Fort McMurray Or... What Happens when you deny Climate Science

#1
I know there's going to be people here who will start off by saying "It's already been said this fire was started by humans."
Yes, yes I know. That's not the point. This is not the first fire humans have started and it won't be the last.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...dfire-grows-tenfold-mass-evacuations-continue

The point here is, this happened in CANADA'S NORTH. A place where you might expect wildfires to happen in late July and early August but has continually dried out earlier and earlier as the perma-frost has melted and we're getting hotter and hotter records.

Now, I love skeptiko. But we have to stop denying the facts. Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. Is here. And it's changing everything around us. We have to stop pretending it isn't.
Wildfires starting earlier in B.C. too
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/2016-wildfire-start-early-1.3543139
 
#2
Oh, do bugger off Jack. We've flogged AGW to death already. The problem with the Canada fire is probably down to not having built enough fire breaks before the fire started:

Understaffed, under-resourced forestry workers struggling to contain a growing risk of wildfire, a risk which has been exacerbated by excessive fire suppression causing a buildup of flammables, is a recipe for disaster. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/06/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-climate-or-incompetence/
It's not we "deniers" who are pretending, so much as paranoid catastrophists who are scanning every horizon for the merest hint of anything that can conceivably support their delusions--it's called confirmation bias, and this is a bad case of it. That's the last I'll say on this and I hope David will shut this thread down so we can concentrate on more productive issues.
 
#3
Oh, do bugger off Jack. We've flogged AGW to death already. The problem with the Canada fire is probably down to not having built enough fire breaks before the fire started:

Understaffed, under-resourced forestry workers struggling to contain a growing risk of wildfire, a risk which has been exacerbated by excessive fire suppression causing a buildup of flammables, is a recipe for disaster. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/06/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-climate-or-incompetence/
It's not we "deniers" who are pretending, so much as paranoid catastrophists who are scanning every horizon for the merest hint of anything that can conceivably support their delusions--it's called confirmation bias, and this is a bad case of it. That's the last I'll say on this and I hope David will shut this thread down so we can concentrate on more productive issues.
Is all your information filtered through "Watts Up" Michael.

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't - but don't tell people what they can and can't discuss because they may disagree with your immutable opinion.
 
#4
Oh, do bugger off Jack. We've flogged AGW to death already. The problem with the Canada fire is probably down to not having built enough fire breaks before the fire started:

Understaffed, under-resourced forestry workers struggling to contain a growing risk of wildfire, a risk which has been exacerbated by excessive fire suppression causing a buildup of flammables, is a recipe for disaster. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/06/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-climate-or-incompetence/
It's not we "deniers" who are pretending, so much as paranoid catastrophists who are scanning every horizon for the merest hint of anything that can conceivably support their delusions--it's called confirmation bias, and this is a bad case of it. That's the last I'll say on this and I hope David will shut this thread down so we can concentrate on more productive issues.
Do you really think this is a situation appropriate response, Michael? Can you not feel at least a bit of empathy for the over 100,000 people who just lost their homes?
 
#5
I had to evacuate my home in Alberta because of this fire and I am 30km south of it. It is the worst fire we have ever had. There is no denying how dry it has been this season in Alberta, but last season was exceptionally wet and we experienced less fires than an average year.
 
#6
Oh, do bugger off Jack. We've flogged AGW to death already. The problem with the Canada fire is probably down to not having built enough fire breaks before the fire started:

Understaffed, under-resourced forestry workers struggling to contain a growing risk of wildfire, a risk which has been exacerbated by excessive fire suppression causing a buildup of flammables, is a recipe for disaster. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/06/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-climate-or-incompetence/
It's not we "deniers" who are pretending, so much as paranoid catastrophists who are scanning every horizon for the merest hint of anything that can conceivably support their delusions--it's called confirmation bias, and this is a bad case of it. That's the last I'll say on this and I hope David will shut this thread down so we can concentrate on more productive issues.

You're right. There was considerable funding cuts to this years provincial emergency relief in Alberta.
 
#8
Do you really think this is a situation appropriate response, Michael? Can you not feel at least a bit of empathy for the over 100,000 people who just lost their homes?
Jumping Jehosaphat: where did I say I had no empathy for affected people? It's the opportunistic climate catastrophists I'm lambasting, together with the Alberta authorities who appear to be underfunding forestry resources.

David, if you're reading this, the climate crazies are out in force again. Please close down this thread!
 
#12
I think this subject has been discussed endlessly here on Skeptiko, and it generates (paradoxically) far more heat than light. If the scientists are right and there has been an increase in global temperatures of a mere 0.8 C, and Jack is right that this has caused the fire in Canada, the earth must be so unstable, we don't have a chance - so let's forget the whole issue, and return to the subject of this forum.

David
 
#14
Thanks to Alex again for opening this thread. Folks I don't want to cause rancor, but I do think there are new elements of information showing Global Warming is a thing and we should talk about it.
Global Warming isn't my only thing. I tend to get on "kicks" and I was catching up recently on a number of science pieces that are worth discussing.
One was about the coral that I wrote in another thread (not sure if that was restored either Alex?) and the last piece that I have for a while was the fascinating data that's been collected six hundred years ago by two different societies- one in Japan and on in Scandinavia.
You know one of the problems has been we've had secondary evidence of Climate Change through tree rings and core ice samples, but now thanks to a university in Canada there's consistent data that's been put together in specific regions.
Because we can cross reference their data over time, we can see definitive changes to the Earth. Now whether those changes can be 100% identified as caused by humans seems to me to be something that could be debated somewhat. But still, it is incredible the wealthy of knowledge brought to the subject from a variety of sources.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quir...ollected-climate-data-600-years-ago-1.3559425
 
#15
Jack,

Yes, Alex re-opened this thread, and on reflection I did rather over-react because a previous member, PTEHA went completely over the top in climate change threads and caused a great deal of trouble. (Before anyone asks, nobody suggested that I say that!)

I don't believe in CAGW, but if people want to discuss it, all I ask is that you do so in the same calm way as do other subjects. I have suggested to Alex that he moderates threads related to this subject (ideally it would be good if we could just have one thread, otherwise things get hopelessly repetitive).

I have explained on many occasions why I am pretty sure CAGW is a scam, but I think this Nobel prizewinning physicist says it better than I can:

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

None of this denies the tragedy of the Canadian fire - but there are totally serious scientists who do not believe CAGW is real, or responsible for anything because its predictions don't work out, and it has gradually morphed into a theory that just predicts that bad weather related things will happen from time to time - which has always been true.

David
 
#16
Jack,

Yes, Alex re-opened this thread, and on reflection I did rather over-react because a previous member, PTEHA went completely over the top in climate change threads and caused a great deal of trouble. (Before anyone asks, nobody suggested that I say that!)

I don't believe in CAGW, but if people want to discuss it, all I ask is that you do so in the same calm way as do other subjects. I have suggested to Alex that he moderates threads related to this subject (ideally it would be good if we could just have one thread, otherwise things get hopelessly repetitive).

I have explained on many occasions why I am pretty sure CAGW is a scam, but I think this Nobel prizewinning physicist says it better than I can:

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

None of this denies the tragedy of the Canadian fire - but there are totally serious scientists who do not believe CAGW is real, or responsible for anything because its predictions don't work out, and it has gradually morphed into a theory that just predicts that bad weather related things will happen from time to time - which has always been true.


David
....and I'm freezing my ass off in Madrid, with incessant rains and temperatures that are in single digits ºC. In Madrid, in the middle of may. And I remember mays with 35ºC - 40ºC. It's called "climate". It changes.
It's all I'm posting in this thread. Not interested in galvanazing the putrid cadaver of this topic.
 
#17
PTEHA went completely over the top in climate change threads and caused a great deal of trouble.
That is not how I saw it at all.

I don't believe in CAGW, but if people want to discuss it, all I ask is that you do so in the same calm way as do other subjects. I have suggested to Alex that he moderates threads related to this subject (ideally it would be good if we could just have one thread, otherwise things get hopelessly repetitive).
There are some members who do not seem to be able to discuss this topic without hurling insults -- and they are not AGW proponents. Could we have some assurance that moderation will not be completely biased against AGW as demonstrated in previous GW threads? You may have made your mind up but many others either haven't, or they do not draw the some conclusions from the data that you do. It is presumptuous to assume that the data is self-evident. Please bear that in mind before closing down another thread that doesn't go your way.
 
#18
Thanks David,
I can appreciate that some topics are hot button reminders for people. That's not my intention. My intention is to try to show that there's solid evidence to tip the scales in the side of Climate Change.

I particularly like Alex's "Shut up and calculate" problems with science, and I see a lot of the arguments coming back and forth work on the numbers. We all know numbers are hard to truly analyze and often can be changed and modified depending upon what people want.
So I want to focus on actual changes that we can measure. Hence my post on how we've got measurements of changes for 600 words from Japanese and Scandinavian traders. How we can measure the massive die offs of the world's coral. How we can see things like the migration of warmer clime insects and animals into the Canadian North where they never were before.

As for the massive forest fire. Here's a follow up with a specialist on Canadian Forests and what sets up the situation for fires. He is pretty balanced in his approach in looking for clues. You'll find as you listen that he points out that first season began a whole month before it usually does, and this is quickly becoming a huge problem. We're seeing far more forest fires, far more frequently than ever before. Again, measurable and easy to prove.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quir...ort-mcmurray-and-the-future-of-fire-1.3570153

My concern is that by the time we all agree this is happening it will be too late :( I hope not. I live in hope that we might have some alternatives coming up.
Thanks for giving it another chance!
J


Jack,

Yes, Alex re-opened this thread, and on reflection I did rather over-react because a previous member, PTEHA went completely over the top in climate change threads and caused a great deal of trouble. (Before anyone asks, nobody suggested that I say that!)

I don't believe in CAGW, but if people want to discuss it, all I ask is that you do so in the same calm way as do other subjects. I have suggested to Alex that he moderates threads related to this subject (ideally it would be good if we could just have one thread, otherwise things get hopelessly repetitive).

I have explained on many occasions why I am pretty sure CAGW is a scam, but I think this Nobel prizewinning physicist says it better than I can:

http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

None of this denies the tragedy of the Canadian fire - but there are totally serious scientists who do not believe CAGW is real, or responsible for anything because its predictions don't work out, and it has gradually morphed into a theory that just predicts that bad weather related things will happen from time to time - which has always been true.

David
 
#19
Could we have some assurance that moderation will not be completely biased against AGW as demonstrated in previous GW threads?
Yes, in the sense that I am leaving AGW thread(s) completely to Alex.

BTW, PTEHA sent in over 100 reports of other people's contributions to the old CAGW thread over the space of one Saturday evening - he even reported two of Alex's contributions! Just processing that number of reports took some considerable time.

David
 
#20
Jack,

We have had the climate debate over and over on Skeptiko, and I don't really want to get pulled back into it. However, it would help if you watch the video by a Nobel prize-winning physicist to get some background on what use 'deniers' really feel. Physics is vital because it underpins climatology, and it is also concerned so much with physical measurements and what they mean.

One of the things he points out, is actually how extraordinarily stable the global temperatures have been over the whole of the measured period - 0.8 C in the modern era. A more reasonable assessment of the data would be that nothing much is going on here!

Climate scientists pick and choose what to report - which gives an artificial impression that everything is going to hell. Thus they talk about the loss of ice at the North Pole, but forget to mention that since 2007 it has been recovering, and they avoid much discussion of Antarctica because it has record ice levels at the moment.

They muttered about the effects of CAGW after the New Orleans hurricane, but then forget to mention that there has been less hurricanes since then. In Britain we were told that droughts were a likely consequence of CAGW when there was a drought, and that floods might be caused by CAGW when there were floods!

Please listen to the talk by Ivar Giaver to understand my position. Note in particular, his comments on the terrible practical consequences of the attempt to switch to 'clean' energy.

David
 
Last edited:
Top