Schumer Wants Biden To Declare ‘Climate Emergency’
“‘He can do many, many things under the emergency powers … that he could do without legislation.”
Several years ago, “experts” proclaimed that “snowfalls were a thing of the past.”
Since then, the dire predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize. Glacier National Park had to remove its “Gone by 2020″ signs.
More recently, ice covered parts of the Sahara Desert for just the fourth time in 50 years.
In the Sahara Desert of northwestern Algeria, just outside the town of Ain Sefra, sand dunes were streaked with ice crystals as far as the eye could see. Local photographer Karim Bouchetata captured the unusual weather in pictures and videos that have since made headlines around the world.
…Snow and ice accumulation in the northern Sahara is unusual, but not unprecedented. Tuesday’s dusting marks the fourth time in 42 years that Ain Sefra has seen snow, with previous occurrences in 1979, 2016 and 2018. Those past snowfalls were much heavier than this week’s display; in 2018, some areas of northwestern Algeria saw up to 15 inches (40 centimeters) of snow, while the 2016 blizzard dumped more than 3 feet (1 m) in select regions, Live Science previously reported.
An incredible sight, a mixture of sand and snow, the Sahara Desert – Algeria pic.twitter.com/o4de5lfS8r
— Arab world (@Arabbeau) January 20, 2021
In Southern California, typically warm and sunny Malibu recently experienced a rare dusting of snow.
Officer Stephan Brandt of the California Highway Patrol said shortly after 5 p.m. his department had received a report of multiple drivers stopping and parking near the Malibu Canyon Tunnel.
“They were playing in the snow,” said Brandt, who advised such activities were “dangerous” and unwise.
MALIBU SNOW: Saturday's SoCal storm brought a rare sight to a part of LA better known for its beaches and surfing https://t.co/SSJMphOiq0
— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) January 24, 2021
The “experts” have been wrong. The list of climate-prediction fails is vast, and I suspect that I will be adding to it over the next four years.
Even though the models are flawed, and numerous, dire predictions have been wrong, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change on Monday.
“It might be a good idea for President Biden to call a climate emergency,” the New York Democrat told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
…”He can do many, many things under the emergency powers … that he could do without legislation,” the Senate leader said.
Great to have @SenSchumer on @maddow joining the call for President Biden to declare a climate emergency. "Trump used it for a stupid wall, which wasn't an emergency. If there ever was an emergency, climate is it." pic.twitter.com/UDevVEzOu4
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 26, 2021
Payback for President Donald Trump keeping a signature campaign promise that was popular among his supporters, addressed an immigration crisis and helped the US achieve historic employment rates before the pandemic appears to be the motivating factor behind this recommendation.
“Trump used this emergency for a stupid wall, which wasn’t an emergency. But if there ever was an emergency, climate is one,” Schumer added.
Declaring a national emergency would give Biden more leeway on combating climate change, including being able to direct additional funding.
Schumer’s suggestion is what many Republicans feared would happen the next time a Democrat was in the White House after Trump used the emergency declaration to get more funding for the border wall in the face of congressional opposition.
The difference is that eco-activist policies undercut the economy and are detrimental to the American people. Furthermore, as we have seen in California, forcing companies to address fraudulent emergencies (e.g., too much carbon dioxide) limits their resources to address real ones (fire prevention).
So, unless an asteroid is headed our way or a super-volcano is about to blow, there is no “climate emergency.”
There is a myriad of other problems with Schumer’s guidance:
New: @SenSchumer called for Biden to declare a national climate emergency. Doing so would grant Biden a host of sweeping new authorities — none of which was conceived of for dealing with climate change. https://t.co/JykJMNwGFw
— Anthony Adragna (@AnthonyAdragna) January 26, 2021
Chuck Schumer is playing with fire. By calling on @POTUS to declare a climate emergency, he is trying to muzzle Congress. @SenSchumer wants the president to go it alone & produce more punishing regulations, raise energy costs, and kill even more American jobs.
— Sen. John Barrasso (@SenJohnBarrasso) January 26, 2021
Schumer suggests Biden declare ‘climate emergency’ https://t.co/B0lQOg0MbA #FoxNews What happened the Covid Relief Emergency Bill?
— VinmanNY (@vinniefish) January 26, 2021
Based on the available data, I will forecast the next four years: Expect a steady stream of meaningless distractions and endless political Kabuki. Hopefully, so little will get done that our economic climate won’t be destroyed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If we do not take action immediately and spend trillions and trillions of dollars to Democratic contributors, global temperatures will rise by almost a quarter degree over the next century!
So how much will they rise if we don’t do anything?
Um… About a quarter of a degree.
No, it’s an emergency and the fate of the entire planet is in the balance along with everything that lives on it. The “climate emergency,” unlike the COVID emergency, is an existential threat that requires decisive dictatorial powers to address. Remember all those non-essential people they identified during the COVID emergency? Well, they are non-essential. And the planet must be saved. No non-essential activity, as determined by some “scientific” expert will be allowed. If you thought the medical dictatorship was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet. It justifies total totalitarian control of everyone and everything, because the planet must be saved from all the non-essential people that threaten it. This is a call for dictatorship. Do not agree – you are an insurrectionist who threatens the planet, and you must be cancelled.
In order to believe the climate change catastrophe theory, you have to believe that the Biblical prophecies about there being a world for Jesus to return to are nonsense.
Oh, by the way, one of the prophecies is that there will be people who claim that Jesus won’t return.
They need evidence created to support this.
This is easy, they line up with 3 assistants, each assistant fully discharging a CO2 fire extinguisher a bit below their waist. Liquid nitrogen would be better
Media can then talk about their climate emergency.
Where did you 0.25 degrees? The Paris agreement talks about 1.5degrees as the minimum temperature rise on average as a target.
Can you imagine a national lockdown over this nonsense? Democrats telling you that you can’t drive your car or work until some arbitrary data point on the climate drops to a “safe” level.
I can imagine, and that is precisely what they are going for.
There will be resistance to this crap. Real resistance. Then we’ll know who is and is not on our side.
I think we’re on the precipice of an “Intelligence Emergency”.
Will that be an unanticipated (by the Socialist/Communist Party apparatchiki) drastic diminishing of intelligence, boosting their electoral victories?
Or does it refer to using the US Intelligence apparatus against the citizens?
Look at a staggering drop in average Congressional IQ.
Climate change what detritus. Someone needs to grab that empty suit by the collar and explain the Milankovitch cycle. That’s the science
I wanted a Milankovitch cycle once. I had to settle for a Schwinn, though.
This has nothing to do with the climate.
And everything about control.
Can anyone spell DICTATORSHIP??? By pass the Legislature by simply declaring anything an EMERGENCY. Sound familiar? How about Germany in the late 1930s? Why do you think there is such a push for speech control, for gun control, for economic control?
I stated a year ago, the the international rise of Populism had terrified the Global Elite Establishment. They were so concerned, especially after the success of the Trump Presidency, that they essentially shut down the entire global economy and imposed draconian social restrictions, for a flu virus, to increase control of the populace. They engaged in blatant election fraud to keep Trump from being reelected. And, these economy crippling restrictions continue today.
Now, the Progressive Establishment in the US has a problem. They engaged in what appears to be egregious election fraud and got caught. 70 million+ citizens are upset about that. Due to the split in the Congress, they can not ram legislation through, as they did with Obamacare. And, they have learned from the Obamacare backlash. So, the new experiment is to see how the populace will put up with government by emergency fiat based upon declarations of baseless “emergencies”.
People should be beyond concerned, at this point. They should be scared. The longer this continues, the graver the consequences will be.
Get ready for the “gun violence emergency”, the “white supremacist emergency”, etc.
They’ve been playing this stupid fucking Malthusian game for 70+ years.
The gig is up, jackasses, the dire predictions you made decades ago didn’t happen.
Why would any sane person believe you now?
Shut the fuck up.
Sounds like someone’s stock portfolio needs a “boost”, doesn’t it?
Fuck you Chuck, we don’t have that item in the Constitution.
Why pay Congress and the associated costs if the Senate majority leader wants the president to make it irrelevant? We could turn the Capitol into condos for the homeless.
Homeless people have much in common with Dems, both destroy everything the touch.
Be a better class of people inhabiting those buildings
Hopefully some red state governors will declare an “American Freedom Emergency” and nullify this BS.
No wonder the DNC troops are still in DC; the Dems are signalling that they’re going to be needed soon.
I wonder where climate change ranks on the scale of the greatest scams in world history.
Actually Leftists are skating on thin ice declaring all this crisis that no one would otherwise even notice.
The “pandemic” has seen worse past viruses without anywhere near this panic.
Racism has to be gyned up with fake outrage
There is no global warming/ cooling/ change anyone really sees.
Is Joe Stolin just declared he was a dictator he could get a lot more done too.
“There is a little-known codicil in the Faber College constitution which gives the dean unlimited power to preserve order in time of campus emergency.”
That’s what this is about, and it’s not about climate.
There’s a climate science emergency. They don’t have adult peer review. Their papers ought to be peer reviewed by experts in the fields of the tools they use, not by experts in climate science.
I think Smucky Schumer should declare a Climate Erection and call Hunter Biden in to consult.
Schumer peed in his pants and mistook it for global warming.
There are two particularly vile, sadisitic, corupt figures in American politics, plaguing it for GENERATIONS. It is peolso and schumer.
These two maggots will do ANYHITNG to harm the nation and enrich themselves and their families. ANYTHING.
Then there’s the GOPe.
I think the zombie in the WH is worse than either of them.
And now John Kerry is telling unemployed oil industry workers to install solar panel. The world (okay, our country) has just gone full-blown mental.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/climate-czar-john-kerry-tells-oil-gas-workers-tough-luck-learn-how-to-make-solar-panels/
This from a man who never held a real job or did an honest day’s work in his entire life.
Reminds me of Marie Antoinette. When they told her the people had no bread to eat she said, “Let them eat cake.”
Actually, Marie Antoinette never said that. So Lurch is in a class of elite out-of-touchness all his very own.
Sure is a good thing we got rid of Trump who was destroying our precious “norms” and “democracy” for a principled democracy lovers like Schumer.
It is an Enabling Act to make us into a dictatorship. If they cross that line, it is over.
Subotai Bahadur
What says the Legislative Branch is useless more than this tool?
Why would anyone contribute to his re-election when they know he has given his proxy vote to Zhou Bai-Din?
Why would any supporter of Israel in New York contribute knowing his proxy is going to rabid Anti-Semite Susan Rice?
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!” -Supreme Chancellor Palpatine
So how do they explain this? Even the UN says the US is doing the best job with reducing co2 emissions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2020/12/10/the-un-makes-the-case-for-the-us-to-stay-out-of-the-paris-climate-accord/?sh=583bcaa927e5
Power grab and money grab (but only for themselves and their buddies- like what 0 did for his pals ie solyndra).
A number of reasons, firstly its not enough. current projections are still that global policy shifts are inadequate to address climate change. Second the Trump administration rolled back some climate change policies making that trend line harder to obtain and Thirdly the US is an example setter. The more involved it is the more chance other countries have to follow best practise. Although i would say that its increasingly clear that Europe and China are competing to be leaders in this space and from an economics perspective there is plenty of money to be made from Green Tech. It is akin to a new industrial revolution where older techs will be made redundant. YOu can see this in the demise of the coal industry (followed by the oil industry). These are failing industries and market forces (yes market forces inspite of Trump policies) project a trend of diminished market share for coal and oil and an increased market share for solar and wind, along with electric cars.
Some of the references incidents are pretty flawed.
The Glacier example neglected to mention that whilst the glacier ice hadn’t fully disappeared its retreated dramatically.
The Sahara desert example is an interesting one, deserts during the night get very cold but usually there isnt enough precipitation to allow snow fall. Therefore i would opine that there is an increase in precipitation thus a difference in the climate.
The idea that the experts have been wrong really isnt supported. Cherry picking examples where the prediction is imprecise is disingenuous. The mistake made in the article is conflating global climate change science with predictions about micro climates. The knowledge of micro scale weather patterns is challanging in terms of prediction; indeed the local models have been revised and improved all the time. The Glacier example again was based on a 2003 model which was consequently revised thats how science works. The global temperature models on the other hand have proven to be rather accurate, the temperature modelling globally has proven time and time again to be in line with every new global data set.
Climate science is a scam designed to generate income for a few scientists and institutions based upon fear mongering.
In the 1970s, the climate boogeyman was a pending new Ice Age. Following WWII, climatologists noticed that there was a trend in the reduction of global temperatures. So, speculation, in climatological circles, was that we could see a new Ice Age in the next century or two. Pretty safe prediction. However, the climate scare campaign reared its ugly head and we were told that if we did not immediately embrace radical changes in our lifestyles, the Ice Age would be upon us within 20 years. Scientists were suddenly being inundated with jobs, grants and money from publishing to predict the coming apocalypse. Then a strange thing happened. Not only did the New Ice Age fill to emerge, mean global temperatures began to increase.
How could this happen? How could the climate scientists have been so wrong? And, why should we ever believe them again? No answers were ever forthcoming. Instead, the same scientists jumped on the new Global Warming bandwagon and the apocalyptic predictions began all over again. And, if the data did not support the predictions, well, tweak the data. From the science perspective, iitt was all about the money.
The same is true from a political aspect. The international community saw this as a way to generate money for their members, by bleeding it from rich nations and giving it to poor ones. Industrialized nations which, with a few exceptions such as China, had the best records on reducing pollution levels, were to be penalized, both monetarily and economically, while less developed nations, the polluters, were given a free pass on reducing their levels of pollution. In other words, it was a giant scam for distribution of wealth.
Now, the biggest problem today, is that we enact public policy decisions on unproven scientific theories, without any regard for consequences, intended or unintended. Our leaders simply take some “scientist’s” word that a theory is truth and act. In the scientific community, it has always been permissible to revise a theory based upon the acquisition of new evidence. This is fine, as a theory exists solely within the intellectual realm and has no impact upon the real world until actually applied. So, rather than take real world actions based upon historically verifiable data, our chattering political class acts based upon largely unsupported supposition. And, the prices that we pay for this are horrendous. Before you kill every cow in the valley, it might be a good idea to make sure that they actually have hoof and mouth.
@Mac45
Seriously? I’d expected better from you.
The 70’s thing you refer too was the CFC chemical usage as things like refrigerants. That’s been well understood for a long time and the ban on those kinds of chemical compounds has lead to an improvement in the ozone layer. To some extent that same phenomenon has limited the impact of climate change (from carbon emissions and other green house gas’s). In other words those same effects have diminished the impact of other effects. Those same mitigating effects are no longer as strong and thus the data sets showing climate temperature increases no longer have that effect as a strong forcing effect.
I’m pretty shocked that you buy into the climate denial thing. It just hasn’t got any basis at all. You can see the effects of global climate changes all around. The last 20 years or so have all been pretty much record breaking, loss of sea ice, increases in precipitation, changes in weather patterns etc. There is so much data and knowledge on the subject even taking short time to do some proper reading details some of the impacts.
I am sure Mac is coping the best he can with the emotional blow of your “shock.”
No one is denying the climate changes; it definitely does that, and the archeological record is pretty clear that it does so in cycles (ice, heat, relative stability, back to ice or heat and on). The archeological record is also clear that these climate cycles have been a mainstay on this planet for millions of years, well before the Industrial Revolution and even well before humans started burning whale oil, coal, or cow pats for heat and light.
The question is not whether or not the climate changes because it does. Everyone knows that, and that is precisely why the eco- fascists decided to switch from “global cooling/warming” to “climate change.” It’s nice and vague. It doesn’t promise that we’ll all be human popsicles in 10 years, and it doesn’t fear monger that in 10 years, we’ll reach the “point of no return” on global warming (or was it climate change? Hmmm) that Al Gore lied about in 2006. Well, if we passed the point of no return in 2016, and the world has already ended as Gore insisted it would by 2016, what’s the point of economy-killing eco- fascism, anyway? (hint: the answers rhyme with “honey” and “tower”).
The question is to what degree do humans contribute to the climate change cycles of the planet and, based on that answer, what humans can do to change the planet’s climate cycles. The related question is based on a good old-fashioned cost/benefit analysis. If we abandon civilization completely and all live in huts and hunt and gather for our sustenance, would even that extreme stop the climate from continuing on its cycle? We know it wouldn’t because the climate has always changed . . . even before humans could possibly contribute to that change except perhaps by their dastardly exhalation of CO2. Oh, and farting.).
You really need to read Bjørn Lomborg. While I don’t agree with him on his climate alarmism and socialist spread the wealth crap, he provides solid data refuting all the crazy you and your ilk parrot about the Paris Climate Accord, &etc. Look, take those trillions and invest in shoring up the coastlines by a couple freaking inches (which would keep us all “safe” for at least a century), then spend the rest on stuff like homelessness, hunger, healthcare, or just freaking hand it out with the useless WuFlu shots (come get your free WuFlu shot–you still have to be in lockdown, wear a minimum of one mask–but two is better!, and socially distance, but hey, get this handy bundle of cash we have left over from useless, wasteful, nonsensical climate change mandates!).
The science is far from settled on global cooling, wait–warming, erm, I mean climate change. Any scientist who tells you “the science is settled” on this (or on pretty much anything else) should be viewed with extreme skepticism, even derision.
No one read Bjorn lomborg because he isnt an expert in the field and is known to peddle dishonest scientific positions. He is an author with nothing that demonstrate anything other than he is full of shit.
That one specific example is a a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of peer reviewed papers and scientists that have concluded with good evidence that climate change is happening.
In regard to your specific point about what is climate change. I hadn’t thought I needed to be specific. Man made climate change has been shown time and time again to be the driver. The models all account for various factors such as the natural cycles you allude too. The main driver for the uptick is man made ie carbon, methane and other by products of industry.
As ive mentioned in other posts the cost of letting climate change run wild is extremely high. There have been a number of studies regarding the economics. It’s pretty straight forward the cost of doing little or nothing is high and the longer you wait the more the cost is. The analogy I use is a roof on a house. It’s cheaper to fix a roof covering than to replace the whole roof if you do nothing.
@Mac45
And for your information that mini ice age prediction was not a widely held view. In fact the majority of peer reviewed papers at the time still predicted a warning effect
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
So that aspect is a gross distortion of the scientific knowledge of the time.
“He can do many, many things under the emergency powers … that he could do without legislation”
So, armed troops in the streets, and concertina wire fences in the capital, and it’s still not enough for you?