…are pumpkins which will soon disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on Seattle, Portland, and California voting themselves into the 3rd World.
Read: If All You See… »
…are pumpkins which will soon disappear from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Datechguy’s Blog, with a post on Seattle, Portland, and California voting themselves into the 3rd World.
Read: If All You See… »
Remember back to the socially distanced gathering you had the other month, where people ate burgers, cheese, and ice cream which came from Evil moo cows? This future event is Your Fault
Climate Change Could Make Yellowstone’s Famous Geyser Less Faithful
Yellowstone National Park’s famous Old Faithful geyser is famously reliable, firing a jet of scalding water and steam high into the air some 17 times a day at 60 to 110-minute intervals.
But new research suggests that 800 years ago a severe drought caused this geyser, which was once somewhat hyperbolically known as “Eternity’s Timepiece,†to stop erupting altogether for many decades, reports Colin Barras for Science. When taken with climate model predictions of increasingly severe droughts, the findings could mean that America’s most dependable geyser will erupt less often or stop completely in the future.
Researchers arrived at the new findings, published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, by studying 13 chunks of petrified wood found on Old Faithful’s mound. Trees can’t survive the geyser’s blasts of super-heated, alkaline water, so finding trees growing on Old Faithful’s mound is a sign that its regularly scheduled eruptions were at one point on hiatus. When researchers tested the tree remnants, they dated back to around 1230-1360 A.D., reports Catherine Meyers for Inside Science.
“When I submitted the samples for radiocarbon dating I didn’t know whether they would be hundreds or thousands of years old,†Shaul Hurwitz, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and first author of the new paper, tells Science. “It was an ‘aha!’ moment when they all clustered within a hundred-year period in the 13th and 14th centuries.â€
One specimen was large enough to allow Hurwitz and his team to estimate it grew for some 80 years, suggesting Old Faithful stopped erupting for nearly 100 years sometime between the 13th and 14th centuries.
Did that scare you? I’m sure it did, and you’re now willing to give up your use of fossil fuels, pay lots more taxes and fees, and give up your liberty, freedom, and choice, right? Perhaps they could explain what caused the climate change at that time, which was near the end of the Medieval Warm Period, which went from around 900 AD (10th Century) to 1350 (14th Century)? Were they driving fossil fueled vehicles and taking long trips, getting consumer products and practicing capitalism?
Are they saying that the current warm period is mostly/solely natural, just like the MWP?
Today, human-caused climate change is exacerbating droughts in the Yellowstone region, per Inside Science. Hurwitz and other researchers published a paper in 2008 showing decreased precipitation in recent decades may have added a minute or two to the time between Old Faithful’s eruptions. If the climate continues to dry out, as climate models predict it will, the researchers write that Old Faithful’s “geyser eruptions could become less frequent or completely cease.â€
If Old Faithful is added to the list of climate change’s casualties, Maxwell Rudolph, a geophysicist at the University of California, Davis who wasn’t involved in the study, tells Science that “the extinction of this natural treasure would be a profound loss.â€
It’s always something.
Read: Your Fault: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Make Old Faithful Less Faithful »
They’re Concerned
Amy Coney Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights https://t.co/OvxljdmxJe pic.twitter.com/czu8cE0nNj
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 13, 2020
The inference here is that you shouldn’t trust her if you are a lefty gun grabber with a case in front the Supreme Court. From the link
President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court says her family owns a gun and that she thinks she can fairly judge a guns case. Asked by Senate Judiciary chairman Senator Lindsey Graham if she owns a gun, Barrett replied, “we do own a gunâ€.
The Supreme Court has gone a decade without acting on a major case concerning the Second Amendment, an issue that could receive rare attention in the future by the high court should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the bench in the coming weeks.
The court has resisted taking up a significant Second Amendment case since the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller – which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm – and a 2010 follow-up, turning away 10 gun rights cases in the last term alone.
Here’s how that exchange went:
Graham:Â Okay. So when it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun?
Barrett:Â We do own a gun.
Graham: Okay. All right. Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?
Barrett:Â Yes.
As Jazz Shaw points out, this was part of a much longer exchange with Lindsay Graham, who was asking her just how the system works where suits get to the Supreme Court, how they can’t just say “hey, lets doing something on this issue and make a ruling”, and how personal views come into play. Well, at lest for Constitutionalists. We know how personal views work most of the time for Liberals. As Jonah Goldberg writes “Seriously, this is amazingly dumb. Imagine this framing for any other right in the Bill of Rights.”
Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle is comparing ACB to a disease
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s accession to the Supreme Court barreled forward in a cloud of partisanship and pestilence Monday. Introduced as President Trump’s nominee on the brink of his coronavirus-haunted re-election bid in what turned out to be a super-spreading event, Barrett appeared before a Senate Judiciary Committee hobbled by the contagion, its convalescing and quarantining members a testament to the farcically precipitous process.

Read: CNN Seems Rather Concerned That ACB Owns A Gun And Could Rule On Cases »
This is what you call a push/pull, because it was designed to elicit a very specific response
As the Senate begins confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, two-thirds of voters say Congress should focus instead on passing more COVID-19 relief for struggling workers and businesses, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
The survey, which was conducted from Oct. 9 to 11, found that large majorities of the public think Congress has its priorities backward. Not only do more than three-quarters (77 percent) of registered voters want legislators to approve another major pandemic relief package; 66 percent want the Senate to vote on it before voting on Barrett’s nomination. A full third of Republicans (33 percent) agree.
The consensus around Congress’s misplaced priorities reflects the deepening influence of COVID-19 on the final days of the 2020 election. While slightly more voters blame Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (43 percent) than President Trump (40 percent) for Washington’s continuing failure to agree on a relief bill, that dynamic has in no way boosted Trump. On the contrary, Trump continues to trail Democratic nominee Joe Biden by 8 percentage points among likely voters (43 percent to 51 percent) in large part because they have taken an even dimmer view of the president’s leadership on COVID-19 in the wake of his own recent hospitalization and the broader White House outbreak that has left dozens infected.
Pretty much most of the poll is meant to bash Trump and Republicans, and attempt to sway squishy GOP Senators into shutting down the hearings, stopping a vote, or, at least, vote against ACB. In the Age Of McCain, they might have gotten this. But, these days, even squishy Lindsay Graham has a spine.
Democrats need to just give it up. They never figured out how to attack her like they did with Kavanaugh. You just got silly questions on abortion and Obamacare, and, heck, Sheldon Whitehouse didn’t even ask a question, just yammered on about dark money and stuff.
Senator Whitehouse opened up a can of worms. Senator Ted Cruz then spilled that can all over Whitehouse's head. pic.twitter.com/JJmQUAwREo
— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) October 13, 2020
Read: New Talking Poll: People Want New COVID Relief Over ACB »
…is a horrible plastic straw which causes Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bustednuckles, with a post on some thoughts about a little slice of new Amerika.
Read: If All You See… »
In order to increase the number of Supreme Court, and lower federal court judges, Congress would need to pass legislation, then President Harris, er, Biden, would have to sign it. Lefty groups are super excited to pack the courts, and aren’t shy at saying it. They even claim it is normal! Heck, history shows that it’s normal, claims CNN, even though it’s been the same is 1869, and FDRs attempt to pack the court was decidedly unpopular in 1937.
Why voters seriously need Joe Biden to answer the court-packing question
Voters “don’t deserve†to know if a President Joe Biden would pack the Supreme Court, the candidate told an interviewer on Saturday. Yes, they do, Joe: Americans deserve to know who they’re electing — and it shouldn’t be that hard to answer.
Biden, running mate Kamala Harris and their campaign insist the court-packing question is simply a “distraction†from the real issues — that is, the ones they want to talk about. “I’m not going to play his game,†is how Biden puts it.
Except it’s the “game†of the American people. (snip)
Moreover, doing it now would require killing the Senate’s filibuster rules entirely — opening the door to lots of other radical legislation, such as the Green New Deal.
Biden claims to be a moderate, so why can’t he rule out this madness? Why insist that he’ll only answer after Election Day?
Liberals are doing their best to explain away his refusal to commit. Joe would never do it, they claim — he just doesn’t want to turn off voters in the AOC-Bernie Sanders radical wing of the party before he gets their votes. Even if true, he’s turning off at least some moderate voters by leaving the question open, when it ought to be a slam-dunk.
More: If he can’t say no to the far left now, you have to wonder if he will as president. He’s done nothing but appease progressives since clinching the nomination, even letting Sanders write much of the party platform.
Well, even though the Credentialed Media is not bothering to demand Joe answer, he finally attempted to thread the needle
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Monday that he is “not a fan†of the idea of adding seats to the Supreme Court after repeatedly dodging questions about the issue.
“I’m not a fan of court packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue. I want to keep focused,†Biden told WKRC, a Cincinnati-area CBS/CW affiliate. “The president would like nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the court, et cetera. The focus is, why is he doing what he’s doing now?â€
OK, he’s not a fan. Good to know, Joe, way to take a stance
The former vice president also described Republicans’ push to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before November’s election as a form of court packing.
“Court packing’s going on now. Never before, when an election has already begun and millions of votes already cast, has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward,†Biden said. “And one of the reasons is the only shot the American people get to determine who will be on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court or federal court is when they pick their senator or their president.â€
And the deflection. Of course, people shouldn’t be voting, as the Constitution rather lays out which day we’re supposed to vote. And, Joe doesn’t want to get off on that whole rather important issue. He doesn’t seem to want to talk about many issues at all.
This is all your fault, you know. You were warned about coming doom, but, no, you had to take a fossil fueled trip to that burger place, and you refuse to pay taxes and give up your freedom. For shame!
Climate change means more weather disasters every year, warns UN
In the wake of heat waves, global warming, forest fires, storms, droughts and a rising number of hurricanes, the UN weather agency is warning that the number of people who need international humanitarian help could rise 50 per cent by 2030 compared to the 108 million who needed it worldwide in 2018.
In a new report released with partners on Tuesday, the World Meteorological Agency says more disasters attributed to weather are taking place each year.
It said over 11,000 disasters have been attributed to weather, climate and phenomena like tsunamis that are related to water over the last 50 years causing 2 million deaths and racking up USD 3.6 trillion worth of economic costs.
In one hopeful development over that period, the average number of deaths from each separate weather disaster per year has dropped by one-third, even as the number of such events and the economic costs from them have both surged.
Wait, wait, wait, did they just blame tsunamis on man-caused climate change from carbon pollution? WTF? They don’t bother attempting to explain this, they just throw it in an expect climate cultists to believe it.
“While COVID-19 generated a large international health and economic crisis from which it will take years to recover, it is crucial to remember that climate change will continue to pose an on-going and increasing threat to human lives, ecosystems, economies and societies for centuries to come,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.
“Recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to move forward along a more sustainable path towards resilience and adaptation in the light of anthropogenic climate change,” he said.
Did everyone enjoy their test drive of what society would look like with all the climate crisis scam policies implemented during COVID lockdown?
Read: UN Warns Of More Weather Disasters Because You Ate A Cheeseburger »
Well, this is a new one from the Cult of Climastrology
Tackle fuel poverty and the climate crisis
Experts are right to raise the alarm about the climate impacts of how we heat our homes. That the UK is on course to take 700 years to achieve low-carbon heating should spur the government to action (Report, 8 October).
Its first step should be to end the subsidy for heating that maintains the high-carbon status quo and does little to help those in fuel poverty. The reduced VAT rate on domestic gas is discouraging innovation and investment in low-carbon heating technology, and the £2bn in uncollected revenue mainly benefits the wealthy because they use the most energy.
Understandably, politicians don’t want to raise heating bills for those on the lowest incomes. But they don’t have to, if they design a fairer policy that actually does more for the poorest households. This would involve removing the discount on gas and heating fuels and ringfencing the extra revenue. It should be redistributed to low-income homes and used to install energy efficiency measures and low-carbon heating systems. That way, fuel poverty and its health impacts could be tackled at the same time as climate change.
Got that? Instead of providing “the poor” with reasonably priced, and reliable, energy, “The Rich” should be taxed out the ying yang so that The Poor will be able to afford the expensive, and unreliable, alternative energy.
Wait, is the letter writer to the UK Guardian exposing the dirty little secret that renewables/alternatives are expensive as hell? Huh.