• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The West is on fire [W:86]

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, I am no doubt in the top 10% of intelligence levels, but I really don't make public policy. I just debate it on an anonymous bulletin board, just as you're doing.

The way you understand whether a given piece is biased or not is outlined right here.
Click to expand...

The way I understand whether a given piece is or is not biased/wrong/fraudulent is by making up my own mind based on thinking about it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The way I understand whether a given piece is or is not biased/wrong/fraudulent is by making up my own mind based on thinking about it.
Click to expand...

and whether or not it fits your world view. That's what most of us do. It's called confirmation bias.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and whether or not it fits your world view. That's what most of us do. It's called confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Some of us can use numbers and science and stuff with our imaginations to work out things. Others just go by who is the most pompus and follow him.
 
apdst said:
I agree. Build firebreaks and let the fires burn.

I recall that after the Yellowstone fire in the 90's that it was discovered that the seed pod of a certain type of tree only opened up under high heat.
Click to expand...

If only Republican brains worked under the same conditions their would be hope.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Some of us can use numbers and science and stuff with our imaginations to work out things. Others just go by who is the most pompus and follow him.
Click to expand...

Some of us can do that, yes. The ones who can aren't going to take the word of a blogger over an actual scientific organization however.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Some of us can do that, yes. The ones who can aren't going to take the word of a blogger over an actual scientific organization however.
Click to expand...

So you are unable to make up your own mind at all then. The best you can do is choose between levels of authority.

My point 100% proven.
 
Tim the plumber said:

So you are unable to make up your own mind at all then. The best you can do is choose between levels of authority.

My point 100% proven.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's it, all right. a random blogger writing an opinion piece has equal level of authority to NASA, NOAA, CERN, and all of the rest.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yep. That's it, all right. a random blogger writing an opinion piece has equal level of authority to NASA, NOAA, CERN, and all of the rest.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's nothing in your link to provide an authoritative statement from any of those bodies.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Some of us can use numbers and science and stuff with our imaginations to work out things.
Click to expand...

This is the main problem with most denialists like you. Too much imagination and stuff and not enough numbers and science.

Want an example?? How about your repeated denial of ice loss in Greenland. You see videos of glaciers where there is little or no apparent movement of the ice and imagine that the movement must be very slow. Never mind that some measurements of this movement are actually relatively fast. Yet you insist that there is no significant loss of ice due to ice calving of glaciers. Or your imagination that all ice melt can only happen for 1 month out of the year. But there is lots of data(numbers) that show ice loss happens over more than 1 month. Or your imagination that all the ice melt must flow out of Greenland in massive rivers that would have to be miles wide. You don't even realize that Greenland has hundreds, if not thousands, of rivers draining ice melt and with that many rivers, they would not need to be miles wide.

This is actually a very big problem with denialists like yourself, all the way from Anthony Watts to Lord of Planar to you.

Tim the plumber said:
Others just go by who is the most pompus and follow him.
Click to expand...

Really? How about some examples of us believers in AGW using just the most pompous to back up our beliefs. Good luck with that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Overall probability of California wildfires has increased due to human-induced climate change, however, no specific link could be made for the 2014 fire event.

Climate conditions behind deadly October 2017 wildfires in California
Click to expand...


[h=1]Is climate change REALLY the culprit causing California’s wildfires?[/h]We’re told that climate change caused or intensified California’s wildfires — and that such fires are getting worse. As usual for such scary stories, these claims are only weakly supported by science — except for the ones that are outright fabrications. See what scientists say and decide for yourself. By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius…

December 14, 2017 in Wildfires.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yep. That's it, all right. a random blogger writing an opinion piece has equal level of authority to NASA, NOAA, CERN, and all of the rest.
Click to expand...

For you that is a highly sensable thinking style.

I think about stuff myself. That is a different thinking style.

The philosophy of science is on my side. The philosophy of religion is on yours.
 
Buzz said:
This is the main problem with most denialists like you. Too much imagination and stuff and not enough numbers and science.

Want an example?? How about your repeated denial of ice loss in Greenland. You see videos of glaciers where there is little or no apparent movement of the ice and imagine that the movement must be very slow. Never mind that some measurements of this movement are actually relatively fast. Yet you insist that there is no significant loss of ice due to ice calving of glaciers. Or your imagination that all ice melt can only happen for 1 month out of the year. But there is lots of data(numbers) that show ice loss happens over more than 1 month. Or your imagination that all the ice melt must flow out of Greenland in massive rivers that would have to be miles wide. You don't even realize that Greenland has hundreds, if not thousands, of rivers draining ice melt and with that many rivers, they would not need to be miles wide.

This is actually a very big problem with denialists like yourself, all the way from Anthony Watts to Lord of Planar to you.



Really? How about some examples of us believers in AGW using just the most pompous to back up our beliefs. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Let's stick to the easy example of Greenland.

You choose to say that the NASA/GRACE data is better than you having a look at the map of Greenland and looking to see if there could possibly be more water and ice coming out of it in high summer than the flow rate of the Mississippi. If so is there more than twice that amount?

You will need to account for a total of 18 Mississippi months worth of flow out of Greenland to break even on ice mass.

I fully agree that there are thousands of streams flowing out of Greenland. Some are as big as 0.1% of the Mississippi.

That you will deny your own observations in preferance to your chosen high priests is a very sad situation.
 
Jack Hays said:
No data at all in the first link, and model projections and suppositions in the second. The usual nothing.
Click to expand...

You asked for an authoritative statement from NOAA, NASA, or CERN. That's one. Do you now want to go back to the raw data and research the issue from scratch? I really don't think either of us has the time nor the skills to do that.
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Is climate change REALLY the culprit causing California’s wildfires?[/h]We’re told that climate change caused or intensified California’s wildfires — and that such fires are getting worse. As usual for such scary stories, these claims are only weakly supported by science — except for the ones that are outright fabrications. See what scientists say and decide for yourself. By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius…

December 14, 2017 in Wildfires.
Click to expand...

What's up with that? Really, what is up with that?
 
Tim the plumber said:
For you that is a highly sensable thinking style.

I think about stuff myself. That is a different thinking style.

The philosophy of science is on my side. The philosophy of religion is on yours.
Click to expand...

because NASA, CERN, and NOAA are really churches, and WUWT is a scientific organization. Hey, that sounds like a violation of the First Amendment to me. Hasn't anyone tried to get those state sponsored churches shut down?
 
Dittohead not! said:
You asked for an authoritative statement from NOAA, NASA, or CERN. That's one. Do you now want to go back to the raw data and research the issue from scratch? I really don't think either of us has the time nor the skills to do that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I found no such authoritative statement in your links.
 
Dittohead not! said:
because NASA, CERN, and NOAA are really churches, and WUWT is a scientific organization. Hey, that sounds like a violation of the First Amendment to me. Hasn't anyone tried to get those state sponsored churches shut down?
Click to expand...

My link included data. Yours did not.
 
Jack Hays said:
My link included data. Yours did not.
Click to expand...

insufficient-data-19722102.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom