InnZoneU Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 12:04 PM, azgreg said: This shit is better. I'm old enough to remember buying non-branded BEER from the grocery store. It put chest on your hairs. 1 Quote
azgreg Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 1:35 PM, InnZoneU said: I'm old enough to remember buying non-branded BEER from the grocery store. It put chest on your hairs. That stuff is made by Falstaff. Quote
RSF Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 3:41 PM, azgreg said: That stuff is made by Falstaff. Not anymore, Thank God. Quote
DestinFlPackfan Posted February 1 Posted February 1 Note to self: Plan cruise to either Antarctica or North Pole for holiday season 2032. 2 Quote
The San Diegan Posted February 1 Author Posted February 1 On 1/30/2025 at 1:26 PM, AztecAlien said: We are not in agreement regarding the recent wildfires either. The population of California in 1850 when it became a state was 90,000. It's now 40 million that are documented. People let wildfires and forest fires in the past burn themselves out because they were beneficial and nature's way of forest management. Over time, fires become more destructive because of more loss of life and economic loss due to population growth and urban sprawl. The Kitchen Creek Fire that happened in San Diego County nearly 60 years ago when the Santa Ana winds produce 100 mph wind gusts only destroyed 300+ structures. If that fire happened today, you'd have 20,000 destroyed, 10,000 in Alpine alone. Urban sprawl also has a devastating effect on ecosystems as well. So yeah, definitely human caused. There's a lot of hypocrisy with the radical alarmists as well. I still see plenty of gas-guzzling vehicles being driven throughout the entire State of California. There was a thread either here, or on the MWCBoard where many of the global warming posters were bragging about their trucks and even provided pictures. And for all the other creatures that benefit from living on earth, except for human beings, I'm rooting for the asteroid. Until another time... Again, you keep referencing the one outlier event that produced, at the time, the largest wildfire in state history. Yes, it had ridiculously strong gusts driving the fire - hence the huge swath of destruction. Now, hold that point in your head for just one second... And realize that we just had two wind events within the past two weeks where there were recorded gusts of 100+ mph. In January. Again, what seems so simple, yet so perplexingly elusive to you, is the fact that what was a once-in-500 year conflagration that occurred a half-century ago now occurs yearly. And this has fuckall to do with property development or the influx of people, and has everything to do with the conditions that allow these fires to spread so rapidly, and at the top of that list of conditions are the increased wind velocities and the extended fire season - both products of climate change. Quote
Akkula Posted February 2 Posted February 2 On 1/30/2025 at 2:36 PM, AztecAlien said: The extinction of humans will occur long before the current effects of global warming. More consequences will result from the ongoing use of hazardous chemicals, that are poisoning watersheds and destroying the oceans than from global warming. We perish if the oceans die. In the future, humans will create more severe diseases and pandemics in the name of research, which will contribute to the end of human existence, long before the end of the world's population due to global warming, I believe humanity will develop a superbug in the near future. And seeing how the earth is billions of years old, the near future could mean 50 to 1,000 years. The threat of our enemies, and world wide nuclear war are at play when talking about national security and discussing the extinction of the human race long before the present-day rate of climate change and global warming. And a simple question that the alarmist don't like to answer. Where did the ice go that covered the Northern Hemisphere just 11,000 to 12,000 years ago? Humans are playing a part in regarding heat stress on the earth. I'm not arguing that and haven't. But we won't be around long enough for that being the demise of the human race. As you stated in another thread, we are not going to agree on this subject, and that's fine. Did you attend Trump University? Can you please tell about windmills next? 1 Quote
Akkula Posted February 2 Posted February 2 On 1/30/2025 at 3:03 PM, The San Diegan said: I get the threat posed by polluting our watersheds and oceans. I also think we're on the precipice as a species and to your point, there are several EOTWAWKI scenarios that are probabilistically more likely to occur first (e.g., a nuclear exchange, pandemic, etc). But that being said, to simply write off the threat of climate change as a national security issue is foolish to the nth, as it presents as much of a threat as a force-multiplier to exacerbate other threats as it does a direct threat itself. And to be direct about it, the highlighted statement is complete bullshit. First off, we're already realizing the effects of global warming, as evidenced by the fact that the present rate of sea level rise is unprecedented in the last 2,500 years, and as discussed in the LA fires thread, climate change is already having a huge impact with regards to the size of wildfires - these are not even in dispute. In fact, it's not only the wildfires being driven by stronger winds; the average wind strength of hurricanes is also increasing over the past half-century: And again - the traceability of this effect to mean global warming is very straight forward and simple - at least provided you have a working understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics - as we know that greenhouse gasses trap additional heat in the atmosphere, and we know that our activities generate greenhouse gasses. I mean, the causal relationship is beyond basic, ffs, at least to anyone who paid half a shit of attention in HS physics for the first two weeks. 😂 These people went to the RFK Jr. school of autism science at Trump University. That means that no matter how many reams of scientific evidence you out in front of them, they will still "have doubts" and want to " do their own research." Basically, they have their desired political outcome and they will ignore anything that doesn't affirm it and cherry pick any quack "research" that does. If all else fails, a sharpie works too. "I TOLD you the hurricane hit Alabama, see!" " The so called experts were wrong again!" MAGA nods in agreement. 1 Quote
The San Diegan Posted February 3 Author Posted February 3 Odds have now increased to 1-in-63, a 1.6% chance. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.