Pretense and Paradox
A number of years ago, during the later part of spring, a Montana CBS affiliate was interviewing a forester from the US Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture. As a result of low snow levels, during the colder periods of late fall, winter, and early spring, the forester predicted an elevated fire season. By some twist of providence, I happened to catch the same forester a year later predicting another high fire season because the abundant snows during the preceding late fall, winter, and early spring would create a wealth of vegetation that would assuredly become wildfire fodder.
What a paradoxical situation – irrespective of precipitation levels, bring on the fire bombers and have plenty of taxpayer money infused into the combustion kitty. Wonder no more why the nation’s largest smokejumper training base is situated in Missoula, Montana – located in a state where even wildfires cannot get a break.
The climate fanatics now claim California is also facing a paradoxical weather oddity. Last winter the state received an abundance of rain in the lower coastal areas and great amounts of snow in its mountainous regions - the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Coastal, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges. One would assume after a few years of drought, this vast amount of precipitation would be welcome, but instead, the ‘experts’, are saying extended drought will now be followed by an overabundance or excessive amount of precipitation – from now into perpetuity.
A plethora of articles, like “Climate whiplash” is the new normal for California, experts say” filled the search pages of a gleeful Googledom. The subtitles to this specific Yale Climate Connections story read, “The state has recently swung from years of drought to piles of snow.” After, a single year’s occurrence, and some science-sounding abracadabra and gobbledegook this is to become the “new normal” – one of my least favorite terms and contemporary characterizations.
I have often thought about the eventual cure for cancer and perhaps one has already been discovered but not made available because of the drastic and dire effect it would have on the entire global economy. All of a sudden medical professionals, researchers, non-profit organizations, facilities, and a huge squadron of those assisting in the dreaded condition would no longer be required. The consequences of a cure would be wonderful except for those that are totally invested in the continuance of the disease.
This must assuredly be the case with the continuance of the corruption of global warming and climate change – even when good events are considered bad. According to the Means and Matters newsletter of the BMO Harris Bank N.A., “The annual global climate investment averaged $632 billion per year over 2019 and 2020”, but “we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 2030.” The disclaimer cited here is it only, “accounts for direct investment in things like infrastructure, energy efficiency, and other big-ticket initiatives around systemic change to mitigate or adapt to climate change. (The numbers don’t include donations or the funding of things like research and development or public information campaigns.)”They also forgot the billions paid to journalists that prejudicially cover the campaigns and crusades - and the lesser number that fight them.
The difference between cancer and climate change is that only the first is real.
