Spanish environment minister Teresa Ribera…:
- Took a private jet to a climate conference – her 17th private jet trip of 2023.
- Took a limousine downtown to get to the conference
- Stopped a block away from the conference, took out a bike…
- And rode the last 1-200 yards, as her entourage followed in their government issue “impress the peasants” rides.
It seems to be all the rage among the “progressive” “elites” these days:
Ha! The short virtue signaling bike ride she took is just following the example of our worthless transportation Secretary.
https://meaww.com/pete-buttigieg-caught-taking-out-bike-from-suv-before-going-for-cabinet-in-environmentalist-photo-op
So, where’s her helmet?
On the contrary, it was exceedingly brave, given the number of DEATH THREATS she receives from the RIGHT WING and from climate DENIERS who only want to KILL the planet.
So don’t you dare mock her for it.
At least, that will be the take in a day or two. It always is. Get caught doing something stupid, shut down discussion by claiming the moral high ground due to alleged death threats that never seem to be substantiated.
Is climate change real or a Chinese hoax, Mitch?
Does it help fight climate change to point out hypocrisy of certain individuals or does it do harm?
Is there a long list of officials on the right lining up to help with the impacts of climate change? If so, please point it out.
You point out this hypocrisy, yet who is the hypocrite here, the person and voice YOU can control? You seem to want to suggest that people are unserious simply because they don’t behave like Ed Bagley Jr. That’s hardly true and you know it. The vast majority of impact is industrial, burning coal, clearing rain forests, and seeking to increase the use of renewable fuels, of reducing cattle farming, encouraging China or India to move faster away from fossil fuel based energy generation – AND encouraging the US to move forward with carbon generation tracking doesn’t mean you also have to start living in a sod house.
Your complaints here are alligator tears at best, done to generate contempt for others to excuse doing nothing – and yet you SEE the dire situation and do NOTHING to help.
Optics, because idiots like ^ shut out all their brains and believe that Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are gorging themselves on milk and cookies and chocolate after the holidays. The Party said it is true! See, talking points right here say so!
And on a bike that appears to have electric boost as well. It’s worth noting that while Europeans generally don’t like bike helmets until they really start moving, but the extra boost of an electric has gotten the attention of ERs around the country–it’s not quite a “donorcycle”, but it makes fat old guys ride a lot more like Lemond than they really have business doing.
Thre is also a lesson that a “minister for ecological transition” has an entourage, a private jet, a limo, and more. And judging by the license plates, I think she’s still in Europe. The logo on the converence center suggests Spain.
Paddyboy, one significant test of whether people actually believe a theory is that they act on it. If I believe that I could fall off a cliff, I’ll back away from it, for example. If I believe that excess fat and cholesterol could cause heart disease, you’d expect I back off from the prime beef and butter.
So it’s very meaningful that people who hold themselves out to be experts on this topic don’t lead by example. If they don’t, you’ve got to start doubting that they believe what they’re saying.
Mitch: Alright, class, settle down. Today we’re discussing Logical Fallacies and no, Blade, it has nothing to do with the phallus so let’s keep the giggling down. We were graciously provided an example of Liberal argument by our good friend p-boy. Who can spot a logical fallacy in this example?
Amanda: “Real or Chinese hoax – False Choice fallacy.”
Mitch: “Excellent!”
Bethany: “Help or Harm – Assumes Facts not in Evidence.”
Mitch: “No, that’s a legal objection but not a Logical Fallacy. Anybody else?”
Emery: “TRUMP!”
Chelsea: “Sod house – reductio ad absurdum”
Mitch: “Actually, that’s a rhetiorical device,we’ll cover that next week.”
D’Anisha: “Officials on the right – Tu Quoque fallacy.”
Mitch: “Correct!”
Gretta: “You see the dire situation but do nothing to help. How DARE you?”
Mitch: “Didn’t you die last week when the world ended from climate change?”
Climate changing is real. It’s been happening since the Earth came into existence. It’s going to continue to happen even if the Warmistas take 100% of our livelihoods.
BB
too squishy, it isn’t just that they don’t believe it. They know that petroleum based energy will never harm the climate because it has a negligible effect on the environment.They are actively engaged in a campaign to keep the proletariat from using(wasting) a resource they wish to secure solely for themselves into perpetuity. Everything else is gaslighting. Including paddyboi’s cri du coeur.
There is one thing that always bothered me about AGM – what is the alternative? What is the goal of the environ@zis? Constant temp around the world? Neverchanging weather? If all human activity ceases to exist tomorrow, what will happen? Sun storms will stop? el Nino and Nina will go on vacation? Gulfstream will stop moving about? Volcaninc activity will stop, both on the ocean floor and terra firma? What… is… the… goal…?
Paddy, as BB pointed out those pushing the Climate Change scare tactics don’t lead by example. If they did, all of these Conferences would be done via Zoom while the attendees stayed home at their third house/cabin. Instead, they fly private jets, not even commercial, which creates more greenhouse gas in a single flight than the average family of four creates in a year. When they are called out for that, they tout their plenary indulgence, er, “carbon offset” that they buy from a friend within the movement. Some of them, like the Spanish Minister, participate in performative theatre ( always ending in “re” because it’s classier) that isn’t called out as bull$#!+ by their Media allies. All of this so they can congratulate each other for being better than the pleebs, while complaining about the pleebs that have a smaller carbon footprint than they, the elite attendees, do. And the cherry on top of this hypocrisy sundae is said elites direct the previously mentioned pleebs to eat bugs while they sip champagne and other expensive alcohol and eat expensive, trendy, high carbon footprint foods made by 5 star chefs.
If they were serious, people like Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and this Spanish Minister would downsize to 2-3 bedroom, 1.5 bath, kitchen and living room rambler, attend these self congratulatory sessions virtually, eat the bugs they tout, AND buy the carbon offsets. They never will, so their demands and claims fall on our deaf ears.
I don’t get healthy living tips from 700lb, bedroom bound individual.
I don’t get advice on how to remain faithful to my wife from Bill Clinton.
I won’t take carbon footprint advice from a hypocrite whose carbon footprint is orders of magnitude greater than mine.
Bigman, that logical fallacies dialog was well done. Nice.
Smith;
Spot on, re: the mansions of the elites.
A few years ago, when the environazis held that turn your lights off for the planet bull crap, satellite photos of both 30,000 square foot mansions of Al Gore’s were lit up like an international airport on a foggy day.
If anyone can intelligently explain how his carbon credits scam of buying pieces of paper with cash, helps the planet or reduces pollution, I would love to hear it.
“I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis. Until then, I don’t want to hear another goddam word about my carbon footprint.”
-Instapundit
We are far past the point where hand holding individuals and personally trying to “prove” to them that climate change is happening is a viable option. Climate change will affect you personally, whether you notice it or not, whether you believe it or not. Science doesn’t require your belief for it to be true.
Here is NASA’s former lead climate scientist James Hansen to explain one way of understanding how climate affects weather. From a 2012 TED Talk:
“Global warming is already affecting people. The Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico heatwave and drought last year, Moscow the year before and Europe in 2003, were all exceptional events, more than three standard deviations outside the norm.
Fifty years ago, such anomalies covered only two- to three-tenths of one percent of the land area. In recent years, because of global warming, they now cover about 10 percent —an increase by a factor of 25 to 50.
So we can say with a high degree of confidence that the severe Texas and Moscow heatwaves were not natural; they were caused by global warming.
An important impact, if global warming continues, will be on the breadbasket of our nation and the world, the Midwest and Great Plains, which are expected to become prone to extreme droughts, worse than the Dust Bowl, within just a few decades, if we let global warming continue.”
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript
“Everything that guy (Emery on July 12, 2023 at 11:02 am) just said is bullshit.”
Nobody denies the climate is changing. It has always changed. The question is the CAUSE of the change.
Why did the dinosaurs die out, why did the glaciers melt, why was there a dust bowl in the 1930’s, those questions ask about the CAUSE of climate change.
AGW stands for “Anthroprogenic Global Warming” and “anthroprogenic” means “man-made.” It’s not that the globe is warming it, it’s that WE are warming it, which causes so much distress. And since human activities are the cause, plainly, human activities must be curtailed to prevent further harm and maybe, someday, to reverse the harm we’ve already caused.
Taken on its face, Hanson’s statement proves that climate change exists but not that humans caused it. And that’s the entire problem with the AGW movement: they cannot prove it’s my fault but they want to punish me nonetheless.
And that assumes global warming is actually occurring and not the result of temperature sensor placement and retroactive adjustment of data sets to achieve the desired result.
The worst part – even if AGW proponants could prove global warming is occurring and that humans cause it, their suggested remedies are inadequate. Banning my charcoal grill is useless when China is opening new coal-fired power plants every day. If AGW proponants really believe the planet is in danger from human activities, then the only logical response is to stop the worst behaving humans before it’s too late.
We should immediately declare war on China and bomb them to extinction. We have no choice. We must destroy an ancient civilization . . . to save the planet.
Antics like this do more to cast doubt on the reality of global warming than a million “climate skeptic” Youtube videos. The people pushing hardest for government intervention don’t believe their own BS. The people who actually put faith in them are idiots.
And you don’t need to know anything about science to know that is the truth.
People might care about climate change in the long-term abstract, but in the short-term, they want — a lot of red meat; cheap airfares to Europe and Cancun; low electricity prices; cheap goods; the convenience of single-use packaging; no limits on reproduction, etc. And all of those things require an enormous amount of energy. A recent Accenture showed that people really want their governments to support combatting the negative effects of climate change, but they push back if any changes are made that would impact their wants, and day-to-day lives. So there we have it — we all want to live exactly like we do now, and we need to combat climate change, as long its other people and countries making the changes.
The second half of the AGW argument is even less convincing. “The result of man-made global warming will a disaster.”
For whom? If sea levels rise 10 feet, the entire state of Florida will be under water. Is that so bad? They’re all Red State Trumpers anyway. And that’s if they don’t build a giant levee along all the coasts, ala Netherlands. Human ingenuity solving human problems – what’s wrong with that?
Oh, but it’ll be warm enough to raise crops in Canada! Again, so what? Are we running an American Farmer protection racket here? Oh, but it’ll be unbearably hot in Mexico! Yeah sure, that’s the clincher. I’ll gladly give up my air conditioning so a bunch of narco terrorists can run theirs. Not. Besides, Lesko Brandon is alreading solving that problem by letting them all move to America. So Mexico is abandoned – what’s the issue?
SCIENCE can tell us whether a thing is happening. SCIENCE might be able to theorize Why the thing is happening. But SCIENCE cannot tell us whether or not it’s a Good thing – that is a value judgment – or what we as a society should do about it – that is a political judgment.
In America, political power derives from the consent of the governed. AGW proponants don’t have it and can’t get it by persuasion so they resort to fearmongering and unjust decrees. It won’t work. It shouldn’t. It’s unAmerican.
How much climate harm is caused by the war? Maybe we should be telling Ukraine to surrender, to save the planet. It’s not like their efforts make any difference, the map today is unchanged from 18 months ago.
Reducing greenhouse gases to save the planet, it’s the SCIENCE thing to do so it must be the right thing to do. Surrender now.
https://twitter.com/war_mapper/status/1679033217821687808/photo/1
Emery tries to claim the moral high ground for the CCP – nice try you commie prick!
What the hell, I’m on my lunch break and bored:
You point out this hypocrisy, yet who is the hypocrite here
That’s easy, it’s still the Spanish environment minister, Teresa Ribera.
You seem to want to suggest that people are unserious simply because they don’t behave like Ed Bagley Jr.
When trying to persuade people it’s a crisis, it’s not very persuasive when your actions contradict your words. I think Bagley Jr’s a fruitcake, but I’ll give him credit for putting his money where his mouth is.
That’s hardly true and you know it.
With such mind-reading abilities, Paddyboy, you should have your own act in Vegas.
The vast majority of impact is industrial, burning coal, clearing rain forests, and seeking to increase the use of renewable fuels, of reducing cattle farming, encouraging China or India to move faster away from fossil fuel based energy generation – AND encouraging the US to move forward with carbon generation tracking doesn’t mean you also have to start living in a sod house.
Ah, the old “it’s the other guy’s fault” argument. Pray tell, there’s not an enormous advantage to setting us against each other on this topic, is there?
Your complaints here are alligator tears at best, done to generate contempt for others to excuse doing nothing – and yet you SEE the dire situation and do NOTHING to help.
Excuse me, how do you know what any of us are or aren’t doing? Ribera is a stellar example of virtue-signaling: Behaving one way when the cameras are on her, but acting a different way when they’re not.
And you come to her defense so readily…
^^ This sounds like a bit of an incomprehensible rant — could you back up your points with some numbers / detail??
BP to make €6.8bn investment in German offshore wind power
https://renews.biz/86948/bp-wins-two-sites-in-126bn-german-lease-auction/
Meaningful investment. Positive that BP sees it as a viable investment to meet growing demand and a useful source of diversification, as opposed to it being tokenism (looking at you, Exxon)
Wind turbines use carbon to manufacture and transport them. Wind turbines on land chop up Bald Eagles. Wind turbines at sea kill whales. And wind turbines fail in calm or extremely cold weather. These are COSTS of wind power.
There may be BENEFITS to wind power but the question is who weighs these COSTS against those BENEFITS to decide whether wind power is GOOD social policy or BAD social policy?
Not seeing any of that discussion here, only cheerleading and gaslighting.
^ May 10, 2023, Focus: BP ventures back into oil frontiers to boost output
Wind turbines on land chop up Bald Eagles. Wind turbines at sea kill whales
No one and I mean nobody talks about how many birds are killed by wind turbines at sea. Birds that conveniently fall in the water and sink or are eaten.
@JBMJ
How liberating it must be to be able to spout out combinations of words without having to worry about their meaning or accuracy.
Texas leaders threaten wind and solar boom with legislative push
https://www.ft.com/content/f0f38eec-6cec-49bc-9390-ed4ac4402525
Sounds like the petroleum companies are angry they can’t compete on the open market with the wind and the sun and are demanding subsidies/legal barriers. Everyone is a socialist in the end!
@JBMJ
How liberating it must be to be able to spout out combinations of words without having to worry about their meaning or accuracy.
Texas leaders threaten wind and solar boom with legislative push
https://www.ft.com/content/f0f38eec-6cec-49bc-9390-ed4ac4402525
Sounds like the petroleum companies are angry they can’t compete on the open market with the wind and the sun and are demanding subsidies/legal barriers. Everyone is a soci@list in the end!
Shocking — BP ventures back into oil investments …
Crude oil prices are determined by global supply and demand. US gas production just hit an all time record of 100bcf/day in January, so on the gas side things look pretty rosy. No surprise here. It is really quite simple, supply is outstripping demand. Bad for the shale industry, pretty good for everybody else.
The association hires a lawn care company to work around our townhouses. The first guy has a weed wacker, the second the riding mower, the third the leaf blower. They do a great job but I fret about their carbon footprint. Why aren’t they trimming with scissors, pushing a reel mower and sweeping up with a broom? Don’t they care about the planet?
Why doesn’t my townhouse association hire a more responsible company (but not pass along the cost to me – they should eat the cost because they’re a corporation and corporations are rich).
I hope those guys at least bicycle between jobs.
I should get out there and hector the workers about climate change. If I can find my Covid mask. I know I have it here, somewhere.
“Sounds like the petroleum companies are angry they can’t compete on the open market with the wind and the sun and are demanding subsidies/legal barriers. Everyone is a soci@list in the end!”
I’d be fine zeroing out ALL energy subsidies across the board. Are you okay with that Emery?
The idea that petroleum can’t compete with renewables without subsidies in laughable. Renewables get subsidies at every level and the cost of the energy produced is still much higher fossil fuel. Take away the mandates and the subsidies and renewable energy would only be the richest virtue signalers around.
Take away the mandates and the subsidies and renewable energy would only be the richest virtue signalers around.
StC, they would be the “poorest virtue signalers around” because they would go broke.
Solyndra never happened.
It is not a relevent example.
Stop talking about it.
Haters.
Stick a broom handle in her spokes…
You know who has no idea what the “global average temperature” will be one hundred years from today?
Me.
You know who else has no idea what “global average temperature” will be 100 years from today?
Climate scientists!
Reducing global CO2 emissions is not a scientific objective, it is a political objective. you only have to spend a few minutes looking at tweets from people who call themselves climate scientists to realize that they are charlatans. Their goal is not to increase the amount of objective knowledge about the universe, it is to promote a political objective.
Paddy-“yet you see the dire situation and no nothing….”. Actually, we don’t see it, but we hear about it constantly.
Emery, quoting Hansen..”so we can say with a high degree of confidence…”. Catch the sleight-of-hand there? You claim “confidence” in lieu of evidence. Attributions aren’t evidence. But Paddy and Emory-please help us spot the “climate crisis https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/
Isn’t it funny that these true believers and gloBULL warming pimps are building houses on shorelines, like Obumbler’s (he actually bought his mansion on Martha’s Vineyard), but he’s building one in Hawaii. And the Pelosi’s in Florida?! Wow! The Ron DeSantis guy is so bad that they are moving to his state, bringing their ill gotten gains with them. Could it be to avoid the usurious and astronomical taxes in Californication? Nah! Couldn’t be that.
Then we have Bot Boy and Paddywhacker. I’m sure that they have converted their houses from electricity and gas to wind and solar to charge their electric cars, grow their own food and are now vegans and bug eaters.
Sounds like the petroleum companies are angry they can’t compete on the open market with the wind and the sun and are demanding subsidies/legal barriers. Everyone is a socialist in the end!
I recall asking a lefty for evidence of petroleum subsidies a couple of years ago. What I got was a link to a left-wing eco-zealot website. I didn’t dismiss it out of hand simply because of the authors’ political leanings. I dug and found their source material. Went to that site. More digging. Found that site’s source material. After wading through four or five layers of articles declaring oil companies getting subsidies, I finally found the government-commissioned study at the root of the “oil companies get subsidies” mantra. It characterized the oil companies’ tax credits as a subsidy. A tax credit that didn’t exist for the sole benefit of oil companies, but for any business where the equipment depreciates over time, and they spent money to replace it. Or, where the companies spent money to drill for oil. That’s an expense, right? One you’re allowed to deduct? It seems in Lefty-speak, and only in Lefty-speak, that’s a “subsidy.”
But the tax incentives of buying an electric car? Those are just incentives and definitely not government putting its thumb on the scale to influence the market. No siree, Bob.
Thanks for that, Ian. Very informative.
I looked up the allegation of oil subsidies, and they fall into a few basic categories. First, government subsidies for fuel oil for the poor, “HEAP”. I eagerly await Democrats’ response to the notion that we’re going to let poor people freeze in the winter. Second, you’ve got the depreciation schedule for petroleum exploration. I hope there are enough business democrats out there to explain why there are depreciation schedules, and how they’re tailored to a business. Third, you’ve got tax deductions for farmers, who of course aren’t using that diesel on the roads. Fourth, you’ve got the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I eagerly await Democrats’ response when we point out that Biden has (perhaps rightly in part) used that to even out fuel prices. Finally, you’ve got an interesting provision in the tax code called the depletion allowance.
The major other “subsidy” is defense/force projection in the Middle East, and it’s worth noting that this mostly benefits Europe and Asia. So I would be very happy with a revenue tariff of 10% or so to pay for our Navy so that at least our workers aren’t forced to cover the cost.
What’s termed “subsidies” for fossil fuels are usually tax breaks and depreciation allowance, which technically aren’t subsidies at all, as a true subsidy is the government giving out money. The media erroneously combines the two under subsidy so as to fool the public. Obviously with tax breaks, no one is “giving” you anything, you’re simply keeping more of what was yours to begin with. On top of that, fossil fuels immediately return billions to government coffers in the form of state and federal gas taxes, which not surprisingly seem to be never counted against whatever they figure fossil fuels are receiving as subsidies