Humidity And Heat On The Verge Of Being Beyond Human Survivability Or Something

By William Teach May 9, 2020 – 3:00 pm

It’s coming soon! Maybe! Possibly! They Think! We can solve this with a tax

Humidity and heat extremes are on the verge of exceeding limits of human survivability, study finds

Welcome to “Steambath Earth,” featuring sauna-like temperatures and humidity too high for humans to tolerate.

Extremely humid heat that is more intense than most Americans have experienced — approaching a crucial, immovable human survivability limit — has more than doubled in frequency in some coastal subtropical regions of the world since 1979, according to a study published Friday.

The study is the first to find that wet-bulb temperatures of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 Celsius) — which render ineffective the human heat response of sweating to shed heat through evaporation, leading to hyperthermia — are already occurring for short periods of time at a few weather stations.

These tend to occur in parts of the Persian Gulf shoreline and coastal southwest North America, where sizzling lands border sultry seas, as well as in northern South Asia, where extreme heat and humidity combinations overlap just before the annual monsoon season begins.

Doom!

With computer-model projections showing the world will continue to warm rapidly in response to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the study, published Friday in the journal Science Advances, warns that highly populated regions of the world will be rendered uninhabitable sooner than previously thought for parts of each year.

They don’t really say when “sooner” is. So, this is politics, not science. Further, there is nothing unusual going on than any other Holocene warm period.

Read: Humidity And Heat On The Verge Of Being Beyond Human Survivability Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 9, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…are wonderful trees which could stave off sea rise if we plant enough, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on Joe Biden’s youth enthusiasm problem.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 32 Comments | Trackback URL

Poll: 48% Say No In Person Religious Services Should Be Allowed During Bat Soup Virus

By William Teach May 9, 2020 – 10:30 am

We’re apparently dictating Constitutional Rights by polls now

Poll: Most in US back curbing in-person worship amid virus

While the White House looks ahead to reopening houses of worship, most Americans think in-person religious services should be barred or allowed only with limits during the coronavirus pandemic — and only about a third say that prohibiting in-person services violates religious freedom, a new poll finds. (snip)

Just 9% of Americans think in-person religious services should be permitted without restrictions, while 42% think they should be allowed with restrictions, and 48% think they should not be allowed at all, the poll shows. Even among Americans who identify with a religion, 45% say in-person services shouldn’t be allowed at all.

White evangelical Protestants, however, are particularly likely to think that in-person services should be allowed in some form, with just 35% saying they should be completely prohibited. Close to half – 46% — also say they think prohibiting those services violates religious freedom.

Um, it rather does violate it. It’s baked into the First Amendment, and every state Constitution says something similar. Notice that the 1st Amendment actually starts out with Freedom of Religion (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) before speech, press, protesting. Government has no authority to stop worship. They can certainly ask the leaders to only hold services using social distancing, but, dictating it? No.

The Justice Department last month sided with a Mississippi church in its legal challenge to local limits on drive-in worship. Still, the poll found 56% of Americans say prohibiting drive-in services does not violate religious freedom.

Are Constitutional Rights are not up for polling.

Read: Poll: 48% Say No In Person Religious Services Should Be Allowed During Bat Soup Virus »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Bat Soup Virus, Constitution | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Prognostication: Global Seas Could Maybe Possibly Rise By 4 Feet By 2100

By William Teach May 9, 2020 – 7:12 am

This won’t happen if you stop eating meat, stay home and only use solar power, only flush once a day, and give up your money and freedom to Government, you know

Climate crisis: Sea level ‘on course to rise by one metre by 2100’ if global emissions targets are missed

Sea levels could rise by more than one metre by the year 2100 and 5m by 2300 if global emissions targets are not achieved, according to a study.

Scientists at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore modelled projections from over 100 international experts for the global average sea level changes based on two climate scenarios.

In the low emissions scenario, in which global warming is limited to 2C above pre-industrial levels, experts estimate a rise of 0.5m by 2100 and 0.5m to 2m by 2300.

That’s 1.6 feet by 2100, despite sea rise being exactly average, 7-8 inches, over the 20th Century, and not accelerating at all so far in the 21st. Oh, and the temps not even rising by 1C over the last 170 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

In a high emissions scenario where global warming rises by 4.5C, the estimates surged between 0.6m and 1.3m by 2100 and 1.7m to 5.6m by 2300.

The study, which was published in science journal Nature, notes that melting ice shelves in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are the “largest potential contributors” to global mean sea level rise, as the biggest reservoirs of land-based ice on earth.

Of course, the high emission scenario is what all the articles yapping about this are pushing in their headlines.

It adds: “The multimeter global mean sea level rise (GMSL) rise projected by some experts… would expose up to hundreds of millions of people to coastal flooding and devastate coastal ecosystems.

“However, the expert projections also clearly illustrate the potential for evading such large GMSL rise through successful reduction of emissions.”

See? If you are made to cooperate things will only get slightly bad, not really bad. BTW, are there ever any penalties for scientists and such making prognostications that never materalize?

Read: Prognostication: Global Seas Could Maybe Possibly Rise By 4 Feet By 2100 »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Transcripts Show Obama Officials Knew There Was No Russia Collusion

By William Teach May 9, 2020 – 6:58 am

OK, place your bets on the first Democrat to proclaim this is all a distraction from Bat Soup Virus? Democrats love trotting out the distraction meme when they know they are in trouble

Ex-Obama official, in released transcript, admits she didn’t know about Trump-Russia collusion despite prior claims

Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama administration official who previously encouraged congressional staffers to gather evidence of alleged collusion between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia and said she “knew” there was additional such information out there, admitted she did not know such information existed in a 2017 interview with congressional investigators.

Transcripts from dozens of such interviews were released Thursday by the House Intelligence Committee.

Farkas, who previously served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, said on MSNBC in 2017 that she “was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill… Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”

She continued to say she was concerned “the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.

Yeah, but

But the tranche of transcripts from 2017-2018 House Intelligence Committee interviews showed that several top Obama officials, including Farkas, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice all said they had or knew of no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

Farkas’ interview with the committee took place just a couple of months after her comments on MSNBC.

So, when they were under oath they said that this whole collusion thing was a bunch of mule fritters, unlike when they were talking to friendly media outlets. Surprise?

Of course, most of the media outlets aren’t covering the release of the transcripts and what they really show, except in a few cases where they are spinning themselves to cover for Adam Schiff and the other unhinged Democrats. Mostly, though, no coverage. CNN’s front page at 650am has zero stories on the transcripts after being balls to the wall on collusion. Nor at ABC News, CBS News, or NBC News. But, remember, they’re credentialed! They have no bias! Of course, President Trump will drag them kicking and screaming into covering it, as he always does, since he promises “more to come“.

My money is on Nancy Pelosi being the first to trot out “distraction.”

Read: Transcripts Show Obama Officials Knew There Was No Russia Collusion »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrat Mad Over Beaches Opening Caught At Private Beach

By William Teach May 8, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Well, see, this is OK, because he is one of our Betters, so he’s allowed to do things you are not supposed

Democratic congressman said opening California beaches was ‘reckless.’ Then he was seen at a private beach.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ordered all California beaches and state parks to close last week. However, photos of Democratic Congressman Harley Rouda reportedly show he was at a private beach last weekend despite saying that opening the beaches was “reckless.”

“Keeping Orange County beaches open during a heat wave is reckless,” Rouda tweeted April 21. “We need leaders who will prioritize public health and make the tough calls to keep our families safe.” (snip)

“Opening beaches to thousands of Southern Californians during a weekend heat-wave without adequate social-distancing protocols was a reckless action that put the families of California’s 48th district in harm’s way,” Rouda said last Thursday.

CBS News found photos of Rouda “spending time at a private beach in Southern California” last weekend.

CBS doesn’t actually show the photo. Others do

Read: Democrat Mad Over Beaches Opening Caught At Private Beach »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 8, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an umbrella needed for too much sunshine and too much rain from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is IOTW Report, with a post on a 1996 document confirming Tara Reade told of Biden’s assault.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden Promises To Get Rid Of Due Process For Those Accused Of Sexual Misconduct In Schools

By William Teach May 8, 2020 – 11:04 am

Of course, he wants due process for himself

Biden Promises to Scrap New Devos Rule on College Sexual Assault

Former Vice President Joe Biden is promising to scrap newly proposed guidelines by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos meant to ensure that individuals being accused of sexual misconduct on college campuses receive due process.

Biden, who most notably led the Obama administration’s “It’s On Us” campaign as vice president, criticized the education secretary on Wednesday for making college campuses “less safe.” In particular, the former vice president claimed DeVos’s “new rule gives colleges a green light to ignore sexual violence and strip survivors of their rights.”

“Survivors deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced,” Biden said in a statement.

Hmmm. Nah, moving on

Under prior Obama administration guidelines, colleges were allowed to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard when determining the guilt of those accused. Such regulations often led to lawsuits alleging the infringement of civil liberties, as many of the accused were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

Devos’s new regulations will allow representatives for not only victims but also the accused to call witnesses and challenge evidence. Such hearings, which will be either conducted in-person or virtually, will have to now to rely on a “clear and convincing” standard, rather than just a “preponderance of the evidence.” When investigating complaints, colleges will also have to rely on trained personnel to evaluate evidence and make final decisions.

What Biden wants to do is get rid of Due Process, as required by the US Constitution (as well as state constitutions). Guilty until proven innocent. People’s lives ruined because of accusations that often cannot be proven, that are based on regret over consensual sex, where Feminist friends talk someone into thinking they were assaults. If they really were assaulted, then the complaints need to go through the criminal justice system, not a kangaroo court at a college.

Read: Biden Promises To Get Rid Of Due Process For Those Accused Of Sexual Misconduct In Schools »

Posted in Joe Biden | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Some Warmists Pushing For A “Teal New Deal”

By William Teach May 8, 2020 – 7:00 am

Why teal? And do they think this will have any more chance of passing than the Green New Deal, which Democrats refuse to vote on?

Surf and turf: Green new deal should be a ‘teal new deal’

Debates around the Green New Deal have largely centered around climate change concerns on land. But a group of scientists are calling on policymakers to include oceans in the deal.

The Green New Deal is a legislative proposal to tackle climate change and boost the economy, while also supporting equity and social justice.

“There is an opportunity to enact policy that can make meaningful change to help our country both economically and environmentally,” said San Diego State University ecologist Rebecca Lewison, one of the co-authors of a new paper on the subject. “It’s critical that oceans are part of that policy framework.”

It’s almost like this really has nothing to do with science and everything to do with Modern Socialist politics.

“Integrating Oceans into Climate Policy: Any Green New Deal Needs a Splash of Blue” was published in April in Conservation Letters. Lead authors are Lewison, whose work focuses on sustainable resource and land use, and Arielle Levine, an SDSU geographer specializing in human-environment interactions in marine and coastal systems, in collaboration with Oregon State University environmental economist Steven Dundas.

The authors recommend a policy that integrates terrestrial and ocean approaches to create a robust portfolio of climate adaptation and mitigation measures supporting communities, the environment and the economy.

And that’s why it’s teal, and it still looks like this is mostly about politics. Giving government even more power. Controlling the economy and people.

“As we come out of this pandemic, policymakers will be looking for ways to jump start the economy, and we have a unique opportunity to develop policies that promote economic development in an environmentally sustainable manner,” Levine said. “Including the oceans in Green New Deal policies will expand opportunities for sustainable economic development in both inland and coastal communities, while addressing the ongoing threat of climate change that we can’t ignore.”

Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh? They want to implement controls on shipping, fishing, anything involving the seas, along with more wind turbines in the oceans. Which is interesting, since so many liberal coastal cities invoke NIMBY )not in my backyard) when anyone tries to put them up. They will supplement power during peak hours. What provides power during the other times? They don’t want coal (me neither), nor natural gas, and are against nuclear. Solar, which they want increased, won’t do it. They want lots of high speed rail. Good luck with that.

Read: Some Warmists Pushing For A “Teal New Deal” »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Some DACA Recipients Are Leaving U.S. Ahead Of Supreme Court Case

By William Teach May 8, 2020 – 6:43 am

We’re supposed to feel sorry for these folks, whose parent(s) brought them to the United States in violation of federal law. If they’re leaving, perhaps they really do not care that much about being an American

As Supreme Court considers end to DACA, some Dreamers are already leaving US behind

Born in South Korea but raised in Montclair, New Jersey, Eun Suk “Jason” Hong seemed on the cusp of another American success story when he graduated from college in 2015.

Hong, whose mother brought him to the U.S. at age 10, landed a job as a financial planner and was looking forward to starting a career.

But in 2017, President Donald Trump moved to do away with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program that allowed him to work legally in the U.S., and Hong’s outlook began to change. In August, he quit his job and moved to Spain to seek a master’s degree in business administration.

He’s now barred for a decade from returning to the country where he grew up. But he’s also left behind the anxiety of America’s immigration wars.

Hong is among the “Dreamers” – undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children – who are leaving their adopted home in frustration. With the Supreme Court poised to rule on DACA’s future by June, some are taking matters into their own hands and moving to Europe, Mexico and Canada.

Well, bye. Better not get caught in Mexico illegally. Their laws are pretty strict, and they could quickly end up in jail.

When Trump announced his plan to terminate the DACA program in September 2017, there were 689,800 active DACA recipients. That’s declined by more than 40,000, to 649,070, according to the latest figures on the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services website.

Trump says the Obama-era initiative is unconstitutional, but his move to phase out the program has been blocked by legal challenges. The Supreme Court is expected to announce sometime before the end of June whether the president has the authority to end DACA.

Obama himself said it was un-Constitutional to enact DACA, that he had no legal authority. Any president has the power to rescind any previous executive order. That’s the way it works. We can easily see this being a split decision, with the liberals voting against Trump. They should remember that they would be ruling that no future president can cancel any Trump EO.

While one “study” claims each Dreamer generates $70,000 a year to the U.S. economy, another shows

Supporters of policies to limit immigration say undocumented immigrants cost taxpayers money, pointing to research that shows they consume more in public services than they pay for with taxes.

“Fewer than 50% of DACA beneficiaries have a high school diploma. An even smaller number have a college education,” said Matt O’Brien, director of research for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, citing the group’s own studies. “And only a tiny proportion have professional qualifications or other highly marketable skills. So it’s far from clear that any of the so-called ‘Dreamers’ have exerted any positive effect on the U.S. economy as a result of their education or job training.”

A majority of Dreamers occupy entry-level or low wage jobs in construction, food service and maintenance industries, and that means that they are in direct competition with “economically vulnerable Americans,” he said.

How many times do you read something like this?

It’s a decision that Itzel Hernandez, 26,  of Red Bank, New Jersey, has pondered too. A community organizer for the American Friends Service Committee, she was born in Mexico but moved north when she was 10. Now, she’s thinking about pursuing a master’s degree, possibly in Germany, where it’s more affordable.

Community organizer. Not really an area that earns much money, just someone who Demands things. Loudly. Perhaps if Dreamers weren’t so demanding, some sort of accommodation could have been reached. They demand healthcare, education, food, housing, money, the vote, and citizenship. If they want to leave, well, bye. The only people they should be blaming are their parents, who knowingly brought them here illegally.

Read: Bummer: Some DACA Recipients Are Leaving U.S. Ahead Of Supreme Court Case »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove