Western fires. Climate change or the climate change cult

So, do nothing, that's the long and short of it, right?

Don't buy it.

 

No, before you do something that could have far worse consequences than what we are seeing now make sure you fully understand the problem.

 

The fires are a direct result of socialist policies on the West Coast.

Leftwing policies always bring death, pollution, and destruction

 

Folks like you claim that CO2 causes climate change, no? So what percentage of CO2 stops storms from generating the lightning that is causing some of these fires? If climate change isn't responsible for the lightning what are you crying about?

 

Which doesn't mean a damn thing. There are two problems the dollar value of the destruction caused by the fires which is a function of CA's increasingly pricey real estate, and the number of acres burned which is a function of CA's pointlessly stupid forestry policies.

 

It means that your right wing fascist agenda is bullshit.

 

I have no idea what causes climate change, the consensus of scientists is that it is caused by man.

Don't ask ME about Co2 because I'm not a scientist. Ask a frickin' scientist.

Climate change is responsible for the spike in lightning strikes, the extreme drought which causes extreme dry fuel for fires, in my view.

I'm not crying, I'm shouting from roof tops that republicans have their head in the sand, they are do nothings and know nothings, and by doing nothing, they are killing humans.

 

I don't think you even know what a fascist is at this point, you just throw it out there because you can't bring yourself to admit you've lost the argument and run out of anything useful to contribute.

 

I defer to the wisdom of consensus among scientists.

 

"When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"

 

There is only one "useful" item, and that is to get rid of republicans. When there is a fire in your living room ( Trump ) the only "useful" conversation is to get rid of the fire which poses an existential threat.

Let's not call is fascist agenda, but an agenda that creeps towards fascism via the supporting of Trump. Much has been written about it so I'm not making it up, and this is only a partial list, as the 16,000 character limit cut the list in half.

Madeleine Albright. "Will we stop Trump before it's too late." The New York Times. April 6, 2018.

Daniel Altman. "This is how every genocide begins." Foreign Policy. November 30, 2017.

Samir Amin. "The return of fascism in contemporary capitalism." Monthly Review. September 2014.

Associated Press. "Obama: Protect democracy or risk taking path of Nazi Germany." CBS News online. December 9, 2017.

Peter Beinart. "Why Trump supporters believe he is not corrupt." The Atlantic. August 22, 2018.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat. “An American authoritarian: The Republican presidential candidate is not a fascist, but his campaign bears notable similarities to the reign of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.” The Atlantic. August 10, 2016.

Roger Berkowitz. "Why Arendt matters: Revisiting 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'." Los Angeles Review of Books. March 18, 2017

Noah Berlatsky. "The Trump effect: New study connects white American intolerance and support for authoritarianism." NBCnews.com. May 27, 2018.

Mark Bickhard. " The scary parallels between Trump and Musollini." Rawstory. March 21, 2017

Joan Biskupic. "Trump's sustained attacks on American rights.' CNN.com. May 27, 2018.

Aaron Blake. “Stephen Miller’s authoritarian declaration: Trump’s national security actions ‘will not be questioned.” Washington Post. February 13, 201

Paul Blumenthal. "This stunningly racist French novel is how Steve Bannon explains the world. Huffington Post. March 4, 2017.

William Boardman. “Constitutional crisis deepens as Trump fights checks and balances.” Reader Supported News Online. February 11, 2017.

Tom Boggiani. "Trump sucks his followers in by using the language of fascists: Yale linguistics expert." Rawstory. May 25, 2019.

Christopher Browning. "Lessons from Hitler's Rise." New York Review of Books. April 20, 2017.

Christopher Browning. "The Suffocation of Democracy." New York Review of Books. October 25, 2018.

Jonathan Chait. "The Republican Party's gearing up for war on the rule of law." New York Magazine. October 30, 2017.

Isaac Chotiner. “How much do the early days of the Trump administration look like the Third Reich?” Interview with historian Richard Evans. Slate. February 10, 2017.

Issac Chotiner. “Is Donald Trump a fascist? Yes and no.” An Interview with Robert Paxton. Slate. February 10, 2016.

Isaac Chotiner. “Too Close for comfort: how much do the early days of the Trump administration look like the Third Reich?" Interview with historian Richard Evans." Slate. February 10, 2017.

Sarah Churchwell. "American fascism: It has happened here." The New York Review of Books. June 22, 2020.

Chauncey DeVega. "Are white people ready to bail on democracy? These researchers say the danger is real." Salon. August 2, 2018.

Chauncey DeVega. "Soldiers of the boogaloo: David Neiwert on the far right's plans for a new civil war." Salon. May 18, 2020.

Lee Drutman, Larry Diamond and Joe Goldman. "Follow the leader: Exploring American support for democracy and authoritarianism." Voter Study Group. February 2018.

Lee Drutman, Larry Diamond and Joe Goldman. "Testing the limits: Examining public support for checks on presidential power." Voter Study Group. June 2018

The Economist. “America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot.” February 4, 2017.

Geoff Eley. "Is Trump a fascist?" Historians for Peace and Democracy. Summer 2017.

Ellen Grey Ellis. "The internet protocols of the elders of Zion." Wired. March 12, 2017.

John Feffer. "The Trump dystopian nightmare: Nucelar war, climate change and a clash of civilizations are all on the horizon." Alternet. March 12, 2017

Reza Fiyouzat. "Trump in perespective: Fascism or just more barbarism?" Counterpunch. March 12, 2017.

Mark Follman. "Trumpocracy: Tracking the creeping authoritarianism of the 45th president." Mother Jones. December 4, 2017.

John Bellamy Foster. "Neofascism in the White House." Monthly Review. April, 2017.

John Bellamy Foster. "This is not populism." Monthly Review. June 2017.

Richard E. Frankel. "Here is how Donald Trump becomes a dictator." Raw Story. October 5, 2018.

Richard E. Frankel. "A professor of German history explains the true horror of Trump’s response to Charlottesville." Raw Story. August 16, 2017.

David Frum. “How to build an autocracy.” The Atlantic. January 30, 2017.

Megan Garber. “‘First they came’: The poem of the protests, Martin Niemöller’s lines, written just after the Holocaust, argued against apathy—and for the moral connectedness of all people.” The Atlantic. January 29, 2017.

Masha Gessen, “Autocracy: Rules for survival.” New York Review of Books. November 10, 2016.

Henry Giroux. "Donald Trump's fascist politics and the language of fascism." Raw Story. November 18, 2018.

Henry Giroux. "Facism starts with words - and Trump has a startling romance with the rhetoric of dictators." Raw Story. January 11, 2018.

Henry Giroux. " The Hardening of Society and the Rise of Cultures of Cruelty in Neo-Fascist America." Counterpunch. March 17, 2017.

Henry Giroux. "Neoliberal fascism and the echoes of echoes of history." Truthdig. August 2, 2018.

Henry Giroux. "Rethinking the normalization of fascism in the post-truth era." Tikkun. April 1, 2019.

Amy Goodman. “Noam Chomsky: Trump's victory recalls memories of Hitler & fascism's spread across Europe.” Democracy Now. Interview with Noam Chomsky. December 6, 2016.

Van Gosse. "An 'illiberal democracy' if Trump wins again." Organizing Upgrade. May 14, 2020.

Rosie Gray. “The nationalist right is coming for Reince Priebus.” The Atlantic. February 14, 2017.

Zoltan Grossman. "Fascism denial ignores some inconvenient truths." ZNet. October 29, 2018.

Andrew Gumbel. "Is This Fascism?" Los Angeles Review of Books. July 24, 2017.

Alexandra Hall. "Controversial Proud Boys embrace 'Western values,' reject feminism and political correctness." WisconsinWatch.org. November 26, 2017.

John Haltiwanger. "'There need to be mass protests': Authoritarianism experts say time is running out for Americans to stop Trump." Business Insider. February 12, 2020.

Bernard E. Harcourt. "How Trump fuels the fascist right." The New York Review of Books. November 29, 2018.

Josh Harkinson. “The dark history of the White House aides who crafted Trump's ‘Muslim ban’: Here's how Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller have been boosters of Islamophobes and white nationalists." Mother Jones. January 30, 2017.

Josh Harkinson. “Meet the white nationalist trying to ride the Trump train to lasting power: Alt-right architect aims to make racism cool again.” Mother Jones. October 27, 2016.

Thom Hartmann. “It can still happen here: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and the “American fascists” among us. Sinclair Lewis feared demagoguery and a corporate ruling class. The right is bringing his dystopia to fruition.” Salon. November 4, 2015.

Head Space Blog. “History repeats itself: National Socialism – past and present: The psychology of Nazism.” February 15, 2016.

Chris Hedges. “Donald Trump: The dress rehearsal for fascism.” Truthdig.com. October 16, 2016.

Chris Hedges. "A Last Chance for Resistance." Truthdig.com. March 19, 2017.

Chris Hedges. “Make America ungovernable.” Truthdig.com. February 5, 2017.

Aleksander Hemon. "Trump’s nationalism advances on a predictable trajectory to violence. His supporters will kill when they’re told to." The Intercept. May 2, 2020.

Clive Irving. "It is happening here, Trump is already early-stage Mussolini." The Daily Beast. June 30, 2018

 

Concenus of scientist is a myth.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#54842d251157

 

When something is true, it cannot be slander or libel. So, please point out the lie that I wrote. Caveat, I can back up my claim.

Moreover,

Then, by your logic, you are voting for a loser, given Trump's libel and slander is above and beyond that of any president in history.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html


FYI, the written word is not 'slander', it's libel. The spoken word is slander, so get terms straight. You wouldn't want anyone to think you are one of those low-educated persons that Trump loves, would you?

 

"When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"

 

The point is that while Trump has been scolding California for not raking or clearing their forests, and threatening to withhold federal funds because of it, he seems ignorant of the fact that the state does not have the authority to maintain the 57% of its forested land because it is National Forest, federally owned and maintained.

He is either ignorant of that fact, or he does know and is a hypocrite.

 

There is no wisdom in consensus in a field where only facts matter. Me tooism is a lousy basis upon which to build public policy based upon a field that is still in its infancy.

 

Bunch of self serving bunkum by people desperately afraid that their own fascist grip on power is being eroded. By the way just so you'll know a fascist is a socialist who doesn't believe one has to hate one's own country in order to do socialism. Naziism of course is an entirely different thing.

 

You have been tricked into quoting an article which says the opposite of the title. The article does not argue that ACC is a myth. Some editor at the magazine did that.

You apparently didn't read the article, here's a quote from it:

.

Obviously, the title of the Forbe's article is misleading, and was designed as click-bait. The article DOES NOT DEBUNK the 'myth'. Because it's not a myth.

See, he is arguing that the claim of 97% is not accurate, that it's actually just above 80%.and/or that it's difficult to know the exact number.

But what is his point? His point is that the consensus is not as monolithic as democrats (or those who support ACC) are telling us.

Who is the author? The author is a geologist employed by the construction and oil industries.

He is the enemy of climate change, and his best argument is that the 'consensus' is not quite as monolithic as is being reported by AGW/ACC supporters?

Okay, let's do a little metaphor. We are in a big room with lots of furniture. Group A says the fire in the room is, on a scale of one to ten, a nine. Group B says the fire is a seven.

DOES IT MATTER? there is a ****ING FIRE IN THE ROOM, AND NO ONE DISAGREES except oil and gas 'scientists'. Even the author of your mistitled essay doesn't disagree, he's debating the 97%, no it's only 80% or the number is difficult to know exactly. Who the **** cares? I'll tell you who cares, the oil industry, they seem to care that AGW/ACC backers are hurting their earth destroying agenda.

Noting that 3% disagree Oreske's claim of 97%, or if you prefer, 20% do not agree with the 80%, and the author is among that group. The author's argument rises and falls on Oreskes study and the other 7 that are noted for backing the AGW/ACC position..

The rebuttal to the rebuttal to Oreskes is here:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 ) are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.


But, just as the author of the article states, it doesn't matter if it's 80%, 90% or 100%.

 

And yet it is the state, and it's eco warriors who constantly take the forest service et al to court in federal court to stop managing federal lands in their state.

 

I'll file that one in the simplistic ( and thus ) incompetent rebuttal file.

Fascism can exist on the right or left, but as a matter of historical record, it has been most often associated with right. Hitler only called his movement 'socialist' for marketing purposes, it sounded better than 'right wing dictatorship' which was what his movement actually was. A fascist regime has many characteristics, but the salient one is a military leader backed by a military industrial complex ( owned by individuals, not the state ). The annotations link to the source material for the assertions posited.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5][6]

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[7][8] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[7][8]

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[9] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[9] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

Source: Wikipedia.

Before you kneejerk and assert it's 'wikipedia' note that the data points link to the sources, all of which are not Wiki in origin.

 

No, they sue to stop the selling off of federal land to corporate interests.

 

And you thing the feds don't and CAs failure to treat rightly their portion is blameless, you're whistling in the dark.

 

Yes I was tricked. This wasn’t the article I thought it was and doesn’t go into the flaws of the cook study.
Much more on this is available.
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).

Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these, 63 % disagreed with their abstract ratings.




https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

 

See, that's the problem. You are unable to understand the issue at hand, and fall back on a failed talking point as if that is supposed to answer the open question. It does not. The problem with folks, like you, is that you "feelz" really bad about things like the spotted owl, and your answer is to stop forestry from logging trees. And even when it becomes apparent that stopping logging hasn't helped the spotted owl out, you're still unwilling to let the foresters get out there and manage the forest. It's childish.

 

Please note by that definition every so-called Communist regime of the last 150 years has been fascist. Soviet Russia was far more regimented than Fascist Italy, and Stalin far more heavy handed than Mussolini.
The fact of the matter is in modern American the use of the word fascist by the American left means little more than, "racist and sexist haven't worked, let's try Fascist.