…is what is hopefully an electric, not fossil fueled, golf cart, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Gateway Pundit, with a post on a 69 year old woman charged in Capital “riot” with entering without lawful authority and a photo of Capital Police opening the door for her.
Read: If All You See… »
That’s how this works, right, at least according to the Credentialed Media and Democrats during the Trump years
U.S. eyes more stable, predictable ties with Russia, Blinken tells paper
The United States hopes for more stable and predictable relations with Russia but if the latter continues to “be aggressive”, then Washington will respond, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a newspaper interview published on Tuesday.
“But if Russia is going to continue to take reckless or aggressive actions, we’ll respond — not for purposes of conflict, not to escalate, but because we will defend our interests and values,” he told Italian daily La Repubblica.
Blinken – who was in Rome for a meeting on international efforts to combat Islamist militia – referred to the SolarWind cyberattacks and the attempt to poison jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.
During the Trump years the media would have said that this meant that Trump was doing the bidding of Putin. No, no, no, don’t deny it, Liberals, we were there, we all saw this in action. Despite putting way more sanctions on Russia than the Obama admin, with Joe as VP, ever did, it was “Trump is Putin’s puppet!” Hey, it was Trump who did his best to block the Nord Stream pipeline, while Joe gave in quickly to Russia.
China was “the most complicated” when it came to relations Blinken added, but said the United States respected the different relations countries had with China and that it would not ask any of them to choose between the two countries.
“I think we see adversarial aspects to the relationship, competitive aspects of the relationship, and cooperative ones. There’s no single word that can define it,” he said
And China’s puppet. Because Joe needs to keep that money flowing to his kids, which then flows into the pockets of Joe and Jill.
Read: Sleepy Joe Looks To Become Putin’s Puppet With More Stable, Predictable Ties »
So far, the Cult of Climastrology has won very few climate cases, with courts quite often saying the plaintiffs often do not have standing, and that this is something that should be done in the legislatures, not the courts. They think they have a way to win now, though
Climate change: Courts set for rise in compensation cases
There’s likely to be a significant increase in the number of lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies in the coming years, say researchers.
Their new study finds that to date, lawyers have failed to use the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the cause of rising temperatures.
As a result, there have been few successful claims for compensation.
That could change, say the authors, as evidence linking specific weather events to carbon emissions increases.
The article mentions a few cases that have worked, but, again, most have not.
This new study has assessed some 73 lawsuits across 14 jurisdictions and says that the evidence presented to the courts lagged significantly behind the most recent climate research.
Over the past two decades, scientists have attempted to demonstrate the links between extreme weather events and climate change, which are in turn connected to human activities such as energy production and transport.
These studies, called attribution science, have become more robust over the years.
For example, researchers have been able to show that climate change linked to human activities made the European summer heatwave in 2019 both more likely and more intense.
Sure it did. Of course, they have to first prove using actual Science that it was human activities involved in the first place. Which is seriously lacking. And, they might be saying that their attribution science is getting better and such, but, they’re also admitting
CLIMATE LITIGATION SUPPORTERS ADMIT THAT ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE IS FAILING IN COURT
Hey, they said it.
A group of academics – who are outspoken supporters of the climate litigation campaign – released a report this week that admits that the climate attribution science currently being deployed by plaintiffs attorneys has serious flaws.
The report states:
“We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science, impeding causation claims.â€
Oops
The report explains how attribution science isn’t holding up in the courtroom:
“However, plaintiffs have been unable to overcome even the more flexible causation tests applied in several jurisdictions which ask if damages are ‘fairly traceable’ to defendants’ actions. This is typically due to courts’ finding that the evidence provided does not substantiate the connection between individual emitters’ actions and plaintiffs’ losses.
“…Our analysis shows that when courts considered evidence on causation, they typically found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendants’ emissions caused the alleged impacts.â€
Double oops. But, like the Coming Doom, Warmists are saying that the science will get better. This is the best they have after 30+ years
Attribution Science Was Designed to Support Litigation
While the fact that this report was published in the first place is noteworthy, its conclusions shouldn’t come as a shock. Attribution science is an area of research that’s not being used to gain a better understanding of climate change, rather it was designed solely to aid climate litigation. In the very first paragraph of the report, the authors acknowledge this is the goal:
“We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action, and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability.â€
So, it is not really science. And the article highlights many other Warmists admitting this, that it is all about lawsuits. Because they cannot get their unhinged, Modern Socialist, cult ideas through the legislatures.
What is absolutely not a surprise is that this report was funded by the Foundation for International Law for the Environment (FILE), whose goal is “to accelerate legal action globally to address the climate and nature crises.â€
Nope. Not at all. Lots and lots of big money Warmists and Warmist groups are involved. They won’t give up their own big carbon footprints, but, do want courts to force you to do so.
Read: Climate Cult Expects To Finally Win Lawsuits If They Stop Using That Icky Attribution Science »
Is it still a bipartisan bill if the Democrats jam in their wish list of “people infrastructure” and pass it via reconciliation with zero Republican votes? Joe promised bipartisanship ad nauseum during the campaign. Does he go with his unhinged base and Modern Socialist Congress or demand bipartisanship in this vote?
On Tuesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Last Word,†Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) discussed a meeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had with her caucus earlier in the day and stated that Pelosi will hold the bipartisan infrastructure bill and not bring it up for a vote until the budget reconciliation vote is ready to be voted on.
Host Lawrence O’Donnell asked, “What can you tell us about that meeting with Speaker Pelosi?â€
Porter responded, “Well, I think she made clear that we are wholly committed to passing this infrastructure bill, that we are glad that Republicans are stepping up and committing to delivering for the American people on infrastructure, and that we understand that part of building back better is doing that infrastructure work, but building back better also means making sure that no American is left behind in our economy. So we are going to have to use the reconciliation process to address some of our other economic needs, including things like universal child care, expanding Medicare, there are other — paid family leave. This plan fundamentally that President Biden has put forward is about work and workers, and those things go together like a hand in a glove. And so, we have to do both of them, and that is our plan to move them both forward.â€
So expanding Medicare, government child care, even more crazy climate crisis scam measures, tax increases, illegal alien amnesty, guaranteed family leave (who pays is unclear), free college, $15 minimum wage, and so much more. Things that will involve the federal government in even more citizen’s lives, make them more controlled and more beholden. While removing even more power from the States. I wouldn’t be surprised if they try and slip their crazy HR1 voting bill in.
Pelosi rebuffs McConnell on infrastructure
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday amplified her plans to link a bipartisan infrastructure agreement to a second package of Democratic economic priorities, rebuffing an appeal from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to decouple the two bills.
In a closed-door meeting with her caucus in the Capitol, Pelosi said her initial strategy — to withhold a House infrastructure vote until the Senate passes a larger, partisan families plan — remains unchanged, according to lawmakers in attendance.
“What the Speaker has said, and I totally agree with her, is that we’re not going to vote on one until the Senate sends us both,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters after the meeting. “That’s not changed.” (snip)
McConnell seized on Biden’s reversal, urging Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to follow the president’s lead and commit to supporting the bipartisan infrastructure bill as a stand-alone measure.
“The President cannot let congressional Democrats hold a bipartisan bill hostage over a separate and partisan process,†McConnell said in a statement.
Pelosi, however, is standing her ground, supporting the liberals in her caucus who are wary that enacting the smaller infrastructure bill — which the Senate is shooting to pass before the August recess — would erode the momentum behind the larger partisan package, which Democrats intend to pass by reconciliation.
So, it’s not just Porter saying it, other Democrats are echoing what Pelosi is saying. Realistically, they do not care that much if they lose the Senate and House in the 2022 mid-terms, because they know they will have passed this crazy big bill and there’s no way Republicans will be able to get rid of it, at least till after 2024, provided the GOP keeps Congress and wins the White House.
Now, imagine if a Conservative group blocked all the White House entrances: they would be called domestic terrorists and the city would deploy lots of cops and ask for the National Guard
AOC joins climate change protesters accused of blocking entrance to WH
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., joined hundreds of protesters outside the White House on Monday demanding that the Biden administration devotes more attention to climate change, particularly in his massive infrastructure package.
Protesters from the Sunrise Movement gathered outside the White House to tell President Biden that he is not “fulfilling his climate promises.”
“We need this infrastructure bill to meet the intersecting crisis this country is facing,” the group tweeted. A photo that was shared on the group’s Twitter account claimed to show Secret Service agents arresting some members at the White House’s entrance. Some of the signs read, “#NoClimateNoDeal.”
She does know she can submit specific legislation in the House for her climate crisis (scam) beliefs, right? How’s that Green New Deal going? The one she submitted in February 2019 and still hasn’t demanded a vote on.
???? it’s always a justice party when @CoriBush has the mic ???? https://t.co/x9gIPOmCBa
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 28, 2021
Is she a protester or an elected Representative? Will she give up her own use of fossil fuels to fly to and from NYC? Of course, it doesn’t seem she spends much time in her district talking to her constituents.
Ocasio-Cortez cautioned Biden against compromising on a bipartisan infrastructure package, calling on the White House to avoid being “limited by Republicans” on the size and scope of the next economic spending bill.
“In those areas where there is agreement, Republicans are more than welcome to join so that we can get this work on infrastructure done,” Ocasio-Cortez said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But that doesn’t mean the president should be limited by Republicans, particularly when we have a House majority, we have 50 Democratic senators and we have the White House.”
She should remember that Democrats won’t always control Congress and the White House. And not to whine when the GOP pushes stuff through in this manner.
Read: Excitable AOC Joins Warmist Protest Blocking White House »
…is an area flooded from carbon pollution Bad Weather, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the left really hating freedom of speech.
Read: If All You See… »
What are they complaining about? It was their policies that caused this. It was them voting for unhinged Modern Socialist politicians who enacted the policies that caused this. Suck it up and live with it. Don’t move out of San Francisco, especially since you bring this insanity with you and want to do the same things in new places
San Francisco poll shows 70% of respondents say quality of life on decline: report
A recent poll conducted in San Francisco found that 70% of respondents believe the quality of life in the city has declined and pointed to crime and homelessness as their top concerns.
SFGate.com, citing a City Beat Poll commissioned by the city’s chamber of commerce, reported that the poll was conducted in late May and involved 520 registered voters who live in the city. Roughly 80% of those polled said addressing homelessness is a top priority. About 76% of those polled want more cops in high-crime neighborhoods, the report said.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that there has been a 753% jump in car break-ins at the police department’s central station compared to May 2020, while there were COVID-19 restrictions. The paper said the thefts are up 75% compared to 2019.
“We want our visitors to feel safe and feel they can park safe,” Kevin Carroll, executive director of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, told the paper. “Anything that pulls away from that hurts their experience here. You come to visit this beautiful city and your car is broken into, it leaves a bad impression. We don’t want that to happen.”
Well, when the city tolerates the homeless pooping and peeing in the streets, along with drug use, leaving needles in the street, there’s a problem. A problem big enough for someone to create an interactive poop map, where there is human feces in the streets of San Francisco. The same citizens who mostly enable the homeless problem have yammered for defunding the police, despite rising crime. Car break-ins have long been a problem in SF, along with car thefts. Property crime has been an outsized problem for SF for quite some time, and the violent crime has been rising.
Neighborhood Scout ranks San Francisco as a 2, meaning it is safer than just 2% of US cities. Property crimes are well over double the California and US rates. You have a 1 in 18 chance of being a crime victim. You have a 1 in 145 chance of being a victim of a violent crime, which is above the US and California rates, but, not as high as many similar Democrat run cities. But, yeah, the same folks demonizing the police last year now want more police protecting for the crime the cop haters policies created.
Read: San Francisco Residents Say Quality Of Life Going Down »
Well, this is a funny how-do-ya-do. Climate cultists came up with the phrases eco-anxiety, which is meant to be all about the climate emergency, leading to climate anxiety. Unfortunately, this could be Bad for Doing Something about climate doom
Op-Ed: Is climate anxiety bad for the planet?
The American Psychological Assn. defines “eco-anxiety†as a “chronic fear of environmental doom.†Lots of people are feeling it.
A 2020 survey of people ages 8-16 showed that 73% were worried about the state of the planet. Since 2009, the number of Americans worried about the threats posed by climate change increased by 44%. Two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change, and these numbers are still on the rise.
But if it takes anywhere between 10% to 51% of any given population to care about an issue to make significant change, why hasn’t all this climate anxiety led to more dramatic change?
Because, let’s be honest, Warmists primarily care about this theoretically, not practically. They are happy to yammer about all the Doom, but, not interested in actually doing something in their own lives. They don’t want to pay more, see their cost of living rise, switch out their fossil fueled vehicles for EVs, move into a tiny house, pay tens of thousands for solar panels, hand wash clothes, give up their AC and heat, etc and so on. And their anxiety, which has been mainstreamed, doesn’t help
Contrary to popular progressive belief, we don’t necessarily need to get more people to care about the climate; climate anxiety is rampant, and people overwhelmingly care enough to tip the scales.
Perhaps the answer lies in the term itself. Perhaps climate anxiety as a concept fails to motivate the kind of changes we need to see. As the science writer Britt Wray has argued, the term runs the risk of pathologizing and depoliticizing the problem, making it solely a mental health concern rather than a systemic problem rooted in economic, historical and social structures. Assuaging individuals’ climate anxiety without challenging these systems only addresses the symptoms, not the causes, and places the burden of fixing the problem on individuals.
Got that? It’s bad that it makes it a mental health issue, rather than a political issue, meaning less chance of politicians jamming through restrictions on people’s lives and all sorts of taxes and fees. Wait, I thought this was about science, not politics?
A second problem with “climate anxiety†as a term is that it is too amorphous to conjure the kinds of actions required to mitigate climate change. We feel too small to do anything about it. Climate change in general is hard for people to perceive as a risk because it is too big, too far, or too in the future, to feel in time and space. It seems uncannily designed to not be perceived as a risk. We may feel climate change’s effects, such as increased heat, extreme weather events, rising sea levels and more infectious diseases like COVID, but climate change itself is imperceptible. It is thus hard to figure out what our object of worry is, and so we don’t know what to do to avoid the threat. In other words, climate just doesn’t make the cut as a villain in this story — it isn’t like a burglar breaking into your house at night, or even your house on fire, as Greta Thunberg, the Swedish activist, asks us to imagine.
Did they just Blame COVID on ‘climate change’?
No wonder we feel powerless: access to 24/7 news (most of which portrays climate change in a doomsday frame) and our addictive doom-scrolling makes the problem seem so big that it’s not even worth fighting. The reality is bad, but believing that an apocalypse is inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, an army of people is working to address climate change from every imaginable angle; they’re just not covered in the news that most of us consume.
Hey, you Warmists set the stage for treating it as Doom. Blame yourselves. You created this.
You can use your climate anxiety for immense good. The planet needs you to be resilient, not anxious to the point of debilitation. Paying attention to your mental health, in this case, will help the survival of life on the planet.
You can start by living the life your Beliefs say you should force Other People to live.
Read: Bummer: Climate Anxiety Is Bad For Solving Climate Crisis (scam) »
What could possibly go wrong? Joe has already said the quiet part out loud several times last week when he yammered about wanting to force all the crazy leftist wish list back into the bill, meaning there will be zero Republican support, meaning it is no longer the bipartisan bill
Wisconsin first stop on Biden’s tour to sell $1.2 trln bipartisan infrastructure plan
U.S. President Joe Biden will visit Wisconsin on Tuesday to drum up support for a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package hammered out by a bipartisan group of legislators but still in need of wide support in Congress to become reality.
Biden will speak at a public transit facility in La Crosse, a city in western Wisconsin, highlighting the plan’s investment of some $48.5 billion in public transit to reduce commute times and help reduce emissions, while boosting growth and wages.
The Democratic president told a virtual fundraising dinner on Monday that the infrastructure package would create millions of good-paying jobs and help U.S. firms to compete in the global economy.
“We’re in a race for the 21st century, for who is going to have the strongest economy,” Biden told the event hosted by the Democratic National Committee. “And the rest of the world’s not waiting around. We have more to do, and we have to move fast.”
We’re going to have the strongest economy from public transit, something most people avoid? Taking the bus and train often increases commute time, it’s just that you don’t have to drive and can read a book. Will Joe be taking the train to Wisconsin, or flying a big jet with other jets coming with, followed by a big fossil fueled motorcade? Biden is literally taking a quick trip to Wisconsin, jamming up the airport and roads, for a quick stop at the public transit facility, then flying back to DC. That’s his entire schedule. Makes one wonder if that’s all his advisors trust him to do.
Biden also vowed to continue fighting for additional spending that would expand child care and paid leave to more Americans and offer two years of free community college to those who qualify.
Biden, under massive pressure from Republicans, on Saturday withdrew a threat to not sign the bipartisan bill unless it was accompanied by a separate package focused on what he calls “human infrastructure”, including expanded home care for the elderly and disabled.
So, which is it? Continue fighting for stuff that is unrelated to infrastructure, which could be submitted in a separate, targeted bill, or withdrawing the threat? Will Joe mess it up and let the cat out of the bag again? Will any reporter ask when Joe will reduce his own “carbon emissions”?
Read: Sleepy Joe To Pitch Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal In Wisconsin Today »
Just wondering if any White House correspondent had the cajones to ask her what she drives, and if it is an EV?
Jen Psaki: 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations are needed for "rural and disadvantaged communities." pic.twitter.com/qgH3CdLpVr
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 28, 2021
Because all those disadvantaged people can easily afford a $31000 (starting) EV, with the average price being $54K. That $31k gets you a Mini EV with a range of 110 miles. I’m sure all those out in rural areas will find that serves them well, right?
Read: Excitable Jen Psaki: We Totally Need 500K Charging Stations In Rural And Disadvantaged Areas »
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.
