Like modern-day flagellants, the zealots of the Church of Climate Change are parading themselves in the wake of the Victorian bushfires, making loud protestations of their own piety, and stentoriously thundering at the rest of us sinners to repent our wicked ways lest we bring further divine wrath on our heads.

Just like the flagellants of the Black Death, these fools have convinced themselves that purely natural events are in some way the fruits of human wickedness.

And just like the Fourteenth Century, no amount of millennialist hysteria - religious or secular - is going to make a whit of difference.

“While it is be (sic) impossible to say whether these particular weather events were caused by climate change, what is clear is that these kinds of extreme weather events will become more frequent and more severe as climate change advances.”

If it is impossible to say whether or not weather events were caused by climate change, how can it be possible for this author to claim that the events will become more frequent and severe as climate changes advances!

If this person is “…Greenpeace's Climate and Energy Campaign Leader”, save us from Greenpeace! He doesn’t even know that Bangladesh, wettest country on earth, is always having floods; as has Australia always been drought and flood prone.

How could a person like this expect anyone to believe his cries of: “What matters is that our climate is changing”, and “And we’re running out of time to act.”

“Australian’s are dying as a result of extreme weather events”, bleats this climate change hysteric, insulting the memories of the most recent to die, and those who have died in bushfires before climate change was even heard of. Every time there is a tragedy, there are always “experts” who jump on the bandwagon to air their pet ideologies.

The fact of the matter is that the same greeny types as the author bullied local councils in the Kinglake area to encourage people to grow trees right up to their homes to keep the ‘forest look’, and to forbid the clearing of undergrowth. The eco-nuts are, in this case, just as responsible as arsonists for the deaths of residents.

The current tragedy that will “forever be etched into the nation’s psyche” (the author’s claim), will gradually pass from the memories of those not directly affected just like all of the other natural disasters repeated in Australia; disasters which are repeated because we don’t take precautions because we DO forget previous experiences.

Continued...

I find it hard to contain my anger at this insensitive piece of Green opportunism. What is clearly emerging in the aftermath of Saturday's bushfires is that the north west of Melbourne is one of the most dangerous bushfire areas in Austtalia and that the misguided 'green' policies of local councils, which made clearing the land around houses difficult, if not impossible, was one - and far from the only one - of the contributing factors in the horrendous loss of life. Indeed, in today's 'Age', there is the story of one family who were fined $50,000 for clearing trees from around their house. After the fire, theirs is the only house left standing in their local area.

It is worth pointing out that Mr Hepburn represents Greenpeace, a large, hierarchical and extremely wealthy multi-national corporation, whose co-founder Patrick Moore abandoned it because he deemed it too alarmist and lacking in scientific knowledge and expertise.

...continued

The unwillingness or inability of people to respect and fear the vagaries of the Australian bush by living in it when they should not do so causes self-inflicted tragedy; the mantra of ‘climate change’ has nothing to do with it.

The claim that “…we can still prevent is runaway global warming that would see these kind of events happen far more often” is nonsense. This author is not the only one using the cruel deaths of people to beat the climate change drum. The climate will change when it is good and ready to change of its own accord. We have to learn to adapt, not have the arrogance to think that we have any control over nature.

Given the unnecessary current bushfires deaths, and all those in the past, it is clear that we have never been able to adapt to the dangers of the Australian climate and environment. Given that there is nothing that we can do about climate change, it is very unlikely that most of us will be able to adapt to it either

I suggest the author gets the book "Water into Gold" written by Ernestine Hill nearly fifty years ago. She details a hotter day than last Saturday on the Murray over one hundred years ago.
This really is distressing the hysteria being generated over natural events.
Now the climate changers are claiming everything is settled and very quietly give us lots more money.

I don't think you can take one event and use it to prove anything, and it is foolish to do so as it removes credibility. And it certainly doesn't do much good to use emotive and sensationalist language to try and cause a panicked response.

Having said that -

Clownfish, you must in the Church of Climate Change Deniers...the ones who steadfastly refuse to believe anything on principle, rather than for any logical reason. You appear to an equally unreasonable and uninformed zealet, very similar to the people you criticize, and very short on justification for your viewpoint.

Some very basic research would have shown you that the sorts of temperatures experienced in southestern Australia were well outside normal climatic variations. Of course, this does not conclusively prove that climate change is happening, but it could well be an inidcator of more instability in the climate.

This is currently reflected around the world, for instance in unusually warm weather in Moscow prior to Christmas (6 degrees above normal), the current cold snap in northern Europe, flooding in northern Australia etc. This instability is worrying in that it makes it far more difficult to work out what is going on and therefore more hazardous. However, such instability is predicted in the often maligned climate change models and does provide some comfort that these models are on the right track.

Actually, Phil, I don't deny Climate Change at all.

On the contrary, having been fascinated by geology and paleontology all my life, I've long been aware that Earth's climate always has, and always will change.

What I do doubt, very strongly, is that humans have had, or can have, any significant influence on the process.

What I was implying in my comment was that the current Climate Change hysteria is part a deeply ingrained Western/Christian mindset that tends to view unusual natural events as evidence of some sort of Divine Wrath and imminent apocalypse, hence my reference to "millenialism - religious or secular".

I very pleased to hear you don't deny climate change Clownfish.

However, as someone who also has a keen interest and training in geoelogy and palaeontology, I do believe that climate change is probably being hastened by human beings due to the pace that it is occurring.

My personal view is that the geological record is not very good at defining the pace of change of previous climate change events - it doesn't record short changes due to it's nature, and ice cores only take us back to a certain point. To date I have seen no evidence that climate change, increases CO2 etc concentrations have occured at the pace they are currently changing, in previous times. I think the argument that human beings could not influence climate does not recognise the ability of chronic, long-term inputs to cause changes to the atmosphere.

And finally I would also say that I look at AGW with a degree of sceptism, as the evidence is NOT conclusive. It just looks probable to me based on the current information. Happy to be proven wrong on this.

More evidence in this article that the high priests of gw are happy to put their dogmas with no evidence above human life. They are a disgrace. A Pastor was highly criticized for a faith based comment. These clowns (no offense clownfish) are not only insensitive but show total ignorance to Australia's past climate patterns. The media are equally guilty for pushing these earth worshippers agendas. One wonders how low they will scoop.

Just a few comments. The pro-environment movement have been blasting farmers and rural people from clearing the ground fuel from their properties. I won't pre-empt the Royal Commission but they will certainly be looking at some of these 'practices'.

I'm normally pro-green but I have been disturbed by some of the hardline (rampant, almost hysterical 'end is nigh'arguments) pro-environment articles.

It's hard to sum their complaints but they are against population growth, against capitalism and technological progress (see capitalism) - to name just a few.

They have assumed the master narrative (like the Bible) that only they have the answers. There's a whole psychology involved here that I won't go in to.

They assume that all people who are critical of their POV are climate deniers, when in fact they may well be questioning the logic of the arguments. It's in the same catagory as the media asking 'have you stopped bashing your wife?'

So we get the usual mish-mash claiming it's all natural/normal (see point 2 below).

1. Global warming isn’t happening
2. It’s happening but it’s natural
3. There’s some human component, but it is insignificant
4. Yes, the human component is significant, but the effects won’t be much
5. Yes, the effects will be substantial, but mostly beneficial
6. We can easily adapt to the negative effects
7. Yes, the effects will be really negative, but nothing can be done
8. There are things that could have been done, but we’ve delayed for so long it’s too late
9. Friggin scientists, they should have been more assertive

Smart people are not taking the risk.

People who are unsure about what normal is might want to check out these articles from Prof Barry Brook:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/10/heatwave-update-and-open-letter-to-the-pm/

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/

Clownfish
Your last post is a cracker. So, you've "been fascinated by geology and paleontology all (your) life".

Is this an appeal to some kind of authority of yours? What about the 1000's of other experts in their specific fields, they have it wrong do they?

You have a strong doubt? Would you care to be more erudite (providing links or references would help)?

Your last para is a doozy.

<< What I was implying in my comment was that the current Climate Change hysteria is part a deeply ingrained Western/Christian mindset that tends to view unusual natural events as evidence of some sort of Divine Wrath and imminent apocalypse, hence my reference to "millenialism - religious or secular" >>

Now I understand: all the other religions and ideologies of the world have got it about right.

PM methinks is more on the button.

Lets forget there had been previous bushfires that burnt more ground than this, the only reason this bushfire killed more people then the previous bushfire is because of EVIL Greenies like these.

The Greenie in the council prevented people from clearing vegetation, and backburning operations. This is dispite many people speaking out about the threat to life of policies like this.

This means that there was additional fuel for this fire to burn. That is why the fire moved as fast as it did and it is the reason why it wiped out so many more humans and animals than any previous fires.

Blood is on the hands of Greenies, whose evil deeds help killed so many people and so many animal. Greenies like these are the clause of why so many people die, for these people to get on their high horse and lecture us again. Please just go away.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html?page=-1

Drought?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25010056-5013122,00.html

I guess global warming was happening in the 1800s to

What a load of old cobblers this article is, trying to pin the bush fires on climate change.

Without being hoodwinked into some silly debate about the existence or otherwise of climate change it is easily demonstrated that there are cycles of rain and dry. This results in abundant growth then a drying out, when bush fire risk is extreme.

The simple fact is that both sides of government have caved in to lobbying by the Greens and other meddlesome and ill-informed keyboard environmentalists and stopped or reduced forest management practices that were successful for hundreds of years. The outcome is a crushing tragedy of enormous proportions. The cold weather burns have been few and far between with the result that fuel built up. There has been little bulldozing of firebreaks and small lot owners, unwise to the ways of fires, have padlocked gates.

When you add to this the politically correct fashion of planting gum trees and other natives, often in groves, close to houses, it was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Most people are ignorant of fire reduction strategies and they have been ill served by government and other lobby groups through being encouraged to choose the wrong plantings for their yards and to landscape with large amounts of flammable mulches - all 'green', 'water-saving' and 'environmental' of course, but a high fire risk. Free trees and shrubs from councils were invariably highly flammable natives and the entitlement encouraged homeowners to over plant and to put in large gum trees. 'Green changers' built in scrub and added more.

I am ashamed of this author for trying to make political mileage out of this tragedy, which is far from over yet. He has considerable gall to try to sheet the blame back to climate change without any evidence at all, while credible experts like fire firefighters and forestry managers are saying otherwise.

Bob Brown of the Greens also raced in to score some miserable political points. Instead, he ended up with both feet in his mouth. Australians are quick to see through such cynicism, as will the world eventually.

I think that before people become completely hot and cross under the collar about what they perceive to be political point scoring on behalf of the environmental lobby, they might want to do a news google on Greens (or even Greenies!) and see what pops up.

Some people with an axe to grind (or who has used their axe inappropriately in the laws eyes) has come out of the wood-work and are pointing the finger firmly in the direction of the Environmentalists. Some are shocked and grief stricken and looking for causes which is quite understandable. Others I suspect have have a broader agenda and are doing politics.

Given this I don't think that it is inappropriate for the an article which looks to the future to be posted. Part of living in this great country is that we have extremes and that seems likely to increase if things continue the way they do.

The causes of the tragic bushfires down in Victoria are going to be myriad, and hopefully what will come out of it is a improved response to such emergencies in the future.

I do know that many people who have chosen to live in these areas will be supportive of what the author said. I personally know someone who is likely to be on the frontline at the moment who would cheer at the authors opinions if they weren't otherwise engaged and who would be pleased that these views have been aired.

This debate is usually too robust for my blood and I don't care for being abused. This is also one of the reasons a number of scientists stay out - it becomes too personal and nasty and most people don't want that in their lives. But it is hard to stay silent when there is so much misinformation about. I have worked with scientists for more than 20 years and have seen the accumulation of evidence about climate change first hand. No scientist is in this field for the money and scientists are by inclination, culture and training conservative and careful. If anything, they are understating the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, out of natural caution. We are in serious trouble. While there is no argument that natural cycles have always occured, they operate on geological time scales. What we are seeing now is much faster than those time scales. It is unprecedented. Most life on Earth cannot adapt fast enough to cope. In a short space of time, drastic changes have been taking place on, for example, the Great Barrier Reef. This is not some mad scientist's fantasy but well documented fact. Strident scepticism is confusing the wider public and delaying effective action.

Proof that the terrible and heart rendering events in Victoria is due to anthropogenic global warming is entirely lacking. Further the belief that any limitation of CO2 emission will have on effect on climate is entirely speculative. There is no hard evidence that human activity has any effect on global climate either in the direction of warming or cooling.

I draw your attention to remarks by Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".
She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims

For my part I would far sooner be labelled a climate “denier” or “sceptic” etc then be categorised among the credulous and gullible followers of GreenPeace.

I have noticed several media reports that point out the culpability of Green Groups. Their opposition to “controlled burns” is in the belief that they are in some mysterious manner preserving biodiversity etc.

The aim of a controlled burn is clear, namely to reduce the build up of fuel. Excess forest fuel is an important factor in causing devastating fires. The consequence of a severe fire is to destroy all life. Frankly I can not understand green ethics which awards a higher value on some rare plant or animal species at the expense of human life and the destruction of human property.

Miranda Suzanne

You sound sincere and convinced unlike many others. As a Scientist could you please comment on the volume of emissions released by these fires into the atmosphere. I suspect that would make our entire countries emissions for the last 12 months like miniscule. Given that we produce less than 1% of the world's emissions I would suggest Australia;s action or inaction really means little even assuming you are right. Surely a bit of sensible burning could at least of saved some life. The devastation caused by these fires far exceed Green ideology. Our people, land and atmosphere is a lot worse off because we bowed to the Green 'experts'.

I tend to agree with you anti-green.

It is wrong to claim that that this one extreme and extraordinary event is directly caused by AGW.

However, it is also wrong to claim that the increase in frequency and intensity (world-wide) of extreme weather events is not caused by AGW.

I also think it is wrong to directly blame political activism (or inactivism) in this tragic event, although I can understand why people are wanting something, or someone to blame (or not to blame).

Even a Christian preacher says the bush fires are a punishment from God for the decriminalising abortion in Victoria.

Do you have any opinion in regards to the information contained in Barry Brook's articles?

Fwiw, I tend to put less and less credence in the popular press these days, for obvious reasons.

OK, it's an article full of emotive terms and threats ..

So what are you saying PM Rudd, or the politicians "weaseling out" should do?

There are no solutions there at all that I can see, just blame for climate change .. that's a bit raw, the climate changes, yes, it does.

"Is it serious enough" .. what if it is, what are you saying should be done, what? Give you money, give someone else money? Stop doing this start doing that .. what? What would you do? What are you doing - besides talk and more talk about what everyone else should do?

It's just a typical Green circular rant that has no objective except to make veiled accusations that if "something" isn't done, it will get worse. While clearly stating that Greenpeace and the people's movement are doing something, talking and finger pointing. Obviously you're the good guys in all this - are you worried about something that you need to defend your role?

Go away, work up some solutions come back and present. (try not to use your usual bogey man of the fossil fuel and coal industry so as to focus hatred) Try not to be alarmist.

I'm not buying into the "climate change/AGW" argument .. you can't argue about something that has become unfalsifiable (like religion), most everything now can be attributed to "man made climate change", hot, cold, wet and dry.

And herein lies the crux of the difference of opinion over climate change.

Phil Matimein: 'I do believe that climate change is probably being hastened by human beings due to the pace that it is occurring.'

Clownfish: 'What I do doubt, very strongly, is that humans have had, or can have, any significant influence on the process.'

One believes and one has doubts ... and both behave just like religious believers and doubters. And of course true believers seldom have doubts.

I'm with you Clownfish, I'm very much a doubter of the mania of manmade climate change.

JBowyer, ssssssshhhh don't mention the money... it's banal.

I'll just join Miranda and defend the science:
The models have suggested that human induced climate change will increase the duration and severity of heat waves in south eastern Australia (among many other predictions currently with evidence to support them). So to some extent, yes they did "predict" these sort of events. Being probabilistic predictions however, it is also true to say that one event proves nothing. Q&A's summary is good!

I reckon we'll get to point 9 ("Friggin scientists, they should have been more assertive") on Q&A's list within about 5 years the way things are going. Only recently has the real-world data been scary enough to publish the more likely, but scary predictions.

People were shocked that the US financial system could collapse so quickly. Conservative scientists are now being equally shocked at the ice shelves collapsing years before they ever expected it. Methane levels are also doing surprising and potentially dangerous things. They are not doing this to scare people, they are not exaggerating, they are just doing science.

Alas the media, politicians and lay-men do not know how to talk about uncertain, complex science that takes years of mathematics and modeling to comprehend. Using the usual gambit of public argument: "Pick a side and argue it to the hilt" is *not* compatible with the complexity of real life.

So to the deniers: Get educated...from reliable sources.
To the panic merchants: Chill out and get more educated. also watch your sources, vary them.
To everyone: hone your BS detectors, but lose your tribal allegences. Watch out for the ambit claims and vested interests.
There will come a time very soon when we will need to work together. Those that are still fighting each other will be left behind.

Sticking to the science, as you suggest Ozandy, is the way to go. Extremist claims on either side only hurt the debate. We must move forward with facts at our disposal. Those facts have been gathered with painstaking persistence over decades and have now started to resolve into a frightening picture. Despite what may appear to be the case, in reality there is not much dispute among scientists about the way these facts are tending. Runner, I can't answer your question directly except to say that per capita Australia is a huge emitter and any moves to reduce that would help both in terms of actual volume of carbon in the atmosphere and in terms of perception and leadership. Also, we have the R&D knowledge base here to become world leaders in new energy technology that moves away from carbon based sources. I can't understand why we don't embrace the opportunities now and shore up our future economic as well as environmental health. Whatever you think of anthropogenic climate change, surely shrugging off old and unsustainable ways of doing things and taking on much more efficient and sustainable systems is an overall good for this country.
One more thing - even if you don't believe that the atmosphere is changing because of enormous quantity of carbon that has been forced up there, there is really no doubting that the carbon dissolving in the oceans is making them more acidic. In a sane world, this fact alone would be enough to prompt immediate action.

It is sickening to see this type of article published as bodies are being pulled from the ashes. Yes Mr Hepburn, it is impossible to say whether these events were caused by CC. Did that stop you? No. You then go on to say that “what is clear is that these kinds of extreme weather events will become more frequent.......” How is this “clear”. Scientists can’t even agree on this point, yet to you it is “clear”. We will continue to see monsoonal rains in the north at this time of year and bushfires in the south. Heavens, the coast may experience a Cyclone!
Ever since I can remember there have been those bewailing the perils facing the Great Barrier Reef. As a teenager I travelled and dived the reef. I thought I was so lucky to have seen it. It was going to be dead by the year 2000!
Australians have always suffered as a result of “extreme weather events”. 2009 is no different. “The climate has changed” - What a profound statement! Changed – when? Today is indeed different from yesterday as it is different from last year. I suppose you will somehow manage to link any adverse event on the face of the earth with GW/CC.
What do you mean by “Next time some politician starts to weasel out of their commitment to take action on climate change”. ? Stop handing out money to ratbag organizations? Check the Governmenr website for the monies being thrown at CC. The amounts are mind boggling.
“Until now, the real leadership on climate change has been coming from the grassroots.” I rather think it may be the maggots that are feeding on those grassroots. I suppose most of the members of these 150 “action groups” flew or drove to Canberra. I’ll bet they didn’t walk!
What we have seen in the past week is not some glimpse of Armageddon but rather a repeated picture of what this land has been handing humans for centuries and will continue to do so for many, many more

I agree with you sparky

This is one of the most cynical articles ever published by OLO. Greenpeace has no shame whatsoever.

These ghouls make their money by stirring up trouble and strife in the minds of many, purely in order to generate yet more funds,so they can engage in yet more frolics and fantasies, to our detriment.

The scientific fraternity in this country are not much better they play the same game.

Typical of these is Brooks himself. Given the way the perambulating comdom got his funds I wouldnt attach any value to his pronouncements on anything.

The problem with John Hepburn's article can be found in the word "recorded" as in the highest recorded temperatures. To recap what is widely known and accepted, in this intergalacial (last 10,000 years sinc ethe last ice age) temperatues have gone through a series of cycles. We are in a high part of the cycle. There is plenty of evidence for this and plenty of evidence that climate has changed in the past couple of decades. As the last high part of the cycle was well before reliable recordings, we have no detailed recordings to compare the current temperatures with.
The real question is has human activity added to (or subtracted from) that natural process. You cannot take the change itself and say that because there has been a change humans must be responsible. You may point to the rise of industrial gases in the atmosphere, but you are still left with the problem of what caused earleri changes known to be natural. There is no adequate explanation for those natural changes yet scientists have constucted models which largely set aside any natural change and then insisted that public policy be based on those models.
While we are on the subject the vast bulk of major changes of several degrees which smashed records HAS TO BE NATURAL. The 2007 IPCC report put humans down for half a degree or so to date, and that's highly contestable. Greenhouse proponents might claim some sort of feedback effect but that's even more contestable. What is distressing is that the green movement is using the bushfires to further their political agenda

I happen to believe in AGW.
I believe eucalypts -in sufficient numbers- can affect climate (an extension of allelopathy, see James Lovelock) and they don't burn coal.
HOWEVER, the connection between AGW and the recent tragedy in Victoria is drawing a long bow indeed.
I grew up in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney. In my childhood, it was accepted doctrine that the best defence against bush fire was a big back lawn.
In mathematical terms, the nearest eucalypt should be at least 1.5 times it's own height away from your house.
Duh.
20 years after I left the mountains, I returned to visit a school chum, and was shocked to see bloodwoods actually overhanging his house.
When I queried this, he said council would not allow him to cut them down.
Any council with policies such as this should be compelled to pay compensation to IT'S victims.

You'd have to be in denial to refuse to countenance the possibility that our current freakish weather patterns are related to climate change.

From an authoritative source (i.e. a Bureau of Meteorology scientist quoted by a senior Australian climatologist):

<< “Given that this was the hottest day on record on top of the driest start to a year on record on top of the longest driest drought on record on top of the hottest drought on record the implications are clear...

It is clear to me that climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of “climate change increased the chances of an event” to “without climate change this event could not have occured”. >>

http://bravenewclimate.com/

I'm disturbed at the angry and hysterical tenor of the OLO denialist crew at Hepburn's quite mild and sensible article. As usual, Q&A concisely sums up what passes for debate about climate change on OLO. As I've said recently, the time is fast approaching where we will need to start talking to, rather than at, each other.

Unfortunately, the 'business-as-usual' crowd here have painted themselves so far into the denialist corner that all they seem to be able to do is bellow out inanities from their increasingly attenuated perspective.

The Government recently conceded in it's Climate Change Adaption Program that Climate Change was a man made phenomenon and the effect are real. Anyone have any idea what duty of care or possible negligence claims that could give rise too? Perhaps government and business now have an obligation legally to warn or protect the community when they could reasonably do so

Well, how do I put this kindly to all the over the top responders to the Green Peace post. Nup!

It can't be done kindly. Simply

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489847.htm

There aren't people closer to the problem than these guys.

Ps Happy Birthday Darwin!

Hmmm. CJ Morgan provides a link to the Brooks site which in turn shows the BOM mean max temperature anomalies for Feb 7th, and uses the emotive red colours to make their message clearer, as you would expect

Why Feb 7th ? Well for Adelaide it is the date when the summer mean max values peak,at around a mean max of 29.8, as they would in a climate like Adelaides. By referring to a base average and using anomalies, then it would show big differences

But from the University of Melbournes Earth Science web site for extremes of temperature, the record maximum temperatures for Adelaide occur earlier in the year, and in 1912 and 1943.

Further similar record mean maximums values occurred in 1899 and 1943.

Whats even more intersting is that one day day later in the month,on the 8th Feb, and only as recently as 1996, there was a record low of 19.6 so there is a difference if 10.6 anyway.

Not quite the same story.

Ok, I'll try to respond to as many of the points raised as a I can. Firstly I'd like to say that I'm sorry if I offended anyone. It wasn't my intent. I guess I am angry too. One of my friends is missing after the fires around Marysville so I have a small sense of what some people must be going through.

I'll ignore the general vitriol and personal slander and will try to take the substantive issues in turn.

1. Regarding climate change denial, this is not even worth discussing. Some people still think the earth is flat. They are entitled to the view but it is no longer important to anyone else that they hold these views. There is plenty of evidence for anyone who cares to look.

2. I stated clearly that it is impossible to say that these events were caused by climate change but that the likelihood and intensity of extreme events will increase with climate change. It is not just my opinion that climate change will lead to more frequent extreme weather events and bushfires. Dr David Karoly, the Victorian Government's climate advisor was quoted in The Age as saying "The risk of increased intensity and increased frequency of fires is real, it is already occurring and it will get worse under climate change." Dr Mark Adams from the Bushfire CRC made similar comments. Or you can see the editorial today from the Firefighters union http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/face-global-warming-or-lives-will-be-at-risk-20090211-84od.html?page=-1

Or you could call any insurance company and ask for their data.

3. One person mentioned that I referred to floods in Bangladesh as unusual when they are common occurrence. This is probably a fair point and I should have been clearer in saying “more extensive and destructive than usual flooding in Bangladesh”.

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT

4. Another person said that the article was emotional. Yes it is an emotional article. I am actually quite angry about climate change and the fact that despite the obvious evidence, very little is actually being done about it. Lots of talk, lots of money being spent, but very little of the action that is required to cut emissions. No doubt this emotion won’t make sense to people who don’t think climate change is happening, but for people who have read the science closely you’ll probably know what I mean.

5. Somebody else mentioned that I did’t talk about solutions – only problems. Well, it was a short article and I didn’t want to cover too many different issues. The solutions for cutting greenhouse pollution are many. Firstly we should stop wasting so much energy. This would save us money as well. Secondly, we should start urgently replacing coal power with renewable energy. This would have the added benefit of creating many more new jobs in the energy sector and would decrease both local pollution from coal plants as well as the impact of coal mining on groundwater and rivers. We should do this in a way that supports coal dependent communities in making the transition. Thirdly, we need to look at land management (both forestry and agriculture) to find ways of increasing storage of carbon in soil and forests, while maintaining biodiversity. There are lots of other things too but this is a starting point.

6. As for the issue about native vegetation management in Victoria, I agree with the comments about it being sensible to clear trees from close to houses in fire prone areas. I’m not familiar with local planning issues in Victoria apart from the articles I have read in the papers this past week, so I will leave these questions for others with expertise in this area.

I hope this answers some of the questions that you all raised.

John

From what i have seen, the young people seem to have a small understanding on the matter. The best of the best say, Its a natural way of the planet, and I must agree! Don'T worry about CJ and the joke I have played, old farts is what they are. NO offense!

Climate change, is a natural happening and NO scientist" in the lower level, is worth listening.

Have a look around you and tell me everything is going fine?
To be frank I would have to say the panic is a stir up of entire ingredience of misbelief and if I may be so humble, you are all right and you are all wrong. Sometimes you all put your heads down and work very hard and the secret to success is to listen to no one but yourselves. I am so proud of the new thoughts and how the simple wind-backs that everyone does on this site and it is regrettable the common evolutionary drive of the old fashioned is our complete disability.

Here is some private thoughts!

Imagine if the world was one.

If you can think upon this, just imagine how far you would go.

I share the same world with all and I cannot find a fault in any of you, so why are you moving so slow.

Evolution! Here the bells of clarity and throw away political views of the 19 century, stop thinking of yesterday and start thinking of tomorrow, we are with you, and we are right beside you with or with the best we can muster in our evolutionary position.

EVO

Its unfortunate that such a pressing issue continuously attracts those who wish to base their conjecture on pure denial of the scientific consensus that Climate Change is occurring and is man made. I'm no expert on the topic and im somewhat weary of debating the scientific veracity of global warming, because I believe that it should be left to the experts, but by the same token its a theme that should be taken extremely seriously by both the public and our leaders. The Victorian bushfires are an unfortunate tragedy, and my condolence go out to the families that endured pain and suffering, but by ignoring the linkages with Climate Change means that our future will continue to hold increasingly dimmer prospects and will thus create spiteful future generations who will be unable to enjoy what makes Australia great.

I share the author of this articles anger and concern and hope that this tragedy will act as a wake up call for our leaders in Canberra.

I take from Johns rebuttal that he has closed his mind to any new research regarding ongoing climate change unless it matches his bias.
An unfortunate point for the AGW proponents is that since we are now so close or have past the "tipping point", according to their beliefs, any emission from wild fire adds to the global CO2 burden.
The forests burnt will take decades to recover the carbon emitted taking the recovery time line beyond the tipping point to disaster.
Senator Brown has always discount the emissions of wildfire as he offered that these forests would recapture the carbon in the fullness of time leaving a balanced carbon ledger.
If the tipping point is here he will no longer be able to use this as a defence of past Greens policy on Prescribed Burning.
Fine fuels (<8mm) is the only thing that land managers can effect to reduce the risk to all life and property.
The claim that climate change will cause more wildfires only works if you have fuel to burn. Under current policies is will soon not be a concern.

jdmh, "As for the issue about native vegetation management in Victoria, I agree with the comments about it being sensible to clear trees from close to houses in fire prone areas."

That is one grudging admission at least.

People generally understand that if they stored heaps of paper, clothing and other flammable materials in their house, a fire could claim the lot and probably their lives as well. The same logic applies in the forests where fuel has to be reduced regularly.

What the Greens and other keyboard environmentalists have done over the years is to prevail upon government not to undertake those sensible, proven fire control strategies. In addition, hopelessly naive 'green' hobby farmers who have fled to the country built in scrub land.

The devastation of these fires resulted from the availability of huge amounts of fuel in and around human habitation and property. That and naive, over-civilized modern folk who believed that government had fire risks in control.

If anything, this is a wake-up call to all that we cannot depend on government to give the best advice or protect us, ultimately that is up to ourselves.

We have a view across well-populated suburbs spread across ridges in a major metropolitan city. The suburbs, which back onto eucalyptus scrub lands are well planted with towering Australian native trees and shrubs. Grey-green scrub weaves through the suburbs. One day it will catch fire and if the wind is in the wrong direction whole suburbs will be ablaze.

Will that be said to be attributable to global warming too (once God was blamed!) or will the foolish council policies that prevent the thinning and removal of trees be changed as a result of the Victorian catastrophe?

There is no way the public is going to let the Greens and government off scot-free for the lack of fire breaks and the reduction of winter burns. The fires could have been far smaller and less threatening to property and life. The ducking for cover is already occurring. Global warming, which didn't provide the fuel or the ignition, is one such diversion.

Cornflower! It is over population my friend. These radical natural events will keep increasing as our population intrudes into the natural world.
It's not that there are more car accidents and it not that there are more shark attacks, it's just more people getting in the way and that's a fact.

P.s. Nature is going to kick our arse.
As for bush fires people know the dangers so why did they stay when they had plenty of warning and knowledge of the world they have invaded.

EVO

The Royal Commission into Victoria’s devastating fires will hear evidence of the causes of those fires, the conditions which were conducive to their ferocity and any link to climate change.

The highest temperatures on record and very low humidity resulted in fire-storms which increased wind speeds causing their very rapid movement. So rapid, so ferocious that properties a hundred metres or more from the nearest trees were destroyed by massive ember attacks.

Meteorologists and other scientists have long warned that climate change would result in drier warmer conditions in south east Australia and wetter conditions in the north. They have warned that our climate will become more extreme.

Reducing Australian greenhouse gas emissions, about 1.4% of global emissions, will change that prognosis. Such a change will only be brought about by global action, particularly by major emitters. What Australia can and must do is set a good example to major emitters. It can do this by being seen to actively work for CO2 emissions reduction through development and adoption of new technology and an effective environmental trading scheme (ETS).

Governments at all levels have the opportunity to do this in the context of the Commonwealth’s stimulus package. Mr Rudd has proposed implementation of an ETS aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by 5% and meeting 20% of electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020.

However, he has undermined those far too modest targets by proposing to issue the worst CO2 emitters with free licenses, providing multi-billion subsidies to the coal industry, agreeing to over-compensate electricity end users and providing $170m. enabling Holden to perpetuate vehicle emissions and dependence on oil imports.

Ominously, Treasurer Swann has announced Government proposals for an ETS are now to be referred to a Parliament Committee which will advise on whether an ETS is the best way of reducing CO2 emissions. Is this the prelude to abandonment of an ETS?

In the context of all of these developments, we are entitled to demand that the Prime Minister treat climate change and its likely effects on Australia more seriously and in an exemplary way.

MP - really? the royal commission will have in in its terms of reference "and any link to climate change", I'm sure it will if people are trying to find that conclusion.

I sure hope they consider build up of fuel in the forests, you've somehow missed that in your haste to find the conclusion and only possible result ... man made climate change! (Hysterical frightening of children stuff - as Robin Williams of the ABC says, "you have to alarm people to get their attention")

Can I ask - do we sit up and pay attention to every country who sets some example, then change our behavior? So, what if Australia is a shining example of reducing CO2 output, or cornering the market in self inflicted poverty. I don't believe anyone will even notice let alone care - then what do you do? Won't we look like a tad foolish? With a very self satisfied attitude of course, we'll explain to our children that we do have the moral high ground!

"20% of our energy by renewable means by 2020", sorry I just break up every time I hear these fairy tales and dreams. That's 11 years out and we have not a chance of getting off coal fired power, with our increasing population and need for energy to ADAPT to the changing climate, within our lifetimes.

Sounds like Swann is waking up to what we can and cannot afford ..

"we are entitled to demand that the Prime Minister.." so you are, but others can equally demand other things, like not destroying the future for our children by trying to stop the climate changing.

We should be investing in adapting to the changing climate - whatever causes it, not trying to stop it - that's flat earth or Luddite thinking. The climate changes and you have as much chance of stopping that as stopping tectonic plate movement.

Is there any science to support a "we can stop it" or "we can set the thermostat" or even "we can reverse the climate" on the planet?

No, Q&A, I am not appealing to authority - I'll leave that to the churches.

All I was trying to do was deflect AGW proponents favourite epithet, "denier", with its possibly deliberate semantic linkage to "holocaust denier" and definite allusions to the willful ignorance of the doubter, by pointing out that I am aware of the scientific background of the issue, I can read, and I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.

And no, I don't think that any religion has got it right. Again, I am merely pointing to what I see as a strongly cultural influence on the debate: The Western/Christian tradition of reading events in terms of apocalyptic millenarianism.

I will also accept that my generational experience as a GenXer probably influences me: I've been listening to Baby Boomer scientific apocalyptists telling us that the end is nigh for so long, that my BS filter is probably in overdrive.

For as long as I can remember, there have been doomsayers proclaiming that the Earth is in imminent danger of some sort of manmade apocalypse "within the next twenty years - unless governments act now!" I clearly remember climate experts - some of them the same people most stridently arguing for AGW - gloomily warning of "the coming Ice Age". And they produced the scientific evidence for it, too!

"Climate change denial, this is not even worth discussing", says John Hepburn.

Again, an AGW straw man. Do I "deny" climate change? No, I don't; I just doubt very much that it's our fault, and that dressing in hair shirts and whipping ourselves is going to achieve much.

To finish, two things; first, my favourite quote:

"I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning" - Aleister Crowley (otherwise, my favourite nutjob).

Secondly, something I ask of every AGW proponent: How many times have you travelled overseas in the last ten years?

You might be interested in http://www.theage.com.au/face-global-warming-or-lives-will-be-at-risk-20090211-84od.html

MP - that link has already been posted in this series of comments, see above in a comment by jdmh - why does it not surprise me you both think the Age is a source of objective wisdom. Of course the sponsor and chief drumbeaters of Lights Out Day, or whatever you call it, is going to be a good source of fact.

Another "you have to be alarming to get their attention" type article in the Age. So well known to be objective when it comes to AGW. In the last year I believe only one article in the Age actually mentioned there might be some doubt in some people's minds - and that was in the Business Section.

So we have some frightened firefighters, poor bastards - I can understand why they feel that way, I couldn't do their job, let's not make it more confusing for them.

Please, we can all go Google to our hearts content for articles for or against our pet point of view.

Bottom line - regardless of why the earth is warming, what can be done? Seriously, what? Yes I know we can reduce our CO2 output, but so what, will that stop or reduce warming - by how much when? We need to adapt, not stick our heads in the sand demanding we return to some previous point in history you might be happy with - it's not going to happen.

Apart from trying to garner everyone's donations - what is Greenpeace actually going to do? Bothering people and scaring children doesn't count - I saw the Greenpeace Christmas video of the north pole going under and Santa being saved, we are not amused at such scare tactics aimed at children.

Yes, Crowley was a nutjob. I haven't been out of Australia in the last decade.

I'm glad we've got that resolved. Now, what about climate change?

OK! CJ. Nut job! You are an equated man.. You can go with the rest of nineteenth century if you want to, but best left too the thinking of stone-age... people, that have learnt too sharpen the new spears.
and that's a fact! CJ! Have you looked around you lately? Because quite frankly, you don't have a clue! People of the now, make you seem some-what fossilized. ( NO DISRESPECT INTENDED )

In all reality, We need to get of this planet! if One's thinking's goes wrong, and we are all...well you know what.

There is so much I want to say on this site, but the old world seems to get in the way.
People! I love to help!
When you drive past me! just smile! Then i will know you have an open mind.

Does the world seem to be getting smaller?
If something goes catastrophically wrong we have no where else to go, I am so glad my small words not so long ago NASA has finally given the approval of mankind a second chance.
Cryptically! three billion is sustainable and you all know, just do the maths!
Just imagine if the best of the best can get out there, there are no words for there boldness and if there were hands up for volunteers to go to a new planet, I would raise my hand with all that makes me human.

EVO

The notion that these current dreadful fires are exceptional and therefore a manifestation of AGW is wrong; a cursory comparison with the Black Friday fires of 1939 reveals a slight increase in the Melbourne maximum and no exceeding of the prior maximum for the surrounding countryside; the 1939 catastrophe also lasted longer; the comments by various green spokespersons to the contrary, including the opportunistic and odious remarks by Brown, reveal a deep misanthropy and preoccupation with ideology at the expense of people. It is clear that the criteria by which human interaction with nature is judged is changing from a cost/benefit analysis, from the viewpoint of people, to a criteria where any encroachment or interference with pristine nature is automatically regarded as negative and damaging. It is a dreadful and unrealistic standard; everything that is decent and civilzed in life is created by keeping the ravages of nature at bay; being nearly 60 I grew up with school-mates who had polio and it was not unusual for young people to die from tetanus or croup and various other preventable diseases; I can remember listening to a talk by Alan Marshall who, with great vigour, said the next generation would be luckier than his because we would not have to put up with the ravages of nature; it is a lesson being thrown away by arrogant and illusionary greens such as the author of this drivel.

A couple of commentators have referred to the Drought: Exceptional Circumstances Report by CSIRO and BoM which aledgedly predicts more extreme events such as the fires due to AGW; this report is a farrago; its inadequacies have been well dealt with by Dr David Stockwell who, strangely, is finding trouble getting his critique peer-reviewed and published. More generally, the 'predictions' of AGW are bereft of validity; Hansen's ludicrous utterances have been proven false by genuine scientists like Koutsoyiannis and Christy and Douglass. AGW is clearly an ideology which feeds on the fear and complacency of people; the ghoulish comments from the greens about the recent fires proves that.

I think the severity of these fires has a lot more to do with the "greenies'" successful campaign to prevent the clearing of firebreaks and undergrowth.

I think that those that those lunatics that prevented people protecting themselves should be held legally and financially responsible for the devastation that they are directly responsible for.

I personally will cheer on the lawyers as they strip those individuals and negligent municipalities of their financial pants.

It is not only in times of fire that large trees present a problem. There are homeowners in Brisbane who were prevented by the council from taking down large eucalyptus trees in the yards and suffered crippling damage from the same trees last storm. Every time there is a bit of rain or wind, the electricity supplies are immediately cut by falling trees and limbs. Invariably it is an Australian native tree, yet councils still refuse to allow tree removal from next to houses and power lines.

Eucalyptus trees are magnificent in the bush but are totally out of place in urban ares, parks and schools. They earned their reputation as 'widow makers' because they randomly drop large limbs. A tree doesn't have to be old or hollow in the trunk to do it.

A primary school local to us has a fully mature gum with limbs 400 - 600mm through overhanging demountable classrooms packed with children. Gum tree branches are seriously heavy. No way I would let my children occupy those rooms, yet naive bureaucrats and parents added to the risk by planting a row of peppermint gums as 'shade' for a play area and outdoor gym.

Much of this is down to political correctness and refusal to face facts.

Shadow Minister Cheer away. Those wonderful Lawyers will take half of any money they get! All that money will come frome the ordinary ratepayer so they are going to pay Lawyers who probably donate to green causes (They would, would,nt they - great little earners the Greens). Ratepayers will have to pay more rates and they will never get any reduction so inflation increases.
Mate you and me are paying for everything! Best option is to sack councils and put all public servants on proper wages with superannuation just as the rest of us pay and no government pensions for public servants or politicians.

It is very sad that anyone should use the suffering of hundreds of Victorians to advance their political views.

What does the author want Mr Rudd to do? He does not say in this article.

Many are calling for the replacement of coal fired power generation with 100% renewable energy (solar and wind). This is only a viable option if these same people are prepared to explain to trauma victims why they cannot be admitted to hospital at night, when the wind isn't blowing.

Hydroelectric has limited potential in Australia, due to our lack of water. All other forms of power generation emit carbon, with the exception of one. That is Nuclear Energy.

If the Green movement seriuosly believes that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to heat up at an alarming rate, then they would be proposing a switch to Nuclear. But they don't.

There is nothing worse than those who complain about a problem, but cannot provide a realistic solution to solve that problem.

Talk of a political uprising at grassroots level smacks of an East European Socialist Revolution.