Consequences/Concerns of LA Fires
- Thread starter Stretch 74
- Start date
The frustrating thing will be the "how could we have ever planned for this/ how could we have known something like this would happen" narrative that will no doubt be raised by those in power or have responsibility over public resources. Yet at every turn the same people have been shaping policy based on addressing the issue that they will no doubt will point the finger toward - anthropomorphic climate change.
Put a bit less eloquently but more directly, with those people constantly claiming that we were in for longer and worse fire seasons, more intense fires, and so on, how do they then cut resources and otherwise fail to prioritize fire prevention and mitigation and otherwise address these risks competently, especially when they control all relevant avenues at all levels of government to address it?
Put more neutrally, how would anyone justify not only being aware of a particular risk, but being quite vocal about it, and then fail to address that risk? It only would make sense if they didn't believe the risk really was that bad, demonstrated poor judgment by gambling that the risk wouldn't be realized, or both.
This goes the other way, too ... e.g., if Republicans were to campaign on risks they claimed came with that huge surge in migration under the prior administration, but then didn't actually do anything about those risks while having the power to do so at whatever levels of the government they had control of at the relevant time, they'd be appropriately blamed for having been full of shit about the risks or having failed to address them, regardless of why those risks were presented (i.e., even though it occurred on their watch).
It's just a likely contributor to the severity, not the cause and nobody in a position of responsibility is saying otherwise. Taihtsat
Private sector insurance interference seems like an entirely new topic, one I have not considered. What are you referring to?
I don't know about "personally affected by", but I do have opinions on the subject. I am more personally affected by tax rates, food costs, fuel costs, government rules and regulations, and the weather than I am by the "existential threat of climate change". I have always acknowledged that the climate DOES change. It gets warmer and it gets cooler, as has been documented by the scientific community. It goes in cycles, up and down, up and down in hundreds, thousands, probably millions of years. It has been warmer than now in the past, and yet there were no evil SUV's back then to cause the warmer climate. Hmmmm, I wonder how that ever happened?
The thing is, politicians and do gooders and tree huggers seem to feel that they can control and change Mother Nature, and I don't buy into that. The computer models have been wrong, the bombastic forecasts from the likes of Gore, Thunberg, AOC, Kerry, etc have continually been wrong. The costs for what they want to do do not provide a reasonable return on investment. They want to push the US to totally eliminate the use of all fossil fuels, yet the effect of doing that on the Earth's temperature is negligible.
Much of the left is trying to do WRT climate change seems to boil down to power and control without proven benefits. The elites want to control what all of us great unwashed out here can and cannot do while the elites blithely disregard THEIR own negative effects on the environment. I am a fan of nature, the wonderful views and opportunities to be in nature, but we also need to progress as a civilized society. Just because I question what they are feeding us does not make me a "climate denier", a term simply invented to try to shame those of us that fail to follow their instructions. I categorically reject the characterization of that term applied to me. If you want to refer to me as a "climate skeptic", go right ahead.
What i meant was that it SEEMED you were not going to be surprised about "strings attatched" and govt. Red tape that will delay financial assistance down the road. I'm not surprised. My point being that that isn't just a public sector bug, private insurance companies do that all the time.Private sector insurance interference seems like an entirely new topic, one I have not considered. What are you referring to?
I don't know about "personally affected by", but I do have opinions on the subject. I am more personally affected by tax rates, food costs, fuel costs, government rules and regulations, and the weather than I am by the "existential threat of climate change". I have always acknowledged that the climate DOES change. It gets warmer and it gets cooler, as has been documented by the scientific community. It goes in cycles, up and down, up and down in hundreds, thousands, probably millions of years. It has been warmer than now in the past, and yet there were no evil SUV's back then to cause the warmer climate. Hmmmm, I wonder how that ever happened?
The thing is, politicians and do gooders and tree huggers seem to feel that they can control and change Mother Nature, and I don't buy into that. The computer models have been wrong, the bombastic forecasts from the likes of Gore, Thunberg, AOC, Kerry, etc have continually been wrong. The costs for what they want to do do not provide a reasonable return on investment. They want to push the US to totally eliminate the use of all fossil fuels, yet the effect of doing that on the Earth's temperature is negligible.
Much of the left is trying to do WRT climate change seems to boil down to power and control without proven benefits. The elites want to control what all of us great unwashed out here can and cannot do while the elites blithely disregard THEIR own negative effects on the environment. I am a fan of nature, the wonderful views and opportunities to be in nature, but we also need to progress as a civilized society. Just because I question what they are feeding us does not make me a "climate denier", a term simply invented to try to shame those of us that fail to follow their instructions. I categorically reject the characterization of that term applied to me. If you want to refer to me as a "climate skeptic", go right ahead.
My other comment basically was pointed at the default objection to climate science from your side. Why do you object to the premise that it is MAINLY (not solely) driven by human caused factors. Why do yall seem so defensive about it?
Yes models are often wrong, that's why they're models. One thing they have, thus far, not been wrong about is the direction the warming is going. The rate, yes. That is continually modified as new data comes in. But that it IS happening consistent with the likely causes as compared to previous warming periods is not really in dispute at all.
And then to attempt to back up your argument with essentially a conspiracy that it's either about control of the masses or an anti-capitalist agenda (limbaugh was pushing this so I'm sure it's prevelant within the right-wing echo chamber) is a...well...it's quite a stretch. Kinda violates occams razor.
And instead of citing non-scientists and researchers like Kerry, gore, thunberg and AOC, it's best to make your arguments against actual experts in the field.
Climate change "skeptics" and deniers use to say "it's not happening" then they said "it is but not human driven" and now many are migrating to "sure we've been driving this trend...but what can you do? It's too late and too costly" Taihtsat
Well here’s the honest answer - the petroleum industry and the Koch’s have for many years been behind a massive disinformation campaign on climate science aided by conservative media sources to discount what actual scientists agree on by overwhelming consensus. But then again you already know this.
Good luck convincing the Heavens Gate folks here otherwise.
Again, true. But I am a bit perplexed by the level of buy-in from their intended target audience that sure does seem to take a personal affront to the prevailing science. How are they harmed by this is my question...I mean, rather than falling back on mass conspiracies.
Well, this may be too much of a generalization, but most of what I hear from the ones preaching that the end of the earth is near, is that they seem to tend to focus solely on what they can blame humans for and ignore the possible contributions to Earth's average temperature from all other possible sources. What about solar radiation? What about volcanic activity? What about the wobble of the Earth as it spins on it's annual journey around the sun (think of a top spinning, how it wobbles)? That was identified by NASA back in the 1970's. Sort of like the fires, the cause is most likely a combination of factors, not just one.
It isn't a conspiracy theory that climate change/global warming is a made up concept, it is simply that some folks are using the fact that we are in a warming cycle in order to gain power and control, to dictate to others how we must live our lives.
If CO2 is actually good for plant growth (it is in some cases), why has it been so vilified as a greenhouse gas causing global warming?
Look at the recent cycles. Some folks think that we are due for a drop into a cooling cycle-then what?
Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
www.longrangeweather.com
Cool chart. Interesting that all these volcanic eruptions occurred during warming and cooling cycles. Guess we can cross them off as causes for either one. Not that anyone is blaming volcanoes.
But your chart is f-ed up. The date "hash marks" signify every 100 years. But after 2000 they seem to signify decades. The notes on the 2020's and 2030's line up with hash marks that should signify the 2100's and 2200's. And beyond. How does that work? Good old Cal Bierley in Stats 215 taught me how to lie with statistics. So I am quick to spot such things. Best class I ever had.
They’re harmed because they belong to a special club where they supposedly know better than stupid libtards. To think otherwise would threaten the illusion of their superiority and one of the foundational belief pillars( that humans are not responsible for climate change) of their special club.
I used to work with a pair of otherwise pretty good dudes who spent their lunch hour listening to that sack of excrement Limbaugh and his endless BS - it was bizarre and pathetically sad listening to them trash talk those whose political beliefs did not align with theirs. Limbaugh was a truly terrible human being that poisoned lots of minds with lies and hate.
The reason Trump won, twice, is because of stuff like this. But I guess you can wallow in self importance and moral superiority.
I used to work with Cal. Cool and very intelligent human being. Not sure he taught you to "lie" with stats but rather to use a stat(s) to push talking points or to convince people the stat proves whatever you're trying to tout.
Really?! He was great, the only Anglo Stat teacher (215 anyway) at the time. He spent about 3 weeks of the course on this little paperback "How to Lie with Statistics". You can still buy it. No other 215 teacher did so.
For a 20-ish year old, that book was an eye-opener. Still mentally refer to it every time I see a chart or graph. If you ever run across him tell him that that he still gets rave student reviews.
I’ll jump in based on that…
It should come as no surprise that there’s a balance. There should be a cycling of oxygen and CO2 levels within a range of values, and that range itself cycles over millennia. People have likely disrupted that cycle - but not by driving cars and generating electricity.
A far bigger impact has been deforestation, especially in the equatorial regions. Studies have shown that the jungles not only have a massive variety of plants that respire CO2 and exhale oxygen, but they also fix atmospheric CO2 into the plant body, the roots, and organic compounds in the soil. Jungle and forest soils are absolutely loaded with organic carbon. Billions of tons of carbon.
When we rip out jungle, cut down those trees, and plow up or develop those areas, we add to atmospheric carbon three times - by removing a tree that’s breathing CO2 and fixing organic carbon, by releasing organic carbon from the soil, and (very often) by burning the logging slash and forest floor organics.
They say that atmospheric heating correlates with the Industrial Revolution - which is when we really started clearing temperate forests to build homes and fire industrial ovens. They say it really ramped up after WWII - which is when we started clearing equatorial jungle for palm and sugar plantations.
Burning down 100 acres of Amazon jungle and turning it into a feedlot has a hell of a lot more impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide than you and me make driving our cars in a lifetime. This is just another example of greenies and government focusing on something that’s a tiny part of the problem so they don’t have to do something that’s hard.
