Stop Blaming Climate Change For California’s Fires

Global warming nutters deserve to be smeered [sic].

I can list several that have extremist views:

Hansen
Erdenhofer
Anderson

...just to name a few.

Note than Hansen is the Imperial Grand Kleagel Wizard and Chief Architect of the global nonsense.

Anderson is Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done about "Global Warming."

That is the Big Lie.

Peak CO2 levels in the previous 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods range from 272 ppm to 298 ppm.

Sea levels in the 8 previous recorded Inter-Glacial Periods ranged from 4 meters to 14 meters HIGHER than present.

Global temperatures in the 8 previous recorded Inter-Glacial Periods ranged from 7.5°F to 15.3°F WARMER than present.

So.....we ruin everyone's lives and destroy economies to reduce CO2 to 290 ppm and the sea levels still rise another 4 meters to 14 meters and average global temperatures still rise another 7.5°F to 15.3°F.

You cannot demonstrate why this particular Inter-Glacial Period should be different than all the others.

 

Mircea you stated:
"Global warming nutters deserve to be smeered (sic)".

1. I am glad you noticed the spelling mistake but your comment still reflects your lack of rationality and emotions.

2. You stated :" I can list several that have extremist views:

Hansen
Erdenhofer
Anderson

...just to name a few."

Yes you could, it still does not mean global warming does not exist. All it shows is youyr petulance and need to try smear all people you disagree with as having the same beliefs.

3. You stated:

"Note than Hansen is the Imperial Grand Kleagel Wizard and Chief Architect of the global nonsense.

Anderson is Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research."

And so? The fact you disagree with them means what? Using your "logic: anyone who disagrees with you should be attacked personally because you are too lazy and intellectually dishonest to address the global warming issues they raise. You avoid those issues and instead try engage in name calling. so? Other than show you avoid debate and try name call what have you acheived in yur responses other than to show you do not know how to discuss the global warming issues?

You stated:

"There is absolutely nothing that can be done about "Global Warming.

That is the Big Lie.

Peak CO2 levels in the previous 8 recorded Inter-Glacial Periods range from 272 ppm to 298 ppm.

Sea levels in the 8 previous recorded Inter-Glacial Periods ranged from 4 meters to 14 meters HIGHER than present.

Global temperatures in the 8 previous recorded Inter-Glacial Periods ranged from 7.5°F to 15.3°F WARMER than present.

So.....we ruin everyone's lives and destroy economies to reduce CO2 to 290 ppm and the sea levels still rise another 4 meters to 14 meters and average global temperatures still rise another 7.5°F to 15.3°F.

You cannot demonstrate why this particular Inter-Glacial Period should be different than all the others."

The above 7 disjointed sentences make no sense. To start with no one who discusses the consequences of global warming says nothing can be done about it. You do. You make that false assumption and project it on people you think you disagree with. That exercise is illogical. Next your comments about we should not reduce CO2 levels because it won't change anything loss also nonsensical. Lowering CO@ levels will of course have benefits. The fact you make a unilateral announcement or declaration it won't change anything with zero proof for your position speaks loudly again as to your inability to discuss the issues. You present nothing but one sided unilateral subjective statements with zero proof. That is not debating its just self entitled taunts. Finally your petulant taunt about "you cannnot demonstrate"... makes no sense. It has been demonstrated and proven. While we are at it since you want to correct my spelling, cannot in the sentence you use is separated not joined.

The fact you disagree with what has been demonstrated and proven does not mean it hasn't been proven, it simply means you disagree with it and you pose that if you disagree with something it can't exist. That is illogical.

This ends my responses and on to ignore with you. If you do not want to debate the actual issues and limit yourself to name calling and taunts with no reference to anything to back your positions it is pointless responding to you. You make it clear you are only interestedin making unilateral pronouncements. Go ahead. That's why we have an ignore button. Buh bye now.

 

The climate alarmist narrative about wildfires cannot be sustained by the data.
The Hill Is Wrong, Climate Change Is Grossly Overemphasized as a Factor Causing Wildfires
WILDFIRES OCTOBER 11, 2021
Near the top of a Google news search for the phrase “climate change” today turns up a story in The Hill claiming the media is failing to properly place the blame for wildfires on climate change. This is false. Hundreds of stories over the past two years alone have blamed climate change for wildfires. To be accurate, they are all wrong. Data do not show a significant increase in the number of wildfires or the acreage burned by them. As a result, rather than underrepresenting climate change as a cause of wildfires, the mainstream media is, in fact, giving misplaced emphasis on climate change as a factor in wildfires. . . .

 

The fires are nothing special, but the lies are burning hotter than ever.
Justin Rowlatt’s Fake Californian Wildfires Report
Guest Blogger
All in all, this is an extremely shoddy piece of reporting by Justin Rowlatt, who evidently is the BBC’s go to guy for climate disinformation. . . .

 

Here are some fires that really were caused by human activity.
Californian Criminal Justice Professor Charged with Serial Arson
Eric Worrall
Professor Maynard allegedly set a series of devastating fires, the Cascade and Everitt fires, on July 20 and 21, and the Ranch and Conard fires on August 7 in 2021.…

 

The story doesn't stand up without bad science.
Media Promotes Badly Flawed Science Spreading It Like Wildfire
Guest Blogger
Despite the bad science a multitude of media outlets like NY Times and CNN falsely promoted the paper as evidence that climate change cause more wildfires. . . . .

 

Fake news about fires, refuted by data.
NPR Spreads Misinformation on Montana Wildfires, as Total Wildfires Decline
WILDFIRES DECEMBER 6, 2021

 

There is indeed a human cause for wildfires, just not the one the alarmists shout about.
Leftist Arsonists Are Responsible for More Wildfires than Climate Change
WILDFIRES DECEMBER 9, 2021

 

Colorado's moratorium on controlled burns produced a bad result.
3.. 2.. 1.. Claim: Colorado Wildfires Because Climate Change
Eric Worrall
Climate ambulance chasers are trying to bag another photogenic wildfire for their cause. But Colorado legislated a moratorium on prescribed burns in 2012, following a burn fail which ended in…

 

There are too many lazy stories about wildfires by people who don't know anything about wildfires.
No, Associated Press, ‘Climate Change’ Isn’t Making it Harder to ‘Fight Fire with Fire’
SNOWPACK MARCH 11, 2022

 

It would be more accurate to say that reducing use of fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 would have no significant effect on global temperatures. We could certainly reduce the earth's temperature by other means, such as putting a cloud of reflective nanoparticles at the earth's L1 point, or using iron fertilization to stimulate plankton growth and increase the albedo of the earth's oceans. Such measures would of course be insanely risky.

These numbers roughly match what I have seen. Certainly claims that rising CO2 had any significant contributory effect on interglacial temperature increases through positive feedback are just absurd, anti-scientific nonsense.

Do you have a source for this? The interglacial temperature data I have seen show they peaked at 3°F to at most 7°F warmer than the present, and none of those peaks was sustained for more than a few thousand years.

Actually, the current interglacial seems destined to remain a weak one independently of what we do. Interglacials tend to peak early, and this one peaked several thousand years ago, during the Holocene Optimum.

Actually, they have generally been quite diverse, to the point where there is a problem even defining them.

 

Cliff Mass Weather Blog

September 16, 2022

Wildfires are the "Old Normal" for the Pacific Northwest

Excerpt:

My podcast today will both provide the weekend weather forecast and talk about the history of wildfires in the Pacific Northwest.

Wildfires and associated smoke are a major concern in the region, and some media, politicians, and others have suggested that wildfires and wildfire smoke are not normal and are a potent sign of a changing climate.

They are not correct. Wildfires and their smoke are a natural part of the Northwest ecosystem.

What was not normal was the period of suppressed fire during the later portion of the 20th century.



A good illustration is the visit of Mark Twain in August 1895, a summer in which the U.S. Weather Bureau noted "the sun was almost entirely obscured by excessive smoke from wildfires."

LINK

=====

Wildfires are a natural phenomenon.