Photos of destruction as a result of the incompetent world leader & his party

[Hawaiian]

For those interested in what firefighters are up against, here is an explanation by a NY Times climate reporter.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/briefing/la-wildfires-firefighting.html

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, impulse said:

 

What a bunch of mumbo jumbo, that doesn't explain at all the climate catastrophes that preceded industrialization.  Like the Little Ice Age, the climate change following Krakatoa, the Biblical plagues, and dozens of others just since they started recording history.  Then there's the climate changes that preceded recorded human history.  The climate is always changing.  Dispute that...

 

The Laws of Thermodynamics deal with isolated systems.  The Earth isn't an isolated system.

 

And you're forgetting the 5th law of thermodynamics.  Sometimes, stuff just happens.  (Sorry I had to misquote that one.  The real quote keeps getting censored)  Like the massive cooling event when that volcano off the Northeast USA erupts in 2025 like they're predicting.  Cold kills a lot more humans than heat.  Always has.

 

Yes, the climate is changing. It's the first time a species on the planet has caused the change, in the space of a few hundred years, instead of millennia.

 

Yes, the Earth is not an isolated system. That's why we live in a SOLAR SYSTEM, which for all intents and purposes IS isolated from the rest of the universe, apart from the odd comet.

 

I guess you are just so much smarter than Thomson, Clausius, Nernst and Fowler. Where should I send your Nobel prize, genius?

 

 

Describing what is settled science as mumbo jumbo is simply a demonstration of your abject ignorance.

 

 

[Lacessit]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Jingthing, is there a problem that prevents you from engaging in a civil dialogue?

Yes. The problem is you.

 

I guess you'll just have to accept there are people who don't suffer fools gladly.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

OK,  You are challenging me to explain thermodynamics in layman terms. Here goes:

 

There are four thermodynamic laws. The ones that apply most to our lives are #1 and #2.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and as unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of the people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

All the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m annoyed because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything related to climate science. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states heat cannot pass from a colder body to a hotter body without work. When carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane absorb solar radiation, those molecules re-radiate solar energy as heat. The so-called greenhouse effect.

 

That heat has to go somewhere. It flows into the colder oceans, with a corresponding rise in temperature. Global warming.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states all forms of energy are interchangeable. When we drive cars, we are exchanging the chemical energy in gasoline for heat and kinetic energy.

Similarly, turning on a TV converts electrical energy to light and sound.

 

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the temperature of a body of water is, the more intense the wind velocity will be. The First Law of Thermodynamics, the conversion of heat energy to kinetic energy. Climate change.

 

What concerns scientists most in this time is the potential for a “butterfly effect”. The term was first used by Friedrich Schiller in a short story of the 18^th century, and refers to an insignificant event giving rise to catastrophic consequences elsewhere. Albedo and clathrates are first in line.

 

When I say no-one can beat the laws of thermodynamics, even AI agrees with me. This is what it has to say:

 

AI cannot beat the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental principles of physics that govern the behavior of all matter and energy, including the systems that AI operates on.

 

AI relies on physical systems: AI systems are ultimately based on physical hardware like computers and servers. These devices require energy to function and are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. AI systems, like any other system, must adhere to this principle.

 

Entropy and efficiency: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. This means that no process can be perfectly efficient, and there will always be some energy lost as heat. AI systems are not exempt from this limitation.

 

While AI can be used to model and analyze thermodynamic systems, it cannot change the underlying physical laws that govern their behavior.

 

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Have at it.

 

I'll start with your last statement first.

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Just so you understand me properly I'll explain my approach to posters.  If they're respectful and polite and honest - which doesn't necessarily equate to being right - and are open minded then I will reciprocate in kind.  If they're disrespectful, impolite, dishonest and immediately dismiss ideas that don't fit their world view then I'll put them in their place via constructive criticism.  I let bygones be bygones so anytime a nasty, belligerent poster decides to become civil I'll lay previous grievances aside and start fresh.

 

What you fully expect to be my response isn't what's going to happen.  You posted honestly, politely and respectfully.  For that I commend you.  You took my advice and chose to educate rather than harangue.  It was a wise choice.

 

As to ad hominem, which in debating is used to attack an opponent's character in one form or another in order to invalidate their arguments, which can be quite valid.  I don't use it.  Honest, constructive criticism works much better.  So don't confuse criticism with ad hominem.

 

Back to the topic and your post.  I've asked you this question before, to which I never got a reply.  Which, btw, is no unusual with you.

 

On 1/14/2025 at 7:53 AM, Tippaporn said:

On 1/13/2025 at 12:20 PM, Lacessit said:

Ignorance be damned. Any person with an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics knows those laws are the cause of 240 gigatons a year of Greenland ice melting, of record heat cells in Australia, and of high winds.

 

So the laws of thermodynamics are causing the warming of the earth, and all of the effects caused by that warming.  So you state.  Were the laws of thermodynamics then inoperative during the ice ages?  If those laws cause warming then what laws supercede them to cause cooling?

 

Since you have the scientific training and 50 years of background then what's the answer to a reasonable question spurred by some common sense thinking?

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Jingthing, is there a problem that prevents you from engaging in a civil dialogue?

Yes. The problem is you.

 

I guess you'll just have to accept there are people who don't suffer fools gladly.

 

Let's see here . . .

 

A guy goes out of his way to entreaty another guy to engage in civil discourse on a topic.

The other guy responds with an insult.

They guy asks what the problem is.

The other guy never responds.

 

You butt in for no other reason than to add your own insult in the direction of the guy who is attempting to cajole the belligerent into civility in order to peacefully resolve differences between the two.

 

Dude, are you sure you have your priorities straight?  Best you double check.

[Tippaporn]

This YT account has multiple videos chronicling the devastation.  I heard estimates of 20,000+ homes and other structures.  The magnitude is truly mind boggling.  What's even more mind boggling, at least to me, are all those who don't believe there should be any accountability whatsoever.  Nope, no major screw ups at all.  Everyone did a splendid job on every aspect of preventing this type and scale of disaster.

𝗧𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: Pacific Palisades Fire Reduces Businesses and Homes to Rubble

 

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, novacova said:

20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's not a model, it's data derived from measurement. Scientists can measure CO2 levels 10,000 years ago, from ice cores.

 

You obviously have a closed mind on the topic, end of discussion.

I’ve read many of these graphs and data, none have ever proven that humans caused climate change, and many of these studies have broad variabilities, including core samples, which are a minor ancillary. As far as having a closed mind, highly doubt it, I’m not the one here buying into something that hasn’t been proven. This subject is about the cali fires, please prove to me that human caused climate change is responsible for these fires, please, just show us.

 

@Lacessit

 

I think novacova's request is more than reasonable.  I, too, have asked the same of another poster, to which there was no reply.  Theory and speculation isn't good enough to definitively blame it on human caused climate change.  It needs to be concrete evidence showing unquestionably all of the links.

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I'll start with your last statement first.

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Just so you understand me properly I'll explain my approach to posters.  If they're respectful and polite and honest - which doesn't necessarily equate to being right - and are open minded then I will reciprocate in kind.  If they're disrespectful, impolite, dishonest and immediately dismiss ideas that don't fit their world view then I'll put them in their place via constructive criticism.  I let bygones be bygones so anytime a nasty, belligerent poster decides to become civil I'll lay previous grievances aside and start fresh.

 

What you fully expect to be my response isn't what's going to happen.  You posted honestly, politely and respectfully.  For that I commend you.  You took my advice and chose to educate rather than harangue.  It was a wise choice.

 

As to ad hominem, which in debating is used to attack an opponent's character in one form or another in order to invalidate their arguments, which can be quite valid.  I don't use it.  Honest, constructive criticism works much better.  So don't confuse criticism with ad hominem.

 

Back to the topic and your post.  I've asked you this question before, to which I never got a reply.  Which, btw, is no unusual with you.

 

 

Since you have the scientific training and 50 years of background then what's the answer to a reasonable question spurred by some common sense thinking?

The laws of thermodynamics were operating back in the Ice Ages. The answer to your question lies in two main factors, the earth's orbit around the sun, and albedo.

 

During what are called Milankovitch cycles, the planet moves further away from the sun, and receives less solar radiation, It cools down so that snow and ice that would normally melt during summer in the high latitudes stays on the ground.

 

Albedo is reflectivity of radiation. Earth and rock absorb radiation, ice and snow reflect it back into space. Earth cools in a positive feedback loop.

 

There are other factors, such as volcanic eruptions contributing putting ash and dust into the atmosphere to add to cooling, and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

The basic point is the time frame. Ice Ages take millennia to form and disappear. We might even have been heading into one now, but three hundred years of mankind burning fossil fuels has well and truly upset the applecart.

 

If I get combative with posters, it's because I get frustrated with an inability to acknowledge basic science. Sometimes, it is a wilful inability.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

The laws of thermodynamics were operating back in the Ice Ages. The answer to your question lies in two main factors, the earth's orbit around the sun, and albedo.

 

During what are called Milankovitch cycles, the planet moves further away from the sun, and receives less solar radiation, It cools down so that snow and ice that would normally melt during summer in the high latitudes stays on the ground.

 

Albedo is reflectivity of radiation. Earth and rock absorb radiation, ice and snow reflect it back into space. Earth cools in a positive feedback loop.

 

There are other factors, such as volcanic eruptions contributing putting ash and dust into the atmosphere to add to cooling, and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

The basic point is the time frame. Ice Ages take millennia to form and disappear. We might even have been heading into one now, but three hundred years of mankind burning fossil fuels has well and truly upset the applecart.

 

If I get combative with posters, it's because I get frustrated with an inability to acknowledge basic science. Sometimes, it is a wilful inability.

 

Just an aside……to dispirit you even further…..a recent poll of US citizens indicated 40% believe the Earth to be less than 10,300 years old.

[Lacessit]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Let's see here . . .

 

A guy goes out of his way to entreaty another guy to engage in civil discourse on a topic.

The other guy responds with an insult.

They guy asks what the problem is.

The other guy never responds.

 

You butt in for no other reason than to add your own insult in the direction of the guy who is attempting to cajole the belligerent into civility in order to peacefully resolve differences between the two.

 

Dude, are you sure you have your priorities straight?  Best you double check.

Point taken, IMO answered in my previous post ( and yours )

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Just an aside……to dispirit you even further…..a recent poll of US citizens indicated 40% believe the Earth to be less than 10,300 years old.

And 50% of Americans still believe in angels. Is that 10,300 years Creationism, or something else?

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

And 50% of Americans still believe in angels. Is that 10,300 years Creationism, or something else?

 

Pretty sure it is …..I recognise the number from another interview…..a prominent chemist would you believe….. but dyed in the wool bible basher……Earth is only 10,300 years old…..I thought it was a comedy sketch, but there was no punchline.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Pretty sure it is …..I recognise the number from another interview…..a prominent chemist would you believe….. but dyed in the wool bible basher……Earth is only 10,300 years old…..I thought it was a comedy sketch, but there was no punchline.

The mass extinction of dinosaurs was 66 million years ago, and they thrived happily for 165 million years. Humanity is a flyspeck in comparison.

 

How did the "prominent chemist" explain dinosaurs?

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

The mass extinction of dinosaurs was 66 million years ago, and they thrived happily for 165 million years. Humanity is a flyspeck in comparison.

 

How did the "prominent chemist" explain dinosaurs?

 

Bones were planted by the devil to test his faith.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Bones were planted by the devil to test his faith.

Nearly spilled my coffee on the keyboard.

 

The human race seems determined to dumb itself down.

[Will B Good]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Nearly spilled my coffee on the keyboard.

 

The human race seems determined to dumb itself down.

 

…and to be fair….reading many of the posts on here, they are doing a pretty damn fine job of it.

[Lacessit]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This YT account has multiple videos chronicling the devastation.  I heard estimates of 20,000+ homes and other structures.  The magnitude is truly mind boggling.  What's even more mind boggling, at least to me, are all those who don't believe there should be any accountability whatsoever.  Nope, no major screw ups at all.  Everyone did a splendid job on every aspect of preventing this type and scale of disaster.

𝗧𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: Pacific Palisades Fire Reduces Businesses and Homes to Rubble

 

I am confident there will be multiple inquiries. Whether they achieve anything is a different question.

 

There is the combination of fuel, wind, and dryness. As someone who has lived in a fire-prone region, and taken appropriate precautions, I can tell you radiant heat can ignite fires in trees from hundreds of metres away. There are also wind driven embers, which can start fires several kilometres away. Under those circumstances, the only thing firefighters can do is stay out of the way. How much fire-fighting capacity they have available becomes irrelevant.

 

Under those circumstances, building wooden houses with shingle roofs in the path of said risk borders on insanity.

 

What I find really nasty is the attempt to score cheap political points, as the response to a massive tragedy.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If I get combative with posters, it's because I get frustrated with an inability to acknowledge basic science. Sometimes, it is a wilful inability.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Teaching requires tons of patience.  Most don't have a scientific education.  Their ignorance is natural.  It is what it is.  An understanding and acceptance of that current reality would be enough to alleviate your frustrations.

 

39 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The laws of thermodynamics were operating back in the Ice Ages. The answer to your question lies in two main factors, the earth's orbit around the sun, and albedo.

 

During what are called Milankovitch cycles, the planet moves further away from the sun, and receives less solar radiation, It cools down so that snow and ice that would normally melt during summer in the high latitudes stays on the ground.

 

Albedo is reflectivity of radiation. Earth and rock absorb radiation, ice and snow reflect it back into space. Earth cools in a positive feedback loop.

 

There are other factors, such as volcanic eruptions contributing putting ash and dust into the atmosphere to add to cooling, and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

The basic point is the time frame. Ice Ages take millennia to form and disappear. We might even have been heading into one now, but three hundred years of mankind burning fossil fuels has well and truly upset the applecart.

 

My contention has always been this:

 

The entire world's ecosystem is incredibly complex.  For a quite a number of valid reasons I highly doubt that science understands more than a sliver of it.  Simply forecasting tomorrow's weather is still beyond science.  Why?  Due to too many unknown and ill understood variables.  Especially the interactions between all of those variables.  As all systems are interconnected each affects the others in whatever degree in a dazzling display of complexity.

 

One of my major gripes about those who believe in human caused climate change is the lack of questioning.  As I've said before, questioning climate change is verboten.  It's in direct contradiction to the basic tenet of science that questioning should be never ending.  In my view, once questioning stops then one becomes locked into a paradigm.  Breakthroughs in understanding are neigh on impossible in such an environment.  It's counter productive.  I think that's a fair and honest assessment and should be intelligently addressed.  In fact, I think both of the points I raised should be addressed and certainly not ridiculed simply because they have the potential to put someone's strongly held beliefs in doubt.

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Point taken, IMO answered in my previous post ( and yours )

 

Thanks for the acknowledgement.  It's appreciated.

[Lacessit]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Teaching requires tons of patience.  Most don't have a scientific education.  Their ignorance is natural.  It is what it is.  An understanding and acceptance of that current reality would be enough to alleviate your frustrations.

 

 

My contention has always been this:

 

The entire world's ecosystem is incredibly complex.  For a quite a number of valid reasons I highly doubt that science understands more than a sliver of it.  Simply forecasting tomorrow's weather is still beyond science.  Why?  Due to too many unknown and ill understood variables.  Especially the interactions between all of those variables.  As all systems are interconnected each affects the others in whatever degree in a dazzling display of complexity.

 

One of my major gripes about those who believe in human caused climate change is the lack of questioning.  As I've said before, questioning climate change is verboten.  It's in direct contradiction to the basic tenet of science that questioning should be never ending.  In my view, once questioning stops then one becomes locked into a paradigm.  Breakthroughs in understanding are neigh on impossible in such an environment.  It's counter productive.  I think that's a fair and honest assessment and should be intelligently addressed.  In fact, I think both of the points I raised should be addressed and certainly not ridiculed simply because they have the potential to put someone's strongly held beliefs in doubt.

Climate change is not a belief. It's a fact, 95% of scientists agree on that fact. Including people like me who are not even working in climate science.

 

That fact is based on observation, such as ocean temperatures, sea level rise, heat cells, Greenland ice cap, Larsen ice shelf etc. etc. etc.

 

I don't disagree there should be questioning of beliefs. However, when the arguments of plant food, natural cycle, volcanic activity and cherry-picked data are part of said questions, I say whoa. I especially detest the dishonesty of those who claim scientists are trying to milk money for grants.

 

No use asking me to teach, I would probably be a disaster in a classroom. I don't have the patience.

 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am confident there will be multiple inquiries. Whether they achieve anything is a different question.

 

Nothing ever comes of inquiries if they are stacked with those who don't want the truth to come out.  They become performative circus entertainment to assuage the people's anger until it all becomes memory holed.  The U.S. Congress is famous for holding hearings that end with nothing more than reports.  Reports filled with information that had been uncovered by investigative journalists years earlier and had long been common public knowledge.  We're dealing with politics, after all.  The most disreputable profession known to man and older than prostitution.

 

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is the combination of fuel, wind, and dryness. As someone who has lived in a fire-prone region, and taken appropriate precautions, I can tell you radiant heat can ignite fires in trees from hundreds of metres away. There are also wind driven embers, which can start fires several kilometres away. Under those circumstances, the only thing firefighters can do is stay out of the way. How much fire-fighting capacity they have available becomes irrelevant.

 

I understand your point of view but I've never been one to throw their hands up in the air in hopelessness.  Mighty deeds have been accomplished through sheer determination, will, and the belief that it can be done.  Heaven and earth seem to move in your direction at those times.  Apollo 13 was a classic example.

 

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Under those circumstances, building wooden houses with shingle roofs in the path of said risk borders on insanity.

 

I absolutely agree.  Anyone choosing to live in a high risk area for fire would be prudent to become as knowledge as one can and take preventative action beforehand.  John Carr was one such person who had protective gear and a mask.  My home would certainly be stocked with protective gear.  In my opinion, local schools should teach on the subject.

 

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What I find really nasty is the attempt to score cheap political points, as the response to a massive tragedy.

 

I absolutely disagree.  California and it's political class have long been criticised about their land management policies, amongst other related policies.  These fires proved them right.

 

Whilst it may be true that some are trying to score cheap political points there's another valid possibility that those who claim the "cheap shot" seem to miss, either unintentionally or intentionally.  It's common knowledge that bad politicians use this reasoning to steer people away from scrutinizing their abject failures, or even criminality, in order to cover their azzes.  Which is it?  Given everything known about Dem politicians and the fact that criticism have raged for years I would guarantee this narrative is purposeful and coordinated in order to distract.

 

My advice?  Be frickin' careful about jumping on someone's bandwagon before you think things through for yourself.  They'll be sure to take you for a ride.

 

 

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Nothing ever comes of inquiries if they are stacked with those who don't want the truth to come out.  They become performative circus entertainment to assuage the people's anger until it all becomes memory holed.  The U.S. Congress is famous for holding hearings that end with nothing more than reports.  Reports filled with information that had been uncovered by investigative journalists years earlier and had long been common public knowledge.  We're dealing with politics, after all.  The most disreputable profession known to man and older than prostitution.

 

 

I understand your point of view but I've never been one to throw their hands up in the air in hopelessness.  Mighty deeds have been accomplished through sheer determination, will, and the belief that it can be done.  Heaven and earth seem to move in your direction at those times.  Apollo 13 was a classic example.

 

 

I absolutely agree.  Anyone choosing to live in a high risk area for fire would be prudent to become as knowledge as one can and take preventative action beforehand.  John Carr was one such person who had protective gear and a mask.  My home would certainly be stocked with protective gear.  In my opinion, local schools should teach on the subject.

 

 

I absolutely disagree.  California and it's political class have long been criticised about their land management policies, amongst other related policies.  These fires proved them right.

 

Whilst it may be true that some are trying to score cheap political points there's another valid possibility that those who claim the "cheap shot" seem to miss, either unintentionally or intentionally.  It's common knowledge that bad politicians use this reasoning to steer people away from scrutinizing their abject failures, or even criminality, in order to cover their azzes.  Which is it?  Given everything known about Dem politicians and the fact that criticism have raged for years I would guarantee this narrative is purposeful and coordinated in order to distract.

 

My advice?  Be frickin' careful about jumping on someone's bandwagon before you think things through for yourself.  They'll be sure to take you for a ride.

 

 

Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin in 1974. That led to a big revamp of building codes.

 

Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday have also led to many changes.

 

My son lives in a very fire-prone area, among 40 metre tall eucalypts. He clears leaf and stick litter every spring.

 

He has a house of brick veneer, cement tile roof. He has a fire-fighting pump, capacity 490 litres/minute. He has an independent water supply, capacity 70,000 litres. It has never been lower than 30,000 litres.

 

The house has a sprinkler system which covers the entire roof, and also windows facing the most vulnerable fire direction.

 

He was a member of the local volunteer fire brigade for about 10 years.

 

Comparing that level of preparation with Mr Carr and his garden hose, I still think he was a lucky idiot.

 

The question is, if/when Pacific Palisades rebuilds, will the houses be prepared like my son is? Or will it still be wooden houses and shingle roofs?

 

 

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not a belief. It's a fact, 95% of scientists agree on that fact. Including people like me who are not even working in climate science.

 

You must understand, Lacessit, that it's a fact for you.  But not for everyone.  There are scientists who strongly disagree and have made quite rational arguments countering climate change claims.  And I should be very specific and say "human induced" climate change, for no one disagrees with the fact that the climate is in constant flux.

 

As long as there is contentious debate then, to be fair, no side gets to claim their theories are fact.  Until such time as there is definitive proof  beyond a reasonable doubt then, sorry to say, it's all in the realm of belief.  It's not to say, though, that your belief cannot be true.  But until proven conclusively it is considered belief.  Perhaps one day you'll be vindicated and you'll get to say, "I told you so."  Until then, show respect for others who believe otherwise, for whatever reasons.  You cannot fairly disparage them as long as doubts remain.

 

One point I'd like to raise with you, and other human induced climate change proponents, is the aspect of honesty.  For those who believe in human induced climate change are quick to throw out the "95% of scientists agree" argument, as even that percentage has been up for debate.  The true percentage aside, it's a dishonest argument for one solid reason:  it's a well known logical fallacy.

 

The ad populum fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone claims something is true because many people believe it is. It's also known as the bandwagon fallacy, appeal to popularity, or appeal to numbers.

 

Put simply, it is the fallacy in which it is argued that consensus equates to truth.  It's a blatant falsity.

 

I'd be very wary about using false arguments to simply bolster your position.  That risks credibility.  For if one is willing to use a known false argument once then the question naturally begs, what other false arguments are being used.  If too many false arguments are used then your credibility is lost forever.  Just a word of fair warning.

[flexomike]

On 1/12/2025 at 7:21 AM, Pouatchee said:

 

known your threads for quite a while. funny... are you now pro-trump? You used to throw him out with the dish water... 

No he is just being a smart ars, everyone likes a little but no one likes a smart

[flexomike]

On 1/12/2025 at 1:45 PM, transam said:

I think you have a serious problem, especially for someone who doesn't live in the USA.....🤔

 

Or do you live in the USA, or is it just a crush on Biden or Harris and you got jilted........?

Sorry but you are the one with the serious problem.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

That fact is based on observation, such as ocean temperatures, sea level rise, heat cells, Greenland ice cap, Larsen ice shelf etc. etc. etc.

 

I've raised the point about variables below.

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The entire world's ecosystem is incredibly complex.  For a quite a number of valid reasons I highly doubt that science understands more than a sliver of it.  Simply forecasting tomorrow's weather is still beyond science.  Why?  Due to too many unknown and ill understood variables.  Especially the interactions between all of those variables.  As all systems are interconnected each affects the others in whatever degree in a dazzling display of complexity.

 

It's a fair question, and it needs to be accounted for.  It's only too well known that a single piece of new information can completely invalidate a theory.  Or, what was once considered Fact.  With a capital F, of course.

 

Which is why, in my humble estimation, it's is not prudent to fall into a paradigm in which questions need no longer apply.

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I don't disagree there should be questioning of beliefs.

 

I understand you're making a distinction between beliefs and facts.  So I'll once again repost one of my favourite Samuel Clemens quotes:

 

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

 

Therein lies the rub.  Once convinced that a thing is true then questioning what you believe to be true is nothing short of lunacy.  Right?  But how could you ever know whether something you think is true really isn't?  Questioning.

 

Anyone and everyone has their beliefs which they consider to be true.  And a plethora of facts to back that truth up with.  I wish things were truly black and white but my experience taught me that it's rarely the case.

 

My advice?  When you find yourself stopping any questioning you know you're in trouble.

[flexomike]

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Pretty sure it is …..I recognise the number from another interview…..a prominent chemist would you believe….. but dyed in the wool bible basher……Earth is only 10,300 years old…..I thought it was a comedy sketch, but there was no punchline.

kind of like all of your one liners

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin in 1974. That led to a big revamp of building codes.

 

Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday have also led to many changes.

 

My son lives in a very fire-prone area, among 40 metre tall eucalypts. He clears leaf and stick litter every spring.

 

He has a house of brick veneer, cement tile roof. He has a fire-fighting pump, capacity 490 litres/minute. He has an independent water supply, capacity 70,000 litres. It has never been lower than 30,000 litres.

 

The house has a sprinkler system which covers the entire roof, and also windows facing the most vulnerable fire direction.

 

He was a member of the local volunteer fire brigade for about 10 years.

 

Comparing that level of preparation with Mr Carr and his garden hose, I still think he was a lucky idiot.

 

The question is, if/when Pacific Palisades rebuilds, will the houses be prepared like my son is? Or will it still be wooden houses and shingle roofs?

 

Lovely post, Lacessit.  I'm sure you're very proud of your common sense son, and deservedly so.  Give him thumbs up from this poster the next time you talk with him.

 

As to your question, I doubt it.  The fact that these folks live in a high risk area for fires and not only take zero precautions but also build with materials conducive to easily ignite is beyond me.  I guess it comes from the impoverished attitude of leaving your safety in the hands of others.  In this case, government.  My personal opinion is that government should never take on the function of keeping people safe.  I full well understand that at first blush that statement will sound ridiculous and appear to be the height of irresponsibility but once deeply pondered on you'll understand it's exactly why it's bad policy.

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I've raised the point about variables below.

 

 

It's a fair question, and it needs to be accounted for.  It's only too well known that a single piece of new information can completely invalidate a theory.  Or, what was once considered Fact.  With a capital F, of course.

 

Which is why, in my humble estimation, it's is not prudent to fall into a paradigm in which questions need no longer apply.

 

 

I understand you're making a distinction between beliefs and facts.  So I'll once again repost one of my favourite Samuel Clemens quotes:

 

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

 

Therein lies the rub.  Once convinced that a thing is true then questioning what you believe to be true is nothing short of lunacy.  Right?  But how could you ever know whether something you think is true really isn't?  Questioning.

 

Anyone and everyone has their beliefs which they consider to be true.  And a plethora of facts to back that truth up with.  I wish things were truly black and white but my experience taught me that it's rarely the case.

 

My advice?  When you find yourself stopping any questioning you know you're in trouble.

I don't question the laws of thermodynamics. My reason? Ever since they were formulated, better minds than mine have been trying to circumvent them, and have failed dismally.

 

Gravity is just a theory. It becomes real enough when someone steps off the fourteenth floor of condo , converting themselves to strawberry jam. Gravity explains the phenomenon very well, No-one has come up with a viable alternative to gravity either. Anti-gravity devices still belong in science fiction.

 

My point is there are some facts and theories where it is a waste of time and energy trying to invalidate them.

 

OTOH, I do question whether climate change sceptics are sticking their heads in the sand, or are so ignorant they prefer believing any charlatan on YouTube who tells them what they want to hear.

 

I question if Trump is just a scientific troglodyte, or whether his climate denialism is motivated by money from the fossil fuel industry.

 

I question the Catholic belief in original sin. To me, that's as daft a proposition as anything I have seen. Purgatory comes a close second. Then there's Islam's belief the Koran is the last word of Allah.

 

Don't worry, I question many things.

 

My question to you is, do you think America will learn from the fires? You do have previous form, in ignoring the result of Australia banning semi-automatic weapons. The response to a school shooting is an uptick in firearm sales.

 

I am reminded of Churchill's observation: " Americans usually get it right, after they have tried everything else".

[riclag]

48 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Lovely post, Lacessit.  I'm sure you're very proud of your common sense son, and deservedly so.  Give him thumbs up from this poster the next time you talk with him.

 

As to your question, I doubt it.  The fact that these folks live in a high risk area for fires and not only take zero precautions but also build with materials conducive to easily ignite is beyond me.  I guess it comes from the impoverished attitude of leaving your safety in the hands of others.  In this case, government.  My personal opinion is that government should never take on the function of keeping people safe.  I full well understand that at first blush that statement will sound ridiculous and appear to be the height of irresponsibility but once deeply pondered on you'll understand it's exactly why it's bad policy.

Quote:Leaving your safety in the hands of others!

 

“People — whether purposeful, reckless or simply careless —  are responsible for about 95% of California’s wildfires. In 2023 alone, people caused more than 7,000 wildfires in California; nationally, it was more than 50,000”.
https://calmatters.org/environment/wildfires/2024/07/california-wildfires-human-causes/