It's not like Redding or any other town or politician has a say in whether or not global warming exists. This "shock" over "global warming deniers" is getting tiresome.


correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation. correlation is not causation.

oh well, I guess we'll never know. too late to change anything anyway! full speed ahead!


"Perhaps losing their homes will change their opinion."

Nothing will change their opinion. They are in full stigginit mode. The higher the temperature rises, the more stubborn they get.



@6 - A more apt parallel are flat-earthers, but leave it to you to find a sinister one.


The article picture made me thing of this weeks episode of the 99% invisible podcast titled "Built to Burn", which is really worth a listen. Notice the green hedge row and plants around the house? Intense fires must have never gotten particularly close to the structure, which was instead likely ignited by embers deposited on some flammable part of the home. As the episode points out, better home design can largely eliminate the risk of this type of fire, and property and lives would be saved if society did a better job of promoting fire resilient building practices.


Those Redding rubes voted to send that asshole to Congress three times, so it's a pretty good bet that they're just as oblivious to the impacts of climate change as he is.

Losing their homes won't change their minds, and to add insult to injury those 'small gub'met' hypocrites will take taxpayer funded emergency relief and build new homes on the ruins of their old ones.


Well, it just goes to show ya that himsns ste shortsighted apes.


@13: Indeed, humans are shortsighted apes - especially when it comes to typing.


β€œI’m not going to quibble here today about whether it’s man, or sunspot activity, or magma causing ice shelves to melt,”

He wouldn't dare claiming to quibble about rocket science but somehow douffus believes he can get away with impersonating a climate expert.


As idiotic as climate change deniers are, there's major hypocrisy on the "green" side of things, with the notion that industrial wind turbines are A) not destroying landscapes, B) not noisy, C) not killing much wildlife, and D) actually reducing net carbon emissions.

Over 340,000 wind turbines (globally) have already spoiled millions of acres of viewsheds (far more visible than coal mines). They are a case of "blight for naught." Too many naive/poser environmentalists are promoting them as climate saviors even though they're the most visible industrial projects ever built in the countryside. It makes no sense to ignore this landscape tragedy just because of green hype. Calling them "beautiful" is a tiresome rationalization that ignores their full impact. They kill more bats than anything ever invented and bird deaths are rising (someone will lecture me about house cats and relative numbers).

Germany's ambitious Energiewende has shown that various factors make wind power negligible in terms of actual climate progress. New backup plants must be built to stabilize the grid on low wind days, fossil fuels build them in the first place, and a "free energy" mindset spurs the Jevons paradox. Wind energy is a big subsidy magnet more than anything. Germany now has about 30,000 wind turbines in a nation roughly 4/5ths the size of California and little to show for it except higher costs and spoiled rural life. Denial that these things are actually problems is as annoying as global warming denial, since we at least know those people are fools.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.