On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about
you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's
going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
get drier from less precipitation.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation. I'm not sure how that works.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like. The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you
tend to not notice. The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud. The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north. As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles. And huge chunks of antarctia
break off and float away now. So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now. Not much right? Hardly
noticeable to most of us. Except the storms and the fires. Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose. It is still early in
the process. Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time. Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's
going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
get drier from less precipitation.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation. I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more fires
when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry season,
even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like. The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you
tend to not notice. The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud. The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north. As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles. And huge chunks of antarctia
break off and float away now. So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now. Not much right? Hardly
noticeable to most of us. Except the storms and the fires. Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose. It is still early in
the process. Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time. Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's
going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
get drier from less precipitation.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation.-a I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more fires
when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry season,
even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like.-a The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you
tend to not-a notice.-a The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud.-a The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north.-a As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles.-a And huge chunks of antarctia
break off and float away now.-a So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now.-a Not much right?-a Hardly
noticeable to most of us.-a Except the storms and the fires.-a Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose.-a It is still early in
the process.-a Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time.-a Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/
USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?
width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past.-a Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up.-a Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling.-a The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson.-a Really.-a Really.-a I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's >>>>>> going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
get drier from less precipitation.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation. I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more fires
when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry season,
even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like. The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you
tend to not notice. The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud. The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north. As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles. And huge chunks of antarctia
break off and float away now. So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now. Not much right? Hardly
noticeable to most of us. Except the storms and the fires. Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose. It is still early in
the process. Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time. Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with
ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not
include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc,
cbs.
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying
true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval"
statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you
to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are
the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less
than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate.
Let's hear that poopoo now, wilson. No holding back.
On 8/6/26 6:42 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's >>>>>> going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
get drier from less precipitation.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation.-a I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more
fires when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry
season, even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like.-a The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you
tend to not-a notice.-a The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud.-a The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north.-a As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles.-a And huge chunks of antarctia
break off and float away now.-a So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now.-a Not much right?-a Hardly
noticeable to most of us.-a Except the storms and the fires.-a Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose.-a It is still early in
the process.-a Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time.-a Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/
USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?
width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past.-a Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up.-a Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling.-a The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson.-a Really.-a Really.-a I bet you can't >>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before
then. So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence
interval" statements, that only says that's the confidence based on
the data that they do have (which over most of the world are guesses).
It's not confidence in that data's accuracy.
bro, u can't utilize evidence to produce arguments, and then arbitrarily reject it when those arguments turn out of be wrong
that's just seeking confirmation, not truth seeking, to anyone more than
a half-wit
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will >>>>> get drier from less precipitation.
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's >>>>>>> going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation. I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more fires
when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry season,
even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like. The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you >>>> tend to not notice. The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud. The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north. As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles. And huge chunks of antarctia >>>> break off and float away now. So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now. Not much right? Hardly
noticeable to most of us. Except the storms and the fires. Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose. It is still early in
the process. Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time. Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with
ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not
include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc,
cbs.
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying
true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval"
statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you
to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are
the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less
than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate.
That's not what the confidence interval means.
Let's hear that poopoo now, wilson. No holding back.
Appeal to authority has always been and is still a stupid thing.
On 8/6/2026 11:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 6:42 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will >>>>> get drier from less precipitation.
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's >>>>>>> going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation.a I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more
fires when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry
season, even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really
desert like.a The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you >>>> tend to nota notice.a The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud.a The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north.a As usenet zen old
timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15
years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles.a And huge chunks of antarctia >>>> break off and float away now.a So it is that the global average temp
rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now.a Not much right?a Hardly
noticeable to most of us.a Except the storms and the fires.a Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose.a It is still early in
the process.a Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp
over time.a Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/
USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?
width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past.a Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up.a Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling.a The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely
statistically significant, wilson.a Really.a Really.a I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before
then. So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence
interval" statements, that only says that's the confidence based on
the data that they do have (which over most of the world are guesses).
It's not confidence in that data's accuracy.
bro, u can't utilize evidence to produce arguments, and then arbitrarily
reject it when those arguments turn out of be wrong
that's just seeking confirmation, not truth seeking, to anyone more than
a half-wit
I didn't say the chart wasn't or didn't represent evidence.
It is however misleading for the reasons I gave.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 13:00:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 11:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 6:42 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 01:36:58 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 8/5/26 8:00 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:some places will get wetter with more precipitation. some places will >>>>>> get drier from less precipitation.
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that >>>>>>>>>> will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will >>>>>>>>> increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about >>>>>>>>> you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's >>>>>>>> going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
other places (like the boreal forests) will get dryer from more
precipitation. no places with get wetter from less precipitation.
Dryer from more precipitation.-a I'm not sure how that works.
I think what Nick's trying to say is that more precipitation in some
places will lead to more understory growth which can lead to more
fires when it drys out. Just about every place has a relatively dry
season, even a lot of wet areas.
It is
true though that areas with permafrost and perpetual snow are really >>>>> desert like.-a The snow they do get never entirely melts though, so you >>>>> tend to not-a notice.-a The difference for them now is that the
permafrost is melting and structures are sinking into mud.-a The
warming is much more noticeable in the far north.-a As usenet zen old >>>>> timer Randall Warner, who lived in anchorage, used to bear witness 15 >>>>> years ago or so.
So, yes, much more warming at the poles.-a And huge chunks of antarctia >>>>> break off and float away now.-a So it is that the global average temp >>>>> rise is only 1.5 or so degrees right now.-a Not much right?-a Hardly >>>>> noticeable to most of us.-a Except the storms and the fires.-a Even
those can be hardly noticeable if you choose.-a It is still early in >>>>> the process.-a Denial remains a viable choice.
Wilson will now tell us we don't have data to support a rise in temp >>>>> over time.-a Here you go wilson:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/ >>>>> USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?
width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past.-a Since >>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up.-a Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling.-a The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>> statistically significant, wilson.-a Really.-a Really.-a I bet you can't >>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before
then. So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence
interval" statements, that only says that's the confidence based on
the data that they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). >>>> It's not confidence in that data's accuracy.
bro, u can't utilize evidence to produce arguments, and then arbitrarily >>> reject it when those arguments turn out of be wrong
that's just seeking confirmation, not truth seeking, to anyone more than >>> a half-wit
I didn't say the chart wasn't or didn't represent evidence.
It is however misleading for the reasons I gave.
About which you happen to be wrong.
On 8/2/26 7:29 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/2/2026 2:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 1:57 PM, Dude wrote:Lightning causes roughly 10% to 15% of wildfires in the United States,
On 8/2/2026 12:38 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:52:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>It's not about Wilson or Trump.
wrote:
On 7/31/2026 6:44 PM, Creon wrote:
At Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:20:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:06 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think >>>>>>>>> that
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
very pages last year that government policy was worsening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fire risk on moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyI told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat of wild fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada is looking to do the same in co-operation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with our native people. We have a problem doing this however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the acessibility and vastness of our forests. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a country the size of Britain (and other European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it seems to me that controlled fires are a no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow and >>>>>>>>>>>>> send a lot of smoke to people populated areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet >>>>>>>>>> we've
had serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks >>>>>>>>>> ago it literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was >>>>>>>>>> otherwise a clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed- >>>>>>>>>> midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really >>>>>>>>>> looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best. >>>>>>>>>
one answer here is controlled burning. Another is education and >>>>>>>>> strictly enforced laws against those who are careless and start >>>>>>>>> fires through laziness and ignorance, clearing vegetation around >>>>>>>>> and near dwellings and building fire resistent homes.
Yes I agree. The funny thing is, the idiot treehuggers I'm talking >>>>>>>> about are killing more trees by not allowing beneficial things like >>>>>>>> controlled burns.
Not true.
You seem to be living about four decades behind, Sir.
Because you say so?
Who's stopping the controlled burns and brush clearing in California? >>>>>> It's not the foresters.
I see that happening all the time.
Hell, we just did some of that up the road to clear out the crap
in a greenspace.
What branch of government is in charge of the USFS?-a Who is
in control of the National Forests that cover a good portion
of California?
(Remember Trump with his "rake the forests"?-a What's stopping him?) >>>>>
Get with the program, Wilson -- the Native Americans did a better
job of stewarding the land than you and your ilk.
Apparently, wildfires are getting less frequent worldwide, not more,
as the globe warms.
apparently ur a fucking idiot dud
but accounts for about 45% to 50% of wildfires in Canada.
Human activity causes approximately 50% (or just under half) of all
wildfires in Canada, while lightning accounts for the other half.
<
for anyone who doesn't want to be one: global fire trends (inHumans cause approximately 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the United
acreage) are completely dominated by tropical savannas and grasslands
which are declining in acreage because of land use changes and
increased fire suppression along with land use changes...
this trends does not negate the increasing trend in temperate and
especially boreal forest wildfires
States, according to data from agencies like the National Interagency
Fire Center and the U.S. National Park Service.
when accounting for total burn area in the us, lighting ignited
wildfires burn just over 50%,
whereas in canada, lighting ignition accounts for more like >90% of
wildfire acreage burned
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed California
toward more strategic planning to prevent the worst wildfire damage,
saying it would cost too much unbudgeted money.
KQED NPR:
California Needs a New Approach to Wildfire Planning
https://tinyurl.com/4nf4tc94
President Trump claims Canadian wildfires are caused by "forest
management." YMMV.
On 8/5/26 1:50 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/4/2026 8:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 3:19 PM, Dude wrote:So, you and Noah aren't doing anything personally to save the planet.
On 8/1/2026 6:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/1/26 12:21 PM, Dude wrote:Let me ask Nick and Noah why don't you do something?
On 8/1/2026 9:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/1/26 9:50 AM, Dude wrote:Let's not be hypocritical! You and Noah could do something to help >>>>>> save the planet. Do nothing, do nothing, deny deny.
On 7/31/2026 8:25 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/31/26 7:35 PM, Dude wrote:So, what are you doing?
On 7/31/2026 3:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/31/26 3:54 PM, Tara wrote:You came here to learn fire science and forest management?
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:46:39 -0700, DudeThat being said, no analysis of Canadian forest management >>>>>>>>>>>>> can compare
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 12:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/31/26 12:10 PM, Tara wrote:That should wrap up the discussion about the unspoken >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth about
On Jul 31, 2026 at 2:25:03?PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32?PM EDT, "Wilson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09?PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17?PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem?Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warned in these
very pages
last year that government policy was worsening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fire risk on
moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: rCyI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conrolling the
threat of wild
fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada
is looking to do
the same in co-operation with our native >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. We have a
problem doing this
however because of the acessibility and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vastness of our
forests. But in a
country the size of Britain (and other European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it
seems to me
that controlled fires are a no brainer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think they're as likely good for the land's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long term health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> massively grow and
send a lot of
smoke to people populated areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wildfires yet we've had
serious air quality warnings this year and last. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few weeks ago it
literally dimmed the sun for several days, making >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was otherwise a
clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> millions- exposed-
midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it really
looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's best.
I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and think that
one answer
here is controlled burning. Another is education and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strictly
enforced laws
against those who are careless and start fires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through laziness and
ignorance,
clearing vegetation around and near dwellings and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building fire
resistent
homes.
That would probably be more effective than increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price
of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workers.
yah. And somebody should point out to the 'tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huggers' that controlled
burning actually saves more trees than not doing it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because left to
itself
wildfires will continue to happen. And trees will burn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more so
because of
the weather changes and encroachment.
given that u actually live in canada maybe u should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spend half a second
researching what it takes to do effective fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> management for the
forests ur actually talking about
god boomers are so stupid
wildfires. Good work, Nick! You really trashed Tara's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory by
suggesting that, since she lives in the Canadian forest, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she should
research it using Grok.
Research nothing using grok.-a Canada has forest managers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you can
bet that they do what they can.-a The certainly don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us telling
them how to do their job.
to the great analysis by Nick, who is now an expert in just >>>>>>>>>>>>> about
everything, especially fire science and wildfire prevention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
lol. Good one
if dud had an actual critique on the argument he wouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>> have to engaging in a _bear_ origin fallacy
you came HERE to be enlightened???
Apparently Nick doesn't even have home solar. He's probably
using way too much energy cooling his crib with an electric heat >>>>>>>> pump.
At least Nick and Noah could set an example. YMMV.
you came HERE to get eNlIgHtEnEd???
let me ask again: you came HERE to get eNlIgHtEnEd???
because collective problems will only be solved collectively moron
why would it be anyone's "personal" responsibility to save the planet
from the actions of 8 billion, u stupid blame-shifting faggot
collective problems will only be solved collectively
#god
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because you
do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
On 8/2/2026 8:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 7:29 PM, Dude wrote:"Approximately 85% to 90% of all wildfires worldwide are caused by human activity rather than natural phenomena like lightning." - National Geographic
On 8/2/2026 2:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 1:57 PM, Dude wrote:Lightning causes roughly 10% to 15% of wildfires in the United
On 8/2/2026 12:38 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:52:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:It's not about Wilson or Trump.
On 7/31/2026 6:44 PM, Creon wrote:
At Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:20:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:06 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think >>>>>>>>>> that
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
very pages last year that government policy was worsening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fire risk on moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyI told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
threat of wild fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada is looking to do the same in co-operation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with our native people. We have a problem doing this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however
because of the acessibility and vastness of our forests. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
in a country the size of Britain (and other European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it seems to me that controlled fires are a no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
send a lot of smoke to people populated areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet >>>>>>>>>>> we've
had serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks >>>>>>>>>>> ago it literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what >>>>>>>>>>> was
otherwise a clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-
exposed- midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really >>>>>>>>>>> looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best. >>>>>>>>>>
one answer here is controlled burning. Another is education and >>>>>>>>>> strictly enforced laws against those who are careless and start >>>>>>>>>> fires through laziness and ignorance, clearing vegetation around >>>>>>>>>> and near dwellings and building fire resistent homes.
Yes I agree. The funny thing is, the idiot treehuggers I'm talking >>>>>>>>> about are killing more trees by not allowing beneficial things >>>>>>>>> like
controlled burns.
Not true.
You seem to be living about four decades behind, Sir.
Because you say so?
Who's stopping the controlled burns and brush clearing in
California?
It's not the foresters.
I see that happening all the time.
Hell, we just did some of that up the road to clear out the crap
in a greenspace.
What branch of government is in charge of the USFS?-a Who is
in control of the National Forests that cover a good portion
of California?
(Remember Trump with his "rake the forests"?-a What's stopping him?) >>>>>>
Get with the program, Wilson -- the Native Americans did a better
job of stewarding the land than you and your ilk.
Apparently, wildfires are getting less frequent worldwide, not
more, as the globe warms.
apparently ur a fucking idiot dud
States, but accounts for about 45% to 50% of wildfires in Canada.
Human activity causes approximately 50% (or just under half) of all
wildfires in Canada, while lightning accounts for the other half.
<
for anyone who doesn't want to be one: global fire trends (inHumans cause approximately 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the United
acreage) are completely dominated by tropical savannas and
grasslands which are declining in acreage because of land use
changes and increased fire suppression along with land use changes...
this trends does not negate the increasing trend in temperate and
especially boreal forest wildfires
States, according to data from agencies like the National Interagency
Fire Center and the U.S. National Park Service.
when accounting for total burn area in the us, lighting ignited
wildfires burn just over 50%,
whereas in canada, lighting ignition accounts for more like >90% of
wildfire acreage burned
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed California
toward more strategic planning to prevent the worst wildfire
damage, saying it would cost too much unbudgeted money.
KQED NPR:
California Needs a New Approach to Wildfire Planning
https://tinyurl.com/4nf4tc94
President Trump claims Canadian wildfires are caused by "forest
management." YMMV.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since >>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged
cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't >>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with
ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not
include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc,
cbs.
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying
true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then. >>>As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval"
statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that >>>> they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you
to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are
the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less
than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate.
That's not what the confidence interval means.
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the
same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since >>>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged >>>>>> cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't >>>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context.
The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with >>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not
include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc,
cbs.
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying
true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then. >>>>As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that >>>>> they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you >>>> to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are
the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less
than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate.
That's not what the confidence interval means.
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the
same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the real >world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the
lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a real >thing.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice
Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last >glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>That's not what the confidence interval means.
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with >>>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not >>>>> include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc, >>>>> cbs.
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since >>>>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged >>>>>>> cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't >>>>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>>>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context. >>>>>
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying >>>>> true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then. >>>>>As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >>>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that >>>>>> they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not
confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you >>>>> to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are >>>>> the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less >>>>> than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate. >>>>
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the
same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the real
world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the
lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a real
thing.
You are deceived.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice
Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last
glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
Fascinating. So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since
the last glaciation? Who told you such a thing?
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about. Look to the far right of the graph. Do you see something
alarming? For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
graph. What do you see to the far right?
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the power
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's >>>>>>>> climate?
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of >>>>>>>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part >>>>>>>>>> of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol >>>>>>>>
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and
specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased heat in >>>>>>> earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it needs to >>>>>>> align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes
that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ change >>>>>>> in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when
compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
emissions.
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
which does not contradict humans driving change
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific community >>>>>> who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided that >>>>>> data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I
acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human influence. >>>>>
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm
Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at least as >>>>>> warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and do not >>>>> believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth
seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural recovery from >>>>>> the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance reconstructions >>>>>> (by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70rCo90% >>>>>> with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel
industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not negative >>>>> the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed and has >>>>> rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite data. if >>>>> this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but we
don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming aligns >>>>>> with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of increase is >>>>>> high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with
10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it was a >>>>> shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick &
Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming >>>>>> artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure
increase
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of
observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to
historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term
warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial warming >>>>>> post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature trend. >>>>>>
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared
radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% saturated at >>>>>
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database).
Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct effect >>>>>> with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave
radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential negative >>>>>> feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing
radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic
thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy
imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of
incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth >>>>>> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global >>>>>> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic
feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like nutrient flows >>>>> (that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration from
human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than heat- >>>>>> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the "habitable" >>>>> zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud feedbacks to >>>>>> nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the
tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual
balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models predict >>>>>> warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact every >>>>>> model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers.
(McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, rCLPervasive
Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface
temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority of CMIP >>>>>> models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or floods >>>>>> when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; >>>>>> IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for most >>>>>> extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not
physical measures. since then studies establishing high confidence in >>>>> increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt preparation >>>>> done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed
97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts ambiguously, >>>>>> excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic AGW is >>>>>> ~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch).
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in,
consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero emissions >>>>> has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo
chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data >>>>>> manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of
climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct or data >>>>> manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase >>>>>> lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural
outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually
functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current impact or >>>>> ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural
forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and alarmism >>>>>> stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest
ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again.
of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority of the
total acreage burned.
activityCampfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where the
extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier
arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all the
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just seeking >>>>> confirmation dud
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:53:48 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/2/2026 1:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 9:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that will
increase wildfires.
Satellite data only goes back to the 1980s. But there's solid scientific
evidence based on fire scar date from tree rings on old growth trees and
studies of sediment data that shows reconstructed wildfire history over >>>>>>> thousands of years.
That evidence indicates that during the 20th century in North America >>>>>>> there's been fewer acres burned than in previous periods. They're >>>>>>> calling it a "wildfire drought".
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3295264/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388852965
(it's worth noting that's only 2 studies, 2 links each)
Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite >>>>>> of accepted research.
Aren't awards for crappy research, crappy ideas?-a Unnobel?
*sigh*, noah the research isn't crappy, what's crappy is wilson's
conclusions from it.
a) the research is largely generalized across the continental us, which >>>>> does not even have boreal forests, so off to great start there
b) it's not climate change that lead to the wildfire deficit, it's human >>>>> activity as noted in _both_ studies. being a complex system ofc several >>>>> factors can affect wildfire rates, and human activity obviously does. >>>>> human activity has caused a deficit. which is getting "corrected" by the >>>>> increased risk from what is still largely nominal climate change across >>>>> most american forests. this risk is still increasing and we've only
gotten started
c) the study that does include some of canadian boreal region, records >>>>> it as the only region burning at a higher rather than historical trends, >>>>> 159% in fact. probably cause it's largely wilderness and far less
subject to the impact of human activity suppressing fire
d) one of the studies literally admits extent is largely not the problem >>>>> for most american forests, but severity is:
| Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many >>>>> | North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented >>>>> | contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems >>>>>
it's honestly quite eye opening to see just how poor wilson's ability in >>>>> utilizing evidence is
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North America are >>>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared to the >>>> long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of events
over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part of a greater cycle.
No, I am thinking that your news sources are biased, and mine a
reliable.
I get no science for news media.
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:That's not what the confidence interval means.
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with >>>>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not >>>>>> include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc, >>>>>> cbs.
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since >>>>>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged >>>>>>>> cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't >>>>>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around >>>>>>>> in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>>>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context. >>>>>>
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying >>>>>> true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>>>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >>>>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that >>>>>>> they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not >>>>>>> confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you >>>>>> to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are >>>>>> the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less >>>>>> than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate. >>>>>
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the
same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the real >>> world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the
lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a real >>> thing.
You are deceived.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice
Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last
glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
Fascinating. So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since
the last glaciation? Who told you such a thing?
It's pretty well established that the mid-Holocene warm period about 6k >years ago was followed by a cooling trend (~0.7 C) through the later >Holocene that reached the coolest levels in the Little Ice Age.
"The IPCC has described the LIA as a multi-centennial cooler period
lasting until about 1850.
Glacier evidence in the European Alps show major advances peaked in the >mid-19th century (around 1850u1860 in many places), after which glaciers >began a sustained retreat.
Different regions experienced their coldest intervals at different times >(the 17th century in parts of Europe and North America, mid-19th century
in other areas)."
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about. Look to the far right of the graph. Do you see something
alarming? For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
graph. What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated >possible temps from ~6k years ago.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 14:10:08 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/2/2026 1:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 9:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and >>>>>>>>> that will
increase wildfires.
Satellite data only goes back to the 1980s. But there's solid >>>>>>>>> scientific
evidence based on fire scar date from tree rings on old growth >>>>>>>>> trees and
studies of sediment data that shows reconstructed wildfire
history over
thousands of years.
That evidence indicates that during the 20th century in North >>>>>>>>> America
there's been fewer acres burned than in previous periods. They're >>>>>>>>> calling it a "wildfire drought".
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3295264/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388852965
(it's worth noting that's only 2 studies, 2 links each)
Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite >>>>>>>> of accepted research.
Aren't awards for crappy research, crappy ideas?-a Unnobel?
*sigh*, noah the research isn't crappy, what's crappy is wilson's >>>>>>> conclusions from it.
a) the research is largely generalized across the continental us, >>>>>>> which
does not even have boreal forests, so off to great start there
b) it's not climate change that lead to the wildfire deficit, it's >>>>>>> human
activity as noted in _both_ studies. being a complex system ofc
several
factors can affect wildfire rates, and human activity obviously does. >>>>>>> human activity has caused a deficit. which is getting "corrected" >>>>>>> by the
increased risk from what is still largely nominal climate change >>>>>>> across
most american forests. this risk is still increasing and we've only >>>>>>> gotten started
c) the study that does include some of canadian boreal region, records >>>>>>> it as the only region burning at a higher rather than historical >>>>>>> trends,
159% in fact. probably cause it's largely wilderness and far less >>>>>>> subject to the impact of human activity suppressing fire
d) one of the studies literally admits extent is largely not the >>>>>>> problem
for most american forests, but severity is:
| Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many >>>>>>> | North American forests, there is abundant evidence that
unprecedented
| contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems >>>>>>>
it's honestly quite eye opening to see just how poor wilson's
ability in
utilizing evidence is
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North America are >>>>>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared to the >>>>>> long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of events >>>> over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part of a greater
cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
Lately that is the dominant cause.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 20:00:17 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/3/2026 10:19 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 5:42 PM, Creon wrote:ThererCOs always been wildfires!
At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/31/2026 6:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 7/31/26 3:11 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/26 1:28 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 4:02:41?PM EDT, "Tara" <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:46:18?PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/26 12:35 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:11:12?PM EDT, "dart200"
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/26 11:25 AM, Julian wrote:Ummm. if you care to look back a bit, the problem with boreal >>>>>>>>>>>> forests (in
On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32?PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09?PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17?PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in these very pages last year that government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy was worsening the fire risk on moorland, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives me no pleasure to say: rCyI told you so.rCO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conrolling the threat of wild fires with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prescribed/controlled burns for centuries. Canada is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to do the same in co-operation with our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> native people. We have a problem doing this however >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the acessibility and vastness of our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests. But in a country the size of Britain (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other European countries), it seems to me that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled fires are a no brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem? I think they're as likely good for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> land's long term health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow and send a lot of smoke to people populated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet we've had serious air quality warnings this year and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last. A few weeks ago it literally dimmed the sun for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several days, making what was otherwise a clear day look >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposed-
midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best.
I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that one answer here is controlled burning. Another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is education and strictly enforced laws against those who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are careless and start fires through laziness and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance, clearing vegetation around and near dwellings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and building fire resistent homes.
That would probably be more effective than increasing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> price of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched >>>>>>>>>>>>>> workers.
jooliean you truly are a useless fucking retard. this ofc >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't written for u cause ur determined to take ur damned >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance to the grave, but for the record:
not only are boreal forest are far too vast to effectively >>>>>>>>>>>>> mitigate increased risk from climate change, meaning we >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't even been engaging in serious fire suppression for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the much of forest so that's _not_ the cause like cons >>>>>>>>>>>>> desperate wants to believe; just controlled burns don't even >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively mitigate risk as the ecology of a boreal forest >>>>>>>>>>>>> is different than a temperate one, so it requires fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>> management strategies that are far more labor intensive >>>>>>>>>>>>
Canada) has already been addressed.
why are you such a dumb fucking liar tara???
all u discussed was the size of the forest, u did not discuss >>>>>>>>>>> the fact the conventional controlled burns do not effectively >>>>>>>>>>> mitigate fire risk in boreal forests, nor the increased costs >>>>>>>>>>> of the various techniques that must be employed instead
and you still haven't even after i've pointed it out in
several posts. clear evidence of refusing to face the facts >>>>>>>>>>> like a retarded boomer
Of course we can't do anything about fires in the boreal forest. >>>>>>>>> That's a given ffs We can only do what we can to protect the >>>>>>>>> boundaries. !!! Idiot!
great so u never mentioned that to joolian or his mindbogglingly >>>>>>>> stupid article
u only admitted it after i pressed for several comments, so i
have no reason to believe u would have ever mentioned it
otherwise.
Chill. I think I said something to the effect that we have vast
forest that we canrCOt do anything about. Maybe not but I donrCOt >>>>>>> understand why yourCOre so on about it. Pick the battles that
matter. Or maybe just take a break eh
the freaking article suggest climate change is not a cause of
wildfire implying it's largely a problem of mismanagement and
suppression...
completely ignoring that boreal forests, where the largest increase >>>>>> in risk is seen, are largely not managed anyways due to not only
the sheer size but also the fact that managing fuel costs ~10x that >>>>>> of temperate forest. normal controlled burns aren't an option cause >>>>>> the risks are just different.
I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that
will increase wildfires.
Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about
you: your attention to detail.
I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's
going to get warmer and in many places dryer.
There's always been deniers.
On 8/6/26 2:11 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/2/2026 8:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 7:29 PM, Dude wrote:"Approximately 85% to 90% of all wildfires worldwide are caused by
On 8/2/2026 2:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 1:57 PM, Dude wrote:Lightning causes roughly 10% to 15% of wildfires in the United
On 8/2/2026 12:38 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:52:40 -0400, WilsonIt's not about Wilson or Trump.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 6:44 PM, Creon wrote:
At Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:20:28 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:06 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and >>>>>>>>>>> think that
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17rC>PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
very pages last year that government policy was worsening >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fire risk on moorland, it gives me no pleasure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say:
rCyI told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conrolling the
threat of wild fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada is looking to do the same in co- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation
with our native people. We have a problem doing this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however
because of the acessibility and vastness of our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests. But
in a country the size of Britain (and other European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it seems to me that controlled fires are a no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow and
send a lot of smoke to people populated areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet >>>>>>>>>>>> we've
had serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few >>>>>>>>>>>> weeks
ago it literally dimmed the sun for several days, making >>>>>>>>>>>> what was
otherwise a clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions- >>>>>>>>>>>> exposed- midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really >>>>>>>>>>>> looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best. >>>>>>>>>>>
one answer here is controlled burning. Another is education and >>>>>>>>>>> strictly enforced laws against those who are careless and start >>>>>>>>>>> fires through laziness and ignorance, clearing vegetation around >>>>>>>>>>> and near dwellings and building fire resistent homes.
Yes I agree. The funny thing is, the idiot treehuggers I'm >>>>>>>>>> talking
about are killing more trees by not allowing beneficial things >>>>>>>>>> like
controlled burns.
Not true.
You seem to be living about four decades behind, Sir.
Because you say so?
Who's stopping the controlled burns and brush clearing in
California?
It's not the foresters.
I see that happening all the time.
Hell, we just did some of that up the road to clear out the crap >>>>>>> in a greenspace.
What branch of government is in charge of the USFS?-a Who is
in control of the National Forests that cover a good portion
of California?
(Remember Trump with his "rake the forests"?-a What's stopping him?) >>>>>>>
Get with the program, Wilson -- the Native Americans did a better >>>>>>> job of stewarding the land than you and your ilk.
Apparently, wildfires are getting less frequent worldwide, not
more, as the globe warms.
apparently ur a fucking idiot dud
States, but accounts for about 45% to 50% of wildfires in Canada.
Human activity causes approximately 50% (or just under half) of all
wildfires in Canada, while lightning accounts for the other half.
<
for anyone who doesn't want to be one: global fire trends (inHumans cause approximately 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the United
acreage) are completely dominated by tropical savannas and
grasslands which are declining in acreage because of land use
changes and increased fire suppression along with land use changes... >>>>>
this trends does not negate the increasing trend in temperate and
especially boreal forest wildfires
States, according to data from agencies like the National
Interagency Fire Center and the U.S. National Park Service.
when accounting for total burn area in the us, lighting ignited
wildfires burn just over 50%,
human activity rather than natural phenomena like lightning." -
National Geographic
which doesn't contradict the fact that lighting ignition accounts for
more like >90% of wildfire acreage burned, but i get that ur not honest enough of a person to comprehend the nature of evidence
whereas in canada, lighting ignition accounts for more like >90% of
wildfire acreage burned
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed California >>>>>> toward more strategic planning to prevent the worst wildfire
damage, saying it would cost too much unbudgeted money.
KQED NPR:
California Needs a New Approach to Wildfire Planning
https://tinyurl.com/4nf4tc94
President Trump claims Canadian wildfires are caused by "forest
management." YMMV.
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because you
do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting the
planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we need the
vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to be
solved ... then we can start solving it.
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there is even
a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as well accelerate it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority.
hopefully that won't be too late
#god
On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 19:38:52 +0000, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
At Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:52:40 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 6:44 PM, Creon wrote:
At Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:20:28 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:06 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32?PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09?PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow and >>>>>>>>>> send a lot of smoke to people populated areas.
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17?PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in these >>>>>>>>>>>>> very pages last year that government policy was worsening >>>>>>>>>>>>> the fire risk on moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: >>>>>>>>>>>>> rCyI told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling the >>>>>>>>>>>> threat of wild fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada is looking to do the same in co-operation >>>>>>>>>>>> with our native people. We have a problem doing this however >>>>>>>>>>>> because of the acessibility and vastness of our forests. But >>>>>>>>>>>> in a country the size of Britain (and other European
countries), it seems to me that controlled fires are a no >>>>>>>>>>>> brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem? >>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term health. >>>>>>>>>>
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet we've >>>>>>> had serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks >>>>>>> ago it literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was >>>>>>> otherwise a clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed-midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really
looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best.
I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think that >>>>>> one answer here is controlled burning. Another is education and
strictly enforced laws against those who are careless and start
fires through laziness and ignorance, clearing vegetation around
and near dwellings and building fire resistent homes.
Yes I agree. The funny thing is, the idiot treehuggers I'm talking
about are killing more trees by not allowing beneficial things like
controlled burns.
Not true.
You seem to be living about four decades behind, Sir.
Because you say so?
Who's stopping the controlled burns and brush clearing in California?
It's not the foresters.
I see that happening all the time.
Hell, we just did some of that up the road to clear out the crap
in a greenspace.
What branch of government is in charge of the USFS? Who is
in control of the National Forests that cover a good portion
of California?
(Remember Trump with his "rake the forests"? What's stopping him?)
Get with the program, Wilson -- the Native Americans did a better
job of stewarding the land than you and your ilk.
There you go, a sample of what sanity sounds like.
On 8/6/2026 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:Denial, denial. The least you could do is admit your own guilt. You are using up way too much energy. You know this is true.
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because
you do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting
the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the planet?
At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we need theSo, what's your problem? You came here to preach to the choir?
vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to be
solved ... then we can start solving it.
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there isMore denial. Do nothing.
even a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as well accelerate
it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority.
Where's Noah?
-a-a> hopefully that won't be too late
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the power
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's >>>>>>>>> climate?
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of >>>>>>>>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part >>>>>>>>>>> of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol >>>>>>>>>
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and
specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased
heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it needs to >>>>>>>> align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes >>>>>>>> that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ change >>>>>>>> in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when
compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
emissions.
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
which does not contradict humans driving change
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific
community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided that >>>>>>> data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I
acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human influence. >>>>>>
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm >>>>>>> Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at least as >>>>>>> warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and do not >>>>>> believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth
seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural recovery from >>>>>>> the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance reconstructions >>>>>>> (by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70rCo90% >>>>>>> with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel
industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not negative >>>>>> the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed and >>>>>> has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite
data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but we >>>>>> don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming aligns >>>>>>> with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of increase is >>>>>>> high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with >>>>>>> 10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it was a >>>>>> shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & >>>>>>> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming >>>>>>> artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure
increase
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of >>>>>>> observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to
historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term >>>>>>> warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial warming >>>>>>> post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature
trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared >>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% saturated at >>>>>>
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database).
Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct effect >>>>>>> with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave
radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential negative >>>>>>> feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing >>>>>> radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic
thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy
imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of
incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth >>>>>>> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global >>>>>>> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic
feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like nutrient
flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration from >>>>>> human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than heat- >>>>>>> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the "habitable" >>>>>> zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud feedbacks to >>>>>>> nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the
tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual
balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models predict >>>>>>> warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact every >>>>>>> model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers.
(McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, rCLPervasive >>>>>>> Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface
temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority of CMIP >>>>>>> models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or floods >>>>>>> when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; >>>>>>> IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for most >>>>>>> extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not >>>>>> physical measures. since then studies establishing high confidence in >>>>>> increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt preparation >>>>>> done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in,
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed >>>>>>> 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts
ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic AGW is >>>>>>> ~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>
consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero
emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo
chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data >>>>>>> manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of
climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct or data >>>>>> manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase >>>>>>> lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural
outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually
functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current impact or >>>>>> ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural >>>>>>> forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and
alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest
ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again.
of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed
from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority of
the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
activityCampfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where the >>>>>> extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier
arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all the >>>>>> extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just seeking >>>>>> confirmation dud
On 8/6/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:11 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/2/2026 8:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 7:29 PM, Dude wrote:"Approximately 85% to 90% of all wildfires worldwide are caused by
On 8/2/2026 2:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/2/26 1:57 PM, Dude wrote:Lightning causes roughly 10% to 15% of wildfires in the United
On 8/2/2026 12:38 PM, Creon wrote:
At Sat, 1 Aug 2026 12:52:40 -0400, WilsonIt's not about Wilson or Trump.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/31/2026 6:44 PM, Creon wrote:
At Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:20:28 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 7/31/2026 2:06 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32rC>PM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and >>>>>>>>>>>> think that
Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09rC>PM EDT, "Julian"
<julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17rC>PM EDT, "Julian" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in these
very pages last year that government policy was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worsening
the fire risk on moorland, it gives me no pleasure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say:
rCyI told you so.rCO
Matt Ridley
Indigenous peoples in North America have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conrolling the
threat of wild fires with prescribed/controlled burns for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries. Canada is looking to do the same in co- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation
with our native people. We have a problem doing this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however
because of the acessibility and vastness of our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests. But
in a country the size of Britain (and other European >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it seems to me that controlled fires are a no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brainer.
Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grow and
send a lot of smoke to people populated areas.
A bit like a volcano.
Yeah like that.
The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet we've
had serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few >>>>>>>>>>>>> weeks
ago it literally dimmed the sun for several days, making >>>>>>>>>>>>> what was
otherwise a clear day look cloudy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions- >>>>>>>>>>>>> exposed- midwest-northeast-us/
Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really >>>>>>>>>>>>> looked like.
Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best. >>>>>>>>>>>>
one answer here is controlled burning. Another is education and >>>>>>>>>>>> strictly enforced laws against those who are careless and start >>>>>>>>>>>> fires through laziness and ignorance, clearing vegetation >>>>>>>>>>>> around
and near dwellings and building fire resistent homes.
Yes I agree. The funny thing is, the idiot treehuggers I'm >>>>>>>>>>> talking
about are killing more trees by not allowing beneficial >>>>>>>>>>> things like
controlled burns.
Not true.
You seem to be living about four decades behind, Sir.
Because you say so?
Who's stopping the controlled burns and brush clearing in
California?
It's not the foresters.
I see that happening all the time.
Hell, we just did some of that up the road to clear out the crap >>>>>>>> in a greenspace.
What branch of government is in charge of the USFS?-a Who is
in control of the National Forests that cover a good portion
of California?
(Remember Trump with his "rake the forests"?-a What's stopping him?) >>>>>>>>
Get with the program, Wilson -- the Native Americans did a better >>>>>>>> job of stewarding the land than you and your ilk.
Apparently, wildfires are getting less frequent worldwide, not
more, as the globe warms.
apparently ur a fucking idiot dud
States, but accounts for about 45% to 50% of wildfires in Canada.
Human activity causes approximately 50% (or just under half) of all >>>>> wildfires in Canada, while lightning accounts for the other half.
<
for anyone who doesn't want to be one: global fire trends (inHumans cause approximately 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the
acreage) are completely dominated by tropical savannas and
grasslands which are declining in acreage because of land use
changes and increased fire suppression along with land use changes... >>>>>>
this trends does not negate the increasing trend in temperate and >>>>>> especially boreal forest wildfires
United States, according to data from agencies like the National
Interagency Fire Center and the U.S. National Park Service.
when accounting for total burn area in the us, lighting ignited
wildfires burn just over 50%,
human activity rather than natural phenomena like lightning." -
National Geographic
which doesn't contradict the fact that lighting ignition accounts for
more like >90% of wildfire acreage burned, but i get that ur not
honest enough of a person to comprehend the nature of evidence
Nearly 85 percent* of wild land fires in the United States are caused by humans.
50% of the acreage was burned by lightning ignited fires.
Wildfires and climate change feed into each other. It's a feedback loop. There's always been wildfires and always will be.
As fires burn, they release massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air. This trapped carbon warms the atmosphere further, which cycles back to create even drier and more dangerous fire conditions in the future.
Hope this helps.
whereas in canada, lighting ignition accounts for more like >90% of
wildfire acreage burned
Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed California >>>>>>> toward more strategic planning to prevent the worst wildfire
damage, saying it would cost too much unbudgeted money.
KQED NPR:
California Needs a New Approach to Wildfire Planning
https://tinyurl.com/4nf4tc94
President Trump claims Canadian wildfires are caused by "forest
management." YMMV.
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:That's not what the confidence interval means.
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with >>>>>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not >>>>>>> include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc, >>>>>>> cbs.
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since >>>>>>>>> 1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged >>>>>>>>> cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>>>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't >>>>>>>>> find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A >>>>>>>> chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context. >>>>>>>
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying >>>>>>> true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have >>>>>>>> any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >>>>>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not >>>>>>>> confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you >>>>>>> to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are >>>>>>> the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less >>>>>>> than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate. >>>>>>
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still
allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the >>>>> same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the real >>>> world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the
lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a real >>>> thing.
You are deceived.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice
Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last
glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
Fascinating. So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since
the last glaciation? Who told you such a thing?
It's pretty well established that the mid-Holocene warm period about 6k
years ago was followed by a cooling trend (~0.7 C) through the later
Holocene that reached the coolest levels in the Little Ice Age.
"The IPCC has described the LIA as a multi-centennial cooler period
lasting until about 1850.
Glacier evidence in the European Alps show major advances peaked in the
mid-19th century (around 1850rCo1860 in many places), after which glaciers >> began a sustained retreat.
Different regions experienced their coldest intervals at different times
(the 17th century in parts of Europe and North America, mid-19th century
in other areas)."
"Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in
a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the
twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia.
However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions
differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely
independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous
increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval,
and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm
Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. ... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered
as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of
less than 1-#C relative to late twentieth century levels.[3]"
Modest cooling. "Little Ice Age" might be a little overstated.
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps over >>>> the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about. Look to the far right of the graph. Do you see something
alarming? For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
graph. What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps. Are you still in
denial? Of course you are.
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:That's not what the confidence interval means.
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and combined with >>>>>>>> ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center. Of course, I would not >>>>>>>> include text from USA Today. They are even worse than cnn, nbc, abc, >>>>>>>> cbs.
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature-berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years past. Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up. Breaking wilson's alleged >>>>>>>>>> cycling. The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good as you >>>>>>>>>> can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is definitely >>>>>>>>>> statistically significant, wilson. Really. Really. I bet you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no context. >>>>>>>>
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well, displaying >>>>>>>> true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence interval" >>>>>>>>> statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not >>>>>>>>> confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse. Not so, I would say. Your Marine DI still expects you >>>>>>>> to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it. Because they are >>>>>>>> the ones who know what they are talking about. If confidence is less >>>>>>>> than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when appropriate. >>>>>>>
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct. If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval. At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful. 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still >>>>>> allowed. Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the >>>>>> same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the real >>>>> world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the >>>>> lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a real >>>>> thing.
You are deceived.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice >>>>> Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last >>>>> glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
Fascinating. So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since >>>> the last glaciation? Who told you such a thing?
It's pretty well established that the mid-Holocene warm period about 6k
years ago was followed by a cooling trend (~0.7 C) through the later
Holocene that reached the coolest levels in the Little Ice Age.
"The IPCC has described the LIA as a multi-centennial cooler period
lasting until about 1850.
Glacier evidence in the European Alps show major advances peaked in the
mid-19th century (around 1850u1860 in many places), after which glaciers >>> began a sustained retreat.
Different regions experienced their coldest intervals at different times >>> (the 17th century in parts of Europe and North America, mid-19th century >>> in other areas)."
"Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in
a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the
twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia.
However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions
differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely
independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous
increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally
synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval,
and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm
Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. ...
[Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered
as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of
less than 1#C relative to late twentieth century levels.[3]"
Modest cooling. "Little Ice Age" might be a little overstated.
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps over >>>>> the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about. Look to the far right of the graph. Do you see something
alarming? For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
graph. What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps. Are you still in
denial? Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will
claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/6/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 12:59:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 8/6/2026 10:04 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:42:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/6/2026 6:57 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-
images/2024/01/13/USAT/72214805007-global-average-temperature- >>>>>>>>>> berkeley.png?width=660&height=364&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp >>>>>>>>>>
Notice that year to year fluctuation was higher in years
past.-a Since
1960 the trend is much more steeply up.-a Breaking wilson's >>>>>>>>>> alleged
cycling.-a The chart says 95% accuracy, which is about as good >>>>>>>>>> as you
can reasonably get in science.
Science types say that steep rise in the past 60 years is >>>>>>>>>> definitely
statistically significant, wilson.-a Really.-a Really.-a I bet >>>>>>>>>> you can't
find a rise like that over 60 years anywhere in your
scrounging around
in past eons.
You're the one always talking about citing hard scientific
articles. A
chart from USA Today is not reliable because it provides no >>>>>>>>> context.
The chart says, Land data prepared by Berkeley Earth and
combined with
ocean data adapted from The UK Hadley Center.-a Of course, I
would not
include text from USA Today.-a They are even worse than cnn, nbc, >>>>>>>> abc,
cbs.
As it is, I think the chart speaks for itself quite well,
displaying
true data as it does.
The truth is we do not have enough solid data before the 1970s >>>>>>>>> to have
any reliable idea what "the global average temperature" was >>>>>>>>> before then.
As any clean pig can tell you.
So go ahead and label your chart with vague "95% confidence >>>>>>>>> interval"
statements, that only says that's the confidence based on the >>>>>>>>> data that
they do have (which over most of the world are guesses). It's not >>>>>>>>> confidence in that data's accuracy.
So you accuse.-a Not so, I would say.-a Your Marine DI still
expects you
to poopoo louder.
95% confidence is confident when scientists say it.-a Because >>>>>>>> they are
the ones who know what they are talking about.-a If confidence is >>>>>>>> less
than that, they are quite willing to say so, and do when
appropriate.
That's not what the confidence interval means.
95% confidence means 95 times out of 100, the data shown will be
correct.-a If confidence level is 85%, then you could say +/- 5%
confidence interval.-a At 95%, an interval is not especially
meaningful.-a 95% is very confident, but 5% room for error is still >>>>>> allowed.-a Because scientists bend over backwards and sideways at the >>>>>> same time to be honest about their pronouncements.
Fair enough, the Berkeley Earth group has a 95% confidence that the >>>>> real
world temps fall within the error lines on that chart. That said the >>>>> lack of measurements across most of the world before the 1970s is a >>>>> real
thing.
You are deceived.
The other issue is that the chart begins at the end of the Little Ice >>>>> Age, which was the coldest period on Earth since the end of the last >>>>> glaciation. That's something to keep in mind.
Fascinating.-a So 1850 was the end of the coldest period on earth since >>>> the last glaciation?-a Who told you such a thing?
It's pretty well established that the mid-Holocene warm period about 6k
years ago was followed by a cooling trend (~0.7 C) through the later
Holocene that reached the coolest levels in the Little Ice Age.
"The IPCC has described the LIA as a multi-centennial cooler period
lasting until about 1850.
Glacier evidence in the European Alps show major advances peaked in the
mid-19th century (around 1850rCo1860 in many places), after which glaciers >>> began a sustained retreat.
Different regions experienced their coldest intervals at different times >>> (the 17th century in parts of Europe and North America, mid-19th century >>> in other areas)."
"Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in
a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the
twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia.
However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions
differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely
independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous
increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally
synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval,
and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm
Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. ...
[Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered
as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of
less than 1-#C relative to late twentieth century levels.[3]"
Modest cooling.-a "Little Ice Age" might be a little overstated.
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps
over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will
claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct temps >>>>>> over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be >>>>>> highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big >>>>> graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will
claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so what
do u even know, eh?
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct
temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be >>>>>>> highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking >>>>>> about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big >>>>>> graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated >>>>> possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in >>>> denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will
claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so
what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct
temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be >>>>>>> highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking >>>>>> about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big >>>>>> graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated >>>>> possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in >>>> denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some will
claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so
what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct
temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be >>>>>>>> highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking >>>>>>> about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big >>>>>>> graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated >>>>>> possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You >>>>> see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in >>>>> denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some
will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so
what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies, but
I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what you've been doing
On 8/7/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/6/2026 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:Denial, denial. The least you could do is admit your own guilt. You
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because
you do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting
the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
are using up way too much energy. You know this is true.
the problem isn't _using_ energy dud, it's how we _capture_ the energy, which i have _nothing_ to do with
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the
planet? At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
i know u'll never give in cause ur gunna take ur ungodly ignorance to
the grave...
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectively
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we needSo, what's your problem? You came here to preach to the choir?
the vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to be
solved ... then we can start solving it.
that ur the denier dud, not the choir
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there isMore denial. Do nothing.
even a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as well accelerate
it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority.
Where's Noah?
-a-a> hopefully that won't be too late
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 8/7/2026 9:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:The problem is your heat pump which costs money to run to keep you cool.
On 8/6/2026 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:Denial, denial. The least you could do is admit your own guilt. You
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because
you do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting
the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
are using up way too much energy. You know this is true.
the problem isn't _using_ energy dud, it's how we _capture_ the
energy, which i have _nothing_ to do with
No need to project your problem on others. Millions of working people
don't have central heat and air in their apartment.
It's not complicated, Nick: when cold put on a coat; when hot take it off.
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the
planet? At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
i know u'll never give in cause ur gunna take ur ungodly ignorance to
the grave...
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectivelyThe problem is your own comfort, or lack of it. You are not responsible
for the weather or global warming or what others do to keep warm or
cool. Your responsible is taking care of your baby.
Hope this helps.
So, for the record, I believe in weather change, but the case is still
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we needSo, what's your problem? You came here to preach to the choir?
the vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to be
solved ... then we can start solving it.
that ur the denier dud, not the choir
open on human caused global warming.
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there isMore denial. Do nothing.
even a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as well accelerate
it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority.
Where's Noah?
-a-a> hopefully that won't be too late
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct >>>>>>>>> temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems to be >>>>>>>>> highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been talking >>>>>>>> about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the big >>>>>>>> graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest estimated >>>>>>> possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You >>>>>> see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you still in >>>>>> denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some
will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so
what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies,
but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't trust
paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what you've
been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That
doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct >>>>>>>>>> temps overActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been >>>>>>>>> talking
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems >>>>>>>>>> to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below the >>>>>>>>> big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest
estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb.-a You >>>>>>> see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you
still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some
will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so
what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies,
but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't
trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what you've
been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That
doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data points
in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson, ideologues do
be like that
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the power
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human >>>>>>>> emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's >>>>>>>>>> climate?
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of >>>>>>>>>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be >>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol >>>>>>>>>>
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and >>>>>>>>> specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased >>>>>>>>> heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it
needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes >>>>>>>>> that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ >>>>>>>>> change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when >>>>>>>>> compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific
community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided
that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I >>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human
influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm >>>>>>>> Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at least as >>>>>>>> warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and do not >>>>>>> believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth >>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural recovery >>>>>>>> from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance
reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70rCo >>>>>>>> 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel >>>>>>> industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not
negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed
and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite
data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but we >>>>>>> don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming aligns >>>>>>>> with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of increase is >>>>>>>> high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with >>>>>>>> 10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it was a >>>>>>> shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & >>>>>>>> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming >>>>>>>> artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure >>>>>>> increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of >>>>>>>> observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term >>>>>>>> warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial >>>>>>>> warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature >>>>>>>> trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared >>>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90%
saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). >>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct effect >>>>>>>> with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential negative >>>>>>>> feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing >>>>>>> radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic
thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy
imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of >>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth >>>>>>>> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global >>>>>>>> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic
feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like nutrient >>>>>>> flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration from >>>>>>> human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than heat- >>>>>>>> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the
"habitable"
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud feedbacks to >>>>>>>> nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the >>>>>>>> tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual >>>>>>>> balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models predict >>>>>>>> warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact every >>>>>>>> model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers.
(McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, rCLPervasive >>>>>>>> Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority of >>>>>>>> CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or >>>>>>>> floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; >>>>>>>> IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for >>>>>>>> most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not >>>>>>> physical measures. since then studies establishing high
confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt preparation >>>>>>> done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in, >>>>>>> consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed >>>>>>>> 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts
ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic AGW is >>>>>>>> ~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>>
emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data >>>>>>>> manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of >>>>>>> climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct or >>>>>>> data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase >>>>>>>> lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural
outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually
functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current impact or >>>>>>> ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural >>>>>>>> forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and
alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth. >>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest
ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again.
of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed
from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority of
the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by lightning ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate change caused temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the ecology, making everything more flammable
Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human >>>> activity
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where the >>>>>>> extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier >>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all the >>>>>>> extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just seeking >>>>>>> confirmation dud
On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human >>>>>>>>> emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media >>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? >>>>>>>>>>>> lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in
Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and >>>>>>>>>> specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased >>>>>>>>>> heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it >>>>>>>>>> needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes >>>>>>>>>> that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ >>>>>>>>>> change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when >>>>>>>>>> compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific
community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided >>>>>>>>> that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I >>>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human
influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm >>>>>>>>> Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at >>>>>>>>> least as
warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and do >>>>>>>> not
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth >>>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural recovery >>>>>>>>> from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance
reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70rCo >>>>>>>>> 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel >>>>>>>> industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not
negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed >>>>>>>> and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite >>>>>>>> data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but >>>>>>>> we don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming >>>>>>>>> aligns
with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of
increase is
high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with >>>>>>>>> 10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it >>>>>>>> was a
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & >>>>>>>>> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming >>>>>>>>> artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure >>>>>>>> increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of >>>>>>>>> observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term >>>>>>>>> warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial >>>>>>>>> warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature >>>>>>>>> trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared >>>>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90%
saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). >>>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct effect >>>>>>>>> with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential
negative
feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing >>>>>>>> radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic
thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy >>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of >>>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing >>>>>>>>
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth >>>>>>>>> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global >>>>>>>>> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic
feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like nutrient >>>>>>>> flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration
from human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than heat- >>>>>>>>> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the
"habitable"
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud
feedbacks to
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the >>>>>>>>> tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual >>>>>>>>> balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models >>>>>>>>> predict
warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact >>>>>>>>> every
model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. >>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, rCLPervasive >>>>>>>>> Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority of >>>>>>>>> CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or >>>>>>>>> floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; >>>>>>>>> IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for >>>>>>>>> most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not >>>>>>>> physical measures. since then studies establishing high
confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt
preparation
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in, >>>>>>>> consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed >>>>>>>>> 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts
ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic >>>>>>>>> AGW is
~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>>>
emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed >>>>>>>>> data
manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of >>>>>>>> climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct or >>>>>>>> data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2
increase
lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural >>>>>>>>> outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually >>>>>>>> functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current
impact or
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural >>>>>>>>> forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and >>>>>>>>> alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth. >>>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest
ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again.
power of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed
from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority
of the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by lightning
ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate change caused
temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the ecology, making
everything more flammable
human activityCampfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where >>>>>>>> the extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier >>>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all the >>>>>>>> extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just
seeking
confirmation dud
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by consensus:
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction so >>>>>> what do u even know, eh?
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct >>>>>>>>>>> temps overActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been >>>>>>>>>> talking
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems >>>>>>>>>>> to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see something >>>>>>>>>> alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below >>>>>>>>>> the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest
estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb. >>>>>>>> You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you >>>>>>>> still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some >>>>>>> will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet. >>>>>>
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies,
but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't
trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what you've
been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That
doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which does
support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a
reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data points
in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson, ideologues
do be like that
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing about wildfires.
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by consensus:
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction >>>>>>> so what do u even know, eh?
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to reconstruct >>>>>>>>>>>> temps overActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been >>>>>>>>>>> talking
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that seems >>>>>>>>>>>> to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below >>>>>>>>>>> the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest >>>>>>>>>> estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric climb. >>>>>>>>> You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you >>>>>>>>> still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. Some >>>>>>>> will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as high yet. >>>>>>>
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using proxies, >>>>>> but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't
trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what you've >>>>> been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That
doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which
does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a
reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data
points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson, ideologues
do be like that
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing about
wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
On 8/9/2026 5:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:So, you're idea is to clean up brush in the boreal forest?
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by consensus:
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried toActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>> talking
reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that >>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below >>>>>>>>>>>> the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest >>>>>>>>>>> estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric
climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you >>>>>>>>>> still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. >>>>>>>>> Some will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as >>>>>>>>> high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction >>>>>>>> so what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using
proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't
trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly
accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what
you've been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That
doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which
does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a
reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data
points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson, ideologues
do be like that
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing about
wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
Forestry is protecting vermin habitats instead of the people who pay
them. Ask them to remove unkemot brush or dead trees and they tell you they >are protecting habitats. Of ticks, rodents, mosquitoes and borers?
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 22:46:40 -0000 (UTC), vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
Forestry is protecting vermin habitats instead of the people who pay
them. Ask them to remove unkemot brush or dead trees and they tell you they >> are protecting habitats. Of ticks, rodents, mosquitoes and borers?
As a matter of fact. All of which are necessary parts of the already crippled ecosystem. Dead trees are especially useful, to wood peckers
who make holes, to owls who nest in holes, to birds in search of
insects to feed new hatchlings.
There is no such thing as unkempt in nature. Everything you see has a
part to play, and it need not be orderly or neat or pretty to your
eye.
On Aug 10, 2026 at 11:21:32rC>PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 22:46:40 -0000 (UTC),
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
Forestry is protecting vermin habitats instead of the people who pay
them. Ask them to remove unkemot brush or dead trees and they tell you they >>> are protecting habitats. Of ticks, rodents, mosquitoes and borers?
As a matter of fact. All of which are necessary parts of the already
crippled ecosystem. Dead trees are especially useful, to wood peckers
who make holes, to owls who nest in holes, to birds in search of
insects to feed new hatchlings.
There is no such thing as unkempt in nature. Everything you see has a
part to play, and it need not be orderly or neat or pretty to your
eye.
Exactly!
On 8/10/26 12:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/9/2026 5:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:So, you're idea is to clean up brush in the boreal forest?
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by consensus: >>>>
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried toActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view below >>>>>>>>>>>>> the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest >>>>>>>>>>>> estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric >>>>>>>>>>> climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you >>>>>>>>>>> still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. >>>>>>>>>> Some will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as >>>>>>>>>> high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic reconstruction >>>>>>>>> so what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using
proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't >>>>>>> trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly >>>>>>> accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what
you've been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That >>>>>> doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which
does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a
reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data
points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson,
ideologues do be like that
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing about
wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
my idea is that it's too labor/energy intensive to so do and therefore
the forests will mostly burn down
On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the
wrote:
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human >>>>>>>>>> emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya
dingus??? lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in >>>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and >>>>>>>>>>> specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased >>>>>>>>>>> heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it >>>>>>>>>>> needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes >>>>>>>>>>> that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ >>>>>>>>>>> change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when >>>>>>>>>>> compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific
community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided >>>>>>>>>> that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I >>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human >>>>>>>>>> influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm >>>>>>>>>> Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at >>>>>>>>>> least as
warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and >>>>>>>>> do not
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth >>>>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural
recovery from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance
reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70rCo >>>>>>>>>> 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel >>>>>>>>> industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not >>>>>>>>> negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed >>>>>>>>> and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite >>>>>>>>> data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but >>>>>>>>> we don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming >>>>>>>>>> aligns
with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of
increase is
high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with >>>>>>>>>> 10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it >>>>>>>>> was a
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & >>>>>>>>>> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land >>>>>>>>>> warming
artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure >>>>>>>>> increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of >>>>>>>>>> observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term >>>>>>>>>> warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial >>>>>>>>>> warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature >>>>>>>>>> trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared >>>>>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90%
saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). >>>>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct effect >>>>>>>>>> with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential >>>>>>>>>> negative
feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing >>>>>>>>> radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic >>>>>>>>> thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy >>>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of >>>>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing >>>>>>>>>
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant >>>>>>>>>> growth
(greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in >>>>>>>>>> global
vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic >>>>>>>>>> feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like
nutrient flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration >>>>>>>>> from human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than >>>>>>>>>> heat-
related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the
"habitable"
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud
feedbacks to
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the >>>>>>>>>> tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual >>>>>>>>>> balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models >>>>>>>>>> predict
warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact >>>>>>>>>> every
model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. >>>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, rCLPervasive >>>>>>>>>> Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority >>>>>>>>>> of CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or >>>>>>>>>> floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s >>>>>>>>>> data;
IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution >>>>>>>>>> for most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not >>>>>>>>> physical measures. since then studies establishing high
confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt
preparation
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in, >>>>>>>>> consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that
claimed 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts
ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic >>>>>>>>>> AGW is
~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>>>>
emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed >>>>>>>>>> data
manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of >>>>>>>>> climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct >>>>>>>>> or data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 >>>>>>>>>> increase
lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural >>>>>>>>>> outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually >>>>>>>>> functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current
impact or
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists. >>>>>>>>>
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated:
natural forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and >>>>>>>>>> alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth. >>>>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest >>>>>>>> ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again. >>>>>>>
power of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed >>>>> from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority
of the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by lightning
ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate change caused
temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the ecology, making
everything more flammable
the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of the acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could end all human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem, that would
still be growing
it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
human activityCampfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups. >>>>>>>>>
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where >>>>>>>>> the extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier >>>>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all >>>>>>>>> the
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just >>>>>>>>> seeking
confirmation dud
On 8/9/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:So, let me say this, it is very difficult for any individual to control lightening strikes that ignite forest wildfires.
On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from >>>>>>>>>>> human emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year.
You're looking at your personal experience and media >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dingus??? lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and >>>>>>>>>>>> specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased >>>>>>>>>>>> heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it >>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy >>>>>>>>>>>> fluxes that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ >>>>>>>>>>>> change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when >>>>>>>>>>>> compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific >>>>>>>>>>> community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided >>>>>>>>>>> that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I >>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human >>>>>>>>>>> influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman >>>>>>>>>>> Warm
Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at >>>>>>>>>>> least as
warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature >>>>>>>>>> reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and >>>>>>>>>> do not
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth >>>>>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural >>>>>>>>>>> recovery from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance
reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate >>>>>>>>>>> ~70rCo 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil >>>>>>>>>> fuel industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not >>>>>>>>>> negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed >>>>>>>>>> and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite >>>>>>>>>> data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but >>>>>>>>>> we don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming >>>>>>>>>>> aligns
with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of >>>>>>>>>>> increase is
high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended >>>>>>>>>>> with
10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it >>>>>>>>>> was a
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records.
McKitrick &
Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land >>>>>>>>>>> warming
artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to
measure increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's >>>>>>>>>>> "time of
observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the long- >>>>>>>>>>> term
warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial >>>>>>>>>>> warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean
temperature trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared >>>>>>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% >>>>>>>>>>> saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). >>>>>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct >>>>>>>>>>> effect with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential >>>>>>>>>>> negative
feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase >>>>>>>>>> outgoing
radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic >>>>>>>>>> thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy >>>>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of >>>>>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing >>>>>>>>>>
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant >>>>>>>>>>> growth
(greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in >>>>>>>>>>> global
vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic >>>>>>>>>>> feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like
nutrient flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration >>>>>>>>>> from human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than >>>>>>>>>>> heat-it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the >>>>>>>>>> "habitable"
related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones. >>>>>>>>>>
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud
feedbacks to
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the >>>>>>>>>>> tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual >>>>>>>>>>> balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models >>>>>>>>>>> predict
warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In fact >>>>>>>>>>> every
model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. >>>>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science,
rCLPervasive Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority >>>>>>>>>>> of CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or >>>>>>>>>>> floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s >>>>>>>>>>> data;
IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution >>>>>>>>>>> for most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, >>>>>>>>>> not
physical measures. since then studies establishing high
confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt
preparation
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in, >>>>>>>>>> consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero >>>>>>>>>> emissions has
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that >>>>>>>>>>> claimed 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts >>>>>>>>>>> ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic >>>>>>>>>>> AGW is
~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>>>>>
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails
revealed data
manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of >>>>>>>>>> climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct >>>>>>>>>> or data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 >>>>>>>>>>> increase
lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural >>>>>>>>>>> outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually >>>>>>>>>> functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current >>>>>>>>>> impact or
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists. >>>>>>>>>>
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: >>>>>>>>>>> natural forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and >>>>>>>>>>> alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth. >>>>>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest >>>>>>>>> ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again. >>>>>>>>
power of snip.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural
lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada
stemmed from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small >>>>>> minority of the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by
lightning ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate
change caused temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the
ecology, making everything more flammable
the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of
the acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could
end all human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem, that
would still be growing
it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is
Having said that, Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix ofworsened by an increasing soil moisture deficient caused by rapidly
natural lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
90% of the canadian acreage burned was caused by lightning strikes,
There have always been droughts - it's seasonal.
--
Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other >>>>>>> human activity
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups. >>>>>>>>>>
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where >>>>>>>>>> the extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier >>>>>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely >>>>>>>>>> all the
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just >>>>>>>>>> seeking
confirmation dud
On 8/10/2026 12:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:13 PM, Dude wrote:That's one idea - just evacuate Quebec and let it burn itself out.
On 8/9/2026 5:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:So, you're idea is to clean up brush in the boreal forest?
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by consensus: >>>>>
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstruct temps overActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been talking
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest >>>>>>>>>>>>> estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric >>>>>>>>>>>> climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are you >>>>>>>>>>>> still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. >>>>>>>>>>> Some will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite as >>>>>>>>>>> high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic
reconstruction so what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using
proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u don't >>>>>>>> trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century.
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly >>>>>>>> accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what
you've been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. That >>>>>>> doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and
apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which >>>>>> does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a
reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data
points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson,
ideologues do be like that
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing
about wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
my idea is that it's too labor/energy intensive to so do and therefore
the forests will mostly burn down
The United States is actively helping Canada fight its wildfires.--
Hundreds of U.S. firefighting personnel, state-level crews, such as from
New England and mid-Atlantic states.
On 8/9/26 2:57 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/7/2026 9:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:The problem is your heat pump which costs money to run to keep you cool.
On 8/6/2026 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:Denial, denial. The least you could do is admit your own guilt. You
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and because >>>>>> you do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of polluting >>>>>> the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
are using up way too much energy. You know this is true.
the problem isn't _using_ energy dud, it's how we _capture_ the
energy, which i have _nothing_ to do with
No need to project your problem on others. Millions of working people
don't have central heat and air in their apartment.
It's not complicated, Nick: when cold put on a coat; when hot take it
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the
planet? At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
i know u'll never give in cause ur gunna take ur ungodly ignorance to
the grave...
off.
my god you are a fucking waste of oxygen
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectivelyThe problem is your own comfort, or lack of it. You are not responsible
yes i get that ur an creepy old geezer who doesn't give a a single fuck about all the ungodly sin supporting your life
for the weather or global warming or what others do to keep warm or
cool. Your responsible is taking care of your baby.
Hope this helps.
So, for the record, I believe in weather change, but the case is still
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we needSo, what's your problem? You came here to preach to the choir?
the vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to
be solved ... then we can start solving it.
that ur the denier dud, not the choir
open on human caused global warming.
yes that the modern denier position now dud
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectively
like i said: ur the denier, not the choir
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there isMore denial. Do nothing.
even a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as well
accelerate it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority.
Where's Noah?
-a-a> hopefully that won't be too late
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 8/11/26 12:31 PM, Dude wrote:
On 8/9/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:So, let me say this, it is very difficult for any individual to
On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the >>>>>>>> power of snip.
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from >>>>>>>>>>>> human emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, WilsonYou're looking at your personal experience and media >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North
America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dingus??? lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* >>>>>>>>>>>>> and specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably
increased heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it >>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> fluxes that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>> _global_ change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously >>>>>>>>>>>>> when compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided >>>>>>>>>>>> that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I >>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human >>>>>>>>>>>> influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman >>>>>>>>>>>> Warm
Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at >>>>>>>>>>>> least as
warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature >>>>>>>>>>> reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and >>>>>>>>>>> do not
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth >>>>>>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural >>>>>>>>>>>> recovery from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance >>>>>>>>>>>> reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate >>>>>>>>>>>> ~70rCo 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil >>>>>>>>>>> fuel industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not >>>>>>>>>>> negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't
changed and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite >>>>>>>>>>> data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase >>>>>>>>>>> but we don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming >>>>>>>>>>>> aligns
with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of >>>>>>>>>>>> increase is
high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended >>>>>>>>>>>> with
10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, >>>>>>>>>>> it was a
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. >>>>>>>>>>>> McKitrick &
Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land >>>>>>>>>>>> warming
artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to >>>>>>>>>>> measure increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's >>>>>>>>>>>> "time of
observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the >>>>>>>>>>>> long- term
warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C artificial >>>>>>>>>>>> warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean
temperature trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>> infrared
radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% >>>>>>>>>>>> saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising >>>>>>>>>>>
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). >>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct >>>>>>>>>>>> effect with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential >>>>>>>>>>>> negative
feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase >>>>>>>>>>> outgoing
radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic >>>>>>>>>>> thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy >>>>>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of >>>>>>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing >>>>>>>>>>>
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant >>>>>>>>>>>> growth
(greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in >>>>>>>>>>>> global
vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like >>>>>>>>>>> nutrient flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration >>>>>>>>>>> from human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than >>>>>>>>>>>> heat-it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the >>>>>>>>>>> "habitable"
related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones. >>>>>>>>>>>
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud >>>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks to
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for >>>>>>>>>>>> the tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than >>>>>>>>>>>> actual balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models >>>>>>>>>>>> predict
warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In >>>>>>>>>>>> fact every
model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. >>>>>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science,
rCLPervasive Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority >>>>>>>>>>>> of CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, >>>>>>>>>>>> or floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s >>>>>>>>>>>> data;
IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution >>>>>>>>>>>> for most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the >>>>>>>>>>> US, not
physical measures. since then studies establishing high >>>>>>>>>>> confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt >>>>>>>>>>> preparation
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked >>>>>>>>>>> in,
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that >>>>>>>>>>>> claimed 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts >>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic >>>>>>>>>>>> AGW is
~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch). >>>>>>>>>>>
consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero >>>>>>>>>>> emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails >>>>>>>>>>>> revealed data
manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent
investigations of
climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct >>>>>>>>>>> or data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>> increase
lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural >>>>>>>>>>>> outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it
usually functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current >>>>>>>>>>> impact or
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists. >>>>>>>>>>>
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: >>>>>>>>>>>> natural forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and >>>>>>>>>>>> alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than >>>>>>>>>>> truth.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural
lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest >>>>>>>>>> ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again. >>>>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural
lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought. >>>>>>>
stemmed from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small >>>>>>> minority of the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning >>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by
lightning ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate
change caused temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the
ecology, making everything more flammable
the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of
the acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could
end all human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem,
that would still be growing
it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is
control lightening strikes that ignite forest wildfires.
good job dud, the wildfire problem is one that individuals can control
very much. only talking about what individuals can control will
invariably miss what collectively we can do something about.
Having said that, Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of
natural lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
90% of the canadian acreage burned was caused by lightning strikes, worsened by an increasing soil moisture deficient caused by rapidly increasing air temps. temps have risen between 1.5C to 3C since the preindustrial baseline for the boreal forest, quite a bit faster thanthe 1.2C to 1.4C global average.
there is no reason to not expect these trends to continue
There have always been droughts - it's seasonal.
droughts are by definition not seasonal u moron
Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other >>>>>>>> human activity
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups. >>>>>>>>>>>
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where >>>>>>>>>>> the extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier >>>>>>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely >>>>>>>>>>> all the
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just >>>>>>>>>>> seeking
confirmation dud
On 8/11/26 9:54 AM, Dude wrote:
On 8/10/2026 12:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:13 PM, Dude wrote:That's one idea - just evacuate Quebec and let it burn itself out.
On 8/9/2026 5:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:So, you're idea is to clean up brush in the boreal forest?
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstruct temps overActually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been talking
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the highest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric >>>>>>>>>>>>> climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are >>>>>>>>>>>>> you still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. >>>>>>>>>>>> Some will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite >>>>>>>>>>>> as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic
reconstruction so what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using >>>>>>>>>> proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u
don't trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century. >>>>>>>>>
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming greatly >>>>>>>>> accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what >>>>>>>>> you've been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate.
That doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and >>>>>>> apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that which >>>>>>> does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a >>>>>>> reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data >>>>>>> points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson,
ideologues do be like that
consensus:
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing
about wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
my idea is that it's too labor/energy intensive to so do and
therefore the forests will mostly burn down
where are they gunna move dud???
The United States is actively helping Canada fight its wildfires.
Hundreds of U.S. firefighting personnel, state-level crews, such as
from New England and mid-Atlantic states.
On 8/9/2026 3:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 2:57 PM, Dude wrote:The problem is your heat pump which costs money to run to keep you cool.
On 8/7/2026 9:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 7:20 PM, Dude wrote:The problem is your heat pump which costs money to run to keep you cool. >>>
On 8/6/2026 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/6/26 2:17 PM, Dude wrote:Denial, denial. The least you could do is admit your own guilt. You >>>>> are using up way too much energy. You know this is true.
You seem to take everything personally, Nick.
Because you're soaking in it and because you caused it and
because you do nothing, nothing, deny den, that you're guilty of >>>>>>> polluting the planet.
Let's not be hypocritical - you caused this problem, Nick.
appealing to hypocrisy is still a fallacy u subcritical moron,
the problem isn't _using_ energy dud, it's how we _capture_ the
energy, which i have _nothing_ to do with
No need to project your problem on others. Millions of working people
don't have central heat and air in their apartment.
It's not complicated, Nick: when cold put on a coat; when hot take it
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the
planet? At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
i know u'll never give in cause ur gunna take ur ungodly ignorance
to the grave...
off.
my god you are a fucking waste of oxygen
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectivelyThe problem is your own comfort, or lack of it. You are not responsible
yes i get that ur an creepy old geezer who doesn't give a a single
fuck about all the ungodly sin supporting your life
for the weather or global warming or what others do to keep warm or
cool. Your responsible is taking care of your baby.
Hope this helps.
So, for the record, I believe in weather change, but the case is
while u don't even admit it's a fucking problem dud. first we need >>>>>> the vast majority of people to admit it's a problem that needs to >>>>>> be solved ... then we can start solving it.So, what's your problem? You came here to preach to the choir?
that ur the denier dud, not the choir
still open on human caused global warming.
yes that the modern denier position now dud
No need to project your problem on others. Millions of working people
don't have central heat and air in their apartment.
For God's sake, Nick! Do something! Why can't you help save the planet?
At least adjust your thermostat a few degrees.
It's not complicated, Nick: when cold put on a coat; when hot take it off.
but collective problems will _only_ be solved collectively
The problem is your own comfort, or lack of it. You are not responsible
for the weather or global warming or what others do to keep warm or
cool. Your responsible is taking care of your baby.
Hope this helps.
like i said: ur the denier, not the choirLike I said, it's your problem. We have solar energy and a hybrid auto.
You are using way too much energy polluting the planet. Don't deny it.
You hung yourself with your own petard.
trying to solve anything while so many people are denying there is >>>>>> even a problem to solve is a waste of time. might as wellMore denial. Do nothing.
accelerate it until it's undeniably a problem by the vast majority. >>>>>>
Where's Noah?
-a-a> hopefully that won't be too late
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
On 8/11/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/11/26 12:31 PM, Dude wrote:Maybe not if you don't change your ways and get on the program! YMMV.
On 8/9/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:So, let me say this, it is very difficult for any individual to
On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in >>>>> the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the >>>>>>>>> power of snip.
On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:You snipped this out:
On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from >>>>>>>>>>>>> human emissions.
On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You're looking at your personal experience and media >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
wrote:
The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> North
America are
cyclical and overall have not increased in recent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years compared
to the long term history.
The point being that current trends no longer seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be cyclical.
They seem to be more and more year after year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be part of a
greater cycle.
what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dingus??? lol
The underlying question is, what drives the changes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate?
It's not CO2 alone.
that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and specific
physical change needs to be driving the measurably >>>>>>>>>>>>>> increased heat in
earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluxes that we
measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _global_ change
in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when compared
to normal geological periodic cycles
wilson ur honestly just uneducated
There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> community who
say that other factors are at play and I've already >>>>>>>>>>>>> provided that data
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the >>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC). I
acknowledge that these are minority views.
They say:
Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human >>>>>>>>>>>>> influence.
which does not contradict humans driving change
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Roman Warm
Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900rCo1300 AD) were at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least as
warm or warmer than today in many regions.
how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature >>>>>>>>>>>> reconstruction wilson???
see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do >>>>>>>>>>>> and do not
believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper >>>>>>>>>>>> truth
seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
The current warming (~1.09-#C since ~1880) is a natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> recovery from
the Little Ice Age (~1300rCo1850 AD). Solar irradiance >>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstructions
(by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~70rCo 90% with
lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil >>>>>>>>>>>> fuel industry
and never disclosed it on his papers
and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not >>>>>>>>>>>> negative
the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't >>>>>>>>>>>> changed and has
rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct
satellite data. if
this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase >>>>>>>>>>>> but we don't.
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century >>>>>>>>>>>>> warming aligns
with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase is
high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas >>>>>>>>>>>>> ended with
10-#C/century jumps).
younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, >>>>>>>>>>>> it was a
shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. >>>>>>>>>>>>> McKitrick &
Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land >>>>>>>>>>>>> warming
artifactual.
good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to >>>>>>>>>>>> measure increase
US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's >>>>>>>>>>>>> "time of
observation bias" corrections).-a These adjustments applied to >>>>>>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the >>>>>>>>>>>>> long- term
warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3-#C
artificial warming
post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean
temperature trend.
The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrared
radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% >>>>>>>>>>>>> saturated at
CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising >>>>>>>>>>>>
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN >>>>>>>>>>>>> database).
Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1rCo1.5-#C direct >>>>>>>>>>>>> effect with no
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave >>>>>>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential >>>>>>>>>>>>> negative
feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase >>>>>>>>>>>> outgoing
radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic >>>>>>>>>>>> thermodynamics.
furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy >>>>>>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the >>>>>>>>>>>> amount of
incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing >>>>>>>>>>>>
There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant >>>>>>>>>>>>> growth
(greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in >>>>>>>>>>>>> global
vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback. And
which has leveled off because of other constraints like >>>>>>>>>>>> nutrient flows
(that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration >>>>>>>>>>>> from human
activity)
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more >>>>>>>>>>>>> than heat-it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the >>>>>>>>>>>> "habitable"
related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones. >>>>>>>>>>>>
zones in other areas
The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks to
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for >>>>>>>>>>>>> the tropical
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual balloon/
radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models >>>>>>>>>>>>> predict
warming roughly 1.5rCo2|u higher than real observations. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact every
model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, >>>>>>>>>>>>> rCLPervasive Warming
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric LayersrCY). Other studies of surface >>>>>>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a >>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of CMIP
models tend to warm faster than observations.
There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or floods
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jr.'s data;
IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution >>>>>>>>>>>>> for most
extremes).
old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the >>>>>>>>>>>> US, not
physical measures. since then studies establishing high >>>>>>>>>>>> confidence in
increase have been done.
never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt >>>>>>>>>>>> preparation
done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that >>>>>>>>>>>>> claimed 97% of
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts >>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguously,
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of
catastrophic AGW is
~1rCo 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von >>>>>>>>>>>>> Storch).
the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been >>>>>>>>>>>> locked in,
consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero >>>>>>>>>>>> emissions has
been reached
Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo >>>>>>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails >>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed data
manipulation).
not a single one of the more than 8 independent
investigations of
climategate came back with evidence of intentional
misconduct or data
manipulation
Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase
lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> outgassing).
yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it >>>>>>>>>>>> usually functions
as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current >>>>>>>>>>>> impact or
ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural forces
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and alarmism
stems from biased models/data.
maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> truth.
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural >>>>>>>>>>> lightning
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest >>>>>>>>>>> ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.
And you repeated it.-a So you must want to see it ignored again. >>>>>>>>>>
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural
lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought. >>>>>>>>
stemmed from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very
small minority of the total acreage burned.
That should be a wrap!
Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural
lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by
lightning ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate
change caused temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the >>>>>> ecology, making everything more flammable
that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of
the acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could
end all human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem,
that would still be growing
it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is
control lightening strikes that ignite forest wildfires.
good job dud, the wildfire problem is one that individuals can control
very much. only talking about what individuals can control will
invariably miss what collectively we can do something about.
worsened by an increasing soil moisture deficient caused by rapidly
Having said that, Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of
natural lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
90% of the canadian acreage burned was caused by lightning strikes,
increasing air temps. temps have risen between 1.5C to 3C since the
preindustrial baseline for the boreal forest, quite a bit faster than
the 1.2C to 1.4C global average.
there is no reason to not expect these trends to continue
Obviously, the Messiah will restore the planet when he comes back for dinner. So no worries.-a Relax. Have a cigar.
Droughts occur every dry season since before time. That's why they call
There have always been droughts - it's seasonal.
droughts are by definition not seasonal u moron
them the "Dust Bowls".
Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other >>>>>>>>> human activity
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups. >>>>>>>>>>>>
again wilson: none of this has answered the question of >>>>>>>>>>>> where the extra
heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change >>>>>>>>>>>> denier
arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely >>>>>>>>>>>> all the
extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just >>>>>>>>>>>> seeking
confirmation dud
On 8/11/2026 1:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/11/26 9:54 AM, Dude wrote:They will be evacuated out of the boreal forest and let it burn down. There's not much an individual cam do.
On 8/10/2026 12:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:13 PM, Dude wrote:That's one idea - just evacuate Quebec and let it burn itself out.
On 8/9/2026 5:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 3:43 PM, Dude wrote:So, you're idea is to clean up brush in the boreal forest?
On 8/9/2026 3:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:32 AM, Wilson wrote:Alright then, that should be a wrap. The unspoken truth, by
On 8/9/2026 2:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/9/26 6:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/8/2026 8:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 8/8/26 10:16 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 8/7/2026 5:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:05:44 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 8/7/2026 4:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:22:46 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
There aren't a lot of studies that have tried to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reconstruct temps over
the past 10k years, but this chart comes from one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be
highly regarded:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figures/3
Actually, I think this graph shows exactly what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been talking
about.-a Look to the far right of the graph.-a Do you see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
alarming?-a For a better look, go to the close up view >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below the big
graph.-a What do you see to the far right?
Yes, it looks to me to be not quite as high as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highest estimated
possible temps from ~6k years ago.
I don't think you are looking at that far right meteoric >>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb. You
see the same effect here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
where you can see the lia relative to recent temps.-a Are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you still in
denial?-a Of course you are.
Current temps are by most estimates about the same as 6kya. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some will claim that we are higher now. Some say not quite >>>>>>>>>>>>> as high yet.
yeah but wilson u don't even trust paleoclimatic
reconstruction so what do u even know, eh?
You said this before and I don't know why. They are using >>>>>>>>>>> proxies, but I think the reconstructions do have value.
because you've literally claimed multiple times now that u >>>>>>>>>> don't trust paleoclimatic reconstruction for the past century. >>>>>>>>>>
(cause you want to be able to keep denying that warming
greatly accelerated in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
i get that ur basically completely retarded but that is what >>>>>>>>>> you've been doing
I've criticized some reconstructions of the ancient climate. >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean I think they're all crap.
yeah u criticized that which doesn't support your position, and >>>>>>>> apparently are directly admitting that you cherry pick that
which does support your position ...
even if the part you're arbitrarily deciding to "criticize" is a >>>>>>>> reconstruction of more recent history with inherently more data >>>>>>>> points in support of it
u have literally zero idea what the fuck ur doing wilson,
ideologues do be like that
consensus:
All informants on this list have zero idea what they are doing
about wildfires.
glad to see ur starting to admit ur absolute ignorance dud
my idea is that it's too labor/energy intensive to so do and
therefore the forests will mostly burn down
where are they gunna move dud???
The United States is actively helping Canada fight its wildfires.
Hundreds of U.S. firefighting personnel, state-level crews, such as
from New England and mid-Atlantic states.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:12:48 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 277,096 |
