…is a see that will soon swallow all coastal areas, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Watcher Of Weasels, with a post asking “where do you see the economy going?”
I forgot to mention Sunday that this week is Asian’s week.
Read: If All You See… »
Remember how the Paris climate meetings were meant to be the first step in stopping dire ‘climate change’, and we were doomed if no agreement was made? And how important the resulting agreement was? Huh
(Climate Home) Fiji, a volcanic archipelago of over 300 islands, has become the first country to ratify a new global warming accord.
The country’s 50 lawmakers unanimously confirmed the first global pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions on Friday, the Pacific Islands News Association reported.
The Paris climate change meeting ended on December 12th. So, it has been over two months, yet Fiji is the only nation that has ratified the pact? Would this also be the same Fiji which has lots of airports, just completed a massive new terminal in 2015 to accommodate all the tourists they country says should come vacation, and plans to build another airport?
For all the hoopla surrounding Paris, nations sure seem to be in no hurry to actually ratify the pact.
The NY Times Editorial Board actually makes a few salient points in their editorial, but, it is the lead that should be noticed first
When Antonin Scalia was named by President Ronald Reagan to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1986, the Senate considered the nomination for 85 days, then voted to confirm him. The tally was 98-0.
That unanimity was by no means a measure of widespread agreement with Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Rather it was the Senate’s customary acknowledgment — at least until recently — that the president had fulfilled his constitutional duty and selected a clearly qualified person for the post.
It is by no means a coincidence that the NYTEB starts off this way: they are demanding that the GOP led Congress rubber-stamp whomever Obama nominates, who will certainly be a hardcore leftist applying their political beliefs, activism, and international law in deciding cases, rather than American law and our Constitution.
Thirty years later, and within hours of the news that Justice Scalia had died, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, rejected that practice outright. It would not matter if President Obama nominated the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself, they appeared to suggest — there will be no confirmation hearings until Mr. Obama has packed his bags and moved out of the White House. Mr. Obama promptly replied that he planned to send a nomination to Congress shortly.
On this, the NYTEB might have a point: the GOP Senate should give the person a hearing, all the better to expose just how unqualified and left leaning the person is, then take a vote and say “No.”
Senators are free to vote yes or no on any nominee. But not to vote at all is an enormous insult and grave disservice to millions of Americans awaiting justice.
It might make sense if the left wing judges were interested in applying the Constitution to their votes. Rarely do any of the current ones vote against their left wing Social Justice Warrior beliefs. That said, there is precedent to delay delay delay. We’ll see what happens.
Read: NY Times: Congress Should Rubber-stamp Anyone Obama Nominates For Supreme Court »
Can someone check the calendar and see what year it is?
(Breitbart) Trump said, “The Iraq war was a disaster. It was a mistake. We spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, thousands of lives, wounded warriors who we love all over the place. What do we have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Iran is taking over Iraq as sure as you’re sitting there. And that’s the way it is. We get nothing. They get the oil, they get everything. We get nothing. So it was a huge mistake. Whether people like it or not. and I’m the only one with the vision to have said don’t do it. And I wasn’t even a politician when I said that.â€
He added, “Something’s going to have to happen with the party or we’re going to lose yet another election. I’m not even doing it to win election, I’m doing it out of common sense. The war was a horrible thing. If we’re not going to admit that, you’re going to have yet another election where the Democrats are going to win.â€
This is surely in response to Trump’s comments during the Saturday night debate, which somehow saw the Iraq war come up. He’s doubling down. Or, is that tripling down? Because Trump has had the Left wing opinion on Iraq since late 2003, around the same time Democrats decided they were going to use the war to attack President Bush. He sure failed to convey his opposition during the long debate over Resolution 1441, approved by the United Nations and the US Congress, giving Bush clearance to engage in a military operation against Iraq if Iraq failed to allow weapons inspectors in to do their job. Saddam Hussein played his games, and lost.
And, yes, Donald, WMD was found in Iraq. And, a major point was about denying Saddam WMD. Also, free the citizens from a brutal dictator. And other measures. But, really, do we need to relitigate Operation Iraqi Freedom? No. We don’t. Apparently Trump does. He thinks this is a winning issue, despite Bush being out of office for 7 years, despite Obama having done serious damage to the gains won in Iraq. Notice that Trump doesn’t attack Obama.
As noted in the WMD link, this “demonstrates that Trump’s political philosophy is actually a hodgepodge of far-left talking points that he imbibed when he was sucking up to the Clintons, their friends, and the other progressives he rubbed shoulders with in New York.” He hasn’t given up those far left talking points. If you read the transcript of the debate Saturday night, and from the Fox News Sunday show, would you think they were made by a Democrat or a Republican?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Trump Decides To Run Against Operation Iraqi Freedom »
…is a wonderful bit of nature that should have wind turbines, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on Obama wanting a “clean process” for Scalia’s replacement.
Read: If All You See… »
Happy Sunday! It is certainly a beautiful, if cold, day here in the awesome nation of America. This pinup is by Bill Randall, 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 »
Do you fly for work or pleasure? Good news: a UN agency is looking to reduce the “carbon emissions” of airplanes, which will have the effect of making your flights more expensive. If you are a very rich person, this won’t bother your. If you’re a middle or lower class person, it will make the cost to go see your relatives or take the family on a nice vacation all that more expensive. The NY Times Editorial Board doesn’t care
Jets Will No Longer Get a Free Ride on Carbon Emissions
It has been almost 50 years since the federal government began setting standards for automobile emissions. It is also about a half-century since the introduction of wide-body jets set off a runaway expansion of the aviation industry. About 3.8 billion people are expected to fly this year, 50 times as many as 50 years ago — making planes the fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, although they have faced none of the limits set on cars or trucks. That is, until last week, when the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency, finally proposed the first binding limits on aircraft emissions.
Of course, those “binding limits” are not enforceable by law. Yet
This is a welcome development, even if it has left many environmental groups disappointed. They have argued, not unreasonably, that the agency set the bar far too low. Existing planes wouldn’t have to improve their efficiency, and aircraft under development would need do no more than meet the emissions goals set by manufacturers. Automakers in the United States, by contrast, must nearly double their fuel economy by 2025.
These limits are supposed to force airplanes to reduce fuel consumption by 4% from 2015 levels by 2038. It appears as if Warmists do not want to pay the price themselves by giving up their own fossil fueled air travel nor paying more for tickets in the short term.
For now, however, what is important is that an industry that accounts for almost 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — about the same as Germany — and that is projected to double the number of passengers and flights by 2030 will finally join other major sources of greenhouse gas pollution that are subject to international emissions controls.
Isn’t it interesting how Warmists always look to putting government/quasi-government controls in place? The next step will obviously be for the UN to call for a carbon tax on civil aviation. Which will probably exempt small private planes, as these Warmist big wigs love their small private jets.
But the international agreement took more than six years to negotiate, and it still needs approval from the group’s larger council and then its full assembly, followed by laws or regulations in each of the 36 member states. Mr. Obama has the authority to set the standards. That is about all he can hope to achieve on this front in his remaining months, and if it happens, it will be no mean feat.
More rules, more regs. Because Congress will not pass any laws, and Obama, as normal, will not even offer legislation for consideration. He’ll just bloviate about the Republican Congress. Here’s where it gets funny, if we look at the link in the first excerpt that goes to a NY Times article on this subject
But advocates of the deal, including the Obama administration, praised it, saying that it was an important first step and that it tackled one of the most intractable rifts over reducing carbon emissions.
“This is another example of the administration’s deep commitment to working with the international community on policies that will reduce harmful carbon pollution worldwide,†Michael Huerta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, said in a statement. (snip)
The Obama administration last year issued a legal finding that aviation emissions are a threat to human health because of their contribution to global warming. That finding initiated a requirement under the Clean Air Act that the government release new regulations to curb airplane emissions. (snip)
Limiting aviation emissions remains one of Mr. Obama’s major initiatives to combat global warming…
Let’s not forget the immense amount of fossil fueled air travel Obama takes, often nominally for an official government appearance, which is almost always followed by things like fundraisers and golf outings. His little speech in Illinois the other day was followed by a long fossil fueled plane ride, which included a backup jumbo jet following Air Force 1 just in case, as well as fighter jets, to San Jose, California. He then took a fossil fueled flight from San Jose after a bunch of fundraisers to Los Angeles, where he filmed a segment for Ellen Degeneres’ show, followed by more fundraisers. Then a flight to Palm Springs from L.A., where he played golf on Friday. And Saturday. And will probably play today. And then a plane trip back to Washington.
Yes, hypocrisy matters.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: NY Times Is Thrilled With Proposed UN Climate Change Rules For Airplanes »
…is a the perfect size car that can be easily powered by something other than fossil fuels that Other People should be forced to drive, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on authorities being mystified about motivations for jihad restaurant attack.
Read: If All You See… »
You didn’t think they wouldn’t, did you?
https://twitter.com/clmtnewsnetwork/status/698394192234418176
From the link
Show the love for the climate this Valentine’s Day.
That’s the message from some of the UK’s top green groups, launching what’s now an annual push to turn hearts green on 14 February.
A short film shot by award-winning author Michael Morpurgo featuring Jeremy Irons and Maxine Peake has notched a modest 13,000 views so far, but that’s just the start.
Activists will bombard social media with a deluge of artwork over the weekend, aimed at accentuating the positives of global climate action.
No more dying polar bears, flooded cities or lonely penguins. These pictures speak to a world that’s moving towards a cleaner, greener future.
They’re hoping to reach beyond those converted to the climate cause, to a wider audience.
Nothing says “wider audience” like hijacking yet another holiday to push a message of nuttiness. You’ll have to click the link to see the crazy pictures. And, we get some nutters doing this (click the more link)
Read: Well, Of Course Warmists Use Valentine’s Day To Push Their Cult »
I wonder how many of these Democrats have taken contributions from fossil fuels companies, to go along with their own use of fossil fuels? These are questions not asked by Samantha Page at Joe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act on Thursday. Under the bill, there would be no new leases for extraction of fossil fuels — such as coal, oil, and gas — on all federal lands. It would also stop new leases for offshore drilling in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico and prohibit offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
“This is a response to a real outpouring of support for this cause that I have seen, not just from my constituents on the north coast of California, but really from all over the country,†Huffman told reporters during a call Thursday. “We’ve got to get much more aggressive in this fight against climate change, because we know what we put off today will only make the cost and the damage greater for our children tomorrow.â€
The bill has 17 Democratic cosponsors in the House and is a companion bill to one introduced in the fall in the Senate. “I think the only remaining climate deniers in America are my Republican colleagues in the United States Congress,†Huffman quipped.
A goodly chunk of Huffman’s major contributors are in businesses that require lots of fossil fuels to operate, such as the Teamsters and Airline Pilots Association. His #1 donor for 2014 was PG&E Corp, a big user of fossil fuels.
During the call Thursday, Huffman also mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision to stay the Administration’s Clean Power Plan rule, saying that despite the court’s action, more and more people are advocating for action on climate and catalyzing change.
“I hope [the stay] will only be a speed bump,†Huffman said. “I think it will underscore the importance of all of our other efforts.â€
More and more people? The issue is typically down at the bottom of what Americans are concerned over, and attempting to reduce the availability of inexpensive power sources will only serve to raise the cost of living for Americans, seriously damaging the lives of the middle and lower classes.
And, if so many are concerned, why only 17 cosponsors? Anyhow, in the press release cited in the first excerpt we read
“Our nation’s capacity to transition towards clean energy sources is expanding at a record pace,†said Huffman. “However, there is still much to be done to break our unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels. Our oceans and our public lands-including the fossil fuel deposits beneath them- belong to the American people, not to the oil and gas industry, and it’s time that the law reflects that fact. There is an urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we want to protect the planet for future generations. The ‘Keep It in the Ground Act’ represents a crucial step that the federal government can take to protect the public, prevent carbon emissions, and fight climate change.â€
When will he give up his own dependence on fossil fuels? You can bet he’s not riding a bike or driving a non-fossil fueled vehicle across the country from California to Washington, D.C.
Read: Fossil Fuels Using House Dems Introduce “Keep It In The Ground” »
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.
