COVID Is Very Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 3:00 pm

The World Economic Forum is very vexed by this whole people being sick, losing their jobs and businesses, oh, and dying from the pandemic. Ironically it came from the climate liars in China

Fighting climate crisis made harder by Covid-19 inequality, says WEF

Tackling the existential risk posed by the climate crisis will be made harder by the growing gap between rich and poor triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Economic Forum has said.

The body that organises the annual gathering of the global elite in the Swiss town of Davos said warning signs of the threat posed by infectious disease had been ignored for the past 15 years, with disastrous results.

Despite the loss of almost 2 million lives to Covid-19, the WEF’s global risks report found that environmental issues were considered to pose the biggest danger in the coming years, both in terms of impact and likelihood.

Klaus Schwab, the executive chairman of the WEF, said: “In 2020, the risk of a global pandemic became reality. As governments, businesses and societies survey the damage inflicted over the last year, strengthening strategic foresight is now more important than ever.”

Schwab added: “Growing societal fragmentation – manifested through persistent and emerging risks to human health, rising unemployment, widening digital divides, and youth disillusionment – can have severe consequences in an era of compounded economic, environmental, geopolitical and technological risks.”

The WEF report said the Covid-19 pandemic had widened longstanding health, economic and digital disparities, making it harder to secure the international cooperation needed to combat challenges such as environmental degradation.

Well, they should talk to their buddies in China. And maybe the elites should have thought about all this inequality getting in the way of ‘climate change’ responses before locking the world down, which, get this, made a lot of people resistant to giving up their freedom.

You people need to stop getting sick and dying, it is just so bothersome and inopportune for the grand high poobahs of the Cult of Climastrology.

Read: COVID Is Very Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil assault weapon, which are always carried by climate deniers, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bustednuckles, with a post on WordPress deplatforming more blogs.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

China Joe Pushes Path To Citizenship For Illegal Aliens

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 10:30 am

The only way this passes the Senate is if they nuke the filibuster or 10 Republicans cross over

Biden to propose 8-year citizenship path for immigrants

President-elect Joe Biden plans to unveil a sweeping immigration bill on Day One of his administration, hoping to provide an eight-year path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal status, a massive reversal from the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies.

The legislation puts Biden on track to deliver on a major campaign promise important to Latino voters and other immigrant communities after four years of President Donald Trump’s restrictive policies and mass deportations. It provides one of the fastest pathways to citizenship for those living without legal status of any measure in recent years, but it fails to include the traditional trade-off of enhanced border security favored by many Republicans, making passage in a narrowly divided Congress in doubt.

Expected to run hundreds of pages, the bill is set to be introduced after Biden takes the oath of office Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the legislation and granted anonymity to discuss it.

As a candidate, Biden called Trump’s actions on immigration an “unrelenting assault” on American values and said he would “undo the damage” while continuing to maintain border enforcement.

In other words, border enforcement will become very lax, and the Biden admin will incent more illegals to come.

Under the legislation, those living in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 2021, without legal status would have a five-year path to temporary legal status, or a green card, if they pass background checks, pay taxes and fulfill other basic requirements. From there, it’s a three-year path to naturalization, if they decide to pursue citizenship.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and I’d like to see what the full “basic requirements” are. Further, what’s this temporary legal status? Does that mean they can only stay a short period, and then have to leave? We know in practice that would simply mean them not being able to be deported, and then eventual amnesty. Will the illegals be required to do all the same things and pay all the same money as those going through the usual naturalization process? Will all the required money and taxes be waived?

For some immigrants, the process would be quicker. So-called Dreamers, the young people who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children, as well as agricultural workers and people under temporary protective status could qualify more immediately for green cards if they are working, are in school or meet other requirements.

The interesting thing is that the pro-illegal immigration crowd will caterwaul that all these requirements for illegals is too burdensome and takes too long and they should just be given amnesty, so, China Joe will be getting it from his own base.

For example, it does not include a robust border security element, but rather calls for coming up with strategies. Nor does it create any new guest worker or other visa programs.

Surprise! There will be no actual action to reduce illegal immigration.

Read: China Joe Pushes Path To Citizenship For Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Joe Biden | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Fighting Hotcoldwetdry Could Define Kamala Harris As VP Or Something

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 8:35 am

During the Democratic Party primaries, despite all the talk that the base wanted climate crisis (scam) debates, the Democrats running on it, Jay Inslee  (who couldn’t even get his stuff passed in Washington where he was governor) and Tom Steyer, flamed out early and with virtually no support. Kamala flamed out early with virtually no support, as well. And, does Mother Jones realize that Vice President’s really do not do much beyond being sent on missions by the president? That they are virtually inconsequential?

Fighting Climate Change Could Define Kamala Harris’ Vice Presidency. Watch Our Interview With Her.

Kamala Climate ClownKamala Harris represents a series of historic firsts—she will be the first woman vice president, the first Black vice president, and the first Asian American vice president. She’ll also be the first-ever vice president who has devised a comprehensive plan to address climate change—and as the tie-breaking vote in the evenly split Senate, she’ll have plenty of opportunity to fight for the environment.

Harris’ home state of California has been hammered by longer wildfire seasons, blackouts from extreme heat, and drought. Harris doesn’t shy away from connecting these events to manmade climate change. When I sat down with her in Dubuque, Iowa, a year before she joined the presidential ticket, she was still in the midst of her own presidential campaign. “For me this issue of the climate crisis relates to every aspect of what we do,” she said.

Right, right, the blackouts have nothing to do with replacing viable, inexpensive, reliable energy sources with unreliable ones. We get a lot more heat down here in the South, and you don’t hear about blackouts, including planned ones, eh? Florida has plenty of wildfires, yet, no blackouts.

Her remarks to me in October 2019 captured some of the themes that are starting to define the Biden administration’s all-hands-on-deck approach to the climate crisis: It’s not something the Environmental Protection Agency can address alone. “Every branch has a role in this responsibility.”

Watch your wallets. And you butts! (which are stand ins for your freedom, liberty, and choice)

Harris’ climate plan didn’t get much attention during her presidential run, but it was impressive: Her vision of the Green New Deal included a staggering economic investment in clean energy and infrastructure. She spoke about the importance of including low-income and communities of color in the fight against pollution and climate change; her Climate Equity Act, introduced first in 2019 with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in 2019, requires that any environmental legislation receive an equity score to assess its impact on frontline communities.

Neither demanded a vote on it, and, with Democrats controlling the House, AOC could have.

Another theme from my interview with Harris was her insistence that the Department of Justice should investigate and rein in manipulative oil and gas industry practices. Her actual record on that is more mixed: As California attorney general, Harris led an investigation into whether ExxonMobil misled consumers about climate change, but she did not go as far as to issue subpoenas. And although she has at times embellished her history of suing and winning against Big Oil, she has spoken forcefully about holding polluters accountable. “Let’s get them not only in the pocket book, but let’s make sure there are serious penalties for their behaviors,” she said. That means taking aim at the “whole apparatus built around them” that’s built to protect the dominance of fossil fuels. And, she emphasized, that may not just mean the major oil companies, but other players, like gas-reliant utilities. “I think everyone who is part of misinforming the public, misleading the public and false advertising should be held accountable,” she said.

Using the power of the federal government for partisan attacks on companies they do not like. Well, they still like them enough to consider using the products of those companies. I don’t see Kamala and other Democrats giving up their own use of fossil fuels. Nor the DOJ. Good luck operating without fossil fuels, and, again, those companies should refuse to sell their products to the White House and DOJ if they pull this crap.

I suspect there will be plenty of pieces on purges and the Kamala/Biden administration going after political opponents and private entities they do not like for the next 4 years.

Read: Fighting Hotcoldwetdry Could Define Kamala Harris As VP Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Biden Pentagon Pick Looks To Purge Military Of “Extremists And Raaaaacists”

By William Teach January 20, 2021 – 8:07 am

This is the same military that is cool with allowing transgenders, who tend to have serious mental health issues, to join, and even offered to pay for sex change operations. The same military which allowed gang members to join, and had a hard problem getting rid of them. The same military which has often put Social Justice Warrioring and Virtue Signaling above the mission of protecting the United States. One thing I’ve said many times is that Progressives have very long term plans, and work to take sectors over. I won’t go into the whole thing again, but, in the 1970’s they hated the military, and wanted to eliminate it. Since they couldn’t they infiltrated the military to change it from the inside

Joe Biden’s Pentagon Pick Lloyd Austin Vows to Rid Military Ranks of ‘Racists and Extremists’

Lloyd Austin, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for defense secretary, said Tuesday during his confirmation hearing that he would work to rid the military of “racists and extremists.”

During his opening remarks, Lloyd Austin stated:

We also owe our people a working environment free of discrimination, hate and harassment. If confirmed, I will fight hard to stamp out sexual assault, to rid our ranks of racists and extremists, and to create a climate where everyone fit and willing has the opportunity to serve this country with dignity. The job of the Department of Defense is to keep America safe from our enemies. But we can’t do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks.

Democrats in recent days have sounded the alarm over the prospect of extremists in the military, after veterans and active-duty members of the military were identified attending a pro-Trump protest at the Capitol on January 6, with some breaching the Capitol building. (snip)

He said that a 2019 Military Times analysis found that 36 percent of active duty service members have seen evidence of white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military and asked Austin what kind of training he would suggest for service members to lead to a military “immune from superstition and not so gullible as to fall for these false ideologies.”

Austin said leaders need to be trained to be in touch with their troops to understand “who they are, what they are doing, what they are reading,” and be aware of signs that could indicate something is going in the wrong direction.

What he means is that the military, which typically votes around 59-41 for Republicans, will see purges of Republican voters. They will find excuses to get rid of them as extremists and raaaaacists. Which might find the military, and Austin, being sued for violation of the 1st Amendment Rights of those military members. And, will keep a lot of people from joining the military, along with significantly reducing retention rates.

“I will want the leaders of all the services and all of the departments to make sure that they’re doing the right things to set the right example and to create the right climate that discourages and eliminates that type of behavior,” he said.

“And this is not something we can be passive on. This is something I think we have to be active on and we have to lean into it and make sure we’re doing the right things to create the right climate,” he said.

Basically, the US military is going to become the Peace Corps, rather than a hardcore fighting machine protecting the nation. You soon won’t be able to distinguish it from most left wing organizations, other than the guns and stuff. At that point, would it be a conspiracy theory to think that the US military would side with those support the Constitution? That they would be used to snuff out freedoms at home rather than protect them?

Read: Biden Pentagon Pick Looks To Purge Military Of “Extremists And Raaaaacists” »

Posted in Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What? | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Crisis (scam) Suit Heads To The Supreme Court

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 5:01 pm

It’d be really funny if SCOTUS told Baltimore to stop using fossil fuels if they care so much

Fight to make Big Oil pay for climate change heads to Supreme Court

Baltimore may be a continent away from San Francisco, but the coastal cities have at least one thing in common: rising seas.

Both are seeing more flooding, more shoreline erosion and more battered infrastructure, and both want the oil industry to pay for the damage. They blame fossil fuels for the global warming that’s causing sea level rise.

First, there is nothing unusual about the sea rise: most of it is simply average or slightly above average, nowhere close to the norm for a Holocene Warm Period. Second, these people are nuts.

On Tuesday, Baltimore will lead the campaign to recoup billions of dollars from oil companies in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The city’s legal strategy is one that dawned in the Bay Area four years ago, when San Francisco and neighboring communities began filing lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry. The California tactics have since been embraced by nearly two dozen cities, counties and states nationwide, all of which could be affected by the high court’s pending action.

The question in front of the justices is not about the merits of the case. It’s about how a decision to hear the issue in state court versus federal court should be made. Still, the seemingly small procedural matter could have a big impact on whether the California communities and other litigants ultimately win money to cover potentially huge losses from climate change.

Oil companies should simply stop selling their products to the city of Baltimore, let’s see how the city operates, or, rather, doesn’t. They could also do away with all gas stations in the city, see how the Warmist residents like that. Same with San Francisco, along with the counties of San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz and the cities of Oakland, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach (San Diego County), who are part of this suit.

The plaintiffs want the cases to proceed in state court, where their legal challenges are tailored. They argue that companies such as Chevron Corp., Shell and ExxonMobil sold fossil fuel products while knowing their goods were harming the climate, akin to what the tobacco industry did with cigarettes and public health decades ago. They allege violations of state public nuisance law and state consumer protection law.

Conversely, the oil companies want the cases in federal court. They believe the judges there will defer to federal laws governing greenhouse gas emissions, namely the Clean Air Act, making the state-level allegations moot.

Should be interesting how it turns out. And, again, stop selling your products to people suing you.

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Suit Heads To The Supreme Court »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Democrats, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible fossil fueled vehicles causing heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on building that wall.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

China Joe Rejects Trump Getting Rid Of Travel Bans Joe Was Against

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 10:30 am

Joe was against travel bans before he was for them

(Twitchy) The Washington Post declared travel bans are a ”mistake”, but it gets worse. Politico suggested the ban would be ”antagonizing Chinese leaders, as well as stigmatizing people of Asian descent.” The New York Times asserted the ban from Chinese travel would be stoking hatred.

Democrats were against the China travel ban, and against banning Muslims traveling from Muslim nations with lots and lots of extremists (which used a model the Obama admin created)

Trump to lift some Covid travel restrictions, a move Biden quickly rejects

President Donald Trump said Monday that he is ending Covid-19 travel restrictions for air travelers from Europe and Brazil, a move the incoming administration quickly rejected.

In a proclamation, Trump said the restrictions would be lifted Jan. 26, the same day a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order requiring negative tests for air travelers coming to the U.S. takes effect.

But by then, Joe Biden will be president, and his press secretary tweeted that the restrictions would remain in place.

“With the pandemic worsening, and more contagious variants emerging around the world, this is not the time to be lifting restrictions on international travel,” said Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki. “… In fact, we plan to strengthen public health measures around international travel in order to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”

So, travel bans work? That’s not what Democrats were saying back in February when Trump instituted them.

It leaves restrictions in place for China and Iran.

Will Joe lift those?

Read: China Joe Rejects Trump Getting Rid Of Travel Bans Joe Was Against »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus, Democrats | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Still Pushing For Green COVID Recovery

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 8:10 am

Democrats do not even know how to do a regular recovery, based on the state of their states and cities, and are often no allowing any sort of economic recovery to occur, locking people and businesses down all over the place, yet, they want a “green recovery”

New research suggests 1.5C climate target will be out of reach without greener COVID-19 recovery plans

The amount of carbon dioxide that we can still emit while limiting global warming to a given target is called the “remaining carbon budget,” and it has become a powerful tool to inform climate policy goals and track progress towards net-zero emissions targets.

This carbon budget is like a fixed financial budget: there is a cap on total allowable expenses over time, and excess spending in the near term requires deceased spending in the future. Similarly, the remaining carbon budget is a fixed total quantity of future emissions that is small enough to limit global temperature increases before they exceed our climate targets.

Scientists’ estimates of the remaining carbon budget vary widely. Studies often use different approaches or even definitions of what the carbon budget represents. This can involve different treatment of how greenhouse gases other than CO2 contribute to climate change, or the incomplete representation of some processes, such as the role of aerosols in climate change.

If all climate cultists gave up all, or at least most, use of fossil fuels, they could solve this. They don’t even have to give up their entire carbon footprint, just reduce it by, let’s say, half, which, in America, would still be higher than in most 3rd world nations.

We developed a a new way to generate a better estimate of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement that integrates all major sources of uncertainty. Our results suggest that even if the growing list of countries committing to 2050 net-zero emissions targets reached their goals, we would still deplete the 1.5C remaining carbon budget more than a decade too soon.

Remember, 1.5 was never the goal of Paris, the number was 2C, and, despite hearing that Paris was historic Warmists immediately started agitating about 1.5C.

At the peak of global lockdowns in April 2020, daily CO2 emissions decreased by almost 20 per cent relative to the same period in 2019. These insights can inform how COVID-19 recovery investments could be used to drive emissions further downward.

The largest relative decreases in emissions came from reductions in road transport, such as commuting by car, and air travel. Although we are all suffering from the loss of in-person interactions, we have also learned a lot about how to convene meetings, presentations and collaborations online. While individual mobility will rebound as lockdowns ease, our crash course in remote working and learning means that we may not need to return to pre-COVID-19 travel levels.

The least they could do was just come out and say they want people locked down and unable to travel anywhere.

Emissions from industry and power generation did not decrease as much, in relative terms. This points to the need for systemic changes in technological infrastructure to unlock the potential for lower-carbon economic activity.

And they want to screw with the power at the place you’re being locked down. Not their own, of course, just yours.

Governments around the world are spending unprecedented amounts to support and reinvigorate national economies. We must actively pursue this opportunity for a green recovery and avoid investing in infrastructure and industries that will lock in future CO2 emissions. Yet the COVID-19 stimulus packages announced so far are “missing the opportunity,” according to the UN Environment Program’s adaptation report released last week.

Let the UN lock themselves down. Let the climate cultists lock themselves down. Let them do all the crazy things themselves. Leave the rest of us out of their cult. And, it’s still disgusting that these doomsday cultists want to take advantage of people’s deaths, sickness, and misery, of losing their businesses, losing family members and friends, to push their cult.

Read: Climate Cult Still Pushing For Green COVID Recovery »

Posted in Climate Ghouls, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democratic Ideas: Shutting Down Free Speech, Creating A Domestic Spy Agency

By William Teach January 19, 2021 – 7:57 am

There have been plenty of hot takes from Democrats and #NeverTrumpers on what to do about “extremism” (but not from their lunatics, of course) since the mostly peaceful D.C. protest. Not that they haven’t looked to restrict free speech from political opponents for a long time, but, now they are really ramping it up

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America’s long-held defense of extremist speech

Sore Winner DemocratsWith most Americans hoping this week’s expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful.

The optics may be disturbing, especially so soon after the riot, with the potential of protesters — many of like mind with those who stormed the Capitol — screaming, or worse, at troops and police standing guard outside the razor wire-topped fences surrounding the Capitol.

Weird, we didn’t hear the same thing from CNN and other media outlets when Biden voters, like BLM and Antifa members, were calling to kill police officers and white people, screaming at police officers as they threw fireworks and firebombs at them and the federal justice building in Portland, right?

Is allowing this type of expression “good” for America? An old First Amendment theory – known as the safety valve — says it is, that permitting groups to express themselves releases pressure, ensuring objectionable ideas aren’t driven underground where they might boil over into violence.

Permitting free speech, including hate and extremist speech, is often cast as a universal boon, reinforced in idioms such as, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.”

Permitting? That’s not the way this works. Government doesn’t permit it, they are restricted from stopping it. I didn’t see Conservatives call to stop the lunatics from speaking at their protests and riots. Mocking them, yes.

Not all First Amendment scholars are buying the safety valve theory, especially after the deadly episode at the Capitol. They question if extremist speech demands more limitations when it’s inextricably linked to the violence at the nation’s legislative headquarters, after hateful online rhetoric dovetailed with politicians and activists delivering speeches to revved-up crowds that marched to the Capitol, some bent on insurrection.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, the consummate guardian of speech, has sought to address the “competing values” its long-held defense of expression presents, and some experts say free speech theories need to take into account the way social media has transformed the marketplace of ideas.

And this is how we move towards restricting speech. Of course, we do have a Supreme Court which will knock this stuff down, and, if Democrats want a civil war, one which they are vastly outnumbered when it comes to privately owned firearms, this is one way to get it. The “article” gets into plenty of other things, let’s move on to

Josh Stein says he’s just “discussing” it

All find echoes in the events surrounding January 6. None dare say “wake-up call” or “lessons learned”—there’s been far too many of them over the decades. But one response to the 9/11 tragedy may well get renewed attention after the Capitol assault—especially if armed white nationalists are successful in carrying out more attacks in the coming days and weeks: The call for a secret police.

I’m pretty sure this violates the First Amendment, as well. As Twitchy points out, plenty of other Leftists are pushing for this. Are Democratic Party lawmakers dumb enough to give this a shot? Or Joe Biden directing federal law enforcement to focus on Republicans?

Do I need to mention that the 1st protects speech and protesting that we do not agree with?

Read: Democratic Ideas: Shutting Down Free Speech, Creating A Domestic Spy Agency »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 22 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove