Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
Over two million views already!
#FoxNews #Tucker

Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign​

2,043,969 views

[(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Fox News​

6.16M subscribers
](https://m.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel)

SUBSCRIBE

Published on Sep 11, 2020

In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can’t see it, but it’s everywhere and it’s deadly. #FoxNews #Tucker
Click to expand...

Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign | On Air Videos | Fox News

video.foxnews.com

Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign | Fox News Video

In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and it's deadly.
video.foxnews.com video.foxnews.com

.

Also . . .

.

Democrats blame West Coast fires on climate change​

Sep. 12, 2020 - 4:27 - Reaction from Michael Shellenberger, president of Environmental Progress and author of ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.’
Click to expand...
Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign | On Air Videos | Fox News

video.foxnews.com

Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign | Fox News Video

In the hands of Democratic politicians, climate change is like systemic racism in the sky: You can't see it, but it's everywhere and it's deadly.
video.foxnews.com video.foxnews.com
 
Last edited:
What does he mean “you cannot see it”?

Here are wildfires and floods in he USA now that are visible evidence of climate change. If Tucker cannot see it now, he needs to get his “eyes” checked.
 
Nice video. All the fires in the west are troubling. The Ashland, Or area is where I used to visit family all the time when younger.
 
Dovekin said:
Here are wildfires and floods in he USA now that are visible evidence of climate change. If Tucker cannot see it now, he needs to get his “eyes” checked.
Click to expand...
There have always been wildfires in the western US. Particularly in California. In times of cold and in times of hot, California has always had its dry seasons. Weather in California is not like the weather in the rest of the country. East of the Rockies, spring, summer and fall rain is not uncommon. Plus humidity is a feature of their summers. But in California, it is dang rare and has always been. To go through several months of little to no rain (or snow in the mountains) is very common there. The only reason Los Angeles and southern California are so massively populated is because the water they need is sourced from well out of the region. Los Angeles gets its water from the Sierra Nevada snowpack via the Owens River. Southern California gets its water from the Colorado River. San Francisco gets its water from Yosemite (via the Hetch Hetchy reservoir).

Long before California was settled, there were reports of fires burning well over four million acres. Ignorant people say that’s because no one was there to fight it. Of course that’s true, but they’re missing the greater picture. Which is that the ecosystems in California had adapted themselves to the fires over millennia. It isn’t climate change that interfered with that adaption, it is the development and settlement of the state that did that. Does anyone want a fire in their backyard or at the edge of their town or city?

Sizable portions of California including nearly all of southern California is desert country and has always been. Check out the predominant native plant chaparral. Another good portion of California is forested. Both ecosystems depend on fire to clear themselves out on a periodic basis. But fires have been suppressed hard for nearly a century. Compound that with poor forestry practices promulgated by the state government in recent decades and we have the makings of recent fire seasons. Those fires caused by PG&E outages: they happened in large part because PG&E was severely limited by the state’s environmental idiots in what they could do to keep their transmission lines cleared of brush and trees. So now PG&E does spot blackouts intentionally in order to avoid setting off fires again and that is adding to the energy woes in that state.

I grew up in California and I was made aware from a very young age that fire has always been an ever present hazard and the only effect climate change has is in the usual variations in rainfall. One would be shocked at just how dry it can get there if they grew up with summer humidity and rain.
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
Certainly in today’s version of epistemology, the number of views a video gets is the surest indication of the truth of what that video says!
Click to expand...
Who has said that (other than you)?
 
Dovekin said:
Here are wildfires and floods in he USA now that are visible evidence of climate change. If Tucker cannot see it now, he needs to get his “eyes” checked.
Click to expand...
This to me is the problem. What happens when the forest is dry and people set fire to it? Well, that is what we have. And the lighting have also struck dry forests and set fires? That be normal as well.

Now hold on, this is NOT a Global Warming denial. All I am saying is that this things are either normal or man made by arsonists.

This is WHY they do not really get the message across. They hype the problem to an extent that makes the problem seem political. Because they politicized it. (They be politicians and the media)

There is a lot to be studied about this. I have a lot of questions, but the hype is so much, that it is hard to find the truth.

How many houses where built in those areas in the last 20 years? 30 years?
How has the population grown there?
In the past, how many fires happened by nature?
How many arsonists in the past?
How do they compare?
Do we have copycats?
What has been done to combat this fires?
What new technologies we have?

I have a lot more questions. But when I try to research, all I get is global warming propaganda. I mean Propaganda in the sense that it is not base in science, but on pure feelings and emotions, or selective facts. So, I am one of the people that do not support that faction.

But we are a trow away culture. At least I know that I am.
 
Arson, whether accidental or intentional, has always been a problem in California. It is not for no reason that Topanga Canyon (near Los Angeles) and areas like it have had their own citizen patrols during the hot and dry season for decades.

California has also always had ecosystems that dealt with fires. Interfere with that at your own peril.

But climate chaaaange … cliiiimate chaaaaange, waaaah, climate chaaaange …
 
So when CNN claims the fires are due to climate change, do you accept that as true?
 
KMC said:
So when CNN claims the fires are due to climate change, do you accept that as true?
Click to expand...
First of all, CNN did not say the fires are due to climate change. CNN (and everyone else) acknowledges that a really big factor is 100+ years of refusing to listen to the indigenous people who had been doing prescribed burns long before Europeans arrived. However it is without question that climate change is making hotter days more common and hotter, which makes such fires more serious than they would have otherwise been. This is not the same thing as saying that any particular fire was caused by climate change. It must be looked at with an understanding of probabilities.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
Please expand on this. How are floods and wildfires visible evidence of global warming?
Click to expand...
Most of what has been said is probably true. The difference this year is the size of the fires. The largest fire this year has burned more acreage than the total from all fires in most previous years. 2018 burned 2m acres, 2017 burned 1.5m while 2020 has burned 2.2m already, and the season has not ended yet. Some of he largest fires ever to burn in CA are burning right now. Stats are culled from CalFire website.

At the same time, the hottest temperatures ever were recorded in California this year. Death Valley reached 131(54.4) while LA reached 121, 2 degrees over previous record. This is part of a pattern that began with a heat wave in Siberia in June, affecting Arctic warming and then the Jet stream.

Meanwhile, ocean waters have warmed noticeably. The hotter water in the Gulf of Mexico has contributed to the expansion of tropical storms into hurricanes. Lucy might still have been a hurricane, but Sally probably would not. (those were their names?) The heat pumped water into the storm, leading to today’s flooding.

Out in the atlantic a similar process has fed the transition from depressions to storms to hurricanes. The season kicked off with the Sahara Air Layer delivering a massive plume of sand across the Atlantic and into Mexico and the US. Frequent Tropical storms followed, more frequent than almost any other year. And they continue with 5 systems active today. The frequency and intensity have been fueled by climate change; it is more than annual variability.

Meanwhile, in both the Arctic and Antartica major ice shelves have broken off due to melting.
 
Dovekin said:
What does he mean “you cannot see it”?

Here are wildfires and floods in he USA now that are visible evidence of climate change. If Tucker cannot see it now, he needs to get his “eyes” checked.
Click to expand...
The mean temperature increase over the last century less than 3 F, IIRC. How does that cause wildfires that are not greater than they were centuries ago?
 
Dovekin . . .
At the same time, the hottest temperatures ever were recorded in California this year. Death Valley reached 131(54.4) . .
Click to expand...
Hold it!

I have used local area low temperatures, and other parameters that don’t fit in with the global warming game too!

I was told by the global warming contingent
that quotes like that
showed I was “ignorant” and that
I just don’t understand the difference between “climate” and “weather”.

Ya mean NOW that a local weather phenomenon FITS with global warming, that it is “NOT IGNORANT”?

And that it is “science”, “climatology”, and all of that!!??

It is OK to DO with global warming but NOT OK to do to refute global warming?

.

@LeafByNiggle. You are here. You have never name-called me that I recall ([esp. thankfully not calling me “ignorant”]
but you have no compunction about pointing out the difference between “weather” and “climate”.
So help us all out here please and re-remind us how useless such conclusions are please.)
 
Last edited:
I have another question.

What are the positives of Global warming?
 
Okay. What about this is Tucker supposed to “see”? That Democrats are blaming the wildfires on climate change? That climate change needs to be addressed in order to gain control of the wild fires?

Climate change very well may be a contributing factor in the wildfires in the West, but just slightly. The real factor is poor forest management and aggressive development.

Climate change is very real and it is happening but there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. I know they like to believe they are all powerful and have control over the world, but they still are not God. Climate change is a naturally occurring event. The world is getting much better at building engines and motors that have far less emissions than ever, factories are more efficient and less wasteful than years past. They have found uses for by-products of factories and processing plants. Recycling and reusing is as popular as ever. There could be more done to reduce waste but it is better.

So if you believe God is powerless over the earth He created, then continue on with the whole human caused global warming thing. Me - I’m going to trust the creator of the earth with this one. If it is time for the earth to be destroyed, let it be done, what a wonderful thing that would be, to go to our final home.
 
Cathoholic said:
but you have no compunction about pointing out the difference between “weather” and “climate”.
So help us all out here please and re-remind us how useless such conclusions are please.
Click to expand...
I will try to explain it with an analogy. Suppose you flip a coin. Let us call the outcome of that coin flip the weather. A normal coin has an equal chance of turning up heads or tails. But suppose we find out through separate channels that this coin has been weighted so that is turns up heads 53% of the time and tails 47% of the time. That tendency would be the climate.

When looking at the relationship between the analogous weather and the analogous climate, we find that when we flip that coin one time, it may very well land on tails, even though it has been weighted to favor heads. Similarly, it is possible for the climate to be favoring warmer weather, even though there was a record cold day in this year. And it possible for the climate to not be favoring warmer weather even though today there was a record high temperature in Los Angeles. Individual observations do not “prove” climate change any more than an individual coin flip “proves” the coin is weighted. But if there is a record hot day in Los Angeles it is proper to say that this observation supports (to a small degree) the general assertion about the climate warming, as long as we don’t say it “proves” climate change. Climate change is proven by systematic studies of long term trends and it does not rely any one individual observation.
 
Dovekin . . .
At the same time, the hottest temperatures ever were recorded in California this year. Death Valley reached 131(54.4) . .
Click to expand...
An “individual observation” in Death Valley is irrelevant.

@LeafByNiggle (here) . . .
Climate change is proven by systematic studies of long term trends and it does not rely any one individual observation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
An “individual observation” in Death Valley is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant for proving climate change, but still relevant as recognition of the likely cause of that individual observation.

Turning again to gambling, it would be as if you went into a casino and lost your money on a game of craps. The fact that you lost does not prove the dice were weighted. But knowledge that the dice were weighted does enable you to say afterwards with some degree of truth “I lost because the dice were weighted.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top