War And ‘Climate Change’ Are Shaping The Nuclear Industry Or Something

Hmm, I wonder if this climate cult piece will advocate for the use of nuclear energy?

How the war in Ukraine and climate change are shaping the nuclear industry

Climate change and global security are pushing against each other in shaping the future. That’s particularly apparent in this week’s events surrounding nuclear power.

Nuclear power plants generate energy with no carbon dioxide emissions, providing an alternative to the fossil fuels that are warming the atmosphere.

“Coal and other fossil fuels are choking humanity,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on Monday after the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its most recent report. “The present global energy mix is broken.”

In the same week, Russian military forces attacked the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. One building in the nuclear power plant compound was set on fire.

Just another day when the climate cult drags a real world event into their doomsday cult world.

Seeing Ukraine’s nuclear reactors come under attack is new, and especially alarming to “much of the population that equates nuclear with weapons and with danger, and with radioactivity and health concerns.”

At the same time, nations are coming to realize they can’t meet their climate goals with renewables, like wind and solar, alone. Luongo says there was a “sea change” in sentiment about nuclear at the COP 26 climate conference last year.

Both China and Russia are pushing hard to build new nuclear power plants. And the article doesn’t blow off building new plants here in the U.S., next generation ones, which is rather unusual. Most Warmists tend to be dead set against them, which is a shame, because, while Skeptics could not care less about them being “low carbon” or “carbon free”, they’d be great for power, and Warmists should be be happy over being “net zero”.

Having all that abundent energy is against the dogma of the climate cult, though, who want Other People limited.

Read: War And ‘Climate Change’ Are Shaping The Nuclear Industry Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a big wall meant to stop sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Patterico’s Pontifications, with a post not all players being onboard with the Woke women’s national soccer team.

Wrapping up with a couple more photos of Ukrainian ladies, clean out the folder, so, check out The First Street Journal, with a post on high gas prices being exactly what the Elites want. And The Other McCain, with a post on crazy people being dangerous.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: Despite All The “New” Jobs, Inflation Continues To Dog Joe

See, this is bad for Joe. All you little people out there, you’re just role players. Not even supporting characters, you’re those people they have cattle calls for, where you might get an overall “thanks to all the people who came out and dressed up for the big fight scene shoot” in the credits. Or, maybe no

As job market booms, 1 word continues to dog Biden

(there’s an alternate headline, This week in Bidenomics: Good news nobody cares about)

One thing is going right for President Biden. The job market remains hot, with businesses hiring just about anybody they can find. Employers added 678,000 jobs in February, far more than economists expected. The February report was uniformly solid, with gains in nearly every sector. Upward revisions to job growth in the two prior months show that the surge of the Omicron COVID variant had little to no effect on hiring.

The thing is, the vast majority of those jobs were not new, they were just rehiring to fill the existing position that were shut down thanks to the Chinese superflu. It’s not like many new businesses are starting or giant projects.

This may not benefit Biden at all, politically. Americans are now overwhelmingly worried about inflation, which is likely to get worse in coming weeks on account of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its impact on oil and gas prices. Oil prices have risen by $25 per barrel since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24, and by $36 per barrel since the start of the year. That flows directly into gas prices, which are up about 50 cents per gallon to a national average of $3.84. Average prices seem likely to top $4 soon and could eclipse the all-time high of $4.11, from 2008.

Just for utter, crazy wild leftist fairness, CNN says that the average gas price in America on Trump’s last day was $2.393. When I filled up a car last night the local station was $3.799. Just a couple days ago it was $3.599. And $3.299 a few days before that. That truly adds up, does it not?

But soaring gas prices are perilous for Biden, anyway, for three reasons. First, while Biden is earning high marks for unifying allies in support of Ukraine, he has not prepared Americans for any kind of sacrifice. In fact, he has said repeatedly that he’s trying to protect the U.S. economy from rising prices, given that inflation was running at 7.5% before the Russian invasion. Gas prices are rising anyway, and drivers are getting mad.

Politicians can speak about all sorts of high minded ideals and agendas, however, at the end of the day it is all about pocket-book issues.

Second, many voters associate Biden’s push for green energy with rising gas prices, even if the connection is tenuous, at best. Voters mistakenly think Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have run from Canada to Nebraska, removed oil from the market and pushed prices up, when in reality it wasn’t even built or operational. Some think Biden has reined in drilling, when in fact permits for drilling on public land under Biden so far have gone up. By demonizing fossil fuels and pushing for renewables, Biden has made it seem like he’s happy to drive oil out of the market, no matter how much it costs consumers. That’s not what he’s actually doing, but it’ll now be tough persuading skeptics otherwise.

But, things like that, even when not operational, can affect the stock market, and cause pricing to rise over futures.

With average gas prices heading rapidly toward $4 per gallon, overall inflation could hit 10% within a couple of months. Inflation hasn’t yet hindered job or economic growth, but if it gets much higher and stays there for a while, it will. Wage growth, at 5.1%, isn’t keeping up with inflation, which erodes purchasing power. Consumers have been spending freely, drawing down savings they built up while stuck at home during the worst of the COVID pandemic. But that spending boom could be winding down.

Notice that discounts and specials are going goodbye all over the place, particularly if prices are staying mostly similar. Special values are disappearing for fast food joints, and they’re sending out fewer coupons. Some products are hard to find, and may only be available in limited quantities. Shouldn’t things be getting better now that COVID19 is fading?

Biden says he has his own plan for cutting prices—but it would require Congress to act. In his March 1 State of the Union speech, Biden said he wants Congress to pass a law cutting prescription drug prices, subsidizing green energy, and covering child care costs for millions of families. This is part of his “build a better America” plan, the new and improved version of “build back better.” Congressional Democrats, however, continue to bicker about what to prioritize and who to blame if they can’t get anything done. For voters, that’s not a problem. They’ll blame Biden, whether he deserves it, or not.

None of those will help the current economic issues. Is this a case of Biden being divorced from reality, or, intentional?

Read: Bummer: Despite All The “New” Jobs, Inflation Continues To Dog Joe »

Even With War In Ukraine, ‘Climate Change’ Is Our Biggest Crisis Or Something

Yeah, the chance of World War III pales in comparison to a slight rise in the Earth’s average temperature, something that has happened multiple times since the end of the last ice age

Opinion: Ukraine is at war. Climate change is still our biggest emergency

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, March 5, 2022. Let’s look back at the week in Opinion.

Fully aware that most adults can chew gum and scratch their heads at the same time, I am about to make what may seem a zero-sum comparison of the threats posed by Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine and climate change. So allow me to make a few points upfront: The Biden administration and the rest of us have the capacity to address both crises vigorously, while acknowledging that the gratuitous death and disruption inflicted on 44 million Ukrainians pose graver immediate consequences for a lot of people right now, whereas climate change looms over every problem faced by humanity.

That said, it’s hard not to be discouraged about our ability to focus on climate change right now. For this gloominess, I have none other to thank than the president who has put forth the most ambitious environmental agenda in our history.

“Our”? Go for it, Paul. Give up all use of fossil fuels, no flying, buy an EV, get rid of your ice maker, turn the AC up/heat down, etc and so on. Demand that the Los Angeles Times give up use of fossil fuels for all their operations. Seriously, this is the ravings of a doomsday cultist, more concerned with things that have always happened over a war started by a nuclear armed nation.

And fast is important. As the Times Editorial Board pointed out this week, a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted what should be obvious to anyone living in Southern California (where this week, during our “wet season,” a wildfire burned hundred of acres in the Cleveland National Forest) — that the climate catastrophe is already upon us and wreaking havoc sooner and more intensely than anticipated, and the window to cut fossil fuel use in half to avoid the worst effects down the road will likely close by 2030.

Not decades — eight years.

What happens if we aren’t seeing doom in 8 years? Who’s held responsible for this bit of scaremongering?

In other words, complicating factors like wars and pandemics and, yes, Republican control of government are always present and pose significant threats to us. There’s also the objection that higher fuel costs disproportionately burden middle- and low-income earners. This is true, but so is the reality of global warming, pollution and environmental injustice — which also disproportionately harm traditionally marginalized groups.

In other words, F*ck those middle and lower income earners. They don’t know what’s good for them, and should just listen to their betters. Just like in any cult.

Read: Even With War In Ukraine, ‘Climate Change’ Is Our Biggest Crisis Or Something »

74% Of Americans Want No Fly Zone, Leading To WWIII

Critical thinking is not something being taught in government schools

From the link

Some 74% of Americans – including solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats – said the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the poll found.

An equally bipartisan 80% of Americans said the United States should stop buying Russian oil. The White House on Friday said it was weighing cuts to U.S. imports of Russian oil, though it is proceeding cautiously, concerned about a spike in gasoline prices that would add to high inflation.

Moreover, 81% of Americans think Washington should impose additional sanctions on Russia, up from 77% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday. Support for more sanctions was also bipartisan.

Stopping the purchase of oil from Russia and potentially more sanctions makes some sense. Imposing a no fly zone would bring NATO military jets into direct conflict with Russia. Do the NATO jets shoot them down? How does that not lead to a wider war? People need to start thinking about this stuff when they take a poll. Thankfully, neither Biden nor the other NATO members are considering a no fly zone. Even Joe gets that this would be the very definition of a Bad Idea.

Yup, Biden’s taking the weekend off again. Interestingly, he wore the mask outside with only Jill near him, then took it off to get on the helicopter.

Read: 74% Of Americans Want No Fly Zone, Leading To WWIII »

Here We Go Again: Warmists Claim ‘Climate Change’ Will Cause Fewer, But More Intense Hurricanes

We’ve seen this one before, haven’t we? Usually when there’s a potential of a quieter hurricane season. The talking point came about, as you might recall, because there was a long period after the big mid-2000’s years, when there was a lack of landfalling hurricanes on U.S. soil. It went from “this is the new normal!!!!” around 2006 to they’ll be fewer but bigger, and when that didn’t happen, they blamed the lack of landfalling hurricanes on you eating a burger. In the future. Remember, it was over 12 years between landfalling major hurricanes, the longest stretch in U.S. recorded history. And now they’re back to

Climate change may mean Atlantic has fewer but more intense hurricanes

In parts of the world, tropical cyclones could become both more intense and more frequent as the planet heats up. But in the Atlantic, where these storms are called hurricanes, there might be fewer because of a weakening of a key ocean current.

“You could argue that this is some good news, but the negative effects of climate change are devastating,” says René van Westen at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

At present, warm water from the tropical Atlantic flows north …

And that’s all we’re going to get, since New Scientist has a hard paywall, because they apparently do not want people to know about science. But, you get the point. The climate cult just can’t give up on their doomsday dogma. Yet, there is no actual data showing that hurricanes are getting stronger. Frequency is pretty static

The whole thing is anti-science, rife with contradictions and scaremongering

Climate Prediction: Australia will become Drier but with More Rain

In early February Aussie Climate Scientist Mark Howden explained how Climate Change Robs Australia of Rain. In late February, Howden explained how Climate Change makes floods more likely.

Because no matter what happened, is happening, or will happen, the cult will blame it on you, and want your money and freedom to solve it. No matter how little sense the talking points make from a scientific perspective.

By the way, the world is in another pause, this time at 7 years and  5 months.

Read: Here We Go Again: Warmists Claim ‘Climate Change’ Will Cause Fewer, But More Intense Hurricanes »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful greenspace that would be perfect for solar panels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on Lindsay Graham being dumb in telling people to assassinate Putin.

Read: If All You See… »

Surgeon General To Spend Time Going After Chinese Coronavirus “Misinformation”

Seems like a good use of his time

Surgeon general launches effort to get to the bottom of Covid-19 misinformation

The office of US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued a request Thursday for information surrounding health misinformation, seeking input and data from tech companies, health care providers and community organizations.

The request seeks to understand the scope and impact of misinformation on Covid-19 — especially when it comes to health care and people’s willingness to get vaccinated.

“Misinformation has had a profound impact on Covid-19 and our response,” Murthy told CNN. “Studies have demonstrated that the vast majority of the American public either believes common myths about Covid-19 or thinks those myths might be true. And many of those include myths around the Covid-19 vaccine, so we’ve seen firsthand how misinformation is harming people’s health when it comes to Covid.”

This marks the first time the administration has called on tech companies to share certain data publicly, including data on the major sources of misinformation, how widespread it is and who may have been targeted more than others.

So, what, he’s going to use the power of government to data-mine posts and tweets and such? When COVID is supposedly almost over? Maybe he should be asking why some politicians and celebs wear their mask sometime and not at other times. Why Biden wears it outside. Why he sometimes wears it inside and not at others. Why Jen Psaki always takes hers off to speak to people.

The focus has been on reaching out to tech companies with the broadest reach and use, Murthy said, and he wants them to be more transparent and open about sharing data with the public.

“We’ll be looking forward to whatever information they have to share. We’re certainly approaching this with an open mind,” he said. “Many of the new technology platforms have also been talking about solutions that they are trying to implement, but what we want to understand is what data do they have on whether these solutions are actually working or not.”

And what will he do with this information? It’s not all concerning that the government will be taking names of people they believe are engaged in Wrongthink, right?

“Health misinformation is making the jobs of health care workers much harder at a time where our health care work force is strained,” he said. “I hear from health care workers that they are battling Covid in the hospitals during the day, and they’re going home and battling health misinformation at night.”

Ultimately, the information will be shared with the public and used to steer responses to future public health emergencies.

You are not allowed to have your own thoughts, Comrades. Anyway, can we start with the misinformation that cloth and surgical masks actually work? If they did, we wouldn’t have had the Delta and Omicron spikes. The government surely didn’t lie about herd immunity. And they didn’t give us misinformation that the vaccines would stop most people from getting COVID. And they certainly didn’t lie about the number of people who were dying from COVID and not with COVID, right? Or use dated statistics? Nor hide that the NIH was funding gain of function with coronaviruses in China, right? What other lies, er, sorry, disinformation has the government told us?

Read: Surgeon General To Spend Time Going After Chinese Coronavirus “Misinformation” »

Climate Cult Still Trying To Make Ukraine War About ‘Climate Change’

They won’t give up. Ukrainians are dying, Around a million have left the country. The nation is being destroyed, and all the cult can think about is their doomsday cult beliefs

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could set back fight against climate change — or turbocharge it

There are few subjects on which most Democrats and Republicans agree, but Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has created at least two sources of bipartisan consensus: that Russia should be punished for its actions and that the West’s ability to do so effectively is hamstrung by Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and oil.

As soon as the conversation pivots to what to do about that dependence, however, the answer splits along the usual partisan lines, with Republicans and the oil and gas industry calling for more U.S. production of fossil fuels, and environmentalists and Democrats arguing that the war demonstrates the need to immediately transition to cleaner sources of energy such as wind and solar power.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, sent President Biden a letter outlining steps he could take to boost U.S. oil and gas production. “Joe Biden has given up the best defense we had against Putin’s evil vision for the world — energy independence,” Blackburn said. “We need to make America energy independent again. It’s time to divest from Russian energy and stop funding Putin’s war, and reauthorize the Keystone Pipeline.”

That makes quite a bit of sense to the average American. But, not to a climate cultist, especially the big wigs who do not have to worry about the rising cost of fuel, which makes everything else go up, including food.

In response, some Democrats have said that not only would building new fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL oil pipeline worsen climate change, it would have little if any effect on U.S. energy independence. Even if the U.S. produces more than it consumes, if it remains a large consumer of oil and gas it is vulnerable to price spikes caused by foreign supply disruptions.

Yet, those same Democrats refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., told The Hill this week that instead of trying to produce more fossil fuels, Congress should pass Biden’s Build Back Better proposal to invest in deploying clean energy, electric vehicles and energy efficiency improvements. “If we make our vehicles more efficient, if we make our homes more efficient — that reduces the need for oil and gas regardless of the source,” Casten said.

Countering Russian aggression toward its neighbors is not the only thing that’s at stake in this debate, as the effort to prevent catastrophic climate change may hinge on how the Western democracies — which produce a disproportionately large share of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change — respond to the current crisis.

Piss off, wankers.

The reluctance to change long-term U.S. energy policy in response to the current crisis in Ukraine is understandable, since neither passing Build Back Better nor approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline will actually change the outcome in Ukraine, nor will a U.S. boycott of Russian oil, since Russia can still sell its oil elsewhere. What’s really at stake isn’t the West’s leverage against Russia in 2022, it’s the world’s dependence on fossil fuel producers in the coming years, because selling new fossil fuel leases or approving new pipelines locks in future fossil fuel development. Conversely, beginning the process of permitting and purchasing the means of producing energy from sources like wind and sun would ensure a cleaner energy portfolio in the latter half of this decade.

Meh, to hell with those Ukrainians, right, we have the climate crisis to deal with! Wankers.

Read: Climate Cult Still Trying To Make Ukraine War About ‘Climate Change’ »

Good Grief, Now They’re Advocating Giving Ukraine Three Squadrons Of A-10s

There have been lots of memes about the coming WWIII. We’ve had people, such as Excitable Adam Kinzinger, push for a no fly zone. I certainly agree with Vox that it would be a monumentally bad idea. Thankfully, NATO and Let’s Go Brandon agree. Sending all those troops over to Europe isn’t the brightest idea. What are a few thousand going to do, when the U.S. already has over 50k in the European theater? Here’s another staggeringly foolish idea

Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now

“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job,“ spoke U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill in February 1941. Following this powerful speech, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt proposed and Congress approved the lend-lease program. This provided the U.K. equipment and access to United States production capacity. This action was essential to stopping the Nazi advances.

Zelenskyy has been asking for planes. So far, NATO nations have said “nope.”

Sanctions must be accompanied by military success.

Zelenskyy has requested weapons and support in line with Churchill’s philosophy. Ukrainian soldiers have proved their courage and bravery. There is one more step that could be decisive: the transfer of three squadrons of A-10 aircraft to the Ukrainian Air Force.

This aircraft and its gun system were designed to counter an armored assault in Europe. They proved effective in Desert Storm’s target-rich environment, quite similar to the current advancing Russian force. They also became the infantry’s friend in close-air support missions.

The United States Air Force has deployment packages ready to go. The whole transfer to the Ukrainian Air Force could be completed in days after congressional authorization.

If you want to start WWIII, this would be a good way to do so. How do you get the planes there? Who flies them in? How does Russia react when A10’s which were the property of the United States just days before start blowing up Russian military equipment and troops? Furthermore, who will fly the planes? American pilots? WWIII. Ukrainian pilots? Are any trained on them? They aren’t bicycles. What about all the armaments? Shooting American made depleted uranium slugs would be WWIII.

Exactly zero other nations fly the A10. Hence, no one else trains on it. They would be using made in the USA bombs, missiles, and the aforementioned depleted uranium slugs, which came from U.S. nuclear sites. WWIII. Perhaps the Defense News shouldn’t be letting Everett Pyatt, a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and logistics, try and drag us into WWIII

The whole thing reads

(1/7) I fully support the right of the people of Ukraine to self determination. However there are many reasons I could not vote for the seven page Resolution that passed the House of Representatives today. (2/7) The resolution contains an open ended call for additional and immediate “defensive security assistance.” This term is so broad that it could include American boots on the ground or, as some of my colleagues have already requested, US enforcement of a no-fly zone. (3/7) It expands the geographic scope of the US commitment to the conflict in Ukraine by condemning the country of Belarus. We should not be seeking to name new enemies or committing to overturning other governments. (4/7) It calls for “fully isolating” Russia economically. This would hurt low-income US citizens who are already reeling from inflation. Innocent people in Russia, many of whom oppose Putin’s aggression, would suffer under crippling sanctions, possibly turning them against us. (5/7) Crippling sanctions could also drive Putin to become more desperate, inciting him to resort to drastic measures such as escalating the weapons employed or the people targeted. (6/7) The resolution contains a gratuitous statement that Ukraine and NATO will determine the relationship between the two of them. Of course this is true, but why should Congress assert this now when the goal is to de-escalate the conflict? (7/7) It calls for continuing support “as long as the Russian Federation continues to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty.” Depending on the definition of “violate,” this could be a US commitment to forever be actively engaged in a conflict with another nuclear country.

Why was a 7 page resolution necessary? Why go so far overboard with the language? Let’s try and reign this back in, folks.

Read: Good Grief, Now They’re Advocating Giving Ukraine Three Squadrons Of A-10s »

Pirate's Cove