New Video : Fire Conspiracy Theorists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to New Video : Fire Conspiracy Theorists

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Excellent. Looks like propaganda to me. They are hiding the past to promote panic.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
    -Voltaire

    • Gator says:

      You mean like when AOC tells her sheep that ICE detention centers are concentration camps, and then one of her sheep makes a terrorist attack on an ICE facility? That would be an absurdity to atrocity, right?

      Maybe that explains why AOC refused to condemn the attack.

      • Disillusioned says:

        “That would be an absurdity to atrocity, right?”

        My thoughts were more along the lines of a leftist pyromaniac setting fires in CA during the annual dry fire season, in order to bring attention to the fictional increase in forest fires that are surely brought on by man-made climate change™.

        But, yes. That is an excellent example.

        There is no telling what the nutty Left would be willing to do these days. [I think you know I used to identify as left of center, I voted for Gore and handed out his propaganda DVD.]

        Today’s Left are truly scary – they are very little like the passive, anti-establishment Left of the 1960s. Today’s Leftists are blind to themselves. They seem to live in a 24/7 fictional world. They are blind to reality; they cannot seem to accept any. Almost all are big government establishment statists (the opposite of the 1960s hippies). They are incredibly intolerant of opposing views, and are fueled with their hatred by the DNC/Mockingbird media that slants everything in one direction – which Leftists take as if God Himself were speaking.

        They call almost everyone who dares disagree with them [or those who simply voted for Donald Trump] a racist/bigot and a homophobe. Yet, I personally watched Mr. Trump at the RNC Convention recognize the lbgtq community nationwide – to applause in the audience. I personally watched an interview of one of his top managers of many years (a black woman) praise Mr. Trump for being a wonderful and caring boss.

        The Antifa college professor hitting a conservative speaker with a bicycle lock, the “protestors” setting fires, rioting and stopping conservative speakers from speaking on camupuses, rabid leftists chasing and beating Trump supporters, the former student who sucker-punched a passive conservative on a campus… (I could go on – the list of atrocities is long),

        With the Left, it is all lies, all the time. They believe, and act on fiction. They project onto others what they are guilty of themselves. So, yes, Gator. I believe Voltaire was right. And so was Goebbels. Keep telling the Big Lie, and idiots will believe it. And yes – some will indeed commit atrocities.

        • Gator says:

          There is no question that Voltaire was correct.

          In 1863 a Democrat shot and killedAbraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

          In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who, later died from the wound.

          In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

          In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

          In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded President RonaldReagan.

          In 1984 James Huberty, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonaldsrestaurant.

          In 1986 Patrick Sherril, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

          In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

          In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.

          In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

          In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

          In 2001 a left-wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the United States.

          In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

          In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

          In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared LeeLoughner shot Rep. GabrielleGiffords and killed 6 others.

          In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

          In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

          In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

          One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and violence. No NRA member, or Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved.

          • Gator says:

            Time to add another to the list!

            A Democratic candidate who was seeking election to the Mississippi House of Representatives, and who had just been served divorce papers, walked into the medical clinic where his estranged wife worked as a receptionist Tuesday and shot her to death before turning the gun on himself, officials said…

            Dickerson said Robinson, 43, shot 34-year-old Latoya Thompson before killing himself in what police are calling a murder-suicide, according to the Daily Journal. The sheriff says she died as emergency workers were trying to put her on a medical helicopter.

            https://www.foxnews.com/us/mississippi-candidate-murder-suicide-police-say

            We need leftist control, and not leftists in control.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Bingo

      • rah says:

        Yea. And of course the motive of the attacker is no news.

  2. Toto's Fan says:

    The random biting of conspirators and corruptors of truth and knowledge by an imaginary horde of Totos would be symmetric poetry. If only the Totos were not so saintly.

  3. Romeo says:

    Something else I noticed regarding the slight uptick in burn acreage since the mid-1990’s seems to also coincide with the logging bans put in place by President Clinton in the mid-1990’s due to the spotted owl and other junk science concerns. National forests have been virtually untouched since then and many who venture out into our forests can attest to how overgrown and ‘wild’ the forests now look. They are so packed with fuels that once a fire does start, it’s almost impossible to fight them. Poor forest management is more to blame for increased fires in recent decades than any other factor…In my opinion.

  4. GW Smith says:

    Great presentation, Tony! We need to get you in front of the Supreme Court.

  5. Mark Frank says:

    I will repeat my comment on You-tube.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    Your chart on “wildfires” is actually all acreage burned (look at the title) which is a different thing. See https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/the-mysterious-wildfire-chart/ for a discussion.

    In addition the figures prior to 1960 are highly suspect. The discussion shows that the source is not clear. But anyway use some common sense. There are about 800 million acres of forest in the USA (https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/publication-15817-usda-forest-service-fia-annual-report-508.pdf). There were probably rather less in the 1930s as forests have been recovering. The chart shows about 40-50 million acres being burned every year between 1928 and 1938. Do we really believe half of the US forest was burned over that decade?

    • tonyheller says:

      The relationship between fires and heatwaves and drought is very clear. Give it a rest.

      • Mark Frank says:

        I don’t think many people deny that heatwaves and droughts are linked to forest fires. However, the main point of your video was that there was some kind of conspiracy or fraud in omitting the wildfire figures before 1960. Given that the data before 1960 is from an unknown source and utterly implausible it is perfectly reasonable and not at all sinister to omit it.

        • spike55 says:

          So you are one of those DATA DENIALISTS are you ?

          With the US having an area of 2.4 billion acres, do you really believe there was only 100 million acres of forest in 1930 ????

          • Mark Frank says:

            spike55. As I said in my comment, there are 800 million acres of forest in the USA (the source was provided). If you burn 40 million every year for 10 years you burn half of it.

          • spike55 says:

            roflmao, you just marked yourself as an idiot.

            Not if they are small fires, Bush does regrow, bozo !!

          • spike55 says:

            Next you will be DENYING that by far the hottest period in the USA was the 1930s.

            Then you will be saying that heat didn’t exacerbate bushfires.

            Climate change DENIERS are like that.

        • rah says:

          How about this source Mark Frank?

          • Mark Frank says:

            rah

            I am afraid I can’t read what your source is. Could you reproduce it in larger print?

          • rah says:

            The source is the ‘National Interagency Fire Center’.
            Chart extracted from this article:
            https://www.cfact.org/2019/07/17/33553/

          • rah says:

            A note on wildfires in the western US. Though as Tony has stated severe wildfire seasons are associated with periods of higher than average temps and droughts there is a caveat to that.

            The western US has been having an extremely wet year so far (They were skiing in CA and CO during the 4th of July holiday this year). Increased precipitation out west usually means enhanced wildfire risk during the summer. The rains in the spring result in an explosion of growth of ground cover that then dies and dries out in the dryer and hotter summer providing plenty of tender for fires to start and grow.

            BTW back in the 19th century there were massive wildfires that burned places we couldn’t imagine such a conflagration happening today. http://www.peshtigofire.info/

          • Mark Frank says:

            Rah

            Thanks. It took me a moment or two to go from the blog article to the original data at the NIFC. It turns out to be the same data as the data underlying the dubious chart that Tony used and therefore has the identical problem. (Note that the data is for wildland fire statistics, not wildfire statistics as claimed in the chart. These are quite different things.)

            To quote the NIFC website (my emphasis):

            “The National Interagency Coordination Center at NIFC compiles annual wildland fire statistics for federal and state agencies. This information is provided through Situation Reports, which have been in use for several decades. Prior to 1983, sources of these figures are not known, or cannot be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Well described, RAH.

            I have been following the relationship between spring precipitation and the annual wildfire season for some 30 years. Based on my personal experience, I would only change one sentence in your comment:

            “Increased precipitation out west usually always means enhanced wildfire risk during the summer.”

            Runaway forest crown fires are spectacular and frightening, and they make for better evening news TV segments but—as you wrote—it’s the buildup of ladder fuel under the trees that makes forest fires more likely and harder to contain. I don’t remember any season in 30 years when a wet spring with explosive grass growth was not followed by a drier summer when the originally green, lush grasses turned into dangerous ground fuel. Even if a summer is not exceptionally dry the grasses will dry out enough to burn. That’s the natural cycle of these plants and the natural cycle of western landscapes in the United States *).

            No sane firefighters will approach from the downwind side a fire advancing through tall grasses. The flames would tower over them and there is nothing they could do there. Indians, western farmers and ranchers, and residents of prairie towns always understood the destructive force of grassfire. Even with all the modern firefighting technology some people love to claim as the reason for decreased wildfire incidence, just like 100 years ago the most effective firefighting method may be a backburn farther downwind from the fire and hoping the burned out strip is wide enough so the embers don’t jump it. I know of instances where wildfire crews successfully created a backburn but the wind-driven fire crossed it and they repeatedly raced far downwind to have enough time to do another one.

            ————
            *) and everywhere else where similar conditions exist as the attached photo from Australia demonstrates

          • rah says:

            So the two charts, each produced by reputable sources, are constructed to do EXACTLY what you say they say, should not be done! Sorry, I’ll go with the best data we’ve got. Data for which there is only one reason for it to be archived, that being for comparison over time. Graphs based on that archived data that have the sole function of comparing changes in the data over time. Your argument simply does not hold water based on the preponderance of facts in evidence AND the way other archived data bases, from the sun spot count (the longest running in science) to hurricane counts, to SSTs, etc……. are used.

    • spike55 says:

      “Andthenthereisphysics”, is one of the VERY LAST places I would go to for an honest science based discussion.

      Presenting actual facts is NOT his business.

      How dumb and gullible must you be to take any notice of that ignorant twerp.

      • Mark Frank says:

        spike55

        What matters is not who said it but the quality of their evidence and arguments. I never say something is wrong because Tony Heller posted it. I address the errors (of which there are plenty). The discussion of this topic on Andthenthereisphysics includes sources and detailed analysis.

        • spike55 says:

          ATTInoP is a highly biased site relying strong on cherry-picked data.

          It is run by a RABID alarmist with an agenda to push.

          Sad that you don’t know that, or cannot see that fact.

          • Mark Frank says:

            spike55

            Are you saying we should judge the validity of arguments on the basis of who makes them? If so, I think perhaps the world’s national academies of science have the edge over the individual bloggers and we all know what they are saying about climate change.

            Alternatively we can forget who says it and just look at what they say.

            Which way would you prefer to play it?

          • Gator says:

            I prefer to think for myself, rather than than have individuals or clubs think for me. Reviewing the entirety of evidence from all sources is what has made me a skeptic. It’s called the “big picture”, and doesn’t rely on cherries or opinions.

            One thing is clear after decades of torturing data, CO2 is, at best, a bit player in our current global climate. We should be thankful for the mild warming we are receiving, and enjoy the benefits of higher CO2 levels. The only thing we have to fear are fear mongers themselves. Climate change deserves to be at the bottom of the list of our priorities.

          • spike55 says:

            If you can’t see persistent data twisting and cherry-picking when you see it, nobody can help you.

            If you find that acceptable in any field of science

            Nobody can help you.

          • spike55 says:

            Over the years I have looked at the validity of arguments from Ken Rice.

            I have found him to be highly biased in cherry-picked data, twisted interpretations of that data, ignorance and denial of historical data (as in this case) and just basically downright UNRELIABLE, at the very best.

            The sort of site a brain-washed anti-science AGW yapper would choose to cite from.

            You should start looking further so you can get past your obvious PC brain-washing.

          • Mark Frank says:

            Gator

            “I prefer to think for myself, rather than than have individuals or clubs think for me. Reviewing the entirety of evidence from all sources is what has made me a skeptic.”

            I think we all prefer to think for ourselves where we have the competence and the data. However, climate change is extremely complicated and a non-specialist is going to struggle. For example, take the apparently simple matter of measuring trends in average global temperature. It is clearly misleading to simply add all the measurements available and divide by the number of measurements. You have to allow for things such as changing locations of thermometers, urban heat island effects, moving from ship based thermometers to buoys. Then you need to compensate for the fact there are many more measurements on land and in Western countries than there are elsewhere. How many of us have the tools and training to do this? It needs significant expertise. And that’s just one small part of the picture.

            In the end we are all dependent to some extent on believing some other source. At that point you can decide to go with blogs that you find politically acceptable or peer reviewed science.

          • Gator says:

            Mark, I was studying climatology at a major university over 30 years ago. I have followed the science intimately ever since. And it precisely because of the chaotic and unpredictable nature of our planet, that I can say without reservation, that anyone who claims to know what is happening is either crazy, stupid, or a liar.

            And no, sadly most of our society does not prefer to think for themselves, they have become lazy and stupid. Decades of observations bear this out.

            If alarmist grantologists were not so very dishonest, they might have been able to hoodwink more of our ignorant populace. When I see charlatans adjusting data and cherrypicking, to fit their models and bias, I know their “science” is nothing more than wishful thinking. Real scientists do not lie.

            My information does not come from blogs, it comes from years of university study, and reading the actual scientific papers. I don’t need an interpreter.

            Clearly the science is far from settled, and man made CO2 is not a major player. So how have you been fooled Mark? Not skeptical enough? Or is it that the “solutions” agree with your overall political ideology, and therefore you just go along? Skeptical minds want to know.

          • Gator says:

            At that point you can decide to go with blogs that you find politically acceptable or peer reviewed science.

            OK.

            The discussion of this topic on Andthenthereisphysics includes sources and detailed analysis.

            Alright. Mark prefers blogs he finds politically acceptable, and not peer reviewed science. At least that much is settled. Thanks Mark!

          • spike55 says:

            Let’s see if little Mark can produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            He probably doesn’t even realise that such warming has never been observed and measured anywhere on the planet.

          • Mark Frank says:

            spike55

            “Let’s see if little Mark can produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            He probably doesn’t even realise that such warming has never been observed and measured anywhere on the planet.”

            Gosh – where to start.

            Perhaps easiest to find out which of the following you challenge and then explore the evidence in detail. Note that this is very far from a complete list of evidence but I have limited time and space.

            1) CO2 concentrations have increased since the industrial revolution (direct measurements)

            2) The increase in concentration is due to human activity (many lines of evidence – perhaps most convincingly the change in isotope make-up in CO2

            3) Greenhouse gasses including CO2 are transparent to incoming solar radiation (which is primarily in the visible spectrum) but absorb IR radiation at specific frequencies and then reemits it in all directions (basic physics – corroborated many times in the laboratory). Satellites show a reduction in IR radiation from the earth between 1970 and 1996 in just the frequencies that would be anticipated from increased CO2.

            4) Conversely there has been a measured increase in IR radiation reaching the earth’s surface.
            5) The planet is warming up while solar radiation has been decreasing – numerous lines of evidence including global surface temperature records.

            Note that even sceptics such as Roy Spencer accept that there is a greenhouse effect. They just dispute how strong it is. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

          • spike55 says:

            Thanks for showing that there are NO EMPIRICAL MEASUREMENT :-)

            You fell straight into the trap of regurgitating the same old fallacies of the brain-washed AGW scam

            So funny. :-)

            You have been CONNED because you lack basic skills in science and can only regurgitate what you have been told.

            1. Yes, CO2 levels have THANKFULLY increased from a barely subsistence plant growth level.

            2. About 15% of the increase is probably due to human released CO2 (pity we can’t do more), the rest is from the oceans and expanding biosphere.

            3. CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km. The mean free path of that frequency of radiation is some 10m, Absorbed radiation is thermalised to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere then dealt with by the actions of convection and conduction.

            TOTAL outgoing radiation tracks the NATURAL SOLAR FORCED warming of the atmosphere.

            4) of course as the solar warming via El Ninos warms the atmosphere it radiates more.. basic physics

            You DO know that apart from those El Ninos, there has been NO WARMING in the last 40 years, don’t you bozo?

            https://i.postimg.cc/fyv8vcRh/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png

            https://i.postimg.cc/SxQy4C6M/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png

            Or are you now going to turn around and say that CO2 causes El Ninos ROFLMAO.. typical AGW spew.

            5) the latter half of last century had the strongest series of solar cycles in over 400 years. (see below). Are you really SO IGNORANT that you think the bulk of the oceans wasn’t warmed by that. WOW. !!

            The “greenhouse” effect is actually misnamed, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a greenhouse, no blocking convection. It should be called the “atmospheric mass” effect. But that is way too much for you to comprehend.

            Be a good little parrot.. Keep squawking your regurgitated garbage. Its Hilarious to see someone so nil-educated, non-thinking and brain-washed. :-)

            Now, how about that empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            No, not the increase of CO2 by solar warming.

            Or the tiny sliver of absorbed weak long wave radiation that gets converted to equal out-going radiation above 11km.

            Do you even know what “empirical” means ?

            There is NO energy being trapped.

          • spike55 says:

            “including global surface temperature records.”

            ROFLMAO.. You don’t really believe they are of any scientific veracity do you?

            Most increase in the so-called “average global surface temperature” is from smeared UHI effects and “in-filling” by malignant climate models and just plain old data mal-manipulation..

            Only REAL warming has come from El Nino effects.

            CO2 cannot warm the oceans.

            Only the SUN and possible subterranean volcanic activity can do that.

          • spike55 says:

            “(basic physics – corroborated many times in the laboratory). ”

            Yes, It certainly looks like you live in the bottom of a bottle. !

            You need to get way past your “basic physics” level if you want to actually understand what goes on in the atmosphere.

            Look at the re-emission time vs the collisional time, look at how energy is transferred in the lower atmosphere.

            Where the atmospheric gradient actually comes from and why it is the controller of energy transfer within the atmosphere.

            A lot of learn, you have, little puppet.

            Don’t lock your mind up in anti-science cults and religions brain-washing.

          • spike55 says:

            “while solar radiation has been decreasing”

            A quick question , for you, dumbo…

            You put on a pot of water with the dial at 10 for 1 minute, then turn the dial down to 8, what happens to the water.. does it start to cool ?

            WAKE the **** up, jackass. !!

            Unfortunately, it looks like we are about to see what happens when you take that pot of the heater.

          • spike55 says:

            “Satellites show a reduction in IR radiation from the earth between 1970 and 1996”

            NO, they don’t.

            The Harries paper was eventually retracted, way too much statistical and assumption based data manipulation.

            Two totally different instruments that with minor changes in assumptions give very different answers. Even in that paper where they said they showed a very slight decrease in outgoing in the tiny sliver of CO2, there was evidence on increased outgoing radiation in other bands.

            Called thermalisation..

            Do you even know what that is, and what it implies in a convectively controlled atmosphere?

          • Mark Frank says:

            spike55

            You raise some interesting points that would be worth exploring but I can’t live with the stream of insults so I am stopping here.

          • spike55 says:

            Pretending you capable of learning once you notice you are obviously out of your depth.

            So Funny.

  6. NavarreAggie says:

    The “Union of Communists and Socialists” would be a more honest title.

  7. Mark Frank says:

    Gator

    “I was studying climatology at a major university over 30 years ago. I have followed the science intimately ever since.” I am sure we can all flout our qualifications. That is not the point. Many highly qualified people say silly things. That is why it is important to read the actual conclusions of things like peer reviewed papers or papers endorsed by National Institutes of Science etc.

    “Alright. Mark prefers blogs he finds politically acceptable, and not peer reviewed science. ”

    As far as I am aware there is no peer reviewed science on wildfire frequency (I would be delighted to be corrected). So in this case we have to do our own research. The blog post is important because it takes you to the source data for this batty chart and explains why it is logical to start in about 1980 (I erroneously wrote 1960). It saved me having to point to the data and explain its relevance – that’s all. We can leave the blog post altogether if you prefer and simply look at the NIFC web site.

    • Gator says:

      Analysis of charcoal records in sediments [31] and isotope-ratio records in ice cores [32] suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

      That’s one.

      It appears your beliefs are based upon a dearth of knowledge.

      • Gator says:

        Woops! Forgot to include the title of the paper…

        Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world

      • spike55 says:

        “based upon a dearth of knowledge”

        And if he is citing places like “andthenthereisnophysiscs”…

        … he is destined to stay that way.

        the AGW-Borg has assimilated what little there was of his mind

      • Mark Frank says:

        Gator

        “It appears your beliefs are based upon a dearth of knowledge”

        I don’t pretend to have any strong beliefs about overall trends in wildfire. It was not a subject I knew anything about until I saw Tony Heller’s video and thought there is something very odd about the chart. My sole point is that there is no reason to suppose that only reporting wildfire acreage from 1980 onwards is somehow fraudulent. There are very good reasons for ignoring data prior to 1980.

        Thank you for the reference. It appears to support my case in that it makes it clear that data prior to formal satellite measurement is unreliable. One of the papers it cites would be ideal (http://www.publish.csiro.au/WF/WF14190) – who would have thought there was an International Journal of Wildfire! Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall.

        • Gator says:

          So you admit that nobody knows exactly how accurate old data is, but that it definitely shows no upward trend. Great! We agree! Climate alarmism is lunacy. Have a great day.

          • Mark Frank says:

            No I don’t. All I am saying is that it is perfectly reasonably to omit such uncertain data from a chart showing trends in wildfires. Also that the data that is presented as being certain in Tony’s chart is highly implausible for common sense reasons.

          • spike55 says:

            Then you are an LIAR and part of the propaganda fraud network.

            The data is perfectly plausible, its what was recorded

            It is IRRELEVANT what a lowly AGW troll thinks as he tries to squirm around DENYING ACTUAL DATA.

          • Gator says:

            Yeah Spike, Mark is a cherry picking, science and natural climate change denier. He is part of the new religion of climastrology, the religion of hate. I figured I would flush him out sooner or later.

            The big laugh for me was when he admitted he knew nothing about paleofire studies, didn’t even know they existed! LOL

            Poor Mark.

          • rah says:

            Mark Frank says:
            July 20, 2019 at 9:28 am
            No I don’t. All I am saying is that it is perfectly reasonably to omit such uncertain data from a chart showing trends in wildfires. Also that the data that is presented as being certain in Tony’s chart is highly implausible for common sense reasons.
            ———————————–
            So if that older data is so unreliable then why do reputable organizations like the ‘National Interagency Fire Center’ produce graphs based on that archived data that have the sole function of comparing changes in the data over time?

            I would assume then that you would also think it reasonable for only the data from the Satellite era to be plotted for the tropical storm record?
            Lots of other records I could give examples of where old data is still presented as valid despite a greatly increased ability to detect and quantify values over time due to the march of technology. The longest scientific record of actual observation on record is the sun spot count but based on your beliefs you can’t believe most of the cycle values are worthy for comparison purposes because the technology to detect sunspots has continually advanced over time and thus even records that are five years old are unreliable and cannot be compared to the more recent values.
            You would also have to reject a great deal of Hanson’s work because of old metrics. And of course Mann’s Hockey stick must be rejected because his proxy tree rings did not agree with the modern temperature record.

          • Mark Frank says:

            “Yeah Spike, Mark is a cherry picking, science and natural climate change denier. He is part of the new religion of climastrology, the religion of hate. I figured I would flush him out sooner or later.

            The big laugh for me was when he admitted he knew nothing about paleofire studies, didn’t even know they existed! LOL”

            I don’t understand why so many of you are so rude. I have said nothing personal about any of you and there is this stream of abuse.

            All I am saying is that no one seems to know where the supposed data on US wildfires prior to 1980 has come from (so we don’t even know it is data) and that data is highly implausible as it suggests about 5% of all US forests were burned every year in the 1930s.

            At no point have I suggested that I have any prior knowledge of the studies of wildfires. I do however know quite a lot about data and assessing its trustworthiness and significance.

          • spike55 says:

            Double down on your DENIAL.

            Yap, yap, yap. !!

            You have NO KNOWLEDGE.. just leave it at that, shall we.

          • Gator says:

            Mark, you insulted me numerous times when you brushed off my university years and decades of studies on this very subject, and said that I don’t understand. The fact is that I do understand, and you do not. If we had to rely solely on satellite era data to understand our planet and solar system, we would never have made it to the moon. You amateurs who come here thinking you are going to teach us something is insulting enough, but then you go and insult those that taught us at university, insult us with your vast ignorance.

            Go back to your lying cherry picking pseudoscience sites and leave real science to the educated adults. You clearly have no interest in learning the truth, or how science actually operates. You brought this on yourself.

          • Mark Frank says:

            Gator

            “Mark, you insulted me numerous times when you brushed off my university years and decades of studies on this very subject, and said that I don’t understand. ”

            I am sorry if I gave that impression but I can’t find where I am supposed to have said you don’t understand. Perhaps you can indicate the numerous times?

          • Gator says:

            I think we all prefer to think for ourselves where we have the competence and the data. However, climate change is extremely complicated and a non-specialist is going to struggle. For example, take the apparently simple matter of measuring trends in average global temperature. It is clearly misleading to simply add all the measurements available and divide by the number of measurements. You have to allow for things such as changing locations of thermometers, urban heat island effects, moving from ship based thermometers to buoys. Then you need to compensate for the fact there are many more measurements on land and in Western countries than there are elsewhere. How many of us have the tools and training to do this?

            We do Mark. And you refused to listen. Instead you kept parroting alarmist talking points. And this has gone on for days! How dense are you? You admit you know nothing, yet you keep typing.

        • spike55 says:

          The ONLY reason for DENIAL of data before 1980 is because of a deep-seated brain-washing and because it DESTROYS the LIES of the AGW agenda.

          The ONLY reason to start at 1980 is to display BLATANT LIES, PROPAGANDA and MIS-INFORMATION..

          • Disillusioned says:

            When I first became disillusioned, I began to wonder what else are they lying about. I discovered that makes me a conspiracy theorist, a racist and a right wing nut. ;-)

        • neal s says:

          Some claim “there is no reason to suppose that only reporting wildfire acreage from 1980 onwards is somehow fraudulent. ”

          But there is such a reason. When you see a large number of such things all towards the same end, eventually it might dawn on you that it is too ‘convenient’. For example all the various temperature adjustments are always so as to cool the past and warm the present.

          How long do you have to watch before you realize that the dice are loaded and the game is rigged?

          • Disillusioned says:

            …all the various temperature adjustments are always so as to cool the past and warm the present.

            How long do you have to watch before you realize that the dice are loaded and the game is rigged?

            I was so brainwashed it took a year before I accepted it. Then kept questioning it, looking for holes in the skeptical arguments for another year. The data were always on the side of skeptics.

            AGW is voodoo science – a bad hyped-pothesis falling apart at every seam.

        • spike55 says:

          And of course the slight rise since the COLDER period of the 1970s-80s is also because of the Green anti-clearing agenda, where bushland is allowed to grow large amounts of unclears low-storey weedy garbage that is easily ignited.

          USA has not warmed during that period.

          It coincides very closely to the bans on control burning and bans on logging, (except for sending to DRAX in the UK)

  8. SMOKEY THE BEAR says:

    There is no question how the furnace-hot conditions in the 30s contributed to our out-of-control fires. But climate doesn’t tell the whole story. In the 30s, we had far fewer access roads to reach fires, limited or no air support, poor fire-fighting equipment (by today’s standards) and nowhere near the 8000 fire lookout towers we had erected by the middle of WWII, not to mention the growing use of smokejumpers. New fire-fighting methods employed later were highly successful, with wildfire burns dropping from 30 million acres during the 30s to between 2-5 million acres by the 1960s.

    It’s misleading to compare modern wildfires with those of the 30s without considering ALL of the variable factors involved.

    • tonyheller says:

      Utter nonsense

    • spike55 says:

      “ALL of the variable factors involved.”

      You mean like the idiotic nonsense of the greenie agenda stopping control burn-offs.

      Is that what you mean?

      Or do you mean the building of many houses in deeply wooded areas, with badly-maintained electricity supply routes, again because of the green agenda?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.