Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

In summary, you have no real basis for what you call reality. What you call reality is no more than your opinion of reality. And I said before, it is nothing more than doing and believing what you are told to believe. Not really your opinion, but what you are told you should believe.

Since I am not a MAGA, I have no real opinion on the matter.

 

This link covers a lot of ground investigating the weather situation that drove the Maui disaster

 

And yet there isn't fact #1 that ties this to any AGW responsibility.

 

You guys really need to check yourselves, and pay more attention. The Maui fires happened on the Leeward side of the island, which is an area of negligible rainfall year-round. It's one of the reasons most of the resorts there are on that side, and if you venture over to the windward side, which I have done, expect to get rained on at any time on most days. It's you and your fellow lefties that need better informing!

 

Not according to the professor of atmospheric sciences linked in #78.
". . . . There has been a lot of talk in the media about drought and even "flash drought" driven by climate change (see Seattle Times headline below). This is all silly and irrelevant. The opposite of drought last winter resulted in lots of grass and even a normal summer would have resulted in the grass ready to burn now. . . .

The winds that hit Lahaina were NOT hurricane winds.
The winds that helped destroy Lahaina were caused by strong trade winds, produced mainly by enhanced high pressure to the north, interacting with Maui terrain to produce strong/dry downslope winds. . . .

Let me repeat: these were NOT hurricane winds but local downslope wind accelerations, produced by the occurrence of perfect meteorological conditions, something I will review in a future blog. . . ."

 

Well, there IS one carbon capture method that is essentially neutral- trees

 

It is also worth mentioning, that most, if not all, vegetation performs the same function. So, when you mow your lawn, you are decreasing the ability of the grass to convert the CO2 to carbon and oxygen.

 

Hi, 557.

The last sentence in the quote is correct. That's why I quoted a scientist.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, DentalFloss.

For the record, and I've posted this information many times, I self-identify as a secular humanist. That places me outside of [Ed.: That's outside, not above,] the 'red' and 'blue' groups.

I stand by my post.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Good luck with that.

 

And how's that going for those that remain? Y'all stop trying because we took our ball and went home to worry about what really matters to Americans?

 

Phone calls aren't good enough? I hear that virtual meetings are all the rage these days.

 

That's because those are people who chose to put drugs in their system that ended up killing them. I look at them the same as if folks en masse were playing russian roulette and some of them didn't make it.

If you're expecting the same concern for people like that as you do for innocent victims, you're going to be waiting a while. Or forever.

 

“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration
By P Gosselin on 15. August 2023

Share this...
1609 signatories recently signed a declaration that states there is no climate crisis, thus casting doubt over man’s alleged role in climate change and extreme weather.



Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.

There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.”

Growing skepticism

Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.

The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.

 

So, wait. Please explain to me how the failure of the State of Hawaii to address their land management, and their unwillingness to ensure that Hawaii Electric's power distribution system was modernized, in conjunction with their now obvious intent to induce a land grab is somehow a failure of climate change. What we're witnessing is a state sanctioned shake down designed to take advantage of the folks who endured the fires sparked by the failure of the State of Hawaii.

Did you know the government turned off the water during the fire so there wasn't any way to fight the fires?

And your tactic is to take this massive tragedy to push more stupid? Really? That's pretty ballsy. The naked attempt to attack the people by folks like you should never be taken lightly.

Tell us @Golem, what possible carbon sequestration policy could have prevented the active failure that tis the State of Hawaii?

 

LOL... Why not add more stupid to the pile?

 

LOL.. Now that's funny. The facts look like the State of Hawaii failed in their duty to keep their citizens safe. And now, sifting through the ashes to do a little OG extortion to take land from folks who have suffered so much. And this is you trying your hardest to distract from those facts.

Your religiosity is showing....

 

LOL. I don’t think this is a quote from a scientist that knows anything about fires on Maui.

The second to last sentence is not accurate either. What scientist said what you posted?

I’ll bet 90% of scientists who commented on this tragedy never even checked to see what the conditions were leading up to this fire.


Let’s look at what some scientists on record are saying.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/climate-change-blamed-maui-wildfires/story?id=102255714

Why don’t you post a link to the scientist you are plagiarizing so we can determine if this scientist is even aware of the conditions leading up to this fire. Let’s see evidence for your claims beyond appeal to authority fallacy.

 

Hi again for the last time on this thread, 557.

Have a nice day.

Regards and best wishes to you and yours.

 

Let's make it clear. The war against fossil fuels is a war against human freedom and prosperity.

 

Thanks for at least confirming you have no valid source of evidence for your claims. Much appreciated.

Best wishes to you as well. And be informed….but not by journalists. Journalists are primarily trained In journalism, not science. A journalist can slap the label “science” on anything and fool most people.

 

Please stop using my threads to post garbage....

The two main Dutch actors behind the declaration are Guus Berkhout, a retired geophysicist who has worked for oil giant Shell, and journalist Marcel Crok.

Both have been accused of receiving money from fossil fuel companies to finance their climate-sceptic work. They deny the allegations,

When looking closer at the list of signatories, there are precisely 1,107, including six people who are dead. Less than 1% of the names listed describe themselves as climatologists or climate scientists.
Eight of the signatories are former or current employees of the oil giant Shell, while many other names have links to mining companies.

One of the signatories is Ivar Giaever, a joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work on superconductors. However, he has never published any work on climate science.
According to an independent 2019 count of the declaration's signatories, 21% were engineers, many linked to the fossil fuel industry. Others were lobbyists, and some even worked as fishermen or airline pilots.​

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ts-sign-declaration-denying-climate-emergency

 

Earth to Hawaii: 1. Clear brush 2. Prepare to fight fires before they start.

 

When you review the link, you will find that they concluded that 99.9% of scientists agree that humans caused climate change. Then when you read further, no such study was conducted. It was based on a review of peer reviewed studies.

Has it not occurred to you after all this time, that the reason they don't actually poll the scientists is that they will not get numbers like that?

 

This thread is about how science denialism made the disaster worse. And how, even though the consequences of ignorance may not be avoidable in the near future, we might still be able to mitigate the effects further down the road. If you want to discuss OTHER contributing factors, you are free to open your own thread.