[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Does being 1/2 Swiss mean you hold a Swiss passport? Also, does that mean you have been there?

Regardless, you are correct that Climate Change models are correct and subject to inaccuracies. If they weren't there would be zero debate. That is the way science is.

As for the issue of being an alarmist, I would ask the following questions:

Does your town/city have a fire department? If so, would you say a significant percentage of calls to which they respond are false alarms? Is that a reason for the department not to respond? Is it a reason for them not to exist? When there are real fires, does it generally require the entire capacity of the fire department or is their spare capacity in case of a truly large problem?

Environmental alarmists sometimes are kooks and sometimes they shout when the problem is real. The potential problem in this case is huge and the number of people shouting is only growing.

Talking about 1 hurricane season as proof or disproof of a warming trend is evidence that one does not understand the issue or the debate. I know you are smarter than that.

[palmer]

No. About 4 years ago. Dangerous fires are real, dangerous warming is a model output. Benign fire and benign warming are both generally good. A rule similar to what AGW proponents want would be to ban outdoor burning. I am allowed, under current conditions, to burn any time of day. I still choose after 4PM (the spring or drought rules) so I can keep better track of it and let it run in the less windy, less dry overnight hours.

Environmental alarmists will scream about forest fires ignoring the fact that I know what I am doing. They scream about super hurricanes, then when we don't have any, they look stupid. If anything, they hurt your cause since the average joe will tune everyone out, alarmist or not.