Posted on 11/16/2018 8:13:00 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
"Wildfires don’t care about wealth or status,” began the New York Times this week, describing the celebrity homes obliterated by fire in California. But what the report didn’t add, leaving it instead to Neil Young’s website, was that climate change cares even less. As President Trump took time out of his busy schedule protecting his hair and insulting the French to blame poor forest management, Young laid it on the line: “As a matter of fact this is not a forest fire that rages on as I write this. We are vulnerable because of climate change.”
Nothing brings the environment closer to home than when it affects people who seem a world away, people such as Miley Cyrus and Cher, who you can’t imagine facing any problem more serious than which diamond shoes to pack. If they can’t escape this reality, then it must be real. Right?
Climate-change denial is dangerous, not because it has major governments by the throat, but because it is shameless: it will reject the facts on a page, and the evidence before its own eyes. It will blame anyone but the real culprits, and marshal that blame to suit a narrative of scarcity and threat. But there does come a point when rhetoric runs out of road, is swallowed up by a more awesome spectacle; the authentic human response to the bite of a reality that can’t be denied for ever.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I wouldn't call it that....................
Even South Park has admitted Manbearpig is real.
Win the debate in a public forum using Roberts rules of order where every word and phrase is based of historical fact, not modeling, conjecture or supposition. Those historical facts are backed up with certified chain of custody proof of every source including equipment calibration records, certifications (original documentation only) of every single individual directly or indirectly involved and so much more. The weakest link in the chain (a lie) and it all falls apart 100% when true science gets involved.
I take major issue with Trump on this as well.
Where does he get off, stopping his criticism of insulting the French or pay attention to his hair to criticize leftist environmental totalitariansim?
He should make sure his hair stays in place, and continue to insult the French AND the New York Times until we give him permission to do otherwise.
We could easily but 'silenced' with truth, sound science, and experiments we could replicate ...
Example: if 'science' told us we would fall to the ground if we jumped off a building (that gravity existed) we could replicate their findings... so those who said 'you go up in the air when jumping off a building' would be silenced.
That's how it works - and when liberal elite crazies show proof that can be replicated - we'll 'believe' along with everyone else.
We could easily be 'silenced' with truth, sound science, and experiments that could replicated ...
Example: if 'science' told us we would fall to the ground if we jumped off a building (that gravity existed) we could replicate their findings... so those who said 'you go up in the air when jumping off a building' would 'be silenced'.
That's how it works - and when liberal elite crazies show proof that can be replicated about the climate - we'll 'believe' along with everyone else.
This is rich.
NOW their religion is serious because it REALLY has affected IMPORTANT people like Miley Circus and Cher.
How do liberals not see the insanity in their selective hypocrisy, wrapped in their fantasy of everlasting misery and victimhood via oppression?
It’s hard to pick a place to start with this nonsense... Do you start with the premise of the stupid, the reason the stupid doesn’t make sense or the hypocrisy
Not making light of the devastation decent folks in CA are suffering. My heart goes out to them...but using this tragedy and throwing the plight of 'poor, pitiful' celebrities on top makes me sick.
I agree that the whole thing is an enormous globalist/socialist hoax but they haven't actually changed the name from global warming to climate change. Instead they've gone back to the original name of the founding document, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aka the Kyoto Protocol. I think the switch in names came about for the reason you state but the term "climate change" isn't new.
Yes, in truly wild forests where small fires burn through every few years the fires are low, slow and limited. They linger in any one area just long enough to melt the sap sealing the pine cones and release their seeds.
In a “managed” forrest, where every little fire is extinguished before it can clear undergrowth, and where “management” forbids the removal of dead trees and piles of fallen branches from this trees, and underbrush is allowed to choke the forest floor, a fire reaches or starts in that sort of tinderbox burns VERY hot, cauterizing the soil, killing trees, incinerating seeds. it also spreads astonishingly fast and the dense fuel accumulation insures it takes a long time to burn out in any single patch of forest. Nothing survives.
Opinion: If celebrity victims of climate change can’t silence the deniers, who can?
California has greater fire risks (other than stupidity) because of dry air, not warmer temperatures.
So the DemonicRat party of anti-science, pro-communionism wants to end free speech because they, again, cannot win and persuade based on fake science and lack of logic. Shocked, I say, shocked.
The Kerry piece also appeared in the propaganda mill at the Guiardian.
Personally, I have always called it “the weather.”
They have higher risks for fire due to multiple reasons.
Climate Change Hoax is not one of them.
1) They produce more produce goods than any other state, and I believe any country. They used to allow them to use steralized wash water up to 10 times to wash those fruits and veggies and nuts. Then someone got the bright idea to trash that system, because even if you steralize the water, it might have something in it. So, they made it so it could only be used once. The following year, despite standard levels of rain fall, they had massvie droughts. Fires rose. All due to stupidity.
2. They had a small critter that was being washed out due to a dam. Instead of relocating the critter, they decided that dumping a TRILLION gallons of potable water literally was a better choice than running it downstream. Now, they have even more drought.
3. They decided that Mother Earth was better suited for handling the management of forests than private businesses, and so they taxed the private lumber and furiture businesses out of business. Took the land, and let nature handle it. Unfortunately, that meant they had trees that would fall, brush that would grow and more and add so much fuel that it literally was impossible to avoid fires. They are nature’s way of clearing the underbrush.
So, years of stupidity, mismanagement and fraud are literally the cause of the fires, NOT some global warming lie.
This climate change nonsense is so pervasive that you find references to it in almost everything you read even about completely unrelated situations. It is an unrelenting bombardment of lies and propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.