Gay Patriot Header Image

Left-Wing Writer Defends Climate Hypocrisy

A left-wing writer at The New Republic says it’s totes OK for Al Gore and Leo di Caprio to enjoy lavish, hydrocarbon-fueled lifestyles (multiple mansions, mega yachts, private jets, fleets of SUV’s for their entourages). “The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger).

By painting criticism of climate hypocrites as nothing more than a smear campaign from “the right wing,” ahe is, of course, completely missing the point, which is that why should we believe Al Gore and Leo di Caprio believe that CO2 is going to burn up the Earth when they don’t act like their own emissions are a problem. Imagine a televangelist preaching that alcohol, homosexuality, and gambling were the worst of sins that would surely cause your soul to burn, burn, burn in the fires of Hell. Now, imagine what you would think if he were caught stumbling drunk out of a casino at three in the morning with a male prostitute on each arm. You would kind of think maybe he didn’t believe in that stuff he was preaching, wouldn’t you?

She also makes the laughable claim that Al Gore, Leo Di Caprio and the other hypocrites “aren’t asking you to change your lifestyle.” Which is bullsh-t. They are demanding that people give up automobiles, pay exorbitant rates for electricity, give up meat, give up household pets, limit the number of children, and, of course, pay massively higher taxes so that Governments can fight the phantom menace of climate change.

Environmentalist Virtue Signaling Kills Third World Children

No cost is too high to meet Eurotopia’s insatiable demand for green virtue-signaling. Forests are being devastated to provide wood to burn for power in place of coal of nuclear for no logical reason. (And as an added bonus, burning wood to make electricity releases even more CO2 into the atmosphere than the technologies it replaces.)

The latest virtue signaling fad to sweep Europe is to outlaw cars and trucks that are fueld by gasoline and diesel fuels. Sweden and France have already passed laws to phase out non-electric vehicles by 2040, and there is a movement for other countries to follow suit. It is an article of faith on the environmental left that electric cars are non-polluting and will save the world from ManBearPig.

The batteries to power Eurotopia’s new fleets of electric vehicles will require staggering amounts of rare Earth metals as well as lithium and cobalt. The extraction of these elements from the Earth is so environmentally devastating that no advanced western country would ever allow it to take place on their soil. The Eurotopian greens are only too happy, however, to shift the burden to places like Communist China and Africa, where environmental protections are non-existent and the people doing the hard labor are so backward and deplorable they probably use the wrong gender pronouns. So, who cares what happens to them?

By the way, as an added bonus, those electric Tesla’s and Volvo’s also promote third world child slavery.

Dorsen, just eight, is one of 40,000 children working daily in the mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The terrible price they will pay for our clean air is ruined health and a likely early death.

Goldman Sachs, the merchant bank, calls cobalt ‘the new gasoline’ but there are no signs of new wealth in the DRC, where the children haul the rocks brought up from tunnels dug by hand.

No one knows quite how many children have died mining cobalt in the Katanga region in the south-east of the country. The UN estimates 80 a year, but many more deaths go unregistered, with the bodies buried in the rubble of collapsed tunnels. Others survive but with chronic diseases which destroy their young lives. Girls as young as ten in the mines are subjected to sexual attacks and many become pregnant.

Yeah, but isn’t it worth it for the smug sense of superiority leftists get from plugging their Teslas and Nissan Leaf’s into the power-up station? It totally is, isn’t it?

Trump getting some stuff done

Just a reminder. From an editorial at Business Insider – emphasis added:

Border crossings, for example, have plummeted, even though all Trump has done so far is promise to enforce existing laws.

The Supreme Court approved parts of Trump’s travel ban…Trump is busy filling lower court positions with conservative justices…pulled out of the Paris climate change deal

The EPA, meanwhile, is dismantling Obama’s coal-killing, growth-choking Clean Power Plan, and draining the heavy-handed Waters of the United States rule. When a veteran EPA official resigned this week, she complained in a letter to her former colleagues that “the new EPA Administrator already has repeals of 30 rules under consideration,” which the New York Times described as “a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history.”

Trump promised to kill two regulations for every new one enacted, but in his first six months the ratio was 16-to-1.

Trump also approved the Keystone XL and other pipeline projects held up by Obama. He’s also rolled back a ban on coal mining on public lands.

To be sure, Trump hasn’t scored a major legislative achievement on signature issues like ObamaCare and tax reform.

Every day he’s around is another day we didn’t have #CorruptHillary.

UPDATE: Let’s not forget the progress against ISIS. A month ago, we had the liberation of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. That and other Trump administration changes have contributed to progress in Syria (Raqqa) as well.

…key factors were the Trump administration’s delegation of key decision-making to battlefield commanders, the tactic of “annihilation” in which the ground forces surround the group in its stronghold so foreign fighters cannot escape, and drumming up support for burden-sharing among 73 members—69 countries and four international organizations—of the broad anti-ISIS coalition.

The campaign under Trump has witnessed the near fall of ISIS’s territorial hold. The Obama administration laid the groundwork…

Sure. The Obama team was always “laying the groundwork” – with little or no intention of carrying it out.

Sadly, civilian casualties in these operations have been high – because of ISIS using civilians as human shields, booby-trapping buildings to maximize damage and casualties, attacking civilians to keep them penned (unable to escape), etc. That being so sad, tales of “annihiliation tactics” then become almost heartwarming.

Watermelons

Posted by V the K at 7:41 am - July 18, 2017.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

An Australian member of the Academic Caste is saying that in order to fight Global Warmening, we (meaning you) are going to have to give up property rights.

Western Sydney University Researcher Louise Crabtree, writing for The Conversation, thinks in a world torn by climate disasters ownership of private property may have to be sacrificed, to be replaced by a system of housing cooperatives or a roaming right to reside.

Reminds me a bit of that bit of utopian fantasy about the world of the future where there is no privacy, and no one owns anything, because magic. Ms. Crabtree’s thesis is in the interest of ‘Climate Change,’ we will have to change (i.e. abandon) our notion of private property in favor of that used by “indigenous peoples” (i.e. people who lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers with life spans of 30 before they appropriated elements of European civilization). “Some say that First Peoples might have a grasp of property dynamics that is more suited to the times we are entering,” she writes. I have a sneaking suspicion who this “Some” who are saying this is.

So, this Louise Crabtree must be a professor of some form of science relating to the Earth’s complex systems of climate and weather, right? Nope. Well, she must be an economist, right? Nope, wrong again.

Louise was awarded her PhD in Human Geography from Macquarie University in 2007 and has been with Western Sydney University since 2007. Her research focuses on the social, ecological and economic sustainability of community-driven housing developments in Australia; on the uptake of housing innovation in practice and policy; on complex adaptive systems theory in urban contexts; and, on the interfaces between sustainability, property rights, institutional design and democracy. Her recent and ongoing projects focus on two practical areas funded by a series of competitive research grants—community land trusts and participatory mapping methodologies. Both are being used to simultaneously foster social innovation and equity outcomes on the ground, and explore and build theory on multi-stakeholder governance, decolonisation, property law, resilience and citizenship.

So, she lives on piles of burning Government grant money is trying to link her pseudo-scientific field to climate change in hopes of getting more grant money. And it will probably work.

Does this concept that property rights must give way to the ‘Common Good’ sound at all familiar?

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” – Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.

Anybody wanna try and claim that ‘Climate Change’ isn’t a cover for instituting global Marxism?

“What’s the Matter, Are You Chicken?”

Posted by V the K at 8:05 pm - July 14, 2017.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

PDT’s EPA Chief has suggested that Climate Change True Believers debate Climate Change Skeptics in a scientific televised debate.

Guess who doesn’t want to show up?

Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt’s proposed debate “bullshit.” In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by “every national academy of sciences on the planet,” and is already debated “every day by the very process of science itself.”
“The effort by Pruitt and Trump’s EPA to pretend to put together a ‘debate’ is no more than another attempt to open the door to the voices of climate denial, delay, and confusion that have already postponed international action almost to the point of disaster,” Gleick added.
Michael Mann, a climatologist and geophysicist at Penn State University, said that a debate is already going on and “it’s called science.” He also said the debate amounts to a “bad faith effort.”
“What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table,” Mann said.

Gee, for people who have absolute faith in the correctness and undeniability of their position, they certainly don’t seem to think they could win a public debate on the matter.

You may remember Michael Mann as the Global Warming scientician who absolutely refuses to release the data he claims proves Global Warming is real to public scrutiny. He also says “data is unnecessary,” because scienticians can just feel global warming happening.

“There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy,” Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Sciencetold BuzzFeed News. “But the ‘whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,’ those debates are closed.”

Right, because you say so.

New Crisis, Same Old Progressives

Posted by V the K at 11:33 pm - July 7, 2017.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

If you go to YouTube and search “Don’t be fuelish,” you’ll come across a cache of public service announcements from 1974, warning Americans that the world was running out of oil. In one of them, a little blond kid stands in the torch of the Statue of Liberty, lamenting that all of the oil is going to be used up by the time he goes to college. Kid looks to be 9 or 10 years old. So, basically, he was worried that all the world’s supply of fuel would be used up by 1985.

The solution proposed by progressives in 1974 was the same as they are pushing forty years later as a response to “Global Warmening”; stop using fossil fuels, restrict individual liberty (Remember how the speed limit used to be 55 MPH because we needed to conserve energy?), embiggen Government. And the tactics were exactly the same… threaten people with DOOM! unless the progressive scheme was implemented. (“Think of the children! Won’t someone think of the children!”) Oh, and they also used actors to push their message.

Just something to ponder as Global Warming Scientician Michael Mann faces contempt of court charges for refusing to release the data he used to come up with the infamous “hockey stick graph” that supposedly demonstrates inevitable Global Warmening Doom unless we …. stop using fossil fuels, restrict individual liberty, and embiggen Government.

Paris Agreement Sucked – No One Should Want It

Yesterday I wrote a lot of text on this. Thanks to all commenters who made helpful additions.

Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.

  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away many tens of billions of dollars annually, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.

Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible.

I bet you’re gullible enough to think CNN or WaPo “fact checkers” are real, and not just fellow lefties trying to keep you on the plantation.

And, one more time: If Paris “imposes nothing on us” or is non-binding – then why should withdrawing from it be a crisis?

Think. If it’s true that any party can blow it off (note IF) – then it’s worthless, in yet another way.

The meaning of Trump’s presidency

With America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, another piece of the puzzle is in place. I think I’m getting a Big Picture.

For a myriad of reasons – economic, financial, demographic – we have been moving into a multi-polar world. As opposed to a world where the U.S. is the one, super-wealthy super-power.

Like an oncoming glacier, the shift is very slow – but unstoppable. I’ve been contemplating it for years – and sometimes discussing it on the blog, as in my old posts (that I keep meaning to update) on the gradual decline of the U.S. dollar as the world’s central currency.

Trump is ahead of this shift, and left-wingers are behind it.

Despite their anti-American attitudes and railing against “white supremacy”, left-wingers take great comfort in the idea that the U.S. is the world’s one, super-wealthy super-power. In many a discussion, when I’ve tried to warn a liberal friend how policy X must inevitably undermine the U.S. position in the world, he or she smirks – yes, smirks – and says “But we will always be on top, because of reason Y.” (We have the best military, the best universities or tech research, Hollywood / the most seductive culture, control of the Internet or SWIFT payment system, whatever.)

I think their belief is basically infantile.

  • The child needs to fantasize that the parent is super-capable and benevolent and will always be there for her, no matter what.
  • And a malicious / narcissistic child fantasizes about being able to dish out endless tantrums and torture on the parent – without damaging the child’s life in any way.

Likewise, the left-winger needs to fantasize that the U.S. will always be the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy And Daddy – no matter how many rocks, bombs or burdens they (the left-wingers) throw at the U.S.

Which brings us to the Paris climate accord. It doesn’t do much of anything good. Just a couple big, bad things.

  1. Uphold left-wing fetishes – environmental extremism, statism, globalism – thus demonstrating leftie supremacy; and
  2. Drain the U.S. of wealth – in the form of payments for the Green Climate Fund, tens of billions of new aid to India and other countries, even more burdens on industry and U.S. energy, etc.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is so upsetting to left-wingers because it reverses both of those. Now, what is Trump’s rationale for withdrawing?

  • He thinks the U.S. is already responsible environmentally, and will continue to be.
  • He thinks we need to think a bit more about ourselves. We need to mine our own coal. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to NOT pay into the Green Climate Fund, billions of new aid to India, etc.
  • Meanwhile, the agreement lets China, India and even Europe burn coal and increase their CO2 emissions. That makes no sense. The agreement puts the U.S. at a senseless disadvantage.

Trump’s actions are consistent with, and helpful in, a multi-polar world where the U.S. stops being the Supreme Mommy and Daddy and instead, “gets real” about what the U.S. needs in order to be a good place to live for U.S. people.

He said it in January – “America First” – and now he’s carrying it out. That, and restoring the Constitution (at least a little). Because withdrawing from Paris de-fuses a constitutional bomb. (As will ending the Obamacare insurance-buying mandate, when they finally get around to that.)

Leftie reactions are telling: It’s the end of the world, the U.S. has “resigned as leader of the free world”, Germany’s Angela Merkel now leads the free world, etc. It’s exactly the tantrum you would expect them to throw – if they had an infantile attachment to an idea of the U.S. as the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy and Daddy, upon whom they could inflict any torture or burden that they pleased.

Trump is turning out to be the Bad Mouth Man who will end it, at least partly. And that’s good.

Making America Great Again

Yesterday afternoon’s big news, of course, is President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.

Trump cited putting the “well being” of Americans first as a motivating factor behind his decision. He said, “This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a vast fortune.”

…Compliance with the accord could have cost the U.S. “as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates,” said Trump.

…Trump then pointed to a portion of the Paris Climate Agreement that he said allows China to increase their emissions for 13 years…adding that India made it’s participation in the Paris Accord “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

The Paris Agreement also essentially blocks U.S. development of clean coal, said Trump. He then said he was going to try to make it to the opening of a new mine in two weeks and noted “Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.”

…which voted for Trump in the election. Hmm, why?

Trump again pointed to China and India, saying that each country is allowed to add massive numbers of coal plants under the Paris Agreement.

“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries,” he said. “This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

I’ll be honest, I may be weak on the accord’s details. But I got the essence: It’s an orgy of left-wing, quasi-religious virtue-signalling that greatly damages the U.S. economy and sovereignty (because we entered it officially in 2016) while boosting globalist bureaucrats with U.S. money.

Reducing CO2 emissions is, of course, its stated reason for being; and not a very good reason. Even under the U.N.’s own (incorrect) climate models, the accord will do little to reduce actual CO2 emissions or future Global Warming projections. That makes it almost the definition of a bad deal: Big pain for small gain.

But it’s even worse because the U.N.’s climate models are broken and greatly overstate the danger of Global Warming. Thus, no matter how you slice it, the stated purpose (CO2) isn’t the real purpose. On the level of CO2, the accord accomplishes only a little toward solving an over-hyped, politically-constructed problem.

The real purpose is to be seen in the accord’s real effects: promoting globalism, U.N. bureaucracy, and the Left’s religions of Environmentalism and Statism, over and against human prosperity, human freedom (the ability to choose fossil fuels and/or products that rely on them, especially cars) and national sovereignty. And making the U.S. pay money for other countries.

As I survey the news this morning, I see the right people’s heads exploding and I gotta be honest: It feels good. Thank you, President Trump!

UPDATES:

  • From the comments, PMSNBC’s Chris Hayes has been tweeting “THE AGREEMENT QUITE LITERALLY IMPOSES NOTHING!!!” – to which people reply, “Then why is backing out such a big deal?”
  • Brouhaha over the withdrawal, as such. First: U.S. participation was never ratified by the Senate. And people justify that by saying “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Fine. Which then makes it 100% voluntary for each participating nation. Right?

    The brouhaha is in Article 28, which says basically that countries must give a 3+ year notice before their withdrawal can become effective. Thus, provided that we give a crap about Article 28, the U.S. can’t effectively withdraw until 2020.

    But remember: “It’s an agreement, not a treaty.” Thus, participation in Article 28 itself is inherently voluntary. Hopefully, Trump has canceled our participation in Article 28 – along with the rest.

  • Lots of good stuff at Breitbart.
  • Click here for Trump’s full speech.

Global Warming Is Completely Serial You Guys

Posted by V the K at 10:24 am - May 19, 2017.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

Some moss is growing in Antarctica. Clearly, this means that the Earth is DOOMED unless the entire global economy shifts to a centrally planned socialist model controlled by the United Nations.

Snowflakes Prove Again That Truth Melts Them

At Breitbart.com, James Delingpole savors the meltdown. Here’s the summary.

  • Bret Stephens, not all that much of a conservative firebrand, comes to the New York Times.
  • His first column suggests ever so gently that the Climate Changists may have over-hyped their case just a tad, making the public’s skeptical reactions just a bit understandable. He adds, “None of this is to deny climate change.”
  • Hilarity ensues.

You’ve seen the items about climate scienticians cancelling their NYT subscriptions. My favorite is German climate professor Stefan Rahmstorf, who compares his side to the heroes Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler facing the wrath of the Roman Church.

Why my favorite? Because it’s so delusional. Yes: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler faced off against the religious, well-funded “scientific consensus” of their day. In our day, the Climate Changists ARE that religious, well-funded “scientific consensus”. Not the heroes challenging it.

As Delingpole concludes, Climate Change has become “a religion where heretics must burn.” Or even non-heretics, like Bret Stephens, who show heretics the tiniest crumb of understanding.

UPDATE: Steven Crowder hosts a real scientist, to talk climate change. They’re both smart guys and I found it informative.

Just How Long Has This Racket Been In Business?

Posted by V the K at 12:15 pm - April 22, 2017.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

Not to step on Jeff’s excellent post, but I saw this and thought it kind of forwards his points. The use of the Global Warming/Climate Change Scare to further a socialist/globalist political agenda has been going on almost as long as I have been alive.

It was in 1972 that the UN and World Bank, along with the Club of Rome decided to use CAGW (“catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”as a whip to drive humanity back into serfdom.

Details in comments at the link.  Including the CIA getting into the act in 1974, publishing a report claiming that “global cooling” and overpopulation would lead to catastrophic consequences by the mid-1980s.

In 1973, NASA made conscious political decision to preserve its funding by reinventing itself as an environmentalist organization:

“NASA realized that it needed to research environmental-atmospheric impacts of the shuttle to defend itself, if necessary, against possible opposition more positively, (NASA Chief James) Fletcher sought to align his agency with environmental values. In 1973, he told congress that NASA should be considered “an environmental agency.” he declared: “everything we do …helps in some practical way to improve the environment of our planet and helps us understand the forces that affect it. Perhaps that is our essential task, to study and understand the earth and its environment.”

Which resulted in NASA predicting, in 1988, that devastating consequences from Global Warming would begin to be felt in the mid-1990s.

Then, as now, there was only one set of solutions to avoid global catastrophe: A massive transfer of power and wealth from the private sector to the Government, and trans-national political authorities led by political elites to implement planet-wide environmental policies and resource allocation. Coincidentally, the people promoting the Climate Change Catastrophes would accumulate wealth and power under these policies; but this was necessary to save the planet.

Stefan Molyneux on “Climate Change”

I find Molyneux’s video-enlarged, ranting bald head a bit creepy. But his content is often brilliant. I recently listened to this one from 2015.

Molyneux proposes the following thought experiment:

  1. Suppose stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs – whomever you view as corruptible) are in charge of calculating some important measure of the world.
  2. Let’s call it the Economy Rate (ER). It could go up or down. The stockbrokers fudge and massage the ER data, as they see fit.
  3. First, the stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going DOWN! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  4. But over the years, the ER rises. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it’s going UP! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”
  5. But then the ER stops going up. The stockbrokers say “The ER is so important! and it could go UP OR DOWN! With unpredictable pauses! That’s bad! Give us tens of billions of taxpayer money, and we’ll watch it and figure out what to do.”

At what point do you begin to see that the stockbrokers are taking you, in a racket?

  • Point 1 is climate scientists – who are a huge, publicly-funded industry. Each scientist profits (as wage/salary payments, benefits, etc.) from the grants she receives.
  • Point 2 is the world average temperature, which climate scientists derive from data that they themselves fudge and massage.
  • Point 3 is the 1970s, when climate scientists gave alarming predictions of a New Ice Age.
  • Point 4 is the 1980s to the 2000s, when their monster was Global Warming. The famous “hockey stick” upward graph.
  • Point 5 is recent years, when the “hockey stick” graph failed and they switched it to Climate Change – in whatever direction.

Do you believe that climate scientists are less corruptible than stockbrokers (or bankers or politicians or oil company CEOs)? That they’re somehow more objective and noble?

I don’t. You who do (lefties) have a RELIGIOUS FAITH in climate scientists, that you’re not admitting. And it’s exactly what climate scientists want you to have.

Your delusional, gullible faith is how they keep their tens of billions of taxpayer dollars coming. And of course they would have a “consensus” that they are objective and noble and deserve it and should be listened to and those dollars should keep coming. Of course they would.

Happy Earth Day!

Doom!

A leading Climate Scientician with a Captain Kangaroo haircut says we’re doomed and the human race will be extinct in ten years.

 The University of Arizona emeritus professor says in 10 years, humans will cease to exist. Abrupt rises in temperature have us on course for the sixth mass extinction – similar to one that happened about 252 million years ago that culminated in the “great dying”.

That event was the worst of the mass extinction events in our planet’s history and saw all complex life cease, leaving microbes and fungi to rule the planet.

“I think we are heading for something like that this time around, too,” McPherson said.

“I just don’t see how very complex, very complicated organisms that depend upon so many other species, such as humans, I just don’t see how we get through that.”

All righty, then, so let’s not even bother with destroying the Global economy in order to “fight Climate Change.” If we’re doomed anyway, let’s have some fun with it. Forget recounting Jill Stein’s votes (it doesn’t matter anyway) and burn some whales.

(more…)

YHGTBFKM*

Stockholm had over a foot of Global Warming dumped on it last week; a record for the month of November. You would think Scandinavian countries located in what PJ O’Rourke once called “The Unheated Attic of Europe” would be able to handle a little snow. However, the socialist government of Stockholm decided … I am not making this up … that snow removal should take into account gender inequities and… yadda, yadda, yadda… big f–king mess.

Stockholm’s center-left government introduced a new “gender equal” approach to clearing the roads of snow last year. The policy states that sidewalks, public transport and bicycle lanes should be cleared before turning attention to the roads. The reason is that women are more likely to use sidewalks while men are overrepresented among commuters driving to work.

When the first major snow storm swept the capital last week, traffic went into a standstill as no one cleared the streets. People couldn’t get to work, schools had to close and commuters were stuck in traffic for hours without moving.

*You Have Got To Be Kidding Me.

Green Energy Policies Force Canadians to Choose Between Heat and Food

Posted by V the K at 7:50 am - October 25, 2016.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

America’s Hat — like many other places brainwashed into believing that the possibility of a slight temperature rise will doom all of humanity — has adopted “green energy policies” that favor expensive, unreliable sources of power (wind and solar) over less expensive, highly reliable sources like coal, gas, and nuclear. I witnessed this first-hand driving through southern Ontario last year, where there are some sixty continuous miles of spinning bird-choppers lining the highway between Toronto and Detroit.

Bowing at the altar of Gaia comes with a significant cost. In Ontario, the province where the Gaia Agenda has been pushed to California-style extremes — energy rates have skyrocketed. And now many Canucks are finding themselves having to choose between having back-bacon in the fridge and heating their homes.

Ontario premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, via their 2009 Green Energy Act and other poor decisions, have pushed many of the people they govern into dire financial straits thanks to their activist agendas.

“They live as if it’s Cold War Russia,” Miranda from Toronto told me during a phone conversation about her parent’s energy woes. “They use a pellet stove and propane heating. They put construction-style plastic on the windows and extra insulation.”

“They’re considering using food banks this winter,” she said. “I work in international development in third world countries and I’m starting to see the stuff here that I’m seeing there.”

Not everybody is doing so bad. Canada’s Carbon Tax “Slush Fund” promises to become a big, fat gold mine for politically connected cronies and rent-seekers.

Play Socialist Games, Win Socialist Prizes.

Even if you do buy into the “Carbon Dioxide is the Devil and Industrial Civilization is Evil,” it doesn’t have to be this way. A Dutch inventor claims to have developed a technology that pulls pollution out of the atmosphere. The details are a little sketchy, but surely building large-scale atmospheric processors in heavily polluted cities is an achievable technology if we decided to do that instead of following the Green Path of energy poverty.

The Pacific Garbage Island Is a Hoax and I Fell for it

I am embarrassed to admit I thought the Pacific garbage island … a supposed mass of refuse in the Pacific Ocean the size of a subcontinent … was a real thing. Nope, it was all dreamed up by a guilt-ridden lefty trustafarian to atone for the oil wealth he inherited and then promoted by the environmental left with the willing cooperation of the political and media lefts.

In early August 1997, Charles Moore found himself floating through the North Pacific in his Tasmanian-built catamaran. Moore, an oil heir, activist, and yachting captain, had just finished up a two-week race and was heading back from Honolulu to Santa Barbara, California, through what’s called a “gyre”—an area of the ocean like the Sargasso Sea, wrapped inside a giant weather spiral, that serves as a reservoir for flotsam. As he described it in a 2003 article for Natural History, the thousand-mile journey took him through an endless field of plastic—3 million tons of it in all, he guessed, in an area about the size of Texas. Everywhere he looked he saw debris: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments.

This never happened.

Scientists have known for a long time that there is nothing like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch reported in the media. There is a small amount of noticeable debris in these areas—old plastic bottles and parts of nets—but the vast majority of the plastic consists of very small flakes, much of it microscopic.

I should have known better; the left lies about everything, and they will advance any lie they have to in order to claw their way to power. Everything every leftist ever says should be treated with extreme skepticism always and forever.

The Global Warming Cult Wants to Outlaw Meat

Posted by V the K at 8:29 am - August 4, 2016.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

Perhaps not outlaw, but raise the price to levels so high that only the wealthy and powerful will be able to afford it.

Meat should be taxed at the wholesale level to raise the price and deter consumption, says a new report from the UN’s International Research Panel (IRP). This will (supposedly) save the environment and prevent global warming.

The evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment,” agrees Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wongblog.

“Agriculture today accounts for for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions that promote global warming,” says Premack, “and half of those agriculture emissions come from livestock.”

“Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the US – most of that being for meat, says Premack. “… For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.”

Who elected these people?

Oh, that’s right, nobody.

Climate Change Fanaticism

Posted by V the K at 5:56 am - July 5, 2016.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

The first rule of a fanatical cult is that you are not allowed to question the teachings of the fanatical cult.

The reason for this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics. Every “solution” to “Climate Change” involves institution the left’s preferred policies… Centralized Control of the Economy; Global Redistribution of Wealth, Restrictions on Individual Liberties… and destruction of those things they despise; Free Enterprise and Individual Liberty.

That is why Climate Change Indoctrination is being instituted at every level of Government and why questioning the Dogma of Climate Change is being persecuted.

Climate Change Is Pretty Much the Fraud We Thought It Was

Posted by V the K at 9:08 pm - March 30, 2016.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming)

So says… one of the Architects of the Climate Change Scam.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

The fact that leftists have been pushing the Full Implementation of Global Socialism as the only way to stop Global Warming was kind of a major hint.