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.

Oh, I get the point and yes it's very simple. You think I'm being intellectually dishonest. But I don't agree. I think I AM being intellectually honest. That's why I asked you to explain your accusation but it seems you can't. So don't tell me I'm not getting the point Rose.


Sure. I accept that. Obviously, I'm not like you Rose. I have the courage and the integrity to confront my own actions. Yes, I am partly responsible through my politics for allowing embryos to be terminated. I already described that as last resort mercy killing.


Neither of us know how many of those abortions were for "convenience". I think the vast majority of abortions are last resort measures.


Yes, so the mothers don't get infected. Dugh!


Absolutely! Because of the right, we have the crappiest AND most expensive healthcare system in the developed world, the crappiest education system in the developed world, the most gun violence (per capita) in the developed world, the worst water quality in the developed world... I mean, the list goes on and on.


Mercy killing isn't amoral. Killing people because you don't care enough to realize you're doing it and then denying it when someone points it out or worse putting the blame on the victims... THAT is amoral!


'Not a game and I don't yip yap.


Yes, both have betrayed us... But politics isn't static. Parties shift with the times and sometimes one party is more caustic than the other, which is why people so often vote for the lesser of two evils. I have no doubt in my mind that the Republican party is currently the more evil of the two by a wide margin.

No, I haven't. First of all, it's not the job of the Sierra Club to do that, nor would they have the capacity to clear the dead wood from 33 million acres of forest. Would it help if they could? Yes, of course it would. Obviously the point I'm making is that global warming has produced an excess of dead vegetation so clearing it out would be one way to fix the problem. But it's not just the Sierra Club that lacks the capacity to do that. In simple terms, no one does. Not even the federal government, which is why it's NEVER BEEN DONE!!!

Someone earlier said that Republicans have proposed it, but that was a lie. There is no record in Congress or the State Assembly to suggest that Republicans have EVER proposed clearing out the dead wood from 33 million acres of land.


Here's what you're missing... Global warming CAUSES climate change (so... two different things) The climate change (or the effect of global warming) is different depending on the region. In the western half of the North American continent the effect is a hotter and drier climate which turns lush vegetation into dead vegetation and that become the fuel.



Well, here's the other point you might be missing... Going all the way back to my original post I have made it very clear that I am not talking about what STARTS the fire - I'm talking about what makes the fire so much bigger and intense AFTER it starts and you're right, the answer is fuel, not arson, not lighting, not gender reveal parties or any of the other excuses posted on this discussion, but fuel.

Clearing the dead vegetation is therefore the ONLY response in the last 17 pages that makes any sense at all, but like I said, it's not feasible nor has it ever been done.

But there wouldn't BE so much dead vegetation if voters paid attention to what the environmentalists have been saying for three decades and voted for lawmakers that aren't scared of regulating industry to curb emissions. It just so happens that those lawmakers and any such regulation have ALL been opposed by Republicans.

I never said any of those things... Apparently, you're down to lying about what I said so you can insult me. Well, I don't get insulted by stupidity. It just makes me feel sorry for you.

How is it ridiculous Carol? Are you going to be like Rose and just stick you tongue out because you really don't have a way to prove I'm wrong?

HOW is it dishonest Rose? I asked you to explain it not to just repeat it.


So?
Here's what I said in my OP... "And that goes for ALL people who have voted Republican over the last 40 years." So it doesn't matter if you identify as a Republican, the question is did you VOTE Republican? I'm not a Democrat either - 'doesn't mean I won't vote for Biden.


Maybe there are more important things than keeping this country together. I've said that for years now and recently I'm noticing millions of Americans are starting to agree with me. To be honest, I don't want to share a democracy with the American Right anymore. It's degrading.


Ohh, I see - glad you were able to find an excuse for your complete lack of intellectual integrity.


As you so plainly demonstrate.

So? Slugs live in the woods too. So obviously, that's not much of a qualification.



I'm really not interested in your baseless prejudices. Go find ONE documented case where "tree huggers" have prevented ANYONE from clearing dead wood from the wilderness, THEN get back to me. Got that Sparky?

Both.

How is it intellectual dishonesty Rose? Why don't you explain that instead of just hurling the accusation around, like you don't know what else to say? Talk is cheap.

As a member of Surfriders Foundation I got involved in a campaign in Orange County to convince the City of Orange (The West Coast Capital of Republicans) to overhaul their sewage treatment system because it couldn't handle the increased volume of water when it rained and raw sewage would run right out into the ocean without treatment. The city was dominated by Republicans who refused to spend the money.

So don't EVEN go there pal.

Dude, I got like 30 posters arguing with me. I can't answer all of you at once. It might help if so many of you would stop posting the same arguments especially when I already countered them.

Not the number of fires, the magnitude of the fires and yes, not just in California but all around the world. Am I putting ALL the blame on Republicans? No, and I'm glad you bring this up. The U.S. is responsible for about 15% of the global emissions including about 5.41 gigatons of CO2 per year and for THAT we can certainly thank the GOP. But the U.S. is also a world leader with a ton of influence over most other countries in the world and that is also affected by who we vote into the White House to manage foreign policy. The last asshole they elected to the White House was Trump and pulling out of the Paris Accord was one of the first thing he did in office. That was a symbolic gesture that said the U.S. will NOT lead the world out of this mess.


https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2020-08/co2-emissions-per-country-chart.jpg?itok=jrXDnBZC


They don't "control" the lack of rain anymore than a drunk driver "controls" his car as he plunges into a bus. And that's the issue... in both cases the elements SHOULD have been controlled. The lack of rain comes from the drier, hotter climate, caused by global warming, caused by the emissions that SHOULD have been controlled.


Not to the extent that we are seeing it. As I'm sure you noticed, the science deniers are ALWAYS pawning off that argument that all these climate changes happen naturally anyway and they do, they always have. But again, it's the magnitude of the fires and the magnitude of the droughts that are surpassing levels that can be explained by natural cycles and events. The process of isolation therefore leaves us with anthropogenic global warming, caused by the pollution that Republicans have allowed to continue.

Thank you Abbie. I wasn't expecting any of the right-wingers on this site to agree with or even consider what I am saying. But I'm tired of being politically correct. I don't assume any of them actually meant to kill all these people. Obviously by looking at the responses they don't really understand how global warming works but they are offended by my accusation that through their politics they have effectively allowed the loss of property and life to these fires.

We can argue with them all day long and nothing will change. I mean who wants to accept blame for something they didn't realize they were doing? But that's also my point. To tell them - hey! Look what you're doing!!!