Re: "F-You": Megyn Kelly Blasts Taylor Swift Endorsement Of Kamala

In article <vcs0oa$2okok$1@dont-email.me>,
 moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 9/22/2024 6:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <vcq6tu$2cmei$1@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 9/22/2024 5:44 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <vcfcct$6ip7$3@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 9/18/2024 1:44 PM, suzeeq wrote:

>
On 9/18/2024 9:34 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Sep 18, 2024 at 9:17:14 AM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
>

On 9/18/2024 9:11 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Sep 18, 2024 at 8:41:07 AM PDT, "shawn"
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>

Especially given how electric vehicles behave when it turns really
cold. Not something you want when even your nearest neighbor may be
miles away.

>

Not a concern for Gavvy. We have plenty of places that get snow
and freezing temps in California but the Climate Cult doesn't care.

>

Not like in the northern tier of states, where temps are often below
zero, and sometimes down to -40 with the wind chill.

>
At an average of 411.5 inches per year, Donner Pass, California, is
one of the snowiest places in the contiguous United States. Four
times since 1880 total snowfall at Donner Summit has exceeded 775
inches and topped 800 inches in both 1938 and 1952. Winds in the
pass can also become extreme and wind gusts in excess of 100 miles
per hour are common during winter storms. Winter temperatures in the
area often drop below 0°F for weeks at a time each year;
the all-time record low for California of -45°F (real temperature
without wind chill) was recorded in the Sierra Nevada in the area
around the Donner Pass in January 1937.
>

I know, I used to live on the N shore of Tahoe in the late 1970s.
However, it seldom gets that cold there anymore. When the temps gets
below 0 it's only for a week. You're quoting conditions tat haven't been
see for 70 to 85 years ago. Things have changed.

>
That's climate-alarmist talk. Your thermometer must be Leftist...

>
Looks like it's time for Part 2 in my "How the Media and Democrats Lie
to You" series. Earlier I detailed how they lie to you about crime. This
time we'll learn  how they lie to you about 'climate change'.
>
The L.A. Times recently published the latest in what seems to be a
never-ending series designed to scare you into converting to the Climate
Cult.
>
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-09-09/hotter-drier-differe
nt-how-climate-change-will-alter-l-a
>
Basically, it's all about how 'climate change' will alter your life in
L.A:
>
"Will it be a fiery landscape where sizzling sidewalks cause
second-degree burns, wildfire smoke blots out the sun, and water flows
only sometimes, and mostly not at all? Or will California's penchant for
innovation be our salvation?"
>
("Salvation"... notice the religious tones and connotations associated
with stories like this.)
>
"The youth of our planet will have to live in the environment we've
created for them but there's still time to seize control of our
collective destiny."
>
("Collective"... notice the socialist/communist verbiage associated with
stories like this.)
>
The article and all others like it are peppered with dire claims about
heat records being blown away:
>
"Southern California wildfires spread with record heat."
>
"Brutal heatwave breaks records across Southern California."
>
The constant drumbeat about shattered temperature records is interesting
because they almost always just make the assertion that this is record
heat but never actually back it up with facts.
>
So I went to LA Almanac.com and looked up the day-by-day record high
temperatures in the month of September for Los Angeles.
>
Month/Day   Record High    Record Low
Sep 1       110 (1955)     49 (1901)
Sep 2       108 (1955)     51 (1881)
Sep 3       103 (1988)     51 (1892)
Sep 4       110 (1988)     52 (1892)
Sep 5       105 (1984)     50 (1898)
Sep 6       111 (2020)     48 (1898)
Sep 7       103 (1949)     50 (1884)
Sep 8       103 (1984)     47 (1901)
Sep 9       102 (1956)     48 (1884)
Sep 10      103 (1983)     52 (1893)
Sep 11      101 (1983)     48 (1901)
Sep 12      102 (1971)     48 (1884)
Sep 13      106 (1971)     48 (1884)
Sep 14      100 (2012)     48 (1898)
Sep 15      103 (2012)     49 (1895)
Sep 16      103 (2014)     48 (1884)
Sep 17      108 (1913)     46 (1884)
Sep 18      103 (1939)     48 (1884)
Sep 19      104 (1939)     49 (1907)
Sep 20      107 (1939)     49 (1900)
Sep 21      108 (1885)     47 (1880)
Sep 22      104 (1883)     48 (1895)
Sep 23      104 (1978)     44 (1880)
Sep 24      106 (1978)     45 (1880)
Sep 25      107 (1978)     48 (1879)
Sep 26      109 (1963)     48 (1893)
Sep 27      113 (2010)     46 (1901)
Sep 28      106 (1963)     49 (1901)
Sep 29      102 (1999)     44 (1880)
Sep 30      105 (1906)     48 (1886)
>
What can we conclude from this data?
>
Well, first and foremost, that the propagandists at the L.A. Times are
full of shit. They're literally lying to promote an agenda.
>
September is a hot month in L.A. and has been going back to the 1800s,
long before SUVs, carbon footprints, 'climate change'. And notably,
while there are some record highs set post-2000, not one of them is in
2024, which makes the Times' claim that our current heat wave is 'record
heat' or is 'breaking records' a complete falsehood.
>
And these are the people who are supposedly 'fact-checking' everything
from your social media posts to your presidential candidates.
>
Who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?

>
The record lows occurred near or prior to the turn of last century,
while the record highs are generally later. Sounds like warming to me.

 
What part of 'record-breaking' do you not understand?

 
I didn't read the claims, your or theirs.

Then you're not qualified to comment on this discussion. The only thing
you can do is try to change the subject, which is exactly what you did.

As for "record-breaking", records are always being broken somewhere
...making assertions or denials meaningless. Meanwhile, I'd guess they
care more about eyeballs than agendas, but, then, I can't read minds.

The L.A. Times doesn't care about money (eyeballs). If it did, then it
wouldn't be cratering its business with nothing but wokeness. Every day
the headlines consist of story after story about racism, transgenderism,
climate change, and how we need more illegals and vagrants or we need to
spend more tax money on them. Even it's leftist readers are tired of it
and it's losing several hundred million dollars a year as subscription
numbers collapse. The billionaire that bought the Times gave it to his
activist daughter to play with and lets it run at a loss, but even he
has his limits. However, rather than, you know, change the paper back to
a real news organization, his solution was to just halve the newsroom
and fire hundreds of people.