Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 3:00 pm

I wonder if there’s taxes and fees involved

Buttigieg: ‘There’s no time to argue’ over climate change

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the debate over whether climate change exists needs to stop, saying “there’s no time to argue about whether it’s real — it’s happening, and it’s incredibly dangerous.”

Buttigieg was asked during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Wednesday how his department is addressing climate change amid record-setting heat in the Pacific Northwest.

“We’ve got to do two things. One, we’ve got to make our infrastructure more resilient, because this is going to keep happening. So, we’ve got to make sure that our roads and our bridges are designed for rising sea levels and more heat waves,” Buttigieg said.

“But the second thing we got to do — we’ve got to stop it from getting any worse. That’s why it’s important to make sure that we help Americans afford and drive electric vehicles. It’s why we have to make sure we have alternatives like transit and make sure it’s easier for people to get around without having to bring a vehicle sometimes, depending on where you’re going,” he added.

So, Pete will force you out of your affordable fossil fueled and, if you’re rich, you can get an electric vehicle. If you you can’t afford an EV, which is most people, then you can ride a bike (if you’re Pete, you can can climatevirtue signal while being followed by a fossil fueled SUV), walk, or take the train or bus. All while Big Shots like Pete take long, fossil fueled plane trips and ride in luxury limos.

But, no, no, don’t argue, the time for that is over, right? Despite 30+ years of being wrong, providing little in the way of actual scientific proof of anthropogenic global causation, all the Doomsaying, don’t argue. Just let Pete take your freedom, liberty, choice, and money. Because, how do we pay for this?

Carbon fees are part of the solution to climate change

…

Pricing carbon is the best first step to address climate change. It works fast to reduce carbon pollution. We’ll start seeing reduced carbon emissions in as little as nine months. Thirty-four countries have a price on carbon, including a border adjustment. The U.S. is one of two developed economies that don’t have that. As a result, we pay those nations a fee for exports, which we wouldn’t be paying if we had a carbon fee.

And the cost of living skyrockets, energy is much more expensive, and Government tells you how to live your life

Insurance costs: Should California homeowners pay for climate change?

In hard-hit Napa Valley, which has burned multiple times this last decade, successful winemakers and longtime residents are weighing their options to rebuild or move out entirely simply by looking at their property insurance policies.

“They just can’t get insurance,” said Democratic state Sen. Bill Dodd, whose district spans the region’s celebrated vineyards. “Or the insurance is so expensive that there is no way they could ever afford that kind of coverage.”

Yes, they’re blaming this on ‘climate change’, not the policies that created the dangerous conditions for things like wildfires, not California just being insane to start with. But, yes, I think Californian’s should pay, because this is what they have voted for. Let them deal with the consequences. And, no, don’t leave. Live with the policies you advocated for. Every experiment needs an experimental group, right?

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1410598463385919500?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1410598463385919500%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2021%2F07%2F01%2Fdear-new-yorkers-you-voted-for-the-power-cuts-right-now-so-why-complain%2F

Suck it up, New Yorkers, you wanted this stuff with your cultish beliefs in ‘climate change.’

Read: Mayor Pete: The Time For Arguing On Climate Crisis (scam) Is Over »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Energy, Global Warming | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…is an area turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on LGBT militants beating up an elderly hot dog vendor.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Coulter: Democrats Move On To Trying To Break Police Officers

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 10:30 am

Why, yes, Ann Coulter has gone nuts during the Trump era, but, she actually makes sense

Ann Coulter: Dems Say Don’t Defund the Police. Break Them!

In the left’s ongoing war on the police, their plan to strip cops of qualified immunity is among the most preposterous. The sole objective is to jam up cops and make them more passive.

Qualified immunity means a police officer can’t be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights unless those rights are “clearly established.” Officers can still be fired. They can still be disciplined. And they can still be criminally prosecuted. They just can’t be sued by every lowlife they arrest.

Liberals act as if qualified immunity is some extra-special benefit bestowed only on police, unheard of in any other line of work. Michigan’s power-mad Attorney General Dana Nessel says, “We’re not asking that police officers even be held to a higher standard than other professions, just to the same standard as other professions.”

How about you, Dana? Can you be sued?  

No, but that’s different.

Indeed, the Michigan attorney general doesn’t have mere “qualified immunity” from civil suits: She has absolute immunity. Unlike police officers, even if Nessel violates clearly established constitutional rights, she cannot be sued.

Democrats spent a lot of time yammering about defunding the police to placate their unhinged BLM/Antifa base. Most knew that it would never happen, but, many cities did actually take a lot of money away from police departments, and their defund yapping, along with demonizing all police officers for the actions of a few (who were still mostly right, because they were dealing with violent criminals, but, liberals want to treat violent criminals with kid gloves), general bad mouthing, treating them like garbage (but still demanding the police protect the politicians), has caused a lot of police officers to resign/retire, and the ones left have become very passive in arresting criminals and stopping crime.

Taking away qualified immunity will simply cause the rest of the cops to leave the job, not become more passive. Those who are getting close to retirement will stick around to get their retirement benefits, but, do little actual work. And you can bet they won’t be patrolling or doing anything in crime ridden areas.

But, hey, if Democrats want this, let them deal with it in their own cities. No leaving

Armed robbers hold up Oakland TV crew during interview about city’s crime wave and 90% spike in murders after it defunded police department by $18.5million

Robbers held up a television crew at gunpoint during an interview with the director of violence prevention in Oakland amid the city’s huge wave of violence, police have said.

The attack took place outside City Hall on Monday just hours after the police chief blasted his city’s decision to defund its police department by $18.5 million despite a 90 per cent increase in murders.

The NBC Bay Area news crew was interviewing Guillermo Cespedes at around 3pm when two armed men tried to take their camera, the Oakland Police Department said.

A scuffle broke out and a private security guard who was contracted by the news agency, pulled out a gun and told the robbers to leave.

Hmm, I guess having a firearm to ward off criminals does work. Anyhow, this was broad daylight outside city hall. But, even if the funding is restored, don’t expect police to work hard to do anything beyond the normal. Oh, heck, they’ll take the easy road for everything, because they won’t do anything to put themselves in a position to be demonized. Suck it up, citizens of Oakland, you wanted this. Don’t complain about crime.

Read: Coulter: Democrats Move On To Trying To Break Police Officers »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Failure: 25 Years Ago NY Times Claimed Doom From Sea Rise

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 8:20 am

First, though, the NY Times has to fearmonger some more, as provided by Michael “Robust Debate” Mann

That Heat Dome? Yeah, It’s Climate Change.

In the old days, we could escape the summer heat by heading north — to the Adirondacks in the East or to the cool, forested Pacific Northwest in the West.

But this is not your grandparents’ climate.

And though we’re only one week into official summer, the characteristically cool Pacific Northwest has turned into a caldron of triple-digit temperatures, with Portland, Ore., and Seattle reaching record highs of 115 and 108 degrees, respectively. That’s unseasonably hot — for Phoenix.

Blah Blah Blah. He of course gets around to all sorts of prognosticating Doom. Does Mann have any comments on this?

From that article

The climate doom-mongers at The New York Times must now face the reality that their decades-old eco-Armageddon predictions were flat out wrong.

The Times screeched in a 1995 story how “some of the predicted effects of climate change may now be emerging for the first time or with increasing clarity.” One of the predictions included a “[a] continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100.” The Times then cautioned that an apocalypse for beach-goers would be a likely result: “At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years.”

Twenty-five years from 1995 would mean the beaches would be gone by 2020. Newsflash: The East Coast beaches are still intact. U.S. News & World Report even ran a report in May 2020 headlined: “16 Top East Coast Beaches to Visit.”

Have beaches disappeared? Any? The Times was yammering about them disappearing at around 2-3 feet a year. Which is not shown by the actual data. Or by beaches when you look at them. One of the best data points is at The Battery in NYC (city where the NY Times is located), which shows a whopping 2.88mm of sea rise per year, equivalent to 0.94 feet of sea rise per 100 years. Which is pretty much about average for the Holocene, and well below what should be occurring during a Holocene warm period.

So, what penalty does the NY Times pay for their 1995 Doomsaying prognostication, one designed to scare people and get politicians to pass laws that increase taxes, fees, and take away freedom, liberty, and choice? Should there not be consequences for this? And we will continue to see more prognostications fail.

Read: Climate Cult Failure: 25 Years Ago NY Times Claimed Doom From Sea Rise »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, Journalistic Malpractice | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

San Jose Looks To Tax Legal Gun Owners, Confiscate For Failure To Pay

By William Teach July 1, 2021 – 7:54 am

This is basically criminalizing the lawful ownership of firearms, all while actual criminals are the ones who commit the vast majority of shootings

San Jose to make gun owners carry insurance, pay into public fund

Gun owners in San Jose will soon have to pay for insurance to keep their firearms.

The San Jose City Council unanimously passed gun control measures Tuesday that will require all gun owners in the city to carry insurance and pay an annual fee to cover taxpayer costs related to gun violence, or risk having their guns confiscated. The city attorney’s office will return to the council in the fall with an ordinance for final approval.

San Jose could become the first city in the nation to pass such reforms.

“The council has made clear that while the Second Amendment certainly protects the right for every citizen to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize that right,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said at a news conference Wednesday. (snip)

According to numbers from nonprofit Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation—which Liccardo frequently cited leading up to the vote—between 2013 and 2019, San Jose residents paid a combined $441.9 million in gun violence-related costs.

Why not tax the criminals when they are caught rather than lawful gun owners who have not committed a crime? Because it is not about criminals, but about gun grabbing. You know that the insurance will be expensive, making it harder for law abiding citizens to own a firearm, leaving them exposed to the actual criminals.

https://twitter.com/sliccardo/status/1409888533851033614?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1409888533851033614%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsanjosespotlight.com%2Fsan-jose-to-make-gun-owners-carry-insurance-pay-into-public-fund%2F

You know that is a huge bunch of mule fritters, right? The vast majority of those shot in San Jose see illegal firearms involved

San Jose residents phoned in Tuesday, with some gun control groups, such as Moms Demand Action, praising the measures.

“There is no one law or policy that will solve the public health crisis that is the gun violence epidemic,” said Jessica Blitchok, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. “However, a holistic approach will reduce gun harm in San Jose and the greater community.”

A holistic approach? How about a legal approach? A Constitutional approach? Because the idea is to burden law abiding citizens

“The mandatory gun liability insurance puts a financial burden on a constitutional right,” said Owen, a caller who didn’t give his last name. “When a police officer comes on a call and they ask the question, ‘Do you have a firearm? Do you have insurance?’ You have to produce that. Seems kind of ridiculous.”

Oh, and police can ask

But with no official registry of gun owners either locally or federally, officials recognized that enforcement of the forthcoming taxes and insurance requirements could be difficult if not impossible. So, they said they would authorize any law enforcement officers to confiscate the firearms of any gun owner they stumble upon who does not provide proof that they have complied.

“Crooks aren’t going to follow this law,” Liccardo told reporters. “When those crooks are confronted by police and a gun is identified, and if they haven’t paid the fee or insurance, it’s a lawful basis for seizure of that gun.”

These same people are against asking illegal aliens for their papers, but, want law abiding citizens to provide their papers. This criminalizes those who are in lawful possession of a firearm, especially through California’s already draconian gun laws. Mayor Liccardo is calling crooks crooks, but law abiding people who refuse to pay his tax and get his insurance.

Read: San Jose Looks To Tax Legal Gun Owners, Confiscate For Failure To Pay »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: California Asking Residents To Not Charge Their EVs At This Time

By William Teach June 30, 2021 – 3:00 pm

How’s that green electric grid working out in California, what with them replacing all the reliable coal, natural gas, and nuclear power generation with solar and wind? And pushing everyone to get an electric vehicle?

California Asks Residents to Avoid Charging Electric Cars Amid Power Grid Strain

Electric vehicleCalifornia’s power grid operators have asked the state’s residents to conserve electricity in order to put less strain on the power grid amid a major heat wave.

The Epoch Times reported that the California Independent System Operator (ISO) told residents numerous times in the past week to voluntarily conserve energy, even asking them on social media to avoid charging electric vehicles during peak usage times.

The ISO also said residents should avoid “use of large appliances and turning off extra lights,” and wrote that “[T]his usually happens in the evening hours when solar generation is going offline and consumers are returning home and switching on air conditioners, lights, and appliances.”

This is happening as the federal government and certain state governments, including California’s, are looking to change their respective fleets to electric vehicles. California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom announced last fall that 2035 would be a target date for ending the sale of petroleum-powered vehicles in the state, saying that in 15 years, “zero-emission vehicles will almost certainly be cheaper and better than the traditional fossil fuel powered car.

Well, hey, California, this is what you wanted. This is what you voted for. This is what you agitated for. Suck it up. Enjoy walking. Enjoy sitting in the dark. No clean clothes. No AC. As Jazz Shaw notes

Here’s one nice feature of cars with internal combustion engines and power plants that run on natural gas: they work when the sun goes down and the wind isn’t blowing. California has already run into a need for rolling blackouts during the summer months before. The state burns through a tremendous amount of energy on any given day and they are nowhere near the point where they can come close to meeting that demand solely through green energy.

Nope, nope, this is what Californians wanted. Now they can deal with it. And no moving from California. Live what you voted for.

Read: Bummer: California Asking Residents To Not Charge Their EVs At This Time »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 30, 2021 – 1:00 pm

…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… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Sleepy Joe Looks To Become Putin’s Puppet With More Stable, Predictable Ties

By William Teach June 30, 2021 – 10:30 am

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 »

Posted in Joe Biden | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Cult Expects To Finally Win Lawsuits If They Stop Using That Icky Attribution Science

By William Teach June 30, 2021 – 7:45 am

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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 »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

What Doe Bipartisan Joe Do: Democrats Demanding Reconciliation To Add Leftist Wish List To Infrastructure Bill

By William Teach June 30, 2021 – 7:28 am

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?

Dem Rep. Porter: Pelosi Won’t Allow Vote on Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Without Reconciliation Bill

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?”

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.”

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.

Read: What Doe Bipartisan Joe Do: Democrats Demanding Reconciliation To Add Leftist Wish List To Infrastructure Bill »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove