Originally Posted by Copperfield

Did you have any data trends going back into the early 1800's or perhaps even further back?

Sure, but they won't give you numbers that you can compare to values compiled in my first data set because they will be restricted geographically. The link I provided is the most complete data set we have for acreage burned over the entire nation each year.

I was watching a DVD about Death Valley. The topic of global warming came up-what happens to organisms at the very limits of adaptability, when the environment becomes even more extreme?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Sure, but they won't give you numbers that you can compare to values compiled in my first data set because they will be restricted geographically. The link I provided is the most complete data set we have for acreage burned over the entire nation each year.

...and it doesn't go back even a full century. So, rather than stating "you're wrong" as if you had any, you know, evidence to that effect... you might find it a hell of a lot more true were you to say, "you can't prove that you're right".

Do you see how that works? It's, like, science, man.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

The combination of drought and heat waves makes brush, grass, and marginal forest uniquely vulnerable to fires. What does not burn is true desert, where plants are isolated. But that said, creosote bushes that dot the Mojave Desert are useful only for putting oxygen into the air.

Fire-fighting technology is far better than it used to be, as are the technologies of escape and communication. People who get good warnings because of telephones, radio, and television and have cars with which to escape are more likely to escape a fire than people who lacked those a century ago.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

Global warming in fact offers a solution to grass, brush, and forest fires. It is called

DESERTIFICATION!

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The point was that global warming will lead to increased droughts. JDG implied that the future benefits of global warming (no scientific evidence to back such a claim) will outweigh the negatives...

-There's no scientific evidence that a warmer climate has beneficial effects?

What I'm saying is:

1) It's stupid to wreck the economy with taxes and regulations based an unproven theory...

2) Whose detrimental results can be adapted to far more economically than trying said taxes and regulations...

3) Whose beneficial results can be exploited.

The deep down reason homoglobowarming bedwetters love the theory:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/failure-deni...inglepage=true

The public sector does not have a monopoly on people who become irrationally wedded to ideas and programs which have become outmoded, obsolete, redundant, or worthless. The difference is what happens to such people — and in some cases, their firms — in the private sector when they stubbornly stick to their guns...

But within government?

If a new idea or product is failing or initially seems destined to fail, bureaucrats, their corporate beneficiaries, and their cronies work to get them underwritten or subsidized. The fact that the government is even involved likely indicates that the private sector knows better than to touch it without putting taxpayers on the hook. This explains why the Obama administration has had losers like Solyndra, A123 Battery, Beacon Power, and so many others in its energy “loan” portfolio.

When companies continue to flounder, governments usually either institutionalize their failures or double down on them...

This brings us to President Obama and “climate change.”

If climate science was not completely controlled and directed by agenda-driven public funding? If it was instead a competition between private-sector players selling their research to public and private customers without becoming overdependent on any one entity for their well-being and survival?

Well, the idea of human-caused global warming might still have gotten off to a pretty good start. The concern seemed to make some initial sense...

But correlation is not the same as causation. In the late 1990s, even as worldwide carbon emissions continued to rise, average global temperatures leveled off. They haven’t gone anywhere for 15 years, something even the New York Times, Reuters, the New Republic, and the Economist have felt compelled to acknowledge.

The sacred models of warmists didn’t predict any of this...

If warmists had to justify their work to clients with business decision-making interest in their results — instead of needing to keep politically vested true believers at the EPA, anti-progress environmental lobbyists at “public-interest groups,” and radical wealth distributionists happy — they wouldn’t be influential anymore...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically...

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

-No, he does not.

Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...and it doesn't go back even a full century. So, rather than stating "you're wrong" as if you had any, you know, evidence to that effect... you might find it a hell of a lot more true were you to say, "you can't prove that you're right".

Do you see how that works? It's, like, science, man.

So, you make a claim for which you have no evidence. I post a link to the only data set relevant to your claim. The data shows a very clear and statistically significant trend over 40% of the 20th century. But you want to ignore the implications of a trend line and claim that somehow you could be right?

Edited to remove unnecessary insult by me with apologies.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-There's no scientific evidence that a warmer climate has beneficial effects?

Beneficial to whom? Do these benefits outweigh all the known detriments?

What I'm saying is:

1) It's stupid to wreck the economy with taxes and regulations based an unproven theory...

You have absolutely no proof that the economy will be "wrecked" for the simple reason that no one really has a complete plan yet. You also fail to take into account how much of our economy will be impacted (wrecked) as the effects of global warming increase.

2) Whose detrimental results can be adapted to far more economically than trying said taxes and regulations...

How exactly do you propose to adapt our agricultural base to a completely different rainfall regime?

How do you adapt to desertification? How do you adapt to increased invasive species? Increased extinction? Increased power demands to provide climate control?

3) Whose beneficial results can be exploited.

The deep down reason homoglobowarming bedwetters love the theory:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/failure-deni...inglepage=true

The public sector does not have a monopoly on people who become irrationally wedded to ideas and programs which have become outmoded, obsolete, redundant, or worthless. The difference is what happens to such people — and in some cases, their firms — in the private sector when they stubbornly stick to their guns...

But within government?

If a new idea or product is failing or initially seems destined to fail, bureaucrats, their corporate beneficiaries, and their cronies work to get them underwritten or subsidized. The fact that the government is even involved likely indicates that the private sector knows better than to touch it without putting taxpayers on the hook. This explains why the Obama administration has had losers like Solyndra, A123 Battery, Beacon Power, and so many others in its energy “loan” portfolio.

When companies continue to flounder, governments usually either institutionalize their failures or double down on them...

This brings us to President Obama and “climate change.”

If climate science was not completely controlled and directed by agenda-driven public funding? If it was instead a competition between private-sector players selling their research to public and private customers without becoming overdependent on any one entity for their well-being and survival?

Well, the idea of human-caused global warming might still have gotten off to a pretty good start. The concern seemed to make some initial sense...

But correlation is not the same as causation. In the late 1990s, even as worldwide carbon emissions continued to rise, average global temperatures leveled off. They haven’t gone anywhere for 15 years, something even the New York Times, Reuters, the New Republic, and the Economist have felt compelled to acknowledge.

The sacred models of warmists didn’t predict any of this...

If warmists had to justify their work to clients with business decision-making interest in their results — instead of needing to keep politically vested true believers at the EPA, anti-progress environmental lobbyists at “public-interest groups,” and radical wealth distributionists happy — they wouldn’t be influential anymore...

Bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!

Seriously?

You are going to try to post the opinion of someone who doesn't know the difference between signal and noise in order to convince me?

You are the simplest of rubes. You believe anything the fake skeptics put out there, no matter how ridiculous, don't you?

-No, he does not.

Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt...

A Newshour report tonight highlighted the "well documented evidence" that global warming and climate change are making the USA western deserts hotter and drier. Another great problem is people moving into wilderness areas to live. Foresters have been putting out fires for a century, but it has been known for decades that some fires need to be allowed to clear out the fuel. That becomes problematic when people want to protect their homes, and more fires start now too because of increased human factors like sparks from cars and trucks, and added fuel like propane tanks. Letting fires burn becomes a dangerous and expensive proposition.

Maybe I have emphasized blaming the policies and ideologies of the past in some of my posts, but if we are to salvage something of a decent environment and climate for ourselves and our posterity, it is past time to stop the denials and the arguments and face up to these facts about the macro world of ecology which science has proven. Global warming is a fact, and it is caused by the use of fossil fuels. Libertarian economics, propagated by Tea Party, Ayn Rand and Reagan conservatives as well as by libertarians, says that government is the problem, or that it's "coercion," and that therefore taxes and regulations should always be opposed. This prevents the state from doing what we the people need it to do. We can't leave it to greedy fossil fuel company CEOs to "voluntarily" make this decision. They don't, and they won't. We must convert our energy sources to renewables now, and it must be encouraged or required by our government. Delays and arguments against doing this are irresponsible, and they have to stop.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

...You have absolutely no proof that the economy will be "wrecked" for the simple reason that no one really has a complete plan yet...

Thank God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Yeah.

And "green energy" has been a tax boondoggle in Europe.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Beneficial to whom? Do these benefits outweigh all the known detriments?

-Shorter winters not a benefit?

Longer grower seasons not a benefit?

Fewer Icebergs, less ice for arctic travel.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... How exactly do you propose to adapt our agricultural base to a completely different rainfall regime??

-You actually think farmers can't adapt to a 2 degree C shift (worse case scenario) over 100 years?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... You are going to try to post the opinion of someone who doesn't know the difference between signal and noise in order to convince me?

-Which doesn't change the point one iota. But thanks for once again proving what a giant pedantic penis you are.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Thank God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

So cap and trade is the entire plan now? Got any other quotes stripped of context?

Yeah.

And "green energy" has been a tax boondoggle in Europe.

-Shorter winters not a benefit?

Not really. Since many aquifers and reservoirs are replenished during the winter, a shorter winter requires earlier use of water sources that have had less time to refill. Shorter winters also allow pest species an increased chance of over-winter survival. Just to point out a few problems off the top of my head.

Longer grower seasons not a benefit?

Not for many crops. And the increased heat and drying of the soil during those longer seasons will require even more water as well as lead to increased wind erosion.

Fewer Icebergs, less ice for arctic travel.

Artic ice is one of the key components that determines weather patterns across the northern hemisphere. Many, many species, including species of economic interest are ecologically tied to the presence of polar ice.

-You actually think farmers can't adapt to a 2 degree C shift (worse case scenario) over 100 years?

Do you actually think a 2 degree shift is a minor thing ecologically? Is the change only going to be a slight increase in temperature? No thought to the fact that rainfall patterns will be altered.

Do you have anything to say about the catastrophic collapse of coral reef systems and the food webs centered on them?

Do you think those agricultural shifts will be cheap and simple?

-Which doesn't change the point one iota. But thanks for once again proving what a giant pedantic penis you are.

It simply destroys your claim to having any actual knowledge about the topic. Of course, I already knew that.

The fact that your "source" is demonstrably clueless doesn't give you one moment's pause to reconsider your position. You truly are a rube.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

So, you make a claim for which you have no evidence. I post a link to the only data set relevant to your claim. The data shows a very clear and statistically significant trend over 40% of the 20th century. But you want to ignore the implications of a trend line and claim that somehow you could be right?

Or rather, someone else posted a claim for which there are loads of evidence (via proxy, oral histories, and other second-best techniques used for when direct measurement did not occur). You posted a link to a data set wholly irrelevant to the claim -- considering, as it does, a statistically insignificant blip in time, even on the human, as opposed to climatological, scale. I point out the insignificance of your dataset, and at the very least its abject insufficiency to outweigh the secondary evidence which we have as our only proxy covering anything approaching a statistically-significant chunk of time.

You apparently don't like that. And here we are.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or rather, someone else posted a claim for which there are loads of evidence (via proxy, oral histories, and other second-best techniques used for when direct measurement did not occur). You posted a link to a data set wholly irrelevant to the claim -- considering, as it does, a statistically insignificant blip in time, even on the human, as opposed to climatological, scale. I point out the insignificance of your dataset, and at the very least its abject insufficiency to outweigh the secondary evidence which we have as our only proxy covering anything approaching a statistically-significant chunk of time.

You apparently don't like that. And here we are.

You claimed that fires are burning fewer acres today than they did last century. I provided the only data set that actually measures total number of acres burned in a year. The data does not match your claim at all. No amount of hand waving and red herrings will change that fact.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You claimed that fires are burning fewer acres today than they did last century.

Someone else -- again, not me -- made that claim.
You're establishing quite the reputation here of carelessness and indifference to detail. Not terribly scientific a mindset, that.

I provided the only data set that actually measures total number of acres burned in a year.

For a timespan that doesn't even cover the "last century" part of the claim you are supposedly trying to refute.

The data does not match your claim at all.

Indeed. If I made the claim that "whales are nearly always larger than sharks", and you responded with a dataset showing the change in the number of eggs lain by the average female great white over the last twenty years... that data would not match my claim, either.

Because it's not even addressing the claim.

The fact that there are no direct datasets that would address the claim is not, by the way, a great sin or sign of moral failings. It's just a simple fact, consequent to the also-fact that we cannot observe things directly except at the time where we happen to be, and that our interest in what-happened stretches back to times when the data wasn't being collected. We have proxies for that, though.

No amount of hand waving and red herrings will change that fact.

"Hand-waving"? "Red herrings"?

Aren't those precisely what you would call using a dataset that doesn't address a question as if it somehow answered the question? Isn't misdirection via irrelevancies like the definition of those terms?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Someone else -- again, not me -- made that claim.
You're establishing quite the reputation here of carelessness and indifference to detail. Not terribly scientific a mindset, that.

For a timespan that doesn't even cover the "last century" part of the claim you are supposedly trying to refute.

Indeed. If I made the claim that "whales are nearly always larger than sharks", and you responded with a dataset showing the change in the number of eggs lain by the average female great white over the last twenty years... that data would not match my claim, either.

Because it's not even addressing the claim.

The fact that there are no direct datasets that would address the claim is not, by the way, a great sin or sign of moral failings. It's just a simple fact, consequent to the also-fact that we cannot observe things directly except at the time where we happen to be, and that our interest in what-happened stretches back to times when the data wasn't being collected. We have proxies for that, though.

"Hand-waving"? "Red herrings"?

Aren't those precisely what you would call using a dataset that doesn't address a question as if it somehow answered the question? Isn't misdirection via irrelevancies like the definition of those terms?

Has the recent ongoing heat wave in the West revived concerns about global warming? Last year it was our turn. We have been much closer to normal here in the Midwest so far this year. Yesterday Chicago had the coolest July 2 in 73 years. But we are supposed to get warm again by the weekend, but not as extreme as last year. We had a full year's worth of rain before we even reached the year's halfway point. That's where our record has been this year.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Someone else -- again, not me -- made that claim.

Whoops. My bad. I didn't catch the switch from Copper to you, it was pretty seamless. My apologies.

You're establishing quite the reputation here of carelessness and indifference to detail. Not terribly scientific a mindset, that.

Not really interested in what you consider a scientific mindset. I was the one who brought out the only data set that addressed the claim instead of using misleading implications from isolated (geographically and temporally) data points.

For a timespan that doesn't even cover the "last century" part of the claim you are supposedly trying to refute.

Do you really not understand how to read a trend line? I provided all the data that is available. You merely keep pointing out "what it could be" without a shred of supportive evidence. If you can find a properly calibrated proxy data set that shows the total acreage burned each year in the early half of the century is greater than it is today then I will appropriately concede the point. Until you have such data however . . .

Indeed. If I made the claim that "whales are nearly always larger than sharks", and you responded with a dataset showing the change in the number of eggs lain by the average female great white over the last twenty years... that data would not match my claim, either.

Because it's not even addressing the claim.

Nice strawman.

The fact that there are no direct datasets that would address the claim is not, by the way, a great sin or sign of moral failings. It's just a simple fact, consequent to the also-fact that we cannot observe things directly except at the time where we happen to be, and that our interest in what-happened stretches back to times when the data wasn't being collected. We have proxies for that, though.

Really? Care to link to the published research?

"Hand-waving"? "Red herrings"?

Aren't those precisely what you would call using a dataset that doesn't address a question as if it somehow answered the question? Isn't misdirection via irrelevancies like the definition of those terms?

Copperfield claimed that current wildfires are burning fewer acres per year today than they did last century. My data set included all the years of this century and 40 of the years of last century. Additionally it showed a statistically significant trend line of increasing acreage burn over time.

It was the only dataset that directly addressed his claim. It remains the only dataset that directly addresses his claim despite your protestations to the contrary.

Note: I never once claimed that the dataset addressed his other claim that fires burned more acres in the 19th century.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Not really interested in what you consider a scientific mindset. I was the one who brought out the only data set that addressed the claim instead of using misleading implications from isolated (geographically and temporally) data points.

Except, of course, that it doesn't address the claim. But yeah, other than being unrelated to the claim, it's a great dataset. Gold star and cookie for you!

Care to link to the published research?

Sure thing.
Since you asked so nicely, here's some actual data about what we were actually talking about.
Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA
"Since the late 1800s , human activities and the ecological effects of recent high fire activity caused a large, abrupt decline in burning similar to the LIA fire decline. Consequently, there is now a forest “fire deficit” in the western United States attributable to the combined effects of human activities, ecological, and climate changes. Large fires in the late 20th and 21st century fires have begun to address the fire deficit, but it is continuing to grow."

Where have all the fires gone?
"In the United States, few places know as much fire today as they did a century ago."

Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States
even has a pretty picture on page 26 (page 17 of the file) showing the decline in fire incidence. Oh, and you can see your trendline at the tail end of the dataset, even. It looks like fire incidence might be back up all the way to the level it was at in the 1920s...

There's more, but I'm not inclined to do more of a lazy man's work for him. Find it your own damn self -- it's out there if you actually, you know, look.

Copperfield claimed that current wildfires are burning fewer acres per year today than they did last century. My data set included all the years of this century and 40 of the years of last century.

Do you understand what it means when someone says that there are more of something than there were a century ago? A hint: you need to compare to more than just 40 years back -- that's not 'the previous century', unless you want to claim something significant about the Western year-numbering convention.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Except, of course, that it doesn't address the claim. But yeah, other than being unrelated to the claim, it's a great dataset. Gold star and cookie for you!

Ok, now you are being just plain stupid.

Sure thing.
Since you asked so nicely, here's some actual data about what we were actually talking about.
Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA
"Since the late 1800s , human activities and the ecological effects of recent high fire activity caused a large, abrupt decline in burning similar to the LIA fire decline. Consequently, there is now a forest “fire deficit” in the western United States attributable to the combined effects of human activities, ecological, and climate changes. Large fires in the late 20th and 21st century fires have begun to address the fire deficit, but it is continuing to grow."

Did you really understand what you linked? I'm not convinced that you did.

1 - data set is geographically limited as well as biased towards timber regions and neglects grassland, semi-desert and steppe ecosystems

2 - The authors even point out how difficult it is to connect their charcoal data with historical data and therefore limits the time scale resolution of their study.

3 - Your source also points out that biomass burn was at an extreme low during the 20th century, completely counter to Copper's original claim!

Where have all the fires gone?
"In the United States, few places know as much fire today as they did a century ago."

The only data in the entire article was for the Pacific coast of Central America! How exactly is that relevant?

Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States
even has a pretty picture on page 26 (page 17 of the file) showing the decline in fire incidence. Oh, and you can see your trendline at the tail end of the dataset, even. It looks like fire incidence might be back up all the way to the level it was at in the 1920s...

1 - Once again, you failed to actually understand the research. The authors went out of their way to point out what they were attempting to do. "To reiterate, our objective is not to statistically sample the "population" of land- scape types or of fire events that have occurred, but rather to obtain as complete an inventory as pos- sible of all fire events (dates) that have occurred within selected units (i.e., case studies) as far back in time as possible.(emphasis mine)

"Although we cannot reconstruct the precise pe- rimeters or prepare detailed maps of past surface fires in Southwestern ponderosa pine and mixed- conifer forests, we can study the relative extensive- ness of fires at various spatial scales (Figure 1)." (Emphasis mine)

"For example, temporally syn- chronous fire dates recorded throughout sites by many sampled fire-scarred trees can be reasonably inferred to have been burns of larger spatial extent within the sampled site than fire dates recorded by only one or a few trees." (emphasis in the original)

2 - As to the "pretty picture" you seem to be the epitome of seeing what you want. Did you read any of the material explaining what the picture was actually showing?

3 - Did you somehow skip over the part where this study refutes your second study? "The point here is that we do not deny the fact that people strongly influenced fire regimes in some places and some periods, but we emphasize that the role and importance of Native Americans in pre- settlement fire regimes of the Southwest were very site and time specific, and not ubiquitous."​ (emphasis in original)

There's more, but I'm not inclined to do more of a lazy man's work for him.

No, you did quite enough "lazy man" work. So lazy in fact that you failed to actually address the topic.

Did 20th century wildfires burn more total acres per year than wildfires today?

Find it your own damn self -- it's out there if you actually, you know, look.

I did. I linked to the only data set that actually addressed the question.

Do you understand what it means when someone says that there are more of something than there were a century ago? A hint: you need to compare to more than just 40 years back -- that's not 'the previous century', unless you want to claim something significant about the Western year-numbering convention.

One of your own sources directly refutes your claim and you have still failed to address the trend line data. You going to do that or are you going to continue to act like a petulant child?

Do you really not understand what geographically limited means?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Scott Pelley reported tonight from the fire lines, interviewing the chief of US fire fighters. No-one out here doesn't believe in climate change, said the chief. We live it! A 100,000 acre fire used to be a rare thing, he said. In the last 15 years, 200,000 acre fires are commonplace.

I think Vandal'72 has this covered. Oh whoops, naughty me, you have him on ignore.

Give it up, libertarians! Your policy has failed. We need government action on climate change. Your policies of inaction over the last 30 years have caused the climate crisis. How many more will die so you don't have to pay taxes or accept regulations on your rich friends?

How about out with the old and in with the new wrt taxation. By definition, taxes can't exceed GDP. Let's replace FICA/Medicare taxes with Eric's new taxes. (Methinks energy taxes are a a tad regressive so a substitute/replace is in order here. Now, as for government action, well, gee Eric, have you ever heard of "too many irons in the fire" ? Now if we're gonna add new stuff for the government to do, we need to delete old stuff which is now "cruft".

Rag's list of cruft marked for deletion:
1. Wars of choice. Iraq, Afghanistan,Egypt,Libya, ( avoid Syria).
2. Close all foreign military bases.
3. Delete all housing stuff except Section VIII.
4. Abolish Dept of Education. Education is local, sorry.
5. End all corporate welfare.
6. Enact X income = Y tax (mentioned prior), likewise for business, but add write off for (*wages paid + domestic tangible investments)
7. Delete other subsidies, like agriculture stuff.

1 add: Energy saving infrastructure like rail and CFL's for Federal offices.

*Wages would be capped at 60000 * minimum wage. No whatever 100 million dollar write offs for dumb-dumb MBA types, aka "suits".

Originally Posted by Vandal'72

Is that ever really in doubt?

In reference to:
JordanGoodspeed :

"Well, before this shin kicking contest gets any further, I would like to take this time to rejoice that, whatever our differences, at least we can all agree that Eric is wrong. "

I also added this tidbit since you have Vandal'72 on ignore. Just sayin' you're missing out on some juicy stuff here.

Red herring mentioned again? Sheesh. That called for a pic.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think Vandal'72 has this covered. Oh whoops, naughty me, you have him on ignore.

Why wouldn't I? It should be obvious. Why don't YOU put him on ignore?

How about out with the old and in with the new wrt taxation. By definition, taxes can't exceed GDP. Let's replace FICA/Medicare taxes with Eric's new taxes. (Methinks energy taxes are a a tad regressive so a substitute/replace is in order here. Now, as for government action, well, gee Eric, have you ever heard of "too many irons in the fire" ? Now if we're gonna add new stuff for the government to do, we need to delete old stuff which is now "cruft".

Rag's list of cruft marked for deletion:
1. Wars of choice. Iraq, Afghanistan,Egypt,Libya, ( avoid Syria).
2. Close all foreign military bases.
3. Delete all housing stuff except Section VIII.
4. Abolish Dept of Education. Education is local, sorry.
5. End all corporate welfare.
6. Enact X income = Y tax (mentioned prior), likewise for business, but add write off for (*wages paid + domestic tangible investments)
7. Delete other subsidies, like agriculture stuff.

1 add: Energy saving infrastructure like rail and CFL's for Federal offices.

*Wages would be capped at 60000 * minimum wage. No whatever 100 million dollar write offs for dumb-dumb MBA types, aka "suits".

Taxes are pretty low now, especially on the wealthy. We can afford a few more without gutting social security and medicare. I think medicare taxes can rise to pay for us all being covered. That should arrive in the 2020s. After all, a lot of overdo stuff will be done then.

I'm not sure about all the deletions on your list, but it looks pretty good to me.

I also added this tidbit since you have Vandal'72 on ignore. Just sayin' you're missing out on some juicy stuff here.

If your sample is any indication, I did not miss out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why wouldn't I? It should be obvious. Why don't YOU put him on ignore?

I don't have him on ignore because he's a preview of upcoming attractions. Visualize him 30 years hence. We'll have a 71 year old curmudgeon yelling at kids to stay off the lawn. Something like get off my Buchloe dactyloides!

Taxes are pretty low now, especially on the wealthy. We can afford a few more without gutting social security and medicare. I think medicare taxes can rise to pay for us all being covered. That should arrive in the 2020s. After all, a lot of overdo stuff will be done then.

I don't think they're low for us wage slaves. 15% + 15.3% FICA+Medicare. I really don't think employers pay their share, but rather decrease wages by some amount of that. That comes out to about 30.3%. Now tack on sales + property + car tags + junk fees [phone charges/utility fees/cable franchise fees, etc. ] and I'd guess we'd get something close to 40%. Wrt fatcats, yes, I agree with you. I think overall, our tax structure given the above is very regressive.

I'm not sure about all the deletions on your list, but it looks pretty good to me.

Works for me. No point in arguing over minutia.

If your sample is any indication, I did not miss out.

I heard red herring is high in omega 3's though.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

1 - data set is geographically limited as well as biased towards timber regions and neglects grassland, semi-desert and steppe ecosystems

2 - The authors even point out how difficult it is to connect their charcoal data with historical data and therefore limits the time scale resolution of their study.

3 - Your source also points out that biomass burn was at an extreme low during the 20th century, completely counter to Copper's original claim!



The only data in the entire article was for the Pacific coast of Central America! How exactly is that relevant?



1 - Once again, you failed to actually understand the research. The authors went out of their way to point out what they were attempting to do. "To reiterate, our objective is not to statistically sample the "population" of land- scape types or of fire events that have occurred, but rather to obtain as complete an inventory as pos- sible of all fire events (dates) that have occurred within selected units (i.e., case studies) as far back in time as possible.(emphasis mine)

"Although we cannot reconstruct the precise pe- rimeters or prepare detailed maps of past surface fires in Southwestern ponderosa pine and mixed- conifer forests, we can study the relative extensive- ness of fires at various spatial scales (Figure 1)." (Emphasis mine)

"For example, temporally syn- chronous fire dates recorded throughout sites by many sampled fire-scarred trees can be reasonably inferred to have been burns of larger spatial extent within the sampled site than fire dates recorded by only one or a few trees." (emphasis in the original)

2 - As to the "pretty picture" you seem to be the epitome of seeing what you want. Did you read any of the material explaining what the picture was actually showing?

3 - Did you somehow skip over the part where this study refutes your second study? "The point here is that we do not deny the fact that people strongly influenced fire regimes in some places and some periods, but we emphasize that the role and importance of Native Americans in pre- settlement fire regimes of the Southwest were very site and time specific, and not ubiquitous."​ (emphasis in original)

Do you really not understand what geographically limited means?

Oh dear me. So none of my datasets was a true Scotsman. Why, what a compelling, original, intellectually-rigorous, and sound argument! I guess you win!

you failed to actually address the topic.

Did 20th century wildfires burn more total acres per year than wildfires today?

A.a.a.and back to the mis-direct again. It's not surprising, since hand-waving seems, on balance, to be all you've got.

The comparison was to 'the previous century' and 'the century before that'*. This being... 2013, that means the claim was made regarding 'this century' (1914 - now), 'last century (1814 - 1913), and 'the century before that' (1714 - 1814). "Century" being a measure equal to one hundred years.
Of course, even if you want to pretend that your Gregorian-calendar handwaving is the slightest bit not a feeble dodge, you'd still be looking at the periods [2001-2013; 1901-2000; 1801-1900]. Your dataset quite simply doesn't even come close to addressing the claim made, since it doesn't even make it halfway through the middle interval. And since datasets that actually do (proxy though they may be) very clearly show that the times you ignore are the times when stuff was happening. How very convenient for you not to have to worry your pretty little head with things that might threaten the notions you are fed.

----
-edit-
*Show, don't tell. Words to live by.

----
-edit2-
Sine waves have trendlines, too... with some scary slopes, if you grab a chunk of them at least a couple times shorter than their period from the right place. It's sad and a bit pitiful to see the abuse of the noble least-squares tool. When used intelligently, it can do a fair bit of good.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh dear me. So none of my datasets was a true Scotsman. Why, what a compelling, original, intellectually-rigorous, and sound argument! I guess you win!

Well I see we are doubling down on just plain stupid. I showed exactly why your sources did not support Copper's claim. In fact parts of them down right refuted it.

A.a.a.and back to the mis-direct again. It's not surprising, since hand-waving seems, on balance, to be all you've got.

The comparison was to 'the previous century' and 'the century before that'*.

Are you simply going to continue to pretend that I didn't state that I was only addressing the claim about last century and not the century before that?

This being... 2013, that means the claim was made regarding 'this century' (1914 - now), 'last century (1814 - 1913), and 'the century before that' (1714 - 1814). "Century" being a measure equal to one hundred years.

Oh please, can you special plead me up some fries with that?

Of course, even if you want to pretend that your Gregorian-calendar handwaving is the slightest bit not a feeble dodge,

Are you going to pretend that you didn't already accept that definition? You know we can all just scroll back through and check your words, right?

you'd still be looking at the periods [2001-2013; 1901-2000; 1801-1900]. Your dataset quite simply doesn't even come close to addressing the claim made, since it doesn't even make it halfway through the middle interval.

Go check my initial post. You'll find that I specifically responded to the claim about last century only.

By the way, are you ever going to address the trend line from the dataset I linked to? Why do you continually ignore the analysis of the data that indicates the initial claim was incorrect? That last is of course rhetorical, everyone here knows why you keep ignoring it.

And since datasets that actually do (proxy though they may be) very clearly show that the times you ignore are the times when stuff was happening.

You don't really seem to understand what the term proxy data really means. Proxy data for this question would be something we can measure that correlates so well with the dataset I linked to that we would be able to accurately estimate the total acreage burned across the nation for each year prior to the dataset. None of your sources actually does that. As I initially pointed out before you even linked to them, each dataset is limited geographically to a select region or ecosystem type. If someone was to combine all of them and fill in the missing gaps for other ecosystems then it might be possible to get the answer you already claim to have. But, it simply isn't there yet.

How very convenient for you not to have to worry your pretty little head with things that might threaten the notions you are fed.

Just because you didn't really understand what you were reading is not my fault. Your attempt to be condescending is simply hilarious.

----
-edit-
*Show, don't tell. Words to live by.

----
-edit2-
Sine waves have trendlines, too... with some scary slopes, if you grab a chunk of them at least a couple times shorter than their period from the right place. It's sad Sine waves have trendlines, too... with some scary slopes, if you grab a chunk of them at least a couple times shorter than their period from the right place. It's sad and a bit pitiful to see the abuse of the noble least-squares tool. When used intelligently, it can do a fair bit of good.

Doesn't it embarrass you, even if just a little, to be responding to multiple published studies with no more than unsupported assertions? I mean, it's hilarious from over here, if in a bit of a sad way. If you are representative of the state of education in the american school system... well, let's say the unique-in-the-world high rate of post-graduation functional illiteracy in the USA becomes a lot more understandable.

If, as it turns out contrary to the evidence of these last couple days, you do have a sense of shame and intellectual integrity, please feel free to hunt around until you can find some actual science to back up your assertions. I'm in no great rush, so go ahead and take all the time you need.

One thing is clear, we will need extensive government action, both federal and local, if we are to be stewards of life and leave a sustainable planet in our wake, instead of destroying it. We can't leave it to "communities" and "voluntary" willingness to do so with "no coercion." It will take the force of law, enacted by the people and enforced by "bureaucrats," to rein in the fossil fuel company CEOs and others who want to harm us and other species for the sake of their profits and convenience. Libertarians are playing Russian Roulette with our future in order to preserve a failed and flawed ideology of "freedom."

Take just one or two examples I heard about today, the day after Independence Day for our "free" country. The American symbol is the bald eagle. But the Nature program on PBS documented how there would be no bald eagles today at all if it were not for the endangered species act and the ban on DDT in 1973. And where did the ozone hole that had made it too dangerous to go outdoors in the southern hemisphere (especially in winter and spring)? It appears to be reduced, but only because governments got together and banned the use of freon in industry that was emitting the chemicals that caused it. Government works; libertarian politics does not.

(more specifically, the kind of freon banned is the kind containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are banned as well as other CFCs. The Montreal Protocol of 1987-99 has stopped ozone and begun to reverse ozone depletion and recovery is expected by 2050)



The same is necessary with Global warming. President Obama is concerned about his legacy. Will he be president at the time we needed to act before it became intolerable and too dangerous to our future? He needs to go further, but at least he is starting to regulate coal plants to reduce CO2 emissions and convert to renewable resources.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Doesn't it embarrass you, even if just a little, to be responding to multiple published studies with no more than unsupported assertions? I mean, it's hilarious from over here, if in a bit of a sad way. If you are representative of the state of education in the American school system... well, let's say the unique-in-the-world high rate of post-graduation functional illiteracy in the USA becomes a lot more understandable.

Something in need of major, systemic reform indeed. As usual the economic elites usually shape the educational system to fit their desires in the workforce, and one needs little formal education to fit into the low-wage jobs that America produces in the retail, cleaning, and food-service businesses. The stupider that people are the happier they can be in such work -- and the less likely they are to see something wrong with severe inequality and a mind-wrecking mass low culture. Mass-market American beer and reality TV -- wonderful -- right?

If, as it turns out contrary to the evidence of these last couple days, you do have a sense of shame and intellectual integrity, please feel free to hunt around until you can find some actual science to back up your assertions. I'm in no great rush, so go ahead and take all the time you need.

One heat wave does not prove global warming. Simple compressional heating that has no connection to any increase in insolation or the greenhouse effect can happen just before an extreme cold front indicates only that the cold front has yet to arrive. (That is one of the few scientific facts that the ludicrous The Day Before Tomorrow got right. That said, carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is rising, and with it comes more of a greenhouse gas even more powerful -- water vapor.

The null hypothesis that nothing is going on is widely debunked. All of the 'debunking' of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) comes from biased studies sponsored by special interests, including the oil and coal cartels that want no reduction in consumption of fossil fuels. Even those studies occasionally contradict intended 'discoveries'. The arctic oceanic ice is shrinking earlier and more completely seemingly every year, and such cannot fail to have effects on not only climates along the Arctic littoral but also upon rainfall patterns.

If the ice sheet atop the Arctic Ocean disappears, then under intense heating of the waters of the Arctic Ocean around the summer solstice the Arctic Ocean could become a source for heavy precipitation over places that go from having tundra climates to short-summer subarctic climates. Such could change rainfall patterns elsewhere -- and not all to the benefit of people who live in zones that could get drier.

If -- if -- if. We don't know what the full effects of AGW upon climate and -- most significantly -- agricultural potential. When the food crops fail, all the reality TV, music videos, video games, and celebrity-circus sports will fail, too.