Still waiting for some evidence.
Does this change anything?
It probably causes stress when non skeptical people read it, because that’s what a load of complete horseshit does to weak minded gullible people. The writer is an idiot, or if they actually do know the real story, a liar and a paid shill. Maybe they are both.
Here’s the best part of something like this. You don’t have to believe a word I say, just like I don’t blindly accept a Rolling Stone story like the one linked to.
You can easily fact check that story, rather than take my word for anything. The very first line is complete and utter horseshit. It’s a lie, and a whopper of one.
Now look at the Fire History page for the Olympic National Park. Most people can grasp the problem from just looking at the image, showing both natural and man caused fires there. But certainly taking 5 minutes to read the page will make it perfectly clear why the Rollinstone story starts off with a big lie.
See how easy that is? The scare story claims “In May this year, the nearly unthinkable happened in the Pacific Northwest”, but the actual facts tell us
See? The Stone makes you afraid, says it is unthinkable, rare, almost an impossible event. But the actual real data says "As a natural force, fire has played an important historical role in the development of Olympic National Park. "
They even show all the fires and how much burned. And what caused the fires.
The scare story wants you to be afraid, and to think it’s unusual. never happened before. But historic facts tell a different story, one based on reality.
So when a story starts off with a huge lie, how much of the rest of it should you trust?
Fire is a natural part of the Northwest forests, indeed several species of trees need their cones to burn before the seeds are released.
The problem here is human fire suppression. Where normally a fire will sweep through a forest grove every twenty years, thus only twenty years of accumulated fuel, the trees all survive. But now we put these fires out right away and in some places we have 100 years of accumulated fuel, and a fire here will be hot enough to kill the trees.
This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations. Indeed, the Pacific Northwest is forecast to be receiving MORE rain using these climate models. Bastard plants already grow violently here, burning them to death is too good for them.
The Olympic Rainforest is the west side of the penninsula. The rest of the Olympic National Park is forest, but not really rainforest.
Yeah, but the Rolling Stone article is actually talking about the The Okanogan Complex of wildfires, which certainly was a horrific and historic bunch of fires. Nowhere near the Olympic Rainforest, much less did the rain forest catch fire.
Why do they have to do that shit? The fires were bad, real bad. Why start off with a lie when writing about them?
Evidence of what? RICO abuse?
The Wikipedia article gives several examples:
Major League Baseball
Pro-Life Activists
Los Angeles Police Department
Mohawk Industries
Scott Rothstein
FIFA
Key West police Department
various Diocese of the Catholic Church
Michael Milliken
(This is not to say that such people and groups were innocent of crimes, but your apparently flabbergasted reaction was “it doesn’t make that RICO, because it opens the door to go after anyone for any reason, using RICO laws, and now trying to sway public opinion is organized crime.” While my response was that RICO has already been abused in that manner, which it has.)
I understand what you are claiming. What evidence do you have?
On a broader scale, everything west of the Cascades is rainforest. There’s a bit of the “rain shadow” effect east of Mt Olympus and the Coast Range in Oregon, so one can find spots where it doesn’t actually rain five and a half feet a year. What’s important is the rate of rainfall. Back in the Midwest, rainfall comes an inch an hour then stops; in the Pacific Northwest, it takes three whole days to rain that much usually.
Everything is drippy wet ten months a year, and during the two month dry spell fires are supposed to rage through, keeps the forest floor cleaned up. If stupid humans don’t want their houses to burn down, they shouldn’t build them where fire happens regularly.
But not to worry … it will only take Mt Rainier a few hours to change it all.
I’m not sure the example of the Key West PD supports your position. Why is it an abuse of RICO to go after the Chief there? I’m pretty sure all the other examples you give involved crimes in some way. Milliken was threatened with RICO prosecution, so he caved on the securities violations, not really an abuse …
While it’s probably not scientific, it still made me laugh.
No answer is actually an answer. Shame, because I suspect some people want to do it, but how can you? It’s like when the Italians put scientist in jail over not warning about the earthquake. Do we really want to start jailing scientist because they are wrong?
Meanwhile, in the real world.
It’s funny, because from what I can gather, no true believer in the one true warming faith was budged an inch by any of the climategate emails. Nothing can sway that sort of faith.
You could just say “bump,” you know.
That wouldn’t get us any closer to some evidence for the claims made.
It wouldn’t get us any farther from it either.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw this thread down there.
I’ve heard it said that Al Gore earned $100,000,000.00 (US) on climate charge rhetoric, way to go …
I’ve heard it said the moon landings were a hoax.
I don’t know, but it’s been said, that Army boots are made of lead.
Piltdown Man is said to be a hoax as well.
Uncle Pilty? A hoax? But I had dinner with him just last Thursday!