Climate Crisis (scam) Story Will Be Forced On You, And You Will Comply

Apparently, the climate cultists held a 3 day “climate festival” at the end of September, where they yammered on about this and that and the other, while refusing to make their own lives carbon neutral, or, should we say, net zero, as that is the new thing among the Warmists, which allows them to pay for offsets and such without modifying their own lives

Net Zero Festival: How do we change the story we tell about climate change?

Meeting the challenge of climate change must become part of a new human story, of striving for a better life on the only planet that can sustain us.

Up until now the story we’ve been telling ourselves is that we’re doing the best we can, but climate science is telling us our best is nowhere near enough. This is not terribly inspiring.

To get the level of action required from us as citizens, business leaders and governments, we have to pledge and deliver real and consequential action that changes the story from one of doom to one of stubborn optimism – economically, environmentally and in human terms.

At BusinessGreen’s recent Net Zero Festival, Global Optimism Tom Rivett-Carnac spoke to Amazon’s vice president for worldwide sustainability Kara Hurst about what’s happening in the real economy to change the story that committing to net zero is bringing forward, and the exciting changes that are possible. The conversation can be watched in full above.

You will comply, Comrade. It is interesting that they still need stories, and are now talking about changing to a different story. They’ve been spreading awareness since 1988, with little to show for it. Meanwhile, few Warmists practice what they preach. What of Net Zero?

Japan promises to be carbon-neutral by 2050

Suga yoshihide, Japan’s new prime minister, came to office in September promising continuity with his predecessor, Abe Shinzo. But in one way he has already distinguished himself: during his first speech to the Diet as prime minister, on October 26th, he promised to reduce Japan’s net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero by 2050, breaking with Mr Abe’s foot-dragging on climate change. That brings Japan, the world’s third-biggest economy and fifth-biggest emitter, with a relatively poor record on emissions cuts (see chart), in line with Britain and the European Union and slightly ahead of China, which last month promised zero emissions by 2060.

Of course, there are no real plans to do this, just a pledge

There are reasons to be optimistic. By the time of Mr Suga’s speech, more than 160 local governments, representing 62% of the population, had already pledged zero emissions by 2050, up from just four a year ago.

Climavirtue signaling.

‘This is about being smart’: Mayor unveils draft plan to address climate change in Lincoln

Lincoln should consider transitioning all homes to electric heat and cooking appliances, offering citywide compost collection, running an electric downtown shuttle system and enticing new buildings to use renewable energy as measures to mitigate the local impact on the climate, according to the mayor’s draft 2020 Climate Action Plan. (snip)

While building the city’s resiliency to these conditions, the plan proposes dozens of short-, medium- and long-term recommendations to reduce by 80% the city’s carbon emissions by 2050.

Why are all these pledges for 2050 and 2060? If we’re in a climate crisis, and they’re telling us that it is here right now, then why 30-40 years from now? I say that all these climate cult cities and nations implement their agenda right now. Let’s see it in action. We need experimental groups to show us how bad things can get, right?

Read: Climate Crisis (scam) Story Will Be Forced On You, And You Will Comply »

Democratic Party Run Cities Boarding Up In Advance Of Election Day Violence

It’s interesting that cities run by and chock full of Democrats need to board up because their Democratic voting citizens could, and probably will, run riot

Los Angeles & DC Businesses Brace for Election Day Chaos, Board Up Windows

Businesses throughout major cities in America, particularly in California and Washington D.C., are bracing for what is expected to be a chaotic Election Day full of protests.

Bill Melugin, a journalist for Fox 11 Los Angeles, shared photos to Twitter on Thursday that showed concerned business owners boarding up their windows to avoid damage from protesters and looters on Election Day.

“Driving through downtown LA…so many businesses boarded up & in the process of boarding up,” Melugin wrote.

Beverly Hills Police Chief Dominick Rivetti announced earlier this week that the famed Rodeo Drive will close on Election Day in an effort to combat expected violence and destruction.

Rivetti also stated that the Beverly Hills Police Department would be on “full alert” from Halloween and throughout the election day cycle.

Other photos shared on Twitter throughout the last week have shown business owners in Washington, D.C. preparing for civil unrest on Election Day as they board up their storefront windows.

Chicago officials have also been preparing for political threats and violence on Election Day by holding “all-hazards” drills. Democrat Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said  on a conference call

A confidential document obtained by Breitbart News revealed Thursday that a coalition of left-wing groups in Minnesota who fear a Trump victory are preparing for post-election mass unrest while planning to execute wide-scale “strategic disruption.”

What, exactly, would they be protesting, and if they’re so peaceful then why the need to board everything up?

I wonder, though, if they are boarding up in preparation for

Raleigh police warning downtown residents, businesses of possible protests on Friday

Raleigh police have been going door to door, warning downtown businesses and neighboring areas about potential protests expected in the area on Friday night.

Police have been handing out flyers to many downtown businesses and residents who live nearby. They are also encouraging people to enable any security cameras they may have in their homes, to close and secure doors and to be alert. (snip)

Officials with the Raleigh Police Department said it will provide security, crowd control and traffic direction. WRAL News stopped by several local businesses with many employees saying police also warned them about potential protests.

Most of those business owners would not speak on camera for fear of being targeted Friday night.

Might the much of the boarding up stem from warnings about potential “protests” around the nation on Friday, which would then carry through election day, and possibly weeks, since the mail in vote is just going to mess things up? Notice, too, that business owners in a Democratic Party run city are too fearful to actually speak on camera.

Way to destroy your own cities, leftist folks.

Read: Democratic Party Run Cities Boarding Up In Advance Of Election Day Violence »

Democrats Trot Out Impeaching ACB If She Refuses To Recuse Herself From Election Cases

Sorry for the second SCOTUS post, but, seriously, what a bunch of sore losers

Report: Democrats Consider Impeaching Justice Amy Coney Barrett if She Doesn’t Recuse Herself

Sore LosersDemocrats are reportedly considering impeaching newly sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett if she does not recuse herself from contentious election cases, based on false claims that President Donald Trump discussed them with her.

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed in The Hill on Wednesday:

Feeling disrespected, Democrats are threatening acts of retaliation in changing the Supreme Court or the Senate. But the most unhinged was the idea to impeach Amy Coney Barrett after she takes her seat. This option was raised by columnist Norman Ornstein, who wrote that if she “immediately votes for voter suppression” after rising to the Supreme Court, “she should quickly be impeached” because President Trump “asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

It does not matter, apparently, that Barrett denied having such a conversation and that no one has an inkling of how she would vote on election challenges that have not even been filed. Ornstein is building on demands from various senators that Barrett promise to recuse herself from any election dispute. Others have demanded her recusal in pending cases like the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, to be heard Nov. 10. After Barrett declined to discuss her personal views on the environment, still others demanded recusal from any climate change-related cases … forever.

The rules for recusal focus on the personal and financial interests of judges, not on their judicial views. Judges may have to recuse themselves if they have previously played a role in a case, or if there are serious questions about their impartiality.

Perhaps we should apply this to elected officials, forcing them to recuse themselves from most votes that they have a personal and/or financial interest in. Because most seem to have a personal and/or financial interest in a lot of votes. I don’t see Supreme Court justices getting rich off their rulings like members of Congress get rich off the laws they pass.

Read: Democrats Trot Out Impeaching ACB If She Refuses To Recuse Herself From Election Cases »

If All You See…

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

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on your race baiter of the day.

Read: If All You See… »

Ilhan Omar Continues To Push To Make Minneapolis Into Mogadishu

Well, sure, why not? It would be just like home.

Of course, being an elected member of Congress and making lots of money through graft and votes that enrich her, she’s able to afford private protection, plus, all the protection from being an elected member of Congress, something not afforded to the people of Minneapolis

Ilhan Omar to Teen Vogue: We Need to ‘Get Rid of’ the Minneapolis Police Department

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) renewed her call for the complete removal of the Minneapolis Police Department, emphasizing the need to “disband,” “dismantle,” and completely “get rid of” it in a Tuesday interview with Teen Vogue.

“The need to disband and dismantle — get rid of — the Minneapolis Police Department comes out of a place of understanding that they don’t have credibility within our community,” Omar told the magazine, asserting that it is operating with “impunity.”

“They are not doing the core function of solving half of the homicides in our city. So if you are not functioning in the ways in which you are supposed to function, protecting and serving, and your function has become to brutalize and cause harm to our community, then you shouldn’t exist,” she continued.

In June, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously approved a pledge to disband the police and replace it with a community-led system. (snip)

After taking steps to eventually abolish the police department, three council members received private security detail, costing the City of Minneapolis tens of thousands of dollars. While they cited threats, the police, at the time did not have any public reports of threats against the council members.

And all these months later they seem to be waffling around the subject, probably to let the clock run out on this idiocy. And, what do the citizens of the city want? Crime has been soaring and police officers have been leaving in droves.

Just as in New York, the residents of Minneapolis are learning that “violence interrupters” are no help: To keep the peace, you need police.

If Ilhan calls the police, they should send a social worker. If she’s in D.C., the Capital Police should send a social worker. If she’s robbed, well, it’s just property, right? Perhaps she can explain to the business owners why their businesses are constantly robbed/looted. Well, the ones left, since lots are leaving, along with the tax base. Leaving many with no jobs.

Read: Ilhan Omar Continues To Push To Make Minneapolis Into Mogadishu »

We Should Follow The Science On Climate Crisis (scam), Just Like With Chinese Virus Or Something

Would this be the same science which said to lock down for 15 days and now we’re almost in November? The one that says wear a mask, but, infections and hospitalizations are spiking? That masks are great, but, that most do not really do much of anything, that they “give wearers a false sense of protection”? We all enjoyed our Progressive (nice Fascism) test drive of a climate change policy world, right?

Follow Science: That’s How To Fight Climate Change — And How We Should Be Fighting The Pandemic

I sometimes joke that there are three things people ought to know about climate change:

Number one, it’s real. (very few argue that the climate hasn’t changed)

Number two, man-made emissions caused it. (they can’t prove it, and they refuse to modify their own lives, so, must not be serious)

And number three, that’s why women need to run the world.

That last line always gets a laugh, but the truth is that the challenge before us is deadly serious.

Our country is trapped in a raging pandemic. Millions of Americans are out of work, without enough money to put food on the table. And our nation finally seems willing to confront our legacy of systemic racism.

So, let’s shut down big, racist, carbon pollution Democratic Party run cities

I don’t think so. We don’t have to accept a life that looks more and more like a horror movie.

I haven’t lost hope and neither should you.

Well, it’s easy for the writer, Gina McCarthy, to not lose hope. She’s a big 10%er, who serves in a cushy position in the NRDC and was head of the EPA under Comrade Obama. Rich people do not worry about things like lockdown.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been unbearably difficult. And lord knows, I don’t want to be trapped in my dining room for the rest of my days.

But these difficult months have also delivered a powerful wake-up call: the world can change on a dime.

The way we fight climate change, is the same way we fight the pandemic.

So, being locked down in our homes, losing our jobs/working lower hours making less money, not being able to go anywhere or do anything, with businesses dying all over the place, being told what we can and can’t purchase, and all the rest, is what they want.

We follow the science. We listen to the experts. We embrace systemic and fundamental changes that help people live and thrive in a new way. We grab hold of the growing momentum around clean energy and climate action — and refuse to let go.

See? We embrace Government dictating our lives. It’s easy. Right?

Read: We Should Follow The Science On Climate Crisis (scam), Just Like With Chinese Virus Or Something »

Democrats Are Still Pretty Upset About The Whole Way This Supreme Court Appointments Thing Works

Democrats love them some Constitution except when it gets in the way of their agenda

Trump Packs the Court His Way

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the US elections on November 3 – although its final resolution may take longer – the partisan arrangements of almost the entire US federal government are subject to change. Only the House of Representatives appears certain to remain in the same party’s hands (the Democrats’). The Republican-dominated Senate could be won by the Democrats. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is now shifting far to the right, given the Senate’s confirmation of President Donald Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, to the seat previously held by the late liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (snip)

If Biden defeats Trump – the polls, currently in his favor, are considered more reliable than in 2016, but polls can’t predict voter suppression – his supporters’ celebrations may be short-lived. Controversies about counting votes are already in the courts, which have changed dramatically as a result of Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appointing an astonishing 220 federal judges. Moreover, Senate Republicans are already plotting how to undermine a Democratic majority.

But the greatest threat to Biden and any progressive government for a long time to come will emanate from the Supreme Court. The approval of Barrett (age 48) has produced, almost certainly, a very conservative 6-3 majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has tried to keep the Court from going to extremes, will no longer have the controlling swing vote. The legitimacy of the Court is now in question.

If federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, are standing in the way of enacting the Progressive (nice Fascism) agenda, perhaps the agenda is way out of line with the U.S. Constitution (and most state Constitutions) and the way things are supposed to work in the United States.

But, hey, Progressives have Ideas

Want Nonpartisan Court Reform? Add 4 Liberal Justices.

This week, Republicans cemented their 6-3 Supreme Court majority by confirming a 48-year-old, far-right justice to the bench in flagrant defiance of principles they had preached just four years ago. Such bad faith — combined with the Roberts Court’s hostility to voting rights, labor, economic regulation, and reproductive choice — has brought previously marginal ideas for judicial reform to the center of Democratic politics.

Hey, Republicans could have had the hearings and such and then simply voted down Merrick’s nomination, putting him through the whole process. This ended it.

Moderate Democrats have largely declined to endorse manufacturing a liberal majority through court expansion (a.k.a. “court packing”) should voters give them the opportunity. But Joe Biden has argued that “the court system” is “out of whack” and vowed to empanel a bipartisan commission tasked with producing recommendations for reforming the federal judiciary. The editorial board of Bloomberg.com (an eponymous publication of the Democratic Party’s biggest donor in recent cycles), meanwhile, argued Tuesday that “the Supreme Court needs reform” and expressed particular fondness for the following proposal: (snip through the 18 year term limits and then some yammering about a “party neutral court”, and we know what that actually means)

What’s more, theoretically, the nonpartisan approach could accomplish these things in a more durable way: If Democrats simply use their trifecta to engineer a liberal majority, there is no doubt the GOP will respond in kind the next time they secure unified federal power. By contrast, if Democrats implement a nonpartisan reform plan that’s plainly aimed at strengthening the Court’s legitimacy and independence from partisan politics, it’s at least possible that Republicans will have greater difficulty restoring a conservative majority as soon as they get the chance. To be sure, conservative media will ensure that the bulk of Republicans regard the formation of a “balanced court” as the death of the American Republic. And most GOP officeholders will be eager to avenge the “theft” of their 6-3 majority. But the mainstream media is likely to cover nonpartisan court reform much more positively than court packing.

In other words, this is repackaged court packing, putting it in a way that seems more palatable. Not that the Credentialed Media wouldn’t spin for the Dems in the first place

By adding four liberal justices to the Court shortly after taking power, a unified Democratic government would create the preconditions for a bipartisan settlement on the judiciary. Biden could specifically handpick justices who have publicly expressed their support for 18-year term limits or a “balanced court.” And if he wished to signal that court packing isn’t his goal but merely an expedient, Biden could have such justices publicly promise to resign upon the passage of nonpartisan reform. Regardless, the point is this: By manufacturing a 7-6 liberal majority, Biden could simultaneously guard against the threat of nonpartisan reform being struck down and potentially put Republicans in a position where they would be willing to negotiate. The latter is far from certain. In the immediate aftermath of court expansion, Republican obstructionism would doubtless hit a fever pitch. But after a year or two of a liberal majority dealing the Federalist Society major losses, the GOP might come crawling back to the table.

We’re sorry that so few Justices have died during Democratic Party presidencies, but, this is all just Excuse Making for packing the Court in order to get your way. They would have to pass legislation to do this, and it did not go well when FDR was president, and it won’t go well now. This is not “nonpartisan”, it’s strictly partisan. What do liberals do if things change and suddenly a Republican president is able to appoint more Conservatives to the court, changing the balance? The idea here, though, is to get the Progressive agenda enacted fast, with the Supreme Court siding with it in opposition to the Constitution.

Trump is the greatest president in the modern era when it comes to shaping the judiciary

With the Senate’s confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has cemented his legacy as the most important president in the modern era when it comes to shaping the judiciary. Whatever happens on Election Day, that legacy will remain — and it validates the votes of every conservative who, despite other misgivings, decided to support him. (snip)

That doesn’t mean they won’t try. Voters have a chance to stop them by preserving a Republican majority in the Senate. If history is our guide, Trump may have more Supreme Court appointments in a second term — and with them the opportunity to further preserve or even expand the court’s conservative majority. As for the 26 percent of Trump voters who backed him because of the Supreme Court, their decision has produced a court that will protect our freedoms for decades to come. Any other flaws in the Trump presidency pale by comparison.

And there it is: the Court should be the final arbiters of the Constitution and our Freedoms. A far left Court will be about eroding those Freedoms, with some help from John Roberts. That Progressive agenda is about government control of your life. How people have bought into actively asking government to take their money, freedom, liberty, and choice is beyond me, but, they have.

Read: Democrats Are Still Pretty Upset About The Whole Way This Supreme Court Appointments Thing Works »

Bummer: Canadian Court Rejects Climate Kids’ Lawsuit As Being “Too Political”

Nice to see a court act within the Law, rather than their personal beliefs, for a change

Climate change too ‘political’ for court

Fifteen Canadian children and youth who sought a declaration of dereliction of duty on the part of the Canadian government in dealing with climate change have lost their legal challenge.

Backed in the court challenge by three environmental organizations, including the David Sukuzi Foundation, the youth in Le Rose versus Canada were seeking an order from the Federal Court of Canada that their charter rights, and rights of future generations, were being infringed by Canada’s inaction on climate change under a public trust doctrine.

So, pretty much an astroturfed lawsuit using the children as props

Their claim was generally broad in scope – too broad for the courts to deal with – although it did focus on one specific government policy: The Trudeau government’s purchase of — and plans to expand — the Trans Mountain pipeline.

“The defendants (the Canadian government) are further alleged to support fossil fuel exploration, extraction, production and consumption through subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and through the acquisition of the Trans Mountain Pipeline System, the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and the Puget Sound Pipeline System,” the court decision reads.

In response to the petition to the federal court, the Canadian government moved to strike the claim. The court granted Canada’s request, without awarding costs.

Interesting. The uber-climate cultist government of Justin Trudeau wanted to squash the suit.

“The plaintiffs are effectively seeking that this court intervene in Canada’s overall approach to climate policy, for which there is no judicially manageable legal standard,” Justice Michael Manson writes in his decision.”Additionally, the remedies sought by the plaintiffs are not legal remedies.

“The plaintiffs’ position fails on the basis that there are some questions that are so political that the courts are incapable or unsuited to deal with them.”

Too political. Pretty much because this is political. The plaintiffs, meaning the big bucks climate cult groups using the kids, plan to appeal, but, instead, the kids should be forced to practice what they preach

Read: Bummer: Canadian Court Rejects Climate Kids’ Lawsuit As Being “Too Political” »

If All You See…

…is a tree that looks distressed from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the media promoting BLM lies on 2nd night of Philly riots.

Read: If All You See… »

Masks Work: Despite Skyrocketing Infection Rates, Death Rates Are Low

Perhaps it could be due to so many of the most vulnerable having already died because they were stuck in nursing homes to infect other vulnerable seniors?

Covid-19 deaths aren’t rising as fast in Europe and US, despite soaring new infections. That doesn’t mean the virus is less deadly

Europe is drowning in the second wave of the coronavirus epidemic. Infection rates are skyrocketing across the continent. Governments are imposing strict lockdowns. Economies are shutting down again. But there is a glimmer of hope: The virus, while still deadly, appears to be killing fewer people on average.

Recent case and fatality figures from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) show that while recorded Covid-19 cases are spiking in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany and other European countries, deaths are not rising at the same rate.

“The fatality rate has declined, in the UK, we can see it going down from around June to a low point in August,” said Jason Oke, a senior statistician at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. “Our current estimate is that the infection fatality rate is going up a little bit, but it hasn’t come up to anywhere near where we were and that’s unlikely to change dramatically unless we see a really surprising increase in the numbers of deaths.”

Oke has been tracking Covid-19 fatality rates along with his colleague Carl Heneghan of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and health economist Daniel Howdon. Their research shows that, at the end of June, the fatality rate was just below 3% in the UK. By August, it had dropped as low as about 0.5%. It now stands at roughly 0.75%.

So, it is now essentially the same as the regular flu. Perhaps herd immunity has something to do with it, and there was no need to lockdown countries, just isolate those who were the most vulnerable. And, again, why are cases going up when everyone is wearing a mask?

In fact, data gathered by researchers from London School of Economics’ long-term care responses to Covid-19 group shows that, on average, 46% of all Covid-19 deaths across 21 countries happened in care homes.

Thanks, Governor Cuomo.

“The Covid-19 virus is very stable, it is not mutating much at all,” said Dr. Julian Tang, clinical virologist and honorary associate professor at the University of Leicester. “The variation in severity of Covid-19 illness is really due to individual host immune responses together with age, sex, ethnicity and certain pre-existing medical conditions,” he added.

Lots of young folks are getting, but, they are not dying. Most are not even getting that sick.

The demographic shift may have contributed to the lower death toll, but experts suspect the fact that healthcare providers are now more experienced in dealing with Covid-19 patients is another factor.

So, all the stuff the Trump admin did is helping. How about that?

BTW, who ever thought that some of the merchandise for the Dodgers winning the World Series would be face masks? Yeah, I ordered them.

Read: Masks Work: Despite Skyrocketing Infection Rates, Death Rates Are Low »

Pirate's Cove