Well David G you have been pretty comprehensively assessed by others but just so you know. I live on 2 acres surrounded by larger acreage. I have a dam, an island, a bridge, a water pump and a fire plan.
If it's possible I think you look a little more foolish and certainly a little snob!

The irony in this debate is in the way narcissistic climate doofie (the plural of doofus) seriously believe they are being clever. The reality is that most readers can see right through their casuist arguments and pathetic undergraduate sneers, to the point where it makes their skin crawl.

The IPCC is now so corrupted by the unelected and totally unaccountable WWF that they are now willing to present their own rhetorical fabrications as if they were primary data inputs. And C$IRO is little better. Telling us all with boorish faux gravitas that, wait for it, we will all see a lot more January weather in years to come, especially between future Decembers and future Februaries.

Good one, climate doofie, did you need a PhD for that or did you just get it signed off by this weeks WWF climate druid?

It's darkly-amusing the way the author focuses on coal. Australia is doing far more damage off-shore and globally with its imports than it's doing with the exportation of coal, or even with its domestic use of it. It's laughable to think Australia would be doing its bit by cutting coal exports while it ramps up the real driver of climate change, consumerism.
Coal is one of the fuels of consumerism, but consumerism is the problem. Cleaned-up, and greater fuel-efficiency, only means a commensurate rise in consumption--not only the conspicuous variety, more suburbs also. Stopping coal exports is sheer idealism.
Best now to just keep going and adapt to the the new, leaner and smaller, world future generations inherit.

Poirot,
Thanks for the link about the distance from the bush and house survival. Interesting.

I wonder how the figures would stack up if the homes were occupied as no mention was made of that. Most homes ignite from wind blown embers, not actual flames or radiant heat, so one person can douse the embers with a watering can.

While I advocate defending the home, one must be realistic and prepare beforhand to increase success rate. Of course people that need looking after, like young kids and the elderly, should evacuate. You only want able bodied persons there.

Even with a well prepared home, expect to be very busy for some considerable time, both beforehand and after the main fire has past. You will be on the move constantly checking, putting out embers and so on. The air is full of embers and they are wind blown. Having saved the home and after the main fire has past stay there and keep checking, power supply will be out and land line phone, so alternatives has to be arranged. Much to do.

Sorry to go off subject but issue is pertinent at this time.

Posted by cohenite
What area!? The area between your ears! ACORN is meant to show the real temperature of ALL of Australia; that is what BOM said it would do.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

To find an average temperature for the whole of Australia the area is divided up into a square grid ( 1X1 Deg ?). The temperature of each box is then determined if there is more than one station in the box the value is averaged, if there is no station in the box the temperature is estimated from the neighbouring values. the average of all the boxes is then averaged.

Now the result of the above calculation is quite different to adding up the temperature readings from 108 sites and averaging them. That is misleading because it becomes heavily biased due to a large number of sites being close together as in the big cities.

I would also point out that what matters is the volume of grey matter between ones ears not the area but if you are only relying on the area it may explain some of the problems that you appear to be having understanding climate science.

warmair,

I think you just blew it.

You just said that cohenite appears to be having problems understanding climate science!

Ooops!

Would this be the same climate science that the former Kyoto signatories don’t understand? Or would be the same climate science that the global CO2 trading markets don’t understand or the renewable energy industry that likewise does not understand?

How can you legitimately criticize skeptics for not understanding your science when your own side does not believe it?

Perhaps you could point us all to those entities that still agree with you that the CAGW science is good enough and just what they are doing about it?

(see Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 12 January 2013 3:32:45 PM)

Perhaps we can then discuss your own “grey matter”?