1. in 2019, 85% of the fires in California started on federal land which accounts for about 47% of California's total land area. So, if that land is not managed, it's really not the fault of California, it's the fault of the federal government under Trump.

2. That underbrush wouldn't need to be cleared if Republicans didn't prevent us from curbing emissions thereby creating a warmer climate which in turn created the drought conditions that made the underbrush a problem in the first place. These fires are record breaking. 10 years ago they were not nearly as bad and you know what? No one was clearing the underbrush then either. Obviously, your statement is utter nonsense.


OK, so you have no argument then. I'll pass on the baseless insults.


I don't know how typical that is but yes, I am blaming the Republicans, I have stated my reasons for doing so and so far, not one person has been able to invalidate ANY of those reasons. That's what you call a strong argument and yes, I understand how frustrating that must be for you, so go ahead and hurl your insults, whatever makes you feel better.


Only by the idiots on the right. No skin off my nose.

LOL - I think you mean to say "eons". An ion is an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.

And yes, the earth has been warming and cooling for eons... So what? Fires have been around for eons too, does that mean it's impossible for a man to start one?

Says Peewee. The master of baseless statements.

Oh, I realize that both sides are being played against one another, but that doesn't change the prevailing patterns found in the voting records in which progressives show a bias toward clean energy and conservatives consistently oppose it.

Everything else in your post is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell so yes... unless you have some evidence to back up your wild accusations, you ARE "wasting your breath", because I have no compelling reason to accept what some stranger who goes by Peewee says on faith alone.

I hope you understand. ;)

That's not a high opinion of myself, it's a low opinion of Republicans… specifically when it comes to politics. And just to clarify, I am referring to Republican voters. Their leaders are very smart about taking advantage of Republican voter stupidity.

So there ya go. ;)


Is that what you're calling it? Superior? Huh. Well, I got my "superior" savvy from about 40 years of interest in politics starting off with a major in journalism.


Yes, I would say so.


How very Nazi of you. But to be clear, I have never suggested any of you are "inferior people" I was very clear in saying Republicans are stupid when it comes to politics. I'm stupid when it comes to why women take so long to get ready to go out. See, how that works?

Don't be such a victim.


Looks like they were right.


Yep.


So… that's it? No actual counter-argument to what the climate experts are saying? Just a reversion to a myth about science being wrong most of the time?

[quote=Blade_Runner]
In fact, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. What follows is just a tiny sampling of those discredited claims.

A new ice age and worldwide starvation:

Global warming — temperature predictions: [i]Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.
[/quote]
So I'm wondering how you are calling a prediction for rising temperatures a warning about a new ice age. You seem confused.


Oooh, five "official" but unnamed datasets! Ha, ha… For all I know that could be five of those weather station gadgets you can get on Amazon set up in the living rooms of five Republican idiots. LOL

Here's the data according to the NOAA which uses thousands of datasets from sources that range from old records (humans started recording temps in 1880) to thousands of modern instruments scattered all over the world.

https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2020/9/12/t1-300795-globaltemps.jpg

As you can clearly see, you're wrong. And just so you know it's not just a matter of which source I trust. I know that's how you conservatives operate because yours is a culture of blind faith. But I actually understand how the greenhouse effect works, so not only is the NOAA data much more exhaustive that your mysterious five "official" datasets, the resulting conclusions actually makes sense.


Well, that's one way of doing it and with the stubborn refusal of industry to compromise, it seems more and more like that's the only remaining option if we actually want to curb emissions. But Bright Fart is demonstrating that typical overreaction to appeal to your fears. Just because someone says we should use the coercive power of the state to curb emissions doesn't mean they are suggesting a communist revolution. Trump is using the coercive power of the state to make Chinese imports more expensive. The Christian-Right is trying to use the coercive power of the state to make sure women don't get abortions and that gay people can't get married. Are we calling THEM Leninists?

When it comes to politics... yes, I do.


Thanks for letting me know. Sometimes it's hard to tell.


Apparently, education doesn't always translate to wisdom.


Such as?

Well, now you know how it feels to be on the other end of someone's disregard for being politically correct. A behavior that Trump fans hold in high regard... I guess until it's leveled at them. Then all of a sudden it's a different thing.


You can ignore all that if you want, but I don't. Indeed, all those factors you mention actually contribute to my conclusion. You see, most the people on the right have never even heard of these factors until they were presented as political arguments that insist global warming is natural. But the environmentalists and the science community already know global warming is a natural phenomenon (dugh!) and they've known about the factors you mention for a long time... long enough to study them and realize that given all these factors in aggregate, we should be cooling right now, not warming. That's the single most compelling reason to suspect the current warming trend is anthropogenic.

So laugh all you want Sparky, but the joke is on you.

That's actually not true. He wasn't caught starting the fire. He was caught filming the fire and he was arrested on suspicion of starting the fire. A suspicion based on the fact that the police saw him earlier walking along the highway BEFORE the fire started. He said he was looking for his camera which he lost the previous day while riding his dirt bike. Who knows? Maybe he did start the fire and maybe he didn't. One thing is certain... they didn't catch him in the act.

From what I can tell this guy isn't super bright. His conversation style seems a bit juvenile for a 36 year old. He was apparently arrested at the Ferguson protest for having a gun in his backpack that he says he forgot was there. From what I can tell in the video he shot at the time, the police were far more concerned about the legal status of his guns than they were about the fire.

He also appears to be a video blogger, so there's reason to suspect he isn't as much a protester as much as a guy that goes to demonstrations for video content. His protest videos clearly show him on the sidelines filming, not marching with the protesters. Yes, he posted on facebook that he supports BLM but not the looters, but lots of people support BLM - that doesn't make them all protesters.

So, if you're attempting to back up the claim that protesters are starting these fires, I'm going to call that a really long stretch. First of all, the fire was small and it was extinguished while the guy was still being questioned by the police on the side of the road. Secondly, he wasn't caught setting the fire and finally this feeble "evidence" is all you got.

And yet it keeps happening. And someone is broadcasting it because we keep hearing about it. Maybe you should hire some security from California, lots of chemical plants there too but sabotage doesn't seem to be such a problem.

So, are you switching subjects because you can't counter my argument? Just wondering.

As for your question, I might have an answer if your scenario was true but it's not. I can't explain something that isn't happening. "leftist states" (if that's what we're calling states with Democratic majorities) are not "letting" arsonists run rampant. Arson is still a crime in every "leftist" state in the union and if they are caught they are arrested and brought to justice. And these "leftist" states ARE dealing with their law enforcement problems... WTF do you think police reform is about?

What kind of idiot question is that? Are you actually trying to say that because a fire hazard isn't actually a fire the two are not related? Wow. LOL - just... WOW!


I think the scientists at NOAA are correct in stating the SEVERITY of the drought conditions are due to AGW, and for that I am blaming the Republicans, absolutely!


Same explanation. Global warming. I'm guessing you don't know this, but when you apply heat to different materials you get different results. The same principle applies to climate... Some regions have more water than others so when heated the results are different. Seriously, the planet doesn't work like a living room where you turn the thermostat down to 74'F and the whole room cools down evenly. The planet is much bigger and much more complicated.

Studies have predicted that in the U.S. alone, the early results of AGW will be droughts in the west and massive hurricanes and resulting floods in the east. If the melting ice dilutes the salinity in the North Atlantic it could possibly reverse the currents, which would then cause the eastern seaboard to freeze. Yes, a rising median in global temperatures COULD turn New York into a tundra. It's sounds ironic but it's a technical probability.


Not necessarily. Global warming is measured by the median temperature, which is a reference to the middle point between the extremes. So, even if the the lowest temperature, let's say in Antarctica, actually drops by a degree, the median temperature would still be a degree higher if the highest temperature, let's say in Ethiopia rises by three degrees.

But technicalities aside, you're examples are all based on the measure of water not the measure of heat.

Based on what? So far, no one has answered with anything but baseless insults like yours and a handful of really lame arguments (if you can even call them that).

I know I'm taking an extreme tact on this thread, but that's a message in itself. For years I have been logging into this site and disputing right-wing bullshit with logic and evidence, issue by issue and after all that, I've come to the realization that the closed minds on the right will never accept any evidence or logic if it conflicts with their idiot politics.

So, this time, I'm going straight to the sum total of Republican failure to emphasize its severity in simple terms that I hope they can understand. I'm using the wildfires as the example in this case only because it's the easiest to explain and the responses I've received so far is exactly what I had anticipated.

(Sheep are very predictable).

They did... Carter initiated some of the first steps toward alternate energy sources. Reagan reversed all of it. I don't remember Clinton doing as much but he at least acknowledged the problem and his VP, Al Gore spearheaded a movement to stop global warming. Obama did all kinds of stuff to help prevent the effects of global warming including numerous environmental regulations which Trump has since reversed. Obama also committed to the Paris Accord in an effort to lead the whole world down a path to a cleaner and safer environment and of course Trump breached that agreement too.

LOL - Are you kidding me? Texas has suffered from massive fires! And less than half the state is west of the 100 longitude which is the magic line that divides the arid west from the humid east. Here's a map from the Texas A&M Forestry Service that shows what parts of Texas is at high risk. Notice most of the risk is in the western part of the state.

https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2020/9/11/t1-812979-texas_fires.jpg

...because you clean up your yards... what an absurd thing to say. You don't think Californians do the same? I used to have a house on 4.5 acres of land outside San Diego and I spend a lot of time and money every year on clearing a zone around the house to prevent fires, so did all the other homeowners in the area, conservative and liberals alike.

It's got nothing to do with our backyards Sparky. It's the environment at large. California, Oregon and Washington have WAY more wilderness in the drought-affected zones than Texas does and THAT is where almost all the fires are. Maybe in Texas more of the fires are started by lazy people, since you folks hold the record for fires started at chemical plants as a result of negligence.

Apparently not according to Trump who sent federal goons to Portland without any request from Oregon. Did you forget that? LOL

Also, the federal lands on which most of the fires are burning are managed by the federal government not the state. Saying the states have to ask for help with federal land management is like me telling you that you have to ask me to drive my own car.

Also, you missed my point about severity of fires vs number of fires. The number of fires hasn't actually increased, the severity has and as I have said the spark has no influence on the severity of the fire, the fuel does. I know science is hard for you guys but it would be nice if you at least tried. Anyway, trying to push the blame on arsonists for the severity of these fires is absurd.

Trying to blame it on mismanaged forests, considering how much of it was under Trump's scope of responsibility is a backfire that would embarrass any Republican with the brains to figure it out.