NYTimes columnist and hypocrite Tom Fredman bemoans the effects of the dreaded climate change on Africans living in mud huts.
From the NYTimes:
By the way here’s climate change-fretting Tom Friedman’s Bethesda, MD mud hut.
NYTimes columnist and hypocrite Tom Fredman bemoans the effects of the dreaded climate change on Africans living in mud huts.
From the NYTimes:
By the way here’s climate change-fretting Tom Friedman’s Bethesda, MD mud hut.
Having been to the Middle East and Africa for military duty and also having to sit in these mud huts, I will say it is due to poverty and the whims of those who rule in the area rather than any climate change. As for the heat, it was hot every time I have been there, seems summer is the favorite time for me to be sent there!
There is so much truth spoken above about the hypocrisy of these types and as for temperature, I do not believe that 113° is especially hot for that region of the world – its in the ball park of where the world cup will be played in the middle east – if sportsmen can hack it……..
Friedman claims the 113 degree heat is:
1. far above the historical average – unfortunately, indigenous people in Africa did not keep any written records so “historical” for recorded temps is a very short time period;
2. he makes the usual claim that since it is hot where he is standing, that proves global warming (I wish he was standing in the several feet of new snow in the Rocky mountains – then we would not hear from him at all)
3. climate change is forcing people to migrate to Europe. If people like Friedman stopped blocking poor countries from getting electricity and improved living standards, they would achieve prosperity in their homelands.
If Friedman really cared about climate change and believed it depended on CO2, then he’d give up the huge energy wasting house. If his heart really bled for these ‘climate refugees’ then he’d sponsor some, heck, he could house a few villages worth of immigrants at this palace.
His Carbon Footprint is very low on his Moral High Ground
I’m unclear on your point here. Are you arguing that Friedman’s wealth invalidates his reasoning, or that the rich should not care about the poor? If not one of these, its hard to understand what makes aerial pictures of Friedman’s mansion relevant to the discussion.
This sort of off-point reasoning is great for political campaigns, but doesn’t really work well for a column that is supposed to be about science.