Is the meme du jour from our Globalist-controlled mainstream media. They're going flat-out with their BS currently and clearly have no consideration whatsoever for the children and young people, many of whom are suffering mental illness as a consequence of needless worrying over the future of their planet; the unfortunate victims of the MSM's alarmist bare-faced LIES and their shamelessly fabricated climate data. It's nothing short of criminal IMHO.
There are several points here.
1) Are these wildfires actually any worse than they have been in the past. Several media reports say things like 'the worst since xyz', which means they actually have been worse in the past. The acreage burnt by wildfires in western America in the late 1800's was enormous, much higher than these days. Populations have expanded, more people are living in wooded areas, so a bigger chance of fires being started. In recent years the money spent on preventative measures has been reduced, in part to save money and in part due to pressure from environmentalists to stop clearing fallen timber and undergrowth because it is bad for wildlife as it destroys their habitat. 2) If there are actually more or worse wildfires than in the past, is it due to climate change or is it just a statistical spike, and there will be fewer in the next few years as the spike passes and we get back to something like normal? 3) If there really are more or worse wildfires than in the past, and it really is due to climate change, is that change due to rising emissions of CO2 by us, or is it natural and unpreventable?In message snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Chris Hogg snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net writes
Many of the wildfires are in forested areas that are decades (and even centuries) old. Once they have been destroyed by fire, until such time that they sufficiently regenerate, there will not be able to be any more fires in the same area - ie once they're burnt down, it will be ages before they will be able to burn down again. In addition to an indisputable period of a run of high temperatures (and, of course, human occupancy if wooded areas), are we additionally going through a period when there are enough trees to burn?
Oh dear, each generation has had a thing to worry about, when I was young it was nuclear war.
I think that the main culprit now is the way many young people are always on line. What is needed is self control. Your life will not end if you are out of touch for days on end, and as the saying goes, The past is unalterable, the future unknowable so live in the now and enjoy it, as its the only true existence. Brian
As Mark Twain said and occasionally quoted in TNP's sig here ?If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.?
Apparently a forest fire is closing-in on a Turkish power station, the reporter (Times?) seemed more concerned about the "environmental disaster" if the coal pile caught fire (hint: it's all going to be burnt anyway) than the possibility of the power station being destroyed.
Bjorn Lomborg has recently "done" wildfires, ISTR he covers flooding and hurricanes too in his latest book. He comes up in my Facebook newsfeed every week or two.
Ah yes, but destroying it is a good thing because then it won't be able to burn any more coal.
Real journalism is getting thin on the ground.
With instant news from around the world people are more aware mow of things such as forest fires which in the past may never have been reported.
Forests have always been managed in the past by animals that grazed the vegetation and where their numbers were kept in check by meat eating predators.
Recently I read on a woodland trust information board that many of the ancient forests environments we see today and are the idealised view of a perfect forest were created as a result of the massive amount of wood required to support the trench fighting during world war one - a result of man's management or intervention.
Around my way the wildlife trusts do manage areas of woodland by removing the underlying vegetation (brambles etc.) and cutting down overcrowded trees. The areas can look a mess for a year or two but after that the woods are in much better condition. It's also noticeable that much of these woods were previously pollarded but over the intervening decades left to their own devices.
And here is a link
I bumped into this the other day from a hint in the paper:
I plotted the 50 year rolling average.
By that measure temperatures are heading back to their long term mean.
The 10 year one is a little more worrying - but that also makes it look as though there was a major episode of global warming in the 17th century.
The reporter was pretty selective!
Andy
Yes. Lack of proper forest management 'leave it all to nature' creates a great bonfire
You will be interested to read this
Yes, sources like the BBC are pursuing this "it's all the fault of human activity" relentlessly. Every weather-related event, even of the totally unremarkable kind, is attributed to man-made climate change and blamed on human activity. It's all put forward as unquestioningly accepted by science and all evidence to the contrary utterly denied an airing. Through a great deal of time, effort and expense I've been able to prove - to my own satisfaction if no one else's - that all the atmospheric pollution generated during the course of the 20th century
- which we all know from looking at old newsreels if not our own recollections, was *enormous* - did not result in ANY sustained increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. A personal epiphany which completely flies in the face of everything I am being constantly told. THAT much I do know. What I do not, OTOH, is the true motivation behind all this alarmism. I would really love to know, but don't even know where to even begin to look for the answer. :(
While I strongly support your sentiments, I'm inclined to think the CO2 levels probably do correlate with fossil fuel use.
I doubt that the temperatures have much correlation with CO2, I certainly don't think the so-called extreme events (often not so extreme, on closer examination) correlate with fossil fuel. And I am absolutely sure we are not heading into any sort of global catastrophe, whether it is melting icecaps, destruction of reefs, extinction of insects, etc.
Much was made of the recent 'heat dome' over the western US, but the geoiogic record shows that there was a very similar one there a thousand years ago - well before the industrial age, CO2 alarm, the climate emergency, etc etc.
Oddly enough I totally agree with this
Modern CO2 rises are man made, but they have little or no effect on climate.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. But since the overall levels of CO2 don't change over time, the most likely explanation is that plant life absorbs the excess we generate and holds the Earth's atmosphere in a stable balance. Thank god for photosynthesis! Forget all the taxes and rules; just plant trees FFS.
Not really so odd. Politics is a matter of views and judgments on balances and trade-offs. It's a good job people have different views; one view only leads to totalitarianism.
Facts, on the other hand, are facts. There are no alternative ones.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.