Massachusetts House Approves Climate Change Bill Or Something

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 3:00 pm

They’re confusing ‘climate change’ with the environment

Mass. House Approves Major Climate Action Bill

The Mass. State House on Friday night approved a climate change bill that addresses a 2050 emissions reduction roadmap, solar energy net metering, grid modernization and workforce development, setting up likely talks with the Senate on a compromise bill.

The 142-17 vote to pass the bill came just before 9:30 p.m. and following deliberations on amendments over two days.

The House agreed to East Boston Rep. Adrian Madaro’s proposal that would mandate environmental impact reports for any project that is likely to cause damage to the environment and is located within one mile of an environmental justice population.

A neighborhood must meet at least one of five requirements to be considered an environmental justice population, such as having an annual median household income less than 65% of the state average, 25% or more households lack English language proficiency, or minorities comprise 25% or more of the population.

Perhaps they should spend less time worrying about Hotcoldwetdry and more on helping them with real environmental issues.

Anyhow, not many news outlets are even discussing this. You can see the bill itself in the link in the excerpt, which discusses “Market-based compliance mechanism”, which means a tax scheme. It limits GHG limits (but exempts the Mass. government operations). It allows the bureaucracy to simply make up whatever rules the want however they want whenever the want without input from the People or the elected lawmakers.

A commission will be created, which can call forth hearings and inquiries whenever they want for whatever they want.

Property owners and tenants will have to make huge, costly upgrades to properties. Smart meters will be required for all residential and non-residential buildings, giving Government more control of people’s power usage.

Those are just a few tidbits.

Also in Mass

Group to look at reducing greenhouse gas emissions on Cape Cod

Cape Cod climate change advocates are cautiously optimistic that the Cape Cod Commission will find ways to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions over the next six months.

In a unanimous vote by the full commission last week, the regional land use, planning and environmental agency responded to a citizen petition by forming a subcommittee that included various stakeholders and staff to develop a climate action plan and amendments to accomplish those goals.

Here’s an idea: ban visitors from coming to Cape Cod in fossil fueled vehicles. That would work, right? It’s not like Cape Cod depends on tourism from fossil fueled travel, right?

Read: Massachusetts House Approves Climate Change Bill Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turned to desert due to carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the U of Vermont demanding that the police be defunded because of raaaaacism.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Suddenly, Gun Ownership Is OK Since Latinos Are Buying Them

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 10:30 am

Usually, CNN will slam gun ownership and people buying them legally. In this case? Not so much

Tired of living in fear, some Latinos are buying guns to feel more safe

After overhearing constant racist and anti-immigrant comments made by his neighbors, Tony Martinez said he knew he needed to find a way to feel safer.

He bought his first rifle last month, joined a gun club and has been visiting shooting ranges in Southern California on the weekends.

“It’s more for me to be safe from them,” Martinez, 31, told CNN, referring to his neighbors in his Orange County community. “What if one day something happens, someone gets some idea?”

Martinez is not the only Latino immigrant in the US who has recently felt more concerned for his safety — last year’s shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, jolted Latinos and immigrants across the United States. Twenty three people died and nearly two dozen more were injured in what is considered one of the nation’s deadliest shootings and the deadliest attack on Latinos in modern US history.

See, CNN is portraying this as personal protection

People who in the past have been less likely to own firearms, including Latinos, might become interested in acquiring them after seeing more people around them doing so, according to Kellie Lynch, who has conducted research on firearm ownership among domestic violence victims.

“You know if you feel like you could be in danger, then that might be what you feel like you need to do to protect your family,” said Lynch, an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at The University of Texas at San Antonio.

This “implicit threat,” Lynch added, “may be amplified for people of color who are in areas with racism and hostility.”

It’s great how leftists always put people in Boxes, eh?

In the first six months after the shooting in El Paso, Rafael Cedillo, the owner and instructor of a firearm safety business in the city, said more than 400 people signed up for his courses.

That meant Cedillo had to triple the number of training classes he offered. He said he went from 10 students to up to 30 students in his license to carry classes, which include four to five hours of classroom training, followed by shooting practice.

The majority of Cedillo’s students, who are Hispanic or Latinos, told him that “they wanted to protect themselves and their family,” the 46-year-old said.

They want to protect themselves and their families? Huh. The reason most people legally purchase a firearm. And CNN doesn’t have anything negative to say about Latinos increasingly purchasing firearms. Anyway, I say “welcome to the 2nd Amendment, pal! Glad to have you.”

Read: Suddenly, Gun Ownership Is OK Since Latinos Are Buying Them »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Surprise: Eric Holthaus Admits ‘Climate Change’ Is Not About Science

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 7:24 am

If you’re surprised by this, raise your hand….OK, the Chinese spy watching your through your webcam says none of you did (via Watts Up With That? from Climate Depot)

Climate Depot’s Marc Morana spends his time highlight Holthaus and other Warmists who said this is not about ‘climate change’, such as

Holthaus is also revealing how identity politics has taken over the climate debate. See: NASA scientist Dr. Kate Marvel links ‘climate change’ to ‘white supremacy’ – ‘We’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy’ – Calls for climate & racial ‘justice’

AOC’s staff has bragged that the Green New Deal is about wealth redistribution, not climate. Former Ocasio-Cortez campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted that Ocasio-Cortez’s GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.”

In addition, AOC’s Chief-Of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti also revealed that the Green New Deal was not about climate change. The Washington Post reported in 2019: Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Greta Thunberg explained in 2019: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.”

Even the leading climate cultists know this is not about the climate, and make the mistake of saying it periodically. Looking at the Holthaus article

Earlier this month, to talk about how they tell climate stories, and how we might be able to tell better climate stories – together.

For me, a striking part of the conversation was hearing each participant give their introductions in their native languages.

Speaking these words in this way is a political act, an act of defiance against centuries of colonialism and erasure – the same forces that too often exclude Indigenous voices from storytelling about climate. For many First Nations, only a few speakers of Indigenous languages remain.

Sounds rather patronizing.

Telling stories of resistance – against consumer-driven culture, or the extractive capitalism of the fossil fuel industry, or police brutality – makes transformative action on climate more likely.

Sounds like this is just another Modern Socialist movement.

Our panel taught me a great deal about how to tell better climate stories. To capture the main points, here are six main principles for better climate storytelling from our participants.

How about proving it with science? Oh, right, that would be silly. And since they haven’t done so in all these years, they aren’t going to do it now.

“I come from Indigenous communities that are putting their bodies on the frontline to battle against destructive capitalism. What capitalism is doing to Mother Earth is what racism and patriarchy is doing to Indigenous women’s bodies.”

And anti-capitalist….while using technology systems designed thanks to capitalism.

Read: Surprise: Eric Holthaus Admits ‘Climate Change’ Is Not About Science »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Portland’s Wall Of Mom’s Accused Of “Anti-Blackness”

By William Teach August 1, 2020 – 7:08 am

Live by the race baiting, die by the race baiting

Portland’s Wall of Moms crumbles amid online allegations by former partner, Don’t Shoot PDX

Portland Wall of Moms, a group formed in recent weeks and quickly recognized as a staple of nightly downtown protests, was accused publicly Wednesday of “anti-Blackness” by leaders of an existing, Black-led community group.

Wall of Moms, whose members said they aimed to support and protect other Black Lives Matter protesters near the fence in front of the federal courthouse, announced Friday that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge. New leaders announced Friday include Teressa Raiford, executive director of Don’t Shoot Portland, Demetria Hester and Danialle James.

But less than a week later, Don’t Shoot Portland took to Instagram to urge people against supporting the Wall of Moms, saying that it was no longer working with the moms group. (the post is at the link. I can never seem to get IG to post)

Don’t Shoot Portland (hey, don’t attack cops, you won’t get shot) write

After leaving vulnerable Black women downtown after marching, failing to support those on the ground that put trust in them, @wallofmoms leadership also found time to make THREE registrations through Oregon’s Secretary of State. This was all done in privacy and without the knowledge of the Black leadership WOM was claiming to implement. The lies are finally clear and we are sad but ultimately not surprised that anti-Blackness showed it’s ugly face with Wall of Moms. This all came to light over the last 24 hours – We began having safety concerns within the group because Black women started saying they were not protected by WOM leadership. Too frequently would be in communication for safety, transport etc and when the time came, there would be zero response and no leadership to rely on. It’s put many on the ground in direct danger. Once these registration filings with Secretary of State came out, it became more clear – WOM was not started for BLM, but to get the feds out of PDX. None of the Black leadership WOM claimed to implement knew about this. Combined with a lack of care for and disregard of Black women, we were used to further an agenda unrelated to BLM.

Please do not support this organization anymore. We need everyone to show up against racism, but it’s even more crucial to prioritize transparency and accountability.

Well, of course it was really for the hatred of the feds, and surely other far left Progressive goals while paying lip-service to the BLM movement, just like with most of the rest of the white leftists protesting and “protesting”. These violent Antifa types, the anarchists, and others simply co-opted BLM for their own purposes.

The Wall of Moms answered a commenter’s question saying, “The founder went rogue. Many of us do not agree with her decisions. And she does not currently have access to this account.”

Blamestorm time! And Bev Barnum, the founder, responded responded

“The announcement of the 501c3 really hurt some of you,” she wrote. “That was never my intention. In fact, it was just the opposite. WOM will be led by a BIPOC board and BIPOC advisor committee. WOM is a group that supports BLM, not a BLM group. If that is not good enough for you, please feel free to leave this group. And if you currently volunteer your time, please feel free to leave your positions.”

BLPOC = “Black led people of color.” Isn’t it rather patronizing that these uber-white Progressives are always handing blacks things, as if blacks cannot earn it themselves? Isn’t that …… racist?

Read: Portland’s Wall Of Mom’s Accused Of “Anti-Blackness” »

Posted in Democrats, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump Is Emboldening Other Nation’s Bad Behavior On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Interestingly, what’s not mentioned in this bit of Cult of Climastrology proselytizing is that the vast majority of nations aren’t even close to upholding their Paris climate agreement pledges

How Trump is emboldening other countries’ ‘bad behavior’ on the climate crisis

The origins of the world’s historic agreement to tackle climate change, in Paris in 2015, have some familiar themes. Back in 2007, there was a Republican president in the White House who had long been hostile to any action on climate change.

George W Bush had refused to give US backing to a new global roadmap on the climate. (snip)

Delegate after delegate pleaded publicly and privately, there were even tears, to no avail. Then finally, to loud cheers, the representative from Papua New Guinea summed up the whole developing world’s frustration as he called to the US officials: “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way.”

That stung. And what followed, in December 2007, was a dramatic moment on the international stage, as the White House – under Bush – publicly backed down. The UN’s resolution passed and the so-called Bali roadmap, precursor to the Paris agreement, came into effect.

Bali? Would that be the UN IPCC Conference on the Parties where so many attendees took private jets that they head to deadhead (fly without passengers) them to other islands, because there was no place to park them? You ever wonder where the skeptic meme saying “the exotic vacation spot of …” in relation to COPs comes from? It was Michelle Malkin who coined that term due to Bali. And then Trump came along

Donald Trump began the process of withdrawal from the Paris agreement in June 2017, but for legal reasons it will take effect only on 4 November this year, the day after the US presidential election.

The withdrawal comes at a crucial point, as the Paris accord requires countries to come forward this year with new strengthened commitments to cut emissions, ratcheting up their inadequate initial targets from 2015. Only with fresh commitments from all nations can the aims of Paris be fulfilled, as current pledges would take the world to a potentially catastrophic 3C of warming.

“This really is absolutely vital,” says Mary Robinson, twice a UN climate envoy and ex-president of Ireland. “How can we reach the level of ambition that we need? We need leadership.”

You know, for all the anti-US sentiment around the world, they sure look to the U.S., eh? If they need leadership, why don’t they look at themselves and practice what they preach? Surely their subjects, er, citizens, won’t mind the economic devastation, right?

The possibility of a Trump delegation blinking at the last minute, as Bush did, is remote. The 45th president pays far less respect to a rules-based international system than his Republican predecessor. But some in the developing world are sanguine about the prospect of a US withdrawal.

What rules? Obama unilaterally signed Paris, which was set up in a way to avoid the US Constitutional requirement of getting the approval of the US Senate.

Opponents of Paris have viewed it as an opportunity, however, and that is where the real impact has been felt. Trump’s stance has emboldened other populist leaders and countries with previously veiled hostility to Paris. Last year’s UN climate talks in Madrid sputtered to a close without agreement on the key issues after Brazil held out, with Australia, Saudi Arabia, Russia and India accused of assisting in the obstruction at various points.

Many nations are realizing that they don’t want to tank their economies. And, again, the vast majority of nations who signed Paris are failing to keep their pledges, just like with the Kyoto Protocol.

Read: Trump Is Emboldening Other Nation’s Bad Behavior On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a house on stilts, made to withstand rising seas from ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Green Jihad, with a post on COVID cancel culture.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Tammy Bruce: If Guns Are So Readily Available Everywhere Else, Why Is It That Chicago Is A Bloodbath?

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 10:30 am

She has a great point

And her article

Why is the desolation and violence in America’s inner cities only getting worse? That question takes on an even more urgent implication considering the Democrats have been in charge of those cities for generations.

Now, during a time of pandemic and general Democratic Party panic during an election year in which it’s becoming more and more apparent, the instinct of the incompetent and corrupt politicians running these cities cannot take any responsibility for their failure and destruction caused by their policies.

The blame game has taken on an entirely new art with Democrats in charge of the disasters unfolding in front of us.

Consider the great American city of Chicago, Illinois. Yes, it’s a city that has had a problem with gun violence for decades. What feeds that problem, as it does in many other liberal urban areas, is the fact that Chicago has “gun control,” making it less easy for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, while becoming too inviting for those who wish to do harm to a community. (snip)

[Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot] told CNN, “The fact of the matter is our gun problem is related to the fact that we have too many illegal guns on our street, 60% of which come from states outside of Illinois. We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons, that is hurting cities like Chicago.”

When Ms. Lightfoot blames guns from out of state, one must ask, if it’s because there’s no gun control in those other places, why is it only Chicago that has become a blood-soaked hellscape? She can’t answer that question because the answer would indict liberal policies in every Democratically-held city.

It’s a good point. Why is it that the most dangerous cities are those run by Democrats, especially those with hardcore gun restrictions that only affect law abiding citizens? Why do the areas run by Republicans not have these problems? Heck, why do places run by non-crazy non-progressive Democrats not have these problems? We don’t have problems like this here in Raleigh, but up in Durham it’s a lot more dangerous.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, caused a disturbance a few weeks ago by suggesting the same thing during a social media townhall. About the rise of violence in New York, she referred to the economic crisis, unemployment and rent concerns.

The implication was those who are poor or struggling, seamlessly move from being normal, law-abiding people into mindless criminals. It’s an insult to every American, and exposes the contempt with which leftist politicians hold the average citizen.

No one should be surprised that Democrats hold citizens in contempt.

What is undeniable to everyone, apparently except Democratic Party leadership, is the incendiary rhetoric condemning the police, and law enforcement in general, is fueling the willingness of marginal anarchist and Marxist groups to engage in violent mob action in urban areas run by Democrats. Why? Because for some reason the mob feels safer in blue cities. It is the literal and figurative taking of a knee in front of the mob by Democrats signaling to the malevolent everywhere that now is the time to cause mayhem and destruction.

Read the rest.

Read: Tammy Bruce: If Guns Are So Readily Available Everywhere Else, Why Is It That Chicago Is A Bloodbath? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 8:23 am

There’s an interesting admission here by NY Gov Cuomo

NY removes climate change bond from 2020 ballot; for now

New York’s governor says the state’s economy is too “murky” to move ahead with his sweeping proposal to address climate change by borrowing $3 billion to fund environmental restoration projects across New York.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a Thursday conference call with reporters that the bond won’t appear on November’s ballot but said he hopes voters will weigh in on it the following year.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the state’s sales tax revenues and tourism industry.

Some environmental leaders criticized the Cuomo’s removal of the bond from November’s ballot, saying it would have helped stimulate the state’s ailing economy.

Obviously, Cuomo and the people in his administration, particularly the economists, understand that this bond will not help the economy, especially when it is in such bad shape at the moment. But, why pull it, instead of letting New Yorkers vote on it? And what is it

(Adirondack Daily Enterprise) The $3 billion Restore Mother Nature Bond Act will not be seen on the ballot Nov. 3.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Thursday confirmed the state would postpone a voter referendum on the bond act — one piece of a larger $33 billion, five-year plan to fight climate change — until 2021.

If authorized by voters, the bond act would shore up new funding for projects designed to mitigate flooding, restore fish and wildlife habitats, upgrade drinking water infrastructure and preserve land. Cuomo proposed the bond act in his State of the State address this January, and it was authorized by the state Legislature in April as part of the 2020-21 state budget.

Cuomo wants financial stability before doing this. How dare he! Doesn’t he know we have to stop the planet from burning!

“We’re disappointed,” said Protect the Adirondacks Executive Director Peter Bauer. “The focus of this bond act was largely climate change mitigation. There is no vaccine for climate change other than reducing fossil fuel use and that is going to require state investment and leadership. The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act made New York state a leader on climate change, but now we need serious funding to start building alternative energy supplies. The Restore Mother Nature Bond Act was the first serious step for New York to start seriously confronting climate change. Now, on a certain level, it’s back to the drawing board.”

Strange that the people of New York don’t want to take one for the team, eh?

Read: Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Bummer: New York Removes Climate Change (scam) Bond From November Ballot | Trackback URL

Bat Soup Virus: And Now Dr. Birx Is Recommending Face Shields

By William Teach July 31, 2020 – 8:05 am

While Dr. Fauci was just wondering if people should wear them, mentioning that they could be a good idea, Dr. Birx seems to take this a little bit further

From the article

Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, is recommending the use of face shields along with masks to protect against COVID-19 infection.

Face shields can offer more protection to the wearer than cloth face coverings, which are intended to prevent asymptomatic individuals from spreading coronavirus to others.

“The mask protects others, to block those droplets and block that contamination that happens when you speak or sing or talk, or even breathe,” Birx said on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning.

“The thing about the face shields — we think that could protect the individuals and that it would decrease the ability for them to touch their eyes and spread the virus as well as those droplets coming towards them. So there are two different technologies for two different reasons.”

Will we start seeing more people wear them? Early on, there were people wearing these more often, and you’ll still see a few here and there. However, will state government start recommending them? Followed by a requirement? And remember when we were told we didn’t need to wear a mask if we weren’t sick, just social distance and wash our hands? Remember when the media was saying this wasn’t even as bad as the regular flu?

Also

New research suggests COVID-19 can spread via aerosol transmission — and might affect tall people more

After surveying 2,000 people in the UK and US, the researchers found that the data from both countries suggests that aerosol transmission of the virus — via microdroplets which are so small that they remain suspended in the air for several hours — is very likely.

Moreover, they say that taller individuals appear to be at a higher risk. Individuals over 6ft tall seem to have more than double the chance of having a COVID-19 medical diagnosis or testing positive. The researchers said this suggests that aerosol transmission is very likely, as if COVID-19 transmission was solely due to droplets, which are bigger than aerosols and are thought to travel relatively short distances and drop quickly from the air, taller individuals would not be at higher risk. In contrast, aerosols can accumulate in poorly ventilated spaces and are carried by air currents.

All those ladies with the “have to be at least 6 feet tall” in their dating profiles (but whom get upset when guys do not want fatties) might want to reconsider.

Read: Bat Soup Virus: And Now Dr. Birx Is Recommending Face Shields »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove