Bad tempered, I see no bad temper at all, I see a poignant analogy, maybe you're overly sensitive who typically wants to give it out but can't take it.

We who are speaking of man's impact has a much better understanding of the impact we are having on our little bubble. This is 2020 and we have plenty of data from all forms of life on what consequences have been happening from surmountable waste.

What we want to do is rectify that. Understand, that the only thing we DO have control over is what we do with our waste, in every for. Got it? Who should be absorbing THAT expense are the companies benefiting by their extreme profits. Yes extreme.

Your water pistol analogy is ignorance to the highest degree.

Natural greenhouse gas emissions vs. manmade: what’s the difference?
Before the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the last century, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were rather steady. This was not a snapshot: they were steady for thousands of years.

That’s because natural CO2 is not static, meaning it is not simply in the air, sitting there. Naturally-generated CO2 is a part of a very natural cycle in the atmosphere. That’s why the levels remained stable.

The carbon on land and in the ocean has stayed in balance. By measuring ice cores and using proxies, we have been able to study historic CO2 levels both directly and indirectly. The Earth has been able to generate, absorb, and cycle through carbon dioxide naturally for generations.

Now, consider what happens when manmade carbon dioxide sources begin their ascent. Yes, the natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year. Our 32 ½ gigatons seem paltry and inconsequential compared to that, right?

Well, not so much. Our world is made to handle the 750 gigatons naturally. Adding more than 30 gigatons is devastating because the land and the ocean do not have the capability to absorb that CO2.

Picture the Earth as a 2-quart bowl. Now imagine it filled with exactly two quarts of water. The bowl can easily handle that 2 quarts. But now, take another cup of water and dump it into the bowl. Immediately, you see the problem: that cup of water is going to overflow the bowl.

There are some who consider naturally-occurring sources of carbon dioxide to be proof that man made CO2 isn’t that big of a deal. But think of that bowl: the problem isn’t that the bowl has two quarts of water in it - the bowl is designed to handle that much water. The problem is the extra cup of water.

The same is true for us: the problem isn’t the 750 gigatons of CO2 that our planet can already handle - it’s the extra CO2 that we’re releasing into the atmosphere that it can’t handle.

The Earth is doing its best: about 40% of the extra CO2 in the air is being absorbed. But what happens to the rest of the CO2? It sits in the atmosphere.

What is the effect?
Because greenhouse gases have increased 31% since the Industrial Revolution, there is an extra buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to increase.

Yes, natural carbon dioxide contributes to this. But human activities are devastating the carbon cycle. The National Center for Atmospheric Research predicts a 90% chance that human activities - like the f****l f**l burning we’ve discussed here - will cause an increase in global temperatures of 1.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

http://www.arcadia.com/energy-101/environmental-impact/greenhouse-gas-emissions-natural-vs-man-made/


Another age-old climatic skeptic myth, is that the CO2 is coming from volcanoes – first time I had to rebut this was as a young postdoc in the 1990s. The total volcanic emissions are between 0.04 and 0.07 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, compared to the anthropogenic emissions of 12 gigatons in 2016. Anthropogenic emissions are now well over a hundred times greater than volcanic ones. The volcanic emissions are important for the long-term CO2 changes over millions of years, but not over a few centuries.

There is no evidence that any of the fires were started by protesters Even if they did, it makes no difference to the severity of the fire. I already said there can be many causes that can spark a fire but that has no bearing on the severity. Once the fire is started, the severity is determined by the quantity of fuel and the supply of oxygen, not the spark.

Also, there would be no 4 feet of dead wood if not for the severity of the drought. The forests have NEVER been cleared out and yet these fires are record breaking. Obviously then, NOT clearing the undergrowth is NOT the underlying cause of the severity of these fires.

BTW, most of the fires burning in California are on land managed by the federal government under
Trump. So you may want to change your excuse if you don't want to implicate the fuhrer.

As for draining the water, No. That water wasn't taken out of the sky which is what you need to save the land from drought. That water came from surface water which does NOT prevent drought OR fires. But since you mentioned it. The drought that YOU folks caused, is a major factor in why the surface water is being drained... It's not being replenished with the ice packs that supply most of the water in west, because there's no snowfall in a drought.

So, no none of what you mention has any bearing on the severity of the fires. The drought does, as caused by g****l w*****g, as caused by Republicans catering to the fossil-fuel industry.

Thanks!

Barracuda is an excellent example of the left accusing the right of what they themselves are doing.
For any new folks out there, this is an important lesson to learn. The left believes the end justifies the means, and so if you want to get a pretty good idea of what they are doing, just listen to what they accuse the President and the Republicans of doing.
I am not a Republican. I have remained a conservative independent for over 40 years. I base my political beliefs on what credible evidence supports, and what solutions have demonstratably worked in the past. Blaming republicans for fires in California is ridiculous, stupid, and deliberate.

Having hiked and camped in various parts of California, among other western states, I wholeheartedly agree -- the state of California's "environmental" policies do not include any common sense measures, like clearing dried out, dead stuff or fire breaks/ logging of any kind to thin the forests a bit, hence no logging roads. Somebody dropping a lit cigarette into some dead leaves can trigger a massive fire that destroys hundreds or thousands of acres and hundreds of homes with no obstructions whatsoever, simply because the forests are inundated with "fuel."

Friends I've hiked with and I have talked about this for years.

Then there's the fact that before there were even people around to have the option of committing to responsible forestry and before there was any kind of heavy industry, spontaneous combustion vehicles or any of the other things to which these phonies attribute "g****l w*****g" or "c*****e c****e" (except, of course, the dreaded "cow farts"), forests, dead undergrowth, dead wood and all, blazed merrily away without even a single firefighter to stand in the way.

For these folks to act as though none of the natural disasters we experience today occurred until man (more specifically, those dastardly Republican r****ts, homophobes, c*****e c****e deniers and w***e s*********ts) came along and destroyed Utopia shows, more than anything else, the utter contempt they have for the intelligence of their fellow human beings.

These posters here at OPP who defend this insanity, however, indicate that these con artists' above mentioned contempt for the intelligence of fellow humans is at least partially justified...

Total and completely TRUE. All the things you have said have been proven accurate. The ecology nuts are right about a few things, but their desired corrective measures are ignorant and unworkable We humans should be good and reasonable caretakers of this world. We need to assure clean water, clean and healthy environments for all living things, and we should properly tend to our trash.
But that does NOT mean that humanity should be placed below the natural world. We, too, are part of the natural world, and meeting our needs is the function of our world. But we do not need to poop in our own nest. This is the only world we have, at least for the forseeable future, so lets take care of it in a reasonable fashion.

Barracuda is an excellent example of the left accusing the right of what they themselves are doing.
For any new folks out there, this is an important lesson to learn. The left believes the end justifies the means, and so if you want to get a pretty good idea of what they are doing, just listen to what they accuse the President and the Republicans of doing.
I am not a Republican. I have remained a conservative independent for over 40 years. I base my political beliefs on what credible evidence supports, and what solutions have demonstratably worked in the past. Blaming republicans for fires in California is ridiculous, stupid, and deliberate.

Here in the US, we have done a really good job of cleaning things up. Most of this "cleaning up" occurred back in the second half of the 1900s, when political factions still worked together and negotiated sensible solutions.

Today, the "environmental" groups, under the umbrella of the extreme left and the Democratic Party they now seem to own, have developed an "our way or the highway" approach that attempts to force extreme measures down our throats and relegates mankind, our necessities and our day-to-day existence and innovations to the lowest of the low in nature's pecking order.

When I was in the Coast Guard in the early to mid 1970s, I recall steaming through waterways like the Hudson River in New York, seeing large clumps of dirty yellow waste bobbing everywhere and smelling sulfury chemicals in the air.

By the 1980s, that was all gone, and this sort of thing has happened all over America. We get things done when we work together -- when demagoguery sets in among extremist groups who have the funding to purchase politicians and the ear of gullible or agenda driven media, problems ensue.