Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 107

Thread: In Visiting a Charred California, Trump Confronts a Scientific Reality He Denies

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,293
    Thanks
    12,516
    Thanked 10,462 Times in 7,085 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,904 Times in 4,229 Posts

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Question: Why are the other Western states--the ones not run by Progressive Leftist Democrats for decades--not burning to the ground too? Arizona has forest fires every year. This has been a particularly mild season, as one example. Why aren't these states suffering devastating wildfires if it's all due to Gorebal Warming?
    Good question.

    Guessing: Is it because they don't get the winds of the coastal states?
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,293
    Thanks
    12,516
    Thanked 10,462 Times in 7,085 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,904 Times in 4,229 Posts

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Problem is if the state won't allow logging and won't permit sawmills on state controlled land, the feds really can't do forest clearing. Worse, the number of sawmills and such for this work has been reduced to near zero in states like California. The lack of state cooperation has a lot to do with the inability of the feds to do healthy forest management.

    What you won't see in California is many of these

    Is it really worth it to log on steep terrain?
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,293
    Thanks
    12,516
    Thanked 10,462 Times in 7,085 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4,904 Times in 4,229 Posts

    Default

    Hello Damocles,

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    They have arrested no less than six people who started these fires, unless they are all named Global Warming it is unlikely to be the cause of the fires.
    As if there were a singular cause...

    And, of course, this avoids even talking about how bad the fires get, how quickly they spread, because of hot dry conditions which are the result of Climate Change.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,409
    Thanks
    249
    Thanked 1,233 Times in 802 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 182 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    I've been to Arizona. What trees? It looks like a fucking moonscape. How do you burn down a moonscape?

    Politalker, you're a great believer, but unfortunately, the best believers don't make the best observers.

    Treat Trumpanzees with respect and they'll believe that they deserve it.

    Respect to me is the default mode; people have to forfeit it, not earn it,
    63,000,000 Trumpanzees have forfeited not only respect, but also the right to share our oxygen supply.

    You're a good guy, Politalker, but wanting to believe something doesn't make it true.
    What you view as a great nation is rotting away with the cancer of Trumpism, and you've no stomach to surgically remove the 63,000,000 tumors.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848

  5. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    To the global scientific community,
    Science isn't a 'community'. You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    the acres of scorched earth and ash-filled skies across the American West are the tragic, but predictable, result of accelerating climate change.
    Define 'climate change'. Describe what it has to do with wildfires. Buzzword fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    Nearly two years ago, federal government scientists
    Science isn't a government. You don't get to speak for government. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry. Void authority fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    concluded that greenhouse gas emissions
    No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as a Magick Gas or Holy Gas that other than in your religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    from burning fossil fuels
    Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Buzzword fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    could triple the frequency of severe fires across the Western states.
    Preconclusion. Non-sequitur fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    Ah. You are mindlessly quoting the NY Times. You have no mind of your own. Sorry dude, the NY Times is incapable of measuring the temperature of the Earth, falsifying the laws of thermodynamics, or define 'climate change' for you. False authority fallacy. Fake news.

    No argument presented. Buzzwords (climate change, scorched Earth, 'greenhouse' gas. Conflating religion as science (Church of Global Warming, use of unnamed scientists, conflating scientists as science). Denial of science (1st law of thermodynamics). Redefinitions. Non-sequitur relations. Denial of mathematics (statistical math).

  6. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    If Newsom believed the so-called "science", WHY didn't he clear out the dead wood and do controlled burns? Why didn't Jerry Brown do anything? Demcorats control the effing State. They've had total control with ONE PARTY RULE for a long time.
    Science is not involved here (except where the Church of Global Warming denies it). Otherwise, you make a good point.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Bigdog (09-19-2020)

  8. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    spotted owls dont live through raging fires either..it's beyond stupid not to do clearing
    They're not stupid enough to sit in trees on fire. They can fly, you know.

  9. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    I was with my Nor Cal buddies. They all know this is the new normal until climate change is addressed with a serious global and consistent effort.
    They also comment that anyone not feeling effect yet will, no matter where you are. Your shameful joy will just be shame.
    Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy. There can be no effort to combat something you can't even define.

  10. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Liberal leadership causes forest fires? You are Smokey the idiot.
    He didn't say that, liberal idiot. He said liberal policies make fires worse.

  11. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Does the rest of the western U.S. also refuse to burn off their dead trees??? Or, does the climate only change in California woodlands and forests?

    Both Washington and Oregon has also put in place policies preventing proper management of the forests and grasslands. Done by Democrat governors and legislatures.

  12. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Damocles,



    As if there were a singular cause...

    And, of course, this avoids even talking about how bad the fires get, how quickly they spread, because of hot dry conditions which are the result of Climate Change.
    Irrational. You say there is no single cause, then you name a single cause. Which is it, dude?

    Define 'climate change'.

    No argument presented. Paradox. Buzzword fallacy.

  13. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    16,717
    Thanks
    4,815
    Thanked 3,987 Times in 3,466 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 161 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    I've been to Arizona. What trees? It looks like a fucking moonscape. How do you burn down a moonscape?
    ...deleted congregational chanting...
    Then you've not seen Arizona. Phoenix is not all of Arizona. You'll find most of the forests in eastern Arizona.

  14. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    78,084
    Thanks
    1,944
    Thanked 10,562 Times in 6,919 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 438 Times in 407 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Damocles,



    As if there were a singular cause...

    And, of course, this avoids even talking about how bad the fires get, how quickly they spread, because of hot dry conditions which are the result of Climate Change.
    I posted an article about that. Before Europeans arrived in the Americas the forests burned far more than nowadays. Global Alarmism aside, global warming is real btw, but blaming it for something that used to be worse and has happened for centuries is asinine.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

  15. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    60,371
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    I posted an article about that. Before Europeans arrived in the Americas the forests burned far more than nowadays. Global Alarmism aside, global warming is real btw, but blaming it for something that used to be worse and has happened for centuries is asinine.
    Was it this one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post





    “'A Nuclear Winter' Over Bay Area, as Wildfires Blot Out the Sun,” read the failing New York Times headline.

    The same mechanism that caused the orange sky is what could destroy agriculture in the wake of a thermonuclear war: particulate matter from burned wood blocking parts of the light spectrum from reaching the ground.

    And yet the air quality wasn’t nearly as bad as it looked.

    “The good thing about it is most of the smoke is staying aloft,” the air quality meteorologist for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, said.

    “The sun is able to scatter those smoke particles that produce this apocalyptic orange color that we’re seeing.”

    And while the 2 million acres that have burned in California so far in 2020 is 10 times more area than burned in 2019, it’s still 2 million acres less than the lowest estimate for acres burned within modern state borders annually before Europeans settled in America.

    “California was a very smoky place historically,” says Malcolm North of the US Forest Survey.

    “Even though we’re seeing area burned that is off-the-charts, it’s still less than what used to be burned before Europeans arrived.”

    Many reporters note that more area has burned this year in California than at any other point in “the modern period,” but that period began in 1950.

    For the last half of the 20th Century, the annual area burned in California was just 250,000 acres a year, whereas the best-available science suggests 4.4 and 12 million acres burned in California annually before the arrival of Europeans.

    “On reflection, anthropogenic burning is higher than what we had for the lower estimate,” said the lead author of that paper, Scott Stevens of UC Berkeley. “You talk to Native American elders and they say they burned oak woodlands every 2-3 years.”

    The real problem, scientists say, is that today’s mountain forest fires are hotter and kill more trees than many forest fires killed in the past. Is that due to climate change?

    Explains North, “It’s not the cause of the intensity of the fires. The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.”

    For most of the last 100 years, Californians suppressed fires in forests, resulting in the accumulation of roughly five times more wood fuel debris than existed in forests before Europeans arrived.

    So does that mean the smoke in the air is a function not of area burned, but instead, a function of wood fuel density?

    “Yes,” says North.

    He pointed out that the 2013-2014 Rim fire, which burned 250,000 acres, exposed five times more people to unhealthy air conditions from smoke than it would have if the same area had been burned regularly with smaller “prescribed” fires.

    High temperatures, forest fires, and smoky skies also occurred in California in the nineteenth century. “It’s hot – monstrous hot!” wrote the San Francisco correspondent for the New York Times on September 17, 1860. “An unusual thing for San Francisco.”

    On September 2, 1894, the New York Times published an article headlined, “The Cause of the Hazy Air - All Due to the Unusual Prevalence of Forest Fires.”

    Said a scientist, “Similar conditions have been noticed in the past, notably on the ‘dark day’ in 1781, probably caused by smoke. In 1881 there was another dark day.”

    Things seemed apocalyptic back then, too.

    “In 1781 the smoke was so dense that many persons thought the day of judgment had come.”

    While fire suppression has allowed the build-up of wood fuel in California’s mountain forests, such as the Sierra Nevadas, big, hot fires burned in southern California’s chaparral or shrubland forests in 1889, 1919, and 1932, long before fire suppression.

    Keeley and his colleagues reviewed 100 newspaper reports from the 19th Century and found that “large, high-intensity wildfires predate modern fire suppression policy” and concluded that “the 1889 Santiago Canyon Fire was the largest fire in California history.”

    In 1895, San Francisco was affected by haze from fires. “The bluish haze that brooded everywhere,” noted the Times’ San Francisco correspondent in 1895, “and to many, the trouble was just fog. But it was real smoke that rode in on the winds.”

    “California Forests Burned,” reported the Times on September 3, 1899. “Fire Which Started a Week Ago Has Traversed 700,000 Acres and Cannot Be Controlled.”

    The US Forest Service adopted a policy of fire suppression. President Teddy Roosevelt and his Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot, expanded federal control over forests to suppress fires.

    A turning point was the Federal government’s effort to battle the Great Fire of 1910, otherwise known as the Big Burn.

    Over two days in August, fires burned 3 million acres, an area the size of Connecticut, in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and British Columbia.

    Like the fires burning in California this year, the Big Burn was started by dry lightning and moved quickly through dried-out forest lands. Seventy-eight firefighters were killed and Pinchot turned them into martyrs for the Forest Service.

    Congress doubled its budget and expanded its policy of fire suppression.

    Public support for fire suppression, including from California’s elites, grew in the 1920s and 1930s after forest fires wiped out 1,000 homes in Berkeley, and burned 60,000 acres in Malibu.

    Within half a century, scientists realized that fire suppression was a mistake.

    “By the 1960s when we realized it was a problem,” said Keeley. “Vast amount of fuels had accumulated for 50 or more years. The fires became far bigger than what could easily be handled.”

    Historians agree.

    “By putting out every fire,” noted Timothy Egan, who wrote a book on the Big Burn, “they created the greatest wildfires.”

    Over the last 50 years, the US Forest Service has only gradually started to use more prescription burning, due to community resistance.

    “Very often people complain about it,” says Keeley, “and oftentimes slow it down and limit it. And I understand why. While I agree with prescription burning, I also understand that smoke is obnoxious.”

    Indeed, politicians are already blaming the US Forest Service for not putting one of northern California’s fires out sooner. “Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly, a DEMOCRAT,” reported the Sacramento Bee, “said the US Forest Service ‘let this fire smolder for weeks. They could have put it out.’”

    Mechanical harvesting or “thinning” of forests by crews with chainsaws is an alternative to prescribed burns, but far more expensive, scientists note.

    Indeed, it usually only makes sense economically if loggers are allowed to cut down larger trees, a policy that has traditionally been opposed by environmentalists.

    North is hopeful the public will be more accepting of smoke if they know it’s inevitable and are better prepared for it.

    “It’s all going to burn at some point. If we stay with business-as-usual, then you can plan on most of the forests being completely fuel-saturated, conditions that produce the massive fires where we have no control over the timing or direction of the smoke.

    “If the public realizes that you’re going to get fire and smoke one way or another,” said North, “and pushes the agencies to have fires in a more predictable manner, they might say, ‘Let’s do it if you give me more warning.’”

    What matters is giving people a feeling of control over the fires. “People say, ‘This sucks. I don’t want fires everywhere.’ But it’s a whole different world when you decide the conditions,” says North.

    And yet the news media, particularly liberal journalists writing for East Coast newspapers, seem intent on painting the fires as apocalyptic, and due to climate change, even though the skies would still be smoky and orange from fires burning the accumulation of wood fuel.

    The problem isn’t the misleading coverage per se.

    The problem is that the misleading coverage risks making people feel less control over the fires. After all, everyone knows that emissions reductions won’t change the amount of area burned or smoke produced any time soon.

    Scientists say somewhere between 500,000 and 4 million acres of forest land need to burn annually in California.

    Accepting that reality, and managing it in a practical and more nuanced way, requires moving beyond the kind of environmental alarmism that got us into this mess in the first place.

    If we do that, then we might be able to both limit, and plan for, the number of days in the future when we have to wake up to orange skies.



    Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All"












    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/09/10/why-environmental-alarmism-makes-forest-fires-worse/#5a595f0c3712

  16. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    60,371
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    they have completely abandoned forest management.. why?
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    As I understand it, the reason that west coast fires are burning again this year (which they do annually) has a lot to do with "environmental activism" and the rigid adherence of organizations like the Sierra Club etc. to the recent doctrine of fire suppression and the opposition to logging that goes along with the "green" movement. The US Forest Service is frequently the plaintiff in protracted legal battles which preclude thinning the fuel load in western timberland.

    The grass fires are also a regular occurrence. Before California's real estate sprawl made it politically impossibly to just let them burn themselves out, that was exactly what happened.

    Now fire crews aggressively try to extinguish every conflagration (because lives and property are at risk), and the dry, flammable ground cover remains in place just waiting for a spark and the Santa Ana winds.

Similar Threads

  1. Gas Plants To Stay Open As California Bows To Energy Reality
    By Grajonca in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-09-2020, 01:43 AM
  2. Trump brags about...his rally when visiting el paso hospital
    By guno in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2019, 07:43 PM
  3. Fox News Anchor Confronts Trump Official Over Ballooning Deficit
    By DonaldvoTrumpovich in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2019, 06:42 AM
  4. Trump takes the prize for the chaos he is visiting on stock markets
    By Tranquillus in Exile in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2018, 01:19 PM
  5. Reality star Trump seems to be facing reality
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-11-2016, 08:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •