Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Now that is the kind of nonsense statement that creates the impression that deniers have no brains at all. As stated, we now have nearly 10 times of the number of very large fires as we had 40 years ago. Care to address that? Care to address the issue of climate change in an intelligent manner?
Sure! We have EPA regulations that prohibit fire suppression efforts. Brush is allowed to accumulate for years. Every time there's a lightning strike that starts a small fire, a fire crew runs out there to put it out. This has allowed decades of fuel in the form of dead brush and dead trees to build up resulting in bigger and hotter fires.
Sprawl and people fleeing the filth and danger of the cities has pushed people further and further out, directly into area prone to fires. Ten years ago, a fire that wouldn't have burned a single structure, suddenly has 1,300 homes in its path.
The climate is perfectly normal. These regions have always had periodic fires. Fires clear away the dead, some species of plants cannot germinate without exposure to fire. The manzanita is one.
manzanita germination
Healthy forests burn periodically. It's what keeps them healthy. Fire prevention, the way we do it, results in unhealthy forests that have bigger and hotter fires.
Maintaining Fire s Natural Role The Nature Conservancy
Let forests burn. Stop building homes in fire prone areas.
Problem solved. There's no climate change. The climate is normal. Human brains need changing.
What about the melting of glaciers and acidification of oceans? That's pretty undeniable evidence of climate change.
To say there is no climate change is denying the facts.
To blame these fires on climate change is AlGore style exaggerration.
What about the melting of glaciers and acidification of oceans?
What about the melting of the glaciers? There used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago.
The climate changes. Did we melt the Chicago glacier? How'd we do it?