Surprise: Investigators Point Towards Shed Fire For Colorado Fire

Remember how Warmists were blaming it on ‘climate change’?

There are more than plenty like that. Interestingly, the NPR piece didn’t mention something rather relevant

Shed fire on land of ‘cult’ eyed as cause of devastating Colorado blazes that destroyed 1,000 homes

Colorado investigators believe a wildfire that devastated communities ahead of the new year could have stemmed from a shed fire on land occupied by members of fundamentalist Christian sect the Twelve Tribes.

“The fire originated somewhere in that neighbourhood,” Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said Sunday at a news conference. “There was a viral video that was posted of a shed on fire.”

He added that investigators did not know whether or not “that shed started the fire or whether it was secondary”, and that finding the cause of the fire was “complicated and it’s under snow”.

“We will sort it out,” he told reporters. “It’s an active, open deal and the outcome of that investigation is vital, there is so much at stake. So we are going to be careful.”

A resident of the neighbourhood meanwhile told The Denver Post that he thought he witnessed the beginning of the blaze next-door to him on Thursday.

The sect has been busted many times for illegal burnings, and, while it is no conclusive right now, the very fact that investigators are mentioning this and targeting them shows that, once again, a wildfire was started by a human, not because of ‘climate change’. Of course, being members of a cult, the Warmists will still say things like that because you ate a burger the fire was worse than it would have been. Because cult.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Surprise: Investigators Point Towards Shed Fire For Colorado Fire”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach continually ignores that global warming doesn’t start the fires but contributes to their spread.

  2. Jl says:

    Elwood continually ignores that the drought-global warming story is simply still a correlation, with no proof of causation. The US West, for example, had 100 and 200 year droughts with CO2 much lower..

  3. Nolan Parker says:

    Eeek! Global Warming!! EEEK!!
    GEE,WALLY,whose SUV warmed the earth so the last ice age would end?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Nolan Parker: whose SUV warmed the earth so the last ice age would end?

      The last glacial period ended (starting the current Holocene Epoch) the way the others have for at least the past 800,000 years, by 1)shifts in the he shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity; 2)the angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane, known as obliquity; and 3) the direction Earth’s axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession. This combination of events is known as Milankovitch cycles and are largely predictable. The next is predicted for approximately 50,000 years from now!

      The current period of rapid warming is NOT caused by Milankovitch cycles but by increased atmospheric CO2 resulting primarily from humans burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).

      Now you know!

      • Est1950 says:

        If the cycles are responsible for warming and cooling and it takes 50,000 years which in reality it is more like 100,000 years then explain how a typical warm period only lasts 10k-20k years before returning to the deep freeze?


        Characterizing Interglacial Periods over the Past 800,000 Years
        Researchers identified 11 different interglacial periods over the past 800,000 years, but the interglacial period we are experiencing now may last an exceptionally long time.


        Global climate patterns have undergone a remarkable shift in the past 600,000 to 1.2 million years. Before the transition, glacial cycles, consisting of cold ice ages and milder interludes, typically lasted about 40,000 years—but those weaker cycles gave way to longer-lasting icy eras with cycles lasting roughly 100,000 years. In between the cold ice ages are periods of thawing and warming known as interglacial periods, during which sea levels rise and ice retreats.

        TO SHOW THAT I AM QUOTING FROM AGW PROPONENTS: Although most interglacials typically last about 10,000 to 30,000 years, the researchers suggest that the current epoch—the Holocene—may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.

        In total, the researchers identified 11 different interglacials during the study period. In addition, using sea surface temperature and other data, they found that two interglacial periods in particular—marine isotopic stage (MIS) 5 and MIS 11–were particularly strong almost everywhere.

        Now I am sure you won’t read the two snippets from the paper I posted but in effect the typical length of interglacial runs from 10,000 to 30,000 years according to this and many other studies. But you claim 50,000-year cycles are responsible. If that is so explain how the earth could go into a new glacial period in 10-20k years?

        • Est1950 says:

          The reason I point out that Your cycles are not 50k but more on the order of 100k is:

          Obviously, I cut and pasted the below since I am not a scientist.

          The 100,000-year problem of the Milankovitch theory of orbital forcing refers to a discrepancy between the reconstructed geologic temperature record and the reconstructed amount of incoming solar radiation, or insolation over the past 800,000 years.

          Due to variations in the Earth’s orbit, the amount of insolation varies with periods of around 21,000, 40,000, 100,000, and 400,000 years. Variations in the amount of incident solar energy drive change in the climate of the Earth, and are recognized as a key factor in the timing of initiation and termination of glaciations.

          It is true that scientists believe these M Cycles control our warming and cooling and yet they have serious unanswered questions. So again I would ask you for further cutting and pasting to explain how they get around 10k-30k cycles when the M Cycles last 50-100k years.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          Either you misread what I typed or I mistyped. My apologies. I certainly did not to imply that all Milankovitch cycles are 50,000 years.

          Note that at least three different orbital cycles comprise the Milankovitch cycle and the beginnings and ends of glacial and interglacial periods depend on the overlap of the cycles comprising the Milankovitch cycle. These were noted in a previous comment – eccentricity, precession and obliquity.

          Based on calculations of Milankovitch cycles, the current interglacial (the Holocene Epoch) is predicted to last and ADDITIONAL 50,000 years. AGW may add more years to that prediction. Our current Holocene Epoch (interglacial) is about 12,000 years “old” and is predicted to last another 50,000 years.

          Here’s a thorough explanation of the transitions between glacial and interglacial periods. To be honest I do not understand all the nuances of the overlapping cycles.

          A step change in strength of interglacials at 450?ka is apparent only in atmospheric CO2 and in Antarctic and deep ocean temperature. The onset of an interglacial (glacial termination) seems to require a reducing precession parameter (increasing Northern Hemisphere summer insolation), but this condition alone is insufficient. Terminations involve rapid, nonlinear, reactions of ice volume, CO2, and temperature to external astronomical forcing. The precise timing of events may be modulated by millennial-scale climate change that can lead to a contrasting timing of maximum interglacial intensity in each hemisphere. A variety of temporal trends is observed, such that maxima in the main records are observed either early or late in different interglacials. The end of an interglacial (glacial inception) is a slower process involving a global sequence of changes. Interglacials have been typically 10–30?ka long. The combination of minimal reduction in northern summer insolation over the next few orbital cycles, owing to low eccentricity, and high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations implies that the next glacial inception is many tens of millennia in the future.

          • Est1950 says:

            Still, I remain confused because you don’t completely understand the subject yourself.

            My question remains. If the cycle in question lasts 50k years and most of the cycles of warming in the past lasted 40k-50k years,(2.5 million years ago down to 1.2 million years ago) But…and a big But here…the warming trends in the last 1.2 million years have been 10k to 30k years then how can Co2 be responsible for all of these massive warming events when the M Cycles are the controllers of our weather?

            If we are to believe scientists who claim that our warming trends last from 10k to 30k with two exceptions in the last 800k years then how is it possible to have a 60k year warming period because of a few hundred molecules of Co2? I ask this because you say our weather is dictated by the M cycles.

            You said that the next M cycle is predicted in approximately 50,000 years from now!

            But we entered a warm period 12 years ago. So again I remain confused how the M Cycles alone could be responsible for the clockwork warming and cooling that has only appeared 11 times in 800k years. That does not translate to 50k years but more like 75k years.

            See this is the 100k year question that scientists have no answer for but I was assuming you would have one.

            Much of what the AGW people do today is compress 50,000 years into a few decades and then cry wolf.

            Lets look at it more logically.

            The planet is 4.5 billion years old. It has been mostly a snowball earth for 3.9 billion of those years. Unihabitable and hostile to most life. Yet the AGW crowd wants to do everything they can to encourage a Life ending event that they claim Co2 is preventing.

            AGW makes no sense in logical terms. If we encourage the planet to freeze and enter a drastically hostile environment for 100k years I find no reason to agree to anything the AGW group wants to do and I do not think they have thought through their argument and have asked themselves do we want a snowball planet or a planet that is warm with aggressive weather?

            Because I can guarantee you the alternative to aggressive Co2 inflicted weather is far, far, far worse and there is nothing we as a species can do to change the Extinction level event our planet will inflict on us if we enter another ice age.

            Think about your position more logically from a long-term perspective and perhaps you will find reasons to have a pause in ending fossil fuels for the sake of saving 20 or 30 molecules of co2 when those very life-prolonging molecules will run out in 300-400 years anyway.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Thanks for your genuine concern.

            If you don’t wish to understand that’s OK.

  4. Hairy says:

    Teach I havent seen anyone blaming the initial cause if the fire on climate change only the severity. Could you provide a citation for your claims?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Yep. Teach has built a strawman – “They” claim global warming causes wildfires!

      We want to believe that Teach is just ignorant but we suspect he is being dishonest.

      • Est1950 says:

        There you go again, Elwood. Passing out disinformation. You know and I know that the internet is awash with people blaming any natural disaster on Global Warming. So say that the OP of this blog is lying is….


        Well, dishonest. Again if you would simply make a legitimate point to contradict the OP that would be much more effective than to just claim he is building a strawman which is not the truth since you know and I know again, that the internet is awash with AGW proponents blaming anything and everything on Global warming.

        Here Let me give you an example. The governor of Colorado said that it has been extremely dry this year which has added fuel for the fires. In addition, we had unusual and severe wind that fanned the flames out of control at times gusting to 90mph.

        Now let the people that read your comment argue with the governor of Colorado and not you. It is how you win friends and influence people. Unless you are just pissed off that The OP of this blog doesn’t say things you like then I can’t help you there.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          While we appreciate your different point of view, you seem to miss the point.

          We were addressing quite specifically, Teach’s continued conflating of the CAUSE of wildfires with the SEVERITY of wildfires. He repeatedly points out the cause, e.g., cigarettes, power lines, sheds or lightning, while ignoring that global warming with its droughts and heat waves increase the tinder and fuel allowing the “spark”, regardless of cause, to cause greater damage.

          The Colorado governor said global warming was increasing the fuel for wildfires, not that global warming was sparking them. See the distinction?

          One can legitimately question whether global warming HAS generated more easily ignited tinder and fuel. Teach’s strawman is that Dems/libs/”warmists” are claiming that global warming is STARTING wildfires.

          Again, Teach doesn’t want to have that discussion.

  5. david7134 says:

    Fires in the West are a common occurrence. Are they worse? Hard to tell, but since the 60s the idiot liberals have gone crazy with restricting people from prudent clearing and establishing adequate fire breaks. That more than anything has assured more destructive fires.

    Now, Jeff, please tell us how taxes and the destruction of the wealth in the US and Europe will help with your model of “global warming”. The greatest pollution is taking place in Asia, but you and your little fairies don’t seem to understand that concept, unless your intent has a goal that has nothing to do with climate change.

Pirate's Cove