DescentBB

Jasper in Canada is burning in one of the worst fires in a long time. Environmentalists, to protect Trudeau, are saying it is caused by global warming. Just another, um, "smokescreen" by loony lefties.

Don't forget Oregon and California are burning too. Each state has 2 of the largest fires in history burning right now and it doesn't matter who started them, the land is hot and dry and is a constant tinderbox every summer now. This trend matches the rise in global temps, so go stuff it. How long before insurance companies see this as a trend and quit insuring people in fire prone areas, which nowadays can include most suburban areas in CA, OR and WA. You sit in your northern tier state and pontificate all is well with our world, when it's clearly not.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:00 pm Jasper in Canada is burning in one of the worst fires in a long time. Environmentalists, to protect Trudeau, are saying it is caused by global warming. Just another, um, "smokescreen" by loony lefties.

Do you enjoy proving that you are a complete ★■◆●ing idiot with every single post you make?

He's clueless that he is clueless. What cause the forest fires 10,000 years ago? Global warming? You're a r*tard

What do you guys expect from an ass clown like him.

So to all you ignorant types come out once again, showing you know nothing: "Sarkonak mentioned the trees killed by mountain pine beetles, creating abundant “fire fuel” that was not adequately cleared out with controlled burns. Parks Canada itself rated the clearance of dead growth as “poor” in 2022, a bland rating that understated just how bad conditions had become."
"Sarkonak quoted foresters who warned six years ago that Jasper National Park was a “powder keg waiting to blow up” unless the situation was defused with strategic logging and controlled burns. Parks Canada dismissed these warnings, saying it was “quite comfortable” with conditions in the park."
“Why were there vast tracts of dead and desiccated tree-stands in Jasper that the locals have demanded action on since 2017? This was noted by academics, environmentalists and everyone working in and around Jasper for years."
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2 ... tage-site/
While the lazy and stupid here will make up excuses while they won't read the link, end results is they want to remain ignorant and use liberal talking points instead as it is easier.

Loooooool, ★■◆●ing Breitbart. Your brain really is mush.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 5:16 pm Loooooool, ★■◆●ing Breitbart. Your brain really is mush.

out of curiosity I googled cnn jasper fire and this is what I got: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/weather/ ... index.html
Just a emo piece and not a thing about environmentalist warning for year that that the place was a tinderbox from the dead trees caused by the mountain pine beetle. So keep living in your liberal bubble because you want to stick to appallingly stupid or deliberate exclusion of facts from your usual news sources. But then TG I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

If you had a brain, you'd understand that beetles infest stressed trees because they are unhealthy, weakened, and can't heal quickly from beetle attacks. Trees get stressed in conditions like, oooh, say when it's too hot for too long and water is scarce. If the infestation continues, beetle populations explode and more stressed trees become infected. Trees die and then easily burn. When they burn, more carbon is released into the atmosphere creating a vicious cycle we humans created. You just proved climate change. Happy? Maybe you should hope Yellowstone blows up and creates another ice age. But you're close to the blast zone, you'd be dead.

You don't get to talk about a town I've been in, woodcunt.

Forest mismanagement has been the cause of a great deal of large fires for decades, but there is no denying that climate change is making things worse.

Spidey wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 6:44 am but there is no denying that climate change is making things worse.

But that is exactly what this thread is about.

I'm sure if woodchip's house burned down in some unusual and catastrophic wildfire he would be standing there shaking his fist at liberals the whole time. Same if he stubbed his toe on a corner somewhere "Curse you Joe Biden!".

Ferno wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 10:11 pm You don't get to talk about a town I've been in, woodcunt.

Why not, you spechul.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 6:35 pm If you had a brain, you'd understand that beetles infest stressed trees because they are unhealthy, weakened, and can't heal quickly from beetle attacks. Trees get stressed in conditions like, oooh, say when it's too hot for too long and water is scarce. If the infestation continues, beetle populations explode and more stressed trees become infected. Trees die and then easily burn. When they burn, more carbon is released into the atmosphere creating a vicious cycle we humans created. You just proved climate change. Happy? Maybe you should hope Yellowstone blows up and creates another ice age. But you're close to the blast zone, you'd be dead.

I'd suggest you stick to something you know about...like wrenching cars. In the case of pine beetle, you could at least oh, I don't know, try looking it up. Because unlike you, I actually do have a brain and learned how to use it because I actually went to college. So here ya go: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_decaid/view ... eetle.html
From the link, "When population levels are low, mountain pine beetles breed in severely stressed trees such as those damaged by lightning, wind, fire, other insects, or disease". Note the key phrase "When population levels are low" before you start jumping up and down. Read further and under "Outbreak Dynamics" you'll notice nothing about stressed trees. It seems this beetle prefers healthy ones.

As to the others who can't even give a reply beyond what a first grader gives, all I can say is grow up.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 7:29 am

Ferno wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 10:11 pm You don't get to talk about a town I've been in, woodcunt.

Why not, you spechul.

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than you, and everyone knows it, monkey.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 7:58 amSo here ya go: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_decaid/view ... eetle.html

Thanks for supplying a good link, I found it informative. If I remember correctly, you studied Zoology in college? That document is focused on forest management, but doesn't list the causes of pine beetle outbreaks, only what to expect as a result of an outbreak. Can you help me out there?

I haven't been following the fires, but if you say the current ones in California are worsened by pine beetles then that seems reasonable. And if you want to blame some California or Federal forestry law then probably that is a contributing factor too. However, this thread was about Canada, and it looks like fires there are more extreme because of unusually hot and dry conditions, and that tracks with what we know about climate change.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2024 7:58 am

I'd suggest you stick to something you know about...like wrenching cars. In the case of pine beetle, you could at least oh, I don't know, try looking it up. Because unlike you, I actually do have a brain and learned how to use it because I actually went to college. So here ya go: https://apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_decaid/view ... eetle.html
From the link, "When population levels are low, mountain pine beetles breed in severely stressed trees such as those damaged by lightning, wind, fire, other insects, or disease". Note the key phrase "When population levels are low" before you start jumping up and down. Read further and under "Outbreak Dynamics" you'll notice nothing about stressed trees. It seems this beetle prefers healthy ones.

As to the others who can't even give a reply beyond what a first grader gives, all I can say is grow up.

FYI, I'm a college graduate with a major in Geology and a minor in Biology. Wrenching cars is a hobby you twit. Since you're a zoology major, didn't you learn about ecosystem complexity and causes and effects? If you'd search this very complex topic in a broader fashion instead of your narrow right wing worldview you so desperately want to prop up, you'd see a different picture. Ecosystems are complex and are influenced by multiple causes and effects. There isn't a one thing, one effect. But as climate change is being studied, the effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer lowest winter temps and highest summer temps are becoming apparent. Even how pine bark beetles reproduce is affected. Heat and CO2 speed up their reproduction process, while ozone hinders it. And to show you the complexity of ecosystems, fungi are also involved in the mix too and have an effect. Ozone protects US humans from solar UV radiation BTW, so we need more to help us and inhibit beetle reproduction. The world came together in the 1980's to protect our ozone layer, so why not climate change, hmmmm?

However, the fact is and you can't get around it, heat and drought stresses trees. They are living things that like their comfort zone. Stressed trees are more vulnerable to insect attacks, you know, like stressed humans are more vulnerable to viruses? Dead trees burn like gasoline, so more really hot fires. Climate change also brings with it higher and more frequent wind speeds, with can spread a small lightning caused fires into a town burning conflagrations. Our own Douglas Firs, a huge industry here, are now stressed. Houses are built out of those. There isn't enough money in this country to dedicate to the forest management required just for clearing out all the dead and dying trees and flammable undergrowth EVERY YEAR because the West is VAST in size, in both the U.S. and Canada. It just ain't happening. I guess once all the pine forests die from beetles and are burned down, no more beetles. But no more White Pine lumber industry in the U.S. either if those trees are killed off and burned in massive numbers. That's when it will dawn on the capitalist right wingers, when their income producing source of product disappears in a blaze of glory and there's no more resource to make a profit off of anymore.

https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2024/04/c ... etles.html

https://www.usgs.gov/news/climate-has-l ... pine-trees

https://news.ncsu.edu/2021/11/during-an ... ine-trees/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/f ... 011.300520

I hope you're choking on our smoke since you're downwind this summer. We already got our fill in Western Oregon in 2020. The Park fire in CA is nearly 400,000 acres of fire and growing, the largest in history. The Lane 1 Complex in Oregon is huge, thousands of acres. People are losing their homes. Cattle ranchers are losing their cattle. Livelihoods are being destroyed. Insurance companies are dropping their insurance. Interstate 84 has been totally closed at times, interfering with commerce and summer travel. If all that isn't' enough for right wingers, I hope the winds keep blowing to the east and you all suffocate on our smoke. Map below of all the current fires in the U.S. and Canada. What does it tell you that even Alaska, north of the arctic circle, is burning.

https://fire.airnow.gov/

Know what I love about that, TC?

You absolutely smashed the "expert" with your expertise.

I'm no expert by far Ferno. Having a minor in biology no more makes me an expert than being a zoologist like woody is when it concerns bugs. That's an entomologist's playground. And since plants are involved with these bugs, plant experts as well.

What I don't get with conservatives is the almost religious disbelief with the possibility of a changing climate happening at all. Because they think it's a lefty plot and they hate the left so much they'll buy into ranting against it just because? Look at all that snow in the winter they say, not understanding that adding heat adds energy. More energy in the weather systems and oceans means more severe weather. But since a lot of conservatives live in fire prone rural areas, that means that when they can no longer insure their homes and ranches from fires (and also floods), maybe that'll knock some sense into their pea brains, although it'll be too late by then to turn things around. Humanity will be screwed. Maybe at this point that's what we deserve.

https://mountainjournal.org/why-insuran ... rone-areas

The difference between you and him is you accept the science, while he denies it.

That alone makes you far more qualified to speak on these matters, and that means we should listen to you.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 3:16 pm I'm no expert by far Ferno. Having a minor in biology no more makes me an expert than being a zoologist like woody is when it concerns bugs. That's an entomologist's playground. And since plants are involved with these bugs, plant experts as well.

What I don't get with conservatives is the almost religious disbelief with the possibility of a changing climate happening at all.

Not a changing climate but a man made change. Might want to read what joe bastardi has to say. And before the consensus is science crowd pipes up, it was at one time consensus scientists believed the sun orbited the earth until Copernicus expounded his heliocentrism theory and was ridiculed for it. And then you had the polar bears are dying pushed by leftist lunatics: "Whatever happened to polar bears? They used to be all climate campaigners could talk about, but now they’re essentially absent from headlines. Over the past 20 years, climate activists have elevated various stories of climate catastrophe, then quietly dropped them without apology when the opposing evidence becomes overwhelming. The only constant is the scare tactics." https://www.wsj.com/articles/polar-bear ... s-528b18ea
So stop trying to create a story to promote a fake agenda that only enriches people like Algore.

Just because you can find an article in the WSJ penned by a well known climate denier doesn't make any of the claims in the article accurate.

Polar bears are still listed as vulnerable/threatened and according to the fish and wildlife service are likely to be moved into endangered status soon.

https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/pola ... opulation/
https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023- ... threatened
https://polarbearsinternational.org/pol ... ts/status/

You need to learn media literacy, but doing so would require leaving your safe space of the conservative media silo so I doubt that will ever happen.

So man-made change is not climate change. How is that any different? BTW, Joe Bastardi is an outspoken denier of human caused climate change, so he's already made up his mind and closed it off to any other discussion. That makes him NOT a scientist either with such a closed mind. Most scientists today believe we humans are negatively affecting our climate. You can't stand there and believe all that CO2 we are pumping into the air from billions of internal combustion engines and factories isn't having an effect. All the warm ups in earth's climate past were related to elevated CO2 too. What I want to know is why conservatives have a bee up their collective asses about this topic? Is it because conservatives are more likely to have religiosity or a belief in God? I sure as hell get that from my Evangelical sister. She's a Bible literalist, everything in it is fact, so any modern science contrary to it is false. She also ignores the detail that everything written in the Bible all comes from second hand word of mouth passed down through generations of story telling. You know how stories change from person to person. Each person's opinions taint it slightly, which changes the story over time. There are no actual witnesses to most of the stories in the Bible, even any actual witnesses who knew Jesus. And WSJ is pay-walled too.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... te-change/

As for science once believing the sun rotated around the earth, THAT came from the religious institutions at the time, not science since that was in it's infancy. The Renaissance was called that for a reason, because smart people questioned church doctrine and it slowly opened peoples eyes to the real world around them. In fact, science and the people who believed in it were once considered heresy to the church and were imprisoned or put to death. It took hard work, theory testing, proof and persistent research to pop that bubble. Yet today, we still have flat earthers and evolution deniers, most of whom are also religious conservatives. I see a pattern here....

woodchip wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 2:19 pm Not a changing climate but a man made change. Might want to read what joe bastardi has to say. And before the consensus is science crowd pipes up, it was at one time consensus scientists believed the sun orbited the earth until Copernicus expounded his heliocentrism theory and was ridiculed for it. And then you had the polar bears are dying pushed by leftist lunatics: "Whatever happened to polar bears? They used to be all climate campaigners could talk about, but now they’re essentially absent from headlines. Over the past 20 years, climate activists have elevated various stories of climate catastrophe, then quietly dropped them without apology when the opposing evidence becomes overwhelming. The only constant is the scare tactics." https://www.wsj.com/articles/polar-bear ... s-528b18ea
So stop trying to create a story to promote a fake agenda that only enriches people like Algore.

And the "zoologist" not only shows us he doesn't do the work he's supposedly trained in, he also completely forgets that in order to do science, you question and disprove the old science. Because that's how the scientific process (emphasis on PROCESS) works. You refute the old with the new.

And if Al Gore was rich, he'd be bragging about it, instead of hearing nothing from him for decades.

What are you going to claim that you are next, woody? The inventor of the automobile? A famous playwright? A leading nuclear science researcher?

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm

And the "zoologist" not only shows us he doesn't do the work he's supposedly trained in, he also completely forgets that in order to do science, you question and disprove the old science. Because that's how the scientific process (emphasis on PROCESS) works. You refute the old with the new.

And yet I was told here that the consensus science makes it true.

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm And if Al Gore was rich, he'd be bragging about it, instead of hearing nothing from him for decades.

So once again the Village Idiot shows his ignorance: https://moneyinc.com/al-gore-net-worth/
Don't know about you but I'll bet he's not living under a expressway overpass.

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm What are you going to claim that you are next, woody? The inventor of the automobile? A famous playwright? A leading nuclear science researcher?

No, I'll leave that to "cannibal" Joe.

My parent's friend's sister (or cousin, I forget) has been dating Al Gore. According to them (my parent's friends) he's apparently a pretty down to earth normal guy. But yeah, very rich.

woodchip wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 2:19 pmAnd before the consensus is science crowd pipes up, it was at one time consensus scientists believed the sun orbited the earth until Copernicus expounded his heliocentrism theory and was ridiculed for it.

Whenever I read something like this I feel the need to correct the writer. First, Copernicus was also wrong, he was just less wrong than Ptolemy. Brahe was more right than Copernicus and Kepler was more right than Brahe. Also, "science" in the time of Copernicus was different than the science of today. The modern scientific method is attributed to Descartes who lived after Copernicus. Second, scientific knowledge compounds. The change from the Ptolemaic model to the Copernican model was big, but every following change get smaller. The same is true for Climate models. They make great predictions so it's unlikely that suddenly the field will reject the human variable since it makes the models work so well.

You really don't know as much about science as me or some of the others here. This is my arena so I'll gladly take you on, though it's probably better if you stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

Well said vision. Thank you.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2024 5:45 am

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm

And the "zoologist" not only shows us he doesn't do the work he's supposedly trained in, he also completely forgets that in order to do science, you question and disprove the old science. Because that's how the scientific process (emphasis on PROCESS) works. You refute the old with the new.

And yet I was told here that the consensus science makes it true.

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm And if Al Gore was rich, he'd be bragging about it, instead of hearing nothing from him for decades.

So once again the Village Idiot shows his ignorance: https://moneyinc.com/al-gore-net-worth/
Don't know about you but I'll bet he's not living under a expressway overpass.

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 10:35 pm What are you going to claim that you are next, woody? The inventor of the automobile? A famous playwright? A leading nuclear science researcher?

No, I'll leave that to "cannibal" Joe.

And now we learn woody here can't even understand a simple sentence. Explains a lot, really.

Notice how I said "HE would be bragging"; like Al Gore would be speaking words in an interview, and woody seems to think a website in the third-person is Al Gore himself talking.

And where the hell did "cannibal Joe" even come from? Trump's sewer of a pie hole? It's not even funny or derogatory.

Nearest that I can find out is it had something to do with this: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/joe-bide ... cannibals/