AOC and Bernie: “move to declare climate crisis official emergency”…And?

Guest Grauniad slap-down by David Middleton

The Grauniad

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez move to declare climate crisis official emergency
Exclusive: Democrats to introduce resolution in House on Tuesday in recognition of extreme threat from global heating

A group of US lawmakers including the 2020 Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders are proposing to declare the climate crisis an official emergency – a significant recognition of the threat taken after considerable pressure from environment groups.

[Blah, blah blah]

Climate activists have been calling for the declaration, as data shows nations are not on track to limit the dangerous heating of the planet significantly enough.

[Blah, blah blah]

The activist group Extinction Rebellion has said the declaration is a crucial first step in addressing the crisis.

[Blah, blah blah]

In Congress, Democrats in control of the House might have enough support for the resolution, but Republicans in the majority in the Senate are not likely to approve.


The Grauniad

It won’t even make it to the Senate floor for debate, much less get voted on. 100% fake news.

In Congress, Democrats in control of the House might have enough support for the resolution, but Republicans in the majority in the Senate are not likely to approve.

Wait! This just in…

I stopped reading after I got to the bit about this being DOA in the Senate. There’s more…

Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on climate change.

The Grauniad

It’s fake news about a fake emergency declaration regarding a fake crisis!

And now it’s Cheeseface time…

As the crisis escalates…
… in our natural world, we refuse to turn away from the climate catastrophe and species extinction. For The Guardian, reporting on the environment is a priority. We give reporting on climate, nature and pollution the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the media.

[Whine, whine, whine]

Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

The Grauniad

In other words… If you don’t buy this newspaper, we’ll kill the climate.

In the real news…

Don’t miss Juan Williams totally beclowning himself!

Special AOC Bonus!

The Public Editor dot com

Special “The Bern” Bonus!

Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries

By Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott, CNN
Updated 1:39 PM ET, Thu March 14, 2019

(CNN)Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described “radical political party” in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

Sanders’ past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.

Aspects of Sanders’ plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders’ views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.

[Excuses, excuses, excuses]

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

[Excuses, excuses, excuses]

The energy industry

In 1973, during his time as chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Sanders took to a Vermont paper to oppose Richard Nixon’s energy policy and oil industry profits, calling for the entire energy industry to be nationalized. Consumers at the time had been facing steep price increases and heavy shortages as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.

“I would also urge you to give serious thought about the eventual nationalization of these gigantic companies,” Sanders wrote in a December 1973 open letter to Vermont Sen. Robert Stafford that ran in the Vermont Freeman. “It is extremely clear that these companies, owned by a handful of billionaires, have far too much power over the lives of Americans to be left in private hands. The oil industry, and the entire energy industry, should be owned by the public and used for the public good — not for additional profits for billionaires.”

[Excuses, excuses, excuses]

Taxing assets at 100%

Heavy taxation of wealthy people played prominently into Sanders’ plans to pay for expanding government services.

In February 1976, Liberty Union put out a state tax proposal calling for a radical revamping of the system, including the removal of all taxes of sales, beverages, cigarettes, polls, and the use of telephones, railroads or electric energy. Tax rates for those earning more than $100,00 would be 33.47%, $50,000-$99,999 would be 19%, $25,000-$49,000 would be 13.56%, and $10,000-$14,999 would be 4%. Anyone earning less than $10,000 would pay no state income tax.

But Sanders’ rhetoric at times went much further.

During his 1974 Senate run, Sanders said one plan to expand government included making it illegal to gain more wealth than person could spend in a lifetime and have a 100% tax on incomes above this level. (Sanders defined this as $1 million dollars annually).

“Nobody should earn more than a million dollars,” Sanders said.

CNN Politics

Once a Marxist, always a Marxist.

International Liberty
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jimmy Haigh
July 11, 2019 6:25 pm

If people fall for this we deserve to go extinct.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2019 7:19 pm

David, can you fix this? I know it’s nothing but a typo: “Tax rates for those earning more than $100,00 would be 33.47%” – s/b $100,000.

Both of these maroons are doing this for the sole purpose of getting attention. Let’s hope they stick together long enough to draw votes away from the rest of the “candidates” (and I use that term loosely), whether on the ballot or during these so-called debates, which will bore people right into voting for another administration run by the Nemesis.

Orange Man BAD!

Reply to  David Middleton
July 11, 2019 9:37 pm

That;s actually probably true ….especially in CA. . .

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
July 12, 2019 2:23 pm

Given many Americans’ apparent enthusiasm for socialism today, it’s hard not to conclude that we live in an age in which millions know little about history or aren’t inclined to learn from it.

There are lessons to be learned from the collapse of command economies in Central-Eastern Europe in 1989, Argentina’s economic disintegration throughout the twentieth century, and the present-day implosion of The twenty-first century style socialism in Venezuela. We can also learn from cases in which countries abandoned planned economies and saved their societies from economic misery. One important but often forgotten example of such a transformation is West Germany’s turn to free markets in 1948.

The German National Socialist regime’s crimes against humanity, especially its attempt to exterminate the Jewish people, are well-known today. Fewer, however, recognize that the Nazi movement also embraced some indisputably socialist ideas. The 25 point program adopted by the Nazis in 1920, for example, demanded the nationalization of key industries and the expansion of old-age welfare. Nazi leaders also used consistently negative language about capitalism, which they invariably portrayed as being controlled by “Jewish bankers.”

Adolf Hitler’s own economic views are best described as eclectic. While proclaiming that “we are socialists” and that “we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system,” Hitler stressed on other occasions that the destruction of private property was a mistake. What is clear, however, is that he believed that the economy, like everything else, was subordinate to the demands of a totalitarian state.

In practice, the Nazis’ economic policies were an amalgam of protectionism, quasi-Keynesian stimulus programs, heavy spending on arms production, generous subsidies for agriculture and small businesses, and close relationships between the state and industries considered vital for a strong military, such as the iron and coal industries. To the extent that a common theme characterized these policies, it was one of economic nationalism.

It was not a great leap from such ideas to the more widespread collectivization of the German economy which unfolded haphazardly during World War II. Hitler was reluctant to move the economy onto a full-scale war footing, not least because this would have meant admitting the fearsome odds facing Germany as it simultaneously fought the British Empire, the USSR, and America. But as time passed, price controls and rationing were introduced and expanded, income tax raised, and private businesses lost more and more of their freedom as they became increasingly integrated into the German war machine. By 1944, almost 25 percent of Germany’s workforce consisted of slave labor, primarily concentration camp inmates and forced laborers from conquered territories.

Given the similarities between Uncle Adolf’s style of governing and the proposals of both Uncle Bernie and Uncle Tom, it is truly a wonder why todays politicians haven’t learned from prior failed regimen’s

Dave Fair
Reply to  Sara
July 11, 2019 8:17 pm

Orange man GOOD!

Reply to  Sara
July 11, 2019 8:45 pm

Okay – thanks for the info on that.

Proofreading is no longer required in news releases. Pity.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
July 11, 2019 10:56 pm

Well, not all of the U.S. electors, surely. But certainly the Democrats – and they will most certainly lose the next presidential election if they do. But I think they would stand a fair chance of winning if they wisely stopped talking about climate change.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
July 12, 2019 1:38 am

‘For The Guardian, reporting on the environment is a priority. We give reporting on climate, nature and pollution the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the media.’

I am on-board about pollution and the despoilation of nature, often done so causally and on a large scale, but it is a shame these topics are habitually conflated with climate, as that is a separate subject which I am not on board about, so consequently I reject the overall climate flavoured message

R Taylor
Reply to  tonyb
July 12, 2019 6:26 am

“causally” or “casually”? If casually, I respectfully disagree, because I see the lives of billions made better by resource production.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
July 11, 2019 11:03 pm

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,”

That’s done already Bernie. The office that helps you to do this is called the stock exchange.



Rod Evans
Reply to  Roger Surf
July 12, 2019 12:12 am

+100 even governments are allowed to buy shares.

July 11, 2019 6:50 pm

Fresh from Kobe univ. Its the sun.. Henrik 😁

Alan Tomalty
July 11, 2019 6:54 pm

Bernie Sanders declared a climate emergency and then he didn’t.
Here is the last paragraph of the resolution.

“(2) nothing in this concurrent resolution constitutes a declaration of a national emergency
for purposes of any Act of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national
emergency or other type of declared emergency, of any special or extraordinary power.”

July 11, 2019 6:58 pm

The fact is there is nobody with any actual expertise involved. It is a tale “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” quoth the Bard.

July 11, 2019 6:58 pm

Nothing more than virtue signaling/posturing. 20 years ago not one person in Congress voted for Kyoto. On the extremely slim chance it could pass both houses it would be vetoed in a New York minute. And they know it.

July 11, 2019 7:00 pm

If God came down on a white cloud over the UN IPCC HQ at Geneva and announced in a booming voice, “It’s Natural Variability not Greenhouse gases driving the climate”, two things would follow-
1. The New York Times would headline, “Geneva Police seek Climate Hoaxer”,
2. Bernie Sanders and AOC would seek a Congressional Inquiry into God’s professional qualifications saying He/She is not a climate scientist.
Bernie would also demand God pay 100% of the costs of the Inquiry.

Dave Fair
July 11, 2019 7:02 pm

Crazy young Commie. >>>>> Crazy old Commie.

J Mac
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 11, 2019 10:24 pm

The Lunatic Fringe. We all know you’re out there!
Red Rider – Lunatic Fringe

July 11, 2019 7:03 pm

We have the same communists as Bernie in our New Zealand government and most of them are in the Green party but scratch a green and they are red underneath and red in New Zealand stands for socialism heading towards Communism .

Chris Thixton
Reply to  Gwan
July 12, 2019 3:41 am

Amen to that.

Reply to  Gwan
July 12, 2019 6:39 am

Hence the name Watermelon.
Green on the surface, red to the core.

July 11, 2019 7:03 pm

It’s amazing and somewhat disturbing that the self destructive policies promoted by the far left have gained as much traction as they have. TDS seems to have the side effect of turning otherwise thinking brains into mush.

Sky King
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 12, 2019 3:42 am

No. Those brains were always mush.

July 11, 2019 7:09 pm

Leftists corrupt language in order to redefine an issue. An official declaration of a climate emergency may do nothing – for now – but it is part of a larger scheme of redefining the limits of what is normal and what is acceptable. It will not end here.

Chris Thixton
Reply to  damp
July 12, 2019 3:49 am

When it’s done at a local council level as it has been done here in New Zealand you just know what follows. Rates increases justified by ‘moral’ reasons to cover up profligate and incompetent local body waste of hard working people’s money. This boondoggle must fall…

July 11, 2019 7:11 pm

Supposedly 70% of Americans support single payer medical care. link If that were true, it could be a winning election issue … maybe. It seems that Americans think immigration is a bigger problem by a long shot. Nation’s most important problem In any event, about twice as Americans think healthcare is the nation’s most important problem as those who think “environment/pollution/climate change” is the biggest problem.

Rhys Read
Reply to  commieBob
July 12, 2019 5:54 am

It’s another case of they “support” it but if you ask them to pay anything for it the numbers invert and less than 30% support paying for it.

Reply to  commieBob
July 12, 2019 2:19 pm

70% of Americans would be supportive of other people paying for their health care.

(70% of Americans would also be supportive of other people paying for their transportation, electricity, housing, food, education, & entertainment (in the way of free cable/internet))

Reply to  DonM
July 14, 2019 9:49 am

It’s all in how you frame the question and spin the results.

July 11, 2019 7:11 pm

Might as well as start putting chips/rubies in our hands that tell us that we can’t live past 30 just like in “Logan’s Run”….how prophetic was that story???🤮🤮🤮

July 11, 2019 7:22 pm

President Trump needs to have fun with this. We have been trying to put in front of him a Carbon Capture System that is so affordable and will turn all that BAD CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money.
President Trump will be able to sell this CO2 Capture technology to the other countries around the world that are still trying to figure out how they are going to reduce their CO2 emissions as per their Paris Climate Accord agreement.
It will be good for America’s GDP . Go President Trump Go. Keep On Making America Even Greater.

Reply to  Sid A
July 12, 2019 6:41 am

Even if it were free, it would still be too expensive.

John Adams
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2019 7:29 am

Free always means so expensive that you can’t afford it.

July 11, 2019 7:25 pm

I keep hoping Ol’ Bern-pit will start foaming at the mouth when he makes one of his lectern-thumping speeches. He just loves the attention he gets when he’s on camera. And his protege Occasionally=Conscious is not much higher than he is in his quest to get attention.

They were made for each other. A matched pair…. Mr. Fury and Ms. “Is this microphone on?”

July 11, 2019 7:33 pm

As that old wise person Anon said, “An ounce of appearance is worth a pound of performance.”

This is especially true in politics where hypocrisy is a virtue.

Tom Abbott
July 11, 2019 7:35 pm

Declaring a Climate Emergency isn’t going to go as smoothly here in the U.S. as it did in the UK.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate and the Presidency so no Climate Emergency will be officially declared.

I *would* like to see the Democrats make a big deal of it just so they force the Trump administration to take an actual stand on the subject. Other than Trump, all the other Trump officials seem to try to avoid talking about the subject as much as possible. They hem and haw and it’s a pitiful sight to see. Watching them you would think they don’t know what they are talking about, they are so hesitant to make a flat statement. it makes them look devious when they try to avoid the question.

No doubt most of them are reluctant to get into a scientific debate when they don’t have full command of the subject. To them I would say that when they are quizzed about CAGW they should just say that “the science is not yet settled”.

When the alarmist reporter challenges that statement, the Trump official should ask the reporter how much net heat CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, the reporter does not know the answer to this question, nor does anyone else on the planet, yet this number is central to the claim that CO2 can somehow affect the Earth’s weather and climate.

You have to know this number before you can make accurate predictions about the Earth’s climate, but noone knows this number, yet politicians want us to spend Trillions of dollars fixing a problem they can’t prove even exists.

It Trump officials can’t remember all this, just make a copy of this post and take it with you. You’ll feel much more confident in your position that the science is not settled when you see that the alarmists don’t even have the basic, fundametal CO2 number from which to extrapolate anything into the future.

The Alarmists don’t know how much net heat CO2 adds yet they claim to know what this unknown quantify will do once in the Earth’s atmosphere. They don’t have the essential facts in hand to make such claims.

The science definitely is not settled. Just say it isn’t settled and then make them prove it is. Put the onus on the Alarmists.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 12, 2019 6:43 am

Back when the Democrats had super majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency, they chose to do nothing regarding climate change.

Tom Halla
July 11, 2019 7:41 pm

Their real motto is “Trust me, this time it will work”. Forget history, even though we have been attempting something similar since the French Revolution, and it has never actually worked, trust us, this time is different.

Dave Bufalo
July 11, 2019 7:50 pm

There is nothing more fearful than ignorance in action.

Reply to  Dave Bufalo
July 11, 2019 8:22 pm

The fact that you are ignorant should not keep you from acting. When we climbed down from the trees, we had no idea what the long term consequences would be.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
July 11, 2019 8:40 pm

“The fact that you are ignorant should not keep you from acting.” WTF? Over.

In your ignorance, what action are you to take, commieBob? Flip a coin? What if you have more than two options for action?

I hope yours was /sarc.

Reply to  Dave Fair
July 11, 2019 9:18 pm

Not sarc at all. “We plan, God laughs.” In his books, Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes strategies for dealing with our essential ignorance.

The other author I would recommend is Philip Tetlock. He points out that expert predictions of anything to do with humans are no more accurate than would be the predictions generated by a dart-throwing chimp. If you can’t predict what will happen, that means that even if you have infinite information, it isn’t enough to overcome a chaotic system.

I am ignorant and so are you. Get over it. Don’t let your ignorance freeze you into inactivity. Just be aware that sometimes things don’t work the way you planned.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
July 11, 2019 10:12 pm

If you are ignorant in a particular area, you should not be making decisions, commieBob. Think AOC.

The fact that one does not know the infinite number of unlikely outcomes does not mean he is ignorant of the relevant issues at hand. I made many high-dollar decisions that panned out. I have never been frozen by indecision because I was always cognizant of realistic possibilities inherent to the situations in which I found myself.

You seem to be using the term “ignorance” in some philosophical-type argumentative sense. Uncertainty of outcome is not ignorance; being unaware of extant facts is ignorance. It is a fact that nobody knows the future, but many have become rich betting on different outcomes.

Anyway, this is no place to argue the meaning of ignorance. I’m done.

Reply to  commieBob
July 12, 2019 12:56 am

The trouble is, they get away with it. John Cook, an unknown cartoonist, made a mint (in both money, position, and prestige) with the 97% hoax, and has not been seen, in public, since.

Reply to  commieBob
July 12, 2019 2:32 pm

“Hey Doc, take a look at this … does this growth look like cancer to you?”

“I don’t know … being a podiatrist I’m a bit ignorant on the subject of intraocular cancer. But, I’m feeling fairly confident today and I’ve just come from a self-help conference where were told that ignorance should so keep us from acting.” says Doc, squinting “Nope, that looks like nothing you need to worry about. And if it starts to hurt … well … here’s a prescription for a three months worth of Opiod pain relief … I’m pretty sure you will be fine with that.”

Reply to  commieBob
July 13, 2019 1:00 pm

DonM July 12, 2019 at 2:32 pm

There are a couple of ways to go wrong.

Analysis paralysis (or paralysis by analysis) describes an individual or group process when overanalyzing or overthinking a situation can cause forward motion or decision-making to become “paralyzed,” meaning that no solution or course of action is decided upon. A situation may be deemed as too complicated and a decision is never made, due to the fear that a potentially larger problem may arise. A person may desire a perfect solution, but may fear making a decision that could result in error, while on the way to a better solution. Equally, a person may hold that a superior solution is a short step away, and stall in its endless pursuit, with no concept of diminishing returns. On the opposite end of the time spectrum is the phrase extinct by instinct, which is making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut reaction. link

You can never have enough knowledge to make a perfect decision. It’s part of the human condition. The trick is to be able to act anyway. Otherwise, you will never get anywhere.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. link

You don’t actually know as much as you think you do … and neither do I.

When it comes to taking risks, I strongly suggest Nassim Nicholas Taleb. When it comes to the fallibility of expert knowledge, I suggest Philip Tetlock.

Reply to  commieBob
July 12, 2019 5:18 am

What do you mean WE,
Speak for yourself not others.

Reply to  Catcracking
July 12, 2019 2:32 pm

What? You’re still swinging from branches and chewing leaves?

Joel O'Bryan
July 11, 2019 8:09 pm

I would love to see Bernie be the Democrat’s nominee. I’d be a deja vu, 1972 all over again style thumping for the Democrats.

Right now my money is on Kamala Harris or E Warren, with a slight edge to Pocahantas at this point. And Trump can beat both of them in the mid-west states and Florida.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 12, 2019 3:34 am

I prefer Harris. Here in Findland Kamala means Terrible.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 12, 2019 8:10 am

I don’t think Kamala has the personality to win the presidency.

Warren will probably get in there as either the presidential or vice presidential candidate.

That all depends on whether the two frontrunners, Biden and Bernie Sanders don’t self-destruct.

I would not be surprised if Biden self-destructs. Bernie hurt himself by advocating for allowing convicted terrorists to vote, but maybe that will fade away by the time the Democrat elections come about. It won’t fade away if Bernie wins the Democrat nomination because the Republicans will certainly bring up Bernie’s “terrorist vote” advocacy.

So it could be Bernie and the Fake Indian, or the Fake Indian and Kamala.

Bernie and Warren would be the perfect socialist ticket. Bernie a known socialist sympathizer and Warren a known liar. Yeah, they will make a great Democrat ticket. Very representative of the Democrat Party of today.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 12, 2019 2:45 pm

Per Wikipedia, her father:

“Recalling the lives of his grandmothers, Donald Harris wrote that one was related to a plantation and slave owner”.

I’m positive that non of my great grandparents were related to slave owners. So when it comes to reparations, Kamala can pay my share.

(might the fallout be worse if that section is scrubbed, and she is accused of hiding it, or left there for others to see and complain about?
Biden should ask here if there was consensus among her campaign when they discussed it.)

High Treason
July 11, 2019 8:13 pm

In Australia, the Extinction Rebellion Brownshirts think it is ok to force their opinions/ propaganda down our throats by deliberately inconveniencing those that work. If they are so convinced, why not have a proper debate. Perhaps, as they will ultimately be shown to be wrong, they must pay the full cost of compensation to all they have deliberately and wantonly inconvenienced. Perhaps $1,000 compensation to each of those thousands they have inconvenienced. As it would be hard to ascertain, perhaps fine them as a group say $50 million. Perhaps some of this money can go to conservative groups, WUWT , X-22, Breitbart etc to reeducate these delusional , brainwashed climate zombies.

John Robertson
July 11, 2019 8:38 pm

Well up here in Canada,we remain deeply confused.
Our fearless federal government declared a :”Climate Emergency” but then did nothing.
Not one of the Climate Cult reduced their CO2 output.
The government has spent not one dollar extinguishing existing fossil fuel fires.
Nothing at all,except some very uneven taxing of Carbon emissions.
Except in Court it is a fee on pollution,not a tax.
And a Provincial Appeals Court has declared the science overwhelmingly supports the “Climate Crisis”,yet no science was presented to that court.

So it is a declared emergency,but no one acts as if it is an emergency.
Another own goal by those who wish to “change the entire economic system of the world”.

Which does amaze me,people who have endlessly demonstrated their numerical illiteracy and utter gullibility are going to “Reform the worlds economy”..
I cannot imagine why anything would go wrong, can you?

July 11, 2019 8:54 pm

Why is Bernie always waving his finger about like a ranting Muslim cleric?

Thomas Englert
July 11, 2019 8:56 pm

It’s a manufactured crisis.

Joel O'Bryan
July 11, 2019 9:22 pm

My other thought on Bernie amping up the climate crisis rhetoric is it may be tied to Tom “Stinky” Steyer threatening to enter the race and run. Stinky’s main man, Washington Gov Jay Inslee is probably just weeks, or a few months at best, away from dropping out due to continued low polling among Democrats and thus his declining fund raising to support a campaign.

And the Bernie camp needs Stinky to stay out of the race. Bernie’s socialism message and anti-Billionaire talk blows up if he were to face Stinky in a real debate. Beside’s Stinky doesn’t really want to be President, he wants to own the the President and stay in the shadows pulling his strings with his money. SO as long as there is another front leading candidate carrying Stinky’s climate Change crisis flag, then he’ll probably stay out.

July 11, 2019 9:32 pm

Time to overturn the Co2 Endangerment Finding. Speaking of emergencies.

Martin Cropp
July 11, 2019 9:59 pm

For your interest, this article sums the current obsession with CO2 well.

July 11, 2019 10:04 pm

There was another thread which talked about the organised way the media works, leading to the observation of increasingly strident calls for action.

Maybe they are doing this to get something before the dam breaks – like this !

Henning Nielsen
July 11, 2019 10:25 pm

“Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on climate change.”

And that’s the point. If the Democrats actually had been able to turn this proposal into real climate policy, it would be a disaster for them. And they know it. Waving hands and whining is all they are capable of, and they know this too.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
July 14, 2019 10:10 am

They know the steak is rotten so they sell the sizzle.

J Mac
July 11, 2019 10:30 pm

Pelosi made AOC sit in the corner for bad behavior, attacking other socialist democrats.
AOC subsequently called Pelosi a racist.
“Now I know why tigers eat their young!” Rodney Dangerfield

Dave Fair
Reply to  J Mac
July 11, 2019 10:33 pm

This will end only/if Pelosi jerks the rebels’ committee assignments. If she allows this to continue with no consequences, Pelosi is done. Bad-mouthing them will not be effective.

Reply to  J Mac
July 12, 2019 6:47 am

Pelosi also says that wanting to put a question about citizenship status on the census is racist.

Calling those who disagree with you racist/sexist/whateverist is so ingrained in Democrats that they can’t help themselves anymore.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2019 8:37 am

I think the citizenship question is “much ado about nothing”

Both those on the Left and Right get worked up about putting this question on the census questionaire (it was on there until Obama had it taken off for the 2010 census) but as far as I know, unless some new law has been passed, the only question a resident of the United States has to answer on the census, according to the U.S. Constitution, is the question about how many people are living in the home. That’s the only question you are required to answer. So if you don’t like the citizenship question, don’t answer it. It’s as simple as that.

I know this because during the 2010 census, they sent me a big long questionaire, and I filled out the question pertaining to the number of people in my house, and then wrote them a note respectfully declining to answer any of the other question (because I’m hardheaded about some thngs:).

That wasn’t good enough for the Census Bureau, so they sent one of their workers out to my house to request that I answer the questions, and she was real nice about it, but again I respectfully delcined to answe and she finally leftr

The Census Bureau sent her out again a few weeks later and we went through the same drill, and then she left again.

Then, a few weeks after that, the woman’s supervisor came out and we went through the same thing again, and she finally left. She was real nice about everything too, but it’s still a hassle to have to deal with it.

Anyway, at least in 2010, it was not illegal to refuse to answer the questions, although, as you see, they will harrass you a little bit if you don’t anwer. But they can’t force you to answer, so those worried about the question should probably read the pertinent laws and not worry about it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 12, 2019 9:16 am

“it was on there until Obama had it taken off for the 2010 census”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
July 13, 2019 4:15 am

Thanks for that update, Donald.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Mac
July 12, 2019 8:41 am

“AOC subsequently called Pelosi a racist.”

AOC backed off that comment yesterday.

My question is: How can one caucasian be racist towards another caucasian? I thought it can’t be racism if the criticism is directed at white people.

I do belive Rep. Ocasio is a caucasian, so it looks to me like she is claimig her suntan is being discriminated against and that’s racist.

July 12, 2019 12:27 am

It is not true that “once a Marxist, always a Marxist”. For example, Peter Hitchens admits openly to being a Marxist and Communist in his youth. Not merely labelled a Marxist by others, as Sanders has been, but actually describing himself as such. Today Hitchens is the most verbal critic of left wing politics of all descriptions and solidly on the right.

Flight Level
July 12, 2019 12:30 am

Fact is that rich folks are very mobile and about any country competes in perks and amenities for the privilege of hosting them.

Equally fact is that the rest of the crowd, those without yachts and private wide-bodies are stationary, furthermore unwanted by about any country.

Conclusion, spool-up the climate driven war on wealth and you’ll be left with a very democratic universal poverty.

Rod Evans
July 12, 2019 12:47 am

Does anyone know why there is this massive uptick in Green Alarmism concerning climate change at this time?
They usually bore on about the none subject at a consistent rate, but over the past six months there has been this bizarre push into the Green New Deal, or suicide as it is widely known. Followed by Greta from Sweden being given prime time TV, rather than attending clinic to help her condition. We then get the climate crisis mob/movement followed by the Crisis Extinction anarchists, who are allowed to stop central London for a week. The police are strangely accepting of the illegality of the movement’s antics? They decide, just booking the extinctionist before allowing them back onto the bridge to continue blocking duties is the right approach?
Is there something about to happen, that causes the BBC and all the other media outlets who are supporting these fraudulent activists, to engage turbo drive?
We even had that old BBC presented Attenborough given prime time Parliamentary Committee space, to gush climate crisis nonsense without ever being challenged on the veracity of what he was saying.He even got a free pass on his personal CO2 generating habits and the latent hypocrisy of his position.
What is driving the madness?

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 12, 2019 1:40 am

Perhaps even the greens have figured that actually the Earth is cooling. Before that becomes more widely known they have to get their power grab in, wouldn’t they?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 13, 2019 2:24 am

“actually the Earth is cooling”

Silly Ed, you’re holding it upside down.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 12, 2019 4:52 am

My take on it is this: If the coming solar minimum theory is correct, global temps will be a lot cooler by 2030 regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels. Therefore, they are demanding action now so they can claim they were right all along.
“See? there’s less CO2 now and it’s got cooler. Never doubt us again, we are your intellectual superiors”
Of course, China and India aren’t going to cut emissions so, to get any reduction at all the rest of the world has to stop all emissions. And exhaling. Right now.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 12, 2019 6:50 am

So when they say, “end of the world by 2030”, they really mean the end of their world only?

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 12, 2019 8:53 am

They enjoyed the unchallenged commanding heights for many years but more recently the voices of their critics are growing and being heard more and more but worse than that they’re being increasingly ignored by the average man in the street and they know it with electoral results. It’s driving them to display their worst character traits and foot stamping tendencies and that in itself will drive the mainstream even further away. It may even split their ranks as the moderates desert their cause from personal discomfort with the direction they’re heading in.

When you lose a certain amount of gravitas and begin to be ignored and then openly mocked you’re in real trouble politically and they are very much political animals. I’m beginning to think their whole movement is in the early stages of its death throes and the end could come quite swiftly and unexpectedly like the fall of the Wall. Don’t be too surprised with that.

Reply to  observa
July 13, 2019 3:51 pm

There will never be “…this very unpleasing, sneezing and wheezing…crash… to the ground…”. We could possibly set up a data-mining counter to alert us to the time since last mention of Climate Change, where suddenly the MSN just won’t mention it anymore. And it will be an abrupt end, I’m sure of that, it has been obvious for quite some time that the MSM and DNC carefully coordinate their “messaging”. There’s probably a conference call each and every morning!

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 12, 2019 12:56 am

Nobody should earn more than a million. I agree; with one exception that is.
Perhaps the problem is that Bernie, just as me, doesn’t know how you do that: earn a million.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 12, 2019 6:50 am

Why do you believe you have the right to limit what other people earn?
Why do you want to destroy the economy by driving successful people out of the country?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 12, 2019 12:28 pm

Oh, I think Bernie is doing alright for himself:

“Bernie Sanders net worth: Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has a net worth of $2 million dollars. According to his June 2017 Senate financial disclosure, Bernie earned around $1 million in 2016, the majority of which ($795,000) came from a book advance.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  RicDre
July 12, 2019 12:42 pm

Notice it was a sweetheart advance on a book that will never sell enough to cover the advance. It is a trick publishers use to get around Federal campaign financing laws.

J Mac
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 12, 2019 1:36 pm

The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Translation: All humans are created equal. There after, every person has the unalienable rights to rise to the highest level of achievement legally and ethically possible. Equality of outcome is not guaranteed or even mentioned. You have to work for your own achievements, in your pursuit of personal happiness. Git ‘er done! Envy of others achievements will not make you happy….

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
July 12, 2019 1:35 am

For years Trump did nothing to stop those pushing up the temperature at NASA.

The real temperature as shown by UAH and the lack of any trends in severe weather is about as benign as we can get. The delusional temperature as created by NASA is fuelling these nutters, not just in the US but worldwide.

If a US president years after their election can’t stop a few publicly funded people fabricating global temperature, what is the point in them?

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
July 12, 2019 5:52 am

The problem is similar to the one in Britain. The civil service really runs things and sabotages any attempts to rein in their power. Most civil servants know they can passive-aggressively ignore the edicts of any government they disagree with and so long as they aren’t actively insubordinate, can get away with gumming up any reforms for decades. Case in point: British civil service mangling of the attempts to leave the EU.

John Bell
Reply to  OweninGA
July 12, 2019 6:31 am

But what advantage do they (civil servants) have in staying in the EU? Is it just a philosophical stance – toward more socialism? They do not collect more pay?

Reply to  John Bell
July 12, 2019 6:00 pm

While you are correct, many of the worst ones just prefer to think of themselves as European rather than British. The worst ones also are hard core believers in the absolute power of government over the people and in that respect, the tendencies of the EU are much more in line with their preferences for central, unaccountable to the unwashed masses, control of every aspect of life from conception to death. They see themselves as the enlightened enforcers and everyone else as an obstacle to Utopia (Greek for nowhere, I believe).

Of course those same characteristics are true of a very large number of US civil servants as well. It is the nature of rule by bureaucracy.

Reply to  OweninGA
July 14, 2019 10:28 am

Good reason to repeal most of the various civil service employment protections and go back to unrestricted hire-and-fire. It’s much harder for a bureaucratic swamp to form if the whole system stands to be flushed every few years.

The first Civil Service Act, signed by that machine politician Chester A. Arthur, would have been better named the Deep State Enabling Act.

J Mac
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
July 12, 2019 7:21 pm

President Trump has only been in office for 2.5 years. When you state “For years Trump did nothing…” you are barely technically correct and simultaneously creating a false impression of a greater period of time. You know that, don’t you?

July 12, 2019 4:14 am

“Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief Of Staff Admits What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It’s Not The Climate”

“Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change, her top aide admitted.
Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday.

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added”

Just as the UNFCCC and IPCC have stated, “climate change, global warming” is actually about forcing countries to join a global socialist government. Another soon to be global disaster that destroys civilization achievements.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 12, 2019 7:27 am

Thank you.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 12, 2019 2:58 pm

Chakrabarti needs to go back socialist school.

You don’t EVER remind your useful idiots that they are, from your perspective, useful idiots.

July 12, 2019 4:28 am

stories which often go unreported by others in the media

Like the BBC, NYT, LA Times etc etc etc etc

The Guardian really has gone tabloid

July 12, 2019 4:29 am

Alarmists — drive the posted speed limit and buy your clothes at Goodwill and we can talk.

Mark Broderick
July 12, 2019 5:41 am

“AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits It: ‘Green New Deal’ Is About Changing The ‘Economy’ – Not Climate”

old construction worker
Reply to  Mark Broderick
July 12, 2019 1:12 pm

And the first victims of Changing The ‘Economy’ will be journalist, just like it was in China.

July 12, 2019 6:17 am

There IS a national emergency — a complete mental breakdown of leftist politicians/media, and all their sychophants.

July 12, 2019 6:32 am

Obama nationalized GM, with a bailout. So for a while was CEO of a motor company. When GM recently closed factories, Trump said return the $11 billion.
What was the AIG et al $700 billion bailout other than a massive nationalization of worthless derivative paper.
Looks like Bush’s and Obama’s bailouts cost more than the entire Afghan/Iraq war.

Instead the USA needs a National Bank along Hamiltons lines, 2 of which were already scuppered. Then massive projects like fusion and the Moon can really get going.

Not to get too bogged down in the climate swamp, an’ all that…

July 12, 2019 7:14 am

Next up for photo op purposes will be the call to issue a travel warning on visiting the climate.

July 12, 2019 7:17 am

Ka ching to the donations fund, book sales, and speaker circuit fees.

July 12, 2019 7:19 am

Bernie needs a turban to go along with the rants.

Curious George
July 12, 2019 7:35 am

The border is no emergency.
Climate is a crisis and an emergency.
Our representatives are a catastrophe.

John Dilks
Reply to  Curious George
July 12, 2019 4:21 pm

Curious George,

“The border is no emergency.” …………………FALSE
“Climate is a crisis and an emergency.”……….FALSE
“Our representatives are a catastrophe.”……..TRUE

Gordon Dressler
July 12, 2019 7:41 am

Just like “global warming” before it, the “climate change” meme is wearing thin due to overuse, so it’s now time to bring on the new meme “climate crisis.”

Gotta keep those dollars flowing, don’t cha know!

Gordon Dressler
July 12, 2019 7:52 am

From “The Bern” Bonus box at the end of the above article: “Nobody should earn more than a million dollars,” Sanders said.

CNBC reported that it is likely that Bernie Saunders earned more than $1 million in CY2016 . . . see

July 12, 2019 3:32 pm
Gunga Din
July 13, 2019 6:17 am

In other words… If you don’t buy this newspaper, we’ll kill the climate.

Reminded me of this.

Louis Hunt
July 13, 2019 8:18 pm

Does Congress have to declare something to be an emergency before it can become one? Was Hurricane Katrina a non-event until Congress declared it to be an emergency? It seems to me that real emergency are obvious to the observer. The only ones that have to be declared are the fake ones that no one believes are emergencies until Congress says so. I didn’t know Congress was so powerful and all-knowing that they could foresee the future and pass a law to declare an emergency before it happens. Why don’t they just pass a law that forbids the climate to change?

Verified by MonsterInsights