Yup, read that recently. Interesting how various avenues of scientific research keep popping up to bite the politicized planet saving rhetoric in the backside.
The Dutch authorities have chosen Eemshaven port as the final destination for the fire-damaged car carrier Fremantle Highway. After consultation with all parties involved, Markus Harbers, the Dutch minister of infrastructure and water management decided that the car carrier would be towed to...
The story here not limited to Hawaii Electric. The several trillion $ all US utilities plan to expend over the next 12-20 years in the pyrrhic effort to “transition” electric power generation will come to some large degree at the alternative expense of hardening transmission & distribution assets. Perhaps the EPA should be co named in the class action suits...Credit :
Dave Walsh
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.
Because plants use carbon dioxide to grow, it’s tempting to think they might prefer a planet with more atmospheric CO2 than is present today. That’s not necessarily so.
Rep. Lamar Smith said climate change "alarmists" ignore the "positive impacts" of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as increased food production and quality. But the impact of increased CO2 levels on agriculture is more complicated than that -- and, on balance, likely negative...
Of course, it dries out foliage making it more easy to combust, so there is CORRELATION but there certainly is not CAUSATION… I wish we’d stop blaming a few days good weather on massive wildfires!
We like to blame ‘human activity’ for global warming, but fail to correctly blame human activity for wildfires.
Inept land management coupled with moronic human behaviour. THAT is the cause of wildfires.
I was debating this last summer with my daughters as we walked the dogs through fields, and as if by magic we came across two rectangle pieces of scorched earth… disposable BBQs used overnight by kids… in a dry field… with no clearing of the foliage, no small stone circle, etc.
”Girls, I rest my case” I said pointing at the evidence.
Even they had to concede, and they’ll argue up is down !!
Of course, it dries out foliage making it more easy to combust, so there is CORRELATION but there certainly is not CAUSATION… I wish we’d stop blaming a few days good weather on massive wildfires!
We like to blame ‘human activity’ for global warming, but fail to correctly blame human activity for wildfires.
Inept land management coupled with moronic human behaviour. THAT is the cause of wildfires.
I was debating this last summer with my daughters as we walked the dogs through fields, and as if by magic we came across two rectangle pieces of scorched earth… disposable BBQs used overnight by kids… in a dry field… with no clearing of the foliage, no small stone circle, etc.
”Girls, I rest my case” I said pointing at the evidence.
Even they had to concede, and they’ll argue up is down !!
CORFU. The four people arrested in connection with Monday night΄s arson attack on Lefkimmi landfill were taken to appear before the Prosecutor on Thursday afternoon.
First two members of a radical environmental group are sentenced to prison.
abcnews.go.com
More than 600 fires have ravaged Greece, with more than 60 breaking out per day.
Vassilis Kikilias, Greece's Minister of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, told a news conference that a total of 667 fires took place.
"The majority of them were arsons, either due to criminal negligence or intent," he said, adding: "The difference with other years was the weather conditions."
Of course, it dries out foliage making it more easy to combust, so there is CORRELATION but there certainly is not CAUSATION… I wish we’d stop blaming a few days good weather on massive wildfires!
We like to blame ‘human activity’ for global warming, but fail to correctly blame human activity for wildfires.
Inept land management coupled with moronic human behaviour. THAT is the cause of wildfires.
I was debating this last summer with my daughters as we walked the dogs through fields, and as if by magic we came across two rectangle pieces of scorched earth… disposable BBQs used overnight by kids… in a dry field… with no clearing of the foliage, no small stone circle, etc.
”Girls, I rest my case” I said pointing at the evidence.
Even they had to concede, and they’ll argue up is down !!
We have been fully informed that the wildfires are due to climate change, and they are terrible, etc.
Facts: the amount of land burned has been declining for several years and is well below what occurred I the 1930’s. It was just 2.2% in 2022 which was a record low. The Canadian and CA wildfires were mainly due to terrible forest management and not clearing dead brush for years. It was also due to bad wires from the utility poles in CA. Climate had nothing to do with any of it.
The UN climate panel even said the fires are due to weather.
The press and politicians seem to forget there is this thing called weather and lightening and droughts that have occurred since forever. How can you justify spending Trillions and lining the pockets of the climate industry if you don’t claim everything is a crisis that needs more funds unless it is due to climate change. How else do you blame others for poor forest management. The Australia fires were bad in the locations they were in, but they were only in a limited area of the country, and Australia has bad fires every year. If it had not been for all the smoke flowing into the US, and Manhattan, the press probably would never have noted the fires at all.
Modeling suggests increased fire risk and a longer fire season, with at least a 30 percent increase from 2011 in the area burned by lightning-ignited wildfire by 2060.
An online article discounts the influence of climate change on wildfires by pointing to satellite data that shows the amount of land burned in such blazes has decreased despite rising CO2 emissions. This is misleading; the extent of land destroyed by wildfires has shrunk over the past few...
First the alarmists tells us all that ‘the world is burning’ and this is due to climate change.
Then someone points out that actually, it’s not. Actually, the surface area burned has reduced year on year for a long time and continues to do so.
So then, suddenly, it’s not about how much land is burned, it’s about ‘the intensity‘ !!
Notice how they blame trees for fire, because trees suck up water from deep underground. What has that got to do with it? It’s foliage on the surface that burns, not the soil deep underground! Why not take that argument all the way, and blame the trees for the fires simply because they are there? After all, if they weren’t there, they couldn’t burn !!
But your first article still goes on to state that increase in temp cause massive increases in burned area (ie by 600% per centigrade rise). These are the same people telling us that the temperature HAS already risen… so where is the predicted huge increase? How is it possible that temps have increased AND land burnt has decreased AND their model is correct ??? They persist with this claim despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
It is arguments like this, where the alarmists argue against the clear evidence, that pollutes the whole climate debate IMO. People see it for what it is, ideology. And then people switch off to them altogether, which sadly means they often switch off to those making valid points too. They are defeating their own cause.
Wow Stephen.
It is arguments like this, where the alarmists argue against the clear evidence, that pollutes the whole climate debate IMO. People see it for what it is, ideology. And then people switch off to them altogether, which sadly means they often switch off to those making valid points too. They are defeating their own cause.
Solid observations FE.
So many grow so weary of the extremists proclamations and illogical viewpoints, yet, they continue to piss in their own chili.
I do note how quickly all the hair pulling terror tactics fall apart when logic, honestly applied science, and accountability come into play.
I have had discussions with animal rights activists relaying their concepts on the culling of human beings to maintain the status quo of various animal populations planet wide.
And she stated this appeal with tears (for the animals) in her eyes. This is the kind of emotional rapture that always predicates fact and I get spooked by the intensity from some of these self proclaimed environmental saviors.
I still see her periodically and I stay as far away from that nutcase as I can.
But your first article still goes on to state that increase in temp cause massive increases in burned area (ie by 600% per centigrade rise). These are the same people telling us that the temperature HAS already risen… so where is the predicted huge increase? How is it possible that temps have increased AND land burnt has decreased AND their model is correct ??? They persist with this claim despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
You are highlighting that the then said ‘in some types of forest’ as if that is a defence.
It is not. It is far from a defence. It is in fact evidence to the contrary…
If the 600% rise is ‘significant’ statistically, it will also show in an overall increase. Because if not, the only possibility is that reductions in other areas would have to be of a compensating magnitude.
So, there are three options here:
1. Global wildfires have fallen by a greater magnitude than those areas highlighted which have risen. This would seem remarkable, but if true, would indicate that these types of forest are outliers and that the global trend is on a very steep downward trajectory. If this is the case, their own evidence is totally debunking their own claim.
2. Their model is just plain wrong, ie they made an honest mistake. This is fair enough, but it is NOT fair to keep using and touting a model known to be wrong.
3. They have found a very specific, and very small forest, so small that a 600% rise is not significant in global terms. If it is not significant in global terms, why are we even talking about it? To use such an example, one in which they can state a 600% rise and yet it still be insignificant statistically is wrong by design, THAT is the manipulation of data right there !
“These are the same people telling us that the temperature HAS already risen… so where is the predicted huge increase? How is it possible that temps have increased AND land burnt has decreased AND their model is correct ??? They persist with this claim despite the clear evidence to the contrary”.
It is very common, and correct, to check predictive models by applying them retrospectively. Basically, the information used to predict can easily be checked for accuracy retrospectively by confirming if predicted outcomes did indeed occur following actual inputs. Such models should be adjusted, or perhaps abandoned, following such retrospective analysis.
Or, in plain speak: if temps have already risen by the amounts we have been told, then why have we not seen the correlating increases in wildfire damage and instead we have seen reductions ? You simply can‘t argue it both ways mate !
The Access Norton Website uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use www.accessnorton.com, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.humanprogress.org
Publishes Video Claiming 14% INCREASE in Green Vegetation. Mostly Due to Excess Carbon in Air...
