yeah, that's it.

Nothing new. Crazy arsonists have alway been around, which is why the number of fires isn't much different now than it was ten years ago. It's the SIZE of the fires, that is creating the unusual results... Roughly the same number of fires but more massive and intense.

LOL - fair enough.

That's one of the things government is good for. There's actually not much innovation in the commercial world that isn't built on top of technologies that were incubated by tax-funded programs when returns on investment were too low for private sector business plans.

Actually, the cost of sustainable energy is dropping considerably these days. And one could argue that the only reason why oil remains cheap is because of the recent flood of oil from shale, but how long will that last?

Personally, I think curbing emissions is just as important as affordability. Besides, so what if energy is more expensive? It just means we'll be forced to adapt, forced to be more creative, more resilient, stronger, better and CLEANER! No pain no gain, right?

From the voting records. Also from my recollection of environmental issues over the years.

Curb emissions. The same thing the scientists are suggesting. It's really the ONLY thing we know how to do that stands a chance of slowing the process down. Think of it this way. We're in a car going down the highway at 60 mph and we have no brakes. We need to think about how to avoid a crash. So do we keep our foot down on the gas pedal so we can go even faster?


OK, here's the thing... We can blame the entire human race for playing a role going all the way back to the start of the industrial revolution. For most of that time we simply didn't know that what we were doing was having this impact. We really didn't know until science caught up in the later half of the 20th century and that's when we had a chance to correct the problem. But how? Well, if emissions are causing the problem it makes sense to cut back emissions to a level that doesn't upset the natural balance, right? Kind of a no-brainer. But industries didn't want to because it cut into their profits. So, the people (at least the liberals anyway) asked the government to force industries to cut emissions, because saving the world from global warming seemed a little more important than the investment returns of a handful of people in the top 1%. But those investors have friends in the government (indeed, in both main parties). As it turn out it was the Republican Party that provided consistent opposition to those regulations.

So even if you can't blame a doctor for a patient GETTING a disease, but what if the patient dies because of the doctor's misdiagnosis? No, the Republicans were not alone in creating the problem, but they ARE alone in stopping the efforts everyone else made to correct the problem before it was too late. So there's the core of my argument.


I never said Trump was responsible I said the GOP is.


Well, this is where you need to understand the latency between policy and its environmental impact. Depending on conditions it can take years. Obama did everything he could do to regulate industry and a lot of what he did was not implemented right away so as to give industry a few years to adapt. I guess we'll never see the benefit because Trump reversed it all.

If liberals in general had their way, we wouldn't just be less dependent on oil from OPEC we would be less dependent on oil PERIOD!

NOT the same! Global warming is a singular condition involving the entire planet that CAUSES a multitude of regional climate changes. Clearly not the same thing. And yes, it's natural for global warming to occur periodically but what makes you think that means it can't also be started anthropogenically? Grass is natural too - I don't see that stopping people from growing it.


I can't believe after all these years, you're still stuck on these 3rd grade assertions. Yes, CO2 is needed just like a houseplant needs water. But what happens when you OVER water a houseplant? Oh, did it die? But I thought the plants need water - sooo confusing.

Ha, ha, ha!


I dunno bro - Look at my last response to your half-baked assertion that global warming isn't anthropogenic because it's natural... I had to finish the thought process for you to get to the point that you didn't see because you stopped short.


Well, that's relevant - LOL

What analogy? And how do you measure someone's intellectual integrity with an analogy anyway? That doesn't even make sense.


So it's not that I lack integrity, it's that you don't agree with my argument. Or is there no difference as far as you're concerned? Agreeing with you... it that what integrity means, Rose?

And since you think I'm making too many assumptions you should be able to point to at least one of them right? Can you do that?


Two things... I know for a fact that patients are not asked whether they planned the abortion out of convenience and just the fact that you said, "some consider theirs on the low side" proves the statistics are not factual. What you have are guesses and the more prejudice the person, the higher the guess is going to be.

"But hey, conditions were sterile!"
"Yes, so the mothers don't get infected. Dugh!"
"Lets give out needles to druggies so they're sterile. That's a stupid argument too."

So... are we still talking about whether to blame Republicans for the fires? 'Cause it seems like you're just ranting about liberals in general.


And why wouldn't you? These are big problems so lots of people talk about them. I'm not a Republican Rose, to me a talking point isn't a script provided by my thought leaders. A talking point is an issue over which people can engage with their own thoughts. See the difference?


I don't think it's ridiculous at all, you just don't agree. If it wasn't for family planning and the option to abort legally, many of those embryos terminated in the first trimester, would develop into later term fetuses and be aborted then. Many more would be born to parents that can't provide for them, or that wind up resenting them. Others would be born with defects that guarantee a torturous childhood and a hopeless life. More would be born with drug addictions because the mother is on drugs. If Republicans got their way, there would be an over abundance of neglected and abused children growing into criminals and psychopaths. For these poor souls, being terminated as an embryo would save them from a life of misery. Mercy.


The *lesser* evil (assuming there is any evil in Biden, which I really don't see) And you can't vote for ANY candidate without running with one herd or another, Rose. I mean, seriously - think about it.

That's pretty vague... What exactly is a crap hole? Or are you just venting your general distaste for liberals?


Sounds good to me. Better yet, we can relax the idiot immigration laws, so most of them won't even be illegal! It's a great idea!


I'm glad you can at least see the beauty and the variety. But it seems you're on the wrong side if you wish to preserve that beauty. Right now the state looks like hell because of the massive fires caused by the drought caused by the climate change caused by global warming caused by emissions defended by Republicans.

Thanks for the data Randy. As we can see, the temperature *IS* increasing. But I don't think anyone is arguing that point anymore, right? The debate now seems to have shifted to "well yeah, global warming is real but is it anthropogenic?"

Still, I want to point something out in your data that I think is important to understand...

Look at the differences from one decade to the next... I'll draw it out for you... here's the same data converted to expressions of percentage increase from one decade to the next.



From here we can get the sum totals...
Total increase: 2.70%
Total decrease: -0.25%
Total difference: 2.45%

But the real significance isn't just that temperatures have increased by 2.45% it's the WAY it's increasing. The temperature increase for the last two decades in the dataset is significantly higher than any of the previous decades indicating an increase in the rate of acceleration.

Did you see that when you looked at that data before you posted it? I know, a lot of people glance at the numbers and see two things... The numbers appear small and there are decreases as well as increases. That makes it easy to think of the data as nominal, but when you look closer and find patterns you find more significance.

BTW, the last decade is missing from your dataset so I'm going to add it to see if that makes things more obvious. I can't find the average global mean temperature for the 2010 decade, so I will have to calculate that myself using the annual reports from NOAA.

And here it is...


Yup, still going up and it IS accelerating... exponentially. The total increase from 1880 to 2019 is 3.38%, minus the total decrease, we're at 3.14%. So now let's look at the running totals.



Now are you starting to see the picture? This is still coming from the data you provided. But now we can see that it took 100 years to see an increase of at least 1%. The very next decade it was already past 2% and one decade later we're past 3%.

This is what Al Gore was referring to with his hockey stick analogy. He wasn't wrong. Your data proves it.

Still not alarmed? Is that because a mean temperature of 58'F really doesn't seem like a big deal, especially since it took 140 years to get there from 56'F?

A few more things to explain then...

1. The median global temperature is the mid-point between the extremes across many different climates, not all of which are affected equally. So a 2% increase in the median temperature could mean the temperature drops by 2% in some climates and increases by 4% in others.

2. It's not a simple matter of how the temperature feels when you walk outside. There are certain thresholds in the spectrum where a 1 degree change makes all the difference. For instance, water is frozen into solid ice at 32'F. At 33'F it melts into liquid water. Different liquids have various, specific boiling points.

So, elements CAN be affected by a 1 degree change, which means all the complex systems built on top of them can also be affected by a 1 degree change, including weather systems, food chains, malaria zones... all kinds of stuff and the repercussions go far and wide, like how a 2% increase in global mean temp causes prolonged droughts and record-breaking heat in the westerns states which creates more flammable material in the underbrush which feeds more intense fires, which kills more people.

LOL - yeah, that's it... Republicans base their policy decisions on how insulted they are by someone's personality. You got it bro!

Well, there might not be much we can do about it NOW. I mean it's a little late to avoid it now. But we can maybe slow it down enough to buy some time and figure out how to survive the future the Republicans made for us.


Well, here's the thing about hard evidence. It all comes from the past. There has NEVER been ANY hard evidence to prove anything about the future and unless we can time travel, there never will be.

So what we have are theories - when it comes to the future, that's all we ever have and the way science works, it's a constant process of improving the theories. So I don't know exactly what you are calling a lie or an exaggeration but I know that updated theories often strike people as contradictions. Especially religious people who are accustomed to thinking of the truth as a constant, a revelation that has already been presented in its absolute form based on what people said 2000 years ago.

If you felt like it was being shoved down your throat it might be due to the urgency of the matter. When you're being chased by a monster and run into your front door only to find it locked but you know friends inside can open it, you knock. When your friends take their sweet time to open the door because they don't think your in danger and the monster is closing in, what happens? You start banging and yelling, "Let me IN!!!" Right?


Evidence of what? That we are emitting gigatons of greenhouse gases in the air? Evidence that greenhouse gasses really do retain heat? Or that according to all the natural cycles we know about we should be cooling right now, not warming? I can't hop in a DeLorean and blast into the future to find that sign that says "humans did it". At some point when looking at the future we just have to put two and two together.

Maybe you can let me know what evidence from the past you need to believe we have more control over our destiny that you seem to think presently.

I gotta take a break... But I'll check in later.

So... are you referring to where I said I cleared the brush from the fire zone around my house? OK, that's true. But where did I say "cutting out fuel in the forest is taboo." ??? I didn't. I never said that. I said it wasn't FEASIBLE to clear dead wood from the 33 million acres of forest in California because it's cost prohibitive. I NEVER said it was taboo.

Get a grip Sparky.