This weekend, I am sitting at home watching showers add to the 18 trillion gallons of water that have been dumped in California this month, substantially easing drought conditions.
Despite the obvious reversal of dire predictions made by our politicos, which led Sacramento to impose water restrictions and higher fees, climate change believers continue to press forward with more controls and penalties to impose on citizens.
For example. the New York Times earnestly promoted the feasibility of the ridiculous Green New Deal recently unveiled by progressive members of the new, Democrat-led Congress.
However, the analysis was peppered with what, I am sure, was supposed to be “balanced” coverage.
…[T]he goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility, several energy experts and economists said in recent interviews.Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs. It certainly could not be accomplished within the 10-year time frame that supporters say is necessary, according to these experts.The Green New Deal, in other words, is an exciting idea for many liberals and an enticing political target for conservatives. But, most of all, it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand.
So much balance was harshing the green dreams of environmental justice warriors. The newspaper’s climate team created a Twitter thread in penance, to clarify they were good with the overall plans.
And it appears that the “paper of record” agrees with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that we are 12 years away from global disaster.
Unfortunately for the NYT Climate team, several climate realists added a salient and scientifically accurate comments.
And my personal favorite.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY