…is a horrible, evil, no good fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Last Refuge, with a post on the “EU Commission Triggers Financial Sanctions Against Hungary for Electing Wrong Candidate”
Read: If All You See… »
I’m perfectly fine with getting the vaccine. I did it early, before we actually knew it was more like taking the flu shot, meaning the chances of getting COVID were actually much, much lower than portrayed. But, you most likely wouldn’t suffer the severe consequences of COVID. So, I took the booster. I even considered another booster, which would be this month. But, hey, remember when some said we’d be taking constant boosters and they were called conspiracy theorists?
FDA, health experts to meet, discuss COVID-19 booster strategy
The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and a panel of health experts will meet Wednesday to discuss the future of COVID-19 boosters in the U.S. and emerging variants of the virus.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will host the all-day meeting with the health experts to discuss questions and concerns regarding vaccinations and the virus.
They will address concerns about the practicality of getting additional doses of the vaccines every few months and look into how frequently they should change the composition of the vaccine based on variants and their dominance, according to briefing documents released by the FDA.
The committee aims to develop a framework for a long-term booster strategy.
On Tuesday, White House chief medial adviser Anthony Fauci said the National Institutes of Health has already launched a trial to study different kinds of COVID-19 boosters.
They’re going to milk this for all it’s worth, aren’t they? It’s never ending. Well, except for the part where they blame China
A fourth dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine seems to offer short-lived protection against infection overall, but protection against severe illness did not wane for at least several weeks, according to a new study.
The study, published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at the health records of more than 1.25 million vaccinated people in Israel who were 60 or older from January through March 2022, a time when the Omicron coronavirus variant was the dominant strain.
The rate of severe Covid-19 infection in the fourth week after a fourth dose of vaccine was lower than in people who got only three doses by a factor of 3.5.
However, protection against severe illness did not seem to wane in the six weeks after the fourth shot, though the study period wasn’t long enough to determine exactly how long this protection lasts.
So, they aren’t sure about severe illness, but, they barely make a difference on catching COVID. They’ll continue to pimp booster after booster, even though COVID is pretty much waning.
Read: FDA To Meet With “Experts” On Vaccine Booster Strategy »
The Cult high poobahs always have ideas, most of which never involve them changing their own behavior, just stuff that affects you
Climate change: IPCC scientists report five ways to save the planet
The dangers of climate change have been well reported for years. But what’s had less attention is how the world could effectively tackle the issue.
Huh? These yahoos have been printing ways the government can make you act for years
Yesterday, UN scientists laid out a plan that they believe could help people avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures.
The report, by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), essentially calls for a revolution in how we produce energy and power our world.
To avoid very dangerous warming, carbon emissions need to peak within three years, and fall rapidly after that.
Make the UN IPCC Conference On The Parties meeting virtual, to start, reducing the huge number of people who take long, fossil fueled flights, including in private jets. Anyhow, coal is on their hit list, as are all fossil fuels
“I think that’s a very strong message, no new coal power plants. Otherwise, you’re really risking 1.5C,” said Prof Jan Christoph Minx, from the University of Leeds, and an IPCC co-ordinating lead author.
“I think the big message coming from here is we need to end the age of fossil fuel. And we don’t only need to end it, but we need to end it very quickly.”
Notice that jumps from coal all fossil fuels quickly. Strange that no reporter ever asks “say, have you given up your own use of fossil fuels?” Then we get some pie in the sky ideas, things that do not exist, perhaps some unicorns. Oh, and your life
3 – Curbing demand is a secret weapon
One of the big differences with this report from previous releases is that social science features heavily.
This is mainly focussed on the ideas of reducing people’s demand for energy in the areas of shelter, mobility and nutrition.
This covers a multitude of areas – including low carbon diets, food waste, how we build our cities, and how we shift people to more carbon friendly transport options.
In other words, government forcing you to act. And turning you into a pariah, a heretic, if you won’t. Much like we’ve seen with COVID. The BBC article even has the gall to say this is a “fairly painless way to really make an impact.” If it’s so painless, why do so few Warmists do it voluntarily in their own lives?
There’s also the notion of throwing massive amounts of cash at the problem, which means higher taxes and fees for you. And lots and lots of redistribution. Followed by The Rich
That may well be the case, but some IPCC authors believe the rich have other roles to play in helping the world towards net-zero.
“Wealthy individuals contribute disproportionately to higher emissions but they have a high potential for emissions reductions, whilst maintaining high levels of well-being and a decent living standard,” said Prof Patrick Devine-Wright, an IPCC lead author from the University of Exeter.
“I think there are individuals with high socioeconomic status who are capable of reducing their emissions by becoming role models of low carbon lifestyles, by choosing to invest in low carbon businesses and opportunities, and by lobbying for stringent climate policies.”
So, how does that happen? They’ll just do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Most haven’t up to now. Many talk a good game about the dangers of ‘climate change’ doom, advocate for carbon taxes and such, but, they aren’t giving up their big carbon footprints, much like members of the IPCC refuse to practice what they preach. It’s all about government force.
Read: UN IPCC Has Five Ideas To Save The Planet From Trace Amounts Of CO2 »
Of course, leftist “news” outlets are still pimping them as “don’t say gay,” because being honest and doing actual journalism has long left the building
Red states consider Florida-style ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bills
Conservative state lawmakers across the country are considering new legislation that would bar teachers from introducing concepts of sexual orientation or gender identity to young students, imitating a new Florida law that opponents have dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
Lawmakers in Ohio and Louisiana have filed legislation that mimics the Florida law, signed last month by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). In Texas, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who controls the state Senate, said he would make his state’s version of the bill a top priority in the next legislative session.
The specifics of the measures vary between states, but they largely contain provisions that mirror the Florida law. The bills would bar schools from using curriculum that includes topics about sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Louisiana version would bar educators and school employees from discussing their own sexual orientation or gender identity with any student through 12th grade.
“There’s no need for any child to ever know the private life of their educator,” state Rep. Dodie Horton (R), the bill’s chief sponsor, told KSLA-TV. “It’s not prejudice to one group or another. It just doesn’t discuss it at all.”
That might be going a bit too far, but, why do teachers even need to discuss any of this stuff? It doesn’t help juveniles in the least. It has nothing to do with the subject matter the people are hired to teach. Why are schools hiring people who feel the need to discuss private, adult sexual issues in the first place? Especially since so many of them seem more invested in their “activism” than performing the job. And we all know that these unhinged lunatics will use these discussion to push the kids. Indoctrinate them
Opponents of the measures say they intentionally target students who are already at risk.
“All of these curriculum censorship bills seek to erase and stigmatize young people who already experience marginalization,” said Aaron Ridings, chief of staff and deputy executive director for public policy and research at GLSEN, a group founded by teachers that supports LGBTQ youth. “All elected officials should be getting back to work on reopening schools and making sure that young people can learn and thrive and reach their own potential. These bills are a step backward.”
They do not target the students: they target the supposed adults who have captive audiences to groom.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1511145810414735362
And the teachers and other school employees want to hide what they’re saying and doing from the parents/guardians. Kids are welcome to discuss this stuff on their own, it should not be brought up and advocate by the adults. They should not be allowed to push impressionable young kids into huge lifestyle changes. That’s not their job.
Seriously, we knew almost nothing about our teachers personal lives. It really wasn’t discussed. Because it wasn’t germane to learning math, history, science, art, and so forth.
Read: Several Conservative States Look To Mirror Florida’s Parental Rights Bill »
The new scaremongering report the U.N. has been teasing has been released, and same old same old cult
‘It’s now or never’ on climate change action, official warns
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns that 2010-2019 average annual global greenhouse gas emissions were at their highest levels in human history and urgent action is needed.
The report released Monday said emissions need to be reduced in all sectors and countries should seek to wean themselves off fossil fuels — including industry and the transportation sector.
“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F),” said Jim Skea, IPCC Working Group III co-chairperson. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”
Let’s start with the U.N. and all the big wigs taking long fossil fueled trips, often in private jets, as well as Warmists everywhere. Lead the way! Show us how easy it is for you to change your life. Otherwise, you’re Doomsaying is foolish and hypocritical.
Factbox: Key takeaways from the IPCC report on climate change mitigation
…
The world has not yet managed to reduce its emissions output, hitting about 59 gigatonnes in 2019 when changes in land use are taken into account. That’s a 12% jump from global 2010 emissions of 52.5 gigatonnes, or an average increase of 1.3% each year during the last decade.
Well, that’s weird. 30+ years of spreading awareness and doomy prognostications, yet, even most Warmists won’t reduce their own emissions output.
ON TRACK FOR A HOTHOUSE PLANET
Only immediate, ambitious climate action will keep global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius beyond the pre-industrial average, the report says. Beyond that threshold, the world would be courting extreme climate change with severe impacts on people, wildlife and ecosystems, scientists say.
Again, let’s see you cut back in your own lives.
The report also weighs in on how market and regulatory tools can help stimulate innovation and technological competition, two strategies for boosting incentives to cut emissions. For example, removing fossil fuel subsidies and introducing carbon pricing would direct more investment toward renewable solutions.
In the agriculture sector, growing crops within forests and managing livestock more sustainably would help improve land productivity and resilience to climate impacts such as heat or drought.
No, no, this is totally about science, not Authoritarian politics.
Read: U.N.: It’s Now Or Never On Climate Crisis (scam) Or Something »
…are Evil fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on CNN calling parental rights advocates the new segregationists.
Read: If All You See… »
Wait, I thought we were done with this silly stuff. These types of mandates. What’s the point of COVID is mostly over? The city has no mask mandates or any others. They’ve already threatened employees to block their promotions (which would result in lawsuits), and been threatened with lawsuits for “discriminatory COVID policies.”
City of Raleigh implementing $50 surcharge for unvaccinated employees on its healthcare plan
The City of Raleigh announced Monday that a surcharge will be applied on its healthcare plan for unvaccinated employees starting in January of 2023.
The City said it would be implementing this $50 monthly surcharge or employees, retirees, GoRaleigh employees and covered spouses who are unvaccinated.
The City said this serves as a COVID-19 prevention strategy.
“In accordance with the City of Raleigh’s duty to provide and maintain a workplace that is free of known hazards, we are adding this requirement to safeguard the health of our employees and their families, our customers and visitors, and the community at large from infectious diseases that may be reduced by vaccinations,” said The City of Raleigh in a press release.
January 2023. Sure, there’s some fear mongering about an Omicron subvariant that’s hitting Europe hitting the U.S., but, it seems we’re pretty much done with this. At worst it’s endemic. Those employees either had Chinese flu already and have antibodies or managed to make it through 2+ years without getting it. How, exactly, is forcing employees to get the shot by January 2023 going to help? Expect lawsuits.
New COVID-19 variant XE identified: What to know and why experts say not to be alarmed
A new COVID-19 variant has been identified in the United Kingdom, but experts say there is no cause for alarm yet.
The variant, known as XE, is a combination of the original BA.1 omicron variant and its subvariant BA.2. This type of combination is known as a “recombinant” variant.
“Right now, there’s really no public health concern,” said Dr. John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital and an ABC News contributor. “Recombinant variants happen over and over. In fact, the reason that this is the XE variant recombinant is that we’ve had XA, XB, XC, XD already, and none of those have turned out to be any real concern.”
Weird. Someone at ABC News was allowed to broadcast non-apocalyptic COVID news. Meanwhile, in NYC
Ah, yes, #NewYorkCity, where you can say anything. As the NYC digital billboard (available only in Florida) says "Come to the city where you can say whatever you want." https://t.co/GS1s2TH0Im
— Alberto Miguel Fernandez (@AlbertoMiguelF5) April 5, 2022
Read: Raleigh To Charge Un-Vaxxed Employees $50 A Month Health Surcharge »
I don’t think the vast majority of “climate scientists” have gotten the memo that things aren’t apocalyptic
No obituary for Earth: Scientists fight climate doom talk
It’s not the end of the world. It only seems that way.
Climate change is going to get worse, but as gloomy as the latest scientific reports are, including today’s from the United Nations, scientist after scientist stresses that curbing global warming is not hopeless. The science says it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. Action can prevent some of the worst if done soon, they say.
After decades of trying to get the public’s attention, spur action by governments and fight against organized movements denying the science, climate researchers say they have a new fight on their hands: doomism. It’s the feeling that nothing can be done, so why bother. It’s young people publicly swearing off having children because of climate change. (snip)
Doomism “is definitely a thing,” said Wooster College psychology professor Susan Clayton, who studies climate change anxiety and spoke at a conference in Norway last week that addressed the issue. “It’s a way of saying ‘I don’t have to go to the effort of making changes because there’s nothing I can do anyway.’”
Ah. So they are not above pitching doom and gloom, they just don’t want all the people internalizing the doom and gloom that’s being pitched to stop trying to Do Something, to say “nah, it’s over, we’ll just live our lives. We don’t need all the taxes and fees and liberty taking government laws and rules.”
Gill and six other scientists who talked with The Associated Press about doomism aren’t sugarcoating the escalating harm to the climate from accumulating emissions. But that doesn’t make it hopeless, they said.
“Everybody knows it’s going to get worse,” said Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Jennifer Francis. “We can do a lot to make it less bad than the worst case scenario.”
Is it any wonder that so many, especially the Gen Z’s, are just saying “the hell with it?” The Cult of Climastrology scientists and such have scared them so much, have pimped the climate apocalypse so much, that many just see no point in acting. If you’re being told that the company you work for is in horrible shape and there’s zero way to save it, would you fight to save it, even if you love the company? Would you just move on?
“It’s not that they’re saying you are condemned to a future of destruction and increasing misery,” said Christiana Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris climate agreement and now runs an organization called Global Optimism. “What they’re saying is ‘the business-as-usual path … is an atlas of misery ’ or a future of increasing destruction. But we don’t have to choose that. And that’s the piece, the second piece, that sort of always gets dropped out of the conversation.”
Perhaps, but, the climate cult has sold the doom so hard that few pay attention to that second piece. And, how many have figured out that the second piece requires all the taxes, fees, and surrendering of liberty and life choices? It seems really popular in theory, but, not practice. You can’t be the leaders in a doomsday cult and not think people will not think the worst. They reap what they sow.
Obviously, the Times sorta takes the side of the Blue states, but, does play much of this straight (you can also see at Yahoo News if the paywall gets you)
Flurry of New Laws Move Blue and Red States Further Apart
After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California lawmakers proposed a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.
When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from out of state.
As Republican activists aggressively pursue conservative social policies in state legislatures across the country, liberal states are taking defensive actions. Spurred by a U.S. Supreme Court that is expected to soon upend an array of long-standing rights, including the constitutional right to abortion, left-leaning lawmakers from Washington to Vermont have begun to expand access to abortion, bolster voting rights and denounce laws in conservative states targeting LGBTQ minors.
The flurry of action, particularly in the West, is intensifying already marked differences between life in liberal- and conservative-led parts of the country. And it’s a sign of the consequences when state governments are controlled increasingly by single parties. Control of legislative chambers is split between parties now in only two states — Minnesota and Virginia — compared with 15 states 30 years ago.
“We’re further and further polarizing and fragmenting, so that blue states and red states are becoming not only a little different but radically different,” said Jon Michaels, a law professor who studies government at UCLA.
Well, yeah. On one side you have states which do not want parents and teachers to force the trans agenda on kids who really do not know better. Which want to limit killing the unborn, especially since Dems seem to treat abortion as contraception. Restricting teaching CRT, which demonizes white kids, and even Asians and Latinos. Giving parents control over what their kids are taught. Stopping the insane climate cult stuff. Upholding 2nd Amendment Rights (maybe a bit too much, IMO. I’m all for permits for concealed carry. That’s a long explanation). And so much more. Dems want the opposite, adding on huge taxes and fees, authoritarian government over citizens, and more.
With some 30 legislatures in Republican hands, conservative lawmakers, working in many cases with shared legislative language, have begun to enact a tsunami of restrictions that for years were blocked by Democrats and moderate Republicans at the federal level. A recent wave of anti-abortion bills, for instance, has been the largest since the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.
They call these restrictions, and they’re right: except, most are restrictions on government and government employees, with the others mostly protecting citizens, especially the most vulnerable, like children
Many, however, send a strong cultural message. And divisions will widen further, said Peverill Squire, an expert on state legislatures at the University of Missouri, if the Supreme Court hands more power over to the states on issues like abortion and voting, as it did when it said in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering was beyond federal jurisdiction.
Some legal analysts also say the anticipated rollback of abortion rights could throw a host of other privacy rights into state-level turmoil, from contraception to health care. Meanwhile, entrenched partisanship, which has already hobbled federal decision-making, could block attempts to impose strong national standards in Congress.
“We’re potentially entering a new era of state-centered policymaking,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at the University of California, Riverside. “We may be heading into a future where you could have conservative states and progressive states deciding they are better off pushing their own visions of what government should be.”
The Conservative vision of government is that it is limited, empowers Citizens, and is based on the Constitution. The Democrat vision is that government is Great and should be huge and control everything, with parents having little control of their children and abortion should be whenever for whatever till birth, and sometimes after. Citizens should be disarmed, at the beck and call of government. That citizens earnings are the government’s money. Dissension is not allowed, on pain of cancellation. Comply, Comrade!
But no state has been as aggressive as California in shoring up alternatives to the Republican legislation.
The state with high taxes, high cost of living, high housing, and massive restrictions on citizen freedom and life choices? The one people and companies are abandoning? And lets not forget about all the high crime in California and other Progressive meccas.
The question now becomes “are we moving to a Big Split”? And, if so, will it be amicable, or war?
Read: NY Times Notices New Laws Push Red And Blue States Further Apart »
We can fix this with a tax, though. And you giving up your fossil fueled travel, along with freedom, liberty, and life choices
Climate change could cost U.S. budget $2 trln a year by end century -White House
Flood, fire, and drought fueled by climate change could take a massive bite out of the U.S. federal budget per year by the end of the century, the White House said in its first ever such assessment on Sunday.
The Office of Management and Budget assessment, tasked by President Joe Biden last May, found the upper range of climate change’s hit to the budget by the end of the century could total 7.1% annual revenue loss, equal to $2 trillion a year in today’s dollars.
“Climate change threatens communities and sectors across the country, including through floods, drought, extreme heat, wildfires, and hurricanes (affecting) the U.S. economy and the lives of everyday Americans,” Candace Vahlsing, an OMB climate and science official, and its chief economist Danny Yagan, said in a blog. “Future damages could dwarf current damages if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.”
The analysis file:///C:/Users/8003938/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCac he/Content.Outlook/T0DU0FIQ/OMB_Climate_Risk_Exposure_2022.pdf found that the federal government could spend an additional $25 billion to $128 billion annually on expenditures such as coastal disaster relief, flood, crop, and healthcare insurance, wildfire suppression and flooding at federal facilities.
Is anyone surprised that OMB found the exact outcome Brandon wanted?
The president’s “Build Back Better” bill, which contained hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to fight climate change and support clean energy, has been stalled in the narrowly-divided Senate by Republicans and West Virginia’s conservative Democrat Senator Joe Manchin, the founder and partial owner of a private coal brokerage.
Biden late last month submitted a $5.8 trillion budget plan to Congress with a focus on deficit reduction in an apparent overture to Manchin has said he could not vote for the bill because it would worsen deficits. Biden’s budget plan calls for nearly $45 billion to tackle climate change in fiscal year 2023, an increase of nearly 60% over fiscal year 2021.
OK, so, let’s say we do all this. Who’s held responsible if it makes zero or barely any difference?
Read: ‘Climate Change’ Could Cost US Budget $2 Trillion A Year By 2100 Or Something »
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.
