And we're still cheering our asses off as are tens of millions of others. It was time for those phoney's to go! They were only there to support a bogus narrative. Nobody cares they are gone either
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California's Devastating Fires Are Man-Caused -- But Not In The Way They Tell Us
- Thread starter Sunsettommy
- Start date
And we're still cheering our asses off as are tens of millions of others. It was time for those phoney's to go! They were only there to support a bogus narrative. Nobody cares they are gone either
Why are you inferring NOAA data is not?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?
Those guys are fucking with the data all the time.....well documented in these pages! Only suckers blindly trust these organizations. Thankfully, the public is now onto the ruse.....the evidence of which is daunting for any climate crusader!
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Your trying to create a correlation = causation without facts..Bullshit Billy Bob, you're trying to tell me carbon emissions were the same before the Industrial Revolution?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...
Tell me how the earth warmed and cooled with 5000-7000ppm for millions of years. Tell me why we did not burn up and the earths temp run away... Tell me why the earth has about a 12 deg C range in temperatures for over 4.5 billion years....
All the empirical evidence shows us that your hype is a crock of shit..
Please produce just ONE piece of EMPIRICAL evidence that supports AGW...
Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.Anti science? You elected a guy who fired a lot the government scientists in the EPA?Yup. billo is an example of a anti science religious nutbag with nothing to back up his claims but faith.
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.
Kind of a stupid idea considering the oil companies have bought into the fraud. They're energy companies. They'll peddle energy to you and if it costs a lot more (as renewables except for hydroelectric do) they don't care. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Prove the Empirical Evidence wrong fucktard!You posted that same cartoon graph you always show with its ridiculous premise.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...
I see you have yet to provide even one empirical piece of evidence to support your fantasy...
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Carbon Emissions?Bullshit Billy Bob, you're trying to tell me carbon emissions were the same before the Industrial Revolution?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...
LOL You don't have a clue about "carbon" emissions.. Carbon is a black soot particle... Are you conflating Carbon and CO2 again? They are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS...
Carbon caused sickness in Europe and England when it mixed with water and was held close to the ground during winter.. It caused many deaths and respiratory illnesses.. CO2 was NOT INVOLVED... This is why we scrub out the carbon from our power plants today before the smoke exits the stack.... IN the US this problem is all but eradicated. China, not so much.
Last edited:
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 14,896
- 12,529
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #107
How Billo_Really fails utterly to make a case for her earlier claims I replied too, replying to post 83,
Billo writes:
"Okay, its a significant contributor; however, your link doesn't address the contribution from global warming."
It is evidence that you didn't read the article which pointed out that bad forestry management is the main cause of explosive fires. Air temperature changes has little relevance when it comes to fires, which you missed by not reading the article, here is what YOU didn't read:
"In 2005 while a freshman California Assemblyman, I had the chance to visit Northern California and meet with the forest product industry professionals who grew, managed, and harvested trees on private and public lands. They told me of a worrisome trend started years earlier where both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs. As a result, timber industry employment gradually collapsed, falling in 2017 to half of what it was 20 years earlier, with imports from Canada, China, and other nations filling domestic need.
As timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work. The combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared. No longer were forest management professionals clearing brush and thinning trees.
But, fire suppression efforts continued. The result was accurately forecast by my forest management industry hosts in Siskiyou County in 2005: larger, more devastating fires—fires so hot that they sterilized the soil, making regrowth difficult and altering the landscape. More importantly, fires that increasingly threatened lives and homes as they became hotter and more difficult to bring under control."
Billo shows how lazy she is by failing to follow my hint (NOAA),
"Where's your link for that?"
She was responding to what I wrote:
"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."
So much ignorance on YOUR part, I will post the evidence that it was much warmer early in the interglacial, the USHCN you can easily find for yourself, don't be so lazy:
Billo drones on with ignorance,
"How can a consensus of 95% of the climate scientists be worthless? And what makes you think YOUR research is more credible than theirs?"
I pointed out the reproducible research drives science not popularity, you still don't see the problem. I even said this that YOU ignored,
"There have been many consensus errors over the decades because science illiterates like YOU prefer popularity over reproducible research."
You make clear over and over your science illiteracy since YOU seem unaware of how many times "consensus" fails when reproducible research comes along slaying consensus baloney such as this one,
The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
This is but one of many consensus errors of the past.
Skipping to the last section where Billo went truly stupid:
"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."
Gee it had already been warming for nearly 200 years before 1880 when CO2 levels started rising.
Sea surface temperature barely warmed up according to published science papers, here from this LINK are papers referred to:
"A new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s reveals that (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for 1994-2013 was a modest 0.02°C. In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, undermining claims that the modern era change is unusual or unprecedented."
Drop your irrational infatuation on consensus because they have been wrong many times to the detriment of science research and caused deaths to innocent people.
Billo writes:
"Okay, its a significant contributor; however, your link doesn't address the contribution from global warming."
It is evidence that you didn't read the article which pointed out that bad forestry management is the main cause of explosive fires. Air temperature changes has little relevance when it comes to fires, which you missed by not reading the article, here is what YOU didn't read:
"In 2005 while a freshman California Assemblyman, I had the chance to visit Northern California and meet with the forest product industry professionals who grew, managed, and harvested trees on private and public lands. They told me of a worrisome trend started years earlier where both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs. As a result, timber industry employment gradually collapsed, falling in 2017 to half of what it was 20 years earlier, with imports from Canada, China, and other nations filling domestic need.
As timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work. The combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared. No longer were forest management professionals clearing brush and thinning trees.
But, fire suppression efforts continued. The result was accurately forecast by my forest management industry hosts in Siskiyou County in 2005: larger, more devastating fires—fires so hot that they sterilized the soil, making regrowth difficult and altering the landscape. More importantly, fires that increasingly threatened lives and homes as they became hotter and more difficult to bring under control."
Billo shows how lazy she is by failing to follow my hint (NOAA),
"Where's your link for that?"
She was responding to what I wrote:
"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."
So much ignorance on YOUR part, I will post the evidence that it was much warmer early in the interglacial, the USHCN you can easily find for yourself, don't be so lazy:
Billo drones on with ignorance,
"How can a consensus of 95% of the climate scientists be worthless? And what makes you think YOUR research is more credible than theirs?"
I pointed out the reproducible research drives science not popularity, you still don't see the problem. I even said this that YOU ignored,
"There have been many consensus errors over the decades because science illiterates like YOU prefer popularity over reproducible research."
You make clear over and over your science illiteracy since YOU seem unaware of how many times "consensus" fails when reproducible research comes along slaying consensus baloney such as this one,
The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
This is but one of many consensus errors of the past.
Skipping to the last section where Billo went truly stupid:
"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."
Gee it had already been warming for nearly 200 years before 1880 when CO2 levels started rising.
Sea surface temperature barely warmed up according to published science papers, here from this LINK are papers referred to:
"A new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s reveals that (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for 1994-2013 was a modest 0.02°C. In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, undermining claims that the modern era change is unusual or unprecedented."
Drop your irrational infatuation on consensus because they have been wrong many times to the detriment of science research and caused deaths to innocent people.
Last edited:
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 14,896
- 12,529
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #108
What is with you fuckers? I haven't said word one about modelling.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.
Your consensus scientists argument are BASED on the IPCC published climate models you MORON!
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 14,896
- 12,529
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #109
How come you haven't proved that?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?
Bob already destroyed your 800,000 year bullcrap HERE at post 47. Others knew you were comically wrong and laughed at your ignorance.
You replied with dead on arrival statement indicating you have no counterpoint to offer. What Bob posted is correct based on real ice core data.
"I'm not going to humor your little bullshit graphs."
Pathetic when he CHALLENGED you with his last line in the chart graph post:
"Come on you ignorant little turd... I dare you to post up facts that prove your assertion... "
Too bad that you are a lazy ignoramus when it comes to the topic of climate.
Memories....
I haven't fought any fires since the 1960s but even then it was obvious that well managed forests - underbrush cleared and dead trees removed - seldom caught fire. Hell, even amateur arsonists had a hard time getting a wildfire started. But areas under leftist, tree-hugger jurisdiction? BIG fires - lots of fires.
It's nothing new.
Only the lunacy growing to the point of self-destruction. For some odd reason liberals would far prefer to see trees die by the millions than see a few thousand felled and put to productive use. Maybe they have a repressed desire to return to living in holes in the ground?
Caves?
Too good for them.
I haven't fought any fires since the 1960s but even then it was obvious that well managed forests - underbrush cleared and dead trees removed - seldom caught fire. Hell, even amateur arsonists had a hard time getting a wildfire started. But areas under leftist, tree-hugger jurisdiction? BIG fires - lots of fires.
It's nothing new.
Only the lunacy growing to the point of self-destruction. For some odd reason liberals would far prefer to see trees die by the millions than see a few thousand felled and put to productive use. Maybe they have a repressed desire to return to living in holes in the ground?
Caves?
Too good for them.
Last edited:
That's a big problem we have in this country right now; a bunch of nobody's thinking they're qualified to comment on the credibility of scientists.And we're still cheering our asses off as are tens of millions of others. It was time for those phoney's to go! They were only there to support a bogus narrative. Nobody cares they are gone either
Now I see why you flunked 3rd grade.Those guys are fucking with the data all the time.....well documented in these pages! Only suckers blindly trust these organizations. Thankfully, the public is now onto the ruse.....the evidence of which is daunting for any climate crusader!
- May 17, 2013
- 67,542
- 32,669
- 2,290
When the scientists are caught purposely manipulating data................by other scientists...............are the other scientists not credible...........That's a big problem we have in this country right now; a bunch of nobody's thinking they're qualified to comment on the credibility of scientists.And we're still cheering our asses off as are tens of millions of others. It was time for those phoney's to go! They were only there to support a bogus narrative. Nobody cares they are gone either
These are the same bullshit talking points you spew every time out. I think its about time you address the points I've made.Your trying to create a correlation = causation without facts..
Tell me how the earth warmed and cooled with 5000-7000ppm for millions of years. Tell me why we did not burn up and the earths temp run away... Tell me why the earth has about a 12 deg C range in temperatures for over 4.5 billion years....
All the empirical evidence shows us that your hype is a crock of shit..
Please produce just ONE piece of EMPIRICAL evidence that supports AGW...
And the first VCR was $850. Now you can't even get rid of them at a pawn shop.Kind of a stupid idea considering the oil companies have bought into the fraud. They're energy companies. They'll peddle energy to you and if it costs a lot more (as renewables except for hydroelectric do) they don't care. They're laughing all the way to the bank.
Then open your eyes, you little fossil fuel whore!Prove the Empirical Evidence wrong fucktard!
I see you have yet to provide even one empirical piece of evidence to support your fantasy...
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You have made no points. No Science and no empirical evidence.. You have nothing but false correlations and false causations.. Get back to me when real science wakes your dumb ass up and you have even one emperical fact.These are the same bullshit talking points you spew every time out. I think its about time you address the points I've made.Your trying to create a correlation = causation without facts..
Tell me how the earth warmed and cooled with 5000-7000ppm for millions of years. Tell me why we did not burn up and the earths temp run away... Tell me why the earth has about a 12 deg C range in temperatures for over 4.5 billion years....
All the empirical evidence shows us that your hype is a crock of shit..
Please produce just ONE piece of EMPIRICAL evidence that supports AGW...
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Says a moron who wouldn't know science or a fact if it hit him up side the head.. LOLThat's a big problem we have in this country right now; a bunch of nobody's thinking they're qualified to comment on the credibility of scientists.And we're still cheering our asses off as are tens of millions of others. It was time for those phoney's to go! They were only there to support a bogus narrative. Nobody cares they are gone either
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Thank You for proving my point..Blah blah blah...Carbon Emissions?
LOL You don't have a clue about "carbon" emissions.. Carbon is a black soot particle... Are you conflating Carbon and CO2 again? They are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS...
Carbon caused sickness in Europe and England when it mixed with water and was held close to the ground during winter.. It caused many deaths and respiratory illnesses.. CO2 was NOT INVOLVED... This is why we scrub out the carbon from our power plants today before the smoke exits the stack.... IN the US this problem is all but eradicated. China, not so much.
Now Fuck off like good little communist sympathizer...
Stop trying to tell me what my argument is based on.Your consensus scientists argument are BASED on the IPCC published climate models you MORON!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 71
- Views
- 9K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 130
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 225
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-