…is a sea that will soon swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on how many 18-29 year old Germans experience COVID vaccine side effects.
Doubleshot below the fold, check out 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post the communist tortoise and communist hare.
Read: If All You See… »
There’s no doubt Vladimir Putin is a bad guy. Did he commit war crimes? Probably. Is this going anywhere? No
The International Criminal Court (ICC) on Friday issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and another Russian official involving allegations of war crimes around the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.
The arrest warrant is thought to mark one of the first charges against Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, part of a global effort to hold the Russian president and the Russian Federation accountable for atrocities beginning with the full-scale February 2022 invasion.
An arrest warrant was also issued for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, commissioner for children’s rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, who the ICC alleges “bears individual criminal responsibility” for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children from Russian-occupied territory to Russia.
“It is forbidden by international law for occupying powers to transfer civilians from the territory they live in to other territories. Children enjoy special protection under the Geneva Convention,” ICC President Judge Piotr Hofma?ski said in a video statement on Friday.
The arrest warrant marks a stunning global rebuke against Putin, even as the chance of bringing the Russian leader into custody of an international court of law is remote at best.
Does Putin care? Do you think he’s paying attention to this? If he travels to India, China, and most of the countries who are still doing business with Russia, will anything happen? Will any of those countries consider arresting him?
What Russia is doing if they are forcing kids from Ukraine to Russia is horrible. When does the ICC issue arrest warrants for all the parents and doctors involved in giving kids all sorts of chemicals and medical procedures to reinforce the short-sighted, trendy fad belief that they the other gender? Or the teachers who are pushing this on kids? Or the lawmakers supporting it? Lunatics like this utter RINO, Bob Heleringer, from Kentucky
I wish I could blame both political parties for this cataclysm but I cannot. Every anti-gay/trans bill this session was introduced by a Republican. But there’s hope. GOP state Reps. Kim Banta, Stephanie Dietz, Kim Moser, Killian Timoney and Sen. Stephen Meredith have voted this session against making LGBTQ Kentuckians second-class citizens.
Transgender children are the primary targets of the vendetta: what pronouns can be used to describe them in our public schools (I am not making this up), what medical care they can obtain, what psychological services they can have, what bathrooms the kids can use in a public school among other degradations. Gay adults have been singled out for special humiliation by having to contend with a bill that addresses one of the commonwealth’s most critical problems – who can attend Drag Queen shows and where they can be performed; an artistic expression (dance) that threatens absolutely no one.
See, it’s a bad thing in Moonbat World that Republicans want to protect biological women from men with mental health issue from being in their personal spaces, like bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower. It’s bad that Republicans want to protect women from having the gender confused compete in their sports, taking their wins and scholarships. From taking their place in all sorts of competitions, positions, and jobs. From children being able to attend highly sexualized drag shows, when those same kids are restricted from being in bars and strip clubs already. It’s a f*cked up world when anyone supports not protecting children from these deprivations.
The exact same people are pretty much also supporting Ukraine, but, the idea here is to defang the U.S. military
Climate Change & War: How U.S. Military Emissions Factor into Costs of War & Shape Military Policy
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our look at the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the costs of war with Neta Crawford, professor of international relations at Oxford University and co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University. She’s also author of the new book, The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Professor Crawford. It’s great to have you with us. Thank you for doing Part 2 of this interview, as we — in Part 1, we really looked at the new report you came out, on this 20th anniversary of the Iraq War. But you go broad in this book, and over more than a century of U.S. military spending and buildup, and what that means for the environment, The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War. Why don’t you take us on a brief trip through history?
NETA CRAWFORD: Well, war used to be fought, basically, with arms and legs and draft animals and wind power and oars and so on. But in the early 19th century, with the invention of the steam engine, war became more industrialized. Of course, steam power was either wood- or coal-powered. And this is the beginning of the military industrialization process, which launches a lot of emissions, from, at first, coal, through the 19th century. And in the early 20th century, what happens is many militaries shift to using petroleum. And then, of course, that increases the capacity for mechanization and speed.
And the thing that’s really interesting that I found in the book was that the military innovations became civilian innovations, and then this drove up civilian use of fossil fuels. And that’s the process that I’m tracing, sort of the gradual increase in the use of fossil fuels for the military driving up civilian uses.
So, one, whining about the Iraq War, and two, nutbags whining about the U.S. military. Sure, they have problems with other militaries, but, it’s mostly about hatred of the U.S.
And, of course, there’s also the thing that happens beginning in the 19th century but through to the present, where if you want to project power, as the United States did in the 19th and the 20th and the 21st century, what you need are places for refueling. And in the 19th century, this meant getting bases in Japan and in Hawaii and in the middle of the Pacific, so that the United States could expand and trade and make war in those regions, and then, as well, getting bases all over the world for refueling. In the 19th century, the British were the leaders in maritime power. In the 20th century, the U.S. became the great maritime power. Of course, it needed to have refueling capacity everywhere. And so the need for fuel drove U.S. overseas installations and bases, and it stayed that way to the present. So, that’s part of the story I tell.
Make war? The U.S. was attacked first, but, you know that these climate cultists hate the U.S., and aren’t saying anything negative about China.
But what also surprised me was how they’re not, in another sense, that they keep the same doctrine, the same activities, despite the reduced need for, for instance, protecting access to oil. As oil imports go down, as the Persian Gulf is less important to the United States in terms of a source of oil, the U.S. military could rethink its military posture and be as nimble as they are with technology, but they really haven’t. There has been a swerve or a pivot to Asia, but we still have thousands of troops there, and at least one aircraft carrier dedicated to Central Command, and all the surface ships that go along with that, when the risk is — of losing access to that oil is lower. And, in fact, we’re not using it as much. And even if we could burn it, we shouldn’t burn it. We need to reduce.
The idea of our military, any military, is to be positioned best to defend the nation. These people are nuts. Factoring the climate scam into operations hurts the mission.
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you’re entitled to!”
Read: Climate Cult Wants To Calculate Emissions Into Military Operations »
They just won’t give up, eh? They had been blaming it on someone eating a bat or pangolin for 3 years, but, now that there is more and more evidence now, to go with the early evidence, that it was created in a lab, the COVID cult has to try something. The question is, why this need to protect China? Why this need to not allow a belief that it came from the Wuhan lab? Who does this protect?
New Data Links Pandemic’s Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market
An international team of virus experts said Thursday that they had found genetic data from a market in Wuhan, China, linking the coronavirus with raccoon dogs for sale there, adding evidence to the case that the worst pandemic in a century could have been ignited by an infected animal that was being dealt through the illegal wildlife trade.
The genetic data was drawn from swabs taken from in and around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market starting in January 2020, shortly after Chinese authorities had shut down the market because of suspicions that it was linked to the outbreak of a new virus. By then, the animals had been cleared out, but researchers swabbed walls, floors, metal cages and carts often used for transporting animal cages.
In samples that came back positive for the coronavirus, the international research team found genetic material belonging to animals, including large amounts that were a match for the raccoon dog, three scientists involved in the analysis said. (snip)
The new evidence is sure to provide a jolt to the debate over the pandemic’s origins, even if it does not resolve the question of how it began.
In recent weeks, the so-called lab leak theory, which posits that the coronavirus emerged from a research lab in Wuhan, has gained traction thanks to a new intelligence assessment from the U.S. Department of Energy and hearings led by the new Republican House leadership.
So, three years later this “study” determines it was a raccoon dog?
An international team — which included Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona; Kristian Andersen, a virus expert at the Scripps Research Institute in California; and Edward Holmes, a biologist at the University of Sydney — started mining the new genetic data last week.
One sample in particular caught their attention. It had been taken from a cart linked to a specific stall at the Huanan market that Holmes had visited in 2014, scientists involved in the analysis said. That stall, Holmes found, contained caged raccoon dogs on top of a separate cage holding birds, exactly the sort of environment conducive to the transmission of new viruses.
The swab taken from a cart there in early 2020, the research team found, contained genetic material from the virus and a raccoon dog.
Even better, this is from a sample from three years ago.
After the international team stumbled upon the new data, they reached out to the Chinese researchers who had uploaded the files with an offer to collaborate, hewing to rules of the online repository, scientists involved with the new analysis said. After that, the sequences disappeared from GISAID.
I can either use my Southern and say “oh, honey-chile, bless your heart”, or revert to my native New Jersey and say “get the fuck out of here.” What a complete pantload. And the NY Times and the rest of the Credentialed Media are going with this without question. Who are they protecting?
Read: Now They Say The “Science” Claims COVID Came From Raccoon Dogs »
I suppose most lenders are a little leery of handing out cash like candy at favorable interest rates, expecting it to not be repaid as the projects crash and burn, unlike SVB
Analysis-SVB’s climate tech clients face humbling funding questions
For years Silicon Valley Bank was a lender of choice for climate technology startups keen to tap specialised support for early-stage companies. Post its collapse, they may face higher finance costs wherever they next choose to bank.
The meltdown of the 40-year-old lender triggered days of stressful phone calls for many types of technology firms as they lined up contingency plans for funds, although some calm returned after U.S. authorities stepped in to insure their deposits.
For businesses with an environmental mission, the big question now is whether investor demand to address climate change will continue to help them secure attractive terms, or if less start-up friendly lenders prove tougher partners as the broader banking system shudders.
At the start of 2022, SVB pledged to provide at least $5 billion in financing by 2027 to support sustainability efforts in industries including green buildings, renewable energy and water technology – seen as growth markets as the world shifts away from fossil fuels.
Would have been nice to have that money available after all the questionable decisions, like the huge amount of money in Treasury bonds which were annihilated with the rising interest rates, eh?
A number of startup executives and their VC backers, including Michael Sonnenfeldt, Chairman of MUUS Climate Partners, said the bank’s collapse could lead to more difficult borrowing terms for their young industry.
The chillier financing climes, already in play as interest rates rose, would be particularly acute for companies looking to spend big as they scale, for example on building infrastructure.
Equity valuations could be impaired between 5% to 50% over the coming year, Sonnenfeldt said, but the wide range shows the uncertainty of the situation: “We don’t know how bad it will, but it won’t be good,” he said.
Those startups will now have to prove the viability of their projects to get the loans, because most want a return on their investment. Most banks want to be repaid. They do not want to invest in projects that will never make money.
However, finance firm Alantra said it expects the bank sector’s challenges to prompt venture capital lenders to focus more on quality firms that can scale and be capital efficient.
“At a minimum, this will likely drive continued tightening of investments and a push to have their portfolio companies cut (cash) burn,” it said in a note.
How did housing work out when lenders were giving loans to people who really couldn’t afford them?
Mona Dajani, partner at law firm Shearman and Sterling, said most of her clean energy clients either banked with SVB or faced some other impact from its troubles. SVB “cultivated a reputation as being very friendly to clean energy… they were willing to underwrite more risk,” she said.
This is what happens when lenders are more interested in ESG (environmental, social, governance) than making wise decisions. Yes, other banks have tanked before over other issues, but, it almost always comes down to poor financial decisions. And ESG is being run poorly.
Unfortunately, there’s always government to give out crummy “loans”.
Read: Bummer: Silicon Valley Bank Collapsing Could Cause Problems For Climate (scam) Projects »
…is a world flooded from all the glaciers melting because Other People drove fossil fueled boats, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is JoNova, with a post on how many voters think ‘climate change’ is a religion.
Read: If All You See… »
Elizabeth Warren and Bob Menendez are duly elected lawmakers, right? Shouldn’t it be their job to pass legislation, rather than asking the Executive Branch to make a new regulation?
US Senators Menendez, Warren urge regulators to support new gun sale code
U.S. Senators Bob Menendez and Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday called on federal regulators to issue guidance to speed the adoption of a new merchant category code (MCC) by payment networks to identify firearms sellers.
The letter will add fuel to a debate over the new codes, approved by the Geneva-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in September to help detect suspicious firearms and ammunition sales to combat gun violence.
Their implementation was paused by major payment networks including Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc last week. The companies cited opposition from Republican politicians working to pass state laws to limit the codes’ use. The Republicans say the codes could be used to improperly track gun purchases.
The MCC would identify the type of store where a consumer shopped, though not the individual items they bought.
The code would not be used to identify firearms sellers, because few are going to be selling weapons illegally while using credit/debit cards. It would be used to track citizens who legally purchase firearms legally, with that data essentially going to government. This is government tracking your lawful purchases.
In a letter seen by Reuters the two senators, longtime supporters of gun-control efforts, and other Democrats called on U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland to “quickly publish any policy advisory, enforcement guidance, and other materials needed by financial institutions, retailers, and law enforcement as the new MCC code is implemented for gun and ammunition stores.”
The letter noted reports that mass shooters had used credit or debit cards to buy the guns and ammunition they used.
Yes, they purchased them legally. What would tracking purchases do? It would not have stopped the wackjobs, but, it would let government know what firearms you purchased if they decide to come after them. It’s about compiling a database. And you know that this will also track ammunition purchases. What will happen, if the credit card companies comply, is that law abiding citizens will simply pay with cash.
Implementing this code will do virtually nothing to reduce people using firearms illegally. It won’t stop the gangbangers in Chicago, it won’t stop the people shooting each other over being “disrespected”, and it won’t even stop a wackjob planning on a mass shooting. This is a backdoor registration scheme for the law abiding.
Read: Democrats Warren, Menendez Want New Merchant Category For Gun Sales »
I still maintain that fossil fuels companies that are sued by governments at any level should refuse to sell their products to those governments. Or, at the very least, publish how much those governments purchase
Biden administration tells Supreme Court Big Oil climate cases belong in state court
A lawsuit filed by several Colorado municipalities accusing ExxonMobil Corp and Suncor Energy Inc. of exacerbating climate change belongs in state court where it was filed, the Biden administration told the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday.
The administration urged the justices to reject the oil companies’ petition for review of a February 2022 appeals court’s ruling that sent the case back to state court, a venue generally considered more favorable to the municipal plaintiffs.
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case after concluding that none of the grounds cited by the companies to change the venue supported giving federal courts jurisdiction.
The venue question is a key point of contention in roughly two dozen lawsuits filed by states and municipalities against major oil companies alleging they concealed and misrepresented the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels.
The oil companies maintain that their operations make these cases a federal matter. On one hand, I would say most suits need to be at the state level, there’s too much federal involvement. However, you do have to consider that the products being sold are crossing state lines, which would then involve the federal government via the Commerce clause.
The case, if the Supreme Court elects to take it, would give the high court a second chance to clarify whether state or federal courts should hear the lawsuits filed by states and local governments, including Honolulu, Baltimore, and the states of Rhode Island and Delaware.
The Supreme Court first considered the jurisdiction question in 2021 in case brought by the city of Baltimore. It issued a narrow ruling telling the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments for removal raised by the oil companies in that case, but didn’t weigh in directly on which courts were proper.
What’s the endgame of Biden trying to tell the Court to not take the case? Obviously, the courts in Colorado would be rather liberal and could easily rule against the companies, regardless of state law. It could take many, many years before the cases could end up back in front of the Supreme Court if they do not take it now.
I’m wondering how those municipalities would operate without fossil fuels. How do the cities in Boulder County and the county itself clear all the snow from the roads? Run police and fire? Pick up garbage? Deal with all the tourists?
Read: Brandon Admin Really Doesn’t Want Supreme Court To Take Up Hotcoldwetdry Case Against Oil Companies »
Trackback URL
Can we call them bipartisan warmongers? There’s certainly a smattering on all sides who are pushing to keep giving more and more to Ukraine
Russia Wants a Long War
The West Needs to Send Ukraine More Arms, More Quickly
U.S. President Joe Biden’s historic visit to Kyiv days before the one-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine sent an important message to Ukrainians and, indeed, to Russians. “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia,” Biden proclaimed, adding that the United States will support Ukraine “as long as it takes.” Indeed, “as long as it takes” has become the new talking point for Ukraine’s allies, repeated by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. But “as long as it takes” also signals to many Ukrainians that the allies expect the war to drag on for years, with Ukraine bearing the brunt of it. And they are right: even as the United States and its allies have sent billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine, there remains one thing they seem unable to supply: a clear, united commitment to a rapid Ukrainian victory. Unless the United States wants to find itself embroiled in another forever war, on terms that very much suit Russian President Vladimir Putin, it’s time for that to change. (snip)
By the same token, nothing is exactly on the table, either. This ambiguity has resulted in a Western policy of incrementalism, setting the United States and Ukraine’s other allies up for a protracted conflict. This approach is encouraging Putin to believe that time is on his side and that the United States will eventually tire, as it did in Afghanistan, especially as political winds shift with a U.S. presidential election on the horizon. The policy, while ostensibly seeking to avoid escalation, is laying the ground for something far more dangerous for the United States and its allies: a potential Russian win.
So, basically, send more and bigger weapons right now. And they never really come to a realistic conclusion of what Putin would do. Or, they’re just ignoring that this could very easily start WWIII. I just do not understand this mindset. It’s not like sending lots of arms to Great Britain early in WWII, which then saw the U.S. dragged in. Russia has nuclear weapons. Then you have China in the wings, who could take advantage. And Iran and North Korea.
— Evi L. Bloggerlady (@MsEBL) March 16, 2023
From the link
Ron DeSantis came out against our current blank check n’ hack cliches Ukraine policy, stating the indisputable truth that Ukraine was not a vital US interest worthy of risking World War III with Russia. The next day he was proven right when a Russian SU-27 knocked a US Reaper drone into the Black Sea. Hey, feeding Russians (and Ukrainians) into a meat grinder is all fun and games until we get dragged into the abattoir too. Of course, all the right people got really mad about it – when Bill Kristol, Adam Kinzinger, David French, Max Boot and Mitt Romney are all for something, you need to be against it. Hardest hit was the GOP establishment – it was very sad because the governor refuses to be dragged along into cheerleading yet another massive foreign policy failure.
Where are all the left wing anti-war groups and folks? The Democrat elites are cheerleading the continuous funding and escalation, even lunatics like AOC. Kurt Schlichter continues
Americans are not pacifists, but they are sick of failure, and that’s what Ukraine is looking to become. Most Americans feel that Ukraine is corrupt, which it totally is – I saw it personally. They feel sympathy for the Ukrainians, as do I (I trained Ukrainian soldiers in Ukraine for the Army). And they agree with DeSantis that this territorial dispute – which it is – is not a vital American interest that overcomes other priorities and that is worth endless treasure and maybe even blood. We generally hope Ukraine wins, but this is not our fight. Nor is the war likely to spread to NATO countries where we have treaty obligations – the idea that we need to retake Crimea so the Russians don’t show up in Berlin, much less London, is ridiculous. Americans are not prepared to put up with this conflict forever, but forever wars that culminate in embassy helicopter evacuations and people falling off C-17s are what the Beltway buffoons do. (snip)
DeSantis has taken the smart strategic position and the smart political position. He has shown leadership, because the American people will soon come to be where he is now, and they will do so around the time when the election gets into high gear.
I think people are really getting there already. I can’t speak for you, but, I’m seeing a pretty big smattering of people in Real Life with very different political beliefs opting out. They do not want all this money given to Ukraine, nor all the arms, and definitely not an escalation. As Schlichter notes later, there is no coherent strategy by the U.S., and people see this. It’s just not worth risking WWIII for Ukraine.
Read: DeSantis Is Correct On Ukraine, Especially As Lunatics Keep Trying To Start WWIII »
“Experts” totally want your kids controlled even more in schools
How can we shield children from the impacts of climate change? Investments in schools can help.
As a pediatrician in California, Dr. Lisa Patel has seen firsthand how climate change is impacting children. She’s treated severely dehydrated newborns, children whose asthma was exacerbated by wildfires, and heat-related illnesses brought on by sports games and practices.
Those are some of the reasons that prompted Patel to co-author a recently released report pushing to make schools in California more resilient to climate change.
“We are just at a point where we can’t fix every part of our society as quickly as we need to to keep kids safe,” said Patel, who is also a clinical associate professor at Stanford University. “We need to be targeted, and, after their homes, kids spend the second most [amount of] time in their schools.”
The report, compiled by researchers, advocates and medical professionals, argues that not investing in schools hurts children from both a public health and an education standpoint, with climate change bringing added urgency.
First off, the amount that the U.S. spends on schools (with low return) is massive, at the federal, state, county, and local levels. But, they want to spend more? For what? Indoctrinating children more, making them even more fearful of Doom? Second, how do they Blame severely dehydrated newborns on ‘climate change’, and not neglect from the parents? Third, this is more about making the schools more of the kids’ parents than the parents, like these moonbats have been trying along other lines. 4th, how do we shield kids? Take the climate insanity out of schools, stop teaching them loony tunes stuff.
Comment: We’ll only beat climate change if we help small businesses cut emissions ? and fast
Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is a living reality affecting societies, businesses of all sizes and ? foremost ? people. Big businesses are serious about tackling climate change. Net zero, sustainability and ESG (environmental, social and governance issues) have become mainstream business strategy for multinationals, many of which are now figuring out how to deliver on their climate commitments.
However, leaders of small- and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), who care just as deeply about the climate, often cannot prioritise climate action due to more pressing issues, like rising energy costs and inflation.
This really is all about forcing the climate insanity on medium and small businesses, and, for those who refuse to comply, either force them to close or get the government to regulate them more.
How winter storms and other extreme weather are connected to climate change
Parts of Minnesota are once again bracing for a winter storm watch starting on Thursday and it’s been a year of unusual and extreme winter weather.
This winter is already the 8th snowiest winter on record in the Twin Cities and it’s only March.
And, they’re blaming this on you. It’s your fault. Because this is a doomsday cult. Scientology looks more sane. At least they’re not trying to force everyone to be a part of their cult.
Read: Climate Scam Today: Schools, Small Business, And Snow »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.