…is an evil pool for the 1%ers causing climate change for the rest, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the Trump clown show.
Read: If All You See… »
…is an evil pool for the 1%ers causing climate change for the rest, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the Trump clown show.
Read: If All You See… »
Today’s scaremongering story from the Cult of Climastrology, which would probably be more effective if published in June, rather than February
Shark Attack Numbers Hit Record Heights in 2015; Overpopulation, Climate Change to Blame
Shark hysteria around the globe is reaching an all-time high. It’s like the scene in Jaws where everyone is getting their kids out of the water, screaming and flailing and choking and running. It’s a great scene. It’s not so great in real life. And 2015 now officially holds the record for the most shark attacks in a single year, which is never a good thing for mass hysteria.
According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), an organization that’s basically the end-all-be-all of shark encounters around the world, there were 98 unprovoked shark attacks in 2015. The previous record was set back in 2000, when there were 88. Over half of the attacks (59) last year happened in US waters, and 30 of those occurred in Florida. Australia recorded 18 attacks, while South Africa came in at 8–one of which, of course, was broadcast live to the world.
So, what are the causes?
The report from ISAF doesn’t say anything about sharks getting hungrier, or meaner, or more bent on spilling human blood. It does say, however, that there are more of us in the water, which in turn leads to more encounters with sharks. “As world population continues its upsurge and interest in aquatic recreation concurrently rises, we realistically should expect increases in the number of shark attacks and other aquatic recreation-related injuries,†said George Burgess, curator of the ISAF and director of the Florida Program for Shark Research. “In theory, we should see a record number of shark attacks every year, because a shark attack is fundamentally an odd situation that’s built on the number of humans in the water and the number of sharks in the water.â€
Shark numbers have increased due to environmental regulations on killing sharks and the aquatic creatures they eat. Of course, Warmists have to bring ‘climate change’ in
But it isn’t just the number of people in the water that led to the record number of attacks. It’s climate change and an exceptionally strong El Nino year, as well. “Since most sharks are warm-water species, they now are covering a wider area than they once did,†Burgess said. “In the summertime, they head farther north or south depending on which hemisphere they are in.â€
See? They can’t help themselves.
(Daily News) Sharks that like tropical water, like bull sharks and tiger sharks, have moved beyond the traditional waters of Florida and up the southeastern coast of the United States to the Carolinas, for instance. There, an increase in population has led to more people going in the water from spring to fall, as air temperatures were also warmer in 2015. The combination leads to more potential encounters between sharks and humans and, thus, more attacks, Burgess said.
Two points: first, the horrible shark attacks in New Jersey, 1916, were mostly likely caused by a Bull shark, due to the brackish water in which the initial attacks took place. Few other sharks could survive in that water. Second, none of what they are saying is proof of anthropogenic causation, at least in regards to the climate. Warmer waters and air are simply that: warmer. It doesn’t prove that mankind, via “carbon pollution”, is the cause. As more and more people from the cooler north move to the warmer south, it means more and more people in waters with shark populations, putting them in direct contact. The coast from North Carolina to Florida continues to see population increases, along with people who live inland who travel to the beach.
But, hey, in Warmist world, it must be mostly ‘climate change’. They have to keep the scaremongering strong. I really hope they will stop contributing by jumping in their fossil fueled vehicles for trips to the beach.
Read: Bummer: Shark Attacks Increasing Because Of ‘Climate Change’ »
I listened to Trump hold a pity party earlier about how the media, especially Fox News, was being oh-so-mean to him (despite him having been on Fox And Friends this morning, and no meanness involved). Of course, the only one really making threats is Trump, and Cruz has responded in force
(Politico) Â Ted Cruz on Wednesday said Donald Trump’s campaign had threatened legal action over a campaign ad. His response: Bring it on.
“Donald, if you want to file a lawsuit challenging this ad, claiming it’s defamation, file the lawsuit,” Cruz told reporters here after playing the ad, which shows clips of Trump espousing more liberal positions on issues like abortion from an interview with Tim Russert more than a decade ago.
Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer and former Texas solicitor general, went on to say he might depose Trump in court himself. And he warned that should Trump proceed, he and his lawyers would be “sanctioned in court for filing frivolous litigation.”
The Right Scoop has video of what he calls “Cruz throwing down the gauntlet.” Trump had a hissy fit back
Trump fired back at Cruz with a sharp statement. “He is a liar and these ads and statements made by Cruz are clearly desperate moves by a guy who is tanking in the polls — watching his campaign go up in flames finally explains Cruz’s logo,” Trump replied in a statement. He went on to pledge, “If I want to bring a lawsuit it would be legitimate. Likewise, if I want to bring the lawsuit regarding Senator Cruz being a natural born Canadian I will do so. Time will tell, Teddy.”
I triple dog dare him. There’s no way someone like Cruz decides to run for POTUS without doing their due diligence on whether he is eligible. I’d also like to see him file the suit on the add, because it would surely highlight all of Trump’s liberal leanings.
…is a wonderful low carbon bike, which Everyone Else should be forced to use instead of fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Juan Williams ordering a cheeseburger and finding raaaaacism.
Read: If All You See… »
You don’t say
(UK Guardian) European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes†required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.
Sadly, the Guardian doesn’t actually provide a link to that document. It’d be wonderful to read it to see what those “profound lifestyle changes” are, since the Guardian is rather cagey.
The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian. (snip)
“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.â€
Negative emissions can refer to carbon capture and storage technology powered by biomass, geo-engineering of the atmosphere and oceans, or CO2 removal that sucks emissions out of the air.
Yet, what of these “profound lifestyle changes”? What are they? It’s very easy to guess, based on what the Cult of Climastrology has been recommending for decades. A higher cost of living, higher energy prices, limiting travel, dietary changes, the Government taking more and more power away from the People and giving it to the government, etc and so forth.
One has to wonder why Warmists are always so cagey and circumspect in regards to their ultimate and ulterior goals.
Read: To Solve Hotcoldwetdry, Europeans Need “Profound Lifestyle Changes” »
As you remember, close after the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader and many others proclaimed that no Obama nominee would be considered. Many Republican supporters were concerned that the elected Republicans in the Senate would backslide. Is this about to happen?
(The Hill) Freshman GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Tuesday that his party risks being seen as “obstructionist†in a fight over Supreme Court nominations with President Obama.
The remarks from the North Carolina Republican are the first crack in GOP unity since Saturday’s stunning news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, whose passing has put the tilt of the court in question. Scalia’s successor seems likely to determine whether its majority will lean liberal or conservative.
Republicans are under enormous pressure to block any nominee from Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly put out a statement after Scalia’s death stating that the vacancy should not be filled until a new president takes office.
Yet the GOP also faces enormous risks with its strategy if it turns off independent voters already irritated by Washington’s dysfunction.
Of course, they face enormous risk if they do not block any Obama nominee, and simply rubber stamp the pick. Tillis had this to say right after Scalia’s passing
“We are in midst of a great debate about the future of our country, including the future make-up of the highest court in the land, which makes decisions that affect the lives of all Americans,†Tillis said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the uninhibited expansion of President Obama’s administrative state and his penchant for executive orders that contort the rule of law suggest an utter contempt for our nation’s system of checks and balances.
“It is highly likely that the President will nominate someone who shares his views and will rubber-stamp his unilateral actions, which run counter to the original intent of our Constitution. This is why it is incumbent upon the Senate to assert its co-equal authority in the constitutionally prescribed process of determining the make-up of the highest court. I firmly believe the voice of the American people should be heavily weighted in that decision and their voice will soon be heard on Election Day. Given the current circumstances, the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy would be best left to the next President.â€
Then you have this (from the Hill article)
On Tuesday, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared to back away from that position, arguing it was at least possible a hearing could be held on an Obama nominee.
“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions. … In other words, take it a step at a time,†he told reporters, according to Radio Iowa.
IMO, Republicans shouldn’t have stated that there would be nothing done in the Senate when Obama nominates yet another hardcore Leftist who rules by whim and politics instead of law and the Constitution. Let Obama have his hearings. They can take it very slow during the Judiciary committee and full Senate hearings, and ask questions that expose the person, showing they’re not the right person for the job. Then take a vote and all vote “nay”. That is where concern should be. Will the GOP hold strong in the face of elected Democrats, the White House, and the leftist media putting pressure on the Republican Senators to confirm?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee? »
…is a wonderful wooded area that would be perfect for a solar farm, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Last Tradition, with a post on needing a teacher discipline database.
Read: If All You See… »