If All You See…

By William Teach December 21, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from traveling to see relatives, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on options, including charging Pelosi with extortion.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Capitalism Hating St. Greta Sees Merchandisers Striking It Rich On Her Likeness

By William Teach December 21, 2019 – 10:30 am

St. Greta of Stockholm hates capitalism. And consumerism. And people buying stuff. She’s cool with million dollar sailboats, but, that’s another story. So, what are capitalists doing?

Greta Thunberg merchandise sellers strike it rich

Greta Thunberg may have insisted that her bestselling book was printed on paper sourced only from sustainable forests but the young campaigner’s army of supporters do not appear to be quite so environmentally diligent in expressing their admiration for her.

The popularity of the 16-year-old Swedish activist’s uncompromising message on the danger of climate change has led to a boom in the sale of “Greta” merchandise online but analysis by The Times suggests that much of it is either shipped from China or made from materials that may damage the planet.

Amazon, eBay and Etsy are awash with Greta T-shirts, mugs, stickers, badges and bags this Christmas, most of them emblazoned with her image or popular slogans, such as “Listen to the scientists” and “There…

Sadly, the rest is behind a paywall, but, you get the idea. The so-called carbon footprint of all this consumerism is pretty big. Sputnik has access, and notes

Some vendors went even further by offering niche products, including a scented prayer candle, a Greta “viking warrior” garden gnome and car air fresheners.

The Times analysis, however, warns that “few of the products deserve to be” on the Christmas list of “any genuine environmentalist”.

“The gnome, for example, is made from bonded acrylic resin, a material that is not easily recycled nor readily biodegradable. The manufacture of acrylic can also involve toxins that are potentially harmful to factory workers and the environment, according to campaigners,” the survey asserts.

Bummer. Furthermore, only one vendor offered to give any of the profits to a climaweenie charity, and there, just a mere 10%. Will St. Greta rail against this consumerism, telling them “how dare you”?

Read: Bummer: Capitalism Hating St. Greta Sees Merchandisers Striking It Rich On Her Likeness »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Germany Lowers Cost Of Rail Tickets To Get People To Take The Train And Stop Sea Rise

By William Teach December 21, 2019 – 7:40 am

Who pays for this? The tickets are either vastly over-priced or the government will have to allocate the lost money, meaning, taxpayers still pay

Germany OKs Cheaper Train Tickets in Plan to Lower Emissions

Germany’s upper house of parliament has approved a plan to make rail travel cheaper as part of a package of measures to combat climate change.

The decision Friday by the chamber representing Germany’s 16 states will reduce value-added tax on train tickets, making them about 10% cheaper starting Jan. 1.

The German government hopes that cutting rail prices will encourage more people to use trains, thereby helping reduce emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Rail travel in Germany, where much of the track is electrified, produces significantly less carbon dioxide per passenger kilometer (mile) than conventional road transport. The country has a well-developed rail network with high-speed connections between most major cities and to neighboring countries.

Deutsche Bahn, the main rail operator in Germany, expects passenger numbers to increase by 5 million a year as a result of the VAT cut.

A lot of people aren’t taking the train because it is inconvenient. It’s a lot easier for them to jump in their fossil fueled vehicles for longer trips, rather than waiting around, getting on a crowded, smelly train, taking longer than driving, then having to get from the train station to wherever you are going. It can work well on a small scale, like in NYC, DC, London, and others. Other cities? Not so. Much. Trying to take a bus to work would take me at least an hour. I can drive there in less than 20 minutes.

And then there’s Democrat/Warmist run Virginia

Read More »

Read: Germany Lowers Cost Of Rail Tickets To Get People To Take The Train And Stop Sea Rise »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 41 Comments | Trackback URL

New Zealand’s Gun Buyback And Ban Scheme Nets 50,000 Firearms

By William Teach December 21, 2019 – 7:22 am

The Associated Press has this article, which is being trumpeted across a wide variety of outlet as being awesome, but, forgets a very important detail

New Zealanders hand in 50,000 guns after assault weapon ban

New Zealand authorities said Saturday their country will be a safer place after owners handed in more than 50,000 guns during a buyback program following a ban on assault weapons. But critics say the process was flawed and many owners have illegally stashed their firearms.

The government banned the most lethal types of semi-automatic weapons less than a month after a lone gunman in March killed 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques. The police then launched a six-month program to buy the newly banned weapons from owners.

The buyback ended midnight Friday, with gun collection events staying open late as police reported in a surge in last-minute returns.

Provisional figures indicate 33,000 people handed in 51,000 guns, and another 5,000 guns as part of a parallel amnesty in which owners could hand over any type of firearm without any questions being asked but without getting compensated.

Owners also modified another 2,700 guns to make them legally compliant, while police said they had seized a further 1,800 guns from gangs since March. And police said they’re in the process of collecting another 1,600 guns from gun dealers.

Police Minister Stuart Nash told reporters Saturday that criminals would find it harder to get their hands on assault weapons because they tended to steal them from lawful owners, but those weapons would now be out of circulation.

Remember, New Zealand banned most semi-automatic guns, not just the scary looking assault weapons. Handguns and regular rifles above .22 caliber are banned. My Walther P22 would be OK, my Walther P9, which is 9mm, would be illegal.

The thing is, it’s interesting that the Police Minister is lauding the fact that law abiding citizens are having to turn in their property because a criminal could steal it, but, about that thing the AP forgot?

But nobody has a clear target for the program because authorities haven’t kept track of the number of guns in the country.

Tentative estimates put the total number of guns in New Zealand at about 1.5 million and the number of weapons that are now banned at up to 175,000. If those numbers are correct, it would mean less than 10% of the banned weapons have been handed in so far. Owners have until Dec. 20 to turn them over or potentially face charges.

The thing is, that number of what is potentially banned is a pure guess. Another guess is 500,000 which do not comply with the law. No one knows. There are surely a lot of handguns and rifles that do not comply. If the rest are shotguns and small caliber handguns and rifles, thieves will just steal them. And people will just purchase large caliber revolvers. So, 50,000 is a fail. Just like when Australia did a similar type ban.

Read: New Zealand’s Gun Buyback And Ban Scheme Nets 50,000 Firearms »

Posted in Current Affairs | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

How Much Of Your Money Have Democrats Pledged To Fight Hotcoldwetdry?

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 3:00 pm

It’s easy to Do Something about ‘climate change’ when you’re spending Other People’s money

Whatever the number is, expect it to be at least tripled, and they’ll be paying back their donors

Climate change — or, more precisely, fighting climate change — has quickly become one of the top priorities among Democratic voters. Increasingly dire warnings about the devastating effects of climate change, as well as the sweeping Green New Deal proposed this year in Congress, have helped the topic gain traction among voters and politicians alike.

It may be important to the Democrat base, but, of course, not enough for them to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, nor spend their own money.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on polluters — for example, a power plant burning fossil fuels. The goal is to cut emissions by forcing businesses to pay a price for polluting. Many economists back the idea, but it could be difficult to sell politically, as it could mean higher prices for Americans on things such as gasoline and heating.

Most are in favor of it. Some are “not opposed” to nuclear energy, some are against.

Most candidates who have climate plans list target dates for getting the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions. They differ on the dates when they believe it is possible to get there. Many candidates have set 2050 as a target. That is when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the world will have to get to net zero to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

All but Bloomberg and Gabbard are for this, yet, are taking quite a few fossil fueled trips. Because this is only for The Little People, not your political masters.

Read: How Much Of Your Money Have Democrats Pledged To Fight Hotcoldwetdry? »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean encroaching on forest land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with a post on Trump the magician.

BTW, you aren’t seeing a bunch of older photos right now because Photobucket is still down. Supposedly had a power outage. For over 2 days? Did they not pay the power bill?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Sierra Club: Trump Should Be Impeached For His “Environmental Record”

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 12:37 pm

The Sierra Club is on a seriously unhinged roll with this one

Trump’s environmental record should be impeachable: Sierra Club

The Sierra Club has come out in support of the impeachment and removal of President Trump from office. We have never before called for the impeachment or removal of a sitting President, but Trump’s abuse of power and disregard for the law has undermined our democracy.

He has violated his oath of office and his behavior when it comes to the environment is even more reckless – he has deliberately ignored laws and trying to destroy important environmental institutions. President Trump has declared war on the environment. He unilaterally pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, called climate change a hoax, and has muzzled scientists while trying to compromise 50 years of environmental progress.

He is exploiting our public lands while attempting to roll back 85 environmental regulations including the Environmental Species Act and lightbulb standards, and is allowing banned toxic chemicals and pesticides back on the market. He has stacked government agencies with industry lobbyists like EPA’s Andrew Wheeler. Trump’s lawlessness and disregard for institutions is putting our environment and safety at risk.

OMG, he’s trying to allow people more choice with lightbulbs!!!!!!! Impeach now!

Some say that Trump’s tweets make them sick, but it is actually his environmental policies. His EPA’s studies have shown that rolling back the Clean Power Plan would lead to over 1,400 premature deaths and 40,000 cases of asthma each year and freezing CAFE standards would result in 41,000 deaths and 1.67 million cases of asthma over a decade.

Except, the CPP never went into effect, because nearly half the states sued to stop a serious breach of Executive Office power from the Obama administration. And court after court put the plan on hold, and would have killed it if the Trump admin hadn’t.

Trump’s actions are not going unchecked. Sierra Club and others are suing on close to 37 rules he is trying to weaken, from Waters of the United States to coal ash to offshore drilling. We are also fighting the administration for hiding scientific reports, holding private meetings with lobbyists, and the border wall as well as challenging permits for projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline, LNG terminals, and clean power plants.

Courts also forestalled the Waters of the USA over-reach, and would have killed it had the Trump admin not done it first. Also, the Sierra Club wants your power to skyrocket. Look, I don’t agree with some of what the Trump admin has done with real environmental issues, but, they are not impeachable.

We need to not only get rid of Christie’s rollbacks on environmental rules but also move forward on protecting New Jersey from climate impacts and sea level rise by regulating greenhouse gases and getting to 100% renewable energy. Basically, we need to build a green wall around our state.

What he is doing to the environment is a high crime and worse than a misdemeanor. Flooding, sea-level rise, and other climate impacts are getting worse, and blocking the U.S. from moving forward will leave a legacy of destruction.

Read: Sierra Club: Trump Should Be Impeached For His “Environmental Record” »

Posted in Donald Trump, Enviroweenies, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Joe Biden Is Cool With Killing Off Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs For The Green Economy

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 7:02 am

How well did the green economy work under Joe’s previous boss? Didn’t they piss away at least $50-90 billion with their Stimulus? It’s hard to know the exact number, but, one word: Solyndra.

Joe Biden Admits He Is Ready to Sacrifice Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs for Greener Economy

Former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that he was ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs to create a greener economy on Thursday.

Biden was questioned by moderator Tim Alberta during the PBS/Politico Democrat presidential debate on Thursday about his clean energy proposals.

“As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands or hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to the greener economy?” Alberta asked.

This won’t show up in a Trump ad, right? Because he would never do that, right?

“The answer is yes,” Biden said. “The answer is yes because the opportunity for those workers to transition to high paying jobs is real.”

Biden argued that the government could invest dramatically in making homes more energy-efficient and produce batteries to store energy.

He argued that more government spending and regulations could help transform the country into a cleaner energy future.

“We shouldn’t build another new highway in America that doesn’t have charging stations on it,” he said.

Oh, charging stations for the upper class who can afford EVs that cost well over $100k. And, of course those jobs are high paying, if we look back to the stimulus. The cost per job was, depending on the source, at least $278K. Some estimates go as high as $4.1 million. Because the taxpayers funded them. Not that the workers saw that money. But, hey, you’ll lose your job and can get trained to install insulation….oh, wait, Democrats want unfettered illegal immigration, so, they’ll take those low skill jobs. All so Government can control the economy.

Read: Joe Biden Is Cool With Killing Off Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs For The Green Economy »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something

By William Teach December 20, 2019 – 6:48 am

You can always count on the NY Times to provide a good Hot Take, and Excitable Michelle Goldberg has been on a roll lately. She even has to go back to George Bush 43

The Tyranny of the 63 Million
Impeachment didn’t undermine democracy. It vindicated it.

When George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000 but became president anyway, he did so with almost 50.5 million votes. I didn’t know that number until I looked it up, because it would have been unimaginable for that president — even though he could be quite demagogic — to brandish it as proof that he represented some quasi-mystical conception of “the people,” in contrast to the nearly 51 million citizens who voted for his opponent.

Anyone who pays attention to politics, however, knows that Donald Trump got around 63 million votes in 2016. That number has taken on a totemic significance for him and his supporters; any attempts to restrain his power are seen as a sin against the 63 million. During the long impeachment debate in the House on Wednesday, Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, called for a moment of silence to “remember the voices of the 63 million American voters” whose will Democrats would defy, as if seeing Trump held to constitutional standards was a sort of death.

On the surface it seems strange, this constant trumpeting of a vote total that is more than two million less than the total received by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t just lose the popular vote — he lost it by a greater margin than any successful presidential candidate in American history. The right’s bombastic repetition of Trump’s 63 million could be just a propaganda trick meant to bully America’s anti-Trump majority into seeing itself as marginal, despite the more than 65 million votes Clinton received. But as I watched impeachment unfold, it seemed like something more than that — an assertion of whom Republicans think this country belongs to.

If you think she’s upset over the way the rules are laid out, you’d be correct, just like so many Democrats. If you understand the reasoning behind the Electoral College, there’s no need to explain it. If you hate it because Hillary lost (and, let’s face it, most were simply voting for the Democrat candidate because that’s who they always vote for or against Trump, just like a goodly chunk against Bush 43, not for John Kerry. Do you think people really liked Hillary?), then there’s not point wasting finger movement explaining the point.

In a sense, he’s right: We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it.

It’s interesting that Michelle positions this as a “right to rule”, rather than as the President and Congress serving the people. It says quite a bit about the Modern Socialist/Progressive/Statist mindset.

“There’s been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump,” the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said in his surprisingly moving speech on Wednesday. “Little talk about the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton.” With the House’s impeachment vote, the America outside of Trump’s ruling faction finally mattered.

So, right there, we see that impeachment is about overturning the 2016 election. Case closed. She attempts to downplay it in the next paragraph, but, we know what she, and the rest of the Dems, mean with impeachment theater.

Read: NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something »

Posted in Donald Trump, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Youths Have Totally Changed The Climate Crisis (scam) Movement Or Something

By William Teach December 19, 2019 – 4:14 pm

Right, right, because people who pretty much don’t live on their own, mostly depend on their parents for an allowance and to get to rallies and such, don’t pay rent, food, clothing, and aren’t even close to living in the Adult World should be listened to

How Youth Have Changed the Climate Movement

We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children,” affirms the Oglala-Sioux version of a belief common to several indigenous cultures. To David Brower, the “archdruid” founder of Friends of the Earth, and other environmentalists, “stealing it from our children” better characterizes modern humans’ degradation of the earth. The only hope, Brower declared nearly 50 years ago, is “what young people can do before older people tell them it’s impossible.”

Yeah, well, they have almost no Adult responsibilities, so, they can focus on this silliness. Once they enter the Real World, well, let’s see how much they care when their proposed policies reduce their paychecks, movement, liberty, choice, etc.

The youth-led climate strikes in September that drew some 4 million marchers worldwide demand a far broader concept of democracy if the environmental goals they advocate are to be won. The climate-strike revolution represents a huge new step for human rights that expands hierarchical oppressions to include the dimension of future time. The young are a distinct class because they, not the old, will face climate change’s worst devastations

By broader, they mean democracy like Saddam Hussein offered, where you voted the way you were told to vote, or be thrown in prison or  executed.

Climate-change activism is not new, but the role of youth in it today is. Today’s youth reject the idea that they are junior auxiliaries to adult movements. They challenge the traditional rule of older people over the young, and, most radically of all, uphold the interests of future generations as equal to those of present ones. They find true elder wisdom manifest in hard science and lambaste the old as immature and selfish for rejecting that science. “Why do we have to clean up the mess that past generations, and your generation, has left us?” Nazar interrogated Congress members in February.

Again, wait till they are adults with adult responsibilities. Suddenly, this whole super important issue will be relegated to a minor issue to discuss in bull sessions in coffee shops, but, otherwise, they’ll mostly be in the same world of care as those who are polled who say they refuse to spend $10 a month more to Solve Hotcoldwetdry.

The rest is yap yap yap

Young people see future-facing issues such as climate change, gun violence, human rights, proactive government, and globalism more clearly than older leaders but are denied pathways to power on account of their age. Extending voting and office-holding ages to 16 or even younger is crucial to bringing future-focused issues to the forefront. In an America whose leaders increasingly reject even short-term investments to fix bridges and fund schools, winning tough action on long-term threats like climate change demands a revolutionary reimagining of innovative solutions.

They usually forget to show up to vote. Think of yourself when you were 16: you knew it all, right? Until you became 17, and realized your 16 year old self was a fool. Followed by 18, 19, 20, etc. Let them get out in the Real World and see how it works.

Read: Youths Have Totally Changed The Climate Crisis (scam) Movement Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove