Once again, we and fossil fuels are blamed for a natural disaster; this time, it’s California’s mega-floods. Reporters never seem to care that all of their doomsday forecasts have turned out to be wrong.
Storms, floods, too much snowfall, too little snow, record temperature, and record warmth are all our fault, according to the passive, complicit media and other Dems. Greater government and more oversight are never the answer. Anyone who thinks we can calm the weather by handing over trillions of dollars and allowing bureaucrats and politicians to regulate every part of our life is arrogant and dumb.
Megafloods, like protracted droughts, predate the era in which the earth’s temperature might have been altered by the likes of people, fossil fuels, cattle, automobiles, and power plants.
Wildfires and tremors are always a concern in the West, but megadroughts might be even more of a problem right now. Another calamity, “Megafloods,” is on the horizon for California, according to a new study.
In a study published on Friday, researchers found that rising global temperatures have increased the likelihood of catastrophic floods across the state, with the potential to inundate cities and force the relocation of millions of people.
It claims a severe storm lasting a whole month might dump feet of rain over hundreds of miles of California (more than 100 inches in certain spots). Before tens of millions of people made the area their home, the region was subject to similarly relentless storms.
"*" indicates required fields
According to the study, the probability of and damage from the next megaflood considerably increased with each degree of global warming.
Why do people get labeled “experts” when their dire forecasts have repeatedly been proven wrong?
Nothing in these pieces written by Democrats acting as journalists suggests that they bothered to do any actual investigation or asked any actual questions. For quite some time, most media outlets have treated facts as secondary.
Till now, they have failed to provide any evidence linking the use of fossil fuels to an increase in global warming, higher sea levels, or more intense storms.
Not readily modified computer simulations have always been inaccurate, but actual data should be the basis for policymaking.
Media support for the deliberate elimination of tens of millions of jobs tied to fossil fuels and our standard of living on the basis of talking points and computer models is pitiful and dangerous.
The purpose of labeling as “deniers” and “anti-science” those who say the climate has always altered cyclically and organically is to mislead the public. Kerry, Nancy, AOC, Gore, Gates, Bloomberg, Kamala, and Schumer, among others, are pushing a destructive, radical agenda and would be thoroughly defeated in a debate based on true scientific data.
A mimeograph device or a stone tablet might serve as a suitable substitute for the vast majority of journalists. The time and money they spent on their degrees went to waste as all they did was rehash or rewrite the exact same old talking lines.