Deaths, Damages Continue to Rise in California’s Most Destructive Wildfires

By and | November 12, 2018

  • November 12, 2018 at 1:53 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 9

    Typical. Cite Trump’s tweet as evidence of a heartless President. Refuse to do the job of a journalist and actually report on what Trump was referring to.

    Multiple reports over the years determined that small, controlled burns would dramatically reduce the likelihood and severity of these massive fires in California.

    And who has said that? Many respected organizations, including the head of Cal Fire in the last 12 months (the person in charge of all fire fighting on California public lands). He wasn’t the only one. Many other organizations have said the same thing.

    Now re-read the article and see how the Trump-hate is making journalists worthless at helping to solve problems; in fact, they are contributing to the problem by refusing to discuss the truth. (And then ask yourself, because “journalism” won’t tell you: who is stopping the controlled burns from happening?)

    • November 12, 2018 at 3:36 pm
      Boonedoggle says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 4

      “Northeast winds 25 to 35 mph with gusts to 60 mph will persist much of the time through Tuesday afternoon. Isolated gusts to 70 mph are possible, especially Tuesday morning ” 17% RELATIVE HUMIDITY

      Craig, stop the politics and please look at the facts, even if that guy livinbg in our White House refuses to do so. The above weather conditions and forecast were for the Malibu area at noon Monday. Please tell me how “small controlled burns” would mitigate these fire conditions? Please take your MAGA hat off long enough to look at the drought history in California for the past 60, months then report back!

      • November 12, 2018 at 4:34 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 6

        So you think the head of Cal Fire is just another Trump supporter now, do you?
        THAT’s some crazy bias you got going.
        P.S. 31 dead in No. Cal. What’s YOUR solution?

        • November 13, 2018 at 8:11 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 2

          (SMH) He said nothing about Cal Fire, let alone who runs it!

    • November 12, 2018 at 3:42 pm
      Justin says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      The Camp Fire was started on Federal land. Typical Trump not taking care of the forests.

      • November 12, 2018 at 8:45 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 5

        Trump was talking about giving California Federal money to take care of Calfornia’s problems. Try to pay attention.

    • November 13, 2018 at 8:48 am
      ??? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      Typical that the use Trumps exact words to depict how he feels on the subject.. crazy libs again taking comments word for word in reference to the related topic! Damn media and their fake news not saying what I want them to!

  • November 12, 2018 at 3:21 pm
    Rosenblatt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 2

    There is no way Trump was referring to “small controlled burns” being able to mitigate the current Camp or Hill fires because they aren’t in forested areas where there is anything to cut down or do a controlled burn on! Maaaaybe that could’ve helped the Woolsey fire, but even then, he only got 1 out of 3 right … MAX.

    • November 12, 2018 at 4:34 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 6

      What was he referring to, then Rosenblatt? And since the media won’t tell us, how do you know?

      You are such a boring partisan.

      • November 13, 2018 at 8:09 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 2

        I’m not sure because he’s all over the place when he talks, but I can tell you I’m 100% sure he wasn’t referring to what you claimed since it’s literally impossible for his words on that topic to be relevant to the Hill or Camp fires.

        • November 13, 2018 at 1:22 pm
          craig cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 5

          Well, today’s San Diego Union Tribune had a long front-page article on Trump’s claims, and of course, they spent 800 words quoting people saying he was wrong about forest management and controlled burns. (Climate Change!)

          And then, to cover their butts as journalists, they ended the article with 2 short paragraphs. The first said that famous Global Warming Denier, former Governor Jerry Brown, AGREED WITH TRUMP! OMG!

          And then the kicker in the last paragraph. You know who else agrees with Trump? Several scientists!!!!!!!!

          Completely wiping out the first 90% of the stupid article altogether. But by then, most Trump Haters had stopped reading.

          • November 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            Suuuuuure buddy. Whatever you say.

            https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-wildfire-logging-trump-20181112-story.html

            However, largely missing from the debate was the fact that the most destructive fires in the state did not start in densely wooded areas. (This is what I was originally talking about before you cited this article)

            “Similarly the Camp Fire … did start in the foothills of Sierra Nevada mountains, but not in an overly dense patch of woods. On the contrary, the fire spread through an area that had been recently logged. It then burned through grassland and sparse woodland oak habitat.

            “Contrary to Trump’s claims that increased logging would somehow stop the fires, the Camp Fire rapidly spread through the 2008 Butte fire area before it burned down most of the town of Paradise, and the Butte fire area was heavily post-fire logged nearly a decade ago,” said Chad Hanson, a research ecologist with the Earth Island Institute’s John Muir Project.”

            ….wait, there’s more!

          • November 13, 2018 at 1:54 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 2

            You said: “You know who else agrees with Trump? Several scientists!!!!!!!!”

            I say: PLEASE STOP LYING

            The article said: Gov. Jerry Brown has called for increased logging and prescribed burns …. (but) Scientists have disagreed on whether and to what degree such efforts can limit fire , especially during long periods of drought

            You SHOULD have written: “You know who else ***DIS**agrees with Trump? Several scientists!!!!!!!!”

  • November 12, 2018 at 4:58 pm
    Captain says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1


    AUGUST 8, 2018 AT 2:17 PM
    Craig Cornell says:
    LIKE OR DISLIKE:
    10
    5

    Very persuasive. The approach a third grader might employ.
    Reply

  • November 12, 2018 at 6:43 pm
    George says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 2

    I am much more concerned about the total lack of the responsibility of the president than about the alleged lack of one journalist in one article. The issue at the heart of the increasing frequency and ferocity of wildfires in California is climate change. Trump’s denial of climate change and opposition to steps to curb it render him unqualified to speak on the topic. Forest management may have a role to play but it will not stop wildfires and especially not ones in urban areas. Trump’s tweet is worth mentioning as another sign he doesn’t understand his role in a tragedy; beyond that it adds nothing. There has been and is plenty of continuing media coverage on forest management in these and similar situations. Evidently not on Planet Craig though. By the way, some of the forests are under federal control. But forest management is not the real problem or cause here. Craig loves to accuse liberals of not facing the real issue and not wanting to come up with real solutions. The real issue is climate change. Here once again Trump wants to politicize a tragedy to score political points against a blue state and on Planet Craig the goal, as always, is to simply to blame liberals and the media for everything.

    • November 12, 2018 at 7:13 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 9

      “I don’t care if the media lie. I know everything anyway.”

      No climate scientist would tie any one weather event to climate change. I haved lived in California for decades. You know what happens every fall? Fires. Dry wind. Santa Ana winds in So. Cal.

      And then fires. But since you brought up the Boogey Man, what should we do about it? Germany is famous for EnergieWende, which drove up energy costs dramatically and then Germans watched as CO2 production went UP!

      So, what do we do? Please be specific. Wind and solar are a joke, a small percentage of energy production and will always be, according to honest climate scientists. So, save us! Tell us how! Give money to rich people to buy Teslas?

    • November 13, 2018 at 8:00 am
      CL PM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      George – I believe climate change is one part of the issue, but don’t agree it is the “heart of the issue.” Pull up a Google Earth image of Paradise, CA. Look at the homes in the middle of thick trees and brush. The entire community was a load of wildfire fuel waiting to go up. If people choose to live in an area like that, it is not “if” it is “when.” I don’t understand why people are willing to put their lives and property in such danger. There are many other wonderful places to live in CA and the rest of the country that are not so dangerous.

  • November 12, 2018 at 7:20 pm
    geo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 4

    You make up quotes and misrepresent what others comment.
    You really ought to learn about climate changes and wildfires. Talk to an insurance company.
    The first thing we do is stop electing climate change deniers.

    • November 12, 2018 at 8:44 pm
      craig cornell says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 10

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • November 13, 2018 at 11:37 am
        Connotations? says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 1

        The connotation behind denier is not nearly as bad as any of the words you mentioned. They are all bad and it is happening in our country. Saying someone is denying facts is not bad, it is the truth. When you mislabel someone anything you posted above there are negative connotations, but if you are saying someone is denying that is a real scientific issue is happening they can change it by saying they believe it.

        • November 13, 2018 at 12:10 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 2

          I hope your post (Connotations?) stays up — I basically said the same thing and apparently offended someone because it got removed.

        • November 13, 2018 at 1:26 pm
          craig cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 8

          “Denier” is lazy man’s thinking, or actually non-thinking. Climate Change is wildly complicated, as any honest scientist would tell you.

          Are YOU denying that we are all going to die from Climate Change? Or are you denying that we can address the problem adequately with solar and wind, as many climate change believers say? Then YOU are a bad person, a DENIER!

          You see. Denier is like Racist is like Islamaphobe is like the other names liberals routinely call conservatives. It discredits the person making the accusation and stops all intelligent conversation, the goal of the name calling in the first place.

          • November 13, 2018 at 1:33 pm
            rob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            but what about the person who calls anyone who doesn’t blindly follow Trump or the Conservative agenda 100% a “lefty”?

          • November 13, 2018 at 1:39 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            I see, so that explains the President and why he resorts to name calling on a daily basis. Because he can’t have an intelligent conversation, he just stops them all together. Thanks for your insight, Craig.

  • November 13, 2018 at 2:36 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 8

    Captain Air Head: Didn’t your Mommy teach you that 2 wrongs don’t make a right?
    Calling people names because Trump calls people names is like lying about health care because Obama lied about health care . . .

    • November 13, 2018 at 5:23 pm
      Connotations? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Do you not resort to name calling on this site frequently when one does not agree with you? Why do you continuously get so hypocritical whenever I see you post on this site?

      Trump has also lied about many things: knowing about the payment to porn stars, knowing about the trump towers meetings (it is not a witch hunt which should be proven by the simple fact charges have gone out to both domestic and intentional affiliates and not only that if he had nothing to hide, why not let the investigation go unhindered most other special counsel probes have gone on much longer then this on average), and my favorite how he actually got all of his money (I don’t know many 3 year olds getting $200K a year for just being around rather then trump claiming he only was given a “small loan of $1MM the actual figure was closer to $500M).

      Like you said two wrongs do not make a right, but you call anyone you disagree with a lefty when many just do not agree with you on the subject and they could be independents and also some republicans.

      • November 13, 2018 at 8:51 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        If you pay attention, I call others a name only when they either call me a name first, or they use an ad hominem attack instead of discussing the issue, or they lie.

        But I never blame Trump or anyone else. It’s all me. (Personal responsibility, you know.)

        • November 14, 2018 at 9:52 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          “I call others a name only when they either call me a name first, or they use an ad hominem attack…” Just another lie posted by Craig. Captain did not call you a name anywhere on this thread, nor did he make an ad hominem attack, yet you still called him Captain AirHead. Please note: he did insult the President, but an ad hominem attack attacks the person making the argument, not a third party. I look forward to your mental gymnastics routine should you attempt a reply.

          • November 16, 2018 at 1:34 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            He mentioned Trump in a way that had nothing to do with anything I said. Then he ended by saying “thanks for your insight, Craig.”

            Get it? He clearly implied I was a hypocrite or stupid or both.

            Maybe that’s not an insult for you. . .

    • November 14, 2018 at 11:48 am
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Let’s fact check Craig’s name-calling claims:

      MAY 1, 2018 AT 3:55 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      1
      Check out Planet’s diversion into Bush/Republican obstruction. From there, I responded to Planet’s gibberish.
      Where is your sarcasm for “staying on topic” regarding Planet?
      Clowns. Partisan clowns.

      MARCH 21, 2018 AT 4:20 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      1
      And there you have the perfect explanation of Climate Change.
      Because you “believe in science”.
      Keep on making us laugh . . . or look in the mirror and do it for yourself.
      Clown.

      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      5
      3
      Don’t hold your breath waiting for young people to get involved in a large way.
      A few ego-driven kids telling themselves to feel good about slogans isn’t a movement. It’s an embarrassment. 90% of these kids have no idea how to stop any shootings, haven’t given it 30 seconds of serious thought.
      It is all “going with the flow”. This isn’t rebellion, it’s conformity on a mass scale, doing what your teachers and the media cheerleaders tell you to do.
      Sheep don’t have large brains.

      APRIL 4, 2018 AT 2:04 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      3
      7
      Did you even read the article? It is preliminary research based on, wait for it, statistics.
      Meaning NOT scientific research. Nobody has any idea yet if marijuana can replace opioids, a laughable proposition for many doctors who know that opioids are properly used for severe pain where CBDs would be an aspirin by comparison.
      Geez, maybe you bong suckers can’t even read anymore.

      APRIL 19, 2018 AT 2:53 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      1
      And my point is confirmed by confused! Thanks, third grader!

      MAY 18, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      1
      Cut the Bias: man, you are one blabby dude.

      JUNE 21, 2018 AT 3:13 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      1
      1
      “Total recordable WC cases have been declining since 2003, so legalization of marijuana doesn’t seem to have impacted the number of cases.”
      Right. Now that’s a leap of logic only a pothead could make . . .

      AUGUST 8, 2018 AT 4:12 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      0
      Last time Rosenblatt: I have linked to multiple, respected scientific studies on THC multiple times.
      You doubt the expertise of all these people? You doubt the science in the links I send?
      If so, you are a Partisan. A small person who never learns anything new.

      AUGUST 29, 2018 AT 4:48 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      2
      Captain Dead Planet: Rosenblatt tried to represent I was wrong. C’mon, man, even you have to laugh at that idea.
      Maybe THC got to your brain . . .

      So, there you have it. And, now, I’ll use another Craigism in light of Craig’s most current lie:
      MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      0
      0
      Boring. Nothing but Insults. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
      You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)

  • November 13, 2018 at 2:41 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 7

    Rosenblatt: apparently, you skipped school when they discussed analytical reading.

    You see, when an article says scientists disagree, that means some think one way and other think the other way.

    When scientists are in unison, the words go like this: “scientists AGREE that fires would not be impacted by controlled burns. . .”. This would actually be easier to write, and more clear. But it wouldn’t be true, so the liberal writers at the SDUT made it confusing for people like you. And it WORKED!

    LIberals: NOT honest. Routinely so.

    • November 13, 2018 at 3:09 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      I wrote what you should’ve said as “You know who else ***DIS**agrees with Trump? Several scientists!!!!!!!!” instead of saying you should’ve written “All scientists disagree with Trump” because I parsed that article properly.

      But hey – deflection and trolling is part and parcel of your game here, as is your incessant Straw Man Arguments and constant claims that people have said things they have never said.

      Pretty sure the folks here with a brain know which one of us needs help with our reading comprehension.

      • November 13, 2018 at 4:02 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 5

        Keep on digging that hole, Rosenblatt. Yesterday, you said you had no idea what Trump was referring to when he said California mis-managed brush area. Today, you are clinging to the fact that many scientists agree with Trump, BUT NOT ALL! (Never mind Gov. Brown.)

        Never give up, Rosenblatt. Truth be damned! Youre a lefty and that is what lefties do best!

        • November 13, 2018 at 5:03 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          I don’t even know why I bother posting intelligent and well thought-out replies to you in the faint hope that you’ll stop trolling, be honest for a moment, and debate rationally.

          • November 13, 2018 at 6:55 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            The article stated that Gov. Brown and some scientists agree with Trump. No getting around that fact. The headline of the articlestated the exact opposite, that Trump was wrong. Truth: Not a Liberal Value.

          • November 14, 2018 at 10:04 am
            helpingout says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Reposting Connotations? above reply about truth.

            Trump has also lied about many things: knowing about the payment to porn stars, knowing about the trump towers meetings (it is not a witch hunt which should be proven by the simple fact charges have gone out to both domestic and intentional affiliates and not only that if he had nothing to hide, why not let the investigation go unhindered most other special counsel probes have gone on much longer then this on average), and my favorite how he actually got all of his money (I don’t know many 3 year olds getting $200K a year for just being around rather then trump claiming he only was given a “small loan of $1MM the actual figure was closer to $500M).

            Do not make your broad stokes of “truth” when you support someone who constantly lies more then the president you seem to despise (Obama). A simple search shows he lies way more frequently. Not only that, did you read the Washington posts report on fake news (or even read the original research done by Harvard scholars)? If not I wouldn’t talk about truth. It does not to be something you use frequently. Your uninformed opinion, yes you use that every day on here.

  • November 13, 2018 at 2:52 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 5

    The latest Climate Deniers: Canadian Eskimos! (from Canadian press):

    There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn’t yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking.

    The proposed plan — which is to go to public hearings in Iqaluit on Tuesday — says that growing bear numbers are increasingly jeopardizing public safety and it’s time Inuit knowledge drove management policy.

    “Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,” says the document, the result of four years of study and public consultation. . . Polar bears killed two Inuit last summer. . .

    In its submission, the Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board expresses frustration with how polar bears are used as an icon in the fight against climate change. “This is very frustrating for Inuit to watch … We do not have resources to touch bases with movie actors, singers and songwriters who often narrate and provide these messages,” it says.

    “We know what we are doing and western science and modelling has become too dominant.”

    • November 13, 2018 at 3:13 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      You know polar bears live where it’s cold, right? You know Nunavut spans the same latitude as Greenland, right? We would expect to see an INCREASE in polar bears in Nunavut as temperatures rise, not a DECREASE, because it’s way up north where it will stay colder than the rest of the planet.

      • November 13, 2018 at 3:59 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 5

        God love you, Rosenblatt. You make me laugh on a regular basis.
        The bears aren’t expanding in number. Oh no! The eskimos have it all wrong. The Polar Bears are migrating to a better place to live! (The very few who are left alive I mean.)

        Too Funny! (Hey. Nanavut needs Trump to build a wall! To keep out the illegal, oops, I mean undocumented bears.)

        • November 13, 2018 at 5:08 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 1

          You’re right. I’m wrong. You’re smart. I’m stupid. You’re attractive. I’m ugly. You know how to read an article and summarize it honestly. I’m still in 1st grade.

          If anyone is REALLY wondering what that article said, feel free to one of these articles yourself
          http s://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+press+eskimo+polar+bear&oq=cana&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i61j69i60j69i61j0.3255j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

          • November 13, 2018 at 9:00 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            From the article you linked:

            “Aerial surveys are often used by scientists to determine the population health of bears. But Nirlungayuk said that some of the best hunting conditions for polar bears are during stormy, foggy weather that grounds aircraft – when bears can sneak up closer to their prey.”

            Did you notice the Climate Zealots failed to mention any specific bear numbers? Well, if the population has gone down, by how much? Hello? You SURE you counted ’em all?

          • November 14, 2018 at 8:09 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            LOL at “the articled you linked.” I gave a link to a google search, not an article! But okay, let’s keep playing the “quote the article” game.

            http s://www.abbynews.com/news/nunavut-urges-new-plan-to-deal-with-too-many-polar-bears/
            “there is growing scientific evidence linking the impacts of climate change to reduced body condition of bears and projections of population declines”

            http s://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/13/polar-bear-numbers-canadian-arctic-inuit-controversial-report
            “Derocher doesn’t dispute potentially dangerous bear-human encounters are becoming more frequent. But he, and other southern scientists, insist that’s happening as climate change reduces sea ice and drives bears inland. “They will move into communities seeking food. There’s lots of attractants around Northern communities.””

  • November 13, 2018 at 9:04 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 2

    Speaking of polar bear numbers . . . you are not going to want to read this, Rosenblatt. It might make you an eskimo:

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/

    • November 14, 2018 at 8:05 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Why wouldn’t I want to read it? “Mr. Gissing added that the government isn’t dismissing concerns about climate change.”

      • November 14, 2018 at 1:37 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 2

        Of course not. He knows the PC rules. Must never sound like a “denier”. Even when reporting there are far more polar bears now than before . . . Check out the front page of today’s San Diego Union Tribune. One single “denier” blew up the most important finding by Climate Scientists in the past several years. One guy. A math error. On page one of the report. Now tell me how honest and forthright are those Climate Scientist/believing “peers” who reviewed and approved the original study. . . Settled Science Baby!

        • November 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Please start reading the full article before you post about it, okay?

          Yes – there was a math error. It was not caught. That is bad. However, it doesn’t “blow up the most important finding.” It is really not as insidious as you make it out to be. Ready for the highlights?

          Before the error: study showed water temps increased by as much as 60% over the IPCC estimate.

          After the fix: study showed water temps increased by 10% to 70% over the IPCC estimate.

          So you see – water temp’s are still higher than the IPCC estimate. Instead of “as much as a 60% increase”, the data now says it’s anywhere between a 10% and 70% increase.

          You do know 60% is still between 10% and 70%, right? And even if it’s only 10% … water temp’s are STILL higher than the IPCC estimates. Had the math error fix made the waters COLDER than the IPCC estimates … THAT would “blow up” the most important finding.

          #pleasestartdebatinghonestly (yes, I know that’s not how hashtags work)

          • November 14, 2018 at 2:25 pm
            craig cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I am losing interest in you Rosenblatt. I used to think you were honest. I am starting to believe you are just another partisan hack like Captain Helmet.

            10% to 70%????? Are you even kidding me? This isn’t science. It’s make believe.

            The report is BS. Total unimitgated drivel passed along as peer reviewed settled science by all of the corrupt media sales dogs for the left.

            Settled Science. “Deniers”.

            P.S. Do you even know why the Climate Nazis are so desperate to prove warming oceans? Because the 18 year hiatus in warming is supposed to be “explained away” by warming oceans that are sucking up the warming that we don’t see in the atmosphere. So THAT is why nobody checks the math on religious tracts that predict warming oceans; the Zealots need the oceans to be hot, hot, hot.

          • November 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Okay Craig, let’s back up. I will ask you two questions and we can take it from there.

            1) What is “the most important finding by Climate Scientists in the past several years” that you referenced without explaining? I thought you were saying the finding is that water temp’s were going up at all. Am I right? No? Okay. Then please tell me EXACTLY what is the “most important finding by Climate Scientists” you were talking about.

            2) What does the adjusted math computation mean to you?

            A: ocean temperatures have not changed
            B: the oceans have warmed, but only at the IPCC’s original estimate
            C: the oceans have warmed faster than the IPCC’s estimate by at least 10%
            D: the oceans have warmed faster than the IPCC’s estimate by at most 70%
            E: the oceans have actually decreased in temperature
            F: C & D

          • November 16, 2018 at 1:22 pm
            Jack says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Craig- Rosen wont debate after you hit him/her/it with facts. Just bugs out of the conversation. Don’t wast your time.

          • November 16, 2018 at 1:24 pm
            Imrosensdaddy says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Jack- you are correct.

          • November 16, 2018 at 2:16 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Look at how many times I’ve posted a reply to Craig. You’re seriously trying to say i won’t debate any further? Highly dubious and unfounded claim.

  • November 14, 2018 at 4:10 pm
    craig cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Answers:

    1. the most important finding is that the oceans were warming dramatically, proving that the warming NOT seen on land was being absorbed by the oceans. (Turns out, not true.)
    2. Nobody knows. It is all a guess. Which is why any one of the answers might be true.

    Now your turn:

    Why did Germany’s famous EnergieWende – the effort to stop global warming by shifting German energy use from fossil fuels to renewables – raise energy prices dramatically for German people but fail to stop rising CO2 production?

    What does this tell us about what we actually should do to stop global warming, considering that most of the future warming will come from developing countries that want billions of poor people to live western lifestyles? Can we raise energy prices dramatically on the world’s poor? Is this ethical at all? And if not, what should we do?

    I won’t wait up.

    • November 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Did you REALLY just ask me to research a Germany company, figure out what they’re doing, how it impacts their citizens, and what it means to the rest of the world both financially and ethically?

      Come on man, that’s not even close to a reasonable request, and you know it. How about you ask me anything about the articles you cited that I’ve actually read and researched?

      • November 14, 2018 at 5:07 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        I give up with you. EnergieWende is not a company. It was the famous policy in the country of Germany to try to stop carbon emissions.

        Just admit you don’t know anything about Climate Change, Rosenblatt. You simply embrace the liberal mantra without thinking, and move on.

        • November 15, 2018 at 8:00 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          I admit I don’t know anything about Germany’s Climate Change policies.



Add a Comment

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

*