and calls it a broadside?

He forgot to remove the tompions (pronounced — tomkins).

BillyR, I’m not sure that you understand the concept of presenting an evidenced argument that supports your case…

Or perhaps you do, but you know that your position is untenable.

Either way, thanks for the laughs.

And you point is…?

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/business/energy-environment/wildfires-and-climate-change.html

““We face the increased risk of fires almost everywhere,” said Chris Field, director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, who is co-chairman of a working group for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” IPCC

“Next March, the working group of which Dr. Field is co-chairman at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. group, will publish a report that discusses wildfires as part of a broader look at the effects of climate change and the vulnerabilities of certain areas.” 2014

“In the Arctic regions, fires fueled by the carbon-rich peat might release a vast amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

“These fires are happening more often in that region,” Nick Sundt, a former firefighter who now directs climate communications for the World Wildlife Fund, said of the Arctic. “They’re bigger.”

Those emissions hold true in parts of the tropics as well.

“Indonesia and Malaysia have extensive peatlands that are extremely sensitive to fire,” Dr. Ganz said. “Once these peatlands are burned, enormous amounts of greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere, making the climate change issue worse over time.”

Bernard, let me know when you want “no mas.”

“In the Sierra Nevada, about 50 percent of the variation [in wildfires] is explained by climate,” said Jon Keeley, a senior scientist at the US Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “When we look at Southern California and coastal California, there’s no relationship between climate change and fire.”

Droughts exacerbated by climate change also have contradictory effects between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Keeley noted that droughts dry out trees, making them more prone to ignite, but they kill off Southern California’s quick-growing bushes and grasses, which actually reduces the fuel available to burn. ”

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/12/16762120/los-angeles-california-fire-climate-change

Bernard, it too only twenty seconds to find a reference.

I provide support, k9 dean gives squawk. People give me an ear,
while dean they would like to kick this rear.

Bernard, BillyR is the exemplar of the mdern right wing: no education, no integrity, and dismissive of rational thought and science. Don’t waste time bothering him with facts.

Fire is a complex phenomenon, with multifactorial ætiology. No one has said that the current slew of wildfires across the Northern Hemisphere is due solely to global warming caused by human fossil carbon emission. However it is inescapable from the empirical evidence that the opportuntiy for initiation of fire is increased by global warming, as is the opportunity for increased severity.

You are trying to draw a false dichotomy. This is a logical fallacy, and a sign of either ignorance or mandacity. Or both.

Let no crisis go to waste. Once again, the Enviros begin their never
ending manifestoe of AGWing.

Poor emissions, is again the fall guy rather than governmental unit
policy.