We Can Totally Solve Climate Change With Humor

Because if there’s one thing the far left is known for, it’s their humor

Handle with humor: why we want you to laugh about climate change
Is the topic of climate change too hot for people to handle? Maybe we need to throw some humor into the mix

…….

It’s naturally hard to see that glimmer of hope behind the giant shroud of depressing facts, so maybe it’s time to make the facts a little less depressing. A fantastic way to do this is with humor (or as some of you call it, “humour”).

By interjecting some ‘funny’ into the climate change debate, we can prove the science true, make fun of its objectors and make it easier to understand at such an imperative time. Because while the battle to save our planet must be won with action, we need to make the topic of climate change more approachable for people to take that action – and humor is a pretty good tool.

25 years of spreading awareness, unhinged Nuttbaggery, derangement, die ins, videos where kids head’s explode, et, and now they want humor?

 photo 0 EYE ROLL - Janeway_zpsz5oioujr.gif

Read: We Can Totally Solve Climate Change With Humor »

Bummer: Humans Will Be Extinct In 100 Years ‘Cause Climate Change

Another unhinged prognostication from the Cult Of Climastrology, in which the climate apocalypse (yes, that phrase is used in the article) is a sure thing

A child born today may live to see humanity’s end, unless…

Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, according to Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, one of the leaders of the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. He blames overcrowding, denuded resources and climate change.

Fenner’s prediction is not a sure bet, but he is correct that there is no way emissions reductions will be enough to save us from our trend toward doom. And there doesn’t seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions, anyway. When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: That’s far too late.

In fact, Mankind is as bad as an ice age or comet strike (from the embedded link)

Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.

If it’s too late, why do anything? We can just act like Cult of Climastrology members, who refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels and have huge carbon footprints.

Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”

Not mentioned is that the collapse and disappearance occurred during the Little Ice Age. Humanity doesn’t do all that well during Holocene cool periods, while it thrives during warm periods. Back to the original source

And no possible treaty that emerges from the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for November’s United Nations climate conference in Paris, will be sufficient. At this point, lowering emissions is just half the story — the easy half. The harder half will be an aggressive effort to find the technologies needed to reverse the climate apocalypse that has already begun.

Hmm, so, more Big Government dominance and control, implementation of draconian rules, regulations, and laws to reign in emissions. As to the second part, that would be fine. Why not do that prior to blowing up the entire economy of the world?

For years now, we have heard that we are at a tipping point. Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth that immediate action was required if we were to prevent global warming. In 2007, Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to the British government, declared, “Avoiding dangerous climate change is impossible – dangerous climate change is already here. The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?” In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures. Only two conclusions can be drawn: Either these old warnings were alarmist, or we are already in far bigger trouble than the U.N. claims. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case.

Except for the pesky Pause thingy. Darned nature keeps getting in the way of the Narrative.

Read: Bummer: Humans Will Be Extinct In 100 Years ‘Cause Climate Change »

Why Is Charleston Shooter Called Mentally Deranged, Rather Than Thug Or Terrorist?

It’s an interesting question, as discussed in the USA Today

One hundred and forty characters isn’t nearly enough to unravel the politics of mass violence, to expound on America’s history of institutionalized racism, or to dissect the inconsistencies perceived in the way we talk about both.

But it’s more than enough to make us pause. It’s more than enough for a collective vent. And after Dylann Roof, who is white, allegedly opened fire Wednesday in a South Carolina church and killed nine black people, Twitter users exploded over what they saw as disparities in attitude and language the news media use to categorize violence.

The thesis of many was clear: White privilege persists, even in the coverage of heinous crimes. Users lamented that when a suspect is black, they’re often labeled a “thug” or a “gangster.” When they’re Muslim, they’re stamped a “terrorist.” When they’re white. they’re afforded the far more benign pathology of “troubled” or “mentally ill.”

The article provides many instances of people questioning the meme, starting with

There are more than enough outlets and pundits which quickly branded Roof as mentally ill and/or a troubled loner. In reality, it depends on the situation. Quite a few of the Blacks who have been in the news as of late were thugs, living the thug life. Many have had long criminal histories. Context matters. Labels matter. If a middle class Black person kills someone, which happens, it just doesn’t make national news, he/she won’t be labeled a thug. What we can say is that roof is a big time racist, a conspiracy theorist, and, yes, this was terrorism, as this was a violent episode meant for political purposes.

That said, we should note two points: first, virtually every time an Islamist, the hardcore type of Muslim, is engaged in a terroristic act, they are quickly dubbed lone wolf or wolves, and we are told that this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. In fact, the person(s) isn’t really practicing Islam!!!!!!! Even when they tell us they did this for their faith.

Second, why is that the entire White race is blamed, and all Whites have to check their privilege, when something like this happens? But we aren’t allowed to Blame Islam, and to even mention that the Islamists are a part of Islam is verboten. Nor are we allowed to Blame Black culture in any measure.

But, it is seemingly perfectly acceptable to blame all Whites for the criminal acts of one person/group. Oh, hey, wouldn’t that mean all Democrats are virulent racists, then?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Why Is Charleston Shooter Called Mentally Deranged, Rather Than Thug Or Terrorist? »

The Royal Society Of Climastrology: The Pause Would Have To Last 50 Years For Us To Maybe Believe We Are Wrong

No, really (via Watts Up With That?)

(Breitbart) Attending a speech on climate change in the House of Lords, the Welsh Tory MP spoke about on his surreal experience meeting two men from the Royal Society whom he said had been sent to persuade him and fellow climate realists Peter Lilley MP and John Redwood MP to embrace the idea of man-made climate change. He said that representatives from the Society – often lauded as the most eminent grouping of scientists, founded in the 1600s – told him that they would not change their mind for at least fifty years, regardless of the evidence. (snip)

Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked:

“They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy.

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.

“Effectively, we’re all going to be dead before the Royal Society admits they’ve got their facts wrong. There could be absolutely no warming every year for the next fifty years, and the Royal Society would still maintain that climate change is a major problem”.

Of course, even if the Pause lasted another 50 years, Warmists would still find all sorts of intricate excuses. If the world entered another Holocene cool period, the Cult of Climastrology would blame that on Mankind. Why? Again, this whole movement has nothing to do with science, it is about pushing a far left Progressive (nice fascist) agenda, which would include greater and greater control of people, private entities, and economies.

Read: The Royal Society Of Climastrology: The Pause Would Have To Last 50 Years For Us To Maybe Believe We Are Wrong »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled machine that has driven through a flooded muddy area, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on gluten free zones.

Read: If All You See… »

What Are The 5 Most Important Things From Pope’s Climate Change Hysteria?

Obviously, Time Magazine, and writer Christopher J. Hale, a member in good standing with the Cult of Climastrology, don’t see this as hysteria, but super awesome. I covered this a bit in previous posts, but, it bears repeating (especially the part about Warmists, who are mostly Leftists, failing to listen to the Pope on most other things, especially abortion)

The 5 Most Important Points of Pope Francis’s Climate Change Encyclical

(skipping straight to those points)

1. Climate change is real, and it’s getting worse. Though some politicians in the U.S. still argue about the reality of the climate change, Pope Francis doesn’t mince words: “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day,” he says.

Of course, there has been a long pause in statistically significant warming. Some data even shows a slight decrease in temps. And, as a challenge, this is no different than any of the other Holocene warm and cool periods. Hint: Mankind has tended to do better during warm periods than cool ones.

2. Human beings are a major contributor to climate change.

Yet, the Pope isn’t giving up his own fossil fueled travel, and hasn’t recommended that Vatican City go completely “carbon neutral”. Weird, eh?

3. Climate change disproportionately affects the poor.

Um, pretty much most things disproportionately affect the poor. Know what would help them? Affordable energy. Stop using food as fuel. Stop pissing away money on idiotic “climate change” initiatives, which line the pockets of rich Warmists.

4. We can and must make things better. Some of those who study climate change believe this process to be irreversible, too far gone. But Francis—whose first major letter was entitled Joy of the Gospel—says he doesn’t believe we should be robbed of hope. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start”

Which is interesting, because the policies of the Cult of Climastrology will institute governmental dominance over citizens, decrease liberty, and make things worse.

5. Individuals can help, but politicians must lead the charge. Francis argues that personal responsibility is an important step toward reversing climate change, but that political and structural transformations are needed for lasting change. “Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies.”

And there it is, the call for more Government. That’s what this is all about. Bigger and bigger government with more control over people, private entities, and economies. While minimizing the need for Warmists, including himself, to act on their beliefs within their own lives.

Read: What Are The 5 Most Important Things From Pope’s Climate Change Hysteria? »

Hillary Decides That Being Places As Secretary Of State Is Reason To Be President

As Carly Fiorina noted about Hillary, traveling is an activity

“Like Mrs. Clinton I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles but flying and traveling is an activity, it’s not an accomplishment and unfortunately she didn’t accomplish anything as Secretary of State,” Fiorina said

Now Team Hillary is recalibrating, and has decided that Being Places is an accomplishment

(The Hill) Hillary Clinton has started to formulate a strategy on one of the thorniest issues she will face on the campaign trail: her tenure as President Obama’s secretary of State.

Republicans have ripped Clinton’s reign as the country’s top diplomat, and the 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner hasn’t yet responded directly to those salvos.

She is less inclined to focus on any specific achievement than to weave her time at Foggy Bottom into a larger narrative about her experience and toughness.

“I’ve stood up to adversaries like [Russia President Vladimir] Putin and reinforced allies like Israel,” she said in her speech on Saturday at Roosevelt Island in New York City. “I was in the Situation Room on the day we got [Osama] bin Laden.”

Yes, the “reset” button worked well. And it’s not like Russia invaded another nation or something and is pushing for more.

Relations with Israel are rock bottom.

And, hooray, she was in a room watching video! By that measure, anyone watching their team win a championship on TV can count that as an achievement.

But, hey, what else is Hillary to do? Her time at State was pretty much a disaster. While there are a few bright spots, the Middle East is even more of a disaster, what with ignoring the Iranian Green Revolution, the Arab Spring, backing Assad, how Egypt was handled, and the Libyan disaster, along with Benghazi. China is bullying the US, Canada is annoyed by the the failure to approve Keystone XL, and relations with our traditional allies are poor. Let’s not forget about the massive cluster you-know-what over the Polish missile shield.

To be sure, Clinton is not citing her time at the State Department as a primary reason why people should vote for her as president. Her rhetoric so far has been focused on domestic issues, such as income inequality and the need to check corporate power, as well as appeals to crucial Democratic voting blocs, including Hispanics, blacks and the LGBT community.

Well, of course, what else can she do? Her time at State was poor, and she did virtually nothing as a Senator. What can she point to as a big success? If she was a success, there would be no need to formulate a strategy. Even Hillary couldn’t name her top accomplishments as Secretary of State.

Read: Hillary Decides That Being Places As Secretary Of State Is Reason To Be President »

Enviros Fight Against Green Energy

Pope Francis released his encyclical today regarding “climate change”, which calls for more “green” energy, which has members of the Cult of Climastrology squeeing in support (no word on whether Leftists will also follow the Pope’s pronouncements on abortion). Hardcore enviros and Warmists have long been pushing for the immediate end of the use of fossil fuels (while refusing to give up their own use), and using only alternative energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrothermal. Yet, as we see often, they like these energy alternatives in theory, not practice

(Fox News) One might expect environmentalists to fight a new power plant, but a new battle being waged by California green groups against a solar facility shows there may be something new under the sun, after all.

A solar-powered plant proposed by industrial giant Bechtel on federal Bureau of Land Management property in the Mojave Desert could supply up to 170,000 homes in Los Angeles with electricity from the sun, but it also would make life difficult for about 100 Bighorn Sheep and other critters, according to the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council. Their concerns have convinced the city not to buy electricity from the 350-megawatt Soda Mountain project.

“The City of Los Angeles spoke with one voice and rejected buying power from the ecologically damaging Soda Mountain Solar project,” the Sierra Club said in a statement. “Given the Bureau of Land Management’s recent decision to approve the project, this leadership from Los Angeles is well-timed and makes a powerful statement.”

BLM had even scaled the project back, to the point where it would have only provided (unreliable) energy for just 79,000 homes, and the project was still rejected.

Environmentalists want the sheep to be able to cross the nearby I-15 highway so they can breed with other herds and avoid becoming inbred. They claim that even the limited solar installation might get in the sheep’s way because it would be built near existing highway underpasses. Local environmentalists acknowledge that the sheep do not currently use the underpasses, but say they might in the future.

Personally, I’d be against the solar farm because it’s an eyesore and takes up huge tracts of land. I think the push should be for more small scale projects aimed more at single homes and buildings, but the far left Enviros and Warmists have been pushing these big projects. Until they are actually ready to be built.

“Since solar energy — like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and every form of energy — involves development, this is no surprise,” Epstein told FoxNews.com. “The green movement is not about creating better forms of energy, it is about minimizing development.”

All the people against the solar plant, including the LA city council, should have to deal with a reduced amount of power for themselves. But, don’t think this is the only recent project being protested

(UK Guardian) Construction of a massive hydroelectric dam is endangering the livelihoods of at least 2,000 families in Brazil’s Amazon jungle state of Para, according to federal prosecutors who recommend that efforts to move the residents be suspended.

The federal prosecutors’ office said in a statement Monday that the Norte Energia consortium that is building the $11bn Belo Monte dam on the Xingu River has violated 55 previously agreed-to items to guarantee indigenous groups, farmers and fishermen their means of survival.

Well, those are certainly legitimate reasons to suspend construction. Of course

The dam, the government has said, was designed to minimize environmental damage.

But environmentalists and indigenous groups say it would devastate wildlife and their livelihoods.

Again, that’s a good point. However, building energy plants is never clean, even “green” energy plants. What, exactly, did the Enviroweenies and Warmists think would happen? That a pristine and perfect plant would appear? They’re all for this type of energy, but mostly only in theory.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Enviros Fight Against Green Energy »

Salon: Say, All These Democrat Policies Created Black Ghettos

Salon is running an interesting article from the far left Washington Spectator, as written by Richard Rothstein, which does a pretty good job in Blaming Democrats for the current state of Black cities and neighborhoods, saying that the policies led to the current riots. Let’s discuss this, so Eric Holder doesn’t think we are all cowards on race.

America’s big race lie: How big banks and racist policies helped shape segregation, police brutality

A pattern has emerged—in Oakland, New York, Cleveland, Baltimore, the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, and beyond. Police claiming to feel threatened kill unarmed black men. Protests follow, sometimes including violence. The Department of Justice finds a pattern and practice of racially-biased policing. The city agrees to train officers not to use excessive force, encourage sensitivity, prohibit racial profiling. These reforms are all necessary and important, but ignore an obvious reality that the protests are not really (or primarily) about policing.

In racially isolated neighborhoods where jobs are few and transportation to job-rich areas is absent, where poverty rates are high and educational levels are low, where petty misbehavior and more serious crime abound, young men and cops develop the worst expectations of each other, leading to predictable confrontations.

Interesting. That last paragraphs looks much like what one would read at sites like American Renaissance and Stuff Black People Don’t Like, among others, which are termed “White Nationalists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It describes just how bad it is in Black neighborhoods

In 1968, following more than 100 urban riots nationwide, almost all in response to police brutality or killing by police, a presidential commission concluded that “[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal” and that “[s]egregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans.” The Kerner Commission added that “[w]hat white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”

“White society” was a euphemism. It was government—federal, state, local—whose explicitly racial laws, policies, and regulations ensured that black Americans would live separately. St. Louis and Baltimore, the bookmarks of our recent incidents, illustrate this.

There’s no arguing that early policies attempted to create separate neighborhoods, both by government ordinance and homeowner association rules. All of which ended up being shot down by courts. Say, who was very much behind these?

Faced with post-war housing shortages, President Harry Truman proposed expanding public housing. Conservative Republicans, rejecting government participation in private markets, introduced a “poison pill” amendment requiring that public housing be integrated. They knew that if the amendment passed, Southern Democrats would oppose any public housing, defeating the program. Northern liberal Democrats like Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota campaigned against the integration amendment, uniting with their Southern colleagues to defeat it, and the 1949 Housing Act funded segregated housing.

It’s cute how the article attempts to blame Republicans for the segregation policies of Democrats, don’t you think? I’d recommend reading the rest of the article up to the ending

We don’t have what is commonly termed “de facto” segregation—primarily resulting from private prejudice, income differences, preferences to live separately, or demographic trends. Our segregation is “de jure,” resulting mostly from racially explicit public policies designed to create residential patterns we too easily accept as natural or accidental. These policies were blatant violations of constitutional guarantees that have never been remedied. Without remedy—desegregation, in short—we are sure to see more Fergusons, and Baltimores, and Clevelands, and vainly hope to avoid them by teaching police to be gentler.

Interesting. Of course, this ignores multiple points. In many of the majority-minority cities, the Black residents are very upset when Whites and others move into their neighborhoods and rejuvenate them. In Detroit, they are very upset that young urban whites have been moving into the downtown area, cleaning it up, replacing light bulbs in the street lights, reducing crime, creating social and economic capital, and making a great place to live. This has the innocuous name “gentrification”. Because it is apparently a bad thing to make property valuable.

Segregation policies are illegal both under the law and by court decision. Far left Social Justice Warriors, such as Salon and Richard Rothstein, have to dig deep to continue their racists narrative. However, to paraphrase the “White Nationalists”, why is it that the Blacks moved into neighborhoods, both of their own/government creation and those abandoned due to white flight, and failed to create/continue vibrant communities? Why did crime rise exponentially, education crash, economic activity crash, social capital crash? Why do we see these terrible conditions within the cities named, and not named? Why has the family collapsed in Black communities? Why is being poor the norm? Why do companies not want to invest in these dangerous communities? Why can’t these Black neighborhoods succeed? Many of these “White Nationalists” say it is simply “Blacks reverting to the mean”. Republicans will say that it is liberalism. But, many mostly white very liberal cities succeed, such as Portland and San Francisco.

Perhaps we can conclude that liberalism fails Blacks, putting them in poor conditions, with little chance to escape. Whatever the cause, Blacks are certainly much, much worse under Democrat policies, both when they were creating segregation by policy/law and now, when they simply leave Blacks in misery.

Read: Salon: Say, All These Democrat Policies Created Black Ghettos »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Powers That Be, with a post on the always awesome climate change hack Bill Nye.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove