Issues, Politics

Left’s Latest Global Warming Scare: Oyster Flatulence

We’ve had a few interesting envirochondria stories this week, but this headline takes the cake.

And in case you’re wondering, no, this isn’t from The Onion.

Reportedly a new ‘science’ study has emerged from the Ivory Tower halls of wisdom which blames a not insignificant degree of global warming on oyster flatulence.

Yes, that’s right.

Oyster farts are on the increase via oyster farming and causing global havoc.

Now, the astute among you will likely conclude something similar to what we’ve all already concluded regarding CO2 and vegetation: more CO2 is better for plants.

Conversely, more people (especially those who eat oysters) equals fewer oysters.

Ergo, there were lots and lots more oysters way back when global warming apparently wasn’t on the verge of ending life as we know it.

Is it just us or is there some incongruous logic here?

Here’s more from Redstate…

When it comes to oysters, most people never get beyond the question, “Do oysters do anything other than sit on a plate looking like phlegm?” But RedState readers being (mostly) of above average intelligence, I’m sure some of you have spent some sleepless nights pondering the question, “Do oysters fart?” 

Apparently they do. We know this because of Science! for which we thank Neil Degrasse Tyson. Peace be upon him.

And since science tells us oyster farts are a real thing, we know they cause climate change, just like virtually everything else in the known world. Remember if you want to appear “woke” it’s best to assume that everything causes climate change and climate change causes everything. Everything bad anyway.

Plans to expand aquatic farming could have a serious knock-on effect on climate change, climate experts have warned after new research revealed that underwater shellfish farts produce 10% of the global-warming gases released by the Baltic Sea.

A study published in the Scientific Reports journal shows that clams, mussels and oysters produce one-tenth of methane and nitrous oxide gases in the Baltic Sea as a result of digestion. Therefore, researchers have warned that shellfish “may play an important but overlooked role in regulating greenhouse gas production”.

Methane and nitrous oxide gases have a far greater warming potential than carbon dioxide so bodies of water without or with fewer shellfish record lower methane release rates.



EcoNuts Sue Trump Administration…Over Walruses

Worshipers of Mother Gaia around the country are up in arms this week over a most egregious affront to the stability of the planet by the Trump administration.

As a part of the process by which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially lists species as endangered or not, its scientific review found that American walruses are not in imminent danger.

Citing the fact that their population appears to be doing just fine despite the apparent ‘loss of lots of ice’, walruses got bumped.

That decision earned the ire of the loons at the Center for Biological Diversity who called it a ‘truly dark day for America’s imperiled wildlife.”

It’s such an unforgivable decision that CBD has mounted a legal challenge citing the fact that walruses and 24 other species — including the eastern boreal toad — are facing imminent extinction.

Someone hand us a tissue. Ahem, ok back to business.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regularly considers adding animals that are considered to be especially vulnerable to extinction to the endangered species list, and many ecologists are upset that 25 American creatures, particularly the Pacific walrus, didn’t make the cut this year.

According to the USFWS, giving these animals the additional protections of being an endangered species “is not warranted at this time.” The USFWS explained its decision regarding the stability of the walrus population in a press release:

While walruses use sea ice for a variety of activities, including breeding, birthing, resting, and avoiding predators, they have shown an ability to adapt to sea ice loss that was not foreseen when the Service last assessed the species in 2011. Our decision not to list the Pacific walrus under the Endangered Species Act at this time is based on a rigorous evaluation of the best available science, which indicates the population appears stable, and the species has demonstrated an ability to adapt to changing conditions. If future circumstances warrant or new information comes to light, we can and will re-evaluate the Pacific walrus for ESA protection.

There are actually two subspecies of walrus. The Atlantic walrus is found throughout the shorelines of Greenland and northeastern Canada, and the Pacific walrus resides in the icy waters along Alaska and Russia. Walruses can weigh up to 1.5 tons, are protected from the frigid cold of the Arctic region with a thick layer of blubber, and survive on a diverse carnivorous diet of clams, shrimp, crabs, sea cucumbers, and other marine invertebrates. A walrus uses its famous ivory tusks as ice hooks to pull itself out of the water, and as defensive tools against the mammoth marine mammal’s only two natural predators: polar bears and killer whales.


Issues, States

Tree-hugging is Making Outbreak of Wildfires Much Worse

It’s an argument that has been made numerous times over the years, and, given the historic conflagration in northern California this fall, it needs to be repeated.

It’s no coincidence that wildfires tend most often to break out and live much longer on the Left Coast.

Rabid environmentalist policies aimed at ‘saving the trees’ [insert complementary econut drivel] over the last half century have resulted in a build-up of underbrush and over-growth of trees which have turned forests into tinderboxes just waiting for a spark.

As the Reason Foundation points out, the US Forest Service has been hamstrung with lack of funding and regulations preventing it from managing forests to control both the start and perpetuation of wildfires.

It’s a grand liberal irony that the policies aimed at protecting forests are precisely what has contributed directly to their destruction.

Here’s more from Daily Signal…

As a Reason Foundation study noted, the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing public wildland, once had success in minimizing widespread fires in the early 20th century.

But many of these successful methods were abandoned in large part because of efforts by environmental activists.

The Forest Service became more costly and less effective as it increasingly “rewarded forest managers for losing money on environmentally questionable practices,” wrote Randal O’Toole, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Spending on the Forest Service has risen drastically, but these additional resources have been misused and haven’t solved the underlying issues.

“Fire expenditures have grown from less than 15 percent of the Forest Service budget in [the] early 1990s to about 50 percent today. Forest Service fire expenditures have increased from less than $1 billion in the late 1990s to $3.5 billion in 2016,” O’Toole wrote.

Perhaps now, Americans will begin to re-evaluate forest management policies.

In a May congressional hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible.”

Read more…



‘It Makes People Uncomfortable’: School Yanks Literary Classic

To Kill A Mockingbird is considered among the best of American literature.

The classic won the Pulitzer prize in 1961 after only one year from its publishing date, a very rare feat.

Not to be outdone, the movie adaptation of the book a year after that went on to win an Oscar–back when truly good movies won awards.

But apparently, none of that is worth consideration against the backdrop of kids whose feelings are hurt.

According to the Biloxi, Mississippi, School Board, difficult themes and language are inappropriate for eighth-grade school kids.

So they’ve decided to yank the book from the required reading list.

We’re pretty sure next on the chopping block will be War and Peace because there’s too much discussion of war and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations for its endorsement of profit.

Here’s more from Redstate…

It’s a literary classic found in just about every junior high and high school classroom across America. But one school district is now pulling “To Kill A Mockingbird” from students’ lesson plans for an absolutely insane reason.

The Biloxi School District in Biloxi, Mississippi, said it made the decision this week to no longer have eighth grade students read the book after the school received some “complaints.”

“There is some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable, Kenny Holloway, vice president of the Biloxi School Board, told the Biloxi Sun Herald.

“We can teach the same lesson with other books,” Holloway added.

One Sun Herald reader described the move as “one of the most disturbing examples of censorship I have ever heard, the newspaper reported. The reader said that “the themes in the story humanize all people regardless of their social status, education level, intellect, and of course, race.”

“It would be difficult to find a time when it was more relevant than in days like these,” they added.

“To Kill A Mockingbird” was published in 1960. A year later, in 1961, the book won a Pulitzer prize and the very next year, in 1962, the story was turned into a Oscar-winning movie.

The book chronicles what life in the South was like for black people in the mid 20th century. The literary classic includes the N-word several times and uses the term “negro” on numerous occasions. The Biloxi School District will still allow the book in the library.


Issues, Politics

Trump Nominates Climate Skeptic For Top White House Spot

President Trump threw more water on the global warming party this week with a key White House nod.

Kathleen Hartnett White is an A-list pariah for econuts around the world for her scholarly research and criticism of hot air fanaticism.

Leftist bomb-throwers have dubbed her one of the oil industry’s best friends as she has historically made a case for continued reliance on fossil fuels while casting doubt on anthropogenic warming.

If the choice goes through, White will serve as a White House member of the Council on Environmental Quality, which has libs seething.

This move coupled with Trump’s canceling of the Clean Power Plan is just too much for the left to handle.

Here’s more from Daily Caller…

President Donald Trump nominated a climate change skeptic to lead the White House’s environmental policy board Thursday night.

Trump picked Kathleen Hartnett White to serve as a member on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which ensures that agencies comply with environmental rules before approving projects. White has spent much of her public life making what she calls the “moral case for fossil fuels.”

White is a fellow for environment issues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a free market group that has been a vehement critic of former President Barack Obama’s climate policies. She was also the former chairwoman of the state’s CEQ.

White’s position on carbon emissions is sure to roil environmental activists already concerned about Trump’s climate skepticism and environmental rollbacks. She has been upfront in recent months about her opposition to rules regulating carbon emissions.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and carbon is certainly not a poison. Carbon is the chemical basis of all life on earth. Our bones and blood are made out of carbon,” White wrote in a June op-ed.


Issues, Politics

Trump Yanks the Rug Out From Under Obamacare

President Trump has delivered a one-two punch to Obamacare this week which should effectively gut Obama’s flagship accomplishment.

In his first move, he ordered agencies to begin deregulating the healthcare industry to make health plans more affordable.

The linchpin in that is the authorization of interstate insurance pools, which will both create more options for consumers and competition and thus lower prices.

The second and bolder move was to cancel payments to insurance companies as a subsidy for carrying Obamacare policies.

Since it was an unconstitutional executive order in the first place, with the ‘stroke of a pen’ it was just as easily undone.

Now that, folks, is change you can believe in. And naturally liberals are beside themselves with rage, which is the surest sign of success.

Here’s more from Redstate…

On Thursday night, the Trump administration announced that it will no longer make cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRs), meant to help individuals with low to moderate income purchase Obamacare.

Trump had considered nixing the CSRs in the past, but was first going to let a lawsuit against the previous administration over the illegality of CSR’s play out a bit more first. The lawsuit claimed that since the CSRs were never voted in my congress, and funds were never appropriated for the task, that the CSRs were illegal.

Trump stopped payment to the CSRs earlier on Thursday — effective immediately — after he signed an executive order allowing people to come together and purchase insurance as a group across state lines. The payments are said to be worth some $7 billion according to ABC News.

“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system,” said the White House in a statement. “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”



Hacked Again: Equifax Shares Drop After Possible New Breach

In a yet another odd turn of events for the IRS, consumer data corporation Equifax hinted that it may have just been hacked for the third time this year.

Late yesterday the company took down its website out of an ‘abundance of caution’.

But anyone who knows anything about technology knows taking down a site won’t do much to stop a hacking that has already occurred.

Any ‘abundance of caution’ might have been more appropriate after the first or certainly after the second hacking incident.

This is significant, as you’ll recall because the IRS has awarded Equifax with an eight-figure contract to help the agency with consumers’ tax information.

Um, call us crazy, but there might be a good reason to rethink that decision.

Here’s more from CNBC…

Equifax shares dropped as much as 3.5 percent Thursday after it said it has disabled one of its customer help online pages and is investigating another possible cyberbreach.

The consumer credit reporting company said its security teams are looking into another possible breach barely one month after it disclosed a hack that left exposed the personal information of 145.5 million people.

Shares of Equifax were down about 1.7 percent at around 1:55 p.m. ET.

The company said the problem is in its credit report assistance link on its website. “We are aware of the situation,” a spokesman said. “Our IT and Security teams are looking into this matter, and out of an abundance of caution have temporarily taken this page offline.”

Earlier this month, Equifax said its outside security consultant had concluded an investigation into the breach, which it first detected in July. It identified more than 2 million more people were affected than originally estimated. The hack has led to multiple federal and state investigations and the departure of the company’s 12-year chief executive.

The company has said that it was warned to be prepared for further cyber attacks once word of the giant breach got out.

An independent security analyst told the website Ars Technica that he noticed the latest problem when he went to Equifax’s site on Wednesday and found out visitors were redirected to download a fraudulent software update.



Girl Scouts Miffed that Boy Scouts Are Now A ‘Competitor’

Lots of folks reacted negatively to the announcement yesterday by the Boy Scouts that, beginning next year, girls will be admitted to the ranks and allowed to ascend to the perch of Eagle Scout.

And to precisely no one’s surprise, the Girl Scouts are not very happy.

Now, in proper PC fashion, one might think that more opportunities for young women to learn character and leadership would be a good thing.

But lo, an organization admitting girls to its ranks is now considered, according to Lisa Margosian, Chief Customer Officer of the Girl Scouts, ‘competition’.

Which begs the obvious question: what business exactly are they in such that another operation might be a threat to market share.

Cookies, of course.

The Girl Scouts has ever been a ‘non-profit’ operation expounding liberal, feminist ideology-for-profit, essentially relying on child labor for its revenue.

So the Boy Scouts encroaching on its labor and customer base is clearly a threat.

Here’s more from Redstate…

On Wednesday, the Boy Scouts of America announced they would be allowing girls into their organization. The move was met with negativity by many, but adding to the heap was the Girl Scouts itself.

In a statement released by Lisa Margosian, Chief Customer Officer for the Girl Scouts, the organization noted that they were not consulted by the Boy Scouts about the decision to allow girls into their ranks, but that the Girl Scouts had learned about the plan through various channels.

The Girl Scouts said they were “disappointed” in the way the BSA handled the situation, and accused the BSA of including women in order to pad their declining numbers.

The Girl Scouts don’t seem worried about having to compete with the BSA for members, as they said they have much more experience into catering to the needs of girls.



Boy Scouts Cave, Will Admit Girls Starting in 2018

Imagine, if you will, some version of America in the future wherein sons and their fathers demand that the Girl Scouts admit boys to the ranks of cookie purveyors across the nation.

Vitriol and cries of sexist hegemony would abound.

“Is nothing safe from white, male domination?” they would ask.

But those really mean boys should never have a club exclusively for themselves for the development of leadership and character.

That’s discrimination, you see. And the PC police just won’t have any of it.

So they’ve seen fit to ascend their troops to the upper echelons of the century-old organization and transformed it from within.

As of next year, the Boy Scouts will have need of a new name after announcing they’ll be admitting girls to the now co-ed organization.

[Insert Gender Preference Here] Scouts of America will soon become just another group for the liberal proselytization of our nation’s youth.

Is nothing sacred?

Here’s more from Fox News…

The Boy Scouts of America announced on Wednesday its plans to admit girls into the Cub Scouts and create a new program for older girls to allow them to earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout, a historic change after years of requests from families and girls.

The change is expected go into effect in 2019. Cub Scout dens, the smallest unit, will become single-gender, either containing all boys or all girls. The larger Cub Scout packs will have the option to welcome both genders if they choose.

“We believe it is critical to evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children,” the Boy Scouts said in a news release.

“We strive to bring what our organization does best – developing character and leadership for young people – to as many families and youth as possible as we help shape the next generation of leaders,” the release stated.

The program for older girls is expected to be announced in 2018 and begin in 2019. Girls will then be able to earn the coveted rank of Eagle Scout.



NFL ‘Quietly Tweaks’ Rules to Allow Punishment for Kneeling

If ever we needed more evidence that the NFL has finally accepted defeat and caved under pressure, this may be it.

After weeks of meetings between NFL officials, owners and players union reps, it has become clear that the powers that be are increasingly uncomfortable with the prospect of losing more of their fan base and millions of dollars in sales.

That might explain reports that the NFL has quietly changed the league rules to allow punishment of players for not standing during the national anthem.

Several owners and coaches have hinted already that they may pursue that course.

And with the rule change, this could be an opportunity for Trump to declare victory.

Here’s more from Daily Mail…

NFL owners are prepared to meet next week to discuss unilateral changes to league policy concerning players protesting during the national anthem.

In a conference call on Tuesday, chief NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart said owners will consider allowing the players to give their input on the decision, but said the league would not need union approval to implement a change. A large number of NFL players have been protesting police brutality against minorities since 2016 without any punishment from their respective teams or the league itself.

‘I don’t believe that the anthem, per se, is something that needs to be collectively bargained,’ Lockhart said.

The NFL players’ union did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As it currently reads, the policy says players ‘should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their hand, and refrain from talking’ during the anthem.

However, it stops short of saying players ‘must’ stand.

Beyond the possibility of any overt rule changes, the NFL may have quietly altered the wording of its current policy to give teams the incentive and power to punish protesting players who sit or kneel during the ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’