Re: Climate change has a name - Aaron Farinacci
Rudy Canoza <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.atheism,alt.fun,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/7/2026 9:24 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies: > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says... >> >> On 8/7/2026 9:00 AM, Jocko Homo Heavenbound wrote: >>> On 8/7/26 11:34 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2026 1:02 PM, Jocko Homo Heavenbound wrote: >>>>> On 8/6/26 3:11 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>>>> Governor Swill wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 10:32:08 -0400, Jocko Homo Heavenbound >>>>>>> <"JoHo@arewenotmen"@nowearedevo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Spokane fires narrative was that it was climate change. Welp, Aaron >>>>>>>> Farinacci is your climate change. Maybe we can start naming fires like >>>>>>>> we name hurricanes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fires are already named - for the place where the fire started. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ol' Jocko here doesn't realize that forest fire can start for many >>>>>> reasons: lightning, electrical short, arson, ... carelessness. >>>>>> >>>>>> But fires do not *start* via climate change. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, climate change can cause dry and windy conditions where >>>>>> the fire spreads rapidly, sometimes creating its own *weather*. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Especially when combined with reckless forest management and timber policies. >>>> >>>> Empty accusation. You haven't shown those to have occurred. >>> >>> Living in California, you know I'm right. >> >> I don't live in California. > > You do. Nope. Moved to AZ years ago. >>> Your state has historically treated >>> forests like museum pieces to be preserved in amber rather than living >>> ecosystems that require management. >> >> You have no way of knowing that. In fact, most forest land in California is >> federal (58%), not state (3%). The reality is that most of what you ignorantly >> call "forest" in California is actually chaparral, which cannot be "managed" >> like a forest. >> https://chicostateblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/perspective-point.jpg > > Bullshit. No, it isn't. Except for the coastal redwoods, most of what is called "forest" in California is actually chaparral — dense low brush that can't be "managed."