Dingy Harry speaks again

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday....

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

What a maroon.

[AWL71 0]

Factors like fire spreads really fast when the ground is dry and the winds are feeding the flames. That might have something to do with the fires. Reid needs to call Al Gore for a better global warming sound bite.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[vortexring 0]

Al Gore needs to sort the numerous mistakes out in his film...

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[masterrig 1]

Wow! He really does live in a 'la-la land'!


Chuck

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Factors like fire spreads really fast when the ground is dry and the winds are feeding the flames. That might have something to do with the fires. Reid needs to call Al Gore for a better global warming sound bite.

Another big impact to these fires is environmental policy dealing with forest management. Fires are natural. Now when they start we put them out. Over the years kindling accumulates in larger quantities (generally speaking) than nature allowed when she moved at here own pace. Also, policy not allowing dead wood harvesting have contributed. Now a fire starts and the fuel is at levels that contribute to larger nastier fires. It comes full circle

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,595]

Why does it say "he appeared to back away from his comments"?

Regardless of whether he's right or wrong the two comments are entirely consistent.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Well, he can always skate by on the fact that he said it was 'one reason,' not the primary reason. It's pretty far down the list, at best.

SoCal has always been a desert, and it's always had Santa Ana wind conditions. The change now is that people have built lots of flammable corridors for the fires to run wild with.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Well, he can always skate by on the fact that he said it was 'one reason,' not the primary reason. It's pretty far down the list, at best.

SoCal has always been a desert, and it's always had Santa Ana wind conditions. The change now is that people have built lots of flammable corridors for the fires to run wild with.

“This has been quite an extreme Santa Ana event,” Mark Jackson, meteorologist in charge of the Los Angeles Forecast Office of the National Weather Service.

As I'm sure you know well, GW causes existing weather patterns to become more extreme.

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

As I said, it could be a minor factor.

Fire season and hot temperatures and nasty Santa Anas have been around for a long long time. I remember several 108F periods in the 80s.

The difference is that we put in stuff to burn. Houses and lawns and non desert vegetation. No natural fire brakes, and no natural fires to clean up the detritus. That the winds are slightly more extreme doesn't really change the result much.

The notable element this time around is the sheer number of fires going on. And if again many prove to be arson, not much proved wrt GW.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart.

Extreme weather events have happened throughout the centuries. Let's look at 1936 - where February had record cold (North Dakota's mean temperature was 11 below for the month) and the Arkansas River froze at Little Rock.

Flash forward a couple of months, to tornadoes killing over 400 people around Tupelo, Mississippi in April.

Then go forward to July - Steele, ND recorded 121 degrees - a record high that stands pretty firm!

Here are records set in July and August, 1936:

July 5, 1936
South Dakota state record, 120 at Gann Valley

July 6
Minnesota state record, 114 at Moorhead
North Dakota state record, 121 at Steele (Wow!!)
Bismarck, ND 114
Fargo, ND 114
Aberdeen, SD 115

July 7
Traverse City, MI 105

July 8
Toronto, Ont. Canada 105
Flint, MI 108

July 9
New York City (Central Park) 106
Syracuse, NY 102
Rochester, NY 102
Scranton, PA 103
Williamsport, PA 106
Youngstown, OH 103
Toronto 105 tied record

July 10
Maryland state record, 109 at Cumberland and Frederick
New Jersey state record, 110 at Runyon
Pennsylvania state record, 111 at Phoenixville
West Virginia state record, 112 at Martinsburg
Baltimore 107
Lynchburg, VA 106
Lexington, KY 108
Toronto 105 (three days in a row!!)

July 11
Manitoba provincial record, 112 at Treesbank
Brandon, Man. Canada 110
Winnipeg, Man. 108
Norway House, Man. 101 (at north end of Lake Winnipeg, northernmost 100 degree
reading in this heat wave)
Minot, ND 109

July 12
Manitoba provincial record tied, 112 at Emerson
Kapuskasing, Ont. Canada 101
Grand Forks, ND 109

July 13
Michigan state record, 112 at Mio
Wisconsin state record, 114 at Wisconsin Dells
Ontario provincial record, 108 at Atikokan and Fort Frances
Duluth, MN 106 (Wow!!)
Eau Claire, WI 111
Green Bay, WI 104
Waterloo, IA 112
Evansville, IN 108
Grand Rapids, MI 108
Saginaw, MI 111

July 14
Indiana state record, 116 at Collegeville
Terre Haute, IN 110
Toledo, OH 105
Rockford, IL 112
Moline, IL 111
Dubuque, IA 110
Madison, WI 107
Minneapolis, MN 108
Rochester, MN 108
Average high at 113 stations in Iowa 108.7

July 15
Peoria, IL 113
Quincy, IL 114
Kirksville, MO 113
Lexington, KY 108 (tied record from 7/10)

July 16
Mobridge, SD 116

July 17
Norfolk, NE 116


After a break for a few days, the heat intensified again in the central Plains:

July 24
Kansas state record, 121 at Alton and Fredonia
Nebraska state record, 118 at Minden
Grand Island, NE 117
Topeka, KS 114

July 25
Lincoln, NE 115
Omaha, NE 114


More records were set in August!

August 10
Arkansas state record, 120 at Ozark
Louisiana state record, 114 at Plain Dealing
Fort Smith, AR 113
Texarkana, AR 117
Tulsa, OK 115

August 11
Oklahoma City, OK 113

August 12
Wichita, KS 114

August 13
Concordia, KS 116
Salina, KS 118

August 14
Kansas City, MO 113

All of this was to blame on a persistent high pressure system over the Pacific that drove the southwest desert heat into the midwest.

At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart.

....


At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event.

Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"?

It has been predicted for years that GW will lead to more weather extremes. So when we get an extreme (which this event is according to the meteorologists), shouldn't we consider GW as a distinct possibility?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart.

....


At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event.

Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"?

It has been predicted for years that GW will lead to more weather extremes. So when we get an extreme (which this event is according to the meteorologists), shouldn't we consider GW as a distinct possibility?

GW is a possibility. Not likely, but possible. I might possibly win the lottery too. Possible, but not likely.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart.

At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event.

Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"?

Why do you think Harry Reid made that claim?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

**MAYBE** there is a connection. Certainly you should not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Dismissed outright? Well, no. Stated connection? Well, no. Reserving comment? Probably smart.

At the time, that was all you could say about it, really. An outlier event.

Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"?

Why do you think Harry Reid made that claim?

Because he's a politician? What do you think?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does that justify comments like "What a maroon." or "la la land"?

Why do you think Harry Reid made that claim?

Because he's a politician? What do you think?

I'd rephrase the question, but you'd probably reply with something about iPods or Lewis Carroll....

[skymiles 3]

Quote

***“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday....

Simplistic statements like this make it way too easy for the deniers.

[rushmc 23]

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content? I look for ward to the trashing cause that is all you have. (not aimed at any one poster)



California Wildfires: Media Blame Another Natural Disaster on Bush
By Noel Sheppard | October 24, 2007 - 14:49 ET

As wildfires rage throughout Southern California, media have predictably begun to blame this awful natural disaster on President George W. Bush much as they did almost exactly two years ago when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

On Tuesday evening, MSNBC's Dan Abrams set up an interview with California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Cal.) thusly:

But the fire storms in California`s raising tough questions about what the National Guard is extended too much to handle emergencies at home. Back in May, before the fire started, "The San Francisco Chronicle" reported that the California National Guard was down a billion dollars worth of equipment. Two hundred and nine vehicles in Iraq, including 110 humvees and 63 military trucks. According to report the California guard should have had 39 diesel generators on hand. They say it had none. The Kansas governor raised similar concerns earlier this year when she said the deployment of National Guard troops to Iraq hurt the emergency response to a deadly tornado in her state. The question -- is this another unanticipated cost of a prolonged and expensive war effort?

On Wednesday morning, CNN's John Roberts asked a similar question of FEMA Administrator David Paulison:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Senator Barbara Boxer from California is complaining that because the National Guard from California is engaged in the war in Iraq, there were not enough members from the National Guard to respond to this fire. What do you say to that?

The MRC's Kyle Drennen reported Wednesday that CBS's Hannah Storm asked roughly the same question of Paulison on today's "Early Show."

Not to be outdone, the good folks at the New York Times are already making the Katrina connection in an article published Wednesday entitled "With Katrina Fresh, Bush Moves Quickly."

And, as NewsBuster Scott Whitlock transcribed Wednesday, ABC's Claire Shipman asked the following of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on "Good Morning America": So, you think the comparison to Katrina that everybody's making in the back of their mind these days is a good one in terms of state and federal."

Of course, the other way this will all get blamed on President Bush is by tying these fires to global warming as CNN, CBS, NBC, and others have already done.

Yet, the actual culprits for these fires conveniently getting little attention were reported in an Orange County Register editorial on Monday, namely, arson and downed power lines (emphasis added):

Our dismay is doubled, however, by the circumstances that authorities believe caused the fire that has burned at least 8.800 acres in Orange County. Almost all the other fires in the region have been tentatively attributed to natural causes, mostly power lines knocked over by the powerful Santa Ana "devil winds." (We know some people might call power lines unnatural.) But the fire that began near Santiago Canyon on the northern edge of Irvine is suspected arson.

Another article from the Register Monday, entitled "Modjeska Canyon residents evacuated: Arson suspected in Santiago Canyon Fire," was a tad more specific:

The blaze, which was moving steadily north into Silverado Canyon at nightfall after threatening Foothill Ranch and Portola Ranch, was triggered at three separate points near the intersection of Silverado Canyon Road and Santiago Canyon Road in an area called "Grumpy's" after a man who sells beef jerky there.

There was one point of origin on one side of the road and two more on the other side, said Kris Concepcion, a battalion chief with the Orange County Fire Authority.

"Whoever did this knew what they were doing," he said.

Yet, of the 148 television reports logged about these wildfires since Sunday, a LexisNexis search identified only two that addressed the possibility of arson: one done on Fox News's "On the Record" Monday, and; one filed on CNN's "Out in the Open" the same evening.

And, only eighteen discussed the downed power lines.

Another angle media seem to be ignoring is the terrorist one. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's National Terror Alert website reported the OC Register's arson claims Monday as having a possible terrorist connection:

We are NOT implying that the California fires are an act of terrorism however; the threat of pyro-terrorist attacks pose a significant risk to the U.S. and the fires in California and in Greece earlier this year should be a wake-up call.

In 2003 an FBI memo alerted law enforcement agencies that an al-Qaeda terrorist being held in detention had talked of masterminding a plot to set a series of devastating forest fires around the western United States.

It was reported that the detainee, who was not identified, said the plan involved three or four people setting wildfires using timed devices in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming that would detonate in forests and grasslands after the operatives had left the country.

The Associated Press reported on this issue July 11, 2003 (emphasis added):

The FBI alerted law enforcement agencies last month that an al-Qaeda terrorist now in detention had talked of masterminding a plot to set a series of devastating forest fires around the western United States.

Rose Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, told The Associated Press that officials there took note of the warning but didn't see a need to act further on it.

With arson considered the cause of at least one of these fires, shouldn't investigative journalists be addressing this issue, as well as the real identified cause for many of the fires?

Or would that make it too difficult to blame this catastrophe on President Bush?

Of course, the good folks at CNN have another idea in mind: use the wildfires to push their global warming special "Planet in Peril."

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up!

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

refute what content? There's a lot of possibles in this article.

arson is always a likely cause. Even without terrorists, always been a lot of that.

national guard probably would be more useful here rather than in Iraq. Do they fight fires though, or just assist with evacuation and infrastructure?

If FEMA fucks around again, yeah, Bush will be blamed. And rightfully so.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

refute what content? There's a lot of possibles in this article.

arson is always a likely cause. Even without terrorists, always been a lot of that.

national guard probably would be more useful here rather than in Iraq. Do they fight fires though, or just assist with evacuation and infrastructure?

If FEMA fucks around again, yeah, Bush will be blamed. And rightfully so.

good one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content?

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

national guard probably would be more useful here rather than in Iraq. Do they fight fires though, or just assist with evacuation and infrastructure?

Have you considered the fact that most lefties actually despise the military and would consider their presence on the streets, telling them what to do, offensive?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content?

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish.

I had a feeling YOU couldn't do it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content?

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish.

To me, it seemed that the article was about what is being addressed in the media, regarding this topic.

Seems like there is a lot of finger pointing at Bush, while very little attention to the cause of the fires. Let's go ahead and focus the blame on Bush, while we ignore the instigators of this horrific event. Who cares if bad people do bad things, what matters is how the government steps up on it's nannystate duties.

IOW everybody is getting worked up over something that has yet to play out, while they ignore a key aspect of the current situation. Seems like some very lopsided reporting.

But that's just how I see it.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content?

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish.

I had a feeling YOU couldn't do it

Sweet Jesus, I am talking about the fucking content!

Are you actually able to argue a point without attacking your opponent? Try it, just once.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

BEFORE You trash the source can you refute the content?

Yes. The author consistently confuses the cause of the fire with the response to the fire, thus the main thrust of the first half of the article is complete rubbish.

I had a feeling YOU couldn't do it

Sweet Jesus, I am talking about the fucking content!

Are you actually able to argue a point without attacking your opponent? Try it, just once.

what was the tittle I put on the thread???? Did you address that?? No. You did not.

Boxer claimed the national guard was sooooooooo limited because of Iraq!!! Currently CA has 137 deployed and 17,000 at home in CA. Care to address that ???? Or,because you did not like the prespective of the author that is worth ignoring too.


As you put it Sweet Jesus.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln