Brava, Sumac.

Thank you for this, Sumac. Both for the article and the response. Your clarity is very helpful.

debated whether to delete your irresponsible comment or to reply to it. I’m replying, but if you answer irresponsibly (without regard to evidence), I will delete those subsequent comments. This is not a forum for reckless trolling.

The climate change emergency is not a hoax. It is an observable, accelerating process which the entire human population needs to tackle promptly.

The Greenland example is nonsensical what-aboutism. Yes, they tried farming there, and it wasn’t viable. They could grow some vegetables, but not grains. The very name “Greenland” may have been hype used by Erik the Red to attract settlers. If so, you’re choosing to fall for a thousand-year-old real estate promo.

You write “why did all of the warmists suddenly shift their nomenclature from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change?’”

First – “warmists”? Name-calling is not a sign of a good argument. The nomenclature was shifted because many people could not, did not, or in some cases, chose not to understand how global warming might not be uniform, and might result in some places having fiercer winters, while the planet as a whole gets hotter. Some say “climate emergency,” “climate crisis,” or “climate chaos.”

I wish climate change was merely a “politically-correct narrative.” It’s not, and it’s horribly irresponsible to say that it is. It’s wishful thinking, and if enough people and governments cling to it, more millions will die, extinction rates will explode, the oceans will empty – and a few people will be very rich, briefly.

I am reminded of an occasion in The Bronx in the 1990s when New York crews knocked down nearly every tree on a bunch of streets, on the grounds that they were unhealthy. However, they botched up their orders, and whacked ALL the trees in the neighborhood, regardless of age or condition, leaving the residential streets bare of green leaves and canopy.

The New York Times ran a story about this, with before-and-after photographs, and the embarrassed agency responsible for this fiasco went out, tore up the stumps and roots, and planted a variety of new trees and additional trees.

What I remember most about this apology was the quote in the Times: “We cannot replace these trees today, but in 20 years, this neighborhood will have a nice little forest.”

I wondered if some future bureaucrat, 19 years from now, unaware of that fiasco, would order those trees removed in “routine maintenance,” and we would have to go through this all over again.

That said, I personally do not buy into this “climate change” hoax (or, to be more specific, the political weaponization of the natural phenomenon of consistent climate change, a process that was occurring even before there were humans around to cause it anthropogenically). The Vikings are known to have done farming in Greenland back in the day, and I still am curious to know which industrial factories emitted all of those greenhouse gases that caused the global warming which made agriculture in Greenland possible (and, speaking of global warming, why did all of the warmists suddenly shift their nomenclature from “global warming” to “climate change?”).

Political baggage notwithstanding, I agree that the Reading Borough Council’s apology was sorely deficient, for all of the reasons stated in this SorryWatch post. I do not minimize the importance of maintaining green herbiage in the environment; the RBC, having definitively put itself into the tank for the politically-correct narrative of “climate change,” has all the more reason to recognize and acknowledge its failings.