Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years

[Jackal1]

MYTH #7: 'Humanity is Causing Earth's Polar Regions to Warm Quickly Resulting in Unusual Rates of Ice Melting.'

  Arctic ice primarily just responds to changing wind patterns, thinning in some regions while piling up in others without generally melting. P. Winsor of G¨oteborg University, in Sweden used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published last year, "... there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant."
Source: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national and international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland.


It is revealing that actual measurements show conditions in arctic regions to be very different to what our theories predict. For example, Greenland warmed considerably during the 1920s and 1930s long before the recent buildup in greenhouse gases. Since then the temperatures of Greenland coastal stations are decreasing at the rate of 0.2 to 0.3oC per decade (according to Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, the summer temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have also been decreasing - in this case at the rate of 2 deg centigrade per decade since 1980's!). So where is the amplified warming of the Arctic? All we are seeing is a shift in regional climate; one part of the Arctic is warming and another is cooling. It is also important to remember that a thousand years ago conditions were so warm that the Vikings were sailing in Arctic waters that are now permanent pack ice.

Professor Fred Michel, an arctic regions specialist in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, explains that the problem being experienced by the natives in the north is not due to any unnatural climate change. Instead they are having more difficulty now than in previous generations because they have evolved from a nomadic, hunting society, one which moved as the climate changed, into one that is now staying in one place with fixed buildings highly susceptible to structural problems due to the normal freeze/thaw cycle and natural climate variations.

Dr. Michel also points out, "… glaciers have retreated but this is not unusual in a global history perspective." He explains that the changes natives have observed in stream flow are generally the normal result of variations in daily temperatures - what was a tranquil stream in the morning can transform, on a sunny day, into an impassable torrent raging down the valley by mid afternoon. By mid evening the flow begins to subside and by midnight the stream is again passable. Dr. Michel concludes, "Things are changing, but man may not be the cause."

The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by about 6 metres, isn't melting. Instead, its thickening and Antarctica is getting cooler. A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.

Another study, published in a recent edition of the journal Nature, found that air temperatures measured in Antarctica's polar desert valleys actually declined by almost 0.4oC from 1986 to 1999. The study's lead author, limnologist Peter Doran, an expert on the study of fresh water at the University of Illinois at Chicago concludes, "We went into this project with the idea that global warming was going to hit us any time now, and we kept waiting for the warm summers to come and they never came. It just kept getting colder and colder, and that's the story."

[Jackal1]

MYTH #8: 'Kyoto Will Save Thousands of Lives by Cutting Air Pollution.'

Many people support the Kyoto Accord because they believe it is a clean air treaty that will reduce pollution. It is not. Kyoto is a treaty designed to reduce human production of so-called 'greenhouse gases' (GHG), the recent increase of which has been associated with unnatural global warming by some scientists. Greenhouse gases include water vapor (99% of all the GHG in the atmosphere), methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Only about 2% of all GHG are produced by human activity; the rest is produced by nature.

The first time frame of the Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries (including Canada and the United States) to reduce their overall emissions of GHG so that their yearly average between 2008 and 2012 will be an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels (targets vary - for example, Canada's is a 6% reduction; Australia's is an 8% increase). Since most of the developed world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.

Many commentators refer to Kyoto and other treaties that address CO2 levels as 'pollution treaties', implying that CO2 is somehow a pollutant. This is incorrect. CO2 is a benign 'trace gas', constituting only about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and not toxic in any fashion. Besides helping keep the earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age with average global temperatures 33°C lower than they are now, CO2 is a plant nutrient critical to the process of photosynthesis. A recent paper by Robinson, Baliunas, Soon and Robinson concludes, "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century … has markedly increased plant growth rates… the [future] effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms."

Many scientists maintain that imposing CO2 treaties is consequently unnecessary and imposes an unreasonable burden on the economy of energy intensive societies such as the United States and Canada. Whether human production of CO2 is in any way contributing to climate change is simply unknown in the scientific community. It will be at least ten years before the science has matured sufficiently to make any meaningful predictions of the influence of CO2, if any, on global climate. When it comes to this trace constituent of the atmosphere, the alarmism of government, special interest lobby groups and some in the media is clearly unwarranted.

On the other hand, real pollution is an important concern that must continue to be addressed. Besides the detrimental effect of substances such as mercury, real air pollution problems include smog and acid rain. The two key components of smog are airborne particles ('particulate matter' such as smoke) and ground-level ozone. The latter is produced when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds react. Acid rain is formed when two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX, react together to acidify rain, snow or fog.

Some people believe that, since Kyoto would require significant cuts in the consumption of fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2 emissions, the treaty is important because it would also result in pollution reduction. Such a strategy makes no sense. Instead of using a GHG treaty to reduce air pollution, actions should continue to be taken specifically aimed at reducing air pollution. An example is the installation of scrubbers on smokestacks to remove SO2. Such measures are far less expensive that a more general GHG reduction plan. It is also more effective since all of the effort and technology is then focused on the problem at hand instead of a more nebulous concern that may not be a concern at all.

There are even examples where a focus on GHG reduction will lead directly to increases in pollution. The Canadian trucking sector has warned recently (Calgary Herald, September 25, 2002) that a concentration on GHG instead of pollution would undo years of technological advancements in so-called 'cleaner-burn' engines. The newer truck engines emit less particulate matter that contributes to smog but burn a bit more fuel, which leads to production of more CO2. "So you have to decide, which one do you want to concentrate on?" said Kim Royal, executive director of the Alberta Motor Transport Association. Reverting to older, dirtier machinery, simply to satisfy Kyoto, defies common sense.

Professor Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph in Canada, also explains why it is counterproductive for countries like Canada to implement Kyoto when their neighbours do not. He says that, if Canada implements Kyoto (Prime Minister Jean Chretien ratified the accord in late 2002 over loud objections from industry, scientists and many other Canadians), with the U.S. out of the deal, major energy consumers would be driven south where power generators burn higher carbon-based fuels than does Canada. This would result in the greenhouse gases and pollution produced by North Americans as a whole rising over what would be the case if these energy consumers stayed within the relatively low carbon energy supply network in Canada. "There's a very good chance that Kyoto will make Toronto's air quality worse just by the fact that it will intensify emitting activity in Ohio," says Dr. McKitrick. Finally, it is important to realize that no otherwise healthy person 'dies of air pollution'. It may be a contributing factor to death in the case of people who have other serious life-threatening problems such as advanced heart disease or emphysema. Dr. McKitrick also points out that air quality has generally improved since the 1970's. Ontario's Environment Ministry, which accurately tracks smog levels throughout most of the province, shows clearly that smog levels are nearly unchanged in the past two decades. As is so often the case, environmental extremists have exaggerated the 'problem' simply to promote their own agenda.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by -dead-
You just type his name in, and off you go... try it yourself.

I did, and I got what MIT says about him...

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
 

The man seems to be respected among his peers. That a hydrocarbon company would pay someone of distinguished academic pedigree who's opinion helps the company's cause is far from shocking.  I would find it surprising if they did not.

If he is such a crackpot, I would think that MIT would oust him.

[tedrbr]

You are all nuts.  

Science is not Science anymore.  Any theory out there will have contrary theories to argue against it.  Politics and business and special interest groups will fund the work to produce the results they WANT to see.  Some scientist will develop a countering thoery just to get published or grant money.  Others will do so for self prevervation or to muddy the waters of debate.

Take all the available data.... incorporate the data that supports your theory, and throw out the data that disproves it..... then publish and hold the press conference.  The more outlandish, the more sensational, the more press it will receive.

The true is up for sale to the highest bidder.  To think main stream science in this day and age is honest, pure, and uncontaminated by other factors is the real problem.  And naive.  


By way as an example, I submit the "scientific" work of Christian Scientists to explain Noah's flood and dinosaur bones.  The world sits atop a great subsurface ocean... God break the surface.... it collapses onto the world below.... the water forced up falls as rain for 40 days and nights.  The bones of the creatures from that subsurface world are fossilized and deposited.  Not too clear about where all that water went....but.....  And this is held as a scientific theory to "prove" the bible.... a book regarding faith....

----------------------------------------

My personal feelings on the matter are that, yes: global warming is happening.  The consequences of it could be very severe to catastophic.

I also do not believe anyone really knows what will happen or when.  The problem is too vast and too dynamic.  Too many trigger events.  No one has the hard data..... which is the great stall tactic of those who do not want to consider global warming as a possible threat ---- they want hard numbers that cannot be given until after its already happened.  They want the theory proved.... this in a time where many people don't even believe in the theory of evolution.... to ask them to change their lives and risk damage to the world's leading economies on what *might* happen in their eyes?

Then there are those that hold stead fast to the idea that mere humans cannot possibly change their environment.  That anything that is happening is happening naturally.  While, warming may be attributable to natural frequency of warming and cooling trends, dismissing the idea that humanity can change its environment is the most blithly unimaginiative and uninformed statement I've ever heard.  

A locust swarm or alge bloom can occur and continues until all possible food source has been wiped out.  These events done by creatures far smaller and less capable than we are.  The world's fishing fleets are very limited and regulated around the world.... if all regulations were dropped, and those fleets all set forth to catch as much fish as they can to bring to market... they could depopulate the oceans in a relatively short span of time... the fleet' ability to harvest the ocean is far in excess to the ocean's ability to repopulate itself.

We can dam great rivers, we can cause deforestation beyond any capability of mother nature...and have in the past in the Americas and Europe.....and continue to do so to this day in parts of the world.  We pollute vast parts of coastline around the world.  We have driven other creatures to extinction.  We certainly do have the ability, whether intended or not, to greatly effect the environment on the planet.  


I'm old enough to remember winters in the northeast with massive snowfalls, as can my father, grandfather, and great grandfather when he still lived.  They do not get anywhere near that kind of snowfall now.  It has changed.

I've seen retreated glaciers with my own eyes compared to 100 year old photos from the same vantage point.  

The north polar ice is thinning..... open water...open water...seen at the north pole in summertime.... that is new in our experience.  Polar bears are drowning and face extinction if it continues at this rate.  Will it continue.... I think so, but there is no hard evidence.

Salinity levels of the great oceanidc conveyor belt have dropped... the flow has slowed... that's documented between now and the earliest recordings done on the subject...... but how slow until it stalls?  No one knows.  If the flow does stall, a mini-ice age over the north east of America and northern Europe is a pretty sure bet though.... how that flow tranfers heat to the North Atlantic is pretty well understood.

Coral reefs are dying.  Everywhere.  

Bogs and mashland in Siberia have more methane and CO2 trapped in them that can be released if they thaw out than all the methane and CO2 generated by mankind since the start of the Industrial age....  what exactly has to happen to release all that gas?  No one knows for sure.

What will happen.  I don't know.  No one does.  To do nothing invites possible disaster..... and inviting possible disaster is becoming the accepted policy to pursue.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by tedrbr


I've seen retreated glaciers with my own eyes compared to 100 year old photos from the same vantage point.  

.

 Sort of like this one?

 



Melting glacier 'false alarm'
By Julian Isherwood, Scandinavia Correspondent


Pictures released by Greenpeace claiming to show how man-made global warming has caused Arctic glaciers to retreat are at best misleading and only illustrate a natural phenomenon, says a leading glaciologist.
    
A greenpeace activist compares the photo above with the Norwegian glacier at present

The picture series, which compared the size of a glacier on Svalbard in 1918 with its size in 2002, was published across the world alongside a Greenpeace warning that global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases was causing Arctic glaciers to melt.

"The blame can be put squarely on human activity," Greenpeace said. "Our addiction to fossil fuels releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is what is causing temperatures to rise and our future to melt before our eyes."

But Prof Ole Humlum, a leading glaciologist in Svalbard, 500 miles north of Norway, said yesterday: "That glacier had already disappeared in the early 1920s as a result of a perfectly natural rise in temperature that had nothing to do with man-made global warming."

Prof Humlum is employed by several universities to research glacial developments in Svalbard and the Arctic in general. He said the picture series was at best misleading. "They should have asked the specialists on Svalbard first.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Angus]

I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.
Being around, and growing up with people old enough to  remember WW1, I do not have to speculate about how much our glaciers have been schrinking.
Neither do the Greenlanders.
(The Greenland Glacier is the second largest block of Ice on land in the world)
And...what we see and feel (agriculture in the areas is already taking advantage of warming, YES it is)...is NOT sponsored. It's just a reality that we feel, see, and live with.

It's warmer. A lot.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.
Being around, and growing up with people old enough to  remember WW1, I do not have to speculate about how much our glaciers have been schrinking.
Neither do the Greenlanders.
(The Greenland Glacier is the second largest block of Ice on land in the world)
And...what we see and feel (agriculture in the areas is already taking advantage of warming, YES it is)...is NOT sponsored. It's just a reality that we feel, see, and live with.

It's warmer. A lot.

Which only validates one thing as mentioned numerous times. The weather patterns are changing in your area. Something that has always been in a state of change since the beginning of recorded history and will continue to do so. It`s a given. Nothing stays the same. Never has. Never will.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.

...

It's warmer. A lot.

I see this through my window...



Mt Shasta is home to seven glaciers.  Shasta's glaciers are growing....

[Silat]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Nope. That`s your bag Angus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #4: 'If the Earth Warms, It Will Be Disastrous for the Environment and Human Society.'



 Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished and weather was more moderate. In cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.

Between 900 and 1300 A.D., the Earth warmed 1 to 2°C; , depending on latitude - approximately what climate models now predict for the 21st century. This warming resulted in one of the most favorable periods in history. Food production surged due to mild winters and longer growing seasons. Primary agricultural regions had fewer droughts and floods so human populations rose accordingly. When Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder in 980 AD, he was fortunate that his banishment coincided with this unusually warm climatic period. Open sea-lanes allowed him to make his way to a wholly new and, at the time, reasonably hospitable land - calling it "Greenland" was not just an advertising gimmick to attract settlers. The pioneers who followed Erik had a reasonable prospect of prosperity in this new world. They raised sheep and cattle brought with them from Iceland and even grew grain.

However, about 1350, the weather began to cool. Crops failed and the settlers became increasingly dependent on supplies shipped in from Europe. Eventually, sea ice started to restrict shipping and, during the 15th century, the colonists were cut off from the outside world. Recent archaeological evidence shows a sad end to the westernmost outpost of the marauding Vikings - with the ground staying frozen throughout most, and finally all, of the year, famine-weakened Norsemen eventually could not even properly bury their own dead. The "Little Ice Age" had begun and the Greenland settlements were wiped out as effectively as the Vikings themselves had reduced many a European coastal town to ashes in raids of previous centuries.

With average temperature dropping 1.5° over the next hundred years, Iceland and Eastern Europe were depopulated and famines periodically ravaged much of Western Europe. Ice caps began to develop in the Arctic. Glaciers advanced throughout the Alps. Little Ice Age cooling was global in extent - evidence has been found in western North America from Alaska into the continental U.S., as well as in China, the Andes Mountains, New Zealand and equatorial Kenya. Wildly erratic and frigid conditions continued until the mid-19th century, when skating parties on London's Thames River finally had to be abandoned as conditions gradually warmed to those of the mid 1300s. Nevertheless, the 10th century, when Eric the Red settled Greenland, was still over 1°C warmer than the 20th century. This is worth remembering when we hear alarmist claims about today's temperatures.

Severe as it seemed to those who suffered during those centuries of cold winters, the Little Ice Age may prove to be minor indeed in comparison with what is in store for us if our climate follows past trends as expected (see Myth #1). In the last 1.6 million years there have been 33 glacial advances and retreats. It was only ten millennia ago, when humans were fashioning flint spearheads to hunt the last wooly bison and carving flint sickles to work our first farms, that massive ice sheets, some up to a mile thick, finally retreated from Europe and North America. As noted historian Norman Pounds has said, "The whole of human history has been lived in the shadow of the Ice Age."

Considering the massive impact cold periods have had on civilization, we have to wonder if global warming concerns of the past two decades have been overblown. Is the warming since the late 19th century due to natural oscillations, well recorded throughout geologic history, or is it due to industrialization? Since current conditions are only slightly warmer than those at the end of the last major ice age, were we saved from glacial devastation by industrialization?

No one truly knows the answer to these questions. However, what we do know is that the next glaciation, due within a few thousand years, is part of a natural climate cycle that is expected to continue for at least several million years more. The nature of our planet's orbital dynamics and position of the continents as they influence ocean circulation are the main controls, not human activities. Based on the impact of the 1350-1880 Little Ice Age, it is apparent that humankind, and particularly Northern countries such as Canada, benefits much more from a warmer climate than a cooler one.

I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.

Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Silat
I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.

Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.

An ER doctor would probably find you a little strange if you asked for your kid to be treated for a burn......................and there was no burn.

[Jackal1]

Myth #8a (a corollary to Myth #8): 'Scientists are able to make meaningful climate predictions based on observed, and anticipated, changes in CO2 levels.'

Canadian environmental activist Dr. David Suzuki and Monte Hummel, President of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, said recently in an open letter to Canadian Prime Minster Chretien, "A doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the potential to destroy over 35% of the world's terrestrial habitats (due to climate change)…"

 Credible global warming forecasts are not possible until we have a far better understanding of the science involved. Here's why:

   1.

      Atmospheric CO2 is part of a highly complex, and poorly understood, system called the carbon cycle. Within this system, 745 billion tons of carbon pass through the atmosphere each year exchanging CO2 with other components of the carbon cycle such as the oceans, soil and plants. Of the seven billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere each year from human activities, three billion tons remain there causing the observed increase in the CO2 level. Another two billion tons of carbon are absorbed by the oceans each year, leaving two billion tons unaccounted for.

      Scientists assume that there must be a yet-unidentified carbon sink, something that is sopping up this excess carbon. One popular hypothesis is that the biosphere itself could be the sink since CO2 is critical to plant photosynthesis.
   2.

      It is not known whether temperature rise is a result of, or a cause of, CO2 level changes. Most climate models start with the basic assumption that changing CO2 concentrations drive temperature variations. However, in carbon cycle models, the opposite is assumed; carbon cycle modelers first impose temperature changes and then calculate the resulting changes to the world's carbon reservoirs (including CO2 levels in the atmosphere).

      This is more than an academic argument. If temperature changes drive CO2 levels, and not the other way around, then even the most severe reductions in our production of CO2 would have no effect on global climate.
   3.

      As described in Myth #8, current computer simulations of our climate are far too unreliable to form the basis of good forecasts.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I see this through my window...



Mt Shasta is home to seven glaciers.  Shasta's glaciers are growing....

so thats where bonds dumped his stash!!!11:rofl

[Angus]

This one compared to the Greenland Glacier is like a crowberry in hell...

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
This one compared to the Greenland Glacier is like a crowberry in hell...

You can see glaciers in Greenland from your house? wow...

Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire icecap is thinning.

But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall is falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, say Johannessen and team.  

source

[lukster]

Originally posted by Silat
I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.

Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.

Hate to burst your bubble but it isn't just the "far right" not interested in jumping on the reactionary band wagon.