Wrote a fictional reply to this. A bill arriving where nobody planned for it — I put it on a kitchen table in Lake Charles, Louisiana. A widow, a non-renewal notice, and a column of premium numbers her late husband started keeping in 1994. The column is a time-series. It only goes one way. Fair warning: it's an American mailbox, politics included, because that's what was in it. The system doesn't stop at the weather.
It is also interesting how the predictions are always based on human experience of time. Some catastrophic result far enough away to not be clear we aren't approaching it as predicted yet well within most people's lifetimes so will affect them. That 10-20 year range is magic for stirring people up, without being obviously bogus cause we didn't get halfway to it in a year.
There is a lot to follow up on with this. For example plants need CO2 to survive so how much are plants benefiting from the small increases in co2 and lets not over look the hidden sources in so called net 0 sources. there is mining, refining, manufacturing, and transportation that all carry some level of co2 production, which makes net0 not really net 0. Is it better? how much?
If we could send guys to the moon and back 60 years ago, we can surely innovate our way out of the fossil fuel game. For the life of me I can't understand why Republicans haven't embraced market-based solutions to this issue. Instead they've spent decades either downplaying or outright denying the threat. They've missed a chance to offer a viable alternative to the big-government solutions of Democrats.
I've seen the effects of climate change firsthand. Wildfires had never been even a remote threat in the part of the outer Bay Area where I used to live. Now that same community is threatened by major wildfires and subject to evacuation every few years, and fire resilience is priority number one. The last fire stopped a quarter-mile away from my house, thanks only to a massive push by thousands of firefighters and volunteers on bulldozers.
I moved away, partly because I felt like I was rolling the dice on whether my home was going to survive from one summer to the next and partly because I was sick of PG&E's preemptive power outages. The insurance companies are just as pessimistic, since it's become difficult-to-impossible to find reasonably priced homeowners' insurance there.
Every California firefighter will tell you that weather- and climate-related fire conditions are more extreme than they were 20 years ago, and it's not because land management practices have gotten worse during that time. They've actually gotten better, with more fuel reduction and controlled burns (just like the ones native Americans used to set). The problem is that climate change is changing which areas are safely habitable and which are not. That's not politics, it's objective reality.
I sense its all made up from the Left & No United sciences can or have proven otherwise
Those climate nuts never drive a EV anyway
NO hard data shows either way if any.
Just a Get rich scheme & more regs
IE auto emissions fees etc
NO mention of Nuclear ever./
Just a Con Game from the Left since the 70s
What happened to the video?
Yeah, I spent yesterday trying to figure that out. It ... disappeared.
I'd like to blame Youtube and maybe it was a glitch. OR I hit a wrong button somewhere.
I'm waiting for their tech support get back to me. They'll either be able to restore it, or I'll upload it again -- although it loses its comments.
:(
Why was the video taken down?
https://substack.com/@berniesanders/note/c-295988124?r=8q3bzh
Wrote a fictional reply to this. A bill arriving where nobody planned for it — I put it on a kitchen table in Lake Charles, Louisiana. A widow, a non-renewal notice, and a column of premium numbers her late husband started keeping in 1994. The column is a time-series. It only goes one way. Fair warning: it's an American mailbox, politics included, because that's what was in it. The system doesn't stop at the weather.
https://rossboulton1.substack.com/p/we-arent-stupid-the-premium?r=2leuaj&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
50 Years of FAILED Climate Predictions in 15 Minutes (or Less!) | Louder With Crowder
-CrowderBits
https://youtu.be/ErftVFXSRso
Flaws in 150 Years of Global Temperature Data Blow Holes in Global Warming Narrative
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/flaws-150-years-global-temperature-data-blow-holes/
International study destroys hoax of 'climate emergency'
https://www.wnd.com/2022/09/international-study-destroys-hoax-climate-emergency/
*Best Recap In History
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1178024124775579648.html
*Best Recap of Climate Change History
https://stuffpeoplesend.blogspot.com/2019/09/recap-of-climate-change-history.html?m=1
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/on-this-date-51-years-ago-climate-scientists-predicted-a-new-ice-age-was-coming
VIDEOS - WRONG AGAIN: 50 YEARS OF FAILED ECO-POCALYPTIC PREDICTIONS
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Wrong Prediction, Wrong Science; Unless It's Government Climate Science.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-unless-its-government-climate-science/
Government Weather and Climate Forecasts Are Failures
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/25/government-weather-and-climate-forecasts-are-failures/
It is also interesting how the predictions are always based on human experience of time. Some catastrophic result far enough away to not be clear we aren't approaching it as predicted yet well within most people's lifetimes so will affect them. That 10-20 year range is magic for stirring people up, without being obviously bogus cause we didn't get halfway to it in a year.
There is a lot to follow up on with this. For example plants need CO2 to survive so how much are plants benefiting from the small increases in co2 and lets not over look the hidden sources in so called net 0 sources. there is mining, refining, manufacturing, and transportation that all carry some level of co2 production, which makes net0 not really net 0. Is it better? how much?
If we could send guys to the moon and back 60 years ago, we can surely innovate our way out of the fossil fuel game. For the life of me I can't understand why Republicans haven't embraced market-based solutions to this issue. Instead they've spent decades either downplaying or outright denying the threat. They've missed a chance to offer a viable alternative to the big-government solutions of Democrats.
I've seen the effects of climate change firsthand. Wildfires had never been even a remote threat in the part of the outer Bay Area where I used to live. Now that same community is threatened by major wildfires and subject to evacuation every few years, and fire resilience is priority number one. The last fire stopped a quarter-mile away from my house, thanks only to a massive push by thousands of firefighters and volunteers on bulldozers.
I moved away, partly because I felt like I was rolling the dice on whether my home was going to survive from one summer to the next and partly because I was sick of PG&E's preemptive power outages. The insurance companies are just as pessimistic, since it's become difficult-to-impossible to find reasonably priced homeowners' insurance there.
Every California firefighter will tell you that weather- and climate-related fire conditions are more extreme than they were 20 years ago, and it's not because land management practices have gotten worse during that time. They've actually gotten better, with more fuel reduction and controlled burns (just like the ones native Americans used to set). The problem is that climate change is changing which areas are safely habitable and which are not. That's not politics, it's objective reality.