Warming and fires

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
Now even though many here deny that man has anything to do with the present warming, most no longer state that there is no warming occurring. However, some actually state that the slightly less than 1 degree C that has occurred doesn't affect anything.

We have seen, decade by decade, the snows come later, and leave sooner in the mountains in the West. Which means the forests are drier than they used to be by late summer and fall. The warming has also created a situation where the bark beetles and other forest parasites are thriving, leaving a load of dead trees in the forest. Dead trees that are prime fuel for fires. Flying over Montana, the forest is a patchwork of brown and green, in some places, the brown far greater in area than the green.

The forest management of fighting all fires, ground or crown, has left us with a legacy of far too much undergrowth and small trees. And now that we realize that we have to clear this, there is no money left because of the massive fires that consume all of the Forest Services's funds. This is not a policy any more, because we are no longer fighting forest fires, we are protecting small towns, farms, and ranches.

A changing climate has given us stormier weather, that has created storms with higher and more sustained wind velocities, which have created the firestorms with have seen this year. Deny that, if you wish, but anyone that has watched what has happened with the fires in the West this year realizes how different the weather has been.
 
1c increase causes wood to combust...hmmmkay

We've had daily increase of 12F here and none of the trees in my yard were aflame.

Can you point to any experimental evidence where a 1C increase causes forest fires, because it sounds extremely far fetched

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' -- Carl Sagan
 
We've seen hundreds of failed climate predictions all that were supposed to be due to Manmade Global Climate warming change. There's no end to the failed predictions. Saying forest fires are caused by a 1C increase, with absolutely no supporting evidence, is another in the long line of failed predictions

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' -- Carl Sagan
 
It's never been explained how CO2 causes both floods and fires. Are there left and right handed version of CO2: one for floods, the other for forest fires?
 
The Earth has had hotter and colder weather. Also, it's fairly well know that man will support what lines his pockets with cash and man is also power mad. Give a human power and they want more and more. Taking your money and controlling your life is an irresistible urge to some people. Typically, they have little else to offer.
 
And are you suggesting that is what drives all the peer reviewed research assessed by the IPCC? Scientists mad for power and money? Can you name some of the thousands of scientists whose work supports the AGW theory who have acquired those things through their work?

Yours is just another of the grand global conspiracy fantasies and it is just as much nonsense as every other version that's been suggested. Please engage your brain.
 
And are you suggesting that is what drives all the peer reviewed research assessed by the IPCC? Scientists mad for power and money? Can you name some of the thousands of scientists whose work supports the AGW theory who have acquired those things through their work?

Yours is just another of the grand global conspiracy fantasies and it is just as much nonsense as every other version that's been suggested. Please engage your brain.
You want me to post what all of the scientists motives were? Read what I said slower, people are motivated by their pocketbooks. You seem to be totally unaware of how the world works. It's hardly a consipracy, you need to pop your bubble and start paying attention.
 
You seem to be unaware how the scientific method works. Go back to junior high school and get a fucking education.
 
I have enough of an education to understand that the likelihood of a conspiracy as vast and comprehensive as would be required for their to be the SLIGHTEST chance of your accusation having any basis is NIL. You, apparently, do not.

If you don't want to be termed "stupid", don't say stupid stuff. Saying that global warming is caused by greed and megalomania is about as stupid as stupid can be.
 
Where in the scientific method is calling skeptics "DENIERS!!!!"?

Sorry, Frank, but you people don't rise to the level that the scientific method would refer to you. Deniers is something we all made up on our own. It's based on your behavior. You deny the overwhelming science that supports the validity of AGW. That's pretty much all you do. You deny. You've got your head stuck in the sand. Or up someone's ass. Somewhere out of sight anyway.
 
Where in the scientific method is calling skeptics "DENIERS!!!!"?

Sorry, Frank, but you people don't rise to the level that the scientific method would refer to you. Deniers is something we all made up on our own. It's based on your behavior. You deny the overwhelming science that supports the validity of AGW. That's pretty much all you do. You deny. You've got your head stuck in the sand. Or up someone's ass. Somewhere out of sight anyway.

Can you point to any repeatable lab experiment that shows how a 10ppm increase in CO2 will cause trees to spontaneously combust?

Didn't think so
 
I have enough of an education to understand that the likelihood of a conspiracy as vast and comprehensive as would be required for their to be the SLIGHTEST chance of your accusation having any basis is NIL. You, apparently, do not.

If you don't want to be termed "stupid", don't say stupid stuff. Saying that global warming is caused by greed and megalomania is about as stupid as stupid can be.
You're too stupid to quote who you are even responding to. And I have little use for pea brain that speak as if they are god. Yes, that's stupid. As is refusing to acknowledge people do what's benefits them or that people won't use the warming hoax for power and control. Stick your ample head in the toilet and flush the junk out.
 
Where in the scientific method is calling skeptics "DENIERS!!!!"?

Sorry, Frank, but you people don't rise to the level that the scientific method would refer to you. Deniers is something we all made up on our own. It's based on your behavior. You deny the overwhelming science that supports the validity of AGW. That's pretty much all you do. You deny. You've got your head stuck in the sand. Or up someone's ass. Somewhere out of sight anyway.
Your tirade doesn't mask the fact that consensus isn't science so there is NO overwhelming science. You don't even know what the word science means. Throw your temper tantrum elsewhere.
 
Can you point to any repeatable lab experiment that shows how a 10ppm increase in CO2 will cause trees to spontaneously combust?

Why would I bother? No one has ever made such an idiotic claim. No one has ever come up with the idea - except you.

Didn't think so

Then why did you bother to ask?

Steps of the Scientific Method

Key Info
  • The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
  • The steps of the scientific method are to:
    • Ask a Question
    • Do Background Research
    • Construct a Hypothesis
    • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    • Communicate Your Results
You left out a step, Sparky
 
I didn't miss any steps. Neither did the world's climate scientists. Where are the scientists who followed the scientific method and found evidence that supports YOUR theories (whatever they might be)?

And why don't you find Ice Weasel and find out what he thinks the term "widely accepted theory" means, since he seems unable to provide an answer to the question?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top