Warmists can whine all they want that this is a Fox News poll, but it comports with virtually every other poll on the issues that actually matter
Climate change is at the bottom of a new FOX News poll on the most important issue facing the country: pic.twitter.com/bjSBhqLz0G
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) November 25, 2015
The article which has the link to the poll is here. The poll with the full data is here, the info on American concerns is way down.
We’re saved from our long national nightmare of Democratic politicians using proper descriptive terms
(AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Tuesday her use of the term “illegal immigrants” was a “poor choice of words” and she pledged not to use it anymore, responding to criticism from immigration activists.
The Democratic presidential candidate was asked about her use of the term to describe people who are in the U.S. illegally during a question-and-answer session on Facebook held by Telemundo. The question came from Jose Antonio Vargas, a filmmaker and journalist whose organization, Define American, has said the terminology is offensive and asked all presidential candidates to stop using it.
“Yes, I will,” Clinton wrote during a stop in Boulder, Colorado. “That was a poor choice of words. As I’ve said throughout this campaign, the people at the heart of this issue are children, parents, families, DREAMers. They have names and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected.”
Can you guess who else have names and hopes and dreams? American citizens and those who are in the United States legally, who often see those hopes and dreams dashed by criminal conduct of illegals, as well as seeing wages deflated, hospital ERs closed, oh, and their names stolen by illegals involved in identity theft.
What brought this all on, to have illegal aliens and their supporters have a typical emotional breakdown for a phrase?
During a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire earlier this month, Clinton said she voted “numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.”
The horror! One has to wonder, if Hillary can’t say the phrase, and if she has to govelingly apologize, how can she have the strength to be POTUS? This just another piece of politically correct gobbledegook from a pandering and spineless Democrat. Would you trust her on illegal immigration if she can’t even stand strong in the face of upset illegal aliens?
Favorite comment at the story
Dear Hilarity:
Let’s say that you came home and found me in your kitchen. I had washed and dried the breakfast dishes and made the bed. Would you have the Secret Service arrest me? Or would you adopt me?
Of course, we will be told “that’s different”, even though it is an apt allegory. When you enter our country illegally, or you stay in our country after your VISA has expired, you are illegally in the country. If you carry out some action in violation of the law, you are illegal. If you don’t like illegal immigrant, perhaps we should call you alien invaders!
Read: Thank Goodness: Hillary Vows To Never Use Term “Illegal Immigrant” Again »
Finally, it’s here. I was despairing, as the Cult of Climastrology typically spends quite a bit of time using every event and holiday to push their unscientific belief in anthropogenic climate change, yet, there wasn’t really anything just a few days before Thanksgiving. Most likely because they’re all attempting to Blame ACC for the Syrian refugee problem and terrorism (despite only Muslims turning to terrorism, and Obama denying Christian refugees entry to the US). Joe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress finally came through!
Six ways to climate-proof your Thanksgiving https://t.co/ZAWcmPPdyY pic.twitter.com/ge1veaQqLz
— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) November 24, 2015
Figuring out just how to reduce your personal carbon impact can be a daunting, and at times, confusing task (just ask the King of Sweden, who recently decided to give up baths for the environment). (note: he has multiple palatial mansions. What’s the carbon footprint?)
Getting through Thanksgiving, when emissions-heavy activities like airline travel and tables full of food are the norm, can be a especially tricky for a die-hard climate activist. Here are have a few tips for a more climate-friend Thanksgiving. (We can’t help with the food coma, though.)
So, what do they want you to do?
Oh, and then we have to have this
Go ahead, talk about it
Even with all these tips, Thanksgiving is hardly a carbon-neutral day for most of us. But there’s one more way you can get bigger climate returns on the day: Talk about it.
Maybe your family or friends don’t believe in climate change. Take a moment before the holiday to brush up on some key messages, and think of it this way: Convincing just one person to reduce her carbon footprint doubles what you can do on your own.
It wouldn’t be a Warmist Thanksgiving without nagging your relatives on the subject of ‘climate change’, would it? Annoying your relatives, insulting them, making them remember why they never call you the other 364 days of the year.
Of course, the Democrats want their little minions to ruin Thanksgiving overall
It's the holiday season, which means lots of time with your Republican uncle. Give him the facts this weekend: https://t.co/1nLlClQFql ????????????
— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) November 24, 2015
https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/669291835618103296
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Think Progress Tells Us How To Climate Proof, Ruin Our Thanksgiving »
And he surely wonders why his polls on fighting terrorism are dropping like a stone. ISIS is, sadly, laughing their heads off at this man who is divorced from reality
Obama: U.N. Climate Change Conference Will Be 'Powerful Rebuke to the Terrorists' https://t.co/kAiAez9Kkc (VIDEO) pic.twitter.com/0Jny08jl1o
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) November 24, 2015
From the link
“Next week, I will be joining President Hollande and world leaders in Paris for the global climate conference. What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children,†he continued.
Read: Obama: Climate Change Conference A Rebuke To Murderous Terrorist Scum »
…is a horrible waste of non-renewable water to clean up dishes from a horrible Thanksgiving big carbon footprint meal, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Liberty Zone, with a post on fake clock kid Ahmed suing for $15 million.
BTW, consider all IAYS posts to be open threads to discuss whatever you want.
Read: If All You See… »
One would think this kind of outright over the top unhinged climate hysteria (climasteria?) would be someplace like Grist, Climate Progress, etc, not at one of the world’s premiere news organizations, CNN
Can we avoid climate apocalypse?
It’s probably the most important number you’ve never heard of: 2 degrees Celsius.
That’s when climate change starts to get especially dangerous. Nearly every country in the world has agreed that 2 degrees of warming, measured as an increase in global average temperature since the Industrial Revolution, is too much to tolerate. Yet there’s less agreement about how to achieve the ambitious goal of keeping the increase below that threshold, and how economies can switch quickly enough from dirty fuels like coal and oil to cleaner sources of energy like solar and wind.
World leaders will meet in Paris starting on November 30 to discuss all of this at the COP21 meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Before that gets going, we invited authors, experts and activists to weigh in on the 2-degree target. What’s at stake? And how can we actually get there?
Of course, the world has only seen a minuscule .85C since 1850, around 1.5F. During that time period there have been decades with increases, and others with pauses and even reductions. Despite Warmist objections (they’re objecting to actual science and facts, let’s be clear), there has been an 18+ year pause in statistically significant warming. According to their cultish beliefs, the world will suddenly warm 2C (3.6F) in just over 80 years. Science says otherwise. But, they want to push the doom. First up is Mark Lynas
Call it the nightmare scenario. First, world leaders meeting in Paris this December fail to agree on a plan to cut back global greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables like solar power remain too expensive, and people stay irrationally scared of carbon-free nuclear. The world shifts back to burning coal.
Then we find out that the Earth’s “climate sensitivity” — how quickly and drastically the planet responds to carbon emissions — is at the upper end of the range scientists predicted. Tipping points are crossed: Methane starts to belch out of the melting permafrost in huge quantities, and the ice sheets respond with what experts euphemistically call “nonlinear disintegration.” Sea levels begin to shoot up.
In the latter part of this century we find the planet’s temperature rise pushing not 2 degrees, as is the current internationally agreed maximum target, but 4, 5, even 6 degrees Celsius of warming. Large areas of the subtropics become biologically uninhabitable to humans: It’s simply too hot to go outside. Food crops in breadbaskets wither in searing heatwaves, and extreme cyclones pummel coastal cities already under threat from the rising seas.
Could human civilization survive? We don’t know — but this nightmare scenario is surely a risk we should not take. We know how to make the shift away from fossil fuels. The time to act is now.
Stephen King, Mark Tufo, and TW Brown do horror much better. And it’s entertaining.
Of course, then we have someone yammering on about the number being 1.5C. Like Lynas, Kathy Kijiner offers no solutions.
Van Jones supports Obama’s energy killing/cost of living increasing power plant plan. Surprisingly, CNN actually allows a disenting view from Bjorn Lomborg
For 20 years, governments have tried to cut carbon emissions. The result has been two decades of failure with ever-increasing global emissions.
Governments have already revealed the carbon cuts they likely will commit to in Paris. All of these combined will reduce temperatures by a tiny 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Yet the cost is likely to be more than $1 trillion annually.
He then makes a good point, one I’ve noted numerous times
We should end fossil fuel subsidies and invest much more in green energy research and development. This would be much cheaper and more effective than our current approach. We need to innovate the price of green energy down to where everyone wants to buy it. And we should acknowledge that wasting $1 trillion annually on minuscule temperature reductions is immoral and wasteful when there are major needs today — from malaria to nutrition to family planning — where small investments could achieve a great deal more.
But, Bjorn needs to remember that this is not about science or anything noble, it’s about political control. Progressivism. Nice fascism. His voice, though, is about the only non-Warmist one.
Here in the 1st World, most people really do not care about anthropogenic climate change. Heck, they barely care about climate change as a natural phenomenon. While many say the are Very Concerned, almost every single poll shows ‘climate change’ to be last or next to last on a list of concerns. Hence, Toronto Star writer Emma Teital wants to scare people
Canadians need shock tactics in fight against climate change: Teitel
The new Liberal government needs to scare citizens into caring about global warming, and doing something about it.On Monday Justin Trudeaumet with Canadian premiers to discuss a problem most people (myself included) either ignore completely or lament for 30 seconds before changing the subject to more current, pressing matters.
That problem is climate change, the alleged End of Days brought to you by selfish, insatiable mankind. Trudeau will attend the UN climate change conference in Paris next week, but before he sets off, he’d like to showcase Canada’s new-found environmental fervour to the wider world.
And yet, whether next week’s Paris talks and subsequent meetings with premiers are fruitful — whether in fact, our government changes its policies in any meaningful way regarding the oilsands or any other issue pertaining to the environment — one has to ask: how much does policy matter in combating climate change, if people by and large do not give a damn about it?
Based on the actions of Warmists, their only care is on how to use the topic as a means to push for more Progressive policies, which, strangely, they never seem to understand that those policies will give Government lots and lots more control over their individual lives, as well as increase their cost of living while at the same time reduce the quality of their modern lifestyles.
Which is why I’d wager that the only way world leaders and activists can change human perception of climate change, in addition to public policy, is through a healthy dose of fear mongering. In fact, political fear-mongering, a tactic used in this country to prejudice us against a small minority of niqab-clad women, is actually prudent in the fight against climate change, a material threat that, unlike the others mentioned, will wreak havoc in our land.
The Cult of Climastrology has been “spreading awareness” for 25+ years, and has been using Scary Fables for a goodly chunk of that time. In fact, there were scary stories trotted out in the early 20th Century about the danger of warming from Mankind’s actions. Followed by scary stories of a coming ice age in the 60’s and 70’s. Now we’re back to warming. The common thread is that they all attempt to create more and more government, along with more and more government power. And taxation. Yet, the people who believe in it the most refuse to make more than token changes in their own lives.
Read: We Need To Scare People About ‘Climate Change’ To Make Them Care »
The ACLU is very upset over the civil rights violations of people who aren’t Americans and have no Constitutional Rights. But, we should wonder, is this really about civil rights? Or something else?
(USA Today) Gov. Mike Pence is facing a federal lawsuit that challenges his power to block Syrian refugees from resettling in Indiana.
The lawsuit, filed Monday night, accuses Pence of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by accepting refugees from other countries but not those from Syria. It comes a week after the Indiana governor — and more than a dozen from other states — suspended the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state following terrorist attacks in Paris.
The complaint was filed Monday night in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, an Indianapolis non-profit organization that resettles refugees in Indiana. John Wernert, secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which oversees refugee settlement in the state, is the other defendant named in the lawsuit.
They aren’t American citizens. They have no rights. There is, though, this pesky thing called the 10th Amendment, which gives all power to the people and states that is not specifically given to the federal government, and the Constitution does not specifically give los Federales the power to force States to take in refugees, particularly those who have the potential to be hardcore Islamists, since these so-called background checks really do not accomplish much. Pence would be happy to take them once “the federal government addresses the security gaps acknowledged by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security with regard to refugees from Syria, and as governor I will continue to put the safety and security of Hoosiers first.”
According to the 13-page complaint, Pence’s decision also caused some financial harm to Exodus, which receives federal money to aid refugees resettling in the state. The funds, which are funneled through state agencies, are spent on employment training, English language education and other services, according to the ACLU of Indiana.
Oh, so it’s really all about the money. Los Federales have approved 19 Syrians for relocation to Indiana, and, Exodus will have to use it’s own money to help out, and there would be no reimbursement. As the old saying goes “if the question is why, the answer is money.”
Meanwhile, super friendly Canada has said it will only accept children, women, and families from Syria, no unaccompanied men. The young fighting age men tend to make up the majority of those who are streaming out of the Middle East and into Europe, as well as attempting to come to Canada and the U.S.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: ACLU Sues Indiana Governor Mike Pence For Refusing Syrian Refugees »
What they forgot to provide, the same way all Warmists forget, is to provide rock solid proof that it is mostly/solely caused by the actions of Mankind via greenhouse gases, particularly CO2
2015 shatters the temperature record as global warming speeds back up
Thanks to human-caused global warming and an assist from El Niño, 2015 will easily be the hottest year in millenniaWith just a month and a half left in 2015, it’s clear this year will be by far the hottest on record, easily beating the previous record set just last year. The temporary slowdown in the warming of global surface temperatures (also misnamed the “pauseâ€) has ended, as each of the past four years has been hotter than the one before.
El Niño is one reason 2015 has been such an incredibly hot year. During El Niño events, hot water is transported from the deep ocean layers to the surface. Over the past 15 years, we’ve experienced more La Niñas than El Niños, which helped temporarily slow the warming of global surface temperatures.
There’s not one shred of proof within the article by leading Cult of Climastrology member Dana Nuccitelli that any of this is caused by Humanity. This is about talking points and hysteria, science be damned. Speaking of science, someone named Klapper provides some interesting thoughts in the comments at the article
The problem with the analysis presented in this article is that neither of the two satellite lower troposphere temperature datasets agree that 2015 will be the warmest year ever. We’re seeing an increasing disconnect between the lower troposphere warming trend and the surface warming trend, and they both can’t be right.
The average of the UAH v6 and RSS v03 satellite-measured TLT from 2000 to now is .03C/decade. The average of HadCRUT4, NCDC, Berkeley and GISTEMP for the same period is 0.12C/decade, a warming rate 4 times higher than the satellite data. Is this contrast believable?
You could argue the satellites don’t cover the north and south poles and the surface data do, but that’s only half right. The northernmost station used by GISS (and I’m guessing the others) is Alert at 82.5N, exactly where the satellite data stop so the surface data go no further north than the satellite data. In addition, the satellite data have much better coverage in the center of Greenland, the Beaufort Sea; most of the Arctic for that matter.
He also wonders how Warmists will spin it when La Nina kicks in, and we get the typical drop in temperatures. Well, from what we have seen from all the Pause Deniers, they’ll have lots and lots of excuses.
Read: Guardian Continues Pimping 2015 As Hottest Year Ever »
…is an indigenous culture being wiped out by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on liberals proclaiming Lady Liberty is a Muslim.
Read: If All You See… »
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.
