Many Democrats and die hard climate change fanatics would have man-made global warming deniers locked up. And if they cannot do that then at least we should have a revolution. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders rallied support for the Green New Deal, with the New York congresswoman saying there should be “no middle ground” when it comes to climate change and the Vermont senator calling for a political revolution. And yes, Cortez is still saying that the world is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change (man-made global warming.) The BBC loves Cortez’s ideas and publishes titles like ‘Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe.’
She (AOC) will lead the Democratic party down a hole because she really does not know what she is talking about. She is not grounded in reality. However the media loves her. But we do have many serious problems that our globe cannot cope with any longer. Just too much plastic, heavy metals, chemicals and radiation poisoning our beautiful world. With 5G we will get it over and done with more quickly. With our current politicians, even quicker! Instead of reducing CO2 it would be better if we reduce the number of politicians in the world for they are more corrupt than we would ever believe.
It is the middle of May and things are looking more like winter than spring. Winter apparently is not finished with parts of the Northeast, nor the West or Europe. In many places around the northern hemisphere its the latest start of spring on record. Cold air coming in from Canada is likely to cause a mix of snow and rain in higher elevations of New Hampshire, Vermont and much of northern Maine by the 14th of May, CNN meteorologist Gene Norman said. That means we will have have had 9 months of winter weather in some parts of the United States as well as in Europe and Russia. (See below.)
On the 15th of May we read a potent, winter-like storm is poised to slam into the western USA, bringing several feet of snow to the Sierra and soaking rain to coastal and valley areas. A dangerous stretch of severe weather is forecast to wallop 18 states in the central USA over the next several days and into next week. In the Sierra, “total snow accumulations of 12 to 18 inches, with localized amounts up to 35 inches, are expected,” the National Weather Service in Sacramento said. Also on the 15th a foot of snow for New Hampshire and heavy snowfall and cold in Corsica, Bosnia and Croatia. Portions of Washington and Oregon saw the latest spring start on record, while parts of Kansas and Oklahoma saw the latest arrival of spring in 38 years, says weather.com.
A Cold Wet Reality
The problem is its not getting warmer—its getting colder and that is already affecting the agricultural sector. It is not just cooling temperatures, we also have record breaking precipitation that is flooding huge areas of the United States farm belt. Its the cold and wet weather combined that is threatening us, not in some far off future but this year. Bad weather in the American breadbasket portend rising food prices and less food to export to the hungry corners of the world.
The headline reads: ‘Farmageddon Looms: Only 30% Of US Corn Fields Have Been Planted, 5 Year Average Is 66%.’ Michael Snyder writes, “2019 is turning out to be a nightmare that never ends for the agriculture industry. Thanks to endless rain and unprecedented flooding, fields all over the middle part of the country are absolutely soaked right now, and this has prevented many farmers from getting their crops in the ground. In addition, for every day after May 15th that corn is not in the ground, farmers lose approximately 2 percent of their yield. Unfortunately, more rain is on the way, and it looks like thousands of corn farmers will not be able to plant corn at all this year. It is no exaggeration to say that what we are facing is a true national catastrophe.”
The excessive rains in many parts of the US this week come just as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released data showing the last 12 months have been the wettest in recorded history for the Lower 48 states.” We do have intense climate change with the gathering Grand Solar Minimum working to increase cosmic ray penetration of our atmosphere, which seeds clouds and increases precipitation………….
None of this information will make a difference to the Democratic party and to anyone else blinded by the global warming propaganda machine. However, there is no doubt that violent climate change is already upon us. There is no fixing the situation, no power on earth can change what is happening on the sun. It is an absolute disaster what the fabric of lies is doing to everything from politics to farming to human consciousness itself. Instead of doing something that is within our control, like stopping the massive poisoning of our planet the powers that be would have us all focus on the fantasy of man-made global warming and CO2 as the ultimate evil gas.
Australia’s conservative government won a surprise victory in national elections over opponents who campaigned on climate change https://t.co/yn2GnJcRtO
— WSJ Europe (@WSJeurope) May 18, 2019
Anyone want to bet on whether or not any of the demoncraps running for president will note what just happened in Australia’s election?
Maybe normal people in real life — as opposed to activists on social media — don’t want to return to the pre-industrial age or to see their wealth seized by force and redistributed to people who didn’t earn it. Maybe.
— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) May 18, 2019
[mentally defective puppet] who [believes the lie that she] leads a global climate movement, asked in a recent tweet, “Can we all now please stop saying ‘climate change’ and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”, a 16-year-old
[No dear idjit child, the intellgent ones here aren’t going to be driven by emotion, but rather by logic, facts and real science, not your handler’s hyperbolic horse$#!+]
She’s not alone in her sentiment. Many of those engaged in environmental advocacy feel the term “climate change” fails to convey the specificity or urgency needed to address the gravity of the climate challenge.
A new recent study shows they may be right.
New York City-based SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention, studied how participants responded to six terms — “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “environmental collapse,” “weather destabilization,” “global warming” and “climate change.”
A total of 120 people — 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats and 40 independents — participated in the study, which measured the “emotional intensity” of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases, with each term inserted, like this example below:
“Sea levels will rise dramatically, to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged, as a result of [INSERT TERM].”
The electrical activity of the participants’ brains and skin was rated on a scale of zero to five — five being the strongest. Those results were then compared to a traditional survey for reference.
Two terms stood out from the pack: climate crisis and environmental destruction.
Among Democrats, the study found a 60% greater emotional response to the term “climate crisis” than to “climate change,” and a tripling in emotional response among Republicans.
Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, said evoking emotion is vital to getting people to act. Because terms like climate change and global warming do not imply good or bad, they don’t spark passion, he said.
“12 years left, 12 years left, 12 years left… psyche!”
I call this technique Clown Nose Off, Clown Nose On. I first noticed it with Jon Stewart 15 years ago, when he went on CNN’s Crossfire and supposedly owned Tucker Carlson by being a passive-aggressive jerk. First, Stewart would present an argument and insist on being taken seriously. Then, when he was challenged on it, he’d backpedal: “Hey, what’s the big deal? I’m just a comedian!” Once I noticed Stewart doing that with Carlson, I realized that he did it all the time. It was cheap, it was dishonest, and it made Jon Stewart rich and famous.
At least he had the excuse of being a comedian. AOC is an elected official, and she only makes people laugh unintentionally.
Yahoo’s upset. The demoncraps are too. What’s not to like?
WASHINGTON — A lone Republican witness hijacked a congressional hearing Tuesday about the public health effects of global warming, cutting off serious debate by drawing attention to his own controversial, disputed views……..
At Tuesday’s hearing, Caleb Rossiter of the CO2 Coalition, an organization whose mission is to highlight the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy,” played the role of spoiler. The group was co-founded by William Happer, a physicist who is now leading the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, a newly formed panel that many believe will be used to undermine established science on global warming. The CO2 Coalition is largely funded by conservative foundations, including those of the billionaire Koch and Mercer families.
Rossiter was the last of the afternoon’s witnesses, and followed public health experts and medical doctors who described how global warming was not just an ecological disaster but approached epidemic levels in its human costs. Speaking in urgent, distressed tones, they described elevated levels of asthma and obesity, respiratory disease and food poisoning.
One of the witnesses, Aaron Bernstein of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University, described holding infants whose brains had been damaged by the Zika virus, an epidemic made worse by climate change. He spoke of encountering children who “no longer had a will to live” after losing their homes to flooding, which has also become more catastrophic as the planet warms. Bernstein deemed fossil fuels “debilitating” and called for Congress to reject the inordinate influence the oil and gas lobbies have traditionally wielded over legislation.
Rossiter, adorned in a bow tie, had an altogether different message. Calling himself a “climate statistician,” he depicted his group as a lone truth-teller in a field otherwise besotted with alarmist predictions. “We save the people of the planet from people who think they are saving the planet,” Rossiter said in his opening statement. He then proceeded to tout the benefits of carbon dioxide, which is emitted when carbon is burned and traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
“So far, CO2 emissions have had a positive and modest impact on Americans’ health,” Rossiter said. He said “weather mortality” has fallen because most weather-related deaths come during cold spells, which presumably become more rare as the planet warms.
Rossiter proceeded to show a slide of what he said was “a typical rural African dwelling.” The following slide showed a woman in traditional garb (Rossiter did not say which African country the images came from) cooking a meal over an open fire. He argued that fossil fuel-generated electricity was modernizing Africa and leading to better health outcomes.
“Being wealthy saves lives,” he said. He did not say why similar outcomes could not be achieved with solar energy, which has become increasingly popular on the continent.
- Dr Chi claims that aliens share our biosphere and are acting to overcome the effects of climate change.
- Dr Chi outlined his views in a 2012 lecture and has since written a book.
- In April 2018, Dr Chi approached The Oxford Union to propose a debate on the subject. The proposal was not accepted.
“The Oxford Union Society commonly referred to simply as the Oxford Union, is a debating society in the city of Oxford, England, whose membership is drawn primarily from the University of Oxford. Founded in 1823, it is one of Britain’s oldest University Unions. The Oxford Union exists independently from the University and is separate from the Oxford University Student Union.
The Oxford Union has a tradition of hosting some of the world’s most prominent individuals across politics, academia and popular culture.”
They also seem to have their brains working a little more than the university ‘institute’ management that hired this idjit. You might think that Dr. Chi’s ideas are preposterous, but evidence free assertions are not unusual in the climate science community.
Some climate scientists demand we accept their projections without getting hung up on scientific falsifiability . They claim their climate expertise is all the evidence we need to accept their predictions.
The Oxford Student has learnt that Dr Young-hae Chi, Professor at Oxford’s Oriental Institute, believes in a strong correlation between climate change and alien abductions.
In 2012, Dr Chi gave a lecture at the the Ammach Conference, titled ‘Alien Abduction and the Environmental Crisis’ in which he outlined his theory concerning the presence of aliens on earth.
Dr Chi began his lecture with the statement that “perhaps human civilisation is coming to an end”.
In his fifty-five minute presentation he cited Dr David Jacobs, an ‘abduction researcher’ in the US, who argued that aliens’ primary purpose is to colonise the earth, by interbreeding with humans to produce a new hybrid species. Second generation ‘hybrids’ are, according to Jacobs, walking unobserved among us.
Dr Chi argued that “it is not only scientists and theologians, but also non-human species who appear to be greatly concerned about the survivability of the human species”.
He pointed out that the timing of aliens’ appearance coincides with the earth facing major problems, climate change and nuclear weapons in particular.
He concludes that “it may be more or less assumed that the hybrid project is a response to this impending demise of human civilisation”.
He went on to argue that if we act now on climate change, “not only can we save ourselves, but also prove aliens wrong in their judgement of our moral capacity”.
In April 2018, Dr Chi approached The Oxford Union to propose a debate on the subject. The proposed motion was: ‘Aliens exist on earth, Yes or no?’. However, this proposal was not accepted by the then president-elect.
Winter storm watches and warnings have been posted by the National Weather Service for parts of southeastern Minnesota, northern Iowa, southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. A band of heavy snow will likely lead to difficult travel conditions, especially in the winter storm warning area.
The cult of Greta Thunberg
This young woman sounds increasingly like a millenarian weirdo.
Anyone who doubts that the green movement is morphing into a millenarian cult should take a close look at Greta Thunberg. This poor young woman increasingly looks and sounds like a cult member. The monotone voice. The look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. The explicit talk of the coming great ‘fire’ that will punish us for our eco-sins. There is something chilling and positively pre-modern about Ms Thunberg. One can imagine her in a sparse wooden church in the Plymouth Colony in the 1600s warning parishioners of the hellfire that will rain upon them if they fail to give up their witches.
It actually makes sense that Ms Thunberg – a wildly celebrated 16-year-old Swede who founded the climate-strike movement for schoolkids – should sound cultish. Because climate-change alarmism is becoming ever stranger, borderline religious, obsessed with doomsday prophecies. Consider Extinction Rebellion, the latest manifestation of the upper-middle classes’ contempt for industrialisation and progress. It is at times indistinguishable from old fundamentalist movements that warned mankind of the coming End of Days. I followed Extinction Rebellion from Parliament Square to Marble Arch yesterday and what I witnessed was a public display of millenarian fear and bourgeois depression. People did dances of death and waved placards warning of the heat-death of the planet. It felt deeply unnerving.
It struck me that this was a march against people. Most radical protest and direct action is aimed at officialdom or government or people with power. This macabre schlep through London was aimed squarely at ordinary people. Banners and placards made no disguise of the marchers’ contempt for how the masses live. We were told that ‘Meat = heat’ (that is, if you carry on eating meat, you fat bastards, the planet will get even hotter) and that driving and flying are destroying Mother Earth. Of course, it’s okay for them to fly – Emma Thompson jetted first-class from LA to London to lecture us plebs about all our eco-destructive holidaymaking. It’s only a problem when we do it; it’s only bad when we take advantage of the miracle of mass food production and the expansion of flight to make our lives fuller and more pleasurable. They detest that. They detest mass society and its inhabitants: the masses.
Today is ‘Earth Day’ the day where crap-for-brains chicken little snowflake econutz have waxed feverishly – for the past 49 YEARS – about how the world will end in the neext few days/weeks/months/years/heat death of the universe.
In celebration get out the charcoal grill and cook some steaks/ hamburgers/hotdogs whathaveyou in carbon based and basted glory.
What I see is nothing more than unmitigated narcisssitic elitism. What an ego this ignorant moron has. Even Obammy just wanted to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet
While Ocasio-Cortez trumpets how in 2019 she entered the most “diverse” Congress in history, every representative “depicted in the video is female. The ‘children’ from her district are all female. All the fat-cat oil and banking and political figures she demonizes are white men,” American Thinker also reports.
The site continues, “Writing for the Jacobin magazine in February 2019, the film’s writer, Kate Aronoff, called America’s energy CEOs ‘mass murderers.’ The artist incorporates this sentiment and the message ‘white men are the bad guys’ in the film’s drawings. The anti-capitalist, anti-corporation theme runs through the video from start to finish.”
Just as how “diversity” here, Newspeak-style, excludes certain groups, this is a complete inversion of reality. It’s not just that Ocasio-Cortez’ Green Leap Forward would have an estimated price tag of $93 trillion, four times our national debt. It’s that the “whole climate crisis is not only Fake News; it’s Fake Science,” as former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore put it; moreover, pursuing Ocasio-Cortez’ prescriptions globally could “result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth,” as he also warned.
Unfortunately, while it’s easy to poke fun at the congresswoman (and sometimes justifiable), demagoguery that could kill millions is no laughing matter.
A lot of corruption hinges on the amount of money that can be acquired for government grants for ‘research’ that is anything but. Being able to get paycheck, and an expense account, without really having to work for it has always been highly attractive.
Most of the world still believes that humans are causing climate change. The belief persists, despite the evidence of deliberately corrupted science exposed in leaked emails, and consistently failed forecasts.
It persists without any empirical evidence. Unnecessary policies and massively expensive policies evolved from the deception of certainty.
Carbon taxes and alternative energies that are unable to replace fossil fuels without some massive breakthrough in energy storage capacity continue to drain budgets and divert from solving real problems.
The momentum behind this deception is amazing and at present unstoppable. It is driven by a certainty that is supported by concocted evidence from the pre-programmed, pre-determined outcome, computer models.
There is no empirical evidence, so how and why does the belief continue? How did the idea gain and maintain this force? I believe, there is one person to blame because he set the tone and created the mantra that facts don’t matter; he made it necessary to maintain the illusion of AGW at all cost. It was so effective that even to ask questions is to put you in a category of societal repulsion. You become one of those “deniers.”
I was very annoyed when I saw the eulogy to Stephen Schneider in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It reads in part;
The Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is dedicated to the memory of Stephen H. Schneider, one of the foremost climate scientists of our time.
Steve Schneider, born in New York, trained as a plasma physicist, embraced scholarship in the field of climate science almost 40 years ago and continued his relentless efforts creating new knowledge in the field and informing policymakers and the public at large on the growing problem of climate change and solutions for dealing with it. At all times Steve Schneider remained intrepid and forthright in expressing his views. His convictions were driven by the strength of his outstanding scientific expertise… His association with the IPCC began with the First Assessment Report which was published in 1990, and which played a major role in the scientific foundation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His life and accomplishments have inspired and motivated members of the Core Writing Team of this Report.
The last sentence tells the story but only if you know the complete involvement of Schneider in the greatest deception in history.
The dilemma for all these early advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was that if they knew climatology, they knew that the work of the IPCC was corrupted science.
If they didn’t speak out, they were complicit in the deception.
If they didn’t know, and a remarkable number didn’t, then they are incompetent.
Often, some only became aware of the deceptive science because of an untoward circumstance, such as associating with a known skeptic.
Schneider knew because he published a book about global cooling in 1976 titled, “The Genesis Strategy” when cooling was the consensus. He wrote,
“There is little food stored to cushion the shock of the kinds of weather problems that so suddenly and unexpectedly damaged crops in 1972, 1974 and 1975, and there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one.
The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the nonindustrialized (sic) world.”
The author of the NYT article summarizes that Schneider was
“…reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
I was part of the climate community at the time but knew from the historical records and understanding of underlying mechanisms that this was just another climate cycle.
Too many people exploited the pattern of the moment driven by funding, career enhancement or political persuasion. None of them looked at the science or worse and they only picked the science that appeared to confirm their situation.
They jumped on what I call the trend wagon and argued it would continue forever. It was wrong, cynical, exploitive and had nothing to do with the amoral and apolitical positions and work that are essential to science.
Stephen Schneider set the tone for what followed. His mendacious, manipulative philosophy entered the public arena with his 1989 interview in Discover magazine, part of which said,
On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but& which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
I hope that means being both.
Sorry Stephen there is no decision between effectiveness and honesty. The fact he could even suggest that there was underscores and exposes the corrupt thinking that created and drove the massive deception. The problem is that people like Schneider are evil geniuses. It one thing to have such ideas, it is another to implement them. It parallels Maurice Strong’s implementation of the idea of “getting rid of the industrialized nations.”
In 1996 Schneider co-chaired a conference that put his idea of being effective without being honest into operation. It was a non-IPCC conference but included all the key players involved in the IPCC corruption ,and the CRU leaked emails. In fact, the conference titled was a manifesto on how to proceed, how to end-run science and the truth in every way. The conference titled “Characterizing and Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.” I urge you to read and weep but learn what Schneider did. Here is the opening paragraph.
Uncertainty, or more generally, debate about the level of certainty required to reach a “firm” conclusion, is a perennial issue in science.
The difficulties of explaining uncertainty become increasingly salient as society seeks policy prescriptions to deal with global environmental change.
How can science be most useful to society when evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, the subjective judgments of experts about the likelihood of outcomes vary, and policymakers seek guidance and justification for courses of action that could cause significant societal changes?
How can scientists improve their characterization of uncertainties so that areas of slight disagreement do not become equated with purely speculative concerns, and how can individual subjective judgments be aggregated into group positions?
And then, how can policymakers and the public come to understand this input and apply it in deciding upon appropriate actions?
In short, how can the scientific content of public policy debates be fairly and openly assessed?
All the names are here, Santer, Schlesinger, Tol, Karl, MacCracken, and Trenberth with his first probability table (Figure1). It is an attempt to confuse by pretending to clarify.
The inclusion of Schneider’s eulogy and the sentiment it expresses about his influence on them and the entire IPCC process is absolute proof of my thesis.
He more than any other person created and drove the biggest deception in history;
intellectualized most perversely the concept of uncertainty into certainty and provided the method for converting inadequate and incorrect evidence into a form powerful enough to be the basis of world-changing philosophy and policy.
Econutz have been prophesying climate doom for the past 50 years. Apparently the demoncraps see it as an opportunity for graft and power acquisition or they wouldn’t sniff at supporting their crap-for-brains agenda. Of course, I tend to think how the Old Testament laws dealt with false prophets should apply today; To the prophets and their lackeys.
Rep. Barbara Lee, in a recent Twitter post, said her fellow House mate, the freshman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was quite right: The world has only 12 years to properly address the environment or else face total devastation.
She drew that assessment from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released in October of 2018.
By that token, it should seem the world has only 11 years and something-something to fix climate change or else face utter devastations — but with Democrats and environmentalism, neither logic nor rules of time seem to apply. Facts are very often a toughie for them, too.
“@AOC is right,” Lee wrote, “we have an expiration date when it comes to climate change. The @UN’s newest report gives us 12 years to turn things around before environmental catastrophe. We need to take climate change seriously. Now.”
The United Nations, of course, has been trying to bind American into its green shackles for years. In 1997, it was the Kyoto Protocol and its demands for dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The United States dropped from complying; Canada later followed; China, one of the world’s biggest polluters, never joined in the first place.
More recently, it’s been the Paris agreement, imposing similarly strict production and economic cuts on participating nations. Then-President Barack Obama jumped the congressional gun and signed America on to this agreement, absent Senate permission. President Donald Trump, thankfully, quickly withdrew.
And even more recently, it’s been Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal — which again, thankfully, went down in flames, this time with a sound Senate 0-57 mocking.
So Democrats, just this March, brought forth their Climate Action Now Act, requiring Trump get back into the Paris climate agreement and by God, deliver us all from the “existential threat of our generation,” also known as climate change, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, during a press conference on H.R. 9.
With Democrats, everything’s always about life and death — except, of course, the things that really are about life and death, like curbing border crossings from illegals with felonious backgrounds who come to America and kill Americans. (Can you say Jose Inez Garcia Zarate? It’s a mouthful. How about instead Kate Steinle’s killer?)
Nothing kills like a gas-guzzling SUV, though.
“The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people,” The Guardian wrote, while reporting on the U.N.’s IPCC assessment.
So eat, drink and be merry?
That’s one way to look at it. Then again, by Democratic figuring, that “12 years ‘til doomsday!” cry could translate into 112 years. Or 212.
Or even never. It just depends on how the politics goes.
In other words: Might want to hold off blowing the mortgage money on a trip to the Bahamas.
The presidential candidates who are in the Senate (who all were for the GND before they were against it) voted “Present” which isn’t a vote, but a cowardly repudiation of their duties as Senators. And now, you’ll be hard pressed to find any demoncrap who’s even heard of it. Hypocrites
In the awkward aftermath of the Green New Deal’s rollout, perhaps the most appropriate question for its supporters, especially the Democratic presidential field, is one often posed by tennis bad boy John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”
But, apparently, when New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey introduced their proposal in February, they were deadly serious, and breathless progressives couldn’t wait to hop aboard the climate change express. First in line, the Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate who were eager to offer up their enthusiastic support.
There was just one snag. The Green New Deal, in reality, wasn’t serious. These weren’t well-thought-out ideas or vetted policies. They were far left talking points that couldn’t possibly survive any real scrutiny. And they didn’t…………..
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sat back and let the Democrats and their presidential candidates climb one by one out on a politically perilous limb called the Green New Deal. He’s been around long enough to know the difference between serious policymakers on both sides who want to get something done and politicians who are more comfortable on the campaign trail than in a committee markup.
He also knows the difference between a catchy sound bite and solid policy.
So he decided to call the Democrats’ bluff and scheduled a vote on the Green New Deal they had all been touting. For weeks, Democratic presidential candidates had been talking up the climate change issue from Iowa to New Hampshire, as support for the deal was becoming a kind of “litmus test” for many progressive Democratic primary voters. And now there was to be a vote, an actual vote.
Thanks to McConnell, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren would have the opportunity to actually deliver on what had been only pie-in-the-sky promises on climate change. Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker would have a chance to stand tall for bold action and save the planet from climate change. And Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand could now earn their bona fides as relentless climate change warriors.
On March 26, Mitch McConnell gave Democrats the opportunity to stand on principle and vote for the Green New Deal policies they claimed to support. To do their job and legislate.
The highest-ranking African cardinal said this week that the Church risks becoming just another NGO if it focuses on “horizontal” issues like immigration and ecology rather than preaching Jesus Christ.
Some Catholic leaders urge the Church “not to speak about God, but to throw itself body and soul into social problems: migration, ecology, dialogue, the culture of encounter, the struggle against poverty, for justice and peace,” said Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah in an interview this week with La Nef.
2019 is the year when New York State passed new laws aiming to phase out and eventually ban the use of plastic bags. While there is definitely an argument to be made against the use of plastic in anything that can’t be recycled indefinitely, it was still a fairly radical step to take before there were suitable, affordable replacements available. At least in the case of shopping bags, however (one of the most common uses for plastic bags), you had an old-school alternative. Paper bags have their drawbacks but are generally capable of getting your groceries home.
But hold the phone! In New York City, a plastic bag ban wasn’t enough. Now the City Council is looking at jacking up costs by taxing paper bags. This plan is going to save the world for sure. (CBS New York)
Two city council members have announced plans for legislation to place a fee on paper shopping bags.
The proposal follows the state banning most single-use plastic bags beginning next March.
Under the new law, each municipality has the option of imposing a 5-cent fee on paper bags.
Whether you happen to agree with it or not, you can at least kind of see why some people oppose the use of plastic bags. They are filling up landfills faster than we can dig new ones and they don’t decompose for centuries. The amount of plastic junk in the oceans is obscene and harms wildlife. I get it. If we can find better alternatives, I’ll definitely be willing to give them a look. But paper bags? Paper is just about the most recyclable thing we produce. And it also decomposes pretty quickly without leaving a lot of toxic residue unless you plaster it with ink.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez turned an overpriced croissant into a lesson on the minimum wage.
Croissants at LaGuardia are going for SEVEN DOLLARS A PIECE 😱
Yet some people think getting a whole hour of personal, dedicated human labor for $15 is too expensive??
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 1, 2019
The real story is Occasional-Cortex flying. She’s screamed bloody murder about the world ending in “like 12 years” unless we do something on the order of fighting World War 2 all over again.
Her Grande Green New Deal was all over ending air travel “like now” to start saving the planet.
But, instead of her taking Amtrak from NYC to DC, she’s flying (undoubtedly 1st class) back to work.
Yep, she’s a hypocrite of the first order, just like all the other climate alarmists who want us to ditch our lifestyles for yogurt and kale while she keeps to flying high and noshing on designer crescent rolls.
When the climate alarmists start acting like there’a a real emergency, maybe I’ll then start to take them seriously. Otherwise, they’re lying jackasses.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) called on lawmakers and activists who argue that fossil fuels are “immoral” to “stop using them today.”
When the climate alarmists start acting like it’s a real emergency by changing their lifestyles, I’ll think about taking them seriously.
WASHINGTON – Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) warned young people that “fossil fuels will kill us” if the U.S. doesn’t switch to renewable energy. The Terminator actor said millions of people die each year because of pollution.
“So, therefore, it’s very important for you to get involved to fight and to get rid of fossil fuels because fossil fuels will kill us and fossil fuels will create global climate change. Now I’ve studied this issue very well. It’s another issue I didn’t know much about when I became governor but then when I listened to the studies and to the scientists I became 100 percent supportive of it,” Schwarzenegger said during a discussion on gerrymandering at the National Press Club on Tuesday with former Attorney General Eric Holder.
“And that’s why I’m a crusader, an environmental crusader around the world to make sure we stop this madness of using fossil fuels and that we switch to renewables or electric or hydrogen cars and new technology but this government doesn’t do anything about it,” said Schwarzenegger, who arrived at the event in a Chevrolet Suburban SUV. “You don’t see them talking about it. You don’t see them going out and handing out research and development money to the car manufacturers to say in 10 years from now we’ll have more electric cars,” he added.
Why I Don’t “Believe” in “Science”
Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments.
For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.
So what Warren really means by saying “I believe in science” is “I believe in global warming.”
But we owe it to Andrew Yang—a Democratic presidential candidate who just managed to qualify for the televised primary debates by getting more than 65,000 individual campaign contributions—for stating this trope in such a comical form that it gives the game away:
“My father has a Ph.D. in physics,” he said. “I believe in science.”
This prompted some well-deserved mockery along the lines of, “My father was a cartoonist. I believe in Daffy Duck.” More important, it captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity.
Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.
But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand.
There are a lot of people these days who like things that sound science-y, but have little patience for actual science. These are the kind of people who gush when Elon Musk tells them he’s going to put a million people on Mars but seem less excited about discussions of cosmic-ray shielding, or solar wind, or hydrogen escape, or all the reasons why Mars is a dead planet.
They prefer the imagery of “science” to the more prosaic reality. In my experience, “I believe in science” is just a shorthand way of admitting, “I have a degree in the humanities.”
The problem is the word “belief.” Science isn’t about “belief.” It’s about facts, evidence, theories, experiments. You don’t say, “I believe in thermodynamics.” You understand its laws and the evidence for them, or you don’t. “Belief” doesn’t really enter into it.
So as a proper formulation, saying “I understand science” would be a start. “I understand the science on this issue” would be better. That implies that you have engaged in a first-hand study of the specific scientific questions involved in, say, global warming, which would give you the basis to support a conclusion. If you don’t understand the basis for your conclusion and instead have to accept it as a “belief,” then you don’t really know it, and you certainly are in no position to lecture others about how they must believe it, too.
Because science is about evidence, this also means that it carries no “authority.” The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba—”on no one’s word”—which is intended to capture the “determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
That’s the opposite of what “I believe in science” is intended to convey. “I believe in science” is meant to use the reputation of “science” in general to give authority to one specific scientific claim in particular, shielding it from questioning or skepticism.
House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled long-awaited legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions and take on climate change by binding the United States to commitments made under the Obama-era Paris climate accord. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined other Democrats in releasing the legislative package in the Capitol, framing climate change as “an existential threat” and promising that the party will move the legislation quickly to the floor. “The American people know that the … crisis is an existential threat of our generation, of our time, a crisis manifested in natural disasters of epic proportions,” she said.The five-page bill known as the Climate Action Now Act aims to block President Trump from pulling out of the Paris climate agreement reached by the U.S. and other world powers in 2015 under former President Obama. Under the bill, Trump would also have to submit a new plan to Congress outlining how the U.S. will continue to meet the goals established in the Paris agreement.
But if the measure is simply a resolution laying out goals, why can’t all members of the Senate say whether or not they support the goals now, as Markey, Ocasio-Cortez, and the Senate Democrats running for president had done when the Green New Deal was first introduced? “We haven’t had any witnesses or expertise or science,” Markey replied. “It’s a perversion of the political process to not have hearings on legislation before you bring it out. I want hearings.”
In other words, he and his fellow democraps didn’t get his opportunity for political grandstanding and his widdle feewings were huwt. Poor bawby.
“Notice how it is starting to morph from “climate change” to just “climate”. It first changed from global warming to climate change, but lately I’ve noticed most of the references are no longer to “climate change deniers” but are now just “climate deniers”.”
Damian Carrington, Environment editor
Tue 26 Mar 2019 17.30 AEDT
Exclusive: chair of Elders group also says fossil fuel firms have lost their social licence
The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.
Robinson will make the outspoken attack on Tuesday, in a speech to the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew in London, which has awarded her the Kew International Medal for her “integral work on climate justice”.
“The evidence about the effects of climate change is incontrovertible, and the moral case for urgent action indisputable,” she will say.
“Climate change undermines the enjoyment of the full range of human rights – from the right to life, to food, to shelter and to health. It is an injustice that the people who have contributed least to the causes of the problem suffer the worst impacts of climate change.”
“The Elders” are a group of self important former United Nations leaders and other high profile international figures who seem to think you should do what you are told.
Mary Robinson stops short of saying what she thinks should be done about those “malign and evil” climate deniers, but I think we get the idea.
The final vote was 0-57. All 53 Republican senators voted ‘no’ on the measure, and they were joined by three Democrats: Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), along with Independent senator Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats.
Utter abject hypocrisy about ‘climate change’. It’s nothing more than a grandstanding ploy for more government control that only imbeciles believe in and corrupt politicians promote.