tRump's despicable attitude toward the historic fire in Calif. proves he hates America.
- Thread starter william104
- Start date
deanrd
Gold Member
- May 8, 2017
- 29,411
- 3,649
- 290
- Banned
- #103
Except that thousands of houses burning and an entire city burning is not in a forest.
An ignorant Trump has threatened to cut federal funding for the forest. Even though federal forest are managed by the federal government who’s budget fuking Trump and the Republicans cut.
This is it bad is when Trump was at the hurricane telling people who lost everything they have to have fun and it’s nice to see everybody having a good time. Who’s boat is this boat?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 149,192
- 33,882
- 2,180
Too funny! Where did the fire come from then?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 149,192
- 33,882
- 2,180
Where was the camp?
Don't you ever get tired of being ignorant?
He's talking about clearing out underbrush and other trash that fed the fires.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 149,192
- 33,882
- 2,180
Again, where did the fire come from that burned down the houses?
I’m thinking the concrete or asphalt couldn’t have carried flames! Just waiting for you to explain where the flames came from! Tick, tock
Why do you fks constantly act so fking stupid stupid
Last edited:
Once can see that they are pushing the forest-to-urban scenario and claiming that this makes it "totally" different from Finland!
17 Nov 2018 Despite What Trump Says, Finland Fires Are Totally Different From California Fires
(site not secure)
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-finland-paradise-wildfires-trump-california-20181117-story.html
Forest Fires Finland
Forest fires in Finland
17 Nov 2018 Despite What Trump Says, Finland Fires Are Totally Different From California Fires
(site not secure)
www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-finland-paradise-wildfires-trump-california-20181117-story.html
Forest Fires Finland
Forest fires in Finland
mamooth
Diamond Member
That's a different link. Even for you, that's taking dishonesty to a new level, by just faking a new link. The link in your graphic was busted. That's not debatable, so stop lying about it. You accepted an anonymous source with no verifiable backup because your cult told you to.
That new link you posted still didn't point to any specific data, so I'm not sure why you think it was an improvement. All you have is an unnamed mystery guy saying "Well, I got the info from this website". We still don't know what that data was. Best guess? Your fraudmaster source cherrypicked a single station somewhere that didn't show the warming that most of the California stations have shown.
So, how does your conspiracy theory explain the fact that every source outside of your WUWT cult echo chamber shows temperatures in California rising strongly?
The warmer the summer, the worse the fires. The correlation there is very strong. And it's getting warmer, hence the fires are getting worse. This isn't difficult to grasp, except for deniers.
'Maybe what needs to be thought is how useless thought has been. "My head is hands and feet" (Walden 96), said Thoreau, a T-shirt-sized apothegm for the embodied nature of mind. In that spirit, I'm advising myself to move on from airiness to terrestrial matters, to things that are graspable at the level of feeling and affect, that don't require authentication by an overwrought brain but rather simply its acquiescence.
More pressing, for example, is the question of places, now and in the future. We excel at destroying them, no question about that. And the way we go at the destruction hammer and tong you'd have to think we relish it. At the same time, there may be something in us that wishes to hold fast to the places we've known. Perhaps that's what took hold of me today. If you need to name it, call it topophilia, following the usage of the geographer Ye Fu Tuan. Or call it nothing at all: just feel places tugging at your hands and feet. Let your head follow.
Places are where our memories linger; perhaps places are memory's true anchorages. Places are outside of us, yet equally so inside. But places are slipping away -- faster now than ever before. We've put ourselves in charge of their upkeep, but we've yet to do the hard work of figuring out what that actually entails. Maybe we just can't do that sort of work, it's beyond us. Witnesses to our own incorrigibility and incapable of self-correction, we carry on, diminishing all places to versions of Colonial Acres, or the tech park, or the bear cage. And in this way every new place-memory we make already has one foot in the grave...let us hope that this will not have been because the (opportunity [italics]) wasn't also understood, at least somewhere in the university, in some beleaguered set of disciplines, as exactly what it is: a (crisis [it.]).'
(McMurray A, Entertaining Futility: Despair and Hope in the Time of Climate Change)
More pressing, for example, is the question of places, now and in the future. We excel at destroying them, no question about that. And the way we go at the destruction hammer and tong you'd have to think we relish it. At the same time, there may be something in us that wishes to hold fast to the places we've known. Perhaps that's what took hold of me today. If you need to name it, call it topophilia, following the usage of the geographer Ye Fu Tuan. Or call it nothing at all: just feel places tugging at your hands and feet. Let your head follow.
Places are where our memories linger; perhaps places are memory's true anchorages. Places are outside of us, yet equally so inside. But places are slipping away -- faster now than ever before. We've put ourselves in charge of their upkeep, but we've yet to do the hard work of figuring out what that actually entails. Maybe we just can't do that sort of work, it's beyond us. Witnesses to our own incorrigibility and incapable of self-correction, we carry on, diminishing all places to versions of Colonial Acres, or the tech park, or the bear cage. And in this way every new place-memory we make already has one foot in the grave...let us hope that this will not have been because the (opportunity [italics]) wasn't also understood, at least somewhere in the university, in some beleaguered set of disciplines, as exactly what it is: a (crisis [it.]).'
(McMurray A, Entertaining Futility: Despair and Hope in the Time of Climate Change)
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,204
- 12,786
- 2,400
Wow you sure have trouble reading POST #8 which has the WRCC website link in it, both of the below links are in post 8.:
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
This link below was the one that showed the charts I posted here, the charts are based on the data from the above link to the WRCC website:
The real problem were Lawsuits:
I told the truth all along, it is your gross inability to read and think is why you look stupid here. There are NO broken links at post 8 at either.
Meanwhile your chart ends at he he ha ha ha, 1999. Which means NOT relevant to THIS YEARS (2018) fire season.
Now the California Governor has FINALLY realized what many fire experts in the state has been complaining about, proposed a bill to expand clean up dead tree and brush logging and increase tree size allowance for homeowners to cut down and more.
TRUMP WAS RIGHT: Jerry Brown Eased California Logging Rules Back In August
"Under Brown’s proposal, private landowners would be able to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter — up from the current 26 inches — on property 300 acres or less without getting a timber harvest permit from the state, as long as their purpose was to thin forests to reduce fire risk," the Sentinel reported. "They also would be able to build roads of up to 600 feet long without getting a permit, as long as they repaired and replanted them."
Forests, particularly in northern California, California lawmakers admitted, have become dangerously overgrown. But there's currently little incentive for landowners to clear their trees — they are only allowed to clear dead and decaying wood and undergrowth and can't clear healthy tress. By allowing landowners to recover some money from the process — letting them create and sell lumber, for instance — it could incentivize them to make bigger changes."
Gosh you are truly stupid as hell here.
Last edited:
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,204
- 12,786
- 2,400
Meanwhile Dr. Mass doesn't agree with you either and he has the gall to present credible evidence about it:
Was Global Warming A Significant Factor in California's Camp Fire? The Answer is Clearly No.
Was Global Warming A Significant Factor in California's Camp Fire? The Answer is Clearly No.
26 Mar 2012 Sacramento Bee Uncovers Forest Service's Cover-Up of Moonlight Fire Lookout's Marijuana Use
https://edca.typepad.com/eastern_di...of-moonlight-fire-lookouts-marijuana-use.html
'....Plumas....'
Plumas area also links the sites the Sacramento Bee claims were given to it for fuel load reduction projects, though apparently the Bee has yet to publish this list. Why?
https://edca.typepad.com/eastern_di...of-moonlight-fire-lookouts-marijuana-use.html
'....Plumas....'
Plumas area also links the sites the Sacramento Bee claims were given to it for fuel load reduction projects, though apparently the Bee has yet to publish this list. Why?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
So, we are having record droughts in the areas that the climate scientists predicted would result from global warming, and record fires as a result of the droughts, also as predicted. Record precipitation in the areas where that was predicted, and stronger storms, also as predicted. But global warming has nothing to do with any of this. Damn, what kind of alternative reality do you deniers live in?
mamooth
Diamond Member
That's _still_ just a link to the front page of the website, and not to any actual data. So, you still haven't backed up anything that you've claimed. You can't figure out how to link properly. I know if I was going to crow about how great my links were, I'd proofread and check that the links actually went to what I was claiming. That level of common sense is clearly beyond you.
Thank you for that link. It shows how the graph you presented in post #8 was totally wrong. Your graph there claims a trend of 0.02C/decade. The same corrected graph in your recent link shows a trend of 0.12C/decade.
You pooched it hard. Your own link says you presented a claim that was off by a factor of 6. I correctly pointed how ridiculous the claim of your initial graph was, and you responded with evasions and abuse. Do you any regrets over you bad behavior here, or do you only regret being busted for it? After it, it's no longer disputable that I was right and you were wrong. Your own link there confirms it.
WUWT and crazy Willis? That's right, it's not the heat causing more wildfires, it's lawsuits! You have to cut down the mature forests to stop them from burning. Crazy Willis at his best, being it's not old growth forests burning, it's the brush and scrubland.
Why such a difference from a degree or two of warming? First, that starts the growing season sooner, so the brush is higher. Second, a degree or two over the entire summer dries out the brush much more. It's not the raw heat so much as the dryness and thickness of the vegetation.
That would be why there's such a strong correlation between temperature and wildfire levels. In hotter years, there are more wildfires. If you raise the baseline temperature, you raise the baseline wildfire levels. This isn't rocket science. A 3rd-grader can grasp it, but the megatards of the WUWT cult can't. They've been ordered to babble nonsense, so that's what they're going to do.
Now, don't you have a forest to rake?
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,204
- 12,786
- 2,400
In reply your post 119, Mamooth:
You write,
"That's _still_ just a link to the front page of the website, and not to any actual data. So, you still haven't backed up anything that you've claimed. You can't figure out how to link properly. I know if I was going to crow about how great my links were, I'd proofread and check that the links actually went to what I was claiming. That level of common sense is clearly beyond you."
It is now 100% proven that you didn't read the LAWSUIT link at all since Willis was the one who made the chart BASED on the data from WRCC link, which I explained for you earlier, but you are too busy being an idiot to read and think decently when you wrote this crap at post 86:
"I addressed it directly, by posting the real data, along with the link to the source (NASA).
In stark contrast, you posted an unsourced propaganda piece. I went to the link on that chart, and it went nowhere, just to a broken page.
So, my stuff has a source. Yours doesn't. That makes your crap inferior and worthless, just propaganda for the rubes.
Seriously, did you really think you could fudge like that and not get called on it?"
The page was NEVER broken idiot!
Your "stuff" ended in year 1999, COMPLETELY irrelevant to the 2018 Fire!
You are truly stupid man!
Here is what YOU never read since it was in the LAWSUIT LINK I posted at post 8:
So … did scientists actually “predict” that past temperatures have gone up by one degree? Can scientists actually predict the past? And can we really expect half a degree of warming in the next decade? To get some perspective on these questions, I thought I’d take a look at the records. I found an interesting site, the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), which has a variety of weather-related data state by state. So with no further ado, here is the average temperature in California from January of 1895 to the present, October 2018.
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, has the temperature gone up by one degree as the Governor said? Well, yes, but only since 1895. Since 1895, it has been going up at a rate of about 0.12°C, twelve-hundredths of a degree Celsius, per decade. [NOTE: An earlier version of this post mistakenly stated that the trend was two-hundredths of a degree per decade, rather than the correct value of twelve-hundredths of a degree per decade. The text has been changed to reflect the correct values. My thanks to Grietver, the commenter who pointed out my error.]
Skipping down to here,
Well, if it’s not the temperature, how about the rainfall? Is climate change making the state dryer? Fortunately, the WRCC has the data for that as well. Here’s the monthly rainfall in California.
Figure 2. Annualized monthly rainfall in California per the WRCC. Since rainfall data is usually given in inches per year, not per month, I have multiplied all of the values by 12 to “annualize” them, in order to make the trend a yearly trend.
=================
When I wrote this earlier, I explained this to you:
"Wow you sure have trouble reading POST #8 which has the WRCC website link in it, both of the below links are in post 8.:
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
This link below was the one that showed the charts I posted here, the charts are based on the data from the above link to the WRCC website:
The real problem were Lawsuits:
I told the truth all along, it is your gross inability to read and think is why you look stupid here. There are NO broken links at post 8 at either."
I explained this to you at post 115,
one more time:
"This link below was the one that showed the charts I posted here, the charts are based on the data from the above link to the WRCC website:
The real problem were Lawsuits:
I told the truth all along, it is your gross inability to read and think is why you look stupid here."
You never could figure out the obvious here...…………………
You are a lazy ass and stupid as hell.
You write,
"That's _still_ just a link to the front page of the website, and not to any actual data. So, you still haven't backed up anything that you've claimed. You can't figure out how to link properly. I know if I was going to crow about how great my links were, I'd proofread and check that the links actually went to what I was claiming. That level of common sense is clearly beyond you."
It is now 100% proven that you didn't read the LAWSUIT link at all since Willis was the one who made the chart BASED on the data from WRCC link, which I explained for you earlier, but you are too busy being an idiot to read and think decently when you wrote this crap at post 86:
"I addressed it directly, by posting the real data, along with the link to the source (NASA).
In stark contrast, you posted an unsourced propaganda piece. I went to the link on that chart, and it went nowhere, just to a broken page.
So, my stuff has a source. Yours doesn't. That makes your crap inferior and worthless, just propaganda for the rubes.
Seriously, did you really think you could fudge like that and not get called on it?"
The page was NEVER broken idiot!
Your "stuff" ended in year 1999, COMPLETELY irrelevant to the 2018 Fire!
You are truly stupid man!
Here is what YOU never read since it was in the LAWSUIT LINK I posted at post 8:
So … did scientists actually “predict” that past temperatures have gone up by one degree? Can scientists actually predict the past? And can we really expect half a degree of warming in the next decade? To get some perspective on these questions, I thought I’d take a look at the records. I found an interesting site, the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), which has a variety of weather-related data state by state. So with no further ado, here is the average temperature in California from January of 1895 to the present, October 2018.
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, has the temperature gone up by one degree as the Governor said? Well, yes, but only since 1895. Since 1895, it has been going up at a rate of about 0.12°C, twelve-hundredths of a degree Celsius, per decade. [NOTE: An earlier version of this post mistakenly stated that the trend was two-hundredths of a degree per decade, rather than the correct value of twelve-hundredths of a degree per decade. The text has been changed to reflect the correct values. My thanks to Grietver, the commenter who pointed out my error.]
Skipping down to here,
Well, if it’s not the temperature, how about the rainfall? Is climate change making the state dryer? Fortunately, the WRCC has the data for that as well. Here’s the monthly rainfall in California.
Figure 2. Annualized monthly rainfall in California per the WRCC. Since rainfall data is usually given in inches per year, not per month, I have multiplied all of the values by 12 to “annualize” them, in order to make the trend a yearly trend.
=================
When I wrote this earlier, I explained this to you:
"Wow you sure have trouble reading POST #8 which has the WRCC website link in it, both of the below links are in post 8.:
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
This link below was the one that showed the charts I posted here, the charts are based on the data from the above link to the WRCC website:
The real problem were Lawsuits:
I told the truth all along, it is your gross inability to read and think is why you look stupid here. There are NO broken links at post 8 at either."
I explained this to you at post 115,
one more time:
"This link below was the one that showed the charts I posted here, the charts are based on the data from the above link to the WRCC website:
The real problem were Lawsuits:
I told the truth all along, it is your gross inability to read and think is why you look stupid here."
You never could figure out the obvious here...…………………
You are a lazy ass and stupid as hell.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
VIDEO : Ukrainian artillery and drones destroy a column of Moscow 🇷🇺 imperial armored vehicles- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
The Full Measles Truth -- Corruption beyond belief .
- Started by luiza
- Replies: 0
-
The Flip flopper-in-Chief may have already changed his mind after today's market carnage.- Started by berg80
- Replies: 3
-
Trump National Security Council staffers purged, U.S. officials say- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 2
