama’s throwing out executive orders like candy. Obamacare is still around. And so much more, but, here’s the kicker: they’re mad that the elected Republicans really haven’t done much to stop Obama and the Democrats. They refuse to really fight back. They won’t use the power of the purse. A lot of the the fight seems to emanate from the States, such as the lawsuit against Obama’s climate change power plant regulations. The federally elected Republicans make lots of promises to get elected, then try to just get along.
Let’s not forget that Obama was all about anger in 2008. His voters were angry over Iraq, angry over the economy meltdown (which was global, BTW). He tapped into that anger, and pushed “hope and change”. He talked in lofty goals, and made all the angry Democrats and independents, and even some squishy Republicans believe in him. They cared little for his record, or that he is a far, far left Progressive. They just bought into what Obama was peddling.
Right now, the anger over the past 7 years of Obama and Establishment GOP idiocy is on display, and Trump has tapped into it. And, what’s wrong with anger? Should citizens not be angry over the state of the nation?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
It sure seems like child abuse to teach children that they are doomed and brainwash them (via Climate Depot, which has lots of videos)
Children “Astronauts” Awarded by Bonn and UN for Climate Song
The Mayor of Bonn and the UN awarded a group of young pupils a prize for best childrens’s global climate change song today for a performance that helped build awareness and commitment among young people in the run up to the Paris Climate Change Conference. Their catchy winning song was “Climate Astronauts”!
The children from Gottfried Kinkel Primary School in Bonn, Germany, took home the award for best children’s song in the 2015 Global Youth Music Contest, which was organized by the International Association for the Advancement of Innovative Approaches to Global Challenges, in cooperation with UNESCO and the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
Let’s look at some of the lyrics
We are astronauts, and we can see
We are astronauts, what’s good for you
We are astronauts, no plastic bags
We are astronauts, don’t waste the food
We are astronauts, turn out the lights
We are astronauts, in the night
We are astronauts, don’t need no cars
We are astronauts, we go by bike
We are climate, climate astronauts
We are climate, climate astronauts
So, no cars, eh? I wonder how much they would whine if their parents refused to drive them to a play date? But, really, you know this had to be written by adults, and look at the first two lines “we can see…what’s good for you.” Seems eerily reminiscent of what I’ve been telling you about Warmists, who are part of the overall Progressive movement: this is nice fascism, meaning that The Government knows what is best for you, and will force you to comply. Free will? Not so much in Warmist World.
Other lines include We don’t need no CO2 and don’t need no bath, along with we go by feet. You can bet these little brainwashed rug rats will want their own fossil fueled vehicle the minute they can legally drive.
Read: Warmists Get Children To Sing Little Ditty About Not Needing No CO2 »
…is a sea that rose a horrendous 5.5 inches during the 20th Century, showing our doom, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on how the Obama admin is helping non-citizens vote.
Grace Park was born in L.A., but lived in Canada from when she was 22 months old, so, still Canadian.
Read: If All You See… »
Obama’s first act as POTUS was to sign an Executive Order to find a way to close Guantanamo Bay detention facility. What happened after that is that Obama learned that just because the Emperor makes a statement doesn’t mean everyone else in government will jump to make it happen. And, when Obama failed to provide a rational plan to close Gitmo, instead focusing on lots of other things, like fundraising, vacations, golf, parties, and denigrating the opposition, it wasn’t going to happen. Furthermore, his attempted shenanigans in trying to prosecute some jihadis, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court around the corner from the former site of the World Trade Center, made people leery of his ultimate goals. Now, he will reportedly try again
(Fox News) President Obama is expected to detail his plan Tuesday to begin the shutdown of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, in a last-ditch effort to make good on a 2008 campaign promise.
Obama will speak at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday morning from the Roosevelt Room, the White House announced, saying the topic would be Guantanamo Bay but giving no further details.
Obama’s address comes as the plan to shut down the controversial facility and transfer the remaining detainees to a holding center in the United States will be delivered to Congress.
Interestingly, none of the plans include building a detention facility or using an existing one anywhere near Chicago.
The U.S. officials say the plan considers 13 different locations in the U.S., including seven existing prison facilities in Colorado, South Carolina and Kansas, as well as six other locations on current military bases. They say the plan doesn’t recommend a preferred site and the cost estimates are meant to provide a starting point for a conversation with Congress.
Nothing in any deep Democratic states. Huh. The GOP should totally troll Obama by authorizing the construction of a facility in Chicago, near Obama’s home in the toney Hyde Park area. It is currently illegal for the military to transfer any detainee to US soil, per two laws Obama signed, and, despite Obama whining that those laws were unconstitutional (despite signing them), the military says it will comply with the law.
So, expect Obama to show up around 10:40-10:50.
Read: After 7 Years In Office, Obama Finally To Offer Plan On Closing Gitmo »
Another day, another activist study from members of the Cult of Climastrology. Memeorandum has the big pull with an opinion piece disguised as a news article entitled Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries by hyper-Warmist Justin Gillis. I prefer the NJ.com article, which I saw last night (you can often find me commenting there under the name DevilUKnow), but, let’s look at the AP article by another hyper-Warmist, Seth Borenstein, due to it’s brevity
Sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating because of man-made global warming, according to new studies.
An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialization, the fastest seas rose was about 1 to 1.5 inches (3 to 4 centimeters) a century, plus or minus a bit. During that time global sea level really didn’t get much higher or lower than 3 inches above or below the 2,000-year average.
But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 5.5 inches (14 centimeters). Since 1993 the rate has soared to a foot per century (30 centimeters). And two different studies published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said by 2100 that the world’s oceans will rise between 11 to 52 inches (28 to 131 centimeters), depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.
A couple things to note. First off, a good chunk of the last 2,800 years encompassed multiple cool and warm periods, so a lower rate of rise would be a certainty. Second, they are playing semantics games with averages over that period of time in order to make it appear as if a 5.5 inch increase during the 20th Century is abnormal.
Third, we have to consider that most studies found that the sea rise during the 20th was 7 inches. I’ve mentioned many, many times that the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years is estimated to be 6-8 inches per century (that time frame is used due to the calming of the massive sea rise due to the end of the last glacial age 20,000 years ago, which lasted till about 7,000 years ago). Think back to school math classes on how to get an average. Since Holocene cool periods will see low to negative sea rise, warm periods must be much higher, estimated to be in the range of 12-20 inches per century. So, 5.5 inches is actually below average. Can we cancel the Doom now?
Fourth, this is all about scaremongering. The Cult of Climastrology has pulled this schtick many, many times. 11-52 inches more by 2100? That’s a hell of a spread, and not particularly scientific. Sea level rise has actually slowed since 2004.
Fifth, despite no proof, all the articles I linked, and many others, immediately blame Mankind, as does the lead author
“There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest,” said Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia. “It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.”
Does anyone want to bet that Kopp and the others involved in the study have not given up their own use of fossil fuels?
Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona, who wasn’t part of the studies, praised them, saying they show a clear cause and effect between warming and sea level rise.
True. But, that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. It doesn’t prove CO2 is the control knob. It just proves that seas rise during a Holocene warm period, not why. It also proves that sea rise is lower than the average, and that we should all relax. There’s no need to allow government to implement massive tax schemes, along with more and more control of our lives, private entities, and economies. Not for a measly 5.5 inches of sea rise.
Read: New Study Shows We’re Totally Doomed From Sea Rise Or Something »
The Daily Caller sat down with Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller regarding a variety of questions, most of which seemed to revolve are Trump’s immigration plans. Here’s what we get
“There’s an overarching principle that covers all immigration policy — three principles to be exact,†Miller told TheDC in a phone interview.
“The first is that a nation without borders is not a nation. You’ve heard [Trump] say many times in many interviews either we’re a country or we’re not. It’s that simple. We’re either a country or we’re not. Similarly, the second principle is a nation without walls is not a nation, which is an extension of the first principle, but in other words. If you have laws, you enforce them,†he said.
“The last principle of the three is that a nation that does not serve its citizens is not a nation, which is to say that the social contract of the country is that the interest group that is served is not special interests, or lobbyists, or transnational corporations, or citizens of other countries. It is the citizens of this country, the United States,†he added.
Miller described the current immigration system as catering to everyone but the American citizens, and that the whole world will know that people can no longer come to American illegally if he’s elected. The plan encompasses those who overstay their visas, who make up roughly 40% of those here illegally. Trump plans on enforcing the existing laws on the books, including the use of biometric entrance/exit systems.
He wants to streamline immigration hearings while doing away with catch and release policies. Miller also stated that the Trump campaign believes that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship to foreigners born in the United States (Ann Coulter, despite having turned into a buffoon in the past few years, and especially when it comes to people who do not support Trump, actually makes a good argument against birthright citizenship. She’s smart, but, still a wanker).
Trump would also reduce legal immigration. On this, I’d like to hear a bit more detail. Most of this part of the interview revolved around Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims, but, I think we need to look at those who are coming over and getting paid less to take American’s jobs (see Disney, for one). How many other countries allow foreigners to come in and take their citizen’s jobs? We could certainly use more temporary migrant labor, which strong controls to make sure they leave when they’re supposed to, and companies who hire them should be responsible for providing health insurance to their workers.
Most of this can all be seen at Trump’s website, which lays out his plans and policies on immigration. Interestingly, one thing missing is his position on touch-back amnesty, something which I could swear appeared at that link just two weeks ago when someone on Twitter dared me to read his plan (something I had previously done months ago). Trump has seemingly been in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the “good ones”. Personally, I’m not opposed to some staying, as long as they pay fines and fees, have no criminal issues, and speak English. They would be banned from being eligible for social services such as welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc for a short period of, say, 5 years. These illegals must show that they are capable of providing for their lives, rather than relying on the government.
Numbers USA has given Trump’s plan a C+. They summarize his positions, including this
2. No legal status would be granted to those illegal aliens until illegal immigration is brought under control. At a minimum, that includes a fence and adequate Border Patrol activity. He still hasn’t said if he would take away the jobs magnet nor has he commented on a number of interior enforcement tools.
I’m still not big fan of Trump, my Trust Factor for him is low overall, but, on this particular issue, my trust factor is high, unlike with most elected Republicans who seem to give lip service to building a wall and you know they would immediately go for amnesty.
Still not a Trump supporter, though. However, his immigration plan is pretty sound.
Read: Trump Adviser Makes Trump’s Immigration Plan Sound Entirely Reasonable »
Allahpundit call this “game over”
In which C-SPAN archivists drop a 20-megaton political warhead directly on Obama and the Democrats. The best part? Biden actually goes a little further than Republicans have gone this month in opposing an election-year replacement for Scalia. Not only doesn’t he want a vacancy filled, not only doesn’t he want the Judiciary Committee to even hold hearings on a nomination, he wants the president to decline making a nomination altogether. The current GOP line is that Obama has every right as president to offer a nomination, just as the Senate has every right to withhold its advice and consent. Biden 1992 wanted Bush 41 to keep any nominations in his pocket. Amazing.
He wonders how the White House spins this, when we now have Biden, Obama, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer all on record calling for obstruction of Supreme Court nominees during election season.
Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election…" #SCOTUShttps://t.co/setQGLzePt
— CSPAN (@cspan) February 22, 2016
Read: Oops: Sheriff Joe Biden Said POTUS Shouldn’t Nominate A SCOTUS Candidate During The Political Season »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
