LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Climate change is real. Just accept it.

The reason the California fires were so devastating is not lack of water, not weather, nor climate. It was human stupidity for the past 100 years. Californians and Americans generally, build with combustible materials - stuff that burns. Timber framing is a system designed to burn; if you link it to shingle roofing with gutters to catch flying embers then stuff your block with eucalypts (Australia's preferred export to promote Urban terrorism) you are gunna have trouble. The firies did not have a hope in hell of fighting those fires, even if they had completely unlimited quantities of water. Too broad a fire front and too intense.

The USA has the best fire research facilities in the World (In Gloucester Massachusetts I think) They have known for years how to prevent fires but when it comes to influencing planning authorities they have almost zero impact. Skyscrapers are well protected, as are major commercial and Industrial assets, but domestic building is entirely at the mercy of greedy developers and their political cronies (of all parties)

Take a look at the buildings which survived the fires Is it a coincidence that so many were of double brick or concrete construction. It's too easy and lazy to blame everything on climate change real though it is.

But the blame game will continue and when re-building occurs, the same developers/builders/politicians will ensure that the same garbage is built again.
 
colddiesel said:
The reason the California fires were so devastating is not lack of water, not weather, nor climate. It was human stupidity for the past 100 years. Californians and Americans generally, build with combustible materials - stuff that burns. Timber framing is a system designed to burn; if you link it to shingle roofing with gutters to catch flying embers then stuff your block with eucalypts (Australia's preferred export to promote Urban terrorism) you are gunna have trouble. The firies did not have a hope in hell of fighting those fires, even if they had completely unlimited quantities of water. Too broad a fire front and too intense.

The USA has the best fire research facilities in the World (In Gloucester Massachusetts I think) They have known for years how to prevent fires but when it comes to influencing planning authorities they have almost zero impact. Skyscrapers are well protected, as are major commercial and Industrial assets, but domestic building is entirely at the mercy of greedy developers and their political cronies (of all parties)

Take a look at the buildings which survived the fires Is it a coincidence that so many were of double brick or concrete construction. It's too easy and lazy to blame everything on climate change real though it is.

But the blame game will continue and when re-building occurs, the same developers/builders/politicians will ensure that the same garbage is built again.
Click to expand...
They've passed laws in California requiring earthquake-proof construction -- why not fireproof?
 
Cardinal said:
There is zero evidence of that
Click to expand...
There is a scientific consensus.

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:[28]

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Royal Society (UK)
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
  • UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  • And many more.
Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence.[note 3] In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).[29][30]

Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs.[31] There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.[32]
 
See also denial tactics.


[TR]
[TD]“”If [discussing renewable energy with conservatives] you deliver the message of energy freedom, energy choice, competition, national security, innovation, all of a sudden, you will have a receptive audience and they will listen to you. If you lead off with climate change, they’re not going to pay a bit of attention to anything else you say. They’ve been brainwashed for decades into believing, oh, we’re not damaging the environment…[85][/TD]
[/TR]

As you can see above, fact-based debate on this is as one-sided as bringing an 8-inch atomic artillery piece to a knife fight. So climate denial inevitably involves a barrage of bad-faith misdirection tactics that do nothing to rebut the scientific consensus at issue.

Which makes more sense?[edit]​

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/e/e2/Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png/600px-Climate_change_which_makes_more_sense.png

The denialist staircase[edit]​


[TR]
[TD]“”One of the reasons why the professional climate-change deniers have been so successful in penetrating the media is that the story that they have to tell is one that people want to hear.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—George Monbiot, Heat[86]:40[/TD]
[/TR]

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/e/ec/DenialistStaircase.png/400px-DenialistStaircase.png
In a nutshell…
Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken. The denialist tactics take the form of a staircase or ladder in so far as once one tactic becomes too obviously indefensible, the denialist will move onto the next step.[note 6]

  1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring,[note 7] pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional.
  2. Simply deny global warming is happening and maintain that no action is necessary[88] — so we don't have to change anything.
  3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
  4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to change anything.
  5. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to change anything, Ehrlich![89]
  6. Global warming is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.[90]
  7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to change anything.
  8. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority[note 8] — so we don't have to change anything.
  9. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but it's just human sin, so outside of worthless praying, we don't have to change anything.[91]
  10. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.[92]
  11. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to change anything.
  12. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.
  13. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now![note 9]
When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above — otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order (NWO) as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

Global warming deniers have raised a number of slightly more scientific arguments which are covered below.

Many of these claims are thrown into one big denialist soup. However, the problem is that many of them are also contradictory in nature.

For example, the common talking points about it being warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and low climate sensitivity (i.e. "climate is much more stable than that") contradict each other, because the existence of a Medieval Warm Period necessitates high climate sensitivity.

Another common inconsistency lies in asserting that "temperature records and proxies are notoriously inaccurate" (always to some undecidable degree beyond the statistical error scientists already factor in), while in the next breath, suddenly inventing presenting select 'reliable records' as evidence for whichever esoteric conclusion on global climate the individual denialist in question happens to be gunning for this time around.[93]
 
According to the MAGATs, it turns out that the reason was that the Libs failed to raise enough cash through taxation to improve fire fighting capability.

It's a funny old world. Especially when California pays taxes to subsidize the Red States who are happy to receive all that socialist money.
 
icanhelp1 said:
Global warming is a fact, climate change has been around since our planet developed an atmosphere. God gave us a brain but it's apparent some people would prefer to complain about climate change than adjust to the changes itself.
Click to expand...
Indeed! So persuading such people should concentrate on the idea that the air, water and soil should NOT be polluted by burning coal for power, running internal combustion engines for transport and refining petroleum to make more plastic to dump in the ocean. The people who argue that global warming isn't happening (or argue similar things, like that it's happening too slowly to matter or that it's a natural phenomenon, what with the earth warming up after the end of the last ice age etc etc etc) can't argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing, can they?
 
Hel_Books said:
Indeed! So persuading such people should concentrate on the idea that the air, water and soil should NOT be polluted by burning coal for power, running internal combustion engines for transport and refining petroleum to make more plastic to dump in the ocean. The people who argue that global warming isn't happening (or argue similar things, like that it's happening too slowly to matter or that it's a natural phenomenon, what with the earth warming up after the end of the last ice age etc etc etc) can't argue that reducing pollution is a bad thing, can they?
Click to expand...
They'll just deny pollution matters -- the ecosystem can absorb it without ill effects, or some shit like that.
 
Bray123 said:
According to the MAGATs, it turns out that the reason was that the Libs failed to raise enough cash through taxation to improve fire fighting capability.

It's a funny old world. Especially when California pays taxes to subsidize the Red States who are happy to receive all that socialist money.
Click to expand...

Lie lie lie....we literally are trying to turn all that socialist money off, and your side is borderline panicking about it LOL....


Politruk said:
They'll just deny pollution matters -- the ecosystem can absorb it without ill effects, or some shit like that.
Click to expand...

No we'll just laugh at you when you suggest raising taxes will fix it, because windmills and stuff!! LOL
 
Politruk said:
They've passed laws in California requiring earthquake-proof construction -- why not fireproof?
Click to expand...

One difficulty is that fireproof and earthquake proof are sometimes at odds. The earlier comment suggested building out of concrete block or bricks to prevent house fires, but brick and block construction can be vulnerable to earthquakes (lack of ability to flex in a quake).

By the way, almost all new home construction in Florida has concrete block walls for hurricane wind resistance and preventing termite damage. So blaming the construction industry overall isn’t really fair. The industry will meet the local building code.
 
UltraChad said:
Lie lie lie....we literally are trying to turn all that socialist money off, and your side is borderline panicking about it LOL....




No we'll just laugh at you when you suggest raising taxes will fix it, because windmills and stuff!! LOL
Click to expand...
Which state is it that's trying to refuse all that money?
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Bridge, Gorman fires in 2024, Lake & Bobcat fires in 2020, Woolsey fire in 2018 are a few of LA County’s big fires in recent years. How far back do you wanna go? lol. LA is a tinder box when rainfall is sparse and the Santa Ana winds blow. You’re obviously not familiar with that part of the country.
Click to expand...
Especially when you're not allowed to manage and control the underbrush. The LA disaster are the wages of extreme environmentalism and leftwing governance.
 
Politruk said:
They'll just deny pollution matters -- the ecosystem can absorb it without ill effects, or some shit like that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some will. But it makes more sense to make a more persuasive argument than a less persuasive argument, doesn't it?
 
See also Wikipedia:

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.[8]

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[9] In the scientific literature, there is a very strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[10] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[11] A few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions,[12] and some have tried to persuade the public that climate change is not happening, or if the climate is changing it is not because of human influence,[13][14] attempting to sow doubt in the scientific consensus.[15]
 
California governor makes significant concessions to corporate interests in rebuilding wildfire-hit areas

‘Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom has once again revealed his true allegiance—not to working people, nor to environmental protection, but to corporate interests.

His latest executive order, which suspends California’s landmark environmental regulations to fast-track utility infrastructure rebuilding in wildfire-affected areas, is a direct attack on democracy, environmental safeguards and working class communities. It is a measure that aligns perfectly with the interests of private energy corporations like Southern California Edison (SCE) while dangerously mirroring the authoritarian methods of the fascistic Trump administration.’

Anyone surprised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

butters
the IPIE found “powerful actors” like governments, political parties and corporations are often behind misleading climate information
Replies
11
Views
250
ll74
ll74
Rightguide
The Arctic Stays Frozen While Climate Science Melts
Replies
4
Views
99
Rotadom
Rotadom
B
Climate change is real
2 3
Replies
58
Views
688
Boat1
Boat1
P
Rubio eliminates office that oversees climate talks
Replies
15
Views
267
Politruk
P
P
Climate change omitted from DNI's Annual Threat Assessment
Replies
5
Views
108
ll74
ll74
Back
Top