Mr O my garden is dead most of it, trees Aussie natives are ok
My description to Loudmouth was/is truth
And by the way near half of these fires are private sun bleached lands not parks our over 100,000 hectare one was a week old when it entered the forest
Firebugs mostly kids, have responsibility for most of them

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/fires-near-meLoudmouth a click on the think will show how many and how widespresed our fires are
ABC[free to read news site] tells us 680 homes have been lost here so far

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-fires-live-updates-rfs-continues-to-fight-blazes-20191205-p53hek.html
Another report from mid day this day on dreadful fires right now

"Yes, there are extremes in every movement."

Extremists? I was talking about one of the leading US Democrat Congresswomen. There's plenty of other examples of prominent people making the same admission ie that its not about the climate but about the destruction of capitalism. eg Martin Strong who basically got the IPCC up, a Canadian environment minister who said she didn't care if AGW was true because it could be used against capitalism etc etc.
But you don't wanna hear that.

"You ran away when we asked you for evidence and were found out quoting a known fraudster."

Well I was hospital.Very little running.
Known fraudster? Just because he works for people you don't like doesn't make him a fraudster. Get a grip. Oh BTW, the data remains the same no matter who he works for. You remember the data? Its the stuff you're trying to avoid.

On Marcott, I previously told SR that he could avoid facing that piece of data by refering to the add-on guesses. And you did just that. You lot are so predictable. BTW Marcott said the data from those periods isn't precise enough to say if the recent rises are faster or slower than other periods. But you just went with faster because....well because.

Re Malthus, yes there's lots of reasons why he was wrong, just like his successors (Ehrlich, Club of Rome etc) were wrong. The population alarmists are always wrong. Why? Because they never, ever take into account the world's greatest resource. The human mind. they always assume things will remain on the same trajectory because they don't take into account our ability to problem solve.
Same with climate alarmists.

"Craig Idso has oil ties!"

Oh for heavens sake. So does Wikipedia. Gunna ignore them as well? Just trying to find a reason, any reason to reject or not even examine the data. The article was a summary of a series of Chinese papers that showed the MWP and RWP in China. Just because someone you don't like wrote about them doesn't make those papers wrong.

Follow the science? What a joke.

This next ABC summary isn't much fun...

That would mean that by the time a child born today is 20, the 2018-19 summer we sweltered through would be considered a mild Australian summer. By their 30th, the entire Barrier Reef will likely be facing bleaching events every year. This is far more frequent than the five to 10 years it needs to recover from one event.

The start of spring will no longer be a time of anticipation for a summer ahead. Instead it will herald the arrival of conditions like those that led to the latest fires.

And when they turn 50, they’ll probably be celebrating indoors. Remember those “deadly threshold” temperatures, beyond which humans struggle to survive? They’re no longer isolated events. In this scenario, by 2100, 73.9 per cent of the world’s population will be facing at least 20 days a year of deadly heat and humidity.

And before you think that 20 days of this sort of heat is manageable, that’s just a minimum. For vast swathes of the globe, these temperatures will be the norm — and humans will have to learn how to live in an environment too hot for them.

Even Sydney and Melbourne will be facing summers where temperatures top 50 degrees.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018?sf225402570=1

Dear MHAZE,
Yes, some politicians think climate change is an excuse to push their semi-socialist reforms through to 'save the world'. Sorry, but they're wrong. The science says we need to reduce carbon, and the laws of physics don't care whether that's from some capitalist free-market with a tiny tax incentive model, or outright Chinese style government dictate.

The physics remains the same.
CO2 traps heat.
This is known.

So please, take your tinfoil hat political conspiracy theories and flush them down the toilet where they belong. Because you guys can't keep your own story straight!

EG: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" shows a conspiracy from the West to stop Africa developing. Apparently Global warming was whipped up to stop Africa using her oil, coal and gas, and we're trying to 'keep her in her place' or something. By mandating more expensive renewable energy, the climate community are also (apparently) keeping development out of reach for African nations. They can’t afford to go green! Apparently it’s about keeping African’s poor and maybe — it has been suggested — is a way of keeping their numbers under control! (Now just how paranoid and frenzied would you have to be to believe the world’s climate scientists are in on a population control conspiracy!)

But wait, there’s more! Lord Monckton warns of a Communist World Government to spread the wealth from rich nations to poor nations in CO2 subsidies and development aid. Now it seems climate change is a conspiracy to construct a Communist World Government that is going to redistribute OUR tax dollars to the poorer nations to help them cope — to make Africa richer! So which is it? Robbing Africa and preventing her development, or robbing us to supercharge her development? Will the real denialists please stand up?