So this clearly WAS NOT a result of lack of rainfall or any other climate-related cause, it HAD TO BE the result of mismanagement.
Posted on 01/11/2025 2:23:00 AM PST by EBH
The debate surrounding climate change has taken on increasingly urgent tones over the past few decades. The rising frequency of extreme weather events, from devastating wildfires to catastrophic floods and hurricanes, has provided ample fodder for the passionate advocates who tirelessly warn of the impending dangers.
These individuals frequently advocate for drastic shifts in policy, economic systems, and behaviors to mitigate the impact of climate change. Their warnings, which have permeated global discourse, are both compelling and dire.
However, a key question arises when one juxtaposes these dire predictions with certain policy decisions made by the very same individuals and groups advocating for climate action. If climate change is truly the existential threat that it is portrayed to be, why are we seeing cuts to critical preparedness measures—specifically those that directly address the growing risks of wildfires? How can those who frequently caution against the catastrophic impacts of a warming planet justify slashing the budget lines meant to protect communities from the very disasters they claim are becoming more frequent and severe?
In simple terms, there is a glaring contradiction. If climate change is indeed fueling a rise in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, as many experts assert, then fire prevention and mitigation should be among the highest priorities in our policy agenda. And yet, we are witnessing cuts to vital fire protection funding at local, state, and federal levels. If the advocates for climate action are correct in their assessment of the warming world, it stands to reason that funding for fire prevention measures—such as forest management, firebreak construction, and emergency response—should be increased, not reduced.
This contradiction cannot be ignored, and it raises a critical question of competence and accountability. How can we trust the same individuals who insist on drastic action to combat climate change to also make prudent, effective decisions regarding disaster preparedness? If climate change is as threatening as many claim, cutting fire protection budgets seems not only contradictory but irresponsible.
The argument that resources are finite and must be allocated carefully is valid, but it rings hollow when one considers that the very policy advocates warning about climate change are also the ones making the decisions that undermine fire preparedness. When climate change ideologues lecture the public on the need to brace for more extreme weather events, they must confront their own failures to invest in the systems that would mitigate these dangers.
There is no excuse for this inconsistency. It is not enough to call for global efforts to address climate change while simultaneously neglecting the practical needs of communities already on the front lines of its impacts. If we are to take the warnings of climate change advocates seriously, they must demonstrate leadership by ensuring that budgets reflect the scale of the challenges ahead. That means funding fire protection efforts, not cutting them.
Ultimately, consistency is key. If we are truly in the midst of a climate crisis, as so many have argued, then addressing the specific hazards that result from it—such as wildfires—should be a non-negotiable priority. The continued failure to align policy with this basic reality erodes public trust and undermines the credibility of climate change advocates, leaving us to wonder: If they cannot plan for the consequences of climate change now, how can we trust them to act in the future?
I agree with you. So if those are known challenges that we are facing, why are they cutting budgets for fire prevention and firefighting again this goes back to the question of holding them accountable to their own agenda. It’s like Gavin Newsom demanding the entire state go electric and yet he doesn’t have the infrastructure to safely do that. He hasn’t put those line items in the budget to address the risk assessment. I think at this point we can start asking them why they’re not addressing their own risks and agenda.
And the follow up to that is if that’s the direction Gavin Newsom wants to go and he’s taxing his people to high heaven. Where is that money going?
And no, I do not think the rest of the country should have to pay for it
Because they NEED disasters to push their false claims....
The very first thing to annoy the left is to quit using their narrative, AKA “climate change.” We should always refer to it as “global warming” as it was decades ago, this has ticked the left off so much they had to adopt another term.
- - - - - - - - - -
change /CHānj/
verb
1. make (someone or something) different; alter or modify.
“both parties voted against proposals to change the law”
2. replace (something) with something else, especially something of the same kind that is newer or better; substitute one thing for (another).
“she decided to change her name”
noun 1.
the act or instance of making or becoming different.
- - - - - - - - - -
Much like the term ‘transgender’ is used as there is no such thing in reality. Carry on!
On the climate front: Way back when, as in the early 1970's the hoax was global cooling, we were all going to freeze to death and/or starve because no crops would grow.
Later, when that boogie man was found to be a lie a new one mysteriously showed up, named global warming. This boogie man didn't function well or for long. So the name was changed to climate change. This term doesn't make distinctions of any kind. Therefore, it can mean whatever the creators of the boogie men need and the gullible buy in.
For proof? This article sets it out there for us to tear all these boogie men apart. If there creators thought these boogie men were real, They Would Have Been Preparing For Them For The Last Fifty Years. Therefore, none of it is real, it's just one hoax following another.
The fires are just the beginning, once the environmentalists get involved it will be a nightmare. Most of this charred land will be labeled “toxic”, in fact touching or clearing the debris will first require soil samples, then expensive and lengthy remediation. Some of the land might have to sit for years, the environmental bureaucracy will be stifling.
How much of that claimed climate warming mix of gases and chemicals has been dumped into the atmosphere by the anti climate warming emptying of reservoirs, destruction of dams, and refusal to replenish water supply? Dies preserving the habitat of bait fish help save the earth from climate warming when it causes the lack of fire fighting water in LA?
The preColumbian natives all through the Americas burned the forests and the plains every so often in order to preserve the habitats of the game they hunted and to preserve mobility through the forests by clearing the underbrush and deadwood.
Thank you, you got the point of the article. Sometimes in order to change someone’s perspective they have to go through an event like these LA fires but for many that won’t be enough. You then have to challenge what went wrong and why went wrong and you have to start to force them to question their own agenda. Some here don’t like that I’m using their language their words, but in many ways that’s the only way to get through their thick skulls. What day have done? or in the case of their own government, what they failed to do based on their climate change agenda concerns.
Yeah, but did they know about climate change!?/sarc.
LAsmart City 2028, they were waiting for a moment like this, how freaking evil does it have to get before the people wake up?
SmartLA2028 - Smart City Strategy.pdf
So this clearly WAS NOT a result of lack of rainfall or any other climate-related cause, it HAD TO BE the result of mismanagement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.