California's Devastating Fires Are Man-Caused -- But Not In The Way They Tell Us

[westwall]

You do know how to get on my good side.

Tell me something, do you fly like an eagle, to the sea?

Just reminding you that California has a lot...............of........um..........SAY IT..Desert there..............and it's HOT there.

Actually, the areas that are burning are not desert, they are chaparral and scrub area....semi-arid.

Yes, and they haven't been allowed to burn for decades which has caused the fuel load to explode, which is why the fires now are so devastating. The manzanita should never grow to more than 8 feet or so, these 30 foot monsters are the aberration. An aberration only made possible because of mans interference.

My goodness...that certainly explains why all those homes are burning...because they are all surrounded by t 30 foot manzanita bushes....in Redding etc.

Yes, it does. If the forest were managed properly the fires would burn at a low level through the underbrush. When they explode into a firestorm, as these have done, there is nothing that can withstand them. The population has migrated into the manzanita forest, and lo and behold all of those homes in places where they never were are suddenly vulnerable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist so how come you can't figure out the basics?

 

[bodecea]

You do know how to get on my good side.

Tell me something, do you fly like an eagle, to the sea?

Just reminding you that California has a lot...............of........um..........SAY IT..Desert there..............and it's HOT there.

Actually, the areas that are burning are not desert, they are chaparral and scrub area....semi-arid.

Yes, and they haven't been allowed to burn for decades which has caused the fuel load to explode, which is why the fires now are so devastating. The manzanita should never grow to more than 8 feet or so, these 30 foot monsters are the aberration. An aberration only made possible because of mans interference.

My goodness...that certainly explains why all those homes are burning...because they are all surrounded by t 30 foot manzanita bushes....in Redding etc.

Yes, it does. If the forest were managed properly the fires would burn at a low level through the underbrush. When they explode into a firestorm, as these have done, there is nothing that can withstand them. The population has migrated into the manzanita forest, and lo and behold all of those homes in places where they never were are suddenly vulnerable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist so how come you can't figure out the basics?

Right......the forest.....

 

[Billo_Really]

You are indeed a world class loudmouth since you have yet to back up your assertions on anything, which means you have nothing to offer. You also have completely avoided post 1 article that shows that poor forestry management is a significant contributor to the damage in high crown forest fires, something that used to be less common than now.

Okay, its a significant contributor; however, your link doesn't address the contribution from global warming.

How many times do I have to tell YOU that no one is disputing climate changes over time, it is YOU who keeps harping on this dead end. You have yet to show what is being denied either and YOU have avoided my reference to the USHCN NOAA system, you don't even want to know what it is at all. You also ignored the well known knowledge that early in the interglacial, it was MUCH warmer than now.

Where's your link for that?

Only pseudoscience tropes like YOU push the worthless consensus bullcrap since it doesn't support anything, it is reproducible research that can advance science, NOT popularity. There have been many consensus errors over the decades because science illiterates like YOU prefer popularity over reproducible research.

How can a consensus of 95% of the climate scientists be worthless? And what makes you think YOUR research is more credible than theirs?

Your contribution to debate in this thread is pathetic, you offer no cogent arguments, but sure have a lot of experience in hurling idiotic unsupported statements, fallacies and name calling. You are a bottom of the barrel feeder trying to sling more mud.

What non-cogent arguments are you referring to?

Big oil funding bromides are so worn out and boring after it has been used for over 20 years, with no evidence they actually persuaded anyone. Try some new bogus material to attack rationalists with, otherwise people are going to say you are in a rut with the same crap over and over, and lacking imagination on insulting people.

A little over a 100 years ago, we weren't burning fossil fuels at these levels. CO2 emissions in the atmosphere can be measured. Empirically, using one of your words. Sea surface temperatures can be measured and they are steadily rising. Atmospheric temperature can be measured and has risen to its highest levels in recorded history. Receding glaciers can be seen and witnessed. Permafrost in Alaska is turning into mud in many areas. So I don't know where you are getting this "no evidence" bullshit.

 

[Billo_Really]

You ignored the few short term modeling failures, why ignore this reality?

The Per Decade warming prediction/projection failed
The projected "hot spot" is still missing
The INCREASE in snow and cold
The decease in Tornadoes and Hurricanes

I predict you will ignore all these failures in your reply.

What is with you fuckers? I haven't said word one about modelling.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, you are. Almost every climate change study is derived from computer models. Well over 95%.

I'm not talking about models. Would you feel better if I blamed it on Crooked Hillary? When I'm watching that Alaskan show The Last Frontier and I hear them complaining the thaw is coming sooner and sooner year after year, you think that is because of this "model" you keep bringing up? You think measuring sea levels have to do with some model? You think glaciers receding you can see with your own eyes, have to do with some model?

I'm sorry dude, at the moment, you don't have a model argument.

 

[Billo_Really]

You are that stupid, you haven't supported that absurdity for a good reason, it didn't happen.

The PREVIOUS interglacial to the current one was much warmer, how come you didn't know that?

How come you haven't proved that?

 

[westwall]

Yes, you are. Almost every climate change study is derived from computer models. Well over 95%.

I'm not talking about models. Would you feel better if I blamed it on Crooked Hillary? When I'm watching that Alaskan show The Last Frontier and I hear them complaining the thaw is coming sooner and sooner year after year, you think that is because of this "model" you keep bringing up? You think measuring sea levels have to do with some model? You think glaciers receding you can see with your own eyes, have to do with some model?

I'm sorry dude, at the moment, you don't have a model argument.

Dude, the sea levels have not increased as they claim. If they had why would The Maldives have just spent hundreds of millions of dollars building new airports to bring people to the islands if they were going to be under water.

And so what about what people are feeling NOW. The truth is it was a hell of a lot warmer in the 1930's. That's a fact. Mankind lives for a very short time compared to the history of the planet. I find it mind boggling that people can't understand that the Earth operates on a timescale vastly slower than us.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yup. billo is an example of a anti science religious nutbag with nothing to back up his claims but faith.

Anti science? You elected a guy who fired a lot the government scientists in the EPA?

 

[westwall]

Yup. billo is an example of a anti science religious nutbag with nothing to back up his claims but faith.

Anti science? You elected a guy who fired a lot the government scientists in the EPA?

Yeah, because they were corrupting science. There's a difference. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are ethical or even good at their job.

 

[Billo_Really]

A single day, which is WEATHER. Notice how the man doesn't bother to show past record highs history for the area?


Nobody said NOAA is a computer program, it is another dead end bullcrap you throw up. It is the AGW hypothesis that is built on climate models.

You didn't bother to debate the stated 5% statement at all, because you have NOTHING to offer in reply.

When are you going to make a science based serious post and stick with it?

Why are you inferring NOAA data is not?

 

[bodecea]

Yup. billo is an example of a anti science religious nutbag with nothing to back up his claims but faith.

Anti science? You elected a guy who fired a lot the government scientists in the EPA?

Yeah, because they were corrupting science. There's a difference. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are ethical or even good at their job.

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Too funny. Back up your statement about 800,000 years.

LMFAO.

Warmers say the craziest shit.

...scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years ago.​

Back to you...

 

[Billo_Really]

Funny;

I post up empirically observed evidence and you retort with more left wing partisan bull shit..

Standard left wing bull shit answer when facts are presented that wholly refute your lies and deceptions...

Bullshit Billy Bob, you're trying to tell me carbon emissions were the same before the Industrial Revolution?

 

[Billo_Really]

I tore up his lies with one graph showing the temperatures for the last 450 thousand years.... He wont let a few FACTS get in the way of his FANTASY...

You posted that same cartoon graph you always show with its ridiculous premise.

 

[Billo_Really]

I did post it up in the graph of evidence I gave him..I surmise that he IS that stupid..

The graph that inferred carbon emissions didn't increase after the Industrial Revolution? Yeah, and OJ was innocent. Hell, I'll even throw in an innocent George Zimmerman, aka, Conservative Jesus.

 

[Billo_Really]

My goodness...that certainly explains why all those homes are burning...because they are all surrounded by t 30 foot manzanita bushes....in Redding etc.

Is it too late to blame Bush?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yeah, because they were corrupting science. There's a difference. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are ethical or even good at their job.

You want to talk ethics and Scott Pruit?

Nevermind. I gotta do some honeydoo's, but I'll be back.

 

[eagle1462010]

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Background

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.” The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed. This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring. The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization. In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists. This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply. During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistleblowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda.

For a complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study, click here.


115th Congress

 

[eagle1462010]

There is your ethics.............purposely manipulated data to create a FALSE GRAPH............then refused Congressional oversight because they had been caught LYING.............

Shall we get into their other LIES.................where they put weather stations in TAINTED LOCATIONS giving false readings..............

And shall we get into land subsistence...............

 

[eagle1462010]