You know the same arguments are still going on, ad-nauseam.
Has anyone bothered to read the title?
"Are the bushfires a result of climate change"?
The answer is clearly and unequivocally,
NO!
The bushfires are a clear and obvious fault of the greens and those responsible for giving them a 'leg up', platform to preach their crap from.
Bushfires are just another sh!tty bonus about what is so wonderful about this country.
Take the fuel load that would normally have been burnt off, then add abnormally high winds, and you have the perfect barbie.
So to recap and confirm;
Stupid people, making stupid decisions.
Abnormally, high levels of ground fuel, due to stupid "no burn-off" policy.
Abnormally high winds.
It was a collection of factors and timing that caused the catastrophic conditions to have created the "perfect storm".
And guess what?
Any child will tell you that if we don't do some preventative maintenance, like burn-off, we are going to keep seeing this again, when all the elements are once again in sink to conspire to do what it does best.
So let's stop this BS about climate change.
If there is any change in climate, it is a natural one, such as coming out of a mini-ice age.
If you haven't figured that out yet, either you're not looking or not interested, or just plain stupid.
All the experts have reviewed or recanted or changed their stance in one way or another.
And YES even the great NASA.
So stop plagiarising, THINK for yourselves, and stop taking everyone else's opinion as the truth, or at least the opinions that favour or back your arguments.
Remember, we don't know who these people are and what they believe in.

"When I submitted a dozen quotes informing our readers of the stupid predictions of impending doom by climate scientists, instead of simply conceding the indisputable point which was essentially true, and you knew it, you and your friend Steelie did a misdirection and nit picked my statements, and demanded I verify everything. As an experienced debater, I recognise that such tactics are the ploys of an opponent who will not debate in good faith."

Woah, first, you KNOW that none of your 'false predictions' quoted any Chapter & Paragraph from the IPCC right? That these were often poorly written Denialist agit-prop or at least just jouranlists reporting from "European scientists" but not sourced properly, and might not have come from actual peer-reviewed climate scientists in the first place!

But let's start with my last reply to you that you of course just SKIPPED past in your mad attempt to just LOAD and ASSERT 2! (Because when did a bogus climate Denier ever man up and look at the evidence and actually admit they might have copied and pasted someone else's crap!)

I did quite a bit of work on the snow cover. That not enough for you?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364764

To Max.

Both of us have to conform to the accursed 350 word limit. Both of us have to truncate our posts, which sometimes may mean generalising to such an extent that individual facts can seem inaccurate.

That is why it is important for both of us to not submit arguments which are too wide ranging. Your post in which you accused me of "skipping" is a case in point. You began the post making assertions about the Roman Warm Period, with which I used my entire 350 word limit to refute. I did not address the 'Skiing" part of your post, although I would have if you had submitted it again. But your next post inferred that you were not going to communicate with me again, so I did not bother.

The thrust of my argument was that climate scientists have been making wild predictions of impending doom for at least 30 years now, and I gave 10 examples of them doing just that. Many of these wild predictions are well known to the public, who would agree with my assertion. Of course you and Steelie can nit pick and point out that Tim Flannery is not a climate scientist, or that sooner or later, ski resorts are going to close because of global warming and I would have agreed with you. But the essential point I was making, was that these wild predictions were supposed to have come into fruition by now, and they have not.

You now seem to be implying that the public should not believe anything about HIGW that is published in the media, and instead should consult peer reviewed scientific papers to get their facts. But the public do not read peer reviewed scientific reports, they get their information from the media. So when the ABC in 1989 quoted "authorities" when they published a media report claiming that the Maldives Island chain will be underwater in 30 years, and 31 years later, the islands are still there, this is another fact which convinces the public that something is fundamentally wrong with the HIGW argument.

LEGO,

One indisputable bit of information is that if all of the glaciers and sea ice melted then the level of the world's oceans would rise about 66 metres.

Lands like Bangladesh would disappear under water completely and coastal cities around the world would be completely covered by water.

But being an AGW denier you obviously will refuse to believe this. Just like you don't believe the reverse situation where sea levels dropped by about 35 metres at the height of the last major glacial period which receded about 12,000 years ago.

Then there's the fact that you and all of your other AGW / CC deniers don't understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect.

I think you lot should all get together and on queue shout "BEAM UP ME SCOTTY!"

Mr Opinion.

My advice to you, is to read the preceding posts on this topic before you come on here and start making ill informed criticisms of my opinions without bothering to read them first.

My position is, that the climate is changing because the climate has always changed. And for hundreds of millions of years, humans could not be blamed for that. The earth warms and cools in repeating cycles, and there are cycles within cycles. These cycles are historically recorded and predictable. The primary reason for a warming planet today is because we are entering yet another scheduled warming period which was predictable and right on time.

You can argue that pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere can exacerbate that natural warming, but not that CO2 is the primary cause of that warming. I believe that every climate "scientist" pushing this new "the end is nigh" religion already knows that. They have to know it. If a dumb electrician like me can look at a few graphs and make obvious conclusions, so can they.

Steelie and Max avert their eyes and simply refuse to even look at the evidence that I provide. This is, for 570 million years, the historical record shows no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579900451280

Global temperatures fell from 1940 to 1970, despite increasing CO2, when climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming.

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

Our modern warming period is simply an extension of the repeating cycle. As the graphs show clearly, the preceding 9 warming periods were warmer than today.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579900844320

This means that our planet will continue to warm for another 2 degres before our present warming period is over and we return to another predictable
serious ice age. So if you think that CO2 warms the planet, then I hope you are right. Because global warming is one thing, global cooling quite another. Setting fire to every coal field to stop global cooling would be a better solution that the 1975 scientific proposal to stop it, which was to spread soot all over the Arctic and Antacttic.

LEGO,
A few posts back you wrote.
>“How may times have I posted up the graphs which were the ones which made me realise which side was more truthful, and you flatly refused to even look at them? Your mind is made up and you are not going to let your opponents facts get in the way of your ideology.”

This is a bit unfair given you were starting to Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, etc at us all without actually looking at the responses.

Also, I found your inability to link to particular articles or graphs frustrating, and you asked us to google certain phrases and offered incoherent raving about drawing up your own climate theory about 10,000 years cycles etc just sounded a bit unhinged to me. If you had mentioned Milankovitch cycles or learned how to link properly to just one source, there might have been something for me to read.

>“The thrust of my argument was that climate scientists have been making wild predictions of impending doom for at least 30 years now”

Absolutely and utterly false! Various *environmental* writers have been doing this under *other* influences, like Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” etc, but you haven’t been able to identify a SINGLE ACTUAL SOLID CLIMATE PAPER that predicted anything. You have copied and pasted a list from a Denialist blog that you don’t really understand the background to. Something’s going on in the Denialosphere as various Deniers are starting to compile similar lists and the first time I heard it I found it a little confronting.

For various reasons with the original lists I HAD TO research every single claim myself, as (again) the author didn’t offer the source quotes and references and links. And there’s a reason for that! They’re being trite, quoting things out of context, and deceiving people. It took days, but I researched EVERY SINGLE claim on the previous list.

Then when I saw yours and half of them popped up on my “Common Denialist Trope” list and I was able to dismiss them easily.