Subscribe to Louder with Crowder on Rumble! Download the app on Apple and Google Play.

A new UCLA study found that gay couples are at a greater risk of climate change compared to straight couples. However, I don’t see how someone's sexual attraction can have much of anything to do with the direction of the wind. In any event, I cannot think of a better example of the seriousness of climate science than this story.

According to The College Fix:

A new study out of UCLA says same-sex couples are at greater “risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change” than straight couples.

These effects include “wildfires, floods, smoke-filled skies, and drought,” according to a report from KQED.

Same-sex couples disproportionately live in coastal regions and cities, which are more vulnerable to such disasters. They’re also more likely “to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments.”

Living in a coastal city is almost always a choice, considering it is much more expensive than anywhere else.

Washington DC, which rates high for “climate risks” such as heat waves, floods, and “dangerously strong winds,” has the greatest proportion of gay couples in the U.S.

If you count DC as a state in that analysis, then I don’t doubt that is true. But there is NO WAY that DC has a higher gay population than West Hollywood, as it currently stands at 40 percent.

Also, why am I not surprised that our nation's capital is filled with the most amount of gay people?

San Francisco ranks second, and also faces a high climate change risk. According to KQED report, the city’s Leather & LGBTQ Cultural District flooded 22 years ago, “swamping” the entire area. The closest supermarket, Rainbow Grocery, also got flooded.

A supermarket got flooded and all of a sudden that means that climate change is homophobic.

I used to think that climate change was just racist but now it appears the phenomenon is also anti-gay.

Among several recommendations, Shaw and study co-author Lindsay Mahowald say climate disaster relief should be “administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,” and that future surveys like the U.S. Census ought to include “measures of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Do you think that administering “climate disaster relief” based on sexual orientation would mean funneling money to a bunch of leftist causes and NGOs? Because I would not be surprised if that were true, as none of this sounds like science and all of this sounds like an attempt to funnel more grants.

Is there any evidence that more grants to leftist causes do much of anything to control how much rain we get? Because it really seems as if the more money these groups get to fight climate change, the worse things are getting by their own fear-mongering platitudes.

And even if San Francisco and Washington DC are at higher risk of the weather changing, what does that have to do with gay people? Wouldn't all residents be affected?

Look, if the left is going to claim that sexual preferences dictate the direction of the wind, the least they can do is provide more evidence beyond a flooded supermarket and the fact that gay couples are attracted to the beach. Although this "study" is pathetic, it truly is the best the left can do when it comes to climate alarmism.

The Devil's At The Door! How Foreign Agents Are Sabotaging The Great U.S of A!www.youtube.com