Chickens, roost

US Air Force fuel consumption: 2.5 billion gallons a year

2.5 billion gallons a year is 163,000 barrels a day

That puts the US Air Force, with a population of about 500,000, between Ireland (population 4.5 million) and Belarus (9.5 million) as the world’s 62nd biggest consumer of refined fuel.

Now, the Air Force Academy is threatened by a wildfire that may have something to do with climate change.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Fire crews fought to save the U.S. Air Force Academy and residents begged for information on the fate of their homes Wednesday after a night of terror sent thousands of people fleeing a raging Colorado Springs wildfire.

More than 30,000 have been displaced by the fire, including thousands who frantically packed up belongings Tuesday night after it barreled into neighborhoods in the foothills west and north of Colorado’s second-largest city. With flames looming overhead, they clogged roads shrouded in smoke and flying embers, their fear punctuated by explosions of bright orange flame that signaled yet another house had been claimed.

Sad all around. I can only hope that smoke and flames get through the heads of some climate change denialists where logic has failed. (No, not literally through their heads.)

13 thoughts on “Chickens, roost

  1. etudiant

    It seems to me that the problem is not climate change, as Colorado has had much larger forest fires in the past century.
    However, back then we did not have suburbs and fancy homes in the forest, so the human toll was less.

    1. sapitosetty Post author

      It can seem that way to you. But intense summer heat waves in that part of the world are in line with plenty of models of anthropogenic climate change, and there are a lot of people with real expertise in the field who do see a link. In any event the beetles eating up pines across the west are undeniably part of climate change. You’re free to argue that it’s not caused by humans, but that position gets harder every year to sustain, as the human factor overwhelms natural trends.

  2. frank

    If the alarmists are so sure of what they say, what do they need distort the meteorological record (hockey stick)? Why do they resist FOIA requests (Steven McIntyre’s many attempts to get raw data from alarmists)? Why do they need to impersonate someone else to get information from skeptic organizations (Peter Klein)? Why do they need to resort to name calling (denialists, paid by “big oil”) to oppose those who disagree with them? When all this pass, and it will, the anthropogenic hypothesis as a cause of climate change will be recalled as a major scientific scams in history. with so many real environmental problems facing the Earth (mercury, lead in the oceans), why focus on what is basically plant food as if it were a pollutant? Also, there are hundreds of scientists who are very skeptical of the alarmists’ hypothesis:

    1. sapitosetty Post author

      I think you are suffering from confirmation bias. I recommend that if you really want answers to those questions, you look to experts on climate change, such as NCAR or the UN’s IPCC, and read their reports with at least a bit of respect, rather than with contempt. You’ll find answers to all those questions and more.

      1. Kepler

        Oh, my God! I suspect you even believe humans evolved from other species and didn’t come from Adam and Eve! I am not surprised you believe in what those liberals are trying to make us believe, with their hidden agenda.

      2. frank

        Richard Lindzen (MIT), Ian Clark (U Ottawa), Roger Pielke Sr. (U Colorado), Judith Curry (GaTech), Roy Spencer (UMissouri), Henrik Svensmark (Danish Space Institute), Bob Carter (U Queensland), just to name a few, are all experts on climate change. Some of them were members of the original IPCC report but resigned because of the politicization of the IPCC (the head of the IPCC is not an expert on climate change but an engineer). None of the people above support the hypothesis that humans are the main cause of climate change. The link I provided lists about 1,000 scientists who are skeptics of the anthropogenic nature of climate change. If you had taken the time to look at the names in the you would see who these people are.

        1. Kepler

          Frank, by putting some names there you may persuade some people in some gringo church in the Mid West.
          Ian Clark? The swindler who wrote about the supposed swindle? Don’t make me laugh. No peer-review?
          No peer review? Hello? Do you know what that is?

  3. sapitosetty Post author

    Kepler, the guy is right, you are being an idiot. As I already said, this guy is suffering from confirmation bias. That means every fragment of evidence that supports his side is worth 100 studies on the other side. If someone is unable to be convinced, only an idiot keeps trying to convince him.

    1. frank

      My point is this one: You said “I can only hope that smoke and flames get through the heads of some climate change denialists where logic has failed” suggesting that those who are skeptic about anthropogenic hypothesis don’t have any reasons to doubt it. I claim that your assertion is factually incorrect. There are many researchers in climate science who have presented data that are inconsistent with the hypothesis and point to other factors, such as solar radiation, the feedback effect of cloud formation, or the paleoclimatic record suggesting that temperatures in the past have been as high or higher as they are today despite much lower CO2 emissions, just to name a few. I just listed the names in case you don’t know them and are interested in reading their work. All of these people have published peer reviewed papers (yes, Kepler), you just have to look them up. There are also methodological problems underlying the IPPC report. The most widely known is the case of Steve McEntyre, who reanalyzed the hockey stick data presented in one of the earlier IPCC documents. Another example is the analysis published in a peer review journal (yes, Kepler) done by Scott Armstrong, who is an expert in long-range forecasting methodology and found no evidence supporting the predictions made in the report (he also looked at the research cited, over 100 papers). You cannot just dismiss that research as irrational.

      I make my comments in good faith, but instead of saying something substantive, both of you resort to judge my reasoning process, assume what I have read or not, or simply making fun of what I said without knowing anything about me or what I think. Is this the “logic” you talk about?

      Kepler: The swindler is a movie. A movie, just like Al Gore’s. And, yes, Kepler I know what peer review is. Publishing journal papers is part of my work.

      Sapitosetty, you are the believer. I am the skeptic. And you say that I’m suffering from confirmation bias? Strange notion you have of that concept.

      1. sapitosetty Post author

        Frank, thanks for the continued contributions. But as I’ve said before, I don’t think I’m the person you need to be arguing with. Contrary to your assertion, I am a skeptic. I’ve been skeptical of climate change claims since the beginning. But unlike I am also skeptical of the other side. What I have seen in the course of 22 years watching this issue is that scientists from dozens of disciplines have converged on the theory of anthropogenic climate change. At first, there were a lot of paleoclimatologists who poo-poohed it, and astronomers who said it was all sunspots, but over the years, with additional research, those objections have peeled away like a sunburn. Meanwhile, the loudest and most consistent voices of opposition to climate action have been, and continue to be, the big coal and oil companies, whose economic interest is beyond obvious.

        The usual response to that is that scientists have economic interests too, and have a need to get notoriety and fame for promoting scare stories. There was some potential truth to that 22 years ago. But that doesn’t apply to the US EPA or NOAA or NCAR scientists who must fight denialists in Congress and their own administrations in order to keep studying and publishing on this issue. And more importantly, as you say, climate change is now generally accepted. Scientists don’t get famous for supporting a generally accepted thesis, they get famous for breaking the paradigm. If someone could really show that people aren’t disrupting the climate, that person would become much more famous than anyone on the “alarmist” side, to use your term. Indeed, that has generally been the case, as the US media tradition of giving “both sides” to an issue has allowed a few denialists to become the most quoted experts on climate change, leaving thousands of qualified alarmists in obscurity.

        Finally, the single most important things to do in order to prevent climate change have often been acts that would be generally helpful for the economy and even for individual comfort, such as insulating homes, increasing vehicle efficiency standards, eliminating tax breaks given only to oversized vehicles, installing better building control systems, and converting some taxes — be they consumption, income, or whatever — to carbon taxes. The problem with denialists — and I don’t know you, so I don’t include you in this, but I certainly do include a big chunk of Colorado Springs’ population — is that they not only question the science of climate change, which is healthy, but they also block these painless, low-cost methods of reducing the risk. Their blockheadedness has so far proved to be the most important factor in the continued increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world.

Comments are closed.