Jerry Brown Blames Fires On Global Warming. Here's Why That's Insane (poor Moonbeam alert)

Daily Caller ^ | December 10, 2017 | Michael Bastasch

[Zakeet]

California Governor Jerry Brown said the wildfires ravaging the greater Los Angeles area are part of a "new normal" residents can expect due to man-made global warming.

[Snip]

"With climate change, some scientists are saying that Southern California is literally burning up," Brown said, according to CNN. "So we have to have the resources to combat the fires and we also have to invest in managing the vegetation and forests ... in a place that's getting hotter."

Brown's statements, though ominous, aren’t in line with the scientific consensus.

[JudgemAll]

What caused the fire was a lot of stored dry carbon in the ecosystem and I guess an arsonist who is a Mexican or muslim illegal.

Forests do not burn easily when there is too much CO2, doh

[Army Air Corps]

He looks like that Silicon Valley suicide cult guru and many other such nut cases out of Cali.

Ah yes, the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult. Nancy Pelosi looks like that dude's long-lost sister.

[oldasrocks]

Until they throw out the environmentalists who will not let sheep or cows graze on the underbrush to lessen the fire potential and harvest some trees in the process the fires will always burn there.

I’ve never understood how a forest fire is better that using the raw materials for good.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Nice Rundown.

Here's another angle.

Fuel for Fires, Criminal Negligence, and Governor Brown

Governor Jerry Brown has been making headlines asserting global warming is to blame for the California fires.

I'm posting only because missing from the commentary is the recognition that removal of dead trees and brush from the public forests and grasslands has been made illegal by anyone not working for a state or federal agency.

Such good Samaritan husbandry was made illegal due to law suits brought by radical environmentalists.

Those suits were largely paid for by unaccountable non-profit foundations.

• Any suits that landed in front of a judge who might rule against the suit would be dropped, and the costs absorbed.
• The winning suits were heard before judges with whom the plaintiffs felt comfortable.

It is a practice that has a seedy sounding label: judge-shopping. This explains why large sources of money are needed for such assaults on normal decent behavior. It suggests one needs a judge who is less than that.

These suits were won even though the judges were warned that dry brush is fuel for wildfires, and that there are many people with the experience and ability to reduce such risks free of charge.

But the concerns for wild life, property and human life were all pushed aside. It's hard to call such judges liberal at times like this. If they had a bias, they should have recused themselves from the cases they heard. So perhaps such judges are less liberal and more Leftist?

In other times, times less under the control of Leftist sinister forces, concerns for human life outweighed whatever other arguments anyone could bring to court.

Today, not so much.

Yet even today, were you to let your backyard or empty lot grow uncontrolled, and left to dry out and unkempt, and then a fire breaks out on it -- you would be charged with criminal neglect.

So why isn't the government and its ruling held to the same standard? Why doesn't the press afflict the governor with questions about his comfort with the environmental rules as they stand?

Why does Governor Brown seek to lay the cause of wildfires purely at the door of alleged human caused climate change?

Why does Governor Brown not lay the blame at the door of those whom insisted that the fuel remain on public lands waiting only for the first spark to ignite it all?

Well perhaps its his guilty conscience. When Governor Brown failed even to utter a harsh word against the Green nutcases who forced public lands to be filled with tinder, he became guilty of criminal negligence, and he left those he is supposed to serve at grave risk.