Why Are Carbon Tax Proponents Ignoring This Story
- Thread starter Cannuck
- Start date
You didn't address sh*t. You just made a claim with no supporting evidence, ie: an opinion. El Nino is cyclical. Not just in timing but in strength and intensity. Some years the effect is diminished, other years the effect is quite noticeable. But this is what happens when you deal with ideologues who prefer confirmation bias or someone who still can't comprehend the fact that 97% of 33% is not a consensus on anything.
It's not silly at all to say that climate change influences forest fires. In fact anyone who doesn't accept that is the ideologue and is ignoring the science.
Climate change and fire | Natural Resources Canada
So all the stupid people are out this morning.
You have petros' problem of not understanding that the consensus is based on the relevant papers.
You can't include papers that don't address the claim of causation because... that would be stupid.
Climate change and fire | Natural Resources Canada
So all the stupid people are out this morning.
You have petros' problem of not understanding that the consensus is based on the relevant papers.
You can't include papers that don't address the claim of causation because... that would be stupid.
Hey guess what. I can start a fire just by using linseed oil and a rag. No flame or spark required, or global warming either.
Influence | Define Influence at Dictionary.com
And bonus one just for you:
Pretentious | Define Pretentious at Dictionary.com
Hey guess what
I never said you couldn't but the fact that you considered it is very telling.
Talk about stupid people. The great consensus you like to waffle on about was based on a friggin' survey of those involved in the climate sciences in one aspect or another, paleontologists, geologists and the like as well as those who's main discipline is actually climate science. 67% of them refused to respond because the survey questions were skewed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. That's not science, that's politics. Not surprised you can't parse the difference though.
That's hilarious.
The consensus is based on a large sample of studies that were already completed, not some conspiracy lol
Keep watching Alex Jones you nut :lol:
The consensus is based on a large sample of studies that were already completed, not some conspiracy lol
Keep watching Alex Jones you nut :lol:
Considered it? You moron, we learned that in chemistry class. I can also make ANFO, so that should get your panties in an even bigger twist.
We Can't Blame Climate Change For The Fort McMurray FiresÂ*|Â*Blair King
Even Liz May knows better.
May 04, 2016
(OTTAWA) - Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands), released the following statement:
“The devastating wildfires in Fort McMurray that continue to rage today are heartbreaking. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Fort McMurray, those who have lost homes and businesses, and first responders who continue to fight to extinguish the blaze.
“Some reports have suggested that the wildfires are directly caused by climate change. No credible climate scientist would make this claim, and neither do I make this claim. Rather, we must turn our minds in the coming days to the impact of increased extreme climate events, and what we can do collectively to respond to these events.
“It’s encouraging to see the federal government commit to providing adequate evacuation and emergency aid, in partnership with the Government of Alberta. I encourage all Canadians who want to help to donate to the Canadian Red Cross by calling 1-800-418-1111 or online at redcross.ca."
How long are we going to play this silly game where I say influence and you guys read that as 'starting a fire' ? :lol:
For people (like Flossy) that lack a basic understanding, here is a crash course in fire behaviour.
There are three keys to fire behaviour... fuel, topography and weather.
Fuel is the single most important factor that determines the potential for the fuel to burn. Moisture content or curing in dead fuels affects its ability to burn. Fuels can be cured by a lack of moisture or be heat. The greatest source of heat curing are fires themselves once they become large enough. The quantity of fuel is also important as fire with more fuel will burn more intensely. Fuel arrangement will affect burn rates (a dead standing forest will burn faster than a dead forest with fallen trees or compacted fuels)
Weather plays a factor but not near the extent the Flossys of the world would believe. Temperature, relative humidity, wind, precipitation and atmospheric stability all affect fire behaviour. Cured fuel readily absorbs and exchanges moisture from the surrounding air and the RH fluctuates throughout the day as temperatures increase and decrease. Wild fires typically slow down at night. Wind and precipitation effects should be self evident, even to Flossy.
Topography is important in that fires travel faster up hill than the do down. Aspects of a slope are important as slopes that face south tend to be drier than those that face north. Elevation affects temperature, RH and wind. The overall shape of the country will affect the fire. Water streams can stop fire spread and cultivated land may significantly slow fire spread.
So, you see, for Flossy to suggest the Fort Mac fire was as bad as it was because of global warming is ridiculous and silly. It was as bad as it was because it started in a remote area that was difficult to access and therefore grew unimpeded in the early stages. One it grew to the point that it was curing the fuel in its path, it was difficult to stop without help from mother nature such as high humidity or rain.
Of course the situation was made worse by Flossy's Dippers that cut the forestry fire fighting budget. I guess progressives only care about dollars. Is your letter done yet Flossy?
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...ng-catastrophic-conditions&pubdate=2016-04-21
There are three keys to fire behaviour... fuel, topography and weather.
Fuel is the single most important factor that determines the potential for the fuel to burn. Moisture content or curing in dead fuels affects its ability to burn. Fuels can be cured by a lack of moisture or be heat. The greatest source of heat curing are fires themselves once they become large enough. The quantity of fuel is also important as fire with more fuel will burn more intensely. Fuel arrangement will affect burn rates (a dead standing forest will burn faster than a dead forest with fallen trees or compacted fuels)
Weather plays a factor but not near the extent the Flossys of the world would believe. Temperature, relative humidity, wind, precipitation and atmospheric stability all affect fire behaviour. Cured fuel readily absorbs and exchanges moisture from the surrounding air and the RH fluctuates throughout the day as temperatures increase and decrease. Wild fires typically slow down at night. Wind and precipitation effects should be self evident, even to Flossy.
Topography is important in that fires travel faster up hill than the do down. Aspects of a slope are important as slopes that face south tend to be drier than those that face north. Elevation affects temperature, RH and wind. The overall shape of the country will affect the fire. Water streams can stop fire spread and cultivated land may significantly slow fire spread.
So, you see, for Flossy to suggest the Fort Mac fire was as bad as it was because of global warming is ridiculous and silly. It was as bad as it was because it started in a remote area that was difficult to access and therefore grew unimpeded in the early stages. One it grew to the point that it was curing the fuel in its path, it was difficult to stop without help from mother nature such as high humidity or rain.
Of course the situation was made worse by Flossy's Dippers that cut the forestry fire fighting budget. I guess progressives only care about dollars. Is your letter done yet Flossy?
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ne...ng-catastrophic-conditions&pubdate=2016-04-21
Last edited:
Who? Sorry to burst your bubble but that ain't the way it went down. The "consensus" is based on a survey and nothing more. And that survey was refused by 67% of those involved in the climate sciences in one way or another because the questions were designed to lead to a preconceived conclusion, ie confirmation bias. Something you appear to specialize in yourself. Several of the scientists who refused to take the survey even went public as to their reasons. Alex Jones had f*ck all to do with that.
Are you also saying that the former Chair of the IPCC is on this "conspiracy"? I guess this bears repeating. The papers the IPCC work from are very short on science and very long on political ideology. That comes straight from the former Chair's mouth.
But yeah, I'll take the word of some mental midget who thinks(pardon the exaggeration) that I watch Alex Jones.
IPCC doesn't do it's own studies, it just aggregates them and this just goes to show that you might as well be an Alex Jones fanboy - you'd fit right in.
The 97% Consensus Results
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?
The 97% consensus on global warming
Good of your Mary Poppins version of reality to catch it.
Read a book - preferrably Grade 8 science, not Glib Liberal bafflegab
Why would a government that believes global warming is significant and causes forest fires cut the forest fire fighting budget. Clearly they are stupid or they just care more about dollars than they care about forest fires.
Anywho, all this is irrelevant to the links in the OP. CO2 is no longer a problem. Flossy and his friends are going to have to find some other earth threatening problem that can be averted by taking my money.
Anywho, all this is irrelevant to the links in the OP. CO2 is no longer a problem. Flossy and his friends are going to have to find some other earth threatening problem that can be averted by taking my money.
Not if they can keep pressuring politicians to say that it is still a threat.
There is a lot of money at stake here.
