If All You See…

…are trees choking on too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Joe’s Crab Shack learning a valuable lesson in economics.

Read: If All You See… »

Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something

And this still doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible, either

Snowpack In The West Has Resisted Climate Change But That Won’t Last Forever

For the last 35 years, the snowpack in the West’s mountains has resisted the impacts of global warming. But that could soon change, according to a new study out of Oregon State University.

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that although climate change should have caused a steep decrease in snowpack, naturally occurring, decades-long weather variations shielded the Cascades, Sierras and Rockies from some of the effects. Although snow stations have recorded some decline, it hasn’t been statistically significant. But according to the study, without this natural weather variation, snowpack in Oregon could have declined between 18 percent and 54 percent over the last 35 years.

The West has a wet season and a dry season and relies on wintertime snowpack for summertime water, so this could have drastic impacts on the region. Nick Siler, a climate scientist at Oregon State University and an author on the study, says that Oregon could be hit particularly hard when this trend reverses because it tends to snow in Oregon when temperatures are close to freezing, not far below freezing. It wouldn’t take much warming to tip that snow to rain. (snip to end)

“I don’t want to give the impression that we’re predicting an immediate shift into a regime where snowpack is going to become quite scarce. But my strong feeling is that in the last 35 years, the trends that we’ve seen are not a good predictor of the trends we’re likely to see over the next 35,” says Siler. “When exactly these significant declines will appear is impossible to say.”

So, this is looking in a crystal ball, ie, Warmist computer programs, and making a prediction that is in contradiction to what has been observed for 35 years. Which dovetails into another of all things Warmist


new study offers another promising approach, which takes advantage of our desire for internal consistency. It finds that “conservative participants who first acknowledge several general contributions of science subsequently report significantly stronger beliefs in climate science.”

This suggests that having people first recognize the value and importance of science in general makes it harder for them to subsequently dismiss one branch of scientific research.

You get the gist of where they’re going, so, first off, they’ve been running these types of things for well over a decade, once they realized that people were no longer buying what they were selling, that people were opting out of Cult of Climastrology belief. Second, they so often avoid the central question of causation, and reading further in the article, it again avoids it. Hey, I believe in climate change, I just do not believe that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it.

Second, the science itself doesn’t prove that mankind is mostly/solely responsible for it, and studies like the snowpack one do not help prove it. It’s based on something that hasn’t been observed and future-based fear mongering. And, again, even if it does start happening, that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. What the members of the CoC do is simply assume anthropogenic causation without science.

Read: Western Snowpack Refuses To Cooperate With Warmist Prognostication, But It Will Soon Or Something »

Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It

I wonder if the Washington Post Editorial Board, which was super enthused to roll back presidential powers delegated from Congress, will be upset with this ruling

Trump birth control coverage rules blocked nationwide

A federal judge on Monday put a nationwide hold on Trump administration rules that allow more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia agreed with a lawsuit originally filed by Pennsylvania, citing the potential harm to states should the rules be enforced.

Numerous citizens could lose contraceptive coverage, Beetlestone wrote, resulting in the increased use of state-funded contraceptive services, as well as increased costs to state services from unintended pregnancies.

The rules, scheduled to take effect Monday, would change a mandate under 2010’s Affordable Care Act by allowing more employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost contraceptive coverage to women by claiming religious objections. Some private employers could also now object on moral grounds.

The ruling was initially applicable to only the states involved in the lawsuit, but was extended to all. The thing is, as has been noted many times, said ACA, ie, Obamacare, did not offer any guidance at all on contraception, sterilization, nor abortifacients. Go find a copy of the bill, and search for the word contraception or for “birth control”, or anything similar. There is nothing in the text. The rule was made out of thin air using what Team Obama and HHS thought they could get away with. This is exactly what the Washington Post Editorial Board was complaining about.

Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, called the court ruling a “victory for the health and economic independence of women” and the rejection of a Trump administration move to violate a federal law that requires insurers to cover the services.

“Congress hasn’t changed that law, and the president can’t simply ignore it with an illegal rule,” Shapiro said.

There is no law for Congress to change, as, again, it wasn’t in the law. It’s a rule. Out of thin air.

That’s the new North Carolina Attorney General. And, yes, if women want to make all the rules, they should pay for it. It doesn’t have to be this hard, though. If private entities want to offer insurance that includes contraception, they should be free to do so, and if they want to offer plans without, they should be free to do so. Just like they are free to offer dental and eye care plans. To choose this and that. Most, I suspect, will choose plans with contraception. The employees will just pay higher premiums and/or deductibles. Because this ain’t free. Everything added into an insurance plan has a cost.

And those who do not choose to offer should be left alone. That’s their choice. But, Democrats do not like real choice. It is their way or the highway, and their way is about Government force.

Read: Federal Judge Rules That Women Should Control Their Own Contraception And Other People Should Pay For It »

Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms”

You know all the Democrat talking points about not wanting to take away your guns? About that

From the link

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

While short on details, Northam’s announcement said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the “sale, purchase, possession, and transport” of undefined “assault firearms” including “any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

On the bright side, Republicans have a slim margin of control in the Virginia general assembly, so there is a good chance this fails to pass. Unless a few Republicans join Democrats, because the GOP has a one vote majority in the House of Delegates and two votes in the Senate.

What’s interesting is that more and more Democrats are feeling emboldened to show their cards on their “gun control” agenda, which is disarmament of law abiding citizens. The Virginia GOP should announce legislation that restricts Northam’s protective detail to weapons that only hold less than 10 rounds, and no “assault rifles.” Let’s see how he likes that.

Read: Virginia Governor Looks Towards Banning And Confiscation Of “Assault Firearms” »

Oregon Democrats Look To Limit Magazines To Five Rounds, Limit Purchases To 20 Rounds Per Month

Remember, the Democrat talking point on firearms is that they do not want to take away anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights, they just want to make it harder to use a firearm for a crime by bad people and for them to get them. They totally aren’t trying to interfere with the rights of the law abiding. Also, remember when 10 rounds was “safe”?


Legislation submitted in the Democrat-controlled Oregon legislature would fundamentally change the state’s firearm laws, recasting them as the most restrictive in the country.

State Sen. Rob Wagner has submitted SB 501 for the upcoming session. Wagner’s bill would require licensing for gun owners prior to purchase, outlaw firearm magazines capable of holding more than five rounds and limit individual ammunition sales to no more than 20 rounds every 30 days.

Wagner conceded to local media that it was “probably a long shot that something like this passes in whole cloth,” but is proceeding with the measure on behalf of a group of student gun control advocates. A Portland-area Democrat, Wagner was endorsed by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown group who also contributed directly to his campaign last fall.

Besides its restrictions on ammunition and requirements for licensing, SB 501 would also mandate that background checks be delayed for 14-days so that state police can research would-be buyers, fine gun owners who failed to report lost or stolen firearms and require guns be locked up when not in use. There would be no grandfathering of magazines affected by the ban.

As Oregon Rep. Bill Post (R) noted, this would mean that you’d have to turn in a six shot revolver.

Notice that virtually everything would cause hardship to the law abiding gun owners, not criminals. It’s funny that these same gun grabbers never push laws to increase the penalties on the people who uses firearms in commission of a crime, eh?

Democrats have a super-majority in the Oregon general assembly and a Democrat governor, so, this isn’t as far fetched at passing as you might think.

I wonder how they will limit people going to other states to purchase more than 20 rounds? You can bet some enterprising people will set up ammo stores, do not even have to carry firearms, on the borders in Washington, Nevada, and Idaho (California would probably try and block them).

Read: Oregon Democrats Look To Limit Magazines To Five Rounds, Limit Purchases To 20 Rounds Per Month »

If All You See…

…is horrible consumerism which helps drive climate change so things should be run by Government, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Common Cents, with a post on shutdown vacations.

Read: If All You See… »

What We Need To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Is Globalization 4.0 Or Something

It’s essentially a clarion call for government being heavily involved in the private sector. What is that called, again? Whatever it is, the World Economic Forum is super enthused to push it

Globalization 4.0 will help us tackle climate change. Here’s how

Climate change – arguably humanity’s most existential challenge – requires urgent global action.

As the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2019 will show only too clearly, environmental crises – notably a failure to tackle climate change – are among the likeliest and highest-impact risks that the world faces over the next decade. Indeed, 2018 saw record levels of costs due to extreme weather events.

The crisis was given much sharper focus in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming at 1.5°C, published in October 2018, says we have just 12 years to act if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. (snip)

This means we also require leadership on climate change from others. We cannot expect governments alone to fix the climate crisis, given the range of competing issues they have to contend with in today’s complex world. Nor should we. It is now well-recognized that it will take an unprecedented level of collaboration and innovation, involving many outside the public sector, to trigger the big, systemic transitions required in industry, technology and the design of consumer goods and services to keep warming to less than 1.5°C. The good news is that many studies, such as the New Climate Economy and the Energy Transitions Commission, note that these shifts in our economy are not only possible, but will also create jobs and secure better growth for the future.

However, to make this transition happen, a new combination of action is required. This will include, for example, building new forms of alliances within and between the private and public sectors; forging new clubs of like-minded governments, cities, states and provinces; and building new leadership platforms for policy experimentation and public-private action, each targeted to suit different industrial, national and regional agendas. There are many good examples of such significant collaboration already emerging, such as the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders. This group of CEOs, with collective company revenues of more than $1.5 trillion, have already reduced their collective emissions by 9% since 2015 and are committed to do more.

Reading between the lines, you can see how government is meant to become intrinsically involved in how the economy works

Then there is the question of speed. Given that the IPPC suggests we have just 12 years to act, can an adequate amount of different actions be mobilized in time? Again, this is where additional public-private approaches can play an important role. With the rapid technological advances of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we will also be able to harness new means of monitoring, verifying and reporting the progress (or lack thereof) of global, regional and industry actions on climate, potentially through radical new forms of distributed information transparency and real-time disclosures. This will likely have major implications in the coming years on how effective climate action is perceived to be compared to the scale of the challenge, especially among the young. Increased transparency will boost awareness and simply heighten the pressure to act.

And what happens when the private sector does not hit their targets? More government.

To succeed in line with the IPCC guidance, the international community must embrace this new agenda for climate action – focused overall on keeping global warming within 1.5°C, but encouraging multiple different approaches, collaborations and initiatives to support, buttress and accelerate government ambitions to meet, or exceed, the Paris Climate Agreement.

By “must” they mean forced to comply.

Meeting the climate challenge in today’s world can perhaps be viewed as building a global public-private “platform” for action.

Funny how this so-called science always seems to require more and more dominating government.

Read: What We Need To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Is Globalization 4.0 Or Something »

More Democrats Want Action On ‘Climate Change’ Than Impeachment Or Something

Which is actually interesting, as it beats out their unhinged rants for impeachment

Impeachment at Bottom of Voters’ Priorities for New Congress

Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, Democratic leaders have tried to tamp down on efforts among their rank and file to elevate discussion of impeaching the president, but the first day of the 116th Congress illustrated it’s a tough task.

Freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) made headlines that persisted for days after touting her desire to “impeach the motherf—er” in the White House during a Jan. 3 speech to liberal MoveOn.org activists. Those remarks came the same day that two other House Democrats, Brad Sherman of California and Al Green of Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach the president.

A recent Morning Consult/Politico survey — conducted Jan. 4-6 among 1,989 registered voters — underscores why the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have been reticent to discuss the prospect of impeaching Trump: Just 23 percent of voters said beginning impeachment proceedings to remove Trump from office should be a top priority — the lowest on the list of priority topics tested.

It’s rather a weird poll, as respondents were apparently allowed to pick multiple things as priorities, and the article doesn’t include a link to the actual data and questions asked.

So, hooray, ‘climate change’ actually beat something! Among all voters, though, it would be right at the bottom.

And, of course, Democrats want to take out guns, and, weirdly, want health care reform. Wasn’t that what Obamacare was for? Oh, right, now they want government run health care. Gun control is pretty darned low overall, though.

Read: More Democrats Want Action On ‘Climate Change’ Than Impeachment Or Something »

NY Times Seems Upset That The U.S. Isn’t Taking Care Of All The Illegals Not In Detention Centers

See, the same NY Times, as well as most of the other Credentialed Media, has been in level 5 apoplexy over all the migrants/illegals stuck in detention centers, especially the kiddies. Detention centers which provide them food, shelter, clothing, and lots of other things which would be better aimed in going to downtrodden U.S. citizens. But then we have this

As Government Pulls Back, Charities Step In to Help Released Migrants

Migrants who are allowed to remain in the United States to pursue asylum are usually given a choice when they are released from detention in San Diego: Go to the Greyhound bus station and fend for themselves, or try to find a cot and a shower at a local shelter.

One way or another, once the migrants have been dropped off by discreet white Immigration and Customs Enforcement vans in border towns across the Southwest, they are no longer the federal government’s problem.

President Trump has tried and failed to end a practice he derisively calls “catch and release,” and thousands of undocumented migrants apprehended at the border every month are still being granted routine entry to the United States while their cases are processed by immigration courts.

But as the number of migrant families in recent months has overwhelmed the government’s detention facilities, the Trump administration has drastically reduced its efforts to ensure the migrants’ safety after they are released. People working along the border say an ever larger number of families are being released with nowhere to stay, no money, no food and no means of getting to friends and relatives who may be hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Got that? They’re here uninvited, they’re choosing to not stay at detention centers, of which are overloaded by the illegals and migrants the Democrats keep enticing to just show up and know they’ll be protected, and we’re supposed to continue to provide them all sorts of stuff.

Here’s an idea: if the migrants/illegals don’t like this, leave. Go home. Better yet, don’t come. These are essentially people with no skills and no money, who are demanding that the U.S. provide for them.

The story obviously jumps into private entities helping to take care of these people, but even they get overloaded

Their operating costs run between $350,000 and $400,000 a month, largely raised by faith organizations and a GoFundMe account. Still, on days when 100 or more refugees are dropped off, they have little option, because of capacity constraints, other than to turn away families and leave them homeless.

Which means that the cost to the federal government is way, way, way more than that. Money that could be spend on our citizens. These illegals and migrants are not our problem. They show up and cannot even fend for themselves. Put them back across the border. Stop them from crossing.

Read: NY Times Seems Upset That The U.S. Isn’t Taking Care Of All The Illegals Not In Detention Centers »

Washington Governor Jay Inslee Is Rethinking The Carbon Tax Or Something

Jay Inslee may not be a household name, but, as a governor running for the Democratic presidential nominee, and someone who hasn’t shown himself to be an overt raving leftist wackadoodle, he’s someone to watch as a potential front runner. He may not be the Leftist darling that folks like Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and a few others, but he really does have a good shot unless the raving wackjob Dem base decides to nominate raving leftist wackjob. And Inslee is also a massive Warmist.

Now, this story is long. Very long. And worth the full read. But, I’m not going to fisk the whole thing, which is supposedly about Inslee thinking different about a carbon tax after losing several times in what is essentially an uber-Warmist state

Defeated twice, a top climate change crusader has a wake-up call some Democrats won’t want to hear

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington staked the future of his environmental policy on something activists had advocated for decades: a first-of-its-kind statewide fee on carbon pollution.

But in one of the greenest states in the country, in a historic midterm year for Democrats and amid a spate of new reports warning of climate catastrophe, his efforts to put a price on carbon failed badly.

Undaunted, Inslee is looking to carry the lessons learned from a long career of incremental wins and heartbreaking losses on climate policy to the national stage as a possible presidential contender.

“I learned one of the key talents is persistence,” he told NBC News in an interview. “Climate change is not going away, and neither are we.” (snip)

His potential entry into the wide-open 2020 Democratic primary contest with a climate-focused campaign comes amid an intense debate over how to marry environmental sustainability with political sustainability, a question he’s grappled with like few others. He believes the fate of the world depends on getting the answer right.

“That’s what’s at stake here,” Inslee said. “A fundamental continuation of life and civilization as we’ve become accustomed to.”

Dooooooom! He’s not really re-thinking implementing a carbon tax, he’s just rethinking how to push it. Apparently, doom is one way forward. The other is dinking and dunking taxes, building them slowly (he should remember how that has ended up working out in France). And here’s his real message for Democrats

Heading into the presidential campaign, there’s a burst of grassroots energy around the Green New Deal, but it faces competition from similarly ambitious Democratic proposals on health care, education, taxes and more.

Inslee hasn’t ignored those items (he just proposed a new public health care option in his state), but he has a message Democratic voters might not hear from the party’s presidential candidates: If you’re going to tackle climate change, the rest may have to wait.

“When you want college education for your kids, when you want better health care, when you want net neutrality, when you want all of those things, but your house is on fire and it’s burning down, you’ve got to put the fire out first and get your family out of the house,” he said.

“That’s the type of prioritization we have to make if we are going to succeed in rescuing our country from this existential threat,” he added.

Got that? In his world, nothing else matters if we aren’t saved from (checks data) a whopping 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850. How will this message play among Democrats? How about voters overall? Because no matter how hard the Cult of Climastrology pushes, ‘climate change’ is always low hanging fruit.

We’ll see if this catches on with the Dem base once the primaries start. Most likely, though, it will be a big failure with the voters overall, as they realize just how much this push will damage their finances and cost of living and such. It would be a great referendum on the Cult, which is why I’m pushing for Inslee to win the Dem primary. Perhaps we can put a big stake in the heart of the Cult, at least here in the U.S.

Read: Washington Governor Jay Inslee Is Rethinking The Carbon Tax Or Something »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5022 access attempts in the last 7 days.