…is a dolphin that will be eradicated, along with all other dolphins, from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on people being shocked that ISIS intelligence was cooked.
Read: If All You See… »
MSNBC is trotting out a Scary Story for their minuscule viewership
Europe’s next crisis: Climate change could create millions of new refugees
Nearly 400,000 migrants have streamed into Europe this year, setting off the continent’s largest refugee crisis since World War II. But the tide of desperation is nothing compared to the flood of environmental refugees that could be created by unchecked climate change, experts and elected officials warn.
President Obama set the tone in a speech last week in Alaska, where he summoned images of “desperate refugees,†“entire industries of people who can’t practice livelihoods†and “political disruptions that could trigger conflicts around the world.†Secretary of State John Kerry dubbed them “climate refugees,†and warned of a global fight for food, water and “mere survival.â€
Blah blah blah. Typical. Rather than dealing with the real issues that create floods of refugees, the Cult of Climastrology replaces the root causes with their pet beliefs. Yes, climate in all fashions has caused problems throughout the period of life on Earth. Warmists need a reason to Blame Mankind.
Just not enough to give up their own big carbon footprints.
Read: Are We Ready For The Millions Of Coming Climate Refugees? Or Something »
Remember, most Warmists are members of the same party and belief set that says Government should stay out of all decisions when it comes to abortion, but wants the Green Police to monitor your carbon footprint
Climate change: Track urban emissions on a human scale
Cities need to understand and manage their carbon footprint at the level of streets, buildings and communities, urge Kevin Robert Gurney and colleagues.…..
Knowing that certain roads, types of vehicle or parts of a city dominate road emissions and why people drive at specific times would tell city planners where and how to lower emissions efficiently. Improvements in traffic congestion, air quality, pedestrian conditions, and noise pollution could be aligned. But tracking emissions road by road and building by building is beyond the capacity of most cities.
Luckily, scientists are gathering the data that city managers need — in studies that match sources of CO2 and methane with atmospheric concentrations. Now the research community needs to translate this information into a form that city managers can use. Emissions data need to be merged with socio-economic information such as income, property ownership or travel habits, and placed in software tools that can query policy options and weigh up costs and benefits. And scientists should help municipalities to raise awareness of the power of detailed emissions data in tailoring climate and development policies.
In other words, merging all our private data with that of the Cult of Climastrology so they can track everything.
Slashing emissions requires mapping them on finer scales of space and time that reflect the human dimensions at which carbon is emitted: by individual buildings, vehicles, parks, factories and power plants. These should be tracked at least yearly. Such granular estimates are needed for several reasons: to verify emissions rates; to confirm progress towards reduction and support carbon trading, permits or taxation; to enable more-targeted and financially efficient decisions about mitigation options; and to identify and fix unintentional releases from, for example, leaking gas pipes or malfunctioning methane-capture equipment in landfills.
So, once they have all that information, they can target the permits and taxation, along with all sorts of restrictions on citizens and private entities.
With detailed knowledge of carbon flows, cities might succeed in reducing global emissions where nations have failed.
One has to wonder why all these cities have such big carbon footprints, when they tend to be run by Democrats, big believers in “climate change”, and stocked with a majority of Democratic Party voters. It’s almost like they don’t really believe their talking points enough to change their own behavior.
I wonder how they’ll respond when they realize that The Government is tracking their every move, invading their privacy, then taxing them over it?
Read: Warmists Want To Track Urban Emissions At Every Level »
No, not that record regarding her email shenanigans, what with the private server and sending/receiving confidential/sensitive/Secret material. The one where she supposedly Did Something
(The Hill) Hillary Clinton’s Iran speech on Wednesday isn’t a one-time event timed for votes this week on Capitol Hill, the Democratic presidential candidate’s senior aides say.
The speech, in which she outlined a five-point plan on Iran, is part of a larger strategy to use the deal — and the upcoming vote — as a window for telling her story of her four-year tenure as Secretary of State.
But those big meanie Republicans are out their exposing her true record
But Clinton is “eager†to have the debate, according to Jake Sullivan, a foreign policy adviser on the Clinton campaign who worked for her as a senior aide at the State Department.
“Every time she mixes it up with Republicans on these issues, she supplies further evidence of why she stands to prevail in that debate,†he said in an email to The Hill on Wednesday.
OK?
In her speech at the Brookings Institution, Clinton offered support for the Iran deal but also talked about how she would take a tough line with Tehran in a new Clinton administration.
Her message leaned heavily on her tenure at State, and she highlighted how she was a key player for Obama in the negotiations.
“President Obama and I pursued a two-prong strategy†of engagement and pressure, to “significantly raise the cost of Iranian defiance,†she said in the speech. “Meanwhile I traveled the world … twisting arms to help build the global coalition.â€
Does it need mentioning that she and Obama completely blew off the Iranian Green Revolution? But, hey, if she wants to take some credit for the horrendous Iran deal, which the majority of Americans are against, go for it!
Clinton also offered comments about how she would offer strenuous military support to Israel, where the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has loudly criticized the deal. This offered Clinton a chance to stand apart from Obama.
So, something she says she will do, which she didn’t do while Obama was president.
In a conference call after the speech on Wednesday, Team Clinton, former State Department colleagues, and foreign policy experts aimed to further break down the former secretary of State’s involvement in the deal, discussing her first trip to Moscow in 2009 and how she and her team persuaded the Russians to get “on board†with sanctions against Iran.
Sanctions Russia failed to implement themselves. More on that in a minute.
And, that’s pretty much it. Maybe she has more information at her website? Well, no. One would think she would be pimping her vast experience as Secretary of State and her time as a Senator. Negative.
In fact, Hillary and her State Dept advocated heavily against many of the sanction placed on Iran. When the sanctions were passed, State used lots of waivers to exempt many countries. Her Pacific reboot was a failure, as was her Russian reboot. Our European allies have lost quite a bit of trust in the U.S. We’ve isolated many allies, including Israel and Poland (missile shield). The Arab Spring was mostly blown off. The uprising in Egypt highlighted just how discombobulated the foreign policy was under Obama/Clinton.
She has no signature doctrine, strategy, or diplomatic triumph. She was super enthused to start a war in Libya, and then ignored what happened after, including the Benghazi fiasco. Iraq has turned into a cesspool, though that is more Obama’s fault. Syria is beyond a mess. Remember when she called Assad a “reformer”? What, exactly, can she look to as a real success? Her supporters can’t name one. Seemingly, neither can she.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Hillary Clinton Totally Eager To Defend Her Record At State »
Straight out of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, yet another hyperventilating alarmist scary fable
Climate change will destroy the planet’s circulatory system
We can’t have the birds or the bees. We can’t have woolly mammoths. For the love of Gotye, even the red pandas are in danger. And if we keep releasing all these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, soon we won’t even have water that flows in the right direction: A pair of new studies suggests that warming temperatures and melting Arctic ice sheets could have drastic effects on global ocean currents. Welcome back to Spoiler Alerts, where climate change grayscales all the Nyan Cats.
According to some research, “climate change” did help cause the extinction of the wooly mammoth. Of course, there weren’t any fossil fueled vehicles around back then, nor any of the other things Cult of Climastrology members Blame. Might it have been *GASP* natural, much like most of today’s minuscule 1.4F warming since 1850?
Part of the problem with melting ice, argues the first study, is that it’s mostly freshwater. Don’t get me wrong, I love freshwater — can’t get enough of the stuff— but cold freshwater doesn’t sink the same way cold saltwater does (because it’s not as dense). And part of what helps the currents do their job is the fact that cold water tends to sink. Any disruptions in temperature and salinity are likely to toy with that system in a severely objectionable manner. The Washington Post reports:
Blah blah blah. Realistically, the science is, in fact, sound. This has happened many times before, where changes in the oceanic circulatory systems have changed, moving from warm to cool, just like there are fluctuations from cool to warm. Earth is a very dynamic system. What it doesn’t mean is that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the tiny warming during the Modern Warm Period.
Read: Climate Change Will Totally Destroy The Planet’s Circulatory System Or Something »
…is a sea that can only rise because of man’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Jawa Report, with a post on jobs going to foreigners.
Read: If All You See… »
The latest unhinged scary fable from the Cult of Climastrology comes from Jonathan Chait
The Sunniest Climate-Change StoryYOU’VE EVER READ
This is the year humans finally got serious about saving themselves from themselves.Here on planet Earth, things could be going better. The rise in atmospheric temperatures from greenhouse gases poses the most dire threat to humanity, measured on a scale of potential suffering, since Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany launched near-simultaneous wars of conquest.
Apparently, these delicate flowers are unable to deal with a minuscule 1.4F increase in global temperatures since 1850. There’s been little warming since the Japan and Germany started their wars, occurring from around 1979-1997. The rest of the time has been statistically insignificant to slight cooling.
And the problem has turned out to be much harder to solve. It’s not the money. The cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels, measured as a share of the economy, may amount to a fraction of the cost of defeating the Axis powers. Rather, it is the politics that have proved so fiendish. Fighting a war is relatively straightforward: You spend all the money you can to build a giant military and send it off to do battle. Climate change is a problem that politics is almost designed not to solve. Its costs lie mostly in the distant future, whereas politics is built to respond to immediate conditions. (And of the wonders the internet has brought us, a lengthening of mental time horizons is not among them.) Its solution requires coordination not of a handful of allies but of scores of countries with wildly disparate economies and political structures. There has not yet been a galvanizing Pearl Harbor moment, when the urgency of action becomes instantly clear and isolationists melt away. Instead, it breeds counterproductive mental reactions: denial, fatalism, and depression.
How many times have I said that this whole thing is political? Chait proves my point.
As far as getting serious, you’d didn’t actually think this was about Warmists making their own lives accord with their stated beliefs, did you?
But guess what everyone’s been missing in the middle of their keening for the dear, soon-to-be-departed Earth? There is good news. And not just incremental good news but transformational good news, developments that have the potential to mitigate the worst effects of climate change to a degree many had feared impossible. Those who have consigned the world to its doom should reconsider. The technological and political underpinnings are at last in place to actually consummate the first global pact to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. The world is suddenly responding to the climate emergency with — by the standards of its previous behavior — astonishing speed. The game is not over. And the good guys are starting to win.
As we can see, this is all about more and more government.
Oh, and if you aren’t following the Cult of Climastrology, you’re apparently a bad guy.
For human to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting fossil fuel, we will have to use some combination of edict and invention — there is no other plausible way around it.
By edict, he means force of law.
The rest is the normal whines and complaints, especially about Republicans and Skeptics, yet, not once does Chait say “hey, we Cultists should walk our talk.”
Read: Hotcoldwetdry Is As Dangerous As Imperial Japan And Nazi Germany Or Something »
And she totally wants you to hear it from her! In a focus group, very legalistic sort of manner, posted to Facebook
I wanted you to hear this directly from me:
Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.
But, that’s not the problem. The problem is that she used a private email address via an insecure, offsite, unaccountable server to conduct official business, which included sensitive, confidential, and secret material. It was a violation of policy and federal laws.
What’s also a mistake was using devices not approved by State Department IT.
It’s important for you to know a few key facts. My use of a personal email account was aboveboard and allowed under the State Department’s rules. Everyone I communicated with in government was aware of it. And nothing I ever sent or received was marked classified at the time.
Alas, that’s a falsehood, except in terms of her using a personal email account to send her personal email and non-sensitive/classified/confidential contacts. The “everyone: part is about throwing a blame-net out into the waters to snare others in her problems, and could be a veiled threat to, among others, Team Obama that she could drag them in if they don’t play ball with her.
As this process proceeds, I want to be as transparent as possible. That’s why I’ve provided all of my work emails to the government to be released to the public, and why I’ll be testifying in public in front of the Benghazi Committee later next month.
A goodly chunk of what we know has been pulled like stuck teeth via Freedom Of Information requests, usually followed by taking State to court, which, even then, finds State in non-compliance and/or slow walking the release.
Since she also deleted tens of thousands of emails, which she claims are “personal”, then attempted to wipe the server, how do we know she was transparent?
I know this is a complex story. I could have—and should have—done a better job answering questions earlier. I’m grateful for your support, and I’m not taking anything for granted.
“Complex”. In other words, she’s saying it’s too big for you peons to understand why she’s allowed to do all she did in contradiction to federal policy and law, which would have seen you, at a minimum, fired from your job, and mostly likely prosecuted.
Virtually every single poll on the Iran deal here in the U.S. finds it underwater, other than a U of Maryland poll, which seems to be a complete outlier. Quite often, the polls show an erosion of support for the deal, as well
(Pew Research Center) As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion.
In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved and 22% had no opinion. Over the past six weeks, the share approving of the agreement has fallen 12 percentage points (from 33% to 21%), while disapproval has held fairly steady (45% then, 49% now). Somewhat more express no opinion than did so in July (22% then, 30% now).
Even among Democrats, support has declined. In the July poll, support was at 50%. It’s dropped to 42%.
Among Independents, support has eroded from 31% to 20%.
In both cases, some of the loss of support has moved into the “don’t know” category. Much of that could be due to it supposedly disappearing, to a degree, from the news
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 3-7 among 1,004 adults, finds that the contentious debate over the Iran agreement has not resonated widely with the public. In fact, the share saying they have heard either a lot or a little about the agreement has declined from 79% in July to 69% in the new survey. The share saying they have heard “nothing at all†about it has increased nine percentage points, from 21% to 30%.
It hasn’t completely disappeared from the news, but we are getting much less coverage. Hey, did you know this (particularly starting with the red bold I’ve added)?
Fallacious “Snapback” Sanctions. Obama has said that if Iran violates the nuclear deal, all of the sanctions can snap back into place and we will not need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council. The United States, he claims, can trigger these snapback sanctions on its own. But paragraph 37 of the JCPOA makes clear that the provisions of the U.N. Security Council resolutions would be reimposed “unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise,” and it even goes on to insulate established contracts with Iran from whatever snapback sanctions are imposed. Knowing that any contracts entered into with Iran by foreign companies could survive so-called snapback sanctions even when Iran is caught cheating, the Obama administration has sent letters to the governments of China, Germany, France and Britain assuring them that companies doing business with Iran will not be penalized if Iran violates the JCPOA. Senators Mark Kirk and Marco Rubio are demanding that the Obama administration release the contents of these letters – contents that are currently undisclosed – to the American public.
Per the Corker Amendment, no review period nor vote can be held until Congress receives all relevant material. This includes side deals and letters as described above.
Meanwhile, Rep. Louis Gohmert is saying that House leadership is considering holding a vote on the Iran deal on September 11th. A day that saw so much bravery by Americans in the face of Islamic terrorism could see utter cowardice by GOP leadership. They probably do not care, they’re surely looking for a late Friday heading-into-the-weekend vote.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Bishop Hill finds something interesting
Greenpeace are fond of telling us that the planet is going to fry because of our evil addiction to fossil fuels. How then to explain their submission to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which maintains a register of issues and potential problems with the nation’s nuclear waste repositories?
The long-term effects of glaciation on repository safety could be very serious, potentially involving a large release of radionuclides due to glacial flushing from a damaged repository zone. Future glaciations could cause faulting of the rock, rupture of containers and penetration of surface and/or saline waters to the repository depth.
Obviously, this is all do to anthropogenic climate change, which not only makes it planet scalding hot, but, super cold at the same time.
Read: Say, Why Is Greenpeace Worried About Global Cooling? »
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.
