Global Warming Alarmists Spontaneously Combust

 

As the search goes on to find the missing, and the dead from the devastating wildfires in Northern and Southern California the blame game has ignited.

Global Warming: California once again is burning, with hundreds of thousands of tinder-dry acres going up in flames. Gov. Jerry Brown says it’s global warming. President Trump blames forest mismanagement. Who’s right?

On Saturday, Trump tweeted (November 10): “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”

Brown’s take was, well, different: “Managing all the forests everywhere we can does not stop climate change,” he said. “And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years.”

President Trump is much closer to the mark. Years of neglect, a lack of management of public lands, and in some cases mismanagement of firefighting resources are far greater contributors to the fires in California, and the rest of the American West, than global warming. The flashpoint for wood is about 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and lower for brush filled undergrowth. Temperatures may be rising, but I don’t remember seeing anything on the news about any location in the country reaching 572 degrees.

Governor Brown, and the endless environmental restrictions, and litigants against the responsible management of state and federal lands are the ones responsible for the loss of life, and property damage wildfires cause in California. The constant lawsuits and judgments brought in court by litigants that in many cases have never even seen the land that so concerns them needs to stop.

Removing fuel by clearing dead trees, and undergrowth is the answer to try and minimize the damage done by wildfires.

Global warming is not the problem:

Approximately 84% of wildfires in the United States that required help by firefighters between 1992 and 2012 were caused by humans according to a recent study. Discarding cigarettes, unattended campfires, and losing control of controlled burns were three of the most common manmade causes of wildfires. Unfortunately, the human element of wildfires has caused the wildfire season across the country to lengthen and become even more dangerous than ever before.

In terms of natural causes, wildfires can be caused by lightning strikes on dry ground. This is the most common cause of fires in the southeast part of the United States and in the dry Rocky Mountain region. In California, the Pacific Northwest, and the forests of the eastern part of the United States, manmade causes resulted in 80% of the wildfires. Although places like Florida have a lot of thunder storms and lightning strikes, 60-80% of fires in this region were started from manmade causes.

Manmade causes of wildfire also include arson.

An example of poor tactical planning and lack of management is highlighted in an excellent article from the Oregonian concerning the Canyon Creek Fire.

Published in Environment
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    This may be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    Nuh uh, It’s Science! Shouldn’t public policy be based on Scientific Research?

    • #31
  2. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    Historically, California weather has been wetter than normal in the 20th century.  The recent droughts have only begun to bring it back to the average.

    • #32
  3. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I’ve done an amateur study of the methods used to calculate Earth temperatures and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any statistically significant warming at all.

    My own study of the problem shows the same.  Treated as a time series, forecasting of temperature data shows a zero trend and almost no possibility of showing a significant rise (or fall) in mean global temperature in the foreseeable future.

    • #33
  4. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    Historically, California weather has been wetter than normal in the 20th century. The recent droughts have only begun to bring it back to the average.

    And that reinforces the scariest thought when it comes to climate change.  Humanity’s post-enlightenment development “strategy” has been to shape the world to fit the climate of the past 250 years.  What if that 250-year-period was anomalous, and the upcoming climate is simply a return to an older normal?

    It would mean that a lot of the big things humanity has built in the past 250 years are potentially located in the wrong places, like all the stuff in California built in a spot that’s supposed to be a desert but has enjoyed unusually high rainfall for the last century.

    The climate change orthodoxy is all about throwing blame around for the climate.  Throwing blame around is comforting.  The thought that “catastrophic” climate change might indeed be coming and also that it’s nobody’s fault and also that there’s really no way to stop it would be way more terrifying.

    I’m not saying that’s what I do believe.  I’m just sayin’ it’d be a terrifying thought if one were to permit oneself to believe it.

    (Note: By “catastrophic” I don’t mean that humanity is doomed.  I mean that having to abandon a sizeable portion of the fixed infrastructure of the past 250 years and rebuilding elsewhere would be economically “catastrophic”.  Sorta kinda like how Detroit disintegrated due to depopulation.)

    • #34
  5. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    Historically, California weather has been wetter than normal in the 20th century. The recent droughts have only begun to bring it back to the average.

    And that reinforces the scariest thought when it comes to climate change. Humanity’s post-enlightenment development “strategy” has been to shape the world to fit the climate of the past 250 years. What if that 250-year-period was anomalous, and the upcoming climate is simply a return to an older normal?

    It would mean that a lot of the big things humanity has built in the past 250 years are potentially located in the wrong places, like all the stuff in California built in a spot that’s supposed to be a desert but has enjoyed unusually high rainfall for the last century.

    The climate change orthodoxy is all about throwing blame around for the climate. Throwing blame around is comforting. The thought that catastrophic climate change might indeed be coming and also that it’s nobody’s fault and also that there’s really no way to stop it would be way more terrifying.

    I’m not saying that’s what I do believe. I’m just sayin’ it’d be a terrifying thought if one were to permit oneself to believe it.

    Or — and this strikes me as even more plausible — everything north of, say, Atlanta is located in a spot that should be under a mile of glacier, and that we’ll be returning to that status quo ante shortly (geologically speaking).

    • #35
  6. Roderic Fabian Coolidge
    Roderic Fabian
    @rhfabian

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    It would mean that a lot of the big things humanity has built in the past 250 years are potentially located in the wrong places, like all the stuff in California built in a spot that’s supposed to be a desert but has enjoyed unusually high rainfall for the last century.

    There used to be an appreciation of the fact that in California there are long periods of drought.  That was part of the basis for the water plan developed in the 1950s there that would have built several more reservoirs to catch water coming down from the mountains.  This plan has been ignored due to environmentalists for the last few decades, and so now California has inadequate water reserves.

    • #36
  7. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    What if that 250-year-period was anomalous, and the upcoming climate is simply a return to an older normal? It would mean that a lot of the big things we’ve built in the past 250 years are potentially located in the wrong places.

    So we’ll build new things in new places.  Mankind is remarkably adaptable and resilient. 

    Besides, if you want to worry about the future consider:

    1) The relative global peace since WWII won’t last forever, nor will the Pax Americana.  Nuclear weapons keep proliferating.

    2) An Ebola-like plague can quickly spread around the globe due to modern air travel.

    3) Want real climate change?  Wait until the next large asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs hits us.

    Even if “climate change” is as bad as the alarmists claim it still would barely crack my top 5 list of worries.

    • #37
  8. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    That was part of the basis for the water plan developed in the 1950s there that would have built several more reservoirs to catch water coming down from the mountains. This plan has been ignored due to environmentalists for the last few decades, and so now California has inadequate water reserves.

    I remember people used to drive around Placer County with bumper stickers that read “Build it, dam it!” In reference to the proposed, but never built, Auburn Dam.

    • #38
  9. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So we’ll build new things in new places. Mankind is remarkably adaptable and resilient.

    Yabbut, it’ll still feel like a catastrophe when if it happens.  Fifth-century Romans didn’t shrug off their collapse by saying, “oh well, mankind is remarkably adaptable and resilient. People will just move elsewhere and things’ll be back to normal in a few (dozen) centuries.”

    Again, I mention Detroit, which is the best modern example of a major city ending up virtually abandoned due to changing circumstances.  The thought that it might have been unavoidable and the consolation that people were able to start new lives elsewhere doesn’t really help how it feels to see a city fall apart like that.

    • #39
  10. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    This may be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    Oh, no, I don’t believe it’s reasonable in either case! #climatemodelssuck

    It’s sorta kinda like the old physics joke about “assuming a spherical cow“:

    Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, “I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum”.

    Sometimes in scientific experimentation and inquiry it’s unavoidable that the researcher has to define terms in the simplest ways possible or else the variables will be so complex that they become virtually incalculable.  Defining “climate” as a 30-year-period might be reasonable in that sort of research paradigm.

    It becomes a political issue when public policy decision-makers impose those simplified terms on the people as “the way things really are”…

    … like passing a law that forces people to assume that cows are spherical.

    • #40
  11. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    Doug Watt: Global warming is not the problem

    According to Obama, we are the problem:

    “The reason we don’t” invest in climate change policies, Obama said, “is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism…mommy issues.”

    “I mean, we — we are we are fraught with stuff and — and so if that’s the case then the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all–and look I’m a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and, you know, evidence-based learning and all that good stuff. I’m — I’m — people call me Spock for a reason, I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values, but the thing that really we have to invest in is people. We got to get people to figure out how they work together — in a — you know, how do we get people to work together in a cooperative, thoughtful, constructive way.”

    So there you go. Answered clearly and concisely, as is his wont.

    • #41
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    This may be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    Oh, no, I don’t believe it’s reasonable in either case! #climatemodelssuck

    It’s sorta kinda like the old physics joke about “assuming a spherical cow“:

    Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, “I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum”.

    Sometimes in scientific experimentation and inquiry it’s unavoidable that the researcher has to define terms in the simplest ways possible or else the variables will be so complex that they become virtually incalculable. Defining “climate” as a 30-year-period might be reasonable in that sort of research paradigm.

    It becomes a political issue when public policy decision-makers impose those simplified terms on the people as “the way things really are”…

    … like passing a law that assumes cows are spherical. 

    That’s Mr. C’s Ricochet handle. @sphericalcow.

    • #42
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Global warming is not the problem

    According to Obama, we are the problem:

    “The reason we don’t” invest in climate change policies, Obama said, “is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism…mommy issues.”

    “I mean, we — we are we are fraught with stuff and — and so if that’s the case then the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all–and look I’m a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and, you know, evidence-based learning and all that good stuff. I’m — I’m — people call me Spock for a reason, I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values, but the thing that really we have to invest in is people. We got to get people to figure out how they work together — in a — you know, how do we get people to work together in a cooperative, thoughtful, constructive way.”

    So there you go. Answered clearly and concisely, as is his wont.

    That is stomach turning. What an arrogant fill-in-the-blank.

    • #43
  14. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    So we’ll build new things in new places. Mankind is remarkably adaptable and resilient.

    Yabbut, it’ll still feel like a catastrophe when if it happens. Fifth-century Romans didn’t shrug off their collapse by saying, “oh well, mankind is remarkably adaptable and resilient. People will just move elsewhere and things’ll be back to normal in a few (dozen) centuries.”

    Again, I mention Detroit, which is the best modern example of a major city ending up virtually abandoned due to changing circumstances. The thought that it might have been unavoidable and the consolation that people were able to start new lives elsewhere doesn’t really help how it feels to see a city fall apart like that.

    Sucks to be Roman, but maybe not such bad news if you were German.

    Every change brings winners and losers.  Automotive jobs in Detroit didn’t just vanish into thin air; many moved south to right-to-work states.  If you own beachfront property and the sea levels rise, one day your property may be underwater, but guess what?  One of your inland neighbors now owns beachfront property!

    Maybe that’s why today’s global elite are acting so alarmed about Climate Change — as the people on top of the current food chain, they have the most to lose from ANY changes.

    • #44
  15. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Flicker (View Comment):
    And yet I’ve never read of controlled burning being widely accepted and have always read of greenies protesting them.

    I think I saw something that said they were doing a controlled burn in Cade’s Cove; about 300 acres.

    • #45
  16. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Global warming is not the problem

    According to Obama, we are the problem:

    “The reason we don’t” invest in climate change policies, Obama said, “is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism…mommy issues.”

    “I mean, we — we are we are fraught with stuff and — and so if that’s the case then the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all–and look I’m a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and, you know, evidence-based learning and all that good stuff. I’m — I’m — people call me Spock for a reason, I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values, but the thing that really we have to invest in is people. We got to get people to figure out how they work together — in a — you know, how do we get people to work together in a cooperative, thoughtful, constructive way.”

    So there you go. Answered clearly and concisely, as is his wont.

    So true!  I always admired Obama’s direct blunt and honest answers to questions, and his cool emotionless scientific reasoning skills.  I also believe in fairies…..

     

    • #46
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.