30 dead now and still 200 missing. Moonbeam says it's global warming. As bad as Trump was for going political so soon, Moonbeam is a moron for refusing to acknowledge the lack of proper forest management.
Global Warming my ass!! There is no “global” Warming. There has been arctic warming, there has been a slight increase in minimal temps, but no increase in max temps. Besides, according to “global warming”, there should be more rain, which would be good for fire hazard.
Or vengeful misdirected environmentalists. Why is it that these fires always seem to "start" right when the Santa Anas are predicted? Maybe someone wants to continue blaming global warming? The Woolsey fire destroyed 83% of National Park service land in Santa Monica. And that's because there has been NO proactive burn plan. Residents near the Camp and Paradise fires have been predicting this for years because undergrowth has not been burned out.
Oh boy. There is no global warming. Even the god damn oil and gas companies have admitted there is. And it’s influenced by man. But I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and Trump have called it a hoax enough that some poor bastards with believe them.
[QUOTE="onceanlsufan, post: 1742245, member: 17523] Besides, according to “global warming”, there should be more rain, which would be good for fire hazard.[/QUOTE] Hurricane Florence rain totals. You said something about more rain . . . . .
These fires are far less to do with that than the mismanagement of years of undergrowth and the lack of a proactive burn plan. Did you not see that the USFS’s inventory data of National forests in California show an average of 266 trees per acre on a landscape that can only sustain 40-100 trees per acre. THAT has nothing to do with global warming.
LaSalle ... I hate to see that you are so gullible. 1) There is not a single piece of “empiric evidence” to support the theory of global warming. Bench experiments showing it is a greenhouse gas and that fossil fuels have increased CO2 ppm, is not evidence that CO2 is any kind of driver of climate. The only cited evidence is “virtual reality”, i.e., computer models. The prospective view of computer models show that have not correctly incorporated the radiative effects increased CO2 as noted by the models failure to accurately predict future warming. 2) the temperature graphs show there is no such thing as “global” warming. Reality, there is only “arctic” warming, and even at that the quantification is not known, as ALL arctic temps are calculated, not measured. 3) The Mechanism of CO2 induced global warming involves radiation and would be expected to operate “globally” in accordance to physics, but it does not. Temperature changes are not consistent with a global effect, with warming in the arctic, no change in the tropics, and cooling in the Antarctic. AND ... since long wave radiation (the type of radiative heat emitted by CO2) cannot penetrate the surface of water, and thus heat the ocean, the increased warming noted in the arctic cannot be due to a CO2 effect on ocean heat and currents. Contrast this to the truly global impact of CO2 increases on Global Greening, where it is proven that the entire globe is indeed greening as a result of increased CO2 fertilization. 4) the IPCCs own reports note that the prescribed solutions of decreasing CO2 by curtailing fossil fuel usage will have practically ZERO impact on global temperature and future warming ... again, refuting their own claim that CO2 plays any kind of meaningful role in climate. I could go on into even deeper science on this subject, but I don’t want your head to explode .... and it is pretty much a given that people who support CAGW, do not respond to science, but rather to emotional inputs like dying polar bears (false), drowning coast lines (false), and of coarse major disasters like increased hurricanes, floods and wild fires (again, all false). So I’ll just end with .... do you really want to kill millions of starving children by decreasing the worlds food production? Viva la global warming.
