Climate Change? Nahhh ...

I'll also point out that last winter there was hail in the Agoura Hills region, smack in the middle of an historic wildfire alley.

 

It will scoff from behind a disinterested sneer and a limp cigarette and wildfire will disappear.

That or helping to reduce carbon emissions thereby reducing rising global temperatures and reducing extreme climate shifts thereby reducing the growth of got and dry conditions that fuel wildfires.

I haven't decided which I believe more...

 

The feds still haven't agreed to Oregon's request for a disaster declaration. Seriously.

 

nah

 

Expert says X. Guy with Google says “that’s odd” and proceeds to disagree.

That’s why we haven’t made much of a dent in a whole lot of problems.

 

I'm not a scientist, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently, so I don't know if humans are to blame for the very real issue of climate change. We are certainly contributing to it.
But, by now, that's not the point. We aren't helping it.
When someone claims "it's natural" blah blah blah, I use this analogy:
If lightning strikes your house and catches it on fire, are you going to do your best to save it or just let it burn because it was a natural occurrence?
I don't care what the cause is. Let's just do something to about it. There is no planet B.

 

Which expert? Guy with brother?

I’m not using Google, I’m using logic. When I grant that internal combustion engines are the problem - I’m granting that, I’m agreeing with science - I am then suggesting that some of what’s being done with those internal combustion engines is related to travel and globalism. Maybe I’m wrong, and folks just idle their vehicles in the driveway for hours on end.

People are (ex)journalists use logic to think through things and ask hard questions. That’s the arrow journalists have in their quiver. Journalists are not stenographers of experts.

 

If you were using logic you would say, hey that guy has a doctorate in a climate field, and that guy has a doctorate in a science field and so do those people over there and they say humanity is throwing carbon into the air and causing climate change. Maybe those people who are using tests and data analysis and more tests and more days and more analysis might know what they're talking about. And if they know what they are talking about based on their data then maybe just maybe this is true.

You're not using a journalistic hard questions. You're parroting science denying talking points. A real journalist looks at a source and says ok that guy has a science degree and had studied the problem and looks at "the other side" and says that guy doesn't and hasn't and is motivated by money to disagree. Yeah I'm going to listen to what that first got says.

There's a house fire. You, a journalist, go to the fire captain and ask what happened. He tells you an electrical sort sparked a wall fire in the living room and quickly spread through the house. You then tell him well that neighbor over there says it was a spontaneous ignition that just happens and you can't blame electricity, care to comment? The fire captain is going to laugh in your face. No that's not asking the tough questions. Asking tough questions is "why are you listening to people who stand to profit off us doing the same things we always do instead of the people who understand science?"

 

“One area of priority and mutual agreement is vegetation management.”

Trump’s a buffoon, and of course gives no useful direction or answer. Why California’s secretary of natural resources - whose job it is to make sure fires like the ones that are constantly spreading in California m don’t spread like they constantly do - is talking about world climate change is beyond me. To the extent California can impact climate change, Gavin Newsom has the most authority. He should exercise it.

 

Because he only has authority over less than half of the wild land in California. The feds control and manage the majority of it.

 

climate change and forest management reflecting climate change aren't mutually exclusive