• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:320]Bandwagon Of Doom Washed Away By Tidal wave of data.


DROUGHTClimate Alarmists Invent New Fake Link to California Wildfires

The media are hyping a new study claiming climate change has doubled the number of high-risk wildfire days in California. The claim depends on the assertion that autumn precipitation in California has “dropped 30% since 1980.” In reality, autumn precipitation in California has been rising by 0.02 inches per decade. Oops, time to cancel another fake climate crisis.
Activist scientists representing The Nature Conservancy and government-funded institutions wrote up the study, which should immediately invoke skepticism. The Nature Conservancy is a climate activist organization that raises more than $1 billion each year, much of it based on climate alarmism. Accordingly, Nature Conservancy studies are likely to be biased toward alarmist climate conclusions and should be examined closely. . . .


April 5, 2020








 
Jack Hays said:

DROUGHTClimate Alarmists Invent New Fake Link to California Wildfires

The media are hyping a new study claiming climate change has doubled the number of high-risk wildfire days in California. The claim depends on the assertion that autumn precipitation in California has “dropped 30% since 1980.” In reality, autumn precipitation in California has been rising by 0.02 inches per decade. Oops, time to cancel another fake climate crisis.
Activist scientists representing The Nature Conservancy and government-funded institutions wrote up the study, which should immediately invoke skepticism. The Nature Conservancy is a climate activist organization that raises more than $1 billion each year, much of it based on climate alarmism. Accordingly, Nature Conservancy studies are likely to be biased toward alarmist climate conclusions and should be examined closely. . . .


[FONT=&]April 5, 2020[/FONT]
Click to expand...

We so much need the no lying and calling it science law.
 
Jack Hays said:

DROUGHTClimate Alarmists Invent New Fake Link to California Wildfires

The media are hyping a new study claiming climate change has doubled the number of high-risk wildfire days in California. The claim depends on the assertion that autumn precipitation in California has “dropped 30% since 1980.” In reality, autumn precipitation in California has been rising by 0.02 inches per decade. Oops, time to cancel another fake climate crisis.
Activist scientists representing The Nature Conservancy and government-funded institutions wrote up the study, which should immediately invoke skepticism. The Nature Conservancy is a climate activist organization that raises more than $1 billion each year, much of it based on climate alarmism. Accordingly, Nature Conservancy studies are likely to be biased toward alarmist climate conclusions and should be examined closely. . . .


April 5, 2020
Click to expand...

Oh boy!! More stupidity from the Heartland Institute.

The author of this article is using the "Climate at a glance" data wrong. He claims that he is showing data for just 2 months but it is actually for the whole year. Just click on his links and note the time period is for 12 months.

So... his claim that there was a very wet autumn in 2019 is just completely wrong.

And while he complains that the original study is cherry-picking the last 40 years of precipitation data he then goes on to cherry-pick a 30 year time period. What a hypocrite.

I also find it funny that he only talks about precipitation and ignores completely the rapidly increasing trends in fall temperatures, fire weather index, and the amount of burned areas.

The author of this article is an idiot and denialist.
 
ludin said:
once again real science shows facts.
this guy will never get through the peer review process.
his paper will be rejected because it does not comply with the IPCC doomsday machine.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the paper and can't identify an actual fact.
 
Buzz said:
Oh boy!! More stupidity from the Heartland Institute.

The author of this article is using the "Climate at a glance" data wrong. He claims that he is showing data for just 2 months but it is actually for the whole year. Just click on his links and note the time period is for 12 months.

So... his claim that there was a very wet autumn in 2019 is just completely wrong.

And while he complains that the original study is cherry-picking the last 40 years of precipitation data he then goes on to cherry-pick a 30 year time period. What a hypocrite.

I also find it funny that he only talks about precipitation and ignores completely the rapidly increasing trends in fall temperatures, fire weather index, and the amount of burned areas.

The author of this article is an idiot and denialist.
Click to expand...

The alarmist claim is about precipitation, so the rebuttal is about precipitation. The article is quite sound, and you are again in denial.
 
Terryj said:
Did you read his paper, it very interesting and it does make sense. It goes against the IPCC's claim, so the IPCC will make sure this paper goes nowhere, so they can keep pumping out their propaganda.
Click to expand...


:screwy
 
Jack Hays said:
The alarmist claim is about precipitation, so the rebuttal is about precipitation. The article is quite sound, and you are again in denial.
Click to expand...

You are wrong... as usual.

The study being discussed is about wildfires in California and the factors involved and being assessed are more than just precipitation. This study also takes into account temperature trends, the fire weather index, and the amount of area burned.

Tell me Jack... why does the Heartland Institute ignore these other factors? And can you even bring yourself to fact check their use of the "climate at a glance" data? Or are you so stubborn that you won't even look at it?
 
ludin said:
once again real science shows facts.
this guy will never get through the peer review process.
his paper will be rejected because it does not comply with the IPCC doomsday machine.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we can see right through this defense because y'all use it for everything, right?

Any evidence that doesn't fit your narratives is the result of some vast conspiracy, often requiring time travel, but hey, who knows the lengths those (insert appropriate boogeyman here) will go to to hide their damn unAmerican deeds!

You do know that if any of them were true that some rich conservative would have bribed it out of somebody, right?
 
Buzz said:
You are wrong... as usual.

The study being discussed is about wildfires in California and the factors involved and being assessed are more than just precipitation. This study also takes into account temperature trends, the fire weather index, and the amount of area burned.

Tell me Jack... why does the Heartland Institute ignore these other factors? And can you even bring yourself to fact check their use of the "climate at a glance" data? Or are you so stubborn that you won't even look at it?
Click to expand...

Just more denial. The claim of a precipitation drop is a lie.

"An analysis led by Stanford University found that temperatures rose about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit statewide while precipitation dropped 30% since 1980. That doubled the number of autumn days—when fire risk is highest—with extreme conditions for the ignition of wildfires. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
Just more denial.
Click to expand...

I am not denying anything. Please don't lie.

Jack Hays said:
The claim of a precipitation drop is a lie.
Click to expand...

It is not a lie. It is one interpretation of the data. And while sometimes an interpretation like this can be called into question or even legitimately refuted it is not automatically a lie.

To be completely honest the Heartland Institute author has a legitimate point to make about the precipitation numbers. But it is not the proof of refutation that he makes it out to be. As a matter of fact, it is generally accepted that a 40-year trend is better than a 30-year trend. But to be clear, because of a changing world, a 125-year trend is almost pointless.

Where the HI author gets this really wrong is in his incorrect use of the "climate at a glance" data and his decision to ignore all the other data that show how fires in California are likely to increase. You are also ignoring these facts.

Besides Jack, if using a 40-year precipitation trend over a 30-year trend to get the result wanted is a lie then isn't it a lie when you and your fellow denialists use very short trends in temperature to claim the planet is cooling also a lie? Like your often used trends of 2 or 3 years or even a single month of UHI data. If this study's use of a 40-year trend over a 30-year trend is a lie then your constant use of ridiculously short trends of UHI temperatures to push global cooling is also a lie. This also goes for numerous other sources of data that you denialists love to use to misinform people. Like your frequent use of very short trends in sea ice.

Sorry, Jack... if you are going to claim this study in question is lying then by the same standard you frequently lie.
 
Buzz said:
I am not denying anything. Please don't lie.



It is not a lie. It is one interpretation of the data. And while sometimes an interpretation like this can be called into question or even legitimately refuted it is not automatically a lie.

To be completely honest the Heartland Institute author has a legitimate point to make about the precipitation numbers. But it is not the proof of refutation that he makes it out to be. As a matter of fact, it is generally accepted that a 40-year trend is better than a 30-year trend. But to be clear, because of a changing world, a 125-year trend is almost pointless.

Where the HI author gets this really wrong is in his incorrect use of the "climate at a glance" data and his decision to ignore all the other data that show how fires in California are likely to increase. You are also ignoring these facts.

Besides Jack, if using a 40-year precipitation trend over a 30-year trend to get the result wanted is a lie then isn't it a lie when you and your fellow denialists use very short trends in temperature to claim the planet is cooling also a lie? Like your often used trends of 2 or 3 years or even a single month of UHI data. If this study's use of a 40-year trend over a 30-year trend is a lie then your constant use of ridiculously short trends of UHI temperatures to push global cooling is also a lie. This also goes for numerous other sources of data that you denialists love to use to misinform people. Like your frequent use of very short trends in sea ice.

Sorry, Jack... if you are going to claim this study in question is lying then by the same standard you frequently lie.
Click to expand...

Denial. Dismissed.
 
Buzz said:
Oh boy!! More stupidity from the Heartland Institute.

The author of this article is using the "Climate at a glance" data wrong. He claims that he is showing data for just 2 months but it is actually for the whole year. Just click on his links and note the time period is for 12 months.

So... his claim that there was a very wet autumn in 2019 is just completely wrong.

And while he complains that the original study is cherry-picking the last 40 years of precipitation data he then goes on to cherry-pick a 30 year time period. What a hypocrite.

I also find it funny that he only talks about precipitation and ignores completely the rapidly increasing trends in fall temperatures, fire weather index, and the amount of burned areas.

The author of this article is an idiot and denialist.
Click to expand...

Buzz badly misreads the data description:

The author of this article is using the "Climate at a glance" data wrong. He claims that he is showing data for just 2 months but it is actually for the whole year. Just click on his links and note the time period is for 12 months.
Click to expand...

He thinks 12 months means a whole year (all the months), when it was for a SINGLE month September, then for October, but spread out over years of time ( TIME SCALE) from 1895 to 2020.

Look at the charts that were generated from it, clearly based on a single month, of each year.

Please slink away, hopefully your red faced embarrassment will fade away gracefully.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Why don't you vet your sources.? You choose the web site of a lobbiest group , funding unknown, and that group is highly biased, and unscientific. Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Why don't you deal with the ideas rather than attacking the source of the ideas?

Why do you blindly follow the propaganda?

Why are yuou incapable of thinking for yourself?

Why do you avoid doing anything that would look like thinking for your self?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Why don't you deal with the ideas rather than attacking the source of the ideas?

Why do you blindly follow the propaganda?

Why are yuou incapable of thinking for yourself?

Why do you avoid doing anything that would look like thinking for your self?
Click to expand...

Well, I go through a specific process. The first part of any process is ..does the source have an ulterior motive or is it a reliable source. Then,if it is a reliable source, then I go down the rabbit hole to examine the claims. If the source has strong ulterior motives and is unreliable, then that tells me that the information is more likely than not to be corrupted. It's known as 'vetting sources'. Using this source about climate change is like using any of Ken Hams sites about science.

If someone is unable to even vet a source properly, it's hard to accept anything they say.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, I go through a specific process. The first part of any process is ..does the source have an ulterior motive or is it a reliable source. Then,if it is a reliable source, then I go down the rabbit hole to examine the claims. If the source has strong ulterior motives and is unreliable, then that tells me that the information is more likely than not to be corrupted. It's known as 'vetting sources'. Using this source about climate change is like using any of Ken Hams sites about science.

If someone is unable to even vet a source properly, it's hard to accept anything they say.
Click to expand...

Which is the exact opposite of the scientific process.

This area of debate is science heavy zone. You will be lost in it if all you are going to do is evalulate the gravitas of the source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom