If All You See…

By William Teach February 14, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The People’s Cube, with a post noting we used to call certain people busy bodies.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: ‘Climate Change’ Means Longer Flights And Fewer Passengers

By William Teach February 14, 2020 – 10:30 am

If only you had a salad instead of that cheeseburger for lunch the other day, this wouldn’t be a maybe possibly it could totally happen in the future issue

Climate change means longer take-offs and fewer passengers per aeroplane – new study

The connection between your next flight and climate change is likely clear in your head. More aeroplanes emitting greenhouse gases means more global warming. Simple enough, but there’s an opposite side that you probably hadn’t thought of.

As the local climates at airports around the world have changed in the past few decades, the conditions that pilots have relied on in order to take off safely have changed too. Our new research suggests that higher temperatures and weaker winds are making take-off more difficult. In the long run, this means that airlines are delivering fewer passengers and cargo for the same amount of fuel.

Suggests? So, they really do no know. As far as winds, I thought the Cult of Climastrology was saying that winds would be stronger with ‘climate change”. No?

But climate change isn’t just about temperature – winds are slowing down and changing direction around the world too. This is a problem for airport runways that were built many years ago to align with the prevailing winds at the time.

Research has predicted that take-off distances will get longer as the climate warms. This is because higher temperatures reduce air density, which the wings and engines need to get airborne. With reduced headwinds, aeroplanes also need to generate more groundspeed just to get into the air. Once they’re up there, they’re subject to in-flight turbulence, which is getting worse due to climate change increasing the energy in jet stream winds.

Predicted. Uh huh. And since runways are supposedly too short for future doom

That could mean that airlines must reduce the numbers of passengers they carry on flights, or search for ways to lengthen their runways. In some extreme cases, it could become impossible for some aeroplanes to use some airports altogether. This is another reminder of how rapidly and extensively human actions are transforming the world around us, and how ill equipped we are to deal with the consequences.

They always have some sort of doom to push, eh? Yet Warmists still take fossil fueled flights.

Read: Your Fault: ‘Climate Change’ Means Longer Flights And Fewer Passengers »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

A Coalition Of Big Businesses Are Pushing A Carbon Tax: What’s In It For Them?

By William Teach February 14, 2020 – 7:03 am

Time magazine’s resident Warmist, Justin Worland, notices another big company calling for a carbon tax, and wonders if this is the solution to solving ‘climate change’ (scam)

A Group of Big Businesses is Backing a Carbon Tax. Could It Be a Solution to Climate Change?

The long list of big companies backing a carbon tax as a solution to climate change grew this week with financial giant J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. endorsing a legislative plan billed as a centrist approach to reducing emissions.

The announcement comes as the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), the organization behind the proposal, which was first released in 2017, redoubles efforts to promote the plan before an expected introduction in Congress as the conversation around various climate solutions heats up in Washington.

The CLC announced new backers—including former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres—and released internal poll numbers showing bipartisan voter support for the plan. Supporters now include a broad coalition of companies, from oil giants like ExxonMobil to tech behemoths like Microsoft, major environmental groups like Conservation International, and a range of economists and political leaders.

“The markets can and will do much to address climate change,” David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, a founding member of the CLC, told TIME in an emailed statement. “But given the magnitude and urgency of this challenge, governments must put a price on the cost of carbon.”

You have to wonder what is in it for these companies to push a carbon tax. It’s certainly not a centrist approach to institute a massive new federal tax that will end up increasing the cost of living of U.S. citizens. Exxon and Microsoft won’t be paying it, nor will JP Morgan. Any hits to their portfolios will be passed on to consumers.

Still, big corporations increasingly see a carbon tax—especially a proposal like the CLC plan—as the simplest solution to a thorny problem. With clear science, activists in the streets and voters experiencing extreme weather events in their own backyards, business leaders see new climate rules as all but an inevitability, if not at the U.S. federal level then in states or other countries where they have operations.

What’s their angle? They wouldn’t be pushing it if they thought it was going to cost them money. They wouldn’t be pushing it if they didn’t think they could make some money off of it.

Read: A Coalition Of Big Businesses Are Pushing A Carbon Tax: What’s In It For Them? »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Alec Baldwin Hottake: GOP Fealty To Trump Is How Nazi Germany Started

By William Teach February 14, 2020 – 6:51 am

Of course, anytime a Republican is in the White House Democrats say we’re one step away from Hitler

Alec Baldwin Warns GOP’s ‘Sniveling Fealty’ To Donald Trump Is Straight Out Of Nazi Germany

Alec Baldwin on Thursday took a swipe at Donald Trump and Senate Republicans with biting tweets referencing Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and fascism.

The actor — who has repeatedly drawn Trump’s scorn in recent years with his portrayal of him on “Saturday Night Live” — said people who wonder how Hitler took control of “once great country” Germany should “simply watch” the behavior of the GOP-controlled Senate that last week acquitted Trump on impeachment charges over the Ukraine scandal.

“Their sniveling fealty and lack of courage. And you begin to get it,” he wrote.

He earlier tweeted

Remember that fascistic thinking takes hold when a standard of living is threatened consistently. People think that things are changing, and downward for most Americans. And that this will become the new normal. They are wholly directed by $.

Baldwin is a perfect representation of unhinged barking moonbat bat guano insane Democrats: you have people feeling better about the economy and the way America is going than anytime in the past 10 years. The economy is humming. The standard of living is only being threatened by Democratic policies, you know, those policies that put the Federal Government in control of everything, including citizen’s lives. What does that sound like?

The Washington Post is also freaking

Trump’s authoritarian style is remaking America

Over the course of his presidency, there have been myriad warnings about President Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. He has played to the fears of his critics by blowing past the republic’s increasingly creaky system of checks and balances. And with the aid of a right-wing echo chamber, he has pushed forward a narrative that conflates national interest with his personal gain, patriotism with unflinching loyalty to the occupant of the Oval Office.

As Trump embarks on a reelection campaign and basks in the aftermath of the Senate impeachment trial — in which, thanks to a Republican Party wholly captured by Trumpism, acquittal was seemingly always a fait accompli — he is adding to the strains on America’s polarized democracy. His calls this week for prosecutions of his perceived enemies and public attacks on federal judges and prosecutors involved in cases against his allies were so abnormal that it led to an unlikely rebuke from Attorney General William P. Barr, a Cabinet official largely viewed by Trump’s opponents as shamefully acquiescent.

OK, you can see where that’s going. Trump’s a loud mouth (loud tweeter), and enjoys attacking back, but, where is he trying to run people’s lives? Meh, as stated, every Republican president is Hitler to Democrats. Had Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio won, or any other Republican, they’d be Hitler.

Read: Alec Baldwin Hottake: GOP Fealty To Trump Is How Nazi Germany Started »

Posted in Donald Trump, Unhinged Tools | 54 Comments | Trackback URL

FYI: Amy Klobuchar Is Not Moderate

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 2:30 pm

With her nice showing in New Hampshire, and Elizabeth Warren fading, the media and the #NeverTrumpers have taken to calling Klobuchar a moderate. She’s anything but. Back in 2006 she was all for border security. In 2020, she’s completely flipped, wanting all border fencing done away with. She will no longer support E-Verify unless it is paired with a blanket amnesty. She further wants to dramatically increase bringing the dregs of 3rd world nations into the U.S.

Here’s her climate page

Amy is deeply committed to tackling the climate crisis and believes that it is an urgent priority for our communities, for our economy and for our planet. She is a co-sponsor of a Green New Deal and has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.  On day one of Amy’s presidency she will get us back into the International Climate Change Agreement. On day two and day three, she will bring back and strengthen clean power rules and gas mileage standards that the Obama Administration put into place.  And she will put forward sweeping legislation that provides a landmark investment in clean-energy jobs and infrastructure, provides incentives for tougher building codes, promotes rural renewable energy and development, supports a landmark carbon pricing system that does not have a regressive impact on Americans, promotes “buy clean” policies, and puts our country on a path to achieving 100% net-zero emissions no later than 2050. Read more about Amy’s climate policies here.

Doesn’t look particularly moderate, eh? Bringing back, or at least attempting, since it was on hold due to lawsuits, Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would skyrocket energy costs. Giving the federal government even more control of the way we build our homes.

From her detailed plan in the above link

Make politicians accountable to voters, not special interests. Again and again, bold action on climate has been blocked by the power of special interests. As President, Senator Klobuchar will put people first by working to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get dark money out of our politics, as well as establish a campaign finance system that increases the power of small donors through a matching system for small donations. She will investigate potential wrongdoings and hold energy companies accountable.

Hmm, so, using Hotcoldwetdry for the Dems pet peeve, Citizens United.

Read More »

Read: FYI: Amy Klobuchar Is Not Moderate »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a sea that will soon rise up and swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on Liz Warren being doomed and Feministas not understanding why.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 21 Comments | Trackback URL

ClimaDoom Today: One Third Of All Plants And Animals Could Maybe Possibly Be Gone In 50 Years

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 10:30 am

We can fix this with a tax, though

Study: One-Third of Plant and Animal Species Could be Gone in 50 Years
University of Arizona researchers studied recent extinctions from climate change to estimate the loss of plant and animal species by 2070. Their results suggest that as many as one in three species could face extinction unless warming is reduced.

Seriously, you could really stop with the subhead. This is simply prognosticating. Madame Zelda at the carnival is not amused

Accurately predicting biodiversity loss from climate change requires a detailed understanding of what aspects of climate change cause extinctions, and what mechanisms may allow species to survive.

A new study by University of Arizona researchers presents detailed estimates of global extinction from climate change by 2070. By combining information on recent extinctions from climate change, rates of species movement and different projections of future climate, they estimate that one in three species of plants and animals may face extinction. Their results are based on data from hundreds of plant and animal species surveyed around the globe. (snip)

To estimate the rates of future extinctions from climate change, Cristian Román-Palacios and John J. Wiens, both in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, looked to the recent past. Specifically, they examined local extinctions that have already happened, based on studies of repeated surveys of plants and animals over time.

Román-Palacios and Wiens analyzed data from 538 species and 581 sites around the world. They focused on plant and animal species that were surveyed at the same sites over time, at least 10 years apart. They generated climate data from the time of the earliest survey of each site and the more recent survey. They found that 44% of the 538 species had already gone extinct at one or more sites.

So, essentially, they are blaming those extinctions all on climate change, rather than on other factors. Nor does the study prove that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by Mankind.

Projections of species loss depend on how much climate will warm in the future.

“In a way, it’s a ‘choose your own adventure,'” Wiens said. “If we stick to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, we may lose fewer than two out of every 10 plant and animal species on Earth by 2070. But if humans cause larger temperature increases, we could lose more than a third or even half of all animal and plant species, based on our results.”

By bringing up the Paris Climate Agreement they are showing that this is all political, not science. The Cult of Climastrology always has to have some sort of prognostication of Doom to get everyone to comply with Big Government control.

Read: ClimaDoom Today: One Third Of All Plants And Animals Could Maybe Possibly Be Gone In 50 Years »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The Difference Between Republican And Democrat ‘Climate Change’ Plans? Economic Growth

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 7:15 am

There are some Republicans who are Believers in anthropogenic climate change, such as Florida’s Matt Gaetz. Lindsay Graham always was a believer. Many others are just following the winds, thinking that this is truly an important issue, so, are pushing some policies to deal with it. Unlike some lunatics like George Schultz, they are not pushing carbon taxes. Instead….

Economic Growth Defines Climate Change Divide Between Republicans And Democrats

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week gave a glimpse into Republican plans for addressing climate change and the environment issues.

It is encouraging to see Republicans take on environmental issues since they rank as a top concern for independent and moderate voters who are critical to the GOP this cycle. It’s also refreshing to see Republicans taking a fiscally responsible approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.

Poll after poll shows voter support for climate change legislation is dependent on its price tag. Americans want policies that are achievable and that protect economic growth and prosperity along with the environment. That’s why Republicans are right to focus on American ingenuity and innovation over government regulation.

Let me point out again that polls show that the majority refuse to pay more than $10 a month. Others show they do not want to pay more than a $1.

On the other side of the political divide, Democrats deserve some credit for recognizing that the $93 trillion Green New Deal promoted by progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) isn’t just dead legislatively, but has become toxic with voters.

Democrats’ second bite at the climate legislation apple, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act, released earlier this month by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), is closer to the center than previous attempts.

Closer to the center isn’t saying much when the GND is the starting point. The CLEAN Future Act is still very much far left. Or, should we say very far right, because on the political scale Authoritarianism is way to the right, and that’s what they bill is. The only difference between it and the GND is that it doesn’t knock natural gas and nuclear energy out of the picture.

In the House, Republicans are beginning to roll out proposals focused on innovation and nature-based solutions, such as planting 1 trillion trees by 2050 to absorb carbon. Republicans are also working to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans, make our communities more resilient to severe weather activity, and extend tax credits for industrial carbon capture technology.

Republicans also support efforts to expand renewable energy deployment by reducing the regulatory roadblocks that often delay projects to the point where they’re no longer economically viable. Streamlining the regulatory universe is an approach even President Trump supports.

The common denominators among the Republican efforts to address climate change are a faith in competitive free markets, American ingenuity and incentives. Call it a zero-harm approach.

There is nothing wrong with doing R&D, moving technology forward, nor protecting communities. Regardless of your belief in causation of the current warm period, climatic changes can cause issues, so, why not address them? Democrats, on the other hand, are all about Government control. Control of you, control of the economy, control of everything. And taxes and fees. Don’t forget those. One just has to look at the ‘climate change’ plans of all the Democrats running for president, and you see the extremism. The authoritarianism.

Read: The Difference Between Republican And Democrat ‘Climate Change’ Plans? Economic Growth »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming, GOP | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Heading Into The Elections, More Americans Say They Are Better Off

By William Teach February 13, 2020 – 6:54 am

No matter how much Democrats and their media allies attempt to downplay the economy, it’s been pretty good. They try and dink and dunk around the edges, claiming it is only good for The Rich, but, people keep proving Democrats wrong

More in U.S. Say They Are Better Off Than in Past Elections

Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running. In the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, exactly half said they were better off. In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle, an average of 45% said they were better off.

The current results, from a Jan. 16-29 Gallup poll, echo record highs, measured earlier in January, in Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in their personal life and in their assessments of their personal finances.

Relatedly, 52% of U.S. adults say it is easier for them to “go and buy things in the stores” than it was three years ago, higher than in the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, when the figures were closer to 40%.

Of course, Democrats are being moonbat nags

Americans’ perceptions of whether they are personally better off, and whether it is easier to buy things, appear to be influenced much more by their party leanings than by their economic situations. Sixty percentage points separate Republicans’ (89%) and Democrats’ (29%) assessments of whether they are better off than three years ago. Independents are essentially in the middle of the two groups, at 60%. Meanwhile, 64% of those in both upper- and middle-income households say they are better off, as do 49% of those in lower-income households.

But, if you look at the graphic in the post, 60% of Independents say they are better off, a full 14% higher than Obama in 2012, and ten points higher than Clinton 1996, when James Carville said “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is why Democrats can’t really attack Trump on the economy, and, instead, have to offer things like free healthcare, free this, free that. Of course, they don’t like to mention that they are pushing things like higher payroll taxes, massive government interference in all things economy, climate change taxes, etc and so on.

David Winston notes that Democrats are in denial

But it is their second objective that is more problematic for Democrats.  In debate after debate, appearance after appearance, their presidential hopefuls are trying to make the case that, despite a mountain of statistics to the contrary, the economy isn’t working for most Americans. In other words, they’re asking voters, “Who are you going to believe — us or the Bureau of Labor Statistics?”

Elizabeth Warren kicked things off in the first presidential debate by saying, “When you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple. We need to call it out.” Democrats have been doing it ever since.

In last month’s Iowa debate, Joe Biden claimed that “where I come from, the neighborhoods I come from, they’re in real trouble. … The American public is getting clobbered. The wealthy are the only ones doing well, period.”

This might work with their unhinged base, but, most people, including the normal Democrat, isn’t buying.

Read: Heading Into The Elections, More Americans Say They Are Better Off »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Economy | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning

By William Teach February 12, 2020 – 4:15 pm

This is the second opinion piece that’s been run in the NY Times in the last week over the Trillion Trees Initiative. Why? Because President Trump is in favor of it, so, the Trump hating Warmists have to poo-poo the idea

Planting Trees Won’t Save the World

One trillion trees.

At the World Economic Forum last month, President Trump drew applause when he announced the United States would join the forum’s initiative to plant one trillion trees to fight climate change. More applause for the decision followed at his State of the Union speech.

The trillion-tree idea won wide attention last summer after a study published in the journal Science concluded that planting so many trees was “the most effective climate change solution to date.”

If only it were true. But it isn’t. Planting trees would slow down the planet’s warming, but the only thing that will save us and future generations from paying a huge price in dollars, lives and damage to nature is rapid and substantial reductions in carbon emissions from fossil fuels, to net zero by 2050.

Focusing on trees as the big solution to climate change is a dangerous diversion. Worse still, it takes attention away from those responsible for the carbon emissions that are pushing us toward disaster. For example, in the Netherlands, you can pay Shell an additional 1 euro cent for each liter of regular gasoline you put in your tank, to plant trees to offset the carbon emissions from your driving. That’s clearly no more than disaster fractionally delayed. The only way to stop this planet from overheating is through political, economic, technological and social solutions that end the use of fossil fuels.

Here’s an idea: every Warmist should immediately give up their own use of fossil fuels. Show they rest of us that they can walk the talk, and that it is viable to give up their own use of fossil fuels.

Still, carbon pollution from fossil fuels remains the greatest regulatory challenge ever. Globally, fossil fuels provide about 80 percent of the energy powering the global economy today. Yet ending fossil fuel use could also provide huge economic and employment opportunities. Through new spending on infrastructure and research for energy and transportation, the American economy could be transformed for the better and for the long run. For example, all internal flights between American cities less than 600 miles apart could be replaced by high-speed electric ‘bullet’ trains traveling over 200 miles per hour, providing a quicker, safer and cleaner way to get around and built with American technology, steel and workers. The battle against carbon pollution is also a battle for a better America and a better world.

So, what, exactly, does it look like to replace 80% of energy generation with energy sources that can’t compete in any form? Further, where’s the energy coming from for all these trains? And will Warmists mandate these types of trips?

Everyone loves a simple solution, but it is just too tempting to say “let’s plant trees” while we continue to burn fossil fuels. We must not play foolish games with the Earth’s climate: We will all end up paying for it in the end. Regulating carbon pollution down to net zero emissions by 2050 will end the global climate crisis for good.

For all this high falutin talk, this really all boils down to “Trump likes this idea, so, we don’t”.

Read: Bummer: Planting Trees Won’t Save The World From Burning »

Posted in Donald Trump, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove