Foresst Fires

[Neil]

Senator Reid and the Forrest Service claim that the devastating forrest fires are a result of global warming and the pine bettle, not their misshandling of the forrest.

Now the pine bettleg is a serrious problem, but to blame their effects on man made polution defies logic.

With populations moving in to more and more wilderness areas, the Forrest Service had to curtail fires, but the built up fuel load is the result in out of control fires.

Many of the fires have been in areas that have never seen frezzing tempertures.

A crock!

Do they really believes this or is it more politics?

[Mountaineer]

That would be Politics, either Democrat or Republican, makes no difference.
The response is a fine example of avoiding responsibility by the addition of spin and diversion.
Additionally, all national forests are not the same, by many measures....and all national forests are mismanaged.

Fires are only one example of possible forest mismanagement...and fires often carry a positive outcome.
Just depends upon the particulars.

[muleskinner]

We had a major fire 2 years ago in my area. I was evacuated for 3 days. 300 + structures burned...many of them were homes. Millions of dollars worth of timber lost. It was started by a dry lightening strike, and there was a crew in place when it was about 5 acres in size. Forest service said, "let it burn and we will control it." Millions of dollars later they finally got it under control. No one loses their job or even gets reprimanded. You can't find out who the responsible party was. If they do identify a scape goat...they simply transfer him and lose him somewhere. Every county should take over the management decisions of the forest within that county. Then you have accountability!

[Gertie]

Large fires are carried by overstocked forests that are the result of over 100 years of fire suppression. The bark beetle outbreaks are also caused by overstocked forests (too many trees stresses all of the trees and makes them more susceptible to bark beetle infestations). The American people wanted and still want the majority of fires suppressed in order to protect natural resources (timber, grazing land, recreational opportunities, etc.). Unfortunately, the side effect is forests that have large swaths of contiguous unhealthy trees. Once fire is established in these conditions and a good wind gets on it there's not much that can be done as far as far growth is concerned. Some of the overstocking can be mitigated by thinning and select timber sales to reduce stocking levels but, by and large, fire, particularly in ecosystems that are historically maintained by fires such as here in Central Oregon, are the only way to restore forest health. The global climate change thing is still pretty hotly debated but the fire suppression factor is for real. I'm not saying the FS has done the best job historically at managing the forest in a sustainable manner but I will say that between the lawsuits that come from every angle and the pressure to put out all wildfires (not to mention the ramifications that come if a wildfire is allowed to burn for ecological purposes and then gets out onto private land), the agency has it's hands full as far as doing what's right for the land and making the American people happy. Often the two ideologies are at odds. So ya, it's political. If it was purely based on known science and the people who understand forest ecology were allowed to manage purely for forest health, the woods wouldn't be in the condition that they're in and 20,000 acre fires wouldn't be considered commonplace.

[hyperb]

I work in forestry and the answer above is spot on, although there is pretty good evidence climate is playing a role in the size of fires. Since the 1970s the size of individual fires has grown by a factor of five. Last year my deer tag was in an area that got burned over pretty bad too close to hunting season, so I don't appreciate them myself.

The answer for us to do selective thinning and ramp up controlled burning (which helps turkey and quail forage if they're not too intense). The Feds spend 5 times as much fighting fires as they do working on restoring our fires so they're more fireproof to begin with. Would help if the states and the landowners who insist their second home be tucked into the woods where only a $5k air tanker drop could save them would carry some of those costs, too.

[fishvik]

Having spent a large part of my federal career involved in fire management, I have to agree with what has been said by hyperb and gertie. However we have also lost an effective tool in the use of selective logging. Most any resource treatment has be subjected to intensive litigation by environmental groups, whether it be logging, grazing, fuels treatment or invasive species control. The idea that natural process alone will bring us back is bunk. We've gone too far. Fires are bigger now than they were 20 years ago, but recent history hasn't seen anything that compares to the 1910 fire in northern Idaho and western Montana or the Lochsa Fires in the 1910s, 20s,& 30s. The big difference is far more people are living in the areas that burn and there are far more news people covering it and looking for the good story.

[kninebirddog]

To me I find it curious that the trees that get hit the hardest by the bark beetles are the ones where a bunch of houses come in and have wells dug. I know for fact that is someone comes in near you and sinks a well it can cause your spot to go dry Lived in Coarsegold CA where that is the only water source is drilling your own or some people started to share wells. So with that said in areas where there is the slightest drought and a bunch of people or worse a water company moves in and sinks a huge well it doesn't surprise me when you see trees dying left and right because they do not have the needed moisture to help plug the holes with sap where the bark beetle begins.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/forest ... RDB5228457

[Neil]

I have seen nothing creditable that links forrest fires with current climate change, and certainly no educated biologist would take the position that the pine bettle is proliferating because of it.

We can debate the man made causes of future climate change, but so far Al Gore's hockey stick is a crock. In fact, the earth has cooled some over the last few years.

I am not saying that there will not be serious future consequences of man made pollution, just that it has had no meaningful impact yet. It has not effected weather and for sure not forrest fires or insect populations.

[kninebirddog]

?
Only thing I was pointing out is when the pine trees do not have enough moisture in them they do not have the ability to stop the beetles with the sap. Has nothing to do with global warmimg But I have seen it happen in cal and places where people have to drill their own well in the foothills where they crack a fissure causing the water to flow a different way and causing someone elses well to go dry because of it.

it is cause and effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer this link explains an artesian well imagine trees above and a mass well sucking water out of the bottom area or drilling a well that opens up a lower fissure

around Strawberry Arizona less the a year after they went to a main well source in the town trees started to change color and then they started to fie from a bark beetle infestation. there would literally be little sections of the trees then trees next to them still were green

No magic No sky is falling

[RoostersMom]

When you have a chance, I'd recommend reading the booklet "Season's End."

Here's the website. http://www.seasonsend.org/

Interesting information.

[hyperb]

Climate is getting warmer and dryer, and it is having an affect on fires. The fire season starts earlier and ends later today than historically recorded. The 8 biggest fire years we've had since 1960 have all come since 2000. It's almost incidental to me whether it's caused by people or not, because most of the forest treatments listed above would be the same in either case.

The Forest Service thinks climate warming will contribute to more than a doubling of acres burned by 2050 (20 million acres a year). If you're interested in seeing their peer-reviewed research, this website seems like a good summation: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildfire/

[Neil]

Climate is getting warmer and dryer, and it is having an affect on fires. The fire season starts earlier and ends later today than historically recorded. The 8 biggest fire years we've had since 1960 have all come since 2000. It's almost incidental to me whether it's caused by people or not, because most of the forest treatments listed above would be the same in either case.

The Forest Service thinks climate warming will contribute to more than a doubling of acres burned by 2050 (20 million acres a year). If you're interested in seeing their peer-reviewed research, this website seems like a good summation: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildfire/

2050!

All the respected papers deal with predictions, what may be in the far future. It fact the earth is cooler and wetter than it was 10 years ago. Specific areas have had extreme heat and drought, some in North America, but it is not clear if it is man made or even abnormal climate change.

I remember a text book in the 50's predicting a new ice age, recent weather gives that more credence than global warming.

[hyperb]

What is your source for that 10 years? I found this from NASA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmoYStB-Rzw

I've read that something like 97% of climate scientists think that climate change, caused by people, is happening. I dunno about you but if 19 out of 20 mechanics told me to fix my brakes, I'd do it.

Not looking for a debate but just want to inform myself.

[RoostersMom]

What is your source for that 10 years? I found this from NASA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmoYStB-Rzw

I've read that something like 97% of climate scientists think that climate change, caused by people, is happening. I dunno about you but if 19 out of 20 mechanics told me to fix my brakes, I'd do it.

Not looking for a debate but just want to inform myself.

Yep, as a biologist, it is commonly believed. The general public, not so much, since it's been turned into a liberal vs. conservative thing.

[Neil]

I am not debating this.

But will say that I think 97% of your fellow employees will agree with your bosses, at least publically. Or they get fired.

Can we get back on topic? Forrest fires.

[RoostersMom]

Senator Reid and the Forrest Service claim that the devastating forrest fires are a result of global warming and the pine bettle, not their misshandling of the forrest.

Now the pine bettleg is a serrious problem, but to blame their effects on man made polution defies logic.


Do they really believes this or is it more politics?

Back on topic - to answer your original question.

97% of the people in the "know" (scientists, biologists, climatologists) really believe this. So, I'm guessing they really believe it and it's not politics. That would be my opinion (I'm a biologist - I personally believe that climate change is real).

[cjhills]

There has been global warming for many centuries. Minnesota would still be covered with ice if that wasn't the case. the Polar ice caps are shrinking and the average temp is rising. To think that is not, to some extent caused, or at least increased by civilization is not very logical.
In my lifetime spring is coming earlier and winter later, warm weather animals are moving farther north and it is dryer,
this may be weather rather than climate but it seems like a trend to me and I don't see why it wouldn't be a factor in the fires. Along with mishandleing by the forest service. The devastating fires of the teens and early twenties in Minnesota were caused by drought and poor logging practices..............Cj

[Neil]

Some have mentioned the politics of the matter. I really want my MD's and scientists to be without political bias, but in truth all the scientists that are endorcing current weather patterns as being man made global warming, are decidedly liberals. ALL.

And those that disagree are almost all conservatives.

I don't trust either group.

I do believe there may well be some long term ramifications of man's use of the world as a toilet, but it is a fact there have been no proven effects, yet!

So we have not caused the out of control forrest fires, decades of fire suppression and the built up fuel supply has.

[hyperb]

ALL the scientists at NASA are liberals? How did you get their voting records?

[AZ Brittany Guy]

We had a major fire 2 years ago in my area. I was evacuated for 3 days. 300 + structures burned...many of them were homes. Millions of dollars worth of timber lost. It was started by a dry lightening strike, and there was a crew in place when it was about 5 acres in size. Forest service said, "let it burn and we will control it." Millions of dollars later they finally got it under control. No one loses their job or even gets reprimanded. You can't find out who the responsible party was. If they do identify a scape goat...they simply transfer him and lose him somewhere. Every county should take over the management decisions of the forest within that county. Then you have accountability!

The National Forest Service is subordinate to the County Sherriff that resides over that county in which the National Forest is located. Here in the White Mountains of Arizona, the NFS has to get permission to close roads and access to the public. The same applies to making the call on Forest Fires. NFS security is not allowed to ask you for your drivers license or pull you over with out being certified by the county sheriff. Many citizens don't know that the county board of supervisors and the county sheriff control the NFS. Most counties abdicate and defer forest decisions to the NFS but when citizens remind the elected officials that they are responsible to the citizens and are elected officials then they take responsibility and work for you, not the NFS.

[Gertie]

The National Forest Service is subordinate to the County Sherriff that resides over that county in which the National Forest is located. Here in the White Mountains of Arizona, the NFS has to get permission to close roads and access to the public. The same applies to making the call on Forest Fires. NFS security is not allowed to ask you for your drivers license or pull you over with out being certified by the county sheriff. Many citizens don't know that the county board of supervisors and the county sheriff control the NFS. Most counties abdicate and defer forest decisions to the NFS but when citizens remind the elected officials that they are responsible to the citizens and are elected officials then they take responsibility and work for you, not the NFS.

It is correct that FS "security" (Forest Protection Officers - FPOs) cannot pull you over. These are the guys who check wood permits and have the authority to write tickets for violation of FS infractions if a violator is caught "in the act" (illegal wood cutting, removal of resources without proper permit, illegal residence, etc.) . That being said, Forest Service LEOs are federal officers with the same authority as US Marshalls and the FBI and they can absolutely pull you over, ask for your driver's license, etc. and on federal land have jurisdiction over state and county law enforcement. FPOs will be in regular FS uniforms and driving regular FS vehicles while LEOs will generally be driving FS trucks with light bars and clearly marked "Law Enforcement". Also,the Feds have absolute authority over Forest Service land. While the county might be consulted as a courtesy if a fire is burning near the boundary of state and federal land, they in no way have jurisdiction over the decision as to whether the fire will be supressed or not or a road be closed or access restricted. The feds cannot close county roads but can close roads and close public access on federal land without permission from county. The only requirement, and it's a big one, is that permanent closures go through the NEPA process and all proposed actions and decisions be posted in the federal registry. Temporary closures can be done at the disgression of the in charge agency official and do not need to go through the NEPA process. If you have any doubts about what I'm saying please call your county Sherriff's office and double check but I thought this warrented some clearing up.[quote][/quote]

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Gertie, I am by far NOT and expert on this topic so I will not debate the issue. My information comes from a special interest group down here called "Citizens for Multiple Land Use and Access". http://www.cmlua.com/Current_Issues.php http://www.cmlua.com/Home_Page.html

This group is comprised of Ranchers, Land owners, attorneys, sportsmen and people that believe USDA, EPA & NFS are abusing power and government overreach. I have attended meetings and very well have misunderstood some of the information that was conveyed. Never the less this group has our county's leadership along the NFS's undivided attention. They are currently focused on the "Mexican Grey Wolf" debacle.

[Neil]

ALL the scientists at NASA are liberals? How did you get their voting records?

1 How did rocket nerds get to be an accepted source of climate facts?
2. Not all NASA scientists are liberals, just those that are self-proclaimed climate experts, and I know when they open their mouths and instead of logic and fact coming out it is political speak.
3. I used to work at NASA, about 90% identified themselves as liberal.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Wilderness Act of 1964

(If you are concerned about the direction of fire-fighting techniques utilized in Wilderness Areas, it is suggested to write the Secretary of Agriculture and ask for updates to section 4d of the Wilderness Act)

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fus ... legisAct#6

[hyperb]

Neil you've created quite the self fulfilling prophecy for yourself, thank you for that revealing perspective. Anyone offering climate science= liberal, and anyone liberal= wrong. I won't bother to offer any more peer-reviewed science since you've already got all the answers for your own personal universe. As it's just a "theory", how does gravity work where you are?

[hyperb]

AZ Brittany, I can confirm Gertie's breakdown above. Feds run fed lands, their officers have preeminence, as confined by laws like NEPA, ESA, Commerce, etc. But certainly fed managers are encouraged to be sensitive to local concerns, as not being so puts them in the crosshairs of politicians, which I can attest they hate.

That's the problem when you get information from just one source, sometimes it's not the full story.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

AZ Brittany, I can confirm Gertie's breakdown above. Feds run fed lands, their officers have preeminence, as confined by laws like NEPA, ESA, Commerce, etc. But certainly fed managers are encouraged to be sensitive to local concerns, as not being so puts themu in the crosshairs of politicians, which I can attest they hate.

That's the problem when you get information from just one source, sometimes it's not the full story.

I'll accept that but, I still hold strong opinions on our government overreach and encourage people of like mind to get involved at their county level to keep our "public lands" public.

Are you familiar with horse manure that needs to be hauled away from field trial grounds and the requirement of certified weed free hay?

[Neil]

Neil you've created quite the self fulfilling prophecy for yourself, thank you for that revealing perspective. Anyone offering climate science= liberal, and anyone liberal= wrong. I won't bother to offer any more peer-reviewed science since you've already got all the answers for your own personal universe. As it's just a "theory", how does gravity work where you are?

You really need to work on your reading skills.

What I have said is there is no proof of man made actions on current weather.

Which was the point of the OP. All you have offered is future speculations, most so far in the future we will all be dead and cannot refute the author. That is a good gig if you can get it.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Didn't our last "Global Warming" follow shortly after the Ice Age? Explain the impact that humans had on that

[hyperb]

Here is a new video from Denver Post summing up 4 years in a row of record fires, addressing topics above. Watch if genuinely interested in identifying issues and hearing potential solutions: http://www.denverpost.com/fireline/ci_2 ... fire-line/

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Good documentary. I have several friends that work on wild fires with one with the NFS. I will send him this video. The other was a hot shot and no longer does it and now is a bird dog trainer in Colorado.

We live between 2 of the biggest fires that occurred in Arizona, the Rodeo / Chediski and the Wallow fires. Both consumed around a 1/2 million acres each. Both were started by humans. One was a Native American fire fighter out of Cibique who reportedly was running low on money and needed to get to work. The other was two cousins camping and left a fire unattended. The good news is the Rodeo fire area is now grown in to nice meadows with increased sightings of Mearns Quail. Its not a hunting destination yet but good place to get my dogs on wild birds. Fire is a huge concern where we live. We need to get rid of the fuel at the base of the trees to prevent stair stepping.

[Neil]

Here is a new video from Denver Post summing up 4 years in a row of record fires, addressing topics above. Watch if genuinely interested in identifying issues and hearing potential solutions: http://www.denverpost.com/fireline/ci_2 ... fire-line/

Do you even read what you post?

None of it proves man made polutions have contribute to current weather. Polution has not caused forrest fires, and have not made them larger.

I know Al Gore, the VP, and the Forrest Service say otherwise, but it is unproven.

Never once have I said man made pollutions are good, nor that there is not some future effect.

Just what is happening now is not caused by anything other than mismanagement of the forrests.

[hyperb]

If models showing that carbon added to the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effects (they do), if previous Earth warming cycles are associated with more carbon in atmosphere (which AZ Brittany alluded to above, and they are), if people and our ag products are emitting more carbon (and methane) as we have been over the past half century, if global temperatures have trended upwards in approximate correlation with emissions as they have been, if coastal waters are rising with most glaciers diminishing as they have been, and acreage burned by fires has gone up by 57% in the last decade despite our best mobilization, technology, and money, AND 97% of the people who get up every morning and study climate all day say climate change is happening, I think there's a pretty good chance we are seeing the effects of climate change right now.

It seems to me with all that evidence above and more, with so much at stake the onus is actually on the climate deniers to prove it isn't happening. Exactly what other evidence do you need, and from whom?

If you are someone who believes climate change is some sort of global political conspiracy, I'm afraid there is nothing that will inform your belief otherwise.

[ezzy333]

I love the way you post. Your opinions are always stated as fact and any other opinion is just stupid thinking. Trouble is you are not right. Scientist are now showing no global warming in the past ten years. I think we all know we have been in a warming trend from 20 or 30 years ago but at that time they were convinced we were heading into another ice age. And regardless as to which direction we are heading, there is no real evidence that man or man made gases are responsible since water vapor is by far the largest green house gas there is in the atmosphere.

If you go back and look at the records you will see that gr3een house gases rose and fell but not in the same years as heat or cold appeared. Plus if you want to get right to the prove a scientific fact is proven consistently and leaves no room for consensus of the scientist through out the world as we have been brow-beat with the past few years. Scientific proof is just that, proof and not consences.

Ezzy

[birddogger]

I love the way you post. Your opinions are always stated as fact and any other opinion is just stupid thinking.

Yep, and typical from someone on the left!

Charlie

[Mountaineer]

If models ....

Models, much as Studies, can be designed to direct an outcome by choosing which points to ignore or accentuate.
It would be best to manage the national forests with actual forest management principles intent upon delivering diversity in timber age class, as but one factor, rather than ignoring the agenda of those crafting any Model or Study.
That idea would increase the health of the forest....for the forest, for the critters within that thrive with a diversity of age class and for Man.

That said, acid rain has created a degree of increased fire hazard potential in some Eastern forests and Man often increases the affect of a fire in creating areas with poor access.
Trade-offs are often realized too late or not at all.

[hyperb]

Ezzy and Birddogger you all assume I'm on the left. I'm not, lifelong independent who has lived all over this beautiful country. But I do follow science.

All of those "opinions" are actually peer-reviewed science. If you are actually interested in the science behind climate change NASA is a good place to start: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

I figure the guys who put Americans on the moon first are a good source, rather than the red herrings tossed out on talk radio.

[ezzy333]

Ezzy and Birddogger you all assume I'm on the left. I'm not, lifelong independent who has lived all over this beautiful country. But I do follow science.

All of those "opinions" are actually peer-reviewed science. If you are actually interested in the science behind climate change NASA is a good place to start: http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

I figure the guys who put Americans on the moon first are a good source, rather than the red herrings tossed out on talk radio.

And I have lived in many places also and have studied much of the data and you will be hard pressed to find anything that shows any connection to man made warming and you will find no long trend warming. Believe it or not, their are many on this board who are just as intelligent as well as concerned about problems that arise as you are and we do not have to accept your opinion as right. There are just way to many opinions that you are wrong and you can find the evidence in the many reports that show just that.

As I said before science is a proven fact and not a consensus of opinion and that can't be argued with. So maybe we should get this thread back on topic and save the rest for future discussion.

Ezzy

[hyperb]

So you've reviewed ALL of the data on that NASA portal site and disagree with ALL of their findings and conclusions.

Well you just must be smarter and done more research than all these NASA guys. Stupid NASA.

[Neil]

I worked at NASA, and my colleagues were and are intelligent and educated, not just in their area of expertise, but most have many outside interests, in which they are well informed.

But if I want to gain facts on weather trends, I will consult a meteorologist. And I have, none believe current weather is a result of man caused climate change. All are concerned about using the planet as a septic tank, as am I.

[Neil]

Just read a news release. 2013 was a very interesting year in terms of weather events; fewer tornadoes, fewer hurricanes since the mid-1800's, fewer forrest fires since 1980's, fewer days of 100+ degrres. All and all a calm year weather wise.

Proves nothing about the long term future effects of man made factors, but it is good news and does prove our Sen Reid couldn't find a couch in his own living room.

[hyperb]

Neil the American Meteorological Society believes climate change is happening because of people: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

Also, forest is spelled with one "r". Are you a dictionary-denier, too?

Smartassery aside, Neil I genuinely hope you are right, and the climate is not becoming unnaturally superheated. I have young kids and would like them to inherit a healthy planet. I have no dog in political fights, but sticking my head in the sand about climate will do them no favors while we can still do something about it. The vast scientific consensus plus my own observation of altered hunting and fire seasons tell me something is going on and we'd be fools not to address it.

I wish you happy, successful hunting and long-lived dogs.

[Neil]

Just read a news release. 2013 was a very interesting year in terms of weather events; fewer tornadoes, fewer hurricanes since the mid-1800's, fewer forrest fires since 1980's, fewer days of 100+ degrres. All and all a calm year weather wise.

Proves nothing about the long term future effects of man made factors, but it is good news and does prove our Sen Reid couldn't find a couch in his own living room.

Deny the above, please.

[hyperb]

So when confronted with an all-encompassing case supporting climate change is happening from the very source you said was the only source to be trusted, you ignore it and plow on with your own self-fulfilling opinion. Are all meteorologists liberals too?

There is a lack of intellectual integrity occurring here, and gets back to my question (which you didn't answer) about exactly what kind of evidence and from whom it is going to take for you to acknowledge climate change is happening.

You never offered the press release link to review, so I can only respond about those things that I know about.

Part of my job is fire management so I can confirm the total number of acres burned this year was lower than the 10 year average, but still 25% higher than the 60 year average (comprehensive national records have only been gathered since 1960 on acres burned across ownerships). Even with this year included this decade has burned an average of 50% more acres per year than the previous 5 decades.

Three other items are worth noting about this year for fire:
- 37 people died fighting fires, a bad year, including one of the highest single event losses with those 19 guys in Yarnell Hill
- the average size for individual fires was consistent with this record decade, about five times the average fire size from the 1970s
- for the 8th time since 2000 the Feds ran out of money to suppress fires. For the first time Oregon ran out of state money to fight fires

I look at fire mgmt pragmatically. Fires aren't political but the conditions that create them are. As noted by many on this string, our forests have too much fuel load in them (due to historic suppression of natural fires, poor harvest practices, and more recent harvest elimination). Rising temps and drought are clearly exacerbating the situation. The micro-climate conditions of the Yarnell Hill fire, as analyzed via satellite afterwards, were previously considered only theoretical.

To not acknowledge climate's role when discussing fire mgmt is to believe you are fighting a one-armed boxer. You're free to believe that if you want, but you're going to get knocked out.

[birddogger]

Are all meteorologists liberals too?

Only the ones who think humans are causing climate change.

Charlie

[Neil]

Are all meteorologists liberals too?

Only the ones who think humans are causing climate change.

Charlie

And those that want to continue to be employed. You want the unvarnished truth, talk with retired meteorologists.

I am on Kindle and cannot post links, do a Google. I have found I can debate most liberals just fine without fear of a knockout.

You keep ignoring, I am agnostic on on long term man caused climate change, it is the effect on current weather I question.

[Neil]

[/url]http://rt.com/usa/minimal-extreme-weath ... 3-893/[url]

Perhaps I can post links from my Kindle.

[hyperb]

Ok now the only people we can trust on climate change are RETIRED meteorologists? How many times are you going to switch the goalposts?

From the very article you shared:
"The Defense Department and Army Corps of Engineers have begun working with lawmakers in coastal cities throughout the country to make up for the ignorance of the past.

“We got it wrong,” said Joe Bouchard, a RETIRED Navy captain who headed the Norfolk naval base from 2000 to 2003. “We weren’t thinking about climate change, period.”

He's retired. Switch the goalposts again. I'm done trying to talk sense with you.

[Neil]

I, too have tired of this nonsense.

Do you believe, in the here and now, that man made polutions has a direct cause of forest fires?

If so, you are ill informed.

Gore, Biden, and many others have lied

You have a circular argunmernt that is not based on your own facts.

My only point has been if you blame forest fires on climate change, then you have no responsibility to take real action.

I am sorry for you if you believe that. There is so much we can and should do.

BTW, I quoted a liberal publication, of course they put a twist on the fact of calmer weather.

Every self proclaimed indeptendent I have ever met, was a lefty without conviction. Look at Congress, they all vote with the Democrats.

[hyperb]

Most Arkansas independents lean right-- http://talkbusiness.net/2012/10/indepen ... ican-lean/
Most national independents lean right-- http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/recor ... dents.aspx

Neil it is really truly remarkable how nearly every assertion you make has no standing in fact.