…is a lake that will flood and dry out from too much CO2, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on gentle giant Michael Brown supposedly having a juvenile arrest record.
Bonus photo. I grabbed the small version, rather than the big version.
Read: If All You See… »
What is a Malala moment? We’ll see in a moment
(Think Progress) The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
Organizers hope to find someone who can capture the hearts and minds of people around the world as much as Malala Yousafzai, a Pakastani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban and has since become an advocate for women’s rights to education, did when she addressed the UN in July 2013. But as the BBC notes, the choice to include only women in the candidate pool could create some controversy. Susan Alzner, who works at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and is the main person in charge of the search, told the BBC that the decision stems from the fact that women are often the ones who suffer the most from climate change impacts.
There’s one whopping hell of a difference between Malal and these Warmist nutjobs, and to even compare the situations is the height of irresponsibility, much less being just bat guano insane. But, then, Progressives have never been shy about hijacking legitimate issues for their nefarious political purposes.
Trackback URL
Visiting any hardcore enviro/climate change groups is almost like attending a Redheads Of Alaska meeting. The white is blinding
Roughly 50 environmentalists of various racial backgrounds — African American, Native American, Latina, and Caribbean — gathered at the National Press Club yesterday with a message for mainstream green institutions: If you are serious about diversity, then put your money where your mouth is or suffer the consequences later.
The newly launched Diverse Environmental Leaders National Speakers Bureau, or “DEL,†convened yesterday on the 98th birthday of the National Park Service to convey chiefly two things: That environmentalists of color are plentiful and available as employees and leaders, and that environmental groups and government agencies have no legitimate excuses for having predominantly white workforces.
Let’s face it, the enviro groups are racists. That’s what any Conservative group/company would be portrayed, would they not? There would be lots of KKK comparisons being thrown out.
BTW, it’s not just the workforces, but the leadership, as well. And the high poobahs, like Michael Moore, Al Gore, et all.
Danielle Deane of The Raben Group, who spoke on behalf of the Green 2.0 working group, pointed to anecdotes published in the report from philanthropists and board members saying they can’t locate qualified candidates of color. Plenty of data exists on the supply of talent, she said, but foundations and executives “still think the supply is the challenge.â€
“To make a serious dent in this diversity challenge, it will take us raising our voices to make them demand our talent,†Deane said.
I actually have a better idea, in all seriousness: start your own environmental/climate change group/company to compete.
Still, I’m going to brand the modern enviro/climate change movement as racist. They have to prove they aren’t.
Read: Enviros Wonder Why “Green” Groups Are So Darned Lilly White »
Yesterday we learned that the EU is planning on some major controls of small appliances, like hair dryers, smartphones, and electric kettles, to go with their controls on large appliances. Obama doesn’t like to be outdone
(The Hill) The Obama administration is working on new efficiency standards for seemingly every appliance but the kitchen sink.
Spurred by President Obama’s climate action plan, the Department of Energy is pumping out new standards for refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioners, ceiling fans, furnaces, boilers, water heaters, lamps and many more appliances.
The administration says the standards will not only help the planet but also stimulate the economy by saving consumers money on their energy bills that they can spend elsewhere.
But industry groups argue the standards, which will apply to both commercial and household appliances, could slow the economy, and that the Energy Department is rushing the new rules while overestimating the savings. Other critics argue the push to regulate household appliances is evidence of a nanny state. (snip)
The rules will affect nearly every household in the country.
“We all have a microwave or a refrigerator or a dishwasher, so these rules do affect basically every American household,†said Sofie Miller, a researcher at The George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.
While the rules may save a bit of energy (and there is nothing wrong with that, though it should be the consumer choice, not Government Mandate), it will also drive up the cost of the appliances/devices, which will harm the lower and middle classes.
Green groups and the Energy Department acknowledge the standards will lead to more expensive appliances but say consumers will save money in the long run on their energy bills.
“This can be a nice opportunity to save consumers money,†said Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the DOE.
Only In Liberal World do we save money after having our costs jacked up.
Read: Semi-Retired President To Push Major “Green” Standards Changes For Appliances »
Only in Obama World
(The Blaze) President Barack Obama said at a Democratic National Committee event Friday night that things are safer today than they were in the previous three decades.
“[I] promise you things are much less dangerous now than they were 20 years ago, 25 years ago or 30 years ago,†Obama said after referencing challenges posed by the Islamic State terror group, the Ukrainian crisis and China’s advancing economy.
The president’s remarks came just hours after U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron warned that his county is facing the “greatest terrorist threat†in history and as U.S. officials say there has been a “significant increase†in jihadi chatter leading up to the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Obama, however, said that the “truth of the matter†is that the “world has always been messy.â€
“[W]e’re just noticing now because of social media … intimate detail the hardships that people are going through.â€
In fact, it was a promise that we’re just so darned safe.
There’s vast concern about jihad is, including ISIS, coming across the southern border. Multiple Obama administration officials have stated how dangerous the are. There are conflicts occurring around the world. China is testing the US. Russia is in resurgence, and is looking swallow Ukraine. Our semi-retired president lives in a fantasy world.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is not particularly impressed by Obama’s minimizing rhetoric and lack of planning, and wonders why he says one thing and lots of people in his administration say the opposite.
And his weekly address? It’s on the minimum wage, pushing the same populist notions.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Read: Semi-Retired President At Fundraiser: Things Are Pretty Darned Peaceful »
You will comply (via Junk Science)
(UK Telegraph) Â Â The European Union is considering pulling the plug on high-wattage hair dryers, lawn mowers and electric kettles in a follow up to its controversial ban on powerful vacuum cleaners.
The power of hairdryers could be reduced by as much as 30 per cent in order to be more eco-friendly, a draft study commissioned by Brussels suggests, threatening many of the models favoured by hairdressers and consumers for speedy blow-dries.
New proposals are expected next spring to outlaw dozens of household electrical devices that European officials regard as using too much electricity, as part of plans to meet EU targets on energy efficiency.
Current EU legislation covers televisions, washing machines, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners but not most smaller electrical appliances.
A study ordered by the European Commission, currently in draft form, has identified up to 30 electrical appliances including lawn mowers, smart phones and kettles that could be covered by the EU’s Ecodesign directive outlawing high-wattage devices.
Günther Oettinger, the German EU energy commissioner, said that legislation preventing consumers from buying high-wattage appliances was necessary to fight climate change.
“We haven’t got round to these devices yet, we want curb power consumption,” he told Bild newspaper. “All EU countries agree that energy efficiency is the most effective method to reduce energy consumption and dependence on imports and to improve the climate. Therefore there needs to be mandatory consumption limits for small electrical appliances.”
It’s almost like Government wants to control your life. For “your own good,” of course.
 The draft EC-commissioned study says hairdryers’ power input range from 900 watts to as much as 2,300 watts.
It admits that “of course, more powerful dryers may dry hair in a shorter time†but says there is “improvement potential†to cut hair dryers’ energy consumption by 30 per cent. This is based on a German scheme which awards energy efficiency labels to products which “achieve power savings of at least 30 per cent compared to standard appliancesâ€.
Hey, what’s a little inconvenience? We’re saving Gaia from having a fever!
Can you guess what happened with the other large appliances, especially vacuum cleaners? That’s right, there was a rush on purchasing them ahead of the Progressive Action Control measures.
Read: EU Looking To Ban Some Hair Dryers, Smartphones, And Kettles »
Trackback URL
…is a wonderful lake drying up because all the glaciers are gone because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on a jerk trying to kill a kid’s lemonade stand.
Read: If All You See… »
What’s terrifying is the hysteria, doom-saying, hyperbole, and how easily Progressives buy into this idiocy
The U.N.’s latest report on climate change is terrifying
Yep, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are through the roof, and that climate change is already happening in a big, bad way, and that it’s only getting worse. But did you see the news stories about the latest draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? They are positively horrifying! We are royally f#!@%$#cked, everybody. The key word that the report uses to describe our plight: irreversible.
From The New York Times:
The world may already be nearing a temperature at which the loss of the vast ice sheet covering Greenland would become inevitable, the report said. The actual melting would then take centuries, but it would be unstoppable and could result in a sea level rise of 23 feet, with additional increases from other sources like melting Antarctic ice, potentially flooding the world’s major cities.
The IPCC — a team of scientists and other experts appointed by the United Nations to periodically review the latest research on climate science — has been rolling out its fifth assessment report in four installments, and this draft is the latest.
While it restates many things included in earlier reports, this time it uses stronger words in hopes that you and I and everyone else will actually freak out the way we should given the circumstances. Grueling heat waves, droughts, floods, and all kinds of extreme weather are likely to continue and intensify. And the IPCC is trying to get the world to do something about it.
Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Strangely, the same people at the UN, and Warmists themselves, refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. It’s almost like this is some sort of political movement, rather than anything scientific. Now they are going to attempt to use even more scary crystal ball prognostications, like a 23 foot sea rise (snicker), to gin up more funding and laws to implement Control by Government.
Read: The Latest UN IPCC Report Is Terrifying Or Something »
The Washington Post Editorial Board continues abdicating their role as a news organization to push advocacy, as they have done all week
A climate for change: The U.S. can help drive a new round of global carbon cuts
PROBABLY THE most persuasive argument against U.S. action on global warming is China. No U.S.-only initiative can stop the planet from warming. Any effective response to climate change will require broad, international effort.
Au contraire: this is the most persuasive argument
Then throw in the hard, scientific fact that 95% of climate models have failed. Add in the notion that most Warmists, including the Washington Post, refuse to change their own lives, especially in terms of continuing to use vast amounts of fossil fuels. Then look at what all their prescriptions for “fixing” the climate are, and we realize this is all simply a political issue, not scientific.
All true. But such coordination is not as out of reach as many believe. It is quite possible — if the United States does its part.
The European Union has been shrinking its carbon footprint for years, proof that the United States will not be cutting emissions alone. A 2013 study of 33 major nations found a broad move toward environmental protection in places such as Japan, Mexico and South Korea. Developed nations alone can have a noticeable effect: A Council of Economic Advisers study last month noted that the climate-change response will be a lot less expensive if developed countries start now and others catch up than if no one starts now.
Interestingly, many of the nations, especially in Europe, are abandoning much of their “climate change” mitigation practices, as they kill their economies, drive up unemployment, and create unintended consequences, like citizens freezing their buns off in the dark during the harsh winters 5 of the last 6 years, as the carbon permits for energy companies require them to cut back on energy. This also means that there has been a huge resurgence in using wood fired heating methods, so more trees are being cut down.
The world will not give up fossil fuels tomorrow — or many years from tomorrow. The transition scientists recommend will be slow, and the world may have to adapt to risks it did not have enough sense to avoid. But pointing out the difficulty of the problem is not a strategy. It is an excuse to shrink from one of history’s greatest challenges.
What is an excuse is the utter failure of Warmists so-called science. There’s no need to destroy economies, control citizen’s lives, control economies and companies, nor spend tons of money for a mostly fake issue.
Read: WP: US Should Ignore China In Pushing New Climate Control Methods »
An interesting catch by the Washington Post, which is probably trying to put out the fire surrounding this issue several months ahead of the election
In Washington, Sen. Mary Landrieu lives in a stately, $2.5 million brick manse she and her husband built on Capitol Hill.
Here in Louisiana, however, the Democrat does not have a home of her own. She is registered to vote at a large bungalow in New Orleans that her parents have lived in for many decades, according to a Washington Post review of Landrieu’s federal financial disclosures and local property and voting records.
On a statement of candidacy Landrieu filed with the Federal Election Commission in January, she listed her Capitol Hill home as her address. But when qualifying for the ballot in Louisiana last week, she listed the family’s raised-basement home here on South Prieur Street.
The New Orleans house, which Landrieu claims as her primary residence, is a new flash point in one of the most closely contested Senate races in the country. Republicans are considering taking legal action to question Landrieu’s residency in the state, arguing that since winning her seat in 1996 she has become a creature of Washington.
Essentially, she primarily lives in Washington, D.C. She and her husband own two undeveloped parcels of land in Louisiana. According to the Landrieu campaign, she and her husband pay income tax in Louisiana. Perhaps she should pony up her actual tax forms. Also, let’s see her driver’s license. Is it La. or D.C.?
But, you know what? I’m not going to beat her up over this
In the Senate, Landrieu has advocated for the District on various issues and has talked publicly about life in Washington. In a 2012 appearance, she said Capitol Hill was “such a special neighborhood.â€
“I really can appreciate the life that we live on the Hill,â€â€‚Landrieu told neighbors gathered at Hill Center D.C. “Of course, I still have a residence in Louisiana, but we’ve raised our kids here.â€
Entirely too many federally elected lawmakers mostly live in the D.C. area, spending entirely too much time there, rather than in their home states/Districts. They are entirely too beholden to their Parties and federal politics.
Landrieu is a symptom of the system. Senators on both sides of the aisle have played this game. This is a result of the 17th Amendment, which allows for direct citizen voting for US Senators, rather than the original manner, where the State legislatures would elect the Senators that would represent their State. Under the original method, this meant that Senators, regardless of Party, would do their best to represent their state 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Because if they didn’t, they would only be there for one term.
This further meant that citizens paid quite a bit more attention to their home state politics. Sadly, people now look at federal politics entirely too much. Most political bloggers, including myself, tend to focus on the Big Issues, rather than our local and state politics. I couldn’t name my North Carolina, Wake County, nor Raleigh elected officials for my district without looking them up.
If you want to reduce polarization by Party, repeal the 17th Amendment. It would mean the difference of a Senator being for their state, rather than from their state. The United States was never intended to be a pure democracy, but a representative republic. Senators represented their States and the pure needs of the states. They were essentially “ambassadors” to the federal government. Consider the name: State. What is a president called? Chief of State. That’s because nations were often referred to as states. You might have heard the terms “sovereign state” and “nation state”. The original US state were mostly larger, or as large, as most Old European nations.
(The Campaign To Restore Federalism) The “winner take all†mentality and the resulting bitterness that grips partisan Washington today is one direct result of the 17th Amendment. Interest groups understand that to impose one’s will on 300,000,000 Americans, one must influence one president, the selection of 5 supreme court justices, 51 (or 60) senators, and 218 representatives, a total of 275 individuals who live primarily in physical isolation, far away from those they govern. This makes the stakes extremely high. A tremendous amount of money is raised and spent on influencing 275 individuals in Washington. Repealing the 17th Amendment would devolve power away from the national government and drastically reduce the influence of interest groups. Under the original design, change at the national level required that the majorities of all the state legislatures – made up of thousands of representatives – be taken into account. The framers understood that moderate, temperate government is brought about by a multitude of competing interests. Repealing the 17th takes a major step toward restoring this balance.
I would highly recommend reading the entire article. Unfortunately, as Cato noted back in 2010, it is a pipe dream. Too much vested interest, too many people beholden to the Federal government.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
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.