Just because anthropogenic climate change is a legitimate concern doesn’t mean that the most radical pronouncements from the idealogues aren’t fair game for criticism.

Not an idealogue, Bjorn  Lomborg, thinks we should worry about it  … a little bit. That caution has earned him derision as a skeptic or worse, a denier merely because he believes the “threat” is overstated and the proposed cures are needless and far more expensive than the disease.

Now for the vote-trolling presidential aspirants.

How many trillions for the Green Nude Eel?

Uncle Joe Biden opens with an unmuscular $1.7 Trillion and, in honor of his past, is accused of stealing ideas from the GND.  He sweetens the pot by refusing to take money from fossil fuel interests.

Senator (not gonna call her that) Warren sees Uncle Joe, raises to $2 Trillion, and proposes a brand spanking new government department to enact a new “national jobs strategy”. (Which we need as much as the Soviets needed their five-year plans.)

Robert Francis O’Rourke raises to $5 Trillion.

Two percenter Jay Inslee raised the pot to $9 Trillion of your money (as seen by the editorial board of America’s finest news source).

OAC, who got this whole thing going, insists that the bet is “at least” $10 Trillion. She compares the climate challenge to the evils of WWII. Consider the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, the Japanese atrocities in Manchuria, or the Holocaust and decide if you agree. At least Sen Warren has the dignity to compare hers to the “Green Apollo Program”.

No word from Bernie, who will be spending your money on government supplied housing and free healthcare and free college for all. Still no word from any of them about where the money will come from, other than “the rich people”.

How are Danerys Targaryan and the climatistas are alike.

  1. The Breaker of Chains, on Jon Snow’s question about who governs, “They don’t get to choose”. S 8 Ep 6.
  2. Christina Figueres, former chair of the UN IPCC, eliminating capitalism is the only option left to protect the planet. (To be replaced by what, exactly)?

What happened to reporting the news?

There was a time when opinions were for the editorial page. Not anymore. Here are the new guidelines at the Guardian for “reporting” on the environment:

  • Use climate emergency, crisis or breakdown instead of climate change.
  • Use global heating instead of global warming.
  • Use wildlife instead of biodiversity (when appropriate).
  • Use fish populations instead of fish stocks.
  • Use climate science denier or climate denier instead of climate skeptic.

And they wonder why they aren’t trusted.

But now for the bad news

One-of-a-kind Mac Rebennack, a/k/a Dr. John, RIP.

Protector of New Orleans musical tradition

Piano player