Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[Salty_Aus]

So do you believe in global warming or not?

I believe there is global warming.

I believe it is questionable whether or not man caused it.

I believe that many cyclic or random weather patterns are being blamed on global warming, without sufficient evidence or proper sample sizes to back it up.

I believe the left is jumping to far too many conclusions about the current consequences of global warming.

I believe that there will be actual dire consequences if it continues this way long term, but not as soon as many believe, and it's not clear if it will really remain this way.

I believe that poor cooperation from high polluting countries like China largely negates any effort we attempt to make here to possibly combat the problem, and at the same time we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so while China runs wild.

We should be going through a short-term natural period of cooling right now.
I have no doubt we are the main reason for our current situation. Yet I also think very few scientists understand the consequences clearly.

Your final paragraph is the main reason Trump and many politicians refuse to act. It's not that they disbelieve the science, they simply put $ first.

[Salty_Aus]

Except the data shows that the average temperature in southern California has risen considably over the past century. And the snowpack in the mountains is melting sooner. Both those effects are drying out the vegetation much more, making it easier for wildfires to start and spread.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...-change-ca.pdf

You're making a huge leap here regarding "wildfires starting and spreading" which isn't necessarily true.

Southern California has always been dry for the 6 month period from April 15 to October 15 (and sometimes longer). A little dryer or a little hotter will be a negligible difference.

Wildfires get out of control because of the hot, dry environment and the prevalence of dense trees and brush in the hills and mountains in the region. There have been some efforts to encourage brush/tree clearance in order to bring down the wildfire danger, but environmentalists have refused to allow it, citing the destruction of animal habitats. Instead, the animals die a horrific death in these fires anyway. That's what Trump was trying to refer to when he was blaming California for this mess, but as usual, his lack of eloquence makes even his smart statements look stupid.

BTW, contrary to popular belief, more frequent wildfires is actually long term good for California, provided they are kept under control.

For example, Ventura County had the Spring Fire in 2013, which burnt up a lot of brush but destroyed very few structures and killed no one. The Hill Fire this time around, while initially scary, did little overall damage because it ran into the Spring Fire damage from 2013, and had no more fuel to burn. Firefighters easily contained it at that point.

The Woolsey fire, which was originally smaller, went a different direction, and did not run into areas recently burned, so it consumed a large area and caused a lot of destruction.

It should also be noted that smart neighborhood planning can also keep fire damage/deaths to a minimum. In these recent SoCal fires, some of the newer-built areas were much easier to defend, because they were built with fire danger in mind. It's the old school homes and businesses which are in greater danger, as they just put the houses up and didn't think about the fire situation.

Anyway, this is what bugs me about "climate change" fanatics. Instead of focusing upon the true causes of the problems and trying to solve them, it seems they want to bend over backwards to prove themselves right, thus resulting in nothing helpful actually getting done.

Exactly, we should be burning off the fuel regularly instead of trying to eliminate wildfires.

[MumblesBadly]

Except the data shows that the average temperature in southern California has risen considably over the past century. And the snowpack in the mountains is melting sooner. Both those effects are drying out the vegetation much more, making it easier for wildfires to start and spread.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...-change-ca.pdf

You're making a huge leap here regarding "wildfires starting and spreading" which isn't necessarily true.

Southern California has always been dry for the 6 month period from April 15 to October 15 (and sometimes longer). A little dryer or a little hotter will be a negligible difference.

It’s not *my* leap; it’s the inference put forth by the scientists at the EPA who study such things. And that is pointed out in the article from the EPA that I referenced. Do I need to copy/paste the relavant part of that EPA bulletin for you to recognize this? Or will you remain willfully ignorant of what those climate experts have to say on the matter?

...

Anyway, this is what bugs me about "climate change" fanatics. Instead of focusing upon the true causes of the problems and trying to solve them, it seems they want to bend over backwards to prove themselves right, thus resulting in nothing helpful actually getting done.

This is a ridiculous projection of how the GOP makes endless excuses to dismiss the matter as not worthy of addressing, previously by straight out deny that climate change was even happening, and now tacking to dismissing the science that conclusively points to it be substantially man-made. And as a result, fooling enough voters to believe their bullshit, which prevents our government from doing anything about it.

[Dan Druff]

Here's the relevant portion regarding what Mumbles is talking about:

Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity,
frequency, and extent of wildfires, which could harm property, livelihoods,
and human health. On average, 4 percent of the land in California has
burned per decade since 1984. In 2003, the Old, Grand Prix, and Padua
wildfires destroyed 800 homes in southern California, forced 100,000
residents to be evacuated, and cost $1.3 billion. Wildfire smoke can reduce
air quality and increase medical visits for chest pains, respiratory problems,
and heart problems.

The combination of more fires and drier conditions may expand deserts and
otherwise change parts of California’s landscape. Many plants and animals
living in arid lands are already near the limits of what they
can tolerate. A warmer and drier climate would generally expand the
geographic ranges of the Sonoran, Mojave, and Great Basin deserts. In
some cases, native vegetation may persist and delay or prevent expansion
of the desert. In other cases, fires or livestock grazing may accelerate the
conversion of grassland to desert in response to a changing climate. For
similar reasons, some forests may change to desert or grassland.

Notice the beginning, where it says, "Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildfires."

First off, they do not define "increase". A large increase? A tiny increase? We don't get to learn this.

Second, as I said, I spent most of my life in southern CA. I can tell you that the drought and increased temperatures has negligible effects on the wildfire danger because just about every year has almost no rain for 6 straight months in southern California. And every single fall has some period of hot, dry, Santa Ana winds, which turn small fires into big ones.

Every October in southern California features hills and mountain filled with dry plants and tress. Not just during drought years. Every year, aside from a few fluke years with a lot of rain in September.

The best way to stop these fires from becoming severe is to plan ahead and make them both easier to fight and more difficult to spread.

The dumb thing is to continue the status quo and try to focus on global warming as a solution.

[Jayjami]

Here's the relevant portion regarding what Mumbles is talking about:

Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity,
frequency, and extent of wildfires, which could harm property, livelihoods,
and human health. On average, 4 percent of the land in California has
burned per decade since 1984. In 2003, the Old, Grand Prix, and Padua
wildfires destroyed 800 homes in southern California, forced 100,000
residents to be evacuated, and cost $1.3 billion. Wildfire smoke can reduce
air quality and increase medical visits for chest pains, respiratory problems,
and heart problems.

The combination of more fires and drier conditions may expand deserts and
otherwise change parts of California’s landscape. Many plants and animals
living in arid lands are already near the limits of what they
can tolerate. A warmer and drier climate would generally expand the
geographic ranges of the Sonoran, Mojave, and Great Basin deserts. In
some cases, native vegetation may persist and delay or prevent expansion
of the desert. In other cases, fires or livestock grazing may accelerate the
conversion of grassland to desert in response to a changing climate. For
similar reasons, some forests may change to desert or grassland.

Notice the beginning, where it says, "Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildfires."


First off, they do not define "increase". A large increase? A tiny increase? We don't get to learn this.

Second, as I said, I spent most of my life in southern CA. I can tell you that the drought and increased temperatures has negligible effects on the wildfire danger because just about every year has almost no rain for 6 straight months in southern California. And every single fall has some period of hot, dry, Santa Ana winds, which turn small fires into big ones.

Every October in southern California features hills and mountain filled with dry plants and tress. Not just during drought years. Every year, aside from a few fluke years with a lot of rain in September.

The best way to stop these fires from becoming severe is to plan ahead and make them both easier to fight and more difficult to spread.

The dumb thing is to continue the status quo and try to focus on global warming as a solution.

Nobody knows how global warming will effect California. For example, if the Pacific warms up, that usually causes El Niño years, where we get lots of rain. But with more rain, we get increased vegetation, which creates more fuel for the fires. So a wetter California might be actually more dangerous. Who knows?

I live at the southern end of the Sierras in a cabin. Fire insurance is pretty much impossible to get, so if my place burns down, I’m SOL. It’s a risk I take to be able to look out at this every morning:

[lol wow]

more like the JEWEIRRAS

something something ethno state

[limitles]

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

<font size="2"><font color="#2B2B2B"><span style="font-family: Helvetica"><font color="#0E7EE0"><a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" target="_blank">

[limitles]

[thesparten]

Fucken white libtards think they no better then me, welcome to my world mother fuckers.

#imanatinalistnow
#lollollollibtards
#fucktheglobalist

[limitles]

Fucken white libtards think they no better then me, welcome to my world mother fuckers.

#imanatinalistnow
#lollollollibtards
#fucktheglobalist

Let me entertain you let me make you smile

what do the video and hashtags you posted have to do with anything in this thread.?
Yours truly
a curious onlooker

bonus points if you reply within a minute



you lose

[MumblesBadly]

Try this for entertainment.

[thesparten]

Fucken white libtards think they no better then me, welcome to my world mother fuckers.

#imanatinalistnow
#lollollollibtards
#fucktheglobalist

This is what socialism looks like..

Regulations too the point of insanity.

Taxation of the previously self sufficient individuals and too the point of destroying nuclear families.

Welfare: with the same results above.

Lawlessness.

The productive are penalized.

Being irresponsible is rewarded and encouraged.

ILLIGALS displacing the citizenry and stressing infrastructure and suppression of living wages and opportunity..

Environmental lawsthat are there simply for income and too control the unwashed masses under the pretense that's it's helping the environment.(while they fly in private jets and live tax free existence)

Ect

ECT

ECT.

#hellodetroit
#hellochicago
#helloanydemocraticruncity

[thesparten]

THEN CAME MAYOR GUILLIANI

[abrown83]

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

<font size="2"><font color="#2B2B2B"><span style="font-family: Helvetica"><font color="#0E7EE0"><a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" target="_blank">

Here’s some fun facts about CO2 emissions.

The US has reduced its Carbon footprint by over 20% since it peaked in 2005.

The US doesn’t even rank in the top ten per capita on CO2 emissions anymore.

The US was set to pass Canada in per capita emissions in 2017 or 2018.

In 2017 EU emissions went up! While US emissions were down another 1.7%.

The US would be the one of the few to only country actually meeting Paris climate agreement numbers even though they were the only ones who chose not to participate.

Even if the US reduced it’s CO2 footprint to zero it wouldn’t matter because LoL China and India are increasing theirs so fast it has a net negative output.

[Dan Druff]

Here's the relevant portion regarding what Mumbles is talking about:



Notice the beginning, where it says, "Higher temperatures and drought are likely to increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildfires."


First off, they do not define "increase". A large increase? A tiny increase? We don't get to learn this.

Second, as I said, I spent most of my life in southern CA. I can tell you that the drought and increased temperatures has negligible effects on the wildfire danger because just about every year has almost no rain for 6 straight months in southern California. And every single fall has some period of hot, dry, Santa Ana winds, which turn small fires into big ones.

Every October in southern California features hills and mountain filled with dry plants and tress. Not just during drought years. Every year, aside from a few fluke years with a lot of rain in September.

The best way to stop these fires from becoming severe is to plan ahead and make them both easier to fight and more difficult to spread.

The dumb thing is to continue the status quo and try to focus on global warming as a solution.

Nobody knows how global warming will effect California. For example, if the Pacific warms up, that usually causes El Niño years, where we get lots of rain. But with more rain, we get increased vegetation, which creates more fuel for the fires. So a wetter California might be actually more dangerous. Who knows?

I live at the southern end of the Sierras in a cabin. Fire insurance is pretty much impossible to get, so if my place burns down, I’m SOL. It’s a risk I take to be able to look out at this every morning:

Is that the Alta Sierra area near Lake Isabella?

An El Nino year would probably be better for California, fire-wise, because they tend to produce rain at unusual times of the year (such as July), thus preventing the plants getting as dry.

An El Nino year followed by drought would be the worst, as it would create more vegetation which would then dry up.

As I stated before, the best thing for fire prevention in California would be a number of large-area fires which don't destroy structures or harm anymore -- kind of like the Spring Fire of 2013.

I'm still sad about the Paramount Ranch burning down. For some reason, that really got to me. I guess I really liked the idea of having a movie set open to the public which could be visited any time, even when they were filming there. They even had hiking trails behind it. Now it's gone.

[MumblesBadly]

Here’s some fun facts about CO2 emissions.

The US has reduced its Carbon footprint by over 20% since it peaked in 2005.

The US doesn’t even rank in the top ten per capita on CO2 emissions anymore.

The US was set to pass Canada in per capita emissions in 2017 or 2018.

In 2017 EU emissions went up! While US emissions were down another 1.7%.

The US would be the one of the few to only country actually meeting Paris climate agreement numbers even though they were the only ones who chose not to participate.

Even if the US reduced it’s CO2 footprint to zero it wouldn’t matter because LoL China and India are increasing theirs so fast it has a net negative output.

Source? Provide a link, please.

[TheXFactor]

What do you call a person who throws out all logic, doesn't believe what scientists say about climate change/global warming and instead believes whatever Donald Trump says?

A dumb motherfucker who wears a MAGA hat.

[RS_]

Nobody knows how global warming will effect California. For example, if the Pacific warms up, that usually causes El Niño years, where we get lots of rain. But with more rain, we get increased vegetation, which creates more fuel for the fires. So a wetter California might be actually more dangerous. Who knows?

I live at the southern end of the Sierras in a cabin. Fire insurance is pretty much impossible to get, so if my place burns down, I’m SOL. It’s a risk I take to be able to look out at this every morning:

Is that the Alta Sierra area near Lake Isabella?

An El Nino year would probably be better for California, fire-wise, because they tend to produce rain at unusual times of the year (such as July), thus preventing the plants getting as dry.

An El Nino year followed by drought would be the worst, as it would create more vegetation which would then dry up.

As I stated before, the best thing for fire prevention in California would be a number of large-area fires which don't destroy structures or harm anymore -- kind of like the Spring Fire of 2013.

I'm still sad about the Paramount Ranch burning down. For some reason, that really got to me. I guess I really liked the idea of having a movie set open to the public which could be visited any time, even when they were filming there. They even had hiking trails behind it. Now it's gone.

So I should be rooting for a heavy ass El Niño year followed by a massive drought?

[TheXFactor]

[TheXFactor]

"I'm not a scientist but...Let me give you my scientific option."

If your not a scientist then...SHUT THE FUCK UP.

It's like I'm not a doctor but let me tell you how to treat cancer. If your not a doctor, well then your opinion doesn't mean shit.