Comments by "ARK CON" (@arkcon714) on "Wildfires rage across Canada, many out of control: "A lot of devastation"" video.

@PG-3462 you should do some research before you start calling people conspiracy theorists there junior You aren’t even correct about the amount of fires and what was out on fire in Alberta and are ignoring all the other arrests in other provinces
5
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol “there wasn’t record keeping” lol we can tell from soil samples and sedimentary rock junior Oh and according to NOAA there has been absolutely no increase in extreme weather in fact weather related fatalities are at an all time low Try again junior
4
@PG-3462 lol you should do some research junior, already been dozens of arrests across the country for arson
4
@PG-3462 thunder doesn’t cause fires junior Multiple arrests in both Nova Scotia and Ontario as well for arson
4
@PG-3462 is it a conspiracy theory of all the people charged with arson?
3
Anyone going to talk about the left wing climate arsonists starting these fires?
2
@PG-3462 lol so they didn’t catch arsonists in Nova Scotia and Ontario? Grow up
2
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol all you lefties do is talk about climate change, the record cold winter and spring we just had, climate change. The heat wave we just had, climate change. It rains too much, climate change, it rains to little, climate change Tell me why was the period with by far the most wildfires the 1600s to 1800s? Can you explain that?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol I commented on the Ukraine comment junior, as usual it’s you that ran away
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol yes, that’s what they call climate change now as the old word “global warming” fell apart because the entire world most certainly is not warming It’s something that you lefties stand behind this catch all term and can use whatever weather you want and call it climate change Tell me when we had the period of fire that was by far the record for the most forest fires in recent history being the 1600s to 1800s could carbon taxes have stopped that?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 I can’t believe you said “there wasn’t accurate record keeping back then” and expect anyone to take you seriously! You get if you stay on that line of logic the entire climate change narrative falls apart as how can you say this is the hottest the climate has been when we didn’t have accurate record keeping? Lol Congratulations you just destroyed your entire argument, bravo
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 you’d think you’d realize by now you can’t beat me in a debate
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 tell me why did we have record Antarctic sea ice just a few years ago, can you explain that? Why do we have record corral growth on the Great Barrier Reef? Why is it that not even one major port anywhere on earth have had to be reconstructed due to changing sea levels? Why has there been no increase in extreme storms and weather related endings are at an all time low? Why is it that literally every single climate alarmists prediction has been false? Want to talk about the record polar bear population?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol I said in recent history, try to keep up. It’s amusing watching you backpedal as you always do The just defeated your own argument as we know the human activity you lefties claim is leading to these fires didn’t exist back in the 1600s when it was far worse. How exactly do you square that circle? You need to do some actual research and step out of your leftist echo chamber
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol I couldn’t care less what one guy at NOAA says when the data speaks for itself Funny how you accuse me of shifting the goalposts then you shift the goalposts and change from the intensity of storms to the temperature, my source is NOAA The temperature has been rising since the last ice age, did my truck cause that too?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol “denier” you get that denial is the very essence of science and anyone who calls someone a denier because they can’t argue the facts is anti science right? Name even one climate alarmist prediction that has come true Just one, anyone that was predicted in a time frame and then came to pass I can give you a laundry list of ones that turned out to be completely false
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 NOAA’s Physical Sciences Laboratory and partners, as well as high-resolution climate model experiments to reveal the declining trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones since 1850 at both global and regional scales. The global annual number decreased by 13% in the 20th century when compared to the period between 1850 and 1900. For most ocean basins, the decline accelerated since the 1950s
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 here’s some mental gymnastics CLAIM: Climate change isn’t real because hurricanes in Florida and across the U.S. haven’t increased in frequency, intensity or landfall in more than a century. AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. While studies have found no evidence of an increase in hurricane landfalls in the past century in Florida and across the U.S., experts say this data doesn’t disprove the fact that climate change is a real phenomenon impacting hurricanes in other ways
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol no it doesn’t, it says the exact opposite I just provided you with quotes directly from NOAA
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 the problem is you lefties only read headlines and never look at the data, the data is very clear, storms have decreased in both frequency and intensity over the last 100 years I bet you also believe we have massive crop failures as well due to climate change? Lol Tell me do you believe that to be true as well?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 no there hasn’t, I just provided you with the data, 13 percent DROP not increase DROP What about that do you not understand?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 what disparity? Lol tell me do you believe climate change is causing crop failures as the radical climate alarmists claim?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 hasn’t been any increase in severe weather events, what has happened is more people live in places with severe weather so the damage cause by a storm is more, less fatalities though Let me simplify it for you, the mid west, known as tornado alley use to have a very sparse population so when a tornado touched down it may take out a few farms, now there are cities with hundreds of thousands of structures in those places so the damage monetarily is higher People like you just read headlines so you fall for that nonsense
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol did you know in order to qualify for federal funding for climate research in the western world you must agree with the false premise that humans are the cause of climate change? Did you know that? Tell me do you think that may alter their theories a little? Again I couldn’t care less about the opinion of the researchers I only care about the data and the data very clearly shows you are wrong
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 again there has been no rise in either the amount or intensity of storms in the US you can keep denying the data but this is a fact Also the data I presented is since the 1950s what came first 1950 or 1980 Not surprised if you actually don’t know
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 NOAA’s Physical Sciences Laboratory and partners, as well as high-resolution climate model experiments to reveal the declining trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones since 1850 at both global and regional scales. The global annual number decreased by 13% in the 20th century when compared to the period between 1850 and 1900. For most ocean basins, the decline accelerated since the 1950s
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 here’s some mental gymnastics CLAIM: Climate change isn’t real because hurricanes in Florida and across the U.S. haven’t increased in frequency, intensity or landfall in more than a century. AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. While studies have found no evidence of an increase in hurricane landfalls in the past century in Florida and across the U.S., experts say this data doesn’t disprove the fact that climate change is a real phenomenon impacting hurricanes in other ways
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 Only 59 tornadoes were estimated by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center in May, the fewest in any May since the 1950s. The tornado swoon continued in June, with only 50 tornadoes estimated by the SPC, the fewest since the early 1950s. They started keeping “accurate records” in the 1950s Sit down junior
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 temperatures have been increasing consistently since the last ice age
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 I’ve core based history of first fires . A period of exceptionally high forest-fire activity was observed between AD 1600 and 1680, following an extremely dry period AD 1540–1600. Ice-core pollen data suggest distinct forest diebacks and the expansion of steppe in response to dry climatic conditions.
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 there 3 different sources from around the world talking about record high forest fire activity in the 1600s Would you like more from the little ice age where it was almost as high?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 also posted the 2020 numbers about tornados Try to keep up junior
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 tell me why would Siberia have record forest fires in the 1600s if human climate change is causing this, can you explain that in your own words?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol so your argument is to use months now and not years because when you use years or centuries your entire argument falls apart? You are a simpleton
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol can’t exactly say record breaking when they didn’t keep accurate records right junior? It’s amusing how you jump back and forth as your argument falls apart
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 run back to your safe space before I smite you again with facts and logic
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol I said a specific measurement, the temperature has been rising ever since the last ice age and as proven multiple times there is zero increase in severe weather. And what do you mean disparity between different regions? That’s not a specific prediction nor is it true I’ll ask again do you think we have a drop in crop production? Please name even one climate alarmist prediction that has come true, a specific prediction
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 you didn’t make any points, none that were true anyways You need to answer the question as asked not just say nonsense. There has been no increase in extreme weather, whether it’s drought, floods, storms, cyclones, tornadoes doesn’t matter what one you choose there is no increase if anything it’s decreased in the last 50 years. You make ridiculous statements like it effects certain countries differently then when asked what you mean you say nothing all while ignoring direct questions like do you think crop production has diminished? You won’t answer because you don’t know, you are just spouting talking points that once pressed you can’t respond to For the record crop yields have been up year over year for the past 70 years. We produce more food now than we ever have. The time when countries struggle is when they follow the green agenda like Sri Lanka that followed the agenda and cut fertilizer use and now are in a famine Should we all follow the green agenda so we can all starve?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol it’s actually clear that it’s me that has got under your skin, we know when you start calling people “buddy” you are very upset and it’s you that refuses to answer direct questions as you just did, I gave you the specific example of Sri Lanka, they followed the green agenda and went from being self sufficient on food production to a major famine, 100 percent due to implementation of green policies Please name anywhere that green agenda implementation has increased food production
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 also still waiting on an answer as to how and where climate change is disproportionately affecting certain poor countries over other countries. Why won’t you answer? You say I don’t answer questions when the record clearly shows I answer all your ridiculous questions and knock them out of the park. Name any questions that you feel I haven’t answered and I will again If you could answer even one question directly with more than just platitudes that’d be great
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol overall impact, as in what? You keep saying there’s an impact yet give no example of an impact Transitional period? What exactly would that have done? Doesn’t matter if you gave them a year or a hundred years if you implement the green agenda and stop using fertilizer the result will be the same regardless of the time period This is the first time you’ve addressed Sri Lanka by the way
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol that is in no way a direct answer, you simply state without evidence that rich countries benefit from the green agenda. We have zero evidence for this and we have a myriad of evidence against it. Take the carbon tax, that has had an objective net negative impact on our economy. Stopping pipeline construction, objective net negative, they want to do the same thing here with fertilizer as in Sri Lanka, results will be the same as there. Ontario instituted green energy policies and it doubled our electricity costs and made manufacturing jobs move out of the province in droves so again what benefits has there been, answer directly with objective examples
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol you really seem to struggle with what answering a question directly means. I answered a question directly by giving a specific example like Sri Lanka, told you what was implemented and how it effected the country negatively. You keep claiming poor countries have more weather problems and it’s effecting them negatively Such as? What countries? Where’s your evidence? You claimed hurricanes and tornadoes were getting worse and were objectively wrong, you claimed wildfires were getting worse again objectively wrong so answer the question directly not some wishy washy talking point with no basis in fact
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 lol they’ve even run simulations? Lol like the simulations that said mask’s stopped the sickness? How did those simulations age? Not to well did they? How about the hockey stick graph that was conclusively disproven. Again you can never give any concrete conclusive examples while I give multiple which you can in no way refute. Even if you take their numbers at face value we are talking a 1 degree rise in temperature over the next 100 years which would effect exactly zero crops, not even one crop in any developing country has had to be stopped, not even one. This is what is wrong with you lefties, you read a headline and go regurgitate it around the internet yet never look at the data or the facts I ask again, name one country that has had to start or stop farming a certain crop due to climate change, name one major port anywhere on earth that has had to be reconstructed due to changing sea levels. Everything you are quoting is based on modeling, not some or even most of what you cited, everything is modeling and as the last few years proved unequivocally modeling is nonsense What we do have is concrete examples of these green agenda policies being implemented and everywhere they have been implemented they have had a net negative effect. Not most places, everywhere. Canada being one of the worst hit especially Ontario. If you actually stepped out of your echo chamber and did even the smallest amount of research you’d know this. Start by researching why electricity prices spiked in Ontario and what happened to the manufacturing industry when they did. Wake up junior, you’ve been sold a lie
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 as for co2 lol you really need to do some research outside of just reading headlines. There has been a ridiculous amount of times throughout history where the co2 was ridiculously higher and the temperature was cooler. We had an ice age 450 million years ago where the co2 was almost 8000 ppm. It’s barely 400 ppm right now, that means it was literally 20x higher than now during an ice age. Co2 simply is not a major contributor to temperature. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that they have been predicting 10 years until it’s too late for over 50 years?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 now let’s look at the most recent ice age Study ‘reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, ‘The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination,’ with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm’ ] Weird huh? Would you like more?
1
@bigpacthatseazye3462 have you seen the latest massive study done on co2 from fossil fuels? Here’s part of the abstract, happy to provide more All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
1
@PG-3462 you should also note, that fires can be set and the people may not get caught Amazing, I know but believe it or not the vast majority of all crimes are never solved. Nobody is saying all fires are arson, an alarming number seem to be and the media doesn’t seem to want to report that, why not? Is that a conspiracy theory too? Weird that it’s happening right as the libs are trying to push more carbon taxes Do you believe carbon taxes fight forest fires?
1
@peterquaw8642 lol water doesn’t flow from the ocean to land, it flows the other way junior
1