New Prognostication: London To Be As Warm As Barcelona In 30 Years

Another day, another prognostication of Doom

By 2050, London’s climate will be as warm as Barcelona’s, says new study

In 2050, London’s climate will feel more like Barcelona’s, according to a new climate change study.

If this sounds like a pleasant warming — think again. London could be facing severe drought, as Barcelona did in 2008, when it nearly ran out of drinking water and reservoirs ran close to dry.

Hundreds of other major cities worldwide could be facing droughts, flooding, storms, and other climate catastrophes, said the study, which was conducted by the Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich university.

Some of these climate effects aren’t even known or predictable yet — a fifth of cities, including Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, and Singapore, are facing conditions so extreme they don’t currently exist anywhere in the world, according to the study.

The study predicted the future climate conditions of 520 major cities worldwide, and pairedthose predictions with the conditions of cities today. By 2050, Madrid will feel more like Marrakesh, Seattle will feel like San Francisco, and New York will feel like Virginia Beach, according to the report.

OK, so focusing on London, they claim that the average temperature will be up by 2.1C, which is 3.8F, despite global temperatures only having gone up 1.5F since 1850.

But, if we look at the graphs, Barcelona is anywhere from 8F to 13F higher daily by month for highs than London. So, they’re saying that it’s going to average 84F in July by 2050. Good luck with that.

Read: New Prognostication: London To Be As Warm As Barcelona In 30 Years »

If All You See…

…are wonderful wind turbines which are fantastic when they are far away from the cities, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on a California imam praying for the extermination of Jews.

Read: If All You See… »

Democrat To Sue AOC Over Blocking Him On Twitter

This comes in the wake of a judge twisting like a tornado to determine that Trump and any government official cannot block people on social media

AOC to be sued after court rules Trump can’t block people on Twitter

After a federal court ruled Donald Trump could not constitutionally block people on Twitter, Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was threatened with a lawsuit for allegedly doing the same.

The court found Mr Trump’s blocking infringed on first amendment rights to free speech and that people had a right to see his posts, reply to his tweets, and send him messages.

The second circuit court of appeals stated that because Mr Trump uses a non-private Twitter account to communicate with the public about his administration and its policies, blocking violated a constitutional free speech protection as it was deemed government discrimination against specific viewpoints.

The court affirmed the designation of Mr Trump’s Twitter account as a “public forum”.

Former Democratic New York assemblyman Dov Hikind, then announced plans to Ms Ocasio-Cortez. Mr Hikind, who has been blocked by the freshman representative on Twitter, told Fox News he was exploring where he would be filing his suit and if there would be any other plaintiffs.

In an email to Fox News, Mr Hikind stated: “Most likely we will be [the] only plaintiff, but [we will be] citing other examples.”

He added: “The claim is [the] same as [the] one against Trump. She uses that account for political/policy commentary, so to shut a citizen off from her statements is a problem – as well as blocking me from petitioning her or seeking redress.”

Well, it seems that someone else is also suing

Gabriel Malor argues that it was a really bad decision, because Trump isn’t actually in control of Twitter, but, now all the Democrats in the Resistance who fought to sue Trump over this will now find themselves recipients of the same treatment. And, I wonder, would this decision extend to those who are paid by the government, such as all the “climate” scientists like Michael Mann who like to block people?

Read: Democrat To Sue AOC Over Blocking Him On Twitter »

HotCold Take: We Need A Green New Deal To Defeat Fascism

I think they mean that they need a GND to get fascism, but, you know, projection by the Cult of Climastrology over at Truthout

We Need a Green New Deal to Defeat Fascism and Reverse Inequality

In the debate about what strategy to adopt to combat climate change, the Green New Deal has quickly become the new buzzword on the left. Is it an insufficient social-democratic response to the present crisis, or is it, in fact, the only realistic project we have to save the planet? Robert Pollin, distinguished professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is a leading proponent of a green future and he shared his vision of the Green New Deal in the interview below, which appeared originally in Swedish in the left paper Flamman.

Jonas Elvander: You are one of the most well-known scientific spokespersons for a so-called “Green New Deal.” Can you explain what that means?

(Pollin spends a lot of time explaining, including the parts where Government is running things, banning things, controlling things)

Your proposal does not only not question growth as such, but it also does not question the capitalist version of growth. Do you therefore think it is fair to characterize the GND as a social-democratic or Keynesian alternative to Marxist or other anti-capitalist climate strategies? Or are these distinctions irrelevant?

I don’t agree with your characterization of my position. As I said above, I certainly do not advocate economic growth for its own sake. Rather, the Green New Deal offers the only approach to climate stabilization that can deliver an expansion of good job opportunities and rising mass living standards. In all the literature on de-growth, I have not seen a single credible presentation as to how you expand job opportunities and raise mass living standards under a de-growth scenario. The Green New Deal is therefore the only viable climate stabilization framework that can also reverse the rise in inequality and defeat both global neoliberalism and ascendant neo-fascism.

Um, OK? That is pretty much it. There are two mentions of fascism: the headline and in that paragraph. That’s it. There’s really no discussion of what he means by reversing it. And, really, it is his buddies in the Cult who are the neo-fascists. Or call them Modern Socialists, who are Progressives, who are what’s called “nice Fascists.” This doesn’t mean they are nice, it means they are doing all this “for your own good.” Funny that they never do this in their own lives, though, eh?

Read: HotCold Take: We Need A Green New Deal To Defeat Fascism »

Former Obama Officials Warn That Push To Decriminalize Illegal Immigration Could Cost Democrats The Election

They need to shut the heck up and let the 2020 Democratic Party nominees keep going. But, then, it actually doesn’t matter, because in just 2 1/2 years the Democratic Party has become so extreme that they won’t listen. Also, it is too late, that cat has been let out of the bag, and even if they change their tune, Trump will use it too bash them

Democrats warn push for border crossing decriminalization will prove costly in 2020

Top former Obama administration officials are warning Democratic presidential candidates to back off from their proposals to decriminalize border crossings, saying that it’s bad policy and a surefire general election loser that gives President Trump an opening on immigration.

In an op-ed in The Washington Post this week, former Obama Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said that decriminalization would attract hundreds of thousands of new migrants to the southern border. He described the proposal as “tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders.”

Several of former President Obama’s top homeland security officials interviewed by The Hill went on the record to express shock and dismay after eight of the 10 Democratic presidential contenders on stage at the second night of the debate raised their hands when asked if they support the decriminalization of border crossings.

“We can’t go too far to the left for what people could describe as open borders,” said Marsha Catron, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.

“I think all of those people onstage who raised their hands will have to walk it back if they make it to the general election or the White House. I understand the emotion involved, we want for people to be treated humanely and with respect, and that’s not happening with the Trump administration. But Jeh Johnson, [former Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano, these people who have worked in these situations understand, you just can’t have it this way. It’s unworkable.”

Again, even if they walk it back, Trump will hit them up on Twitter, in interviews, in campaign ads, and on the debate stage with their original position of decriminalizing illegal entry.

At the heart of the issue is Section 1325, a statute in the law that makes crossing the border illegally a federal misdemeanor.

Castro is calling for repeal, arguing that those who cross the border illegally can still be deported if they are charged with a civil offense. He has pointed to the origins of the law to describe it as racist, noting that it was passed in 1920 after being promoted by former Sen. Coleman Blease (D-S.C.), who supported segregation.

The thing is, even though 1325 authorizes fines and/or incarceration, we usually do not impose jail on those who are unlawfully present for a first offense. Just deportation, which is authorized under 1227 (and a few others). Further, Democrats freak out and try to protect illegal aliens charged with felonies, much less an illegal charged with DWI, minor drug offense, and other “civil” violations. We’ve seen sanctuary jurisdictions protect illegals who are arsonists, robbers, possess weapons illegally, murderers, child sex abusers. So why would we believe that they would allow deportation for any illegal?

1325 really is about being caught entering illegally. Do we even impose a fine of $50 to $250? We would prefer to simply put them back across the border. What Castro and the others want is to release them into the U.S. with a promise to return for a court date, then, years later when they are still here, say they’ve broken no laws and give them amnesty.

Regardless, Open Borders Democrats are going to Open Borders Democrat. This plays well with their uber-moonbat base, including all the Hollywood and other moneyed nuts who give them a lot of campaign funding, and all live in their own bubble world. It won’t play well in the general election, and plays right into Trump’s hands.

Read: Former Obama Officials Warn That Push To Decriminalize Illegal Immigration Could Cost Democrats The Election »

‘Climate Change’ Is A Poor People’s Issue Or Something

I agree with the headline from the always very far left Common Dreams. Just not the reasoning

Climate Change Is a Poor People’s Issue

If you’ve read anything about climate change over the past year, you’ve probably heard about the IPCC report that gives a 12-year deadline for limiting climate change catastrophe. But for many parts of the world, climate change already is a catastrophe.

Recently in Bihar, one of the poorest states in India, more than 40 people were killedby a severe heat wave in just one day. A study by UNICEF suggests that “in the next decade, 175 million children will be hit by climate-related disasters in South Asia and Africa alone.” Closer to home, Miami’s steady sinking is depleting useable drinking water at an alarming rate.

The truth is, vulnerable communities have been dealing with the effects of climate change and environmental pollution for decades now.

The 85-mile stretch between Baton Rouge and New Orleans — aptly nicknamed Cancer Alley — is a stark example. Thanks to petrochemical pollution there, Louisiana at one point suffered the second-highest death rate from cancer in the United States, with some localities near chemical plants getting cancer from air pollution at 700 times the national average.

This is no accident: Corporations deliberately target places like Cancer Alley because they’re home to socially and economically disadvantaged people whom the corporations assume can’t fight back.

Notice that they’ve mixed actual environmental issues with the notion that the minor increase in global temperatures since 1850 is mostly/solely caused by Mankind

While this study only tells part of the story, it does a lot to explain why poor communities face the worst consequences of climate change and pollution. These inequities cut across racial lines: As Hochschild’s study shows, “least resistant personalities” include small town, working-class white communities in the South and Midwest, as well as poor black people in places like Cancer Alley.

The problem isn’t just corporations, but government at all levels.

See, the thing is, ‘climate change’ is a poor people’s issue. And a middle class issue. Because the powerful, and usually rich, people in and out of government are the ones who are pushing all the restrictive, liberty and choice reducing policies along with all the taxes and fees that will skyrocket the cost of living. These same Elitists are then promising to “refund” a portion of the taxes and fees back to the same low and middle class folks, making them even more dependent on the same government that jacked up their cost of living.

And, these same schmucks harm the real environmental movement by mixing actual real world issues with this ginned up ‘climate change’ scam, which makes it harder to address the real underlying environmental issues.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is A Poor People’s Issue Or Something »

If All You See…

…is beautiful field that would be perfect to be covered in solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Evil Blogger Lady, with a post on Cow Appreciation Day.

Read: If All You See… »

To Jam Through Unpopular Climate Legislation The Filibuster Must Be Destroyed Or Something

See, if the Cult of Climastrology can’t convince people to approve of their radical Big Government plans, they’ll just force it through

Ambitious Climate Plans Might Need a Radical Legislative One: Ending the Filibuster

Democrats running for president are promoting historically ambitious plans to fight climate change.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. wants to put a price on greenhouse emissions with the aim of eliminating the United States’ net planet-warming pollution by 2050. Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas has proposed spending $5 trillion to promote clean energy and to help communities adapt to global warming. Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington has centered his entire campaign on addressing climate change, with policies designed to eventually freeze the nation’s fossil fuel production entirely. Tom Steyer, the California billionaire who entered the race on Tuesday, plans to focus his campaign in part on climate change.

But even if a green-minded Democrat wins the White House, dramatic action to reverse climate change could very well require another radical change in Washington: the elimination of the Senate filibuster.

Climate legislation is hardly the only issue that might lead either party to do away with the filibuster, which allows a minority of senators to block most legislation from receiving a vote unless 60 senators agree to cut off debate.

In most cases, if you cannot convince 60 Senators to agree to legislation than it is not good legislation, and the filibuster is there to protect the minority from tyranny

But climate change, with its high stakes, is increasingly being viewed as one of the issues that could finally push Democrats, who remain deeply divided over the filibuster, to kill it off for good, if given the chance.

“Climate change is an existential threat, and there is just no way to deal with climate change without getting rid of the filibuster,” Mr. Inslee said. “You cannot allow an arcane, antebellum, antiquated procedure to block progress.”

Funny, Democrats have been screeching about the threat to democracy since Trump was elected, yet, they want to kill off one of the main methods in protecting the minority in our Constitutional Federalist Democracy to pass legislation that is opposed by half the country. Perhaps more. Doing Something may be popular in theory, but, not in practice.

John Kerry, the former secretary of state and Massachusetts senator, was the lead author of the last major climate change bill that Democrats tried to push through the Senate, in 2010. Despite having majorities in both chambers of Congress and a champion of the bill in the White House, Democrats were forced to abandon the legislation when it became clear it could not muster 60 votes.

Mr. Kerry, who as secretary of state served as a lead broker of the Paris climate change accord in 2015, said he has been reflecting on whether the filibuster needs to be retired — specifically, to clear the way for a climate change bill.

“The Senate’s pretty broken, and this is not a moment to be stuck in the old ways,” he said. Still, he allowed that should the filibuster be dissolved, “It could quickly become a moment of, ‘Be careful what you wish for.’”

The filibuster is not a bug, it is a feature. It is mean to make sure that parties cannot jam through legislation. It is supposed to be very hard to pass legislation. And, yes, Kerry is correct, be careful what you wish for. If the filibuster wasn’t present Obamacare would already be gone, for one.

But, hey, if you can’t convince people, just change the rules, right?

Read: To Jam Through Unpopular Climate Legislation The Filibuster Must Be Destroyed Or Something »

Megan Rapinoe Happy To Visit Anyone Who “believes the same things we believe in”

Ah, the tolerance of the Leftist. They’ve completely given up on attempting to persuade, and have become insular and intolerant of any position, person, and entity that disagrees with them in the least

Megan Rapinoe rips Trump WH visit, says she’d accept invites from Pelosi, AOC

U.S. Women’s Soccer superstar Megan Rapinoe doubled down in her opposition to visit the Trump White House on Tuesday but expressed that she was open to accept invitations from anyone who “believes the same things we believe in” like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY.

Rapinoe’s feud with the president began last month when she declared she was “not going to the f—ing White House,” which prompted a response from Trump on Twitter.

“I am a big fan of the American Team, and Women’s Soccer, but Megan should WIN first before she TALKS! Finish the job!” Trump exclaimed, later adding that he would invite the team to the White House “win or lose.”

Following her team’s victory at the FIFA Women’s World Cup, Rapinoe told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper that she has yet to receive a formal invitation from the White House nor does she appear to want it.

Interesting. You have the first president who was pro-gay, who didn’t have to change his position on that for political expediency, but, of course, since he’s pro-America she has an issue

Your message is excluding people. You’re excluding me. You’re excluding people that look like me. You’re excluding people of color. You’re excluding Americans that maybe support you,” she told Trump. “We need to have a reckoning with the message that you have and what you’re saying about ‘Make America Great Again.’ I think you are harking back to an era that was not great for everyone.”

Yet

“This is such a special moment for us and to be able to sort of leverage this moment, talk about the things we want to talk about and to celebrate like this with the leaders of our country is an incredible moment,” Rapinoe continued. “So yes to AOC, yes to Pelosi, yes to a bipartsan Congress, yes to Chuck Schumer, yes to anyone else that wants to invite us and have a real substantive conversation and that believe in the same things we believe in.”

How does one have a substantive conversation with people who only believe what you believe? You’re having a reinforcing conversation. She has an opportunity to talk to the most powerful man in the world, and perhaps change his mind on some things, or get him to help on something. If she wants equal pay (they actually get 20% of revenue vs the men’s team which gets 7%) she could attempt to convince Trump to back her and the team.

Her message is excluding people while projecting that blame on Trump, and, by extension, the 61 million who voted for him. It’s helpful to not diminish and dismiss the opinions of people you need to get support from.

Read: Megan Rapinoe Happy To Visit Anyone Who “believes the same things we believe in” »

HotCold Take: Comrades Bernie And AOC Look To Declare “Climate Crisis” And Emergency

Would this be the same AOC who refuses to demand a vote on her Green New Deal, and threw a hissy fit when the Senate voted on it? And Bernie Sanders who voted “present” on it? And neither refuse to give up their own massive fossil fueled carbon footprints?

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez move to declare climate crisis official emergency

A group of US lawmakers including 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders are proposing to declare the climate crisis an official emergency – a significant recognition of the threat taken after considerable pressure from environment groups.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congresswoman from New York, and Earl Blumenauer, a Democratic congressman from Oregon, plan to introduce the same resolution in the House on Tuesday, their offices confirmed. Sanders’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Climate activists have been calling for the declaration, as data shows nations are not on track to limit the dangerous heating of the planet significantly enough. The UN has warned the world is experiencing one climate disaster every week. A new analysis from the economic firm Rhodium Group today finds the US might achieve less than half of the percentage of pollution reductions it promised other countries in an international agreement.

It will probably pass the House, though the debate, if allowed, would be rather inconvenient for Warmists as Skeptics show that all the solutions are about taxes, fees, and more big Government control. There’s zero chance it will pass the Senate

Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on climate change. But advocates say similar efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom have served as a leverage point, highlighting the hypocrisy between the government position that the situation is an emergency and individual decisions that would exacerbate the problem.

So, it’s all about being feel good?

The draft resolution is below the fold

Read More »

Read: HotCold Take: Comrades Bernie And AOC Look To Declare “Climate Crisis” And Emergency »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5674 access attempts in the last 7 days.