Hi Belly,

How many of those bushfires have started in national parks, especially those which have not undergone cool- or winter-burnings ? As well of course, how many have been started by idiot arsonists (may they rot in jail) ? And, like every year, how many by lightning strikes ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Max Green,

I've identified what motivates the AGW denialists: greed and self-interest. Definitely not science.

I leave it to you to entertain them. (1) I'm not a scientist so I am definitely not going to fool myself that I am in a position to debate scientific matters and (2) I refuse to waste any more of my time arguing with a bunch of nobodies who make up lies to get their way.

If you keep arguing with them you will end up as stupid as they are.

MHAZE

1. POLITICS AND A GREEN NEW DEAL

Yes, there are extremes in every movement. Should I hunt around and find all the tinfoil hat conspiracies contradicting each other to embarrass your 'side' of the debate? Like the one that says AGW is a conspiracy to keep Africa poor, and then the other one that says it's a conspiracy to tax the west and make Africa rich? So much fun right there!

Or shall we discuss the actual science?

Climate goals don't have to take a political position. We need abundant cheap clean energy. How we get their could be a slight cap & trade or carbon tax, or it could be wholesale "nationalisation and nuking" as the French did. Are they a "Green New Deal?" Have they entirely overhauled their whole economy? Are they a socialist state? Well, not really. But they did just nationalise their energy grid and pump out their nukes. Now they don't poison their population with coal particulates. Sounds good to me!

2. MWP
No one contests that the MWP and other warm periods were warm. But you're saying they were 'hot', at least, hotter than now. You ran away when we asked you for evidence and were found out quoting a known fraudster.
http://tinyurl.com/wv2beee

Now you're quoting Marcott, which is more interesting. What can I say but that science evolves with new data, dogma doesn't. Marcott indicated from his study of the isotopes that the early part of the Holocene was warmer than now, but about to be *thoroughly* eclipsed by 2050.

YES, we call know the climate has changed before. Slowly. With time for ecosystems and people to move. The difference this time is we use about 40% of the planet to feed ourselves, so ecosystems CANNOT move. They're trapped little glasshouses and we've just turned the temperature up on them. This time we've got 10 billion people by 2050 and maybe 25% crop yield hits from AGW as the temperature BLITZES anything in the early holocene

MHAZE PART 2

Yet it seems Marcott has been superseded. Because, science. Science adapts to data, dogma doesn't.

From NATURE, no less!

"The previous interpretation of evidence from stable isotopes (δ18O) in water from GIS ice cores was that Holocene climate variability on the GIS differed spatially3 and that a consistent Holocene climate optimum—the unusually warm period from about 9,000 to 6,000 years ago found in many northern-latitude palaeoclimate records4—did not exist"
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355

3. MALTHUS
Sure, the Green Revolution was 200 years later. Malthus didn't calculate on the increasing food trade from overseas, the fact that refrigerated ships would be invented that could bring in frozen protein from Australia and New Zealand, and a host of other inventions. Sorry, my bad... abbreviated thinking. I meant ALL that stuff, all those both market and scientifically driven solutions to a growing population. There were valid mathematical questions Malthus asked. He could NOT have foreseen some of the modern miracles that disproved his simplistic model, but does that let us off the hook? The same modern scientific enterprise that could feed a world of 10 billion is the same modern scientific enterprise saying we should STOP COOKING THE PLANET NOW! Do we just ignore it and hope for another miracle? Cause, like, Malthus was wrong dude, so therefore there's nothing to worry about ever again....

4. "CO2 Science" link VERY revealing!
Craig Idso has oil ties!
https://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

I'm quoting Nature, you're quoting oil funded lies! Dude, really? Grow up!

Loudmouth well 32 years as a firefighter,a bit more in communications [ham radio operator]
Then my winter drives [4x4 ] in to the forests harshest country
Yes national parks [looked after their workers] and forests no longer burn near enough
Yes again, in this state at least their numbers have been slashed ,cost cutting
BUT for three years it has been too dry to burn, winter controlled burns have turned in to raging fire storms
Your point is taken, in part agreed with
I have tried for each of those years, constantly, to get a cold burn done right here
Loss of workers on the roads [cost and job cutting] has had zero support
Roadside trash is 30 cm deep, guardrails have dead grass on the outside! our fires saw near every white post and reflector burn
Our state, parks forests and farms is dryer than this 74 year old has ever seen it,NOTHING anyone can do [other than ten inches of rain, will stop what has been a long summer killing and destroying more in the next four months than it already has truth is I fear for this state and my own home and life

Dear Belly,

Sydney is suffocating in the smoke from all of the bushfires north, south and west of it. One report said the city's air quality is so poor that it is equivalent to smoking 34 cigarettes a day.

It has been like this for the past 2-3 weeks and looks like no end in sight as a new fire keeps popping up on a daily basis.

And now Sydney has just discovered that its main water supply is in a much worse state than it was recently reported. It appears someone hasn't taken into account the accumulation of silt in the reservoir behind the Warragamba dam since it was first commissioned about 60 years ago. So now it's looking like there really isn't as much water as they have been telling the public and the water quality at the lower depths is unfit for consumption. The 46% capacity of a few weeks ago is now looking more like 35% capacity.