The Right Opinion
Global Warming Blame-ologists Play with Fire
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Good news: The Waldo Canyon fire, which forced 32,000 residents (including our family) to flee, claimed two lives and destroyed 347 homes, is now 100 percent contained. Bad news: Radical environmentalists won't stop blowing hot air about this year's infernal season across the West.
Al Gore slithered out of the political morgue to bemoan nationwide heat records and pimp his new "Climate Reality Project," which blames global warming for the wildfire outbreak. NBC meteorologist Doug Kammerer asserted: "If we did not have global warming, we wouldn't see this." Agriculture Department Undersecretary Harris Sherman, who oversees the Forest Service, claimed to the Washington Post: "The climate is changing, and these fires are a very strong indicator of that."
And the Associated Press (or rather, the Activist Press) lit the fear-mongering torch with an eco-propaganda piece titled "U.S. summer is what 'global warming will look like.'"
The problem is that the actual conclusions of scientists included in AP's screed don't back up the apocalyptic headline. As the reporter acknowledges under that panicky banner:
"Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen."
So, this U.S. summer may or may not really look like "what global warming looks like." Kinda. Sorta. Possibly. Possibly not.
Furthermore, the AP reporter concedes, the "global" nature of the warming and its supposed catastrophic events have "been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years."
A more hedging headline would have been journalistically responsible, but Chicken Little-ism better serves the global warming blame-ologists' agenda.
More inconvenient truths: As The Washington Times noted this week, the National Climatic Data Center shows that "Colorado has actually seen its average temperature drop slightly from 1998 to 2011, when data is collected only from rural stations and not those that have been urbanized since 1900."
Radical green efforts to block logging and timber sales in national forests since the 1990s are the real culprits. Wildlife mitigation experts point to incompetent forest management and militant opposition to thinning the timber fuel supply.
Another symptom of green obstructionism: widespread bark beetle infestations. The U.S. Forest Service itself reported last year:
"During the last part of the 20th century, widespread treatments in lodgepole pine stands that would have created age class diversity, enhanced the vigor of remaining trees, and improved stand resiliency to drought or insect attack -- such as timber harvest and thinning -- lacked public acceptance. Proposals for such practices were routinely appealed and litigated, constraining the ability of the Forest Service to manage what had become large expanses of even-aged stands susceptible to a bark beetle outbreak."
Capitulation to lawsuit-happy green thugs, in others, undermined "public acceptance" of common sense, biodiversity-preserving and lifesaving timber harvest and thinning practices.
Local, state and federal officials offered effusive praise for my fellow Colorado Springs residents who engaged in preventive mitigation efforts in their neighborhoods. The government flacks said it made a life-and-death difference. Yet, litigious environmental groups have sabotaged such mitigation efforts at the national level -- in effect, creating an explosive tinderbox out of the West.
Stoking global warming alarms may make for titillating headlines and posh Al Gore confabs. But it's a human blame avoidance strategy rooted in ideological extremism and flaming idiocy.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

38 Comments
sfj in Alabama
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Best line ever "Al Gore slithered out of the political morgue" Ha Ha!
OKBecky in Tulsa, OK
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 1:01 AM
I agree; a fantastic bit of verbal imagery!
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Those "green thugs" , always up to no good and trying to derail our good times, right Ms. Malkin? Sure, according to Exxon-Mobile CEO, Rex Tillerson. emissions will have an impact to the climate but we can "adapt" with engineer technolgy. Those "radicals" trying to stop us from altering the climate...boy talk about extremism!
WP in Omaha, NE
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:37 PM
What exactly is "engineer technolgy"?
The climate is going to alter whether humans are involved or not. Pretty sure the climate has been changing for the last couple million years the Earth has been around and we weren't here for any of it.
Regardless of all that, emissions standards have nothing to do with sensible logging and use of timber resources. You seem to have derailed a bit.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM
According to Rex Tillerson we may have to sue it for rising sea levels or changing agricultural regions! Yep, the climate does change, this time we are just "helping" it along with our Greenhouse emissions.
Pete in CS
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Jeremy, the breath you exhale has an impact on the climate. EVERYTHING has an impact, always has (even before the sludge that became you oozed out of the ocean), and always will.
You, like so many others are concerned only with the time you will be on this earth, and don't give a rat azz beyond that drop in the bucket. There's an old saying in the computer business: In polite society it's "GIGO", or garbage in, garbage out. For the real world it's "SISO."
Nobody beyond algore and a few dozen of his best buddies know what was fed into the computers that made the output say all the whales will be dead by 1997, or the oceans will dry up and blow away by 2006, or the ice caps will be melted and gone by 2010. All of those were predicted, and here we are in 2012 and not only has none of it happened yet, every time a deadline passes they tell us about another "error" in their input: sensors were place under airconditioning units or at airports where they picked up heat reflected heat readings all day. Or the underwater volcanoes in the Antarctic Circle were more active than they thought and THAT hot water was melting the ice, not the hole in the ozone. And the experts have only known about the ozone for about 100 years now, so how can they know this "hole" isn't a natural phenom that occurs every 200, 300, 500, or 1,000 years? And they want to CONTROL every thing we think, do, or say? It's all about one thing and one thing only - CONTROL!
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Now, Pete, another "warmist" Dr. Richard Muller, hs released an extensive review study funded in part by the fossil fuel nerchants Koch Brothers, verified the temperature data used and his team results in fact shown the planet warming as claimed by the scientists. Please refrain from repeating the same old misinformation that has been proven not to be true. Well, I suppose if you all did that you would have nothing to write about, would you?
Bob Anderson in Glenwood Springs, CO
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Right on Michelle. Flaming idiocy. I luv it.
Jeremy in gielsj@yahoo.com
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Bob, I believe you are right in the middle of the "flame" right now.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Don't forget the idiots stopped the building of roads in the National Forests. Anyone know how to get vehicles in to fight the fires without roads?
Ragweed in West Virginia
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Howard - Your point about the roads is well-stated. You can't put out a fire if you don't have access.
If it's a wilderness area they don't need roads, because no motorized vehicles of any kind can go into it. Come to think of it, I'm not so sure that they would even try to put out the fire to keep it "natural."
I have been told by a reliable source that if you are injured in one of these areas that you can't even be rescued by helicopter. You have to be taken out on horses.
Wilderness is OK, I'm all for it to a point, but the Good Lord gave us a head, and I believe He fully intends for us to use it.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:45 PM
No, we need then to take out the trees that are dead beause of those pesty pine bark beetles those crafty scientist are keeping alive over winter.
Ragweed in West Virginia
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM
As a forester with many years under my belt, it amazes me that the "greens" don't do their homework. By cutting old stands and replacing them with younger stands, we help with this so-called "climate change" thing.
Younger trees are much more efficient at photosynthesis than older trees. Because of this they take more carbon out of the air and put in more oxygen than older trees. Why don't the "greens" recognize this? You would think if they are serious, that they would be encouraging the cutting down of trees. Something tells me it is more about cutting down trees than anything else.
I do believe in climate change, only because I have seen it happen since my youth. But it is a natural cycle, not something caused by we humans.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Sure, ragweed, I bet you are a "real" forester!
OKBecky in Tulsa, OK
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 1:09 AM
"Greens" are not motivated by a love of nature so much as by a loathing of humanity. Thus, any human intervention into nature is seen as an intrusion, the act of a destroying cancer, regardless of the evidence. Studies of ecological history of the Americas have shown that Native American societies had an enormous impact on the ecosystem, and widely cultivated, hunted, and altered their environment. However, the overgrown wilderness encountered by European settlers from the mid-16th century onwards was due to catastrophic depopulation by disease. Europeans did not know how disease worked, they did not introduce the diseases maliciously (there are perhaps a handful - a handful! - of such cases in over 500 years of history, so that is not evidence of malicious intent by the vast majority of those who came).
So it's not about preserving the wilderness; NO ONE knows what the wilderness looked like without human intervention, because archaeological evidence demonstrates that people have always been altering and interfering with the "natural" order. We are both a part of nature and outside of it.
daryl in arkansas
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 1:05 PM
I wonder, could there be a class actions on all of our behalf against the the greens groups for causing the distruction? the damage and loss? do the insurance companies have a valid claim against them? for the loss of time to the forrest service? loss of income to us the people because of the the waste of lumber? jobs? tax money? the builder who paid more for lumber because of the limited supply?
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM
The Insurance companies even recognize human caused global warming...try to get an insurance policy now in Florida....no private insurance company wants to service the market there and it is very expensive.
TC in florida
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Get your facts straight. The insurance companies are no longer issuing home owners insurance not because of the supposed rising of the oceans because of supposed global warming. They are pulling out of the market because more and more people are living along the coast in hurricane prone areas and the government won't let them raise rates to compensate for the higher risk.
Barry in Mobile, Alabama
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM
The trendy "Green" movement is not noted for objectivity or use of facts; their agenda is only about power. They cannot acknowledge that climate change is a natural process because then they would have no political leverage against existing industries and personal choices in life style; much better to blame climate change (note that they have dropped the term "global warming") on anthropogenic impacts, which require government intervention and regulation, despite the fact that the UN climate panel modelers stated that even with implementation of all the proposed controls and emission exchanges, world temperatures would only be diminished by less than 0.1 degree C. Any time one group promotes a point of view that is based on false data, then actively suppresses oppositional discourse using financial or political coercion, no good policy decisions can be made. It has been amusing to watch how grant proposals are being drafted now, for research into any number of natural science questions: if the researcher does not invoke climate change, federal funding is unlikely. Consequently, we have research being performed with a pre-existing, non-scientific bias already built in. I expect that a resurgence of alchemy (imagine today's value of turning lead into gold!) would occur if only the alchemist could relate his special process to some aspect of climate change!
XCpt in The Web
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 5:20 PM
As a wildland firefighter I can assure you that the problems associated with fire fighting are not global in nature. A fire needs two things to survive, fuel and oxygen. The more fuel you have (grasses, shrubs, trees) the larger and more intense your fire will become.
A forest that is not managed properly to reduce the fuel load is a time bomb just waiting for a spark. Well over 90% of all fires are caused by lightning strikes and the location of these strikes is semi-predictable as storms follow a geographic pattern based on surface topography.
The resistance of environmental groups to allow the Forest Service to manage the forest to reduce the fuel load to stop those "evil lumber companies" results in an overcrowding of the forest that creates a larger fuel load.
How ironic that their efforts to save the trees result in more of them being lost through natural causes. But hey, when you think that you are doing good how would anyone ever be able to convince you otherwise.
Here's an experiement for you Jeremy - stack a bunch of boxes together (your unmanaged trees) and light one on fire. They will all burn because there is enough fuel to sustain the fire. Get another set of boxes and then remove every other one (managed trees) and then light one on fire. You will lose one for sure but the others will survive. Odd how reducing the fuel load (trees) helps to improve the odds that the rest will survive a catostrophy.
I know, I know, it doesn't fit your mental model of how the evil corporations just continue to rape the Earth. After all, the media would never lie to you. Maybe you should stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think a little more objectively.
OKBecky in Tulsa, OK
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 1:13 AM
I imagine if logging companies were allowed to cull the herd (as wolves do with herds of caribou, ensuring a healthy population of wolves AND caribou), we'd have fewer disasters such as these fires, which would certainly seem to contribute to the problem of climate change by adding all that CO2 and other gasses.
On the other hand, the particulate matter acts as a blanket against sunlight, so the clouds of smoke might cool off the earth, and give us beautiful sunsets, as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo did in 1991.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Liberal dullards like Jeremy are always trying to change shit into shinola, and they don`t even know shit from shinola. They`re always good for a laugh though.
Jeremy in gielsj@yahoo.com
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 8:15 PM
RR from Lamar...I did Have a very good laugh can't top your shinola...God is that a laugh...wre do you folks come from...really.
DavidMac in Katy, TX
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Jeremy in giels, didn't you get the memo? Your fellow warmers had their cover blown when the CRU emails were released. It was all a hoax. The HARRYREADME file is especially revealing.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Yep som e hoax, that is why Oklahoma is the driest and hottest State now in the continental US (sorry Senator Inhofe) and Texas is the second (sorry .,Governor Perry), yep us Liberal always playing tricks on you "conservatives"
Nefalim in lancaster, ohio
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Don't feed the troll. Just let him starve. He can't back up anything he says except with quotes from Rex which is quite embarrassing for him I'm sure. Liberals and related alarmists can't be bothered by mere facts because they'll plug their ears and scream liar, racist, bigot, intolerance, and slurs against Christians and conservatives like some kind of raving mad lunatic.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Friday, July 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Nefalim you mentioned everything except the SCIENCE, that is one aspect all of you misrepresent, basic physics and chemistry. What is so ironic is what you are write about me is exactly what all of you are~!
Dave in Wyo-braska
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Simple Question (for Jeremy or anyone else): So if you throw a lit cigarette out your car window (which I see a lot self-obsessed-me-monkeys do) and light half the damn countryside on fire, just how, pray tell, does that somehow relate to AGW? Here's a novel thought for you: You wonder why it's so hot? LOOK UP!!! See that big yellow glow-y thing in the sky? It's called "THE SUN". It's very, very hot, and some of that excess heat actually makes it to our tiny little planet. Ever hear of "sunspots"? Or perhaps Solar flares? Or maybe even CME's (Coronal Mass Ejections)?
Don't EVEN try to play the "science" card around here; we will drive your privy member into the dirt.
Oh, one last thing: I suppose you're in favor of banning Di-Hydrogen Monoxide as well? Thought so.
Jeremy in Charlotte
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Believe me Dave, I am not here to change anyone's thinking...it;s just part of the group think you belong to, part of the mentality that you are required to have to belong. When the CEO of the largest private fossil fuel corporation comes out and states that human emitted emissions is causing the planet to warm and also states it will have a climate impact and we will need to adapt with engineered solutions (Mr. Tillerson is a trained engineer), that can not be ignored. To keep this silly "debate" going and using in infantile terms like Malkin's is just a delaying tactic and not constructive. You are right, YOU do NOT care about the science...that is evident by your comment.
rippedchef in sc
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM
@Jeremy- if it makes you "feel" superior by twisiting climate data,if it makes you "feel" like you have some control over your enviornment,if it makes you "feel" like you're doing something to save humanity,then by all means,campaign,fight,vote,do whatever you want to further your cause.Just know that here you'll find honorable patriots that "think" climate data is being manipulated to suit your agenda,that "think" the whole issue is far from decided,that "think" it's quite strange that the main global warming guy has put himself in a position to profit hugely from the so called solutions to the problem,that "think" it's hysterical that you actually believe men have any influence over a planet created by God.In conclusion,continue to "feel",we'll continue to "think"
Jeremy in Charlotte
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 9:31 AM
Ripped what are you talking about? Bringing up issues that are not on my agenda...come on now stop it! Here is the CEO of Exxon Mobile telling us all that humans on the planet will HAVE TO adapt because of the highly profitable product he sells (Tillerson made $34 million last year on record, a 20% increase in one year), because he of his priorities! God gave us the ability to choose (free will) and here what we have is "rationalization" to keep us doing what we are even though natural laws tells us to stop. The science is settled, increase greenhouse gasses warms the planet and as the concentration increases the planet gets hotter. Even CEO Tillerson admiots that. Not only that the CO2 is absorbed in the ocean waters and the ph level has changed since industrial times, 30% ! Sure God has given us the ability to detect this, do we have the grace to listen and act? So far no, we are conservative christians and those evil liberals and greeen thugs and hoax scientists are pulling a fast one on us common folk. Do you really fall for that! Rex Tillerson also said the oublic are "illerate" (his own words) and the media "lazy", so he will be able to delay any action on this crisis until it's too late. Warp yourselves in the flag, say God is on your side, if that will makes you "feel" any better...but please don't tell me Climate Change is some vast conspriracy. It become one so those vested interest can continue selling the coal, oil and keep their gravey train on track
Hondo Menudo in Total Wreck, Arizona
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Granted, the causes of the fires are multiple and many are due to politics.
However, the main cause is something we have been doing for well over fifty years: "O! Lordy, Lordy, Lordy! There's a forest/brush/wild fire! PUT IT OUT!" A very bad idea, but one that is so ingrained as to be part of our national DNA.
"Put it out," needs to be replaced by, "LIB " Id est, Let It Burn. Of course attempt to protect the homes,&c., of people who build in the middle of a forest - Rather stupid and ignorant people who, for some arcane reason(s), think that they will be spared if a fire gets going.
Almost all forest fires are caused by God's own lightning zapping the areas that need to be cleansed of the dense brush, dry grasses, and insect infested dead and down wood, which fuel (almost) all forest fires. If the forest floor is "clean," in most cases, there will be no raging fires simply because there is no fuel to get them raging. .Viz: When the conquistador, Coronado, (Actually, Coronado wasn't with his men as he had bigger fish to fry in the South) traveled North, up the Valley of The Santa Cruz River, in what is now Arizona, in the middle of Summer, the mountains which ring that vast valley were all on fire and even the lower reaches of the foothills were ablaze. When they followed the same trails, South, in the Fall, after the Summer rains, all was as green as The Land of The Ires in Springtime. The grasses they rode though, along the banks of the then flowing Santa Cruz, were belly high on their horses. Later, and further, investigation showed that there were no raging fires, but rather fast burning grass and brush fires that did not harm any trees of a size.
In fine: The entire area was in fine fettle and as healthy as a horse grazing it's grasses.
It is a very different area, now, due to the "Put it out" policies of the myriad agencies involved, and the massive build-up of towns and putative cities like Green Valley, Sahuarita, and others. The Santa Cruz no longer flows, it's waters being sucked dry by said habitations, and in the Summer it is far hotter than it was in Coronado's time, due to the paving of vast tracts of heretofore pristine land.
Progress? I dunno. Looks like buffalo s**t to me.
But I digress.
These United States need to adopt the LIB scenario when dealing with raging forest and wild fires. Save the human habitations, of course, but LET IT BURN! It's just God cleaning house.
Selah.
Hondo Menudo in Total Wreck, Arizona
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM
Addendum:
I might add that, in the late 1970's, a program (Dreamed up by a UofAz postgraduate student) was put before the USFS, The Arizona Land Bureau, The City of Tucson, et. al., to remove the non-native trees, brush, and grasses infesting the Santa Cruz Valley, and replanting native plants and grasses in their stead. Doing so would, in time, stop the lightning fast and massive run-off of rain into the Santa Cruz; water never to be seen again.
All this in aid of returning the valley to it's condition during Coronado's time, and thus causing the Santa Cruz River to, once again, flow with life giving water. Enough water, in time, to keep Tucson and environs well supplied with surface water from the river forever, or close to forever.
The proposition was denied. Even scoffed at!
Why, you ask?
It cost too much money. At the time, the total cost was projected to be two million US bucks, per annum for ten years of clean-up, and a much smaller outlay, from then on, to keep the non-native species in check - All of which must be done by hand.
$20 million a year for 10 years + 1/1000th that much per year in maintenance. As opposed to God alone knows how much to keep drilling new wells in a dwindling, almost dry aquifer, and forcing Tuscon, et. al., to rely on Central Arizona Project water for human needs, pumped at great taxpayer expense from a nasty, polluted cove in Lake Havasu to the Valley of The Santa Cruz.
Know that, at its inception, the CAP was to supply water to farmers from Yuma to St. David, Southeast of Tucson (The canal stops, cold, at Tucson). Now, almost all of the CAP water feeds Phoenix and Tucson with drinking water, with the farmers getting short shrift. Where there used to be green fields of cotton, alfalfa, beans, chili, and you-name-it, there are, now, vast tracts of barren land all set about with tract-shack subdivisions.
Did I mention the dust storms? Ooops! One MUST be politically correct: They are now called,. "Haboobs (An Arabic word, meaning ... wait for it! ... Dust storm!). Way back, but no so long ago that I cannot remember, there were occasional dust storms between Tucson and Phoenix, but they were small and unremarkable. Now, they are HUGE and scary. I do not think it takes a doctorate in physic to discover why they are so.
Dave in Wyo-braska
Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Just a thought here, Jeremy. You act almost as if you're having some kind of "love affair" with this "Tillerson" guy. So far, everything you have posted traces back to something you either heard or read about "Tillerson" saying. So, just because he happens to be the CEO of Exxon/Mobil, everything he says is the gospel truth? Seriously?
BTW: simple math will tell you that if you sell MORE of a particular product, you will reap more profit. In case you didn't already know this, the profit margin for "Big Oil" is really no different than any other business (anywhere between 8 and 25%; the exact number escapes me). They make a LOT of money because the SELL a LOT of petroleum products.
Oh, and since you seem to know SO much about it (as opposed to us illiterate rednecks), could you show us (with numbers to back it up) how "human" carbon emissions even come CLOSE to the amount emitted into the atmosphere from the activity of just ONE volcano? I'd kinda like to know that, myself.
The thing that hacks me off the most is these "so-called" "intellectual elites" who seem to think they know so much more, and are so much more morally superior than the rank and file American. You can have your opinions; you are entitled to them. The problem is now we have Big Brother watching over our shoulder at every turn, telling us what we can and cannot do; what we can and cannot buy; where we can and cannot go; even what we can and cannot say. I'm a big boy now, and I think I can take care of myself, thank you very much. Yes, we must use our resources responsibly, but use them we will.