The NYT claims that racism, not Democrat policies, is why poorer neighborhoods are hotter
The New York Times has gone off the deep end again.
This article claims that racist urban planning is why some neighborhoods are hotter than others.
The story started with a simple question: Why are some neighborhoods so much hotter than others? In cities like Baltimore, Portland and New York, neighborhoods that are lower-income and have more Black or Hispanic residents can be up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit hotter in summer, with far fewer trees and more heat-absorbing pavement than whiter, wealthier parts of the same city.
Yet its chart shows absolutely that it is fewer trees and more cement or blacktop that cause warming, not CO2, fossil fuels, or oil use.
Racism is pretty far-fetched.
It is also common sense that cement is hotter than grass or pastures or forests. One of the main reasons why the data show a minor rise in temperatures over the last 150 years, after a little ice age ended around 1850, is that many temperature-gathering stations were moved from rural grassy areas to areas with cement, buildings, and asphalt. What a surprise!
It is truly a shame that Democrat-run cities like Baltimore, Portland, New York, and others do so much to keep minorities poor and dependent on government instead of giving them the opportunity to move up the economic ladder as Trump does.
And while they're running these cities, why can't they cough up for a few neighborhood trees?
The Democrat anti-poverty welfare programs of the last fifty years have encouraged the breakup of families, which leads more people to live in poverty. That causes them to live in more crowded homes in hotter neighborhoods. The crowded homes and poverty lead to worse health outcomes and leave them more vulnerable to diseases like COVID-19. Why do so many minorities have worse outcomes from the virus? Could it be that it is because so many of them have been dependent on government-run health care for decades? Why would we want this for everyone? Competition yields better results, not a government monopoly.
Neither the disease nor climate change is racist. The policies that keep minorities dependent on government are. There is not systemic racism, but there are a heck of a lot of people who want minorities to be dependent on government and that is most of the media, entertainers, and other Democrats.
Why do almost all journalists repeat that the science is settled on oil and CO2 causing climate change and hotter temperatures when there is no scientific data that show a direct correlation between temperatures and oil use?
Why aren't Joe Biden, President Obama, Kamala Harris, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bill Gates asked for scientific data to support their agenda? The answer is that there is none, and that is why the debate is cut off and those of us who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally are called stupid, anti-science and climate change deniers. Instead of debating us, they call us names. We are also called racists because they don't want to debate their radical leftists policies.
The answer that is they want government control of all aspects of our lives. No one with any common sense or a brain should believe that politicians and bureaucrats can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever if we just hand them trillions of hard-earned dollars and destroy the economy.
The same people who say they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever are the ones who continually lied that we could keep our health care plan and our doctor and that our premiums and costs would drop substantially. Why would anyone trust them?
My guess is that the New York Times journalists who wrote this article have no idea that they exposed the lie that CO2 and oil cause temperatures to rise, but I thank them for writing it to give us stupid, anti-science people more ammunition before we intentionally destroy the U.S. economy.
Image credit: Wikipedia, public domain.