And so it begins.....

[Rambunctious]

UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ?damaging? climate view ? full article | Watts Up With That?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at surface global data from giss...I can tell you that it hasn't warmed since 2005....

2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 are very much like today.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wouldn't you rather federal government climate change dollars went to curing cancer and other more pressing and urgent issues?

Given the cost of the consequence that we are seeing right now, warming is an pressing and urgent issue. Your denial of that reality merely demonstrates the depths of your willfull ignorance. And if you want to make real money, you can become a paid scientific whore like Singer and Lindzen. And most of the grant money goes to the cost of the research, not to the scientist.

Okay I've been having some fun with you Old Rocks but lets look at this issue another way. To find papers on the internet written by profiting scientists that are working off of flawed computer models is a big waste of time. Let me ask you a few questions.

1. We were told in 2001 that the polar ice cap would be gone by the year 2012 and it's not gone in fact it's growing...what happened? who made that mistake?
2. In the late sixties we had some of the worst brush fires in California's history...Was that because of global warming? and if not why not? we had many more pollutants back then;
3. If man's existence is causing global warming then we should be able to reverse it but we can't...why not?
4. Everyone now has admitted that the once predicted Ice Age was wrong and the models used were wrong...what makes a 70 year old man so gullible as to be willingly fooled into giving up his freedom and to allow the government to lead him around in life by his nose via a weather crises hoax?
drive this don't drive that buy this don't buy that eat this don't eat that vote for this don't vote for that. Have a nice life Old Dude.

Oh just one more question; What is the earths normal temperature?

1. Told by whom? Links, otherwise it is just flap-yap on your part.

2. Fires are from many factors, wind, temperature, humidity. It is the overall trend over the whole west toward bigger and fiercer fires that is worrisome, not just one outbreak.

3. Man can start a freight rolling and get it to 60 mph. So now stop the damned thing in a city block. You cannot do it. Same with the buildup of GHGs. There is an inertia involved.

4. Going with that predicted ice age shit again? That has been debunked over and over. The vast majority of opinions in the 70's was that there would be a warming. That has repeatedly been shown to you. Times and Newsweek don't count as scientfic journals.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

 

[Dot Com]

deniers don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[mamooth]

And most of the grant money goes to the cost of the research, not to the scientist.

All of the grant money, that is. It's not legal for a researcher to take any grant money for his or her own salary. And every penny of it has to be accounted for.

That's one reason why the denier conspiracy theories about grant money look so very stupid. Grants aren't paid to individuals, they are paid to institutions that individuals work for. The individuals don't get any of that money. One could say that the prestige they get from the grant helps their career and salary, but that's as far as it goes, and it's not far. All of those individuals could make a lot more money by lying for the deniers, so they're actually taking a pay cut to do honest global warming research, and that gives them more credibility.

 

[Kosh]

deniers don't have a leg to stand on.

Glad you can admit the real deniers (the AGW cult) does not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Kosh]

And most of the grant money goes to the cost of the research, not to the scientist.

All of the grant money, that is. It's not legal for a researcher to take any grant money for his or her own salary. And every penny of it has to be accounted for.

That's one reason why the denier conspiracy theories about grant money look so very stupid. Grants aren't paid to individuals, they are paid to institutions that individuals work for. The individuals don't get any of that money. One could say that the prestige they get from the grant helps their career and salary, but that's as far as it goes, and it's not far. All of those individuals could make a lot more money by lying for the deniers, so they're actually taking a pay cut to do honest global warming research, and that gives them more credibility.

It seems that the AGW cult will promote any falsehood to cover the fact that grant money has been used to back a religion and not real science.

 

[HenryBHough]

It seems that the AGW cult will promote any falsehood to cover the fact that grant money has been used to back a religion and not real science.

There are still lingering pockets of resistance to the liberal belief that The U.S. Constitution has been completely taken out of the picture. For that reason they don't want their religion classified as that which it is 'cause they'd have to lose government funding.

 

[mamooth]

Wasn't this thread about California wildfires, before it became about how meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan those awful liberals are? But then, no thread exists that won't be used by the fringe right cultists to declare their precious, precious victimhood.

Anyways, putting subdivisions in canyons and on forested hilltops, that's the fire hazard. Dense urban areas don't burn, and fires in areas without structures are no big deal. Stupid humans shouldn't try to live in spots where fire is a regular part of the ecosystem. If they do, insurance company should ream them.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wasn't this thread about California wildfires, before it became about how meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan those awful liberals are? But then, no thread exists that won't be used by the fringe right cultists to declare their precious, precious victimhood.

Anyways, putting subdivisions in canyons and on forested hilltops, that's the fire hazard. Dense urban areas don't burn, and fires in areas without structures are no big deal. Stupid humans shouldn't try to live in spots where fire is regular part of the ecosystem. If they do, insurance company should ream them.

Who builds the McMansions in the canyons and on hilltops?

Why lookey here! It's limousine liberals! Hollywood magnates with money to burn.

And it does.

Righteously so.

 

[bodecea]

Not Camp Pendleton....but San Marcos, Harmony Grove, and Escondido are not on Camp Pendleton. Guess you didn't know that. Please, continue speaking stupidly.

As of yesterday, about 80% of the fires were on federal lands.

Your spouting idiocy - because you're a partisan idiot.

By the way, Tuesday is slated to be 71° - so using the pile of dogshit that substitutes for logic with you - this is proof we are entering an ice age....

Pendleton...is not 80%....

Oh...and if you would...point out where I ever ever made this about "global warming". Good luck, idjit.

 

[mamooth]

Poor Henry still can't stop raving about the liberals who must have stole his girl and beat him up on the playground all the time.

Henry, at some point, you just have to get over it. Otherwise, everyone starts thinking of you as ThatCrazyGuy.

 

[bodecea]

I know this will disappoint some here (you know who you are) but the fires are pretty much under control now.

 

[HenryBHough]

In today's NFL the teams provide shin guards to protect legs; helmets to minimize the chance of concussion on the field plus soap-on-a-rope and male chastity belts to protect against liberals OFF the field..

 

[Kosh]

Using what is happening in California as an example of "Global Warming" is definitely part of the cult mentality and not connected to any portion of reality.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're right, kosh that it probably would of happened anyways. Drought and severe weather is a part of life.

 

[natstew]

The Left is expert at rewriting history. I.E. Hillary Clinton, "Living History".

I remember the record heat waves of the 50's, the floods,tornadoes, and hurricanes of the 60's, and the Ice Age warnings of the ate 60's through the 70's. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley/David Brinkley and the other two National News Broadcasters were falling all over each other getting the warnings out.
I remember my children coming home from school and warning us that we had better stop poluting or we would all freeze to death.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, Mo-fucking-ron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wasn't this thread about California wildfires,

No, the thread was started by retarded leftists (redundant) hoping to use wildfires to support the stupid shit their little tin god was spewing.

before it became about how meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan those awful liberals are? But then, no thread exists that won't be used by the fringe right cultists to declare their precious, precious victimhood.

I'll make you a deal, don't be fucking retards, and I'll stop exposing the retardation you leftists promote.

Anyways, putting subdivisions in canyons and on forested hilltops, that's the fire hazard. Dense urban areas don't burn, and fires in areas without structures are no big deal. Stupid humans shouldn't try to live in spots where fire is a regular part of the ecosystem. If they do, insurance company should ream them.

Definitely some truth to that. The corridor that the 241 runs through, from Anaheim to Irvine, has burned every couple of years since I was a kid, some 50 years ago. Building homes in the natural path of wildfires is indeed stupid.

I never got it anyway; Irvine is nice. Anaheim is nice, Corona is nice, but that passage is a dry, dusty hellhole, damn near desert.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know this will disappoint some here (you know who you are) but the fires are pretty much under control now.

Who was the fucking retard who started this thread as if it were a proxy for global climate disorientation

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know this will disappoint some here (you know who you are) but the fires are pretty much under control now.

It was you crowing about how this proves that your little tin god isn't a fucking retard - that global warming is TOOOOO real, and the fires prove it.

BTW, the fires were arson.