Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North America 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared 
>>>>>> to the long term history.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point being that current trends no longer seem to be cyclical.
>>>>> They seem to be more and more year after year.
>>>>
>>>> You're looking at your personal experience and media reports of 
>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be part of a 
>>>> greater cycle.
>>>
>>> what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya dingus??? lol 
>>
>> The underlying question is, what drives the changes in Earth's climate?
>>
>> It's not CO2 alone.
> 
> that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and specific 
> physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased heat in 
> earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
> 
> not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it needs to 
> align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes that we 
> measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ change in a 
> matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when compared to 
> normal geological periodic cycles
> 
We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human emissions.

There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific community who 
say that other factors are at play and I've already provided that data 
to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I 
acknowledge that these are minority views.

They say:

Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human influence. 
Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm Period 
and the Medieval Warm Period (~900–1300 AD) were at least as warm or 
warmer than today in many regions.

The current warming (~1.09°C since ~1880) is a natural recovery from the 
Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 AD). Solar irradiance reconstructions (by 
Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70–90% with 
temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming aligns with 
the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of increase is high, but 
within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with 10°C/century jumps).

The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick & 
Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land warming 
artifactual.

US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of 
observation bias" corrections).  These adjustments applied to historical 
records in major datasets have increased the long-term warming relative 
to the raw data by adding ~0.3°C artificial warming post-1900, roughly 
doubling the century-scale mean temperature trend.

The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared 
radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% saturated at 
pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database). 
Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1–1.5°C direct effect with no 
feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave radiation 
is increasing with warming, indicating potential negative feedbacks 
(cooling clouds/reflection).

There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant growth 
(greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in global 
vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic feedback. And 
warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than 
heat-related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.

The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud feedbacks to 
nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the tropical 
troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual 
balloon/radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models 
predict warming roughly 1.5–2× higher than real observations. In fact 
every model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers. 
(McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, “Pervasive Warming 
Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers”). Other studies of surface 
temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority of CMIP 
models tend to warm faster than observations.

There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or floods 
when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s data; IPCC 
SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution for most extremes).

The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that claimed 97% of 
scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts ambiguously, 
excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic AGW is 
~1–10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch).

Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo chambers 
suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed data manipulation).

Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 increase lags 
temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural outgassing).

In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: natural forces 
drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and alarmism 
stems from biased models/data.