Just to remind the warmist useful idiots, here is a reminder from 2004 of the rubbish they are supporting.

Hat tip to No Tricks Zone.

Der Spiegel reported on the study, which George W. Bush presented, on February 22, 2004:

The scenario is as threatening as it is realistic: the Gulf Stream, which like a gigantic hot water heating system that pumps billions of liters of tropical water to the north, loses power, changes direction and suddenly collapses completely. Icy winds roar across northern Europe, devastating storms and floods devastate the coasts. The forests die off, the plains around the North and Baltic Seas freeze into tundra. The dramatic climate changes are putting people and governments in dire straits. Oil is running out, peacekeeping alliances erode. Bloody conflicts break out, wars for raw materials and food devastate the continents. Within a few years, the world is brought to the brink of total anarchy.”

On the same day as Der Spiegel, February 22, 2004, the British Guardian added:

Climate change could lead to a global catastrophe in the next 20 years, costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”

A secret report suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer warns that major European cities will sink below rising sea levels if Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread violence will erupt worldwide.”

Yes this is the same garbage now presented as climate emergency, & equally as rabid garbage as 16 years ago.

What on earth will it take for these people to see what fools they are being taken for.

The last big question, will it now happen over night?

Hasbeen

I challenge you to define the probable causes of global warming over the past 240 years. Please identify each probable cause and then explain the reason each has resulted in a mean global temperature rise over the past 240 years. Let me start the ball rolling:

1. Burning of fossil fuels that started with the industrial revolution. Results in greenhouse gas emissions that collect in the atmosphere particularly CO2 triggering water vapour and in turn trapping heat from escaping into the cosmos. The resultant positive captured heat causing the planet to get warmer.

Your turn. Feel free to list and explain as many as you want. But please keep each to a few of lines like I have done.

The challenge made to Hasbeen is open to others (because I think Hasbeen took one look, threw his arms up in alarm, and decided to go to bed.)

So please feel free to define and explain what are probable causes of global warming over the past 240 years.

Please keep it to a few lines and in your own words. Please don't do the high school kid thingy of referring the reader to some obscure website with a 'You can read it yourself' explanation. That is just so dumb!

Mr O first you owe me an explanation of all those ridiculously wrong forecasts above by your warmest gods. Until you explain this total rubbish I shouldn't bother, but there may be some reading this who want the truth.

Yes the climate is warming, bouncing back from the Maunder minimum, otherwise known as the little ice age. Hopefully it will continue until it reaches the higher temperatures of the medieval warm period, & the Roman warm periods, both warmer than today, & much kinder to the human population.

This is looking less likely with the lack of sun spots, which forecast a cooler period. Already Siberian & North American winters are colder, with snow remaining later & frosts starting earlier.

The US Corn Belt is moving south. It has to, as it is no longer viable in the northern part of its traditional range.

I suggest you do a little reading on sites not exclusively

Hasbeen,
WHO estimate climate change is killing what, 300,000 people per year already? As in, right now? 3 million per decade enough for you?

Oh, and funky stuff IS happening with AMOC / Gulf Stream, but not as dramatic as some b-grade Sci-Fi.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gulf-stream-ice-age-collapse-climate-change-amoc-global-warming-a8301511.html

"WHO estimate climate change is killing what, 300,000 people per year already? As in, right now? 3 million per decade enough for you?"

So you've seen the reports of 3 million autopsy's undertaken last year where the cause of death was ruled as 'climate change'?

- Come on, really?

"I challenge you to define the probable causes of global warming over the past 240 years."

The modern thermometer was invented in 1714.
You'd need a sample rate of the last 1000 years of data at least to even remotely try to accurately look at the bigger picture of the last 240.

If the world's going to end in 12 years due to climate change, then why are banks still lending people money for home loans with repayments over 30 years?
Surely if the world's coming to an end they wont be able to pay the money back right?
You'd think people might think something smells a bit off;
But no you can't mess with their religion.

AC

There is an enlightening article in the lead page of OLO today with the answer.
It's the cricket wats causn it!
:-)
Dan

Armchair,

We have climate proxies for approximated climate situations BEFORE modern instrumentation. So ... like ... get a clue?

Also, you're sounding REALLY ignorant about what the climate science says. The world doesn't end in 12 years — that's a tired, tattered, telltale of a straw-man you're using there.

12 years is the estimate for when we cross the 1.5 degrees carbon budget. It's when we're committed to 1.5 degrees. The natural feedbacks will take quite a while to kick in. Then, because BIG OIL OWN YOUR BRAIN and many people like you, people like Donald Trump, we'll just keep burning their product. You know, because cigarette companies also sowed FUD about the dangers of using their product. There's money to be made! And you're their rumour mill.

So we'll cross the 2 degree commitment point, and AGAIN we'll have to wait to SEE the actual feedbacks.

But every 5 or 10 years we'll have fires like this, faster, hotter, nastier. Until denier farts like you start dying of old age, or (heaven forbid!) realising you were wrong.

Young people are being raised who have studied the science, and will just plain WINCE when they hear irrelevant old farts like you espousing your MAD theories. They'll wince like they have to wipe something nasty off the bottom of their shoe. And they're right to! Nothing you've said makes any sense. It's born from a paranoid kind of madness. I hope you grow out of it soon.

Max, well, well, well, we have a new climate Messiah.
I'm amused when another "expert" comes on board.
You have no cred or proof of what YOU profess, and demand from AC.
You say the oil companies are behind the push back against GW and CC, just like the cigarette companies of old.
Well what if, certainly not me, you were told that this whole thing is part of a bigger agenda, and that it is all contrived.
NO?
Well it's true.
Before you ask for proof or links or whatever, I don't care, if you don't believe me, big deal.
You are not an authority, neither here nor anywhere else, and before you come blubbering back with some comment suggesting you are a scientist, I caution you before hand and give you fair warning.
I and others have rejected the notion that 11,000 scientists agree with GW and CC, blah, blah, blah.
The same way it is impossible to get 11,000 scientists to sign off on something, so it is impossible for you to question any opposition to the same thing.
If you don't know how the world works and how there is filth and greed and averace being nurtured and allowed to thrive and grow amongst the elite, and their plans for us, then you will not, cannot, must not, comment on such related topics as this.
Something I heard from a scientist being interviewed on radio, some years ago.
Basically, he said: "how arrogant is mankind, to think they can change or affect the health and state of something the size of the Earth".
You imply that oil companies are pushing against GW and CC.
I ask, HOW?
You know as well as others, or you should know, that this is just another money grab.
As the saying goes: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
And I don't mean the oil companies, I mean the GW and CC pushers.
When you have done some research on this then come back with some truths, not FACTS!
Personally, I've had enough of the facts, you know that the facts can be manipulated.

Hasbeen,

You are beating around the bush. Just answer the question: list the probable cause and explain it.

If you or anyone else cannot add to the list I have started then we must assume that you concur with the burning of fossil fuels as being the only probable and explainable cause of global warming over the past 240 years that has given rise to the 1 deg C above the pre-industrial level.

Mr O, it is common knowledge now, that GW is a natural phenomenon that is part of a cycle the world has been experiencing for millions of years.
The Earth's path and it's variations relative to the sun and time are the main drivers of what the climate change believers should be focusing on.
The little CO2 we have contributed to the total amount is insignificant, by any measure.
Now on the subject of CO2.
It turns out that we could do with a little more of it, and that it's a GOOD thing, which helps our flora, which includes food production.
Before anyone starts pointing the finger at us in accusing us of any wrong doing, let's look into the accusers first, then we will know the truth and get the full picture.
We are told that the earth is warming, so what?
It's been warming and cooling for as long as it has existed, and it will keep doing so, as long as the sun keeps burning.
Any person will tell you that we are totally dependent on the sun for our very existence.
Without it we are dead.
Concerns over CO2 are unfounded, as we need it.
Just think about hot houses and what they are used for.
No, all this GW and CC crap is about money.
The fact that I don't know how it all fits in does not diminish the existence of a major lie and false-hood, perpetrated by some of the most vial animals in the world, for financial and social gain.

GW is part of the continuing evolution of the Planet just as is the stupidity of the humans who throw those spanners into the gears that drive evolution.
Sorry Environmentalists but no matter how much you desire for evolution to stop, it won't !
Human activity or not !

Global warming garbage is for real. The timeline of past warming events were slower and caused by volcanic action loading co2 into the upper atmosphere. Now we have human made co2 being loading into the atmosphere at a more prolonged rate which will prolong the rate of climate heat elevation. The lag time is around 40 years if human made co2 is stopped now. A slowdown of co2 emissions will further advance the lag time. Take no notice of persons that say the earth needs carbon as nature controls the amount what the earth needs. It's the co2 in the upper atmosphere that controls earths hot house effect.

ALTRAV,

Please stop beating around the bush.

If you think there are other probable causes other than the burning of fossil fuels then please add it/them to the list I have started and provide a short explanation in a few lines.

Keep in mind we are not talking about global warming in general. We are talking specifically about the past 240 years.

So far the scoreboard reads:

Burning of fossil fuels: 1

Other probable causes that can be explained: 0

Should we draw the line here because it's looking like no one can come up with anything that can be supported outside of the burning of fossil fuels?

ALTRAV recites Denier hymn number... "The Climate's Changed before".

The only answer? DER! OF COURSE IT HAS!

Climate scientists study this all the time. Paleoclimate helps us establish the climate sensitivity to CO2 and is a bedrock to modern climate science. Rather than some mystery that climatologists have somehow accidentally overlooked, paleoclimate is one of the foundations!
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

As well as observation from physics and computer models the IPCC studies ancient climate to calibrate and test their computer models. Generally speaking, it works. There are a few uncertainties, but that's science and they are making advances all the time. Basically, asserting that "The climate has changed before!" as some sort of objection to climate science shows an incredible ignorance of the whole topic.
The earth's deep climate history is far from comforting. Super greenhouses have caused global Extinction Level Events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Global_warming

It took tens of millions of years for new species to evolve and recover after some of these super-greenhouse extinctions! While not yet as hot as some of these super greenhouses, it's going to be harder for ecosystems to adapt this time because it's warming 10 times faster than the ice-age cycle. Ecosystems don't have as much *time* to move. We also use about 40% of the land on earth to farm and herd our food, so ecosystems are hemmed in. It's not as *free* to move. We've put nature in solitary confinement, and turned up the heat. But the main risk is that our modern civilisation is utterly dependent on today's stable climate for our agricultural and grazing lands, which together cover almost HALF the planet. By mid century we could be losing a quarter of our crops on a regular basis. Links here. http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/global-warming-is-serious/
In summary, previous super-greenhouses were catastrophic then and will be catastrophic again unless we stop burning fossil fuels. http://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html

The climate has changed before, and none of those variables are at work now. It's us, and it's bad news!

'So far the scoreboard reads:

Burning of fossil fuels: 1'

Well Mr Opinion, if that is true get off your computer and go to the Indian and Chinese Embassies and hold up your silly little signs. If you are not willing to do that you should just shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.

Oh yeah, ALTRAV? I forgot to look up what Denier Hymn number "The Climate's changed before" is.

Guess what? You're the winner!

It's Hymn Number One!
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

That means you are reciting the MOST common, MOST CLICHE, MOST DUMBASS of all the Denier myths.

Congratulations!

runner,

Would you like to add a probable cause and explanation to the list?

Keep in mind we are not talking about global warming in general. We are talking specifically about the past 240 years.

ALTRAV,
"The Earth's path and it's variations relative to the sun and time are the main drivers of what the climate change believers should be focusing on."

Dude, given the Milankovitch Cycles (wobbles in the Earths' orbit) are mostly about how the planet goes into ice ages and out of them again, they are hardly about global WARMING, are they? They're about how the Earth regulates dipping into and out of the ice.

We're putting the Earth in the oven, and pushed the dial up past "Extreme" to "Catastrophic" and "Burn down the house."

Yes, human beings will survive. Civilisation will survive. But at what cost if we keep burning fossil fuels? How many tens of millions have to starve because people like you won't support the government weaning off fossil fuels that are killing us with particulate pollution AND are going to run out one day anyway?

Hi Max,

There has been a strong IOD event following a borderline El Nino, hence the dry, hot weather. Fortunately the IOD is breaking down, so hopefully the monsoon trough will move south and the rain generating part of the MJO will propagate eastwards and bring some rain soon.

What effect and over what time frame do you think solar panels and wind farms will have on such weather events?

Cheers

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjoupdate.pdf

Mr Opinion

I am probably as clueless as you when it comes to predicting the weather and when climate changes. We are in good company as shown by the likes of Flannery, Gore, the IPCC and other climate 'scientist' who have shown to be hopelessy flawed over the last 50 years or so. I suggest the more 'degrees' a person has the more failed predictions. More than likely the arrogance produced in thinking they can control the climate especially by not burning coal just highlights their stupidity. Then again we have the know all likes such as Greta and her admirers that just confirm any lack of reason.

RUNNER,
go grab a dictionary for Dunning-Kruger's sake!

Look up 'climate' and 'weather'. (Hint: they're two very different things!)

Get back to us when you can explain the difference.

(Because you won't I'll tell you: weather is what's happening this week, climate is the statistical averages this decade and the last 3 decades. And the climate predictions are tracking RIGHT ON SCHEDULE!)

Statistical averages over decadal blocks. Get it?

http://skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

runner,

Are you telling me that you do not have a degree?

Burning of fossil fuels: 1'
WRONG !
Humans desiring excessively lavish lifestyles are cause # 1.
Wars due to Religion are # 2
These are fossil burning causes !

Hi Max Green,

You might be using explanations that are too high brow for the likes of runner, ALTRAV, Hasbeen, Loudmouth, mhaze, individual, etc.

We need to dumb things down for them otherwise it just goes straight of their head.

Hi FESTER,
yes, the IOD, the Pacific, even the wind systems around Antarctica all had to gang up on us together to produce this freakishly bad drought and fire season.

But the IPCC computer models indicate we'll experience more and more droughts like this. Sure, some areas of Australia will experience more floods. If 2 of the 3 ocean systems that drive our weather go into drought, maybe some parts of Australia will experience the opposite, floods, in the future.

For every degree water the atmosphere gets it can carry an extra 5% water which means more flooding.

Bottom line? I hope we have a lovely wet year next year, because this year has seen million-year-wet rainforests dry out and burn. Refuges from Aussie bush-fires for little critters have become ovens.

And if we keep burning fossil fuel and loading the atmosphere with CO2's DEMONSTRABLE WARMING EFFECTS (as shown by any Fourier Device in any good physics lab), the increasingly accurate climate models say the extra heat will push the 3 oceans more towards the drought cycle.

This year will become the new normal in 20 years.

And no, I don't think solar panels will change this. I'm with Dr James Hansen, the climatologist that diagnosed our climate crisis decades ago, when he prescribes NUCLEAR as the answer.

Max, I realise your name precludes you from seeing the bigger picture but I can assure you that just as you or I know little to nothing about the TRUTH of what is going on, I prefer to go with logic and reason.
Facts have no meaning on their own.
I CHOOSE to be pragmatic and focused because I have heard too many attempts of people trying to sell the GW, CC message.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to put others down or denigrate, vilify anyone who differs from your path.
I always give an example as to why this whole thing is an overkill.
Every time one of your lot want to make a point in selling your stance, you trot out the pics of all these clouds of, what you want us to believe is, toxic gasses emerging from nuclear plants, cooling towers.
But Max, that's a lie, isn't it?
Because if you are even half as smart as you assume, you know full well that the stuff spewing out of those "cooling towers", is, water vapour, or steam.
Yes steam, clouds, rain, water.
So for any reasonable person being told something is not what it actually is, has suddenly rendered that persons submission, MOOT!
So Max, if you want to sell GW or CC, you will have to do it by telling us the TRUTH, not the facts!

Blame it on a kid for having her say, she is now under control of atenborough.
Natural verses unnatural.

Oh dear oh dear.

ALTRAV,

weren't you just saying you didn't believe climate science because the climate had changed before? As in, before our industrial processes?

Just dumped that one and decided to whine about stock shots of cooling towers, did we?

Another denier that doesn't debate, but just rotates through their anti-climate memes.

TRUTH vs FACTS. Sorry bud, I have both on my side! It's called the empirical method of the scientific process, and while there are still some small margins of ambiguity being studied, the overall picture is clear. If you want to show me where the scientific "FACTS" are somehow disguising the "TRUTH" in relation to how the IPCC HAS STUDIED THE DEEP CLIMATE PAST and already KNOWS HEAPS ABOUT IT, then please, be my guest. That might be an interesting debate.

But if you're just here to rotate through whatever random anti-climate memes you've got jammed in your head, then go away. I'm so bored of deniers just rotating through their dumb assertions without staying around to deal with the wreckage of their last assertion.

Oh, and stock footage of cooling towers? Gotta have something to show since CO2 is INVISIBLE! (Slaps hand to forehead.)

Max, you have me mixed up with someone else, I don't engage in FACTS, because I don't know what they mean until they are placed in their proper order and form a statement with a discernible and provable and actual conclusion, and not a collection of data, which when interacted under laboratory or out of place conditions prove what was sought and thought or intended, in the first place.
You have also adopted the ability to deflect I see.
Let me concur and confirm my point against you and your lot, and that is;
Of course CO2 is invisible, so why then do your brethren keep showing these and other false hoods?
Because you either cannot find a truth in your argument or you have no truth to demonstrate your stance, just a lot of facts.
So far you have only demonstrated that you have only the facts on your side, not the truth.
If all this is for real then why aren't 100% of scientists on board?
Why aren't things that challenge and sometimes debunk all this mentioned, such as the subterranean hot spot beneath the North Pole causing the change in water temperature.
The same water that flows South causing some curious results in the region, which have been sold as part of GW or CC.
NO, Max, I'm sorry I am not falling for your or anyone else's con.
I refute the facts and keep piecing them together in my continuing search for the truth.
It is difficult, because those who instigated this huge fallacy, are not stupid as they have taken completely natural occurrences of the Earth and re-arranged the facts to produce and promote a self serving preconceived, agenda.
They have been responsible for all the major catastrophes of humanity for many decades now.
They will never be exposed because they have too much wealth and therefore ensure they remain anonymous.

Oh dear, another one detailed to muddy the waters of OLO. And I was silly enough to try to answer Max Green with an intelligent reasoned post on another thread, before he unmasked himself.

I am not going to comment on the cause of climate change because I’m not qualified to do so. What I can respond to is comments about the starvation due to loss of agricultural land.
Does it not occur to people that if some land is lost to farmers due to excessive heat, doesn’t that also mean that huge areas of land previously too cold for crops would then be usable for growing food?,
Think of all the land across the top of Europe and North America Canada and Alaska that currently is not suitable for crops but could be if the temperature increases. Why, Greenland would go back to the lush green island that gave it that name when discovered during a previous warming period.
In addition, with the scientific abilities we now have, I’m sure someone would be able to generate crops that can grow in very hot areas.
Humans are very adaptable, as are animals.

Agree Max. Nuclear is the only viable low carbon energy source currently. The next step is to test the viability of modular reactors. Solar and electric vehicles will get a boost if a low cost rechargeable battery technology is developed, but none of these things will make a jot of difference to the weather for the foreseeable future, even if you give credence to the predictions.

Geoengineering needs to be tested. Creating algal blooms may be a means of increasing ocean surface temperatures and may allow a means of altering weather patterns.

Cheers

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !
Just landed on this thread and went to the trouble of reading all the
previous posts.
It started by asking why the temperature has been rising for 240 years.
Good period to ask as that was in the Maunder Minimum.
The temperature has been rising since then and if you read
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Maimi of Turku University in Finland and
Masayuki Hyodo of Kobe University in Japan you will find the answer there.
Now the interesting bit is they believe it has just peaked somewhere
around 1995 but as it is about a 300 year cycle it probably has a flat
top of perhaps 50 years.
It is a real case of cycles within cycles.
1. The suns normal radiation variation cycle,
2. The 11 year sunspot cycle.
3. The variation in the maximum sunspot at peak of the 11 year cycle
4. The variation in the minimum sunspot at minimum of the 11 year cycle.
5. The Milanovitch cycle of the earths rotation around the sun.

This causes the earths magnetic field to vary and affect cosmic rays
entering the atmosphere, where when there are more getting through it
they cause more cloud cover.
More cloud cover means more shading of the earth and more radiation
from the sun being reflected back into space and so cooling the earth.
These scientists believe that man made global heating is responsible
for only 0.01 deg C.

Their papers are a development of previously published work by the
Norwegian scientist Mark Svenmark & others some years previously.

Looking at the warm periods over the last 2000 years will put it all
into a quite different perspective.
We can expect the next cold period in 300 years time.

In the previous post I did not mention the objection from a poster
on here that could not accept the .01c rise due to human activity.
In the article by the Finns they explain that the IPCC models do not
take into account the effect of clouds and presume it is part of the
human activity co2.
This struck a cord with me when I heard Ian Plimer make a statement;
"Imagine a box with 80,000 co2 molecules in it. Then you add one more.
Would you expect it to make a noticeable difference ?".

We have all heard the arguments about 96% natural co2 and 4% human co2.
Then Aus produces 1.4% of 4% etc etc so what the hell !
Some 100,000 underwater volcanoes, many surface volcanoes spewing
out co2 all day every day.
Can human co2 hold a candle to that ? Sorry pun intended !
To stir it further; I will follow the science !

ps It is just so much more likely that the present warming is just
another cycle in an age old cycle.
It does upset a lot of Gretas.

Bazz,

Why don't you have a go?

Let's see if you can define a probable cause of global warming over the past 240 years. Make sure it's in your own words and you provide an explanation in just a few lines. Please do not waffle on in your usual way throwing up red herrings and referring people to articles that you yourself cannot understand.

If that doesn't interest you then we will just accept that you concur with the burning of fossil fuels as being the only probable cause.

Bazz, hear, hear, finally a quick and focused summary of the GW, CC fallacy.
I hope this satisfies those who keep banging on about this bloody catastrophe we are about to endure, leading to the end of the world, as we know it.
Now what I would like to see is some of the GW, CC backers, to start looking into some of the people and claims they promote.
Such as that arrogant little maggot I swore never to mention again, but even I have to suck it up, in the interest of truth.
Just researching her and her mob of deviants will raise eyebrows, and give people a totally new perspective and view about much more than some stupid, arrogant, mentally and emotionally dis-functional, CHILD!
Go on I dare you.
I did and feel a whole lot better and vindicated for it.

The stupidity of indoctrination is boundless !

Mr O, Bazz just did answer you, and more, so you can give it a rest now.
This is not a pissing contest forum, it's not about who can stick it to whom.
It is about people interacting, and for me it's about discussing the truth, NOT opinions, which unfortunately the creators of this medium stuffed up big time.
Opinions are just random comments which at their worst are equivalent to the ramblings of someone institutionalised, as they are not speaking with a full deck, and their utterings are completely of their own creation with no cognisant input, or this case, no truthfull input, at best just facts.
Facts as we know are one of the main components of opinions, because they can be arranged to tell whatever story the commentor wishes.
In the case of opinions, it is the same.
If the "opinion" is a repeat of a truth, then it is not an opinion.
It is a comment, because it was based on a truth.
Now someone making a personal and unproven observation about the same comment, is espousing an, OPINION!
So Mr O, I believe Bazz is due to be commended for his quick and precis explanation of the questions you ask.
Well done Bazz!

Still not a single useful idiot with anything to say about the failed ridiculous predictions.

Come on fellers, why haven't all those crazy predictions not come to pass.

Just like the garbage from silly teen ages & the Mr Os of this world, all garbage, & proven so.

Dear Hasbeen,

Happy new year old cock.

Now that we have got the pleasantries out of the way we had better get down to brass tacks.

People and property are being lost in unprecedented fires all predicted by climate change modelling yet you still have your head so firmly up your backside that you think it is okay to spew out this kind of stuff? What a pile of 5th hand garbage you have smeared across our screens.

You claim; “Der Spiegel reported on the study, which George W. Bush presented, on February 22, 2004”

George Bush presented a study? Even you know that is absurd. So we have some idiotic blog posting up a 15 year old story by German newspaper of a secret Department of Defence document running a particular scenario based on a 100 year event which happened 8,200 years ago.

Right from the very get go they were at pains to point out this was pushing the boundaries of what future scenarios might bring. Further the climate scientists they consulted cautioned them that the scenario was “extreme”. This was just speculative war gaming which goes on all the time.

“The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.”
http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469325.pdf

So mate you do not get to call anyone alarmist when you have joined others in elevating a study on a highly unlikely scenario as being accepted by the climate science fraternity. The predictions are dire enough without people like you deflecting with crap like this.

Grow up.

It's good to see that everyone concurs with the burning of fossil fuels as the only probable cause of global warming over the past 240 years that is responsible for raising the mean global temperature 1 deg C above the pre-industrial level.

ALTRAV,

1. Do you concede that modern climate science is fundamentally BASED ON understanding paleo-climate? That was my first post to you. That's what this is about. The fact that you FLEE that subject and then just start rotating through everything else you have against climate activists and documentaries screams heaps.

2. Do you REALLY believe in an all powerful anti-science climate conspiracy that somehow hides the truth? What measures of evidence would disprove that claim? What measures would prove it? How on earth does anyone even discuss what seems to be more of a blind faith worldview system than something someone can concretely prove?

EG: Imagine I said you were only denying climate science because there's a worldwide funded conspiracy to deceive people in nursing homes, church groups, schools, and other community groups? How would I prove that? Oh wait... here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE

SR, WTF, who the hell made you the authority on GW and CC?
You want to tone it down mate, I've been chatted in the past for running off at the mouth, but you mate, you take it to a whole new level.
Firstly, you are not a scientist, therefore you know NOTHING about what you bluster on about.
You are in fact at about the same level as that maggot of an arrogant mentally ill child, which with any luck is institutionalised by now.
She too is clueless and just kept on repeating what she had been told to say, not really understanding what she was on about.
Be careful, with such emotions and attacks as you have just displayed you will be given a spot addressing the UN.
Apparently after the sick kid, you sound just like her and would fit right in.
Secondly, you have done NO research of your own, or if you had you would have shoved it in our face by now.
So, in summarising your continual and incomprehensible superior attitude, you actually don't know of the things you speak, only by second hand and anecdotal.
So tell us all, why the hell we should even acknowledge you or your comments?
OH yes, and one final thing, STOP PICKING ON PEOPLE!
If they are too humble to say anything, I'm not!
You are a class 'A' bully.
You must be a thrill to be around these days, and I can only imagine what a thrill you must have been as a child.

Max, No I don't agree with anything the so called "experts" come up with.
I have said again and again, that the amount of CO2 or damage to the world, that we humans are responsible for, is NEGLIGIBLE!
So, do not take an example, a fact, or a piece of information and massage it into assisting you to make your point, when there are too many points, either in contradiction or yet untested or unproven, let alone the historical ones that have been completely avoided, for fear of them risking or diluting the GW, CC campaign, and keeping it front and centre.
So if you want to just speak of the facts, I have always said, yes it is possible we have added to the global CO2.
But you guys stop there.
If this were a court of law, the lawyer would carry on and ask, how much have we contributed to this alleged problem?
And the answer, the truth is, .1 of 1.4%.
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE! (Jim Carrey, Liar, Liar)
The answer to your second proposition is a resounding YES!
I know what I've discovered and found over the years, and as much as you and your running mates find it hard to believe, we are being conned, and have been for decades, possibly centuries.
Let me educate you, with one simple statement.
Yes there are people so vial, so arrogant, so evil, with such hate that they believe in a book written by who knows exactly who, that commands them to take over the world and enslave the people who are not of their faith.
Now all this, even though it's as preposterous and ridiculous as it sounds, is never-the-less true.
Some time ago when the world leaders of this sick cult got together for a conference, I read the speech that was read by the head sicko, and it would make everyone on OLO cringe and immediately instigate a call to arms, to get rid of these people and head off this attack on mankind.

What point of belief have I reached ?
Well, I started out believing the AGW theory, but became puzzled by
some of the contrary statements about evidence.
Some questioned the sensitivity of the earth temperature to the co2.
The question was yes the earth would be warmed by extra co2 but by
nowhere near the amount claimed.
A very eminent scientist Richard Lindzen at MIT denies AGW.
He is a respected climate scientist and still says AGW is not real.
Reports like that sewed my doubts.
Predictions failed as the years went by. Polar bears multiplied.
The dams did refill, etc etc etc.
Then in 2019 I read the Turku Uni groups paper.
Interesting, was it just a coincidence that the current warming was
accruing just 230 years after the Maunder minimum.
It would be interesting to get a more accurate reading of each warm
period maximum date. Because it is such a complex mix of cycles the
time between maximums will vary. So far the peaks seem to be around
250 to 300 years apart. Hence the medieval warm period and the Maunder
minimum are about 800 years apart, 3 half cycles.
I look forward to more info on this.

Hi BAZZ,
Shouting "It's the sun" is another climate denier objection so common it's only second to "Climate's changed before", and ranks number 2 in the Denier hymn book. http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Adding in Cosmic Rays would seem a big more ingenious, but we all saw that one portrayed on "Great Global Warming Swindle", so no points for originality, even though that one comes in at 21, slightly rarer.
http://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

The science checks out. The fact that Deniers sing to the same tired old hymnal just proves to me, time and again, how unoriginal they are. And how desperate! There's just something in their brains that doesn't want to accept that we might have to change our energy systems. Which is bizarre. We're going to run out of fossil fuels one day, may as well start making that change before they peak and start to go into decline, bringing economic chaos.

Max, for your record, humanity has NEVER run out of a natural resource.
So because of this huge GW, CC fallacy, we are being steered away from fossil fuels to other less efficient, more expensive, less reliable variants or sources of power/energy.
I don't mind the idea of EV's but object to being forced/lied into them.
We pretty much don't care that the believers do or don't agree with us, we are satisfied that even though there is evidence of something to do with CO2, it is, in truth, nowhere near as bad as being pushed or promoted.
It is this overstatement of the alleged severity of the CO2 situation that angers me.
If things are as bad as we are led to believe, then why exaggerate and lie.
No there has been a huge over-reaction to a storm in a teacup, and I and millions of others aren't buying it.
Tell you what, stop trying to BS your way into OUR minds and start attacking China and India, as they are flat out building nuclear and coal fired power stations.
Now stop and take a moment for a reality check; we are 25 million.
And we produce a poofteenth of the o/a CO2 emissions, compared to these two countries of over 2 BILLION, between them.
So shut up with your annoying virtue shaming, exaggerating, unfounded and unrealistic promotion of a fallacy/fraud.
Why is it annoying people like yourself and that sicko of a kid pick on the EASY targets.
What's REALLY going on?
Because so far those pushing the big con are pushing sh!t uphill, and are slowly being exposed as backing the wrong team.

I do not consider myself a 'Climate Denier' but to simply fall for the all the nonsensical gobblydook by half-baked BA carrying mutts is not my cup of tea either.
It looks to me that the whole show is a battle of wits among the dim wits !

It seems to me there are two possibilities;
First the timing is such that the present warm period is right on
schedule in the sequence Roman, Medieval, Maunder Minimum and Now.
Or AGW has occurred at the same time as the above cycle.
If they have both happened then which is the most significant will
keep scientists busy for a long time.

I agree we have never run out of a resource. The reason is quite simple.
It just gets more expensive because of rising production costs that
the demand falls off till it reaches zero. It is still there but too expensive.
That was why the Roman Empire got into a decline cycle, it needed too
many slaves to keep silver production up in Spain.
It was made worse by the preditations of the Arab slave traders who
were operating in the Mediterranean.
Same thing is happening with oil as the fracking is not profitable
and companies are being wound up. That is however a purely US symptom.
The rest of us are just hanging on hoping that another new field will
be found.

The climate change people are all nutty.

They think that somehow they can exert godly powers over the weather.
Maybe they can part the oceans too what do I know.

I'm all for practical solutions to life's problems.
What solutions do the climate change people have for these bushfires?

We need to recognise that environmentalists policies lead to increased fire fuel, and an increase risk of raging infernos.

I think there should be a focus on saving life, not property.
Some people may not recognise the danger at hand or are willing to put themselves at risk to save what they have.

That's why we need more fire shelters.

http://www.wildfiresafetybunkers.com.au/

This is where it all comes down to government incompetence.
A failure to find the best policies for the best interests of the people.

Governments are always whinging about people on the dole.
Use them to help you fix the things the community needs.
There's no reason the government couldn't establish 1000 jobs paying double dole in exchange for full time work manufacturing these fire shelters at a lower cost during a 24 month scheme so they can be distributed where they're needed.
Mandate their installation in areas of high fire danger for new dwellings, and offer a 50% government rebate for both new and existing dwellings.
Then, after the 24 moth scheme period, revert back to normal production by existing private companies and offer a 25% government rebate.

This means there are emergency measure in place so that our firey's need not be forced to place their own lives in so much danger.

And secondly, we need a fleet of water bombers sufficient enough to deal with this nations fires.

No global climte tax or obligations that send us broke.
Just create a policy that installs thousands of fire shelters to protect people from the fires.
And another one that ensures we have the proper tools to fight them.

These things can be achieved with a bloody pen.

Weather Whingers

Some people think summer and winter is an excuse to have a whinge.
In summer "Ohh it's so hot" they whine. "Waaaaahhhhhh"
In winter it's the opposite, "Ohh its so cold". "Waaaaahhhhhhh"

Other people just accept the climate, accept the changing of the seasons and master their own environment to suit their own tastes.
Some like to live in warmer climates, whilst others prefer cooler climates.

For the weather whingers people I wonder if the cup's half full or is it half empty?

Empowered Weather Wingers
The climate change agenda just empowered the weather wingers to whinge and moan the whole damn year round.

"My cups half empty!" They scream like fully grown babies.
"Doesn't anyone understand that my cups half empty!"
"Waaaahhhhhhhh!!"

Armchair Critic,

When was the last time you paid a visit to a psychiatrist?

Hey Mr Opinion,
Your acting like a baby and proving my point, but trying to disguise it as something intelligent.
"Waaahhhhh!!"

AC, I'm not sure about these bunkers.
Are they for humans or wildlife?
Either way, I would feel trapped by the very nature of the structure or design, not to mention the threat of a complete depletion of oxygen when your in the centre of a huge fire, which could outlast the oxygen in the bunker.
Just wondering.
I think more importantly and urgently, we need to address THE ACTUAL cause and the centre of the blame for all these catastrophes, such as these inferno's that we are seeing all to often now, which will not cost us one cent, and yet rid us forever of the risk and cause of the threat of death.

The GREENS!

They are not a political party.
They know nothing of the real world and it's realities.
They are sick; petulant, arrogant, selfish and ignorant, about, well, EVERYTHING!
I would much rather see Hanson and the like, as she actually addresses REAL issues, and not someone who at best can only promote things that do us all harm, not good.
Think about the stupidity of the greens, what is their platform?
They simply piggy-back on the back of other parties, pretty much having a mantra of; YEAH, WHAT THEY SAID.
They are sick, mentally ill, social misfits.
They must be removed from existence even, if necessary.
They again have blood on their hands, and when their mental deficient followers finally open their eyes, they too will run them down and out of our lives and sight.
So beware and be warned, the greens are murderers and should be treated as such, vilified and driven into oblivion and extinction.
The worst thing that could happen to them, is the best solution

Bazz,
>>Clouds
Throw out that paper from the Finns then, as I can see IPCC working on clouds from a variety of angles. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/clouds-and-aerosols/

Oh, and surprise surprise you quote a geologist Ian Plimer? While there are many fine geologists contributing meaningful work to the IPCC, but Ian Plimer is not one of them! He thought he could move from debunking Creationists to debunking Climatologists and sell a few books. If you are reading “Heaven and Earth”, here’s the review by climatologist David Karoly:-

“Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.”

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/heaven--earth---review-by-david-karoly/3141930

>>MWP
See review link above.

>>96% natural
What’s this crap? You can’t do basic math? We’ve increased it from 280ppm pre industrial revolution NATURAL to 405ppm now. Do the math, that 280ppm is only 69% natural. The rest is ours, identified by a unique isotopic signature.

>>Volcanoes
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
http://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

>>1.3%?
“Sure, our emissions are 1.3% of the global total. But our population is 0.3% of the global total…” (add in our coal exports) “…4% rather than 1.3%. This would make Australia the world’s sixth-largest contributor to climate change.”
http://theconversation.com/how-to-answer-the-argument-that-australias-emissions-are-too-small-to-make-a-difference-118825
But Aussie Deniers have a silver spoon jammed so far up their asses they don’t think they have to change? Entitled bitches much? We’re the worst per capita polluters, so we must do our bit and lead by example.

BAZZ, just slow down a bit and think about what you’re typing. It’s like you are hyperventilating, trying to get out any and every Denier Dogma you can possibly remember ASAP. Breathe. The science is real, and you don’t want your family to remember you as one of those Denier cranks when you’re gone.

ARMCHAIR CRITIC

"Other people just accept the climate, accept the changing of the seasons and master their own environment to suit their own tastes."

How ... sensitive of you, while Australia burns due to the worst drought on record? While we lose billions in agricultural exports? Where's the technological wizardry that can just cure drought for a continent 4000 km wide? I'm a fan of desal, but you're talking about satisfying the vast water needs of AGRICULTURE, not just a city! Even I won't go that far!

How do you think "mastering their own environment to suit their own tastes" would go down with the 900 NSW families that have lost their homes this fire season? With farmers that have lost all their livestock and crops? With Bureau of Meteorology staff that are recording the worst drought on record for about a third of the continent?

Basically, I don't even know why I'm 'feeding the troll', but I just wanted to point out I think that's a new low, even for you. What, you're not getting enough attention in the real world so you come in here trying to compensate by getting a bit of negative attention? The psychology of trolls is really quite sad and pathetic.

Hi Max Green,

How do you think all of the deniers are feeling in light of all of the fires raging across the country?

I reckon they must be feeling as guilty as sin. After all, it is their rejection of anthropogenic global warming that has created the environmental crisis that we have been seeing daily on our TVs for the past two months.

What do you think we should do with them? Is their any punishment that fits their particular crime against humanity?

After all, it is their rejection of anthropogenic global warming that has created the environmental crisis that we have been seeing daily on our TVs for the past two months.
Mr Opinion,
It's technical ignorance on behalf of the academic "experts' brigade that has created the environmental crisis. They're the guideline & policy makers, not the pragmatists in society who are constantly side-swept by the theory pushers.

individual,

NO ......... YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

It is you and all the other global warming deniers who are responsible for the current environmental crisis in Australia.

It is you and your mates who have been telling people to keep burning fossil fuels and not to worry about its consequences because you tell people that it is not the burning of fossil fuels that has been causing the rise in mean global temperature over the past 240 years.

You and your denier mates are the guilty ones. Don't try covering up for your guilt by pushing the blame onto someone else.

Dear Hasbeen,

Come on mate. You have posted predictions which the authors themselves said were highly unlikely and the climate scientists they interviewed said were EXTREME yet here you are saying “Still not a single useful idiot with anything to say about the failed ridiculous predictions.”

Any idiot should be able to understand that ridiculous predictions will likely fail, but not you it seems.

Go find another dead horse to flog my friend because this one is glue already.

SteeleRedux,

What do you think of putting Hasbeen on a list of environmental criminals for his complicity in global warming denialism?

He has been guilty of telling people that the burning of fossil fuels is not the cause of the rise in mean global temperature over the past 240 years. This is a serious crime against humanity and is the cause of the current environmental crisis in Australia.

I know there can never be consensus on ANYTHING, because humans are flawed, emotional beings.
Too many take subjective and idealistic views and attitudes.
I prefer the only view, and that is of being pragmatic and objective, free of emotion.
As the definition of pragmatic explains, it is one who is of "the belief of real world applications of ideas, and not the opposite, which is the belief of abstract notions".
GW, CC and the greens all come under the heading of abstract notions.
All believe in something they have no true and clear knowledge or understanding about.
Their premise is that by taking a few facts, it tells the whole picture.
I instead, ask questions, for example; these 'facts' we keep hearing so much about, when and where were they taken?
What time of day, and what exact location?
You see, if you take a smog reading in the middle of LA at around 4:00pm, it will read the complete opposite at 4:00am.
So this is just one of the reasons this GW, CC thing is not as serious as we are told.
Oceans rising, not true, the land is sinking, in those areas.
Oceans warming, as in and around the North Pole, correct, due to a
sub-terrain hot-spot being closer to the surface than usual.
And the list goes on.
Look, it's simple, it is generally known that people profit from markets rising as well as markets falling.
This is no different.
I am just not worldly enough nor detective enough to have uncovered the true reasons behind this fraud/fallacy.
But I have discovered the who and for now that is enough, for me to say that this whole thing is a very big and exaggerated lie!

Hey Altrav,
"Either way, I would feel trapped by the very nature of the structure or design, not to mention the threat of a complete depletion of oxygen when your in the centre of a huge fire, which could outlast the oxygen in the bunker."

Well, I'm willing to admit it may not be 'the best plan',
- But at least it's 'a plan'.

And it addresses both sides of the issue of what must be done to improve the current situation.
One the one hand, we act to ensure the safety of the people;
(including their ability to protect themselves)
On the other we act to fight the fires more safely and effectively.
(from the air)

The bunkers are certainly not that lavish in their standard form, but maybe if you keep to basics they could be fitted out with some minor improvements that greatly increase the comfort of the occupants, maybe?

If we applied some 2020 technology,
You could just use a large 3D printer to print out the moulds;
And other machines to fill the moulds;
Use aircrete for example if it has reduces construction, wage and transport costs.
http://designbuzz.com/8-reasons-why-aircrete-needs-to-replace-concrete-in-construction/

Dear Mr Opinion,

Hasbeen is just a victim of his political leanings and is probably too old to be prepared to adjust his thinking whatever is put in front of him. Which is absolutely fine in the grand scheme of things. I will even concede to some extent I will probably be the same after a certain age.

So I generally leave him be unless he trots out some derogatory comment like 'warmist idiots' then I have a nibble back. Intemperate language invites a response and I also get that is his intent so I am happy to play my part. I sure he enjoys it. Simple pleasures are to be found where ever one can find them at that age.

So no, I wouldn't want to see him charged for anything. This wee corner of the internet is hardly going to sway the masses at all and people holding the views that he does are quickly being left behind by ordinary Australians.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Good point. I'm a bit of a cynic who gets a kick out of stirring the pot with Hasbeen and his mates.

What do you think will be the consequences of our current environmental crisis with fires tearing the country apart?

Do you think ScuMo and his AGW denialist mates will bite the bullet and admit to the existence of AGW or just dig their heels in and continue with business as usual? Keeping in mind of course that ScuMo is a religious ratbag who thinks he has a God given right to decimate the environment.

ALTRAV thinks he's nailed climate science with sinking continents (worldwide, because the sea level is rising EVERYWHERE) and Arctic hotspots (except the ice is melting uniformly across the Arctic, not just in one hot spot near Iceland.)

Nice counter theories, but there's a problem. He hasn't explained away the KNOWN physics of CO2 which goes back to 1856 when Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat.

As I keep saying (once more, for the dummies).

Even simple thermal cameras can confirm it.

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! (1 minute) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

It's SUCH basic physics that even Mythbusters could set up a backyard test that demonstrated how CO2 traps heat. (3 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

It's in physics textbooks over a century old. Warnings to the public started over 60 years ago, as this 1958 Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" shows. (2 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s

Did you get that? 60 years ago! Before Al Gore was a public thing.

CO2 traps heat.

1. This is known.
2. This is the way.
3. I have spoken.
(Bonus points to anyone that can source my quotes 1 -3 above.)

AC, I applaud your initiative, you see, you actually come up with suggestions to saving lives, unlike the greens who seem they are intent on killing lives.
Mate let's not beat around the bush, I'm happy to take the heat or hit, if it means people and properties will not perish.
Let's be clear: THE REASON BEHIND THESE FIRES AND DEATHS ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE IGNORANT AND STUPID GREENS!
Forget GW, CC.
Nothing to do with it.
If the greens had shut up years ago and not stopped the tried and proven practice of back burning, or controlled burning, there would not be so much "fuel" on the ground and we would not have been subjected to this catastrophe.
Yes the greens are MURDERERS!

Goodness me, the AGW activists are in a real tizz !
The now known cause of our current problem is nothing more than what
has been predicted and argued about for years.
The buildup of fuels has been the fault of the National Parks and
various councils who banned even the collection of firewood from the bush.
It has been collecting for years, and this year was predicted.

For the AGW activists to try and blame others is absolutely offensive.
We now know who are the real denialists.

Dear Mr Opinion,

The issue of wresting the global warming debate away from the highly resourced mining and media interests in this country was always going to be a struggle.

However we have reached a pivot point where Australians who might have sat on the fence or been blase about the threats posed by global warming are now staring it straight in the face. I think the conservative forces will have a really hard time deflecting away their concerns. Even the Young Liberals are now kicking the traces.

Max, I have not read any of Plimers books.
I was just applying the logic he proposed;
Add one molecule to 80,000 others, what affect ?
That is the ratio we are applying.
This is the unresolved argument about the sensitivity to co2.
Just calm down and stop applying your theories to the wrong activities.

Dear Bazz,

Dear God mate, why are you still dribbling out Plimer rubbish when it has been so thoroughly debunked?

That box of atmosphere with 80,000 CO2 molecules in 1970 now has over 100,000 molecules of CO2, a significant green house gas, and Plimer is trying to con you into thinking it has no impact?

How on earth can you be so gullible about the misinformation from a person who sits on the boards of numerous fossil fuel companies?

Stop being their mouth piece and think for your bloody self.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Yes the tide is turning and people now have the concrete evidence in the current environmental crisis in Australia to convince them of the consequences of burning fossil fuels over the past 240 years.

It's interesting to note the attention these fires are getting overseas. It's making people around the world more aware of the impacts of global warming. Today it's a fiery Australia, tomorrow it will be no sea ice in the Artic, no glaciers in Greenland and Antartica, and no Himalayan melt water for the peoples of Asia to grow rice to feed themselves.

I said early last year that I believed Australia had passed through a tipping point and that the lengthy dry hot climate we are now experiencing will be the new norm. This is it folks, this is what we get each and every year from now on. Get used to it because you are just going to need to adapt to it.

And if this is the case then we are going to have to admit that a population of 25 million is unsustainable. Unfortunately our politicians' means of keeping our economy afloat is increasing the numbers of cashed up Chinese in the country. All the Chinese are doing is putting further pressure on our fragile environment. They demand a First World lifestyle which requires continued burning of fossil fuels to maintain. It's a rabid dog chasing its own tail. And our politicians, bureaucrats and business community are too out of touch with the big picture to understand what it all means.

As an environmental sociologist I am starting to become interested in studying how Australia's youth are reacting to this environmental crisis. I see a lot of young people joining the movement begun by young Greta Thunberg, all anxious to turn 18 so that they can cast their votes against the ScuMos of the world whom they are now seeing as being responsible for the environmental crises that will affect their lives and aspirations.

I wonder how much damage this current environmental crisis has done to ScuMo's political career. He seems to be laying low and not showing his face in public. Do you think he might have got the message.

PS If he's looking for something to do he could always phone the head of the AFP and ask how their investigation into Angus Taylor is going.

Dear BAZZ,
you are so wrong about what has caused these catastrophic fires as to be laughed out of court.

1. Liberal govts have cut funding to National Parks and fire services so much that they can't backburn as much as they might need to.

2. The fire chiefs are saying it was too friggin dangerous to burn off even in the heart of winter. Why? This extreme drought made it almost as dry and dangerous then as it is now. Why? In hindsight, when the statistical averages are all in, we'll probably see this as part of a climate trend.

All we know on the 'weather' front is that this has broken all records.

The KNOWN physics of CO2 says what this is.
The KNOWN paleoclimate says warming like this is dangerous.
The carefully and constantly updated computer models of Climate Sensitivity show how dangerous this is.

I really hope there's some freaky, overlooked natural phenomenon that rescues us from climate change. I really do! But for the life of me I can't see what that is.

I ALMOST thought I had it when I saw how much Mt Pinotubo cooled the atmosphere. That was amazing! We can mimic that. We can dump particulates 20km up, costing maybe $5 to $10 billion a year, and COOL THE ENTIRE PLANET! (Ironically particulates causing "Global Dimming" where what that "Ice age cometh" scientist was trying to model in the 70's, and he admitted he was wrong within 3 years.)

In other words, for a tiny fraction of the price of dealing with the source of climate change, we could negate it's effects. Big Oil would pay a tiny tax like that in a heartbeat to make all this go away?

Too good to be true? You bet! Because if we rely on that, we'll have to dump more and more as more CO2 is released. Eventually we'll shut down the Indian monsoon and a BILLION people will go without water. So which is worse, climate change, or particulate Global Dimming? It's serious when the cure is as bad as the disease.

Oh Garwd, take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

Dear Bazz,

Mate, this bloke just dissected each of your points quite calmly and surgically and your only response was to tell him to take a Bex?

You had your backside handed to you so I suppose you didn't have much room to do anything else. Far right taking points ignoring the critical defunding of fire response services as well as the wall of denial which faced the retired fire chiefs when they tried to alert the PM speaks far more than the guff you are trying to push on the rest of us.

Go away and sort out a response which is in better keeping with the facts on the ground rather that the fanciful excuses and misdirection your lot are claiming.

Max is as bad as you at this tactic of going around and around finally
wearing out the oponent.
Frankly I just can't be bothered to undertake that nonsense.
I have sat at the table with the RFS and other seniors and heard
their worries. They cannot even organise what is needed and not spend
a cracker so money is only a small part of the problem.

And still not one of the global warming useful idiots have apologised for the absolute garbage, [as in my first post], of the predictions by their gods & themselves that have been used to scare kids & little Swedish girls.

They have no shame.

I have given various answers and explanations to many points explaining the GW, CC promotions, but to date I have only read the same old mantra being pushed by self promoting wannabee experts like SR.
I have admitted my lack of knowledge on this topic, and rely heavily on the research and information I come across, from which to take my cues.
So SR and other alleged, self proclaimed experts, the facts you keep repeating ad-nauseam, we have all heard before, and they are parts of a much bigger jig-saw, which no-one here has finished assembling.
So in the absence of the truth, let's just tone it down, until their is actual and real things to confirm all the opinions and theories and assumptions.
Oh, and as for these fires, you attempt to mis-lead and lie, by deflecting the blame away from the greens, who by the way, did a trade off deal years ago with the then govt, and because of their sick agenda, no controlled burning of any form was allowed to be entertained.
So don't lie or deflect as if you guys know what your talking about.
I have no allegiance to any political party, so my comments are not biased.
So blame the greens not the climate.
I can't believe the BS you guys put out, especially you older guys, have you forgotten the heat waves we used to have, the weather patterns of decades ago?
These fires have got bugger-all to do with the climate, only the weather, and yes we have had a shift of same to the East, that's got nothing to do with CO2, so just get back in your box and look into things without your 'bias' blinkers on.

Dear Hasbeen,

Just two lines of a pontificating platitude with no apology for the absolute dogs breakfast of a thread?

You really are pathetically shameless aren't you. I have done the work you should have done and looked at the providence on the article and even posted the war scenario study from where it was derived, described by climate scientists as EXTREME, yet you are still defending it.

Head off and find us something reasonable to discuss because this has been a huge fail on your behalf. Looking forward to something with some semblance of merit from you.

We have Mr. Steele Redux telling us that Computer models predict fires.
"People and property are being lost in unprecedented fires all predicted by climate change modelling." Note Predicted, By Whom?

If you believe that the atmosphere must be polluted by CO2 to prove it you light fires. It is not the Climate that started the fires it is GW extremists that have lit the bush to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and humans are responsible, so it scares the daylights out of people and destroys small businesses and our economy, in an attempt to bring about Marxism. The idea is use fear to bring about social change. Yes humans are the cause of the increase of the current carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is neither increased nor reduced it just changes form, it is the basis of all living forms.

The Greens are responsible for much of the no burn policy, especially in areas in Gippsland Victoria.
Gippsland Environment Group
geg.org.au/paged=2&cat=1&fbclid=IwAR3kWUQ4YBOLobTReCMvcnxOXKACALCthe areas of Victoria. OIC_W6sb38h5_Fv9OoBmJvl62DZ8

Letter to the Minister 2019.
geg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GEG-to-Minister-for-Environment-re-planned-burns-8.4.2019-1.pdf

Who is responsible now for the fires in Victoria?

Josephus, I don't know, I can't open your links, so if you could tell us, who is responsible now, for the fires in Victoria?

Victoria in the early century.
http://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117937578400885/1382284708632826/?type=3&eid=ARDfEXxkB1pM0Yex4-1NQEvGuSBc7zjsC0C3AIE0igexnza1VDLxQYX5gzo7ZTuP7YGW3H-uKcwkJP2r&__xts__[0]=68.ARCzso2Ht-gxJAnSDWZEPpNc0TEdaUMVSWUMd7DBgm54ktLG3bVusyHP0ewFaUD-rxXOmCikaUPSad3Crv9tJBi1EYyiyfVW4PyfXNXf1wBb1YTZ2OyOpeSYk3oNBE1jvmyIO4YP0jnICw7D6r1MzTv4flak42BBulfbBDqAAP8mmh06UwaUKiRG5YzTpFG1kRoxwEQ3EFIoGhCw0gL-tWgZGlwOJkI1sdWvObjERvmnmGaT5bON0fXzHRW2b6CNmDmhUd8FKWGanqzdOJmZtmGv-WdGZNVLeeUBz9_Il-KHlnnM5JUQjASSrkGsWQphjWWq7tT4j42WWzWsg8H0-KrYsfEh-22efNBbg72tdBTCRP8Y7587WjM&__xts__[1]=68.ARC2TIWpSy1CRImYdK1UF-XJ4ve3yt_UrfHxwC1gdQhz7kSZTdPftqFl5LCgNbTHZnKNHPnxY6wXgGolAPSMBC_XSiQTwPr79OrwXQGXDjp172uThSwOpNDTpIwqxr5grVW-485JjFSqI1zHkq5KBN-3DbZ_d23Hv60NLO9DW5J3pBSDArD49gh5zbbJQzZNAG0TcnOaOX5n-jzBjDy20MGiIE9dTRSOfPW_9UfUyyMDDSCGDUEQDLSbW-3rlcQT1w85MGx4nCFV66eH_gLfFkgU4gXzAJGlWekI3H0_ppH118o6FF_QmqQ1cH2dSSwPYvie&__tn__=-UK-R

ALTRAV, go to website of Gippsland Environmental Group and search recent items. No burn rallies and Letter to the Minister.

Josephus, thank you.
You are a life saver.
I'm not going to bother to bag SR and his clan of 'experts', because every time anyone comes up with a truth about the big climate con, all we get from these irritating, mis-guided objectors, is a lot of unfounded ramble of, so called, facts.
Now as I have said a million times, here is an example where the facts tell the truth, or the data tells the truth.
The key word always on my reasoning is "TRUTH"!
They on the other hand keep espousing facts, OK, here are some facts which are developed into truths.
I truly hope SR and his clan of mis-led men, begin to question their beliefs and mantra.
We wait with bated breath.

Joesphus, go to tinyurl.com and install it.
It puts an icon on your rask bar.
When you want to send someone a url you have the site on the screen
and tiny produces a small url for you to copy and email or whatever.
Saves many errors .

I'm a little concerned, haven't seen the usual pompous rebut from SR and Co.
Maybe he's run out of posting time, in which case, he'll be back spitting and raving to assert his self appointed position of leader of the GW, CC movement.
I've just been told that it doesn't matter if SR and the other climate alarmists respond or not, as we already know what they are going to say.
Exactly what they have been saying all along, without any new and actual, real information or body of proof.

Hi Josephus,
(I can't believe I'm going to type this.) Bazz is right. Tinyurl is great. You can copy and paste your link into the Tinyurl website and then copy out their tiny one all manually, or use the browser widget.

Now, you said "The Greens" stopped the back-burning in Gippsland.

Why are you lying to this group? Did you simply mistype? Did you mean 'greenies' as in environmentalists? Because when I read "The Greens" I read a political party. Try to be more accurate, it will help your credibility. This is the Gippsland Environment Group, and it's only a letter to the minister. He didn't HAVE to obey them if he knew better!

Also, environmental activists like this tend to research stuff about their local region. Paragraph 2 on the science of backburning blew me away, and I obviously need to research some of their claims. I simply did not know that! Hmm, too busy this week, but definitely something to look into.

Finally, see what the experts say?
Also, the following link raises another interesting point that some sectors of at least NSW parks management have had an INCREASE in staff, so I will have to check my claims about the various NSW fire fighting and parks agencies and check my sources on these different agencies. There might be different stats for different departments.
____________________________

"“These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires,” says Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, who has been researching bushfires for 40 years.

“They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.” ...

... A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.

He said: “Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction

Hey Max Green,

>>"... A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.

He said: "Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim."<<

The excuse still doesn't pass the sniff test, in the bigger scheme of things.

I'll tell you why:
If the NSW fire and rescue commissioner knew that hotter conditions were preventing back-burning

- THEN WHAT WAS DONE TO MITIGATE THIS DANGER?

At this point it comes back to bureaucratic failure and government / political incompetence on the part of bureaucrats and leaders.

What do you want to do point the finger at the citizens?

What was done to mitigate a potential disaster in a situation where it was known there was an increased fuel load and a high fire danger?

WHAT WAS DONE?

Did our leaders contact other nations leaders and say "Hey, any chance we could borrow or lease some of your water bombers this season? We might have a serious problem on our hands with fires come summer"

Why don't we have an international policy or agreement to share water bombing planes to others whose summer months fall during our winter months; and vice versa?
This might be an international policy that could actually benefit nations and their citizens.

You know the problem with democracy?
Two teams of idiots put on a sideshow where their aim is to constantly disagree with each other, on the very principle on purpose of constantly disagreeing.
The citizens lose out when these idiots constantly arguing with each other fail to work together for the peoples best interests.

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the philosophy of ScuMo and his mates with this famous episode in his life:

http://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-a-chunk-of-coal-into-parliament-video

Hey Mr Opinion,

What was the point you were trying to make with that article?

Who cares about your lump of coal?

I love coal.

Without it, I'd have grown up in the dark ages, probably without lights and fresh water, and certainly without a coles supermarket, and probably steel, ships, motor vehicles and an opportunity for an education above a third world level as well.
Also it's an Australian export, meaning it helps our economy pay for all the little whiney things entitled progressives and millennials demand;
And also it helps put the food on the plates of australian families.

So what exactly is your issue with it?

Enlighten us - what should we think?

[Continued from my previous comment]
Tell me did the current NSW fire and rescue commissioner Paul Baxter, get on the phone to the NSW Environment Minister Matthew Kean, and say "Hey - we need some more bloody water bombers or were in deep crap!"
And did the NSW Environment Minister Matthew Kean get on the phone to Federal Minister for Environment Sussan Ley and say "Hey, You'd better get me some more water bombers because if you effing don't, when a bloody catastrophe unfolds I'll tell everyone that when I demanded you do something you sat on your damn hands. Make it happen or I'll make sure you're front and bloody centre when the crap hits the fan."

TELL ME, did these conversations take place?

AND IF NOT - Why not?

And what did our government do about it?

ARMCHAIR
FUEL LOAD — why don't you be true to your name and tell us what should have been done OTHER THAN BURN THAT FUEL LOAD? Manually walk through and pick up fallen twigs and lumber on a continent whose different states are themselves often many times larger than most European countries? On a budget? Yeah, right! They couldn't burn because of our climate change winter. Thank global warming!

WATER BOMBERS - we used to borrow California's in their off season. Now both our fire seasons overlap. Again, thank global warming!

I agree that AFTER this year, we need to buy our own. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

COAL - was great for industrialising us, but I *wish* there had only been enough to get us to the nuclear era, peaked in the 1950's and ran out by 2000. That would have been a vastly better future for us all!

PROBLEM WITH COAL?
We don't need it. Nuclear can displace it for billions of years.

Coal kills nearly 3 million people a year, which is about 650 Chernobyl disasters a YEAR. (The west NEVER built a single Chernobyl reactor — not all nuclear reactors are the same!) Every year coal kills the same as 650 Chernobyl disasters.
http://tinyurl.com/pqgdd5q

This is why George Monbiot says: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://tinyurl.com/93nm9sn

The health costs nearly double the cost of coal! You pay once in your electricity bill, and again in your public health bill.
http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5

Dr James Hansen has calculated that by displacing coal, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives.
http://tinyurl.com/ydx6mxrb

W.H.O. also reports that the pollution from energy poverty, like wood and dung smoke, kill another 4 million people a year. That's 7 million people a year dying from dirty energy worldwide & their health bill. Mass produced breeder reactors could fix all that.

Hi Max,

The real criminals in this fire emergency are the politicians who have held sway for many years now. The Federal government led by Morrison along with the Berejiklian government in NSW had numerous warnings that action was need, severe weather conditions, leading to a catastrophic fire event was on the horizon. What did these blind ideologist do... NOTHING! Now as these events unfold they seek to deflect from their responsibilities and admit no degree of negligence on their part, they prefer to deflect blame onto others, who never held sway, who never had the decision making authority that these fools have held for years.

Hi Paul,
if you're saying that the Australian government along with all the other governments of the world should have got off the fossil fuels decades ago, then I agree!

They have known about this threat since the Bell Telephone company "Science Hour" show warned us in 1958.

(2 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s

The only politicians to blame are the Green-controlled Labor ones, who have, for years, overseen a criminal lack of land management and controlled burning.

Green-controlled Labor ones, who have, for years, overseen a criminal lack of land management and controlled burning.
ttbn,
It's just about guaranteed that they will not learn sufficiently to adopt a more pragmatic mentality ! This nonsense will perpetuate as long as silly Govts use academic 'experts' as advisors !

"WATER BOMBERS - we used to borrow California's in their off season. Now both our fire seasons overlap. Again, thank global warming!"

Uh-Uh-Uh.
- No you don't

If it was known that the fire seasons overlapped;

Then please return to my prior comment
'Do not pass go and do not not collect $200'

I'll quote myself: "THEN WHAT WAS DONE TO MITIGATE THIS DANGER?"

It's not global warming's fault
Your brains on the blink.
It's the fault of governmental and bureaucratical INCOMPETENCE

[Cont.]
7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution

News release

25 March 2014 | Geneva - In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.

One in 8 - are you freaking kidding me?

What is someone going around mass murdering people by ginding coal into grules and mstuffing it down peoples throats until they suffocate and die?

What am I missing here?

And what's any of this got to do with Australia?

This is the type of bs thats turned you all into a bunch of irrational (and frankly dangerous) group of people hellbent on destroying your own countries.

I'm all for better policies and taking advantage of better technology, this isn't an argument about which technology is better, I'd even happily support more water wheels in creeks and estuary's if its practical to do so;
its also about whats practical economically as we move to those better technologies.
I'm not going to shoot the horse when we haven't even got the automobile figured out yet.

Greens religion demands killing the unborn and now sacrificing this country and lives for the sake of saving a beetle from becoming extinct. The generation of Marxist who virtue signal about banning straws or driving an electric car shows how dumbed down the left has made so many.

There are plenty of studies that show poorly done burns add to fuel loads and fire risk. I have an example in my local bit of bush. A hotter than planned burn killed off a section of yellow gums and once the shade area was lost the shrubs quickly took over. Within a few years the place was heavily overgrown and far more of a hazard than it should have been.

We need far better trained fire specialists who seek to also protect natural habitat. The Gippsland lot were basically saying because a huge fire had gone through the previous year that the burn area should be credited into the following years burning program. On the face of it that would seem like a reasonable ask.

Whether or not the government followed this request is not known.

Dear runner,

You really are like an annoying blowfly, buzzing in just looking to wipe some germs somewhere. And stop with the pretend care for children you defender of the pedophiles within your faith who wrought so much pain, misery and death upon so many thousands of innocent Aussie kids.

Shame.

Dear Josephus,

Looked at the link you posted from that idiot Kelly's facebook page. Of course after the 1939 fires we got a Royal Commission which eventually led to the formation of the CFA in Victoria albeit only after the 1944 fires.

I would love to see a Royal Commission into the serious defunding of capacity of our parks and fire services.

Would you support one too?

I have to stand up for common sense and reason.
Why the GW, CC backers keep trying to push that proverbial sh!t uphill is an absolute comedy to behold, as they are also themselves, so it comes easy to them.
Why argue about water bombers and politicians, when we ALL know the source/cause of this current fire catastrophe.
You want to blame the pollies, fine but remember how govt works.
People like PM's are guided by advisers, they don't do anything without consulting those in charge of that particular dept.
GW and CC have NOTHING to do with this, let me make that quite clear, so stop trying to deflect or virtue shame, you're all sounding quite pathetic and confirm that you're out of ideas.
You're a lost cause.
If you want to start saving lives, not only around the issue of fires, but in every other issue affecting humanity, at least in this country; CRUSH THE GREENS!
Remove them from the face of the earth.
They have no actual policies or viable ideas.
Simply boring the buggery out of the public with their stupid childish and somewhat insipid and irrelevant mantra's does not qualify them or entitle them to call themselves a political party, or definitely not influence policies at govt level.
I'm not saying that these latest fires would not have been a threat to the people and properties involved, but I am saying that had things been left as they have been for years, controlled burning would have lessened the severity and devastating results we have seen, and still to see, this time around.
I'd like to smash one point into the faces of the GREENS.
How's your stupid, moronic stance and attitude looking now, when all your idiotic attempts at justifying not killing any flora and fauna by not burning off periodically, as has been the custom for as long as we can remember, before you bastards came along, looking now with the very thing you promote against, has happened but with many times more severe consequences, because of your very unwanted, irrelevant beliefs and ideals.

ALTRAV,

Unfortunately, the Greens won't be crushed until we do away with preferential voting. Even Labor has gone so far to the left that they would no longer survive without preferential voting. It is ludicrous that voters have to put a number next to some jerk they wouldn't piss on if he or she was on fire.

"There are plenty of studies that show poorly done burns add to fuel loads and fire risk."

Well the logic here might be 'Don't do them poorly then'.

I'm just going to go now, think I'm just going to go and beat my head against the brick wall for a bit...

A nation of idiots

Dear Armchair Critic,

This is directly from the Royal Commission findings of the causes into the 1939 Fires. It was number 2 on the list after the drought;

"The Condition of the Forests.—When the early settlers came to what is now this State, they found for the greater part a clean forest. Apparently, for many years before their arrival, the forest had not been scourged by fire. They were in their natural state. Their canopies had prevented the growth of scrub and bracken to any wide extent. They were open and traversible by men, beasts and wagons. Compared with their present condition, they were safe. B ut the white men introduced fire to the forests. They burned the floor to promote the growth of grass and to clear it of scrub which had grown where, for whatever reason, the balance of nature had broken down. The fire stimulated grass growth ; but it encouraged scrub growth far more. Thus was begun the cycle of destruction which can not be arrested in our day. The scrub grew and flourished, fire was used to clear it, the scrub grew faster and thicker, bush fires, caused by the careless or designing hand of man, ravaged the forests; the canopy was impaired, more scrub grew and prospered, and again the cleansing agent, fire, was used. And so to-day in places where our forefathers rode, driving their herds and flocks before them, the wombat and the wallaby are hard put to it to find passage through the bush."

Were they idiots?

ALTRAV,
>I have to stand up for common sense and reason.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh man, that was a good one. Oh boy (wipes tears from eyes.)

Dude, you condemn the most advanced and sophisticated 'common sense' and 'reason' we have on the planet, science.
You condemn as 'beliefs' one of the most sophisticated enterprises the modern scientific method has EVER tried to study, the chaos that is weather and climate and the interactions between the two.

Rather than standing up for 'common sense' you're standing up for backyard rumours and old wives tales.

This is what the science is saying:-
____________________________________

Fire ecologist Philip Stewart said Queensland's fires of the past few days were historically unusual.

"When one looks at the charcoal records with Aboriginal burning, we haven't seen any indicators that show that there had been mass fires or large intense fires like we are seeing today, or 'mega-fires', as I would call them," Dr Stewart said.

"They're not something one would expect at this time, but then again, fires of this nature can occur anywhere, provided that there's the right climatic conditions and the right fuels and so on."

Dr Stewart said the intensity and the extent of the fires was abnormal, as was the time of year that they were occurring.

He said they were "absolutely" a result of climate change.

"Climate is a driver of wildfire and of fire full stop," Dr Stewart said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-01/why-qld-bushfires-have-been-described-as-abnormal-unprecedented/10571122

Hey SteeleRedux,

"Were they idiots?"
Maybe, I don't know;
- They might've been misinformed by others whom had preconceived notions on the true facts;

Read the article below and take notice of the date.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/analysis-bushfire-politics-hazard-reduction-climate-change/11700594

What was done to mitigate the situation?
How many planes did the govt order a rapid convertion for use in water bombing operations?

Or was it all just an inconvenience to their Christmas holiday planning?

The problem in all this is just how stupid, irresponsible, pointless, and pathetic the whole saga is.
Because history just seems to repeat itself and our leaders never learn.
Maybe the system that makes them our leaders should be looked at.
We need to foolproof our government for incompetence

Here's another article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-before-and-after-tathra-bushfire/10258140

I don't know the truth, I wasn't there in 1939.
What I do know is that the articles I linked to and what you wrote can't both be true,
- And one of those versions has to be false.

Hang on, actually, on the basis that:
'They might've been misinformed by others whom had preconceived notions on the true facts;'

Then, on the basis that 'I didn't know' is no more of a valid excuse any more than 'I didn't find out';
And on the basis that as our leaders 'It's their duty to find out the true facts for the best interest of their constituents;

Then yes, if they were misinformed by others whom had preconceived notions on the true facts,

- then yes they were idiots -

If for only however, that they themselves were foolish enough to rely on those other idiots.

Max, you're as big a fool as the person who wrote that tripe of a report.
He conveniently forgets about the blacks and their habit of random burn off's.
I don't care what another idiot expert craps on about.
The evidence is clear, FUEL not CLIMATE is the culprit.
Fuel on the ground, due to arrested controlled burning.
Fuel on the ground directly the fault of the greens.
Weather, (NOT CLIMATE) because it is hot and windy, the two things that fires love.
Read your posting again and this time read it all, not just the bits you feel might help your cause.
And as for your equally misguided running mate SR, yes they were idiots, as they reported on a geography and landscape/environment they knew nothing about, using their knowledge and expertise and familiarity of past exploits and locations.
The operative word in SR's submission is "apparently", leading us to believe an uncertainty about the comments which followed.
And so it should be, as their sentiments were speculative and not conclusive or based on experience in the region.

AC,

"Well the logic here might be 'Don't do them poorly then".

Good one!

The NSW Emergency services minister David Elliott has been directing emergency operations from his five star hotel somewhere in Europe. The fool has been enjoying caviar and champagne at taxpayer expense while the state burns!

Actually, if you enquired you might find that is the distance most
EMCs would suggest for VIPs.

"The NSW Emergency services minister David Elliott has been directing emergency operations from his five star hotel somewhere in Europe."

Why am I not surprised?
And you all think I'm the dill

ALTRAV,
yes 'weather' rolls the dice.

But in this case those dice were loaded by the KNOWN PHYSICS of climate change.

We've not seen as many new hot temperature records break this fast.
We've not seen a drought like this before.
We've not had as long a dry period, so dry the fire commissioners are saying many areas were not allowed to burn off fuel.

And knowing what to do about the fuel seems harder than I thought. I once thought we just had to find a season to burn it. Unfortunately, climate change steps in and says "No burning off this winter!" Then there's the added fact that the science now appears much more complicated than just burning fuel! (How like us simple armchair experts to pronounce something so simplistic, as if complex ecosystems were exactly the same as our backyard woodsheds!)

No, the forest seems to react to our burning in unpredictable ways.

So while some simplistically chant crap like "Well the logic here might be 'Don't do them poorly then".... these pundits might actually find if THEY were in charge, the bushfires just got worse and worse each year.

Why? Oh, that's where this pesky thing called the Scientific Method kicks in! Reference SR's Royal Commission results from 1939.

Basically, sometimes what we call "Common Sense" is just plain retarded.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

Angry mob turns on ScuMo;

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/go-back-to-kirribilli-morrison-heckled-by-angry-residents-in-cobargo-20200102-p53ogb.html

Goodbye ScuMo. It all downhill from here.

NO, Max.
Common sense is common sense.
Retarded is mentally challenged.
As is the case where those who follow the 'known physics of climate change' fall into the latter category.
You willfully fail to acknowledge that all this climate rubbish could be a fabrication, and there are those who are benefitting from this and the future results of where all this is leading.
Just as a side example, we are told that the Jews and the Palestinians are always having peace talks.
All BS!
It is an integral part of the TORAH, (Pentateuch) that the Jews must NEVER entertain the Palestinians, and in fact must kill them as part of their teachings.
It's all there in black and white.
Now this is ridiculous; I said/thought, until it was confirmed by someone who should know.
Things always have an agenda, even if they are too far fetched to be believable.
That's why I question things so much, and I NEVER take things at face value.
Some of the things I have learned I would not reveal to anyone outside my immediate circle of friends or family, because they are just to preposterous to imagine not just to read, but to repeat.
That is why I say to people, trust me, I'm too proud to talk sh!t, therefore I am telling the truth.
If I am wrong then my information or informant is wrong.
But there is absolutely no reason for me to say something KNOWING that I am wrong.
Remember it's not me that's mentally impaired or compromised is probably a better description if retard is not PC enough for today's, precious little jelly brains and neuters.

Mr O, give it a rest.
Just because one loud mouth maggot and her mentally deficient followers decide to get some attention justified by all the virtue shaming clowns in her group, does in no way make her point relevant.
I would really love it if she was a greens/labour supporter.
Now that's a line worth following.
All she has done is demonstrated to the world that she is a low-life with a crass and judgmental mentality.
If she has lost property, she can be given a little consideration, but to make a fool of herself acting in a rancid manner and dis-respecting the Prime Minister, only confirms what garbage people are.
We lose all respect and sympathy for someone who fails to keep their composure under pressure.
Her visual cues were of a rabid bitch, (dog).
I am pleased that he did not shake her hand, he would more than likely have caught some mentally challenging disease, like she obviously has.

ALTRAV,

It wasn't just one person who was angry. It was a lot. It looked like none of the locals wanted ScuMo to be there and they seemed more than happy to see him jump into his car and head off down the road.

One firefighter told ScuMo he didn't want to shake his hand but ScuMo grabbed hold of his other hand and shook it. Why? Because ScuMo went to Cobargo simply to get photos of him shaking hands. I bet ScuMo gave his publicist an ear bashing after leaving Cobargo for telling him it would be a good idea to go the Cobargo.

It will be interesting to see if the LNP start breaking ranks as MPs in marginal seats begin to see voters reactions against the LNP who have been telling voters that the burning of fossil fuels is not responsible for global warming which in turn is the cause of the climate change that has brought this devastating environmental crisis.

The best description I can give to ScuMo and his mates: environmental criminals.

Dear Mr Opinion,

It has started already with the NSW Liberal transport minister, Andrew Constance saying of prime minister Scott Morrison; "So to be honest with you the locals probably gave him the welcome that he probably deserved.”

They can see right through this bloke, just like the rest of us.

Well, in that case the world is a very scary place ALTRAV.
Because whoever 'they' are they can deceive the entire planet's scientific community. Every National Academy of Science on the entire PLANET accepts climate science. Seriously, it's not my fault you have your own retarded definition of common sense. It's not my fault you reject science. It's not my fault you're making a fool of yourself defying known physics and observational science.

It's yours.
Entirely yours.

But hey, you go and believe in "the conspiracy" — whatever it is. Please don't tell me it's too BORING to try and tune into your kind of tinfoil hat. I can never get the frequency right! I really don't care what you think right now. I'm too busy spanking you with a little dose of reality. A little TRUTH!

Let the spanking begin!
________________________________________

Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_(general_science)
________________________________________

(Now I know nothing here works on your belief system, but I just wanted to highlight, for the record and for lurkers, just what kind of scientific enterprise you're stubbornly sticking your fingers in your ears about!)

Dear SteeleRedux,

Totally concur. It's only the LNP diehards who will want to be seen with ScuMo from now on.

Unfortunately it has taken an environmental catastrophe to make people realise that the climatologists have been right all along and that the AGW denialists like ScuMo and his mates have been pulling the wool over their eyes with promises of jobs and growth in a country with an environment that can only support a small population and limited development. Hmmm ........ I think I'm starting to sound like Greta Thunberg. All for the best I think.

Mr Opinion,
please don't sound like Greta! I mean, the poor kid has every right to be freaked out, because the risks are real. But there's something about her standing up and shouting at the UN that just makes me wince.

I love how she became a rallying point, and I love the goal, but the execution? Ouch.

Anyway, I'm optimistic that we have the technology to survive and even thrive with today's population the on planet, maybe more. The problem is the later we leave adopting that technology, the more developing nations will suffer, and the more the impact will be on ecosystems. There are risks to us, but we are tricky and clever and can adapt.

Nature can't, not with us surrounding her. I'm more a climate activist because of my concerns for nature than my concerns for us. But, yes, there are risks, especially if some unpredictable climate scenarios lead us to large scale nuclear war.

So we deny China and India coal for their energy needs and both nuclear powers move down and battle, on who owns Australia. All Australian welfare and education would cease as the money from exports dry up. This is The Green New Deal that Max want's us to adopt. We go nuclear but it raises no foreign export income. Iron ore would not be processed because no coal furnaces, so our other big export would close. Our economy would return to the 1860's relying on farming that would be owned by China.
THIS IS OUR FUTURE UNDER MAX. No ideas!

You're so wrong Josephus.

We go for a standardised nuke of today like the CAP1400. Look it up, it's a good reactor.

We go big, basically setting up a nuclear assembly line the way the French had to in the 70's.

We move a bunch of coal miners (with generous incentives) down to Olympic dam mine and radically scale up our uranium mining. Then we can PROCESS it and sell it for higher value to our new nuclear customers, because not only are we fast building nukes for ourselves, but we're selling nukes overseas as well.

We sell overseas nukes + fuel + charge them a fee to take their 'waste' back, because we're smart and know how much that 'waste' is gong to be worth when we've perfected our breeder reactors!

Iron ore can be smelted with hydrogen instead of coking coal as the reductant. Basically we shouldn't sell iron ore overseas as a raw product, but should process the ore here and make high grade steel and sell THAT on to the world market. CO2 free steel? Sure thing, Australia can do that!

Then guess what?

Our national health bill will go down as we stop burning coal and gas and oil. And we'll be ready for peak oil and gas and coal, ahead of the depletion curve so it cannot cut us off guard with the Export Land Model which can really mess up an economy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Dear Max Green,

Nice idea but unfortunately we will all be burnt to a crisp before it happens.

This current environmental disaster is just the beginning. Australia is just going to get hotter, drier and more like a desert each year. A living hell!

We are 60 years too late to do anything about it.

All the very few people the media has managed to find willing to make pricks of themselves to the PM in public have achieved is to prove what a good bloke the man is. I've never been one of his fans, but he has gone up in my estimation, with his handling of Green/Labor stooges who are low enough to use a national crisis for political reasons.

Max, Mr O, I hope you don't talk like this in front of kids, boy you guys are off the planet.
I don't know what you're on but let me assure you, what you are predicting is not going to happen.
All the modelling and computing and so on, are all hypothesis.
It will not happen, and why? because all these doom and gloom stories you guys are putting about is just that, stories.
You can quote all the facts you like, but the TRUTH is that what we are going through now is not new, we have gone through it before, and we will go through it again.
Obviously you and others are looking for the data that will make your doom and gloom case for you.
IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!
So take something, sit down, take a few deep breaths, and relax.
If what you say is true, then it's too late, we are doomed, so sit back and relax, as apparently, the end is nigh!

It is extraordinary how ignorant people are of the organisational
structure of the emergency services.
The states own the responsibility and the combat services.
These services are the State Emergency Service, the Rural Fire
Service, Country Fire Service etc, Metropolitan Fire Brigades,
Marine Rescue, Ambulance Service.
ACT & Nth Territory have their own organisations.

The police are part of it but a little separate.
The States have their State Emergency Management Committees.
Under each State Management committee are District Management
Committees, and under each of these are Local Emergency Committees,
which operated under local councils.
Also on these committees are Functional area organisations, such as
Railways Depts, Hospitals, Animal Welfare, Voluntary Rescue Association,
Bush Walkers Search & Rescue, Caves Rescue, Crest CB and
St Johns Ambulance, Wireless Institute of Australia Civil Emergency Network.

The senior officer of each committee is the senior Police Officer
in the district together with the Local Emergency Management Officer.

The Commonwealth Government has no part in this system.
If equipment or service of some sort is required that the Federal Govt
can supply the request goes via the State Emergency Management Committee.
This is exactly what has been happening these last weeks on a daily basis.
You can see that the criticism of the Federal Goverment & PM is irrelevant.
This arrangement was setup in December 1990 and has been very successful.

So Max we are left with 15,000,000 fossil fuelled vehicles with no fuel and owners not able to afford to keep methane producing horses, as electric cars are just as polluting as fossil fuelled cars, more so in their production and battery disposal. Wind turbines and solar and battery storage abandoned for the new age specialist Nuclear energy. We no longer have tyres or paved roads as bitumen is a biproduct of coal. The transition will destroy service centres and road transport, shipping and aircraft all dependent on fossil fuel. Remember this transition must take place in the next ten years to save the Planet. Know this that drought and arsonists will still exist.

ttbn,

Good, and I suggest ScuMo keep doing exactly what he is doing now, which is exactly what I am sure he will do.

PS Do you think I should start writing ScuMo as SCUMO instead of ScuMo? Which do do think he would prefer?

Mr O coming from me! You are a clueless University brainwashed dill! Grow up!

Josephus,

You think that there is something wrong with anybody who graduates from a university so I won't take your comment as a personal attack on me for having completed four degrees each in a different field from three of Australia's top universities.

I suppose some of us (me) were meant to do it and some of us (you) were meant not to do it.

MrO, WOW, three uni's, four degrees hey?
So what are these four degrees, from three uni's, none the less, that you have, and what good deeds have you achieved to benefit mankind, so far?
You must be extremely intelligent, super smart in fact.
I wonder, what on earth possessed you to come down here amongst us ground dwellers to get attacked, frustrated, and pissed off by us?
You must be rebelling against something.
Never-the-less, I would still like to know what the degrees are?

Hi Mr O,

Would you agree, based on your acceptance of AGW and its predictions, that the adoption of nuclear, solar and wind will not make a jot of difference to Australia's weather for many decades? Would you also agree that the only means that might be able to alter the weather is geoengineering?

The current weather is due to cold water (not hot water) and wind patterns unfavourable for bringing rain.

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?c=ssta

Unfortunately there are still substantial areas of anomalously cold water around the Australian continent. Research into the feasibility of altering this might be of interest regardless of your view of AGW.

Cheers

ALTRAV,

It looks like you are on the same level as Josephus.

BAZZ,
You haven’t answered the links to scientific summaries and peer-reviewed papers I gave you to your many anti-science assertions above.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9037#297693

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9037#297722

Why should I read anything you say from here on in? You’re ‘rotating’ again, not debating. You are fulfilling this prediction I wrote about a decade ago!

________________________________

Dogmatic deniers don't debate, they rotate. They have links to spurious, easily debunked papers, and they KNOW they're easy to debunk. So they fire them off like so many artillery shells. Assertion 1 is loaded.

FIRE 1: "It's not us, it's the sun!" they assert and post a link to a dumb website like WUWT. But will they read the replies? Will they debate the peer-reviewed science? Were they ever considering learning anything? Don't be so naive! Before they even read the reply they're loading shell 2!

FIRE 2: "It's just computer models and I don't trust computer models". Assertion and links posted. People who respect climate science try to answer, but they're wasting their time. While the answers come in, the tinfoil-hatter is already loading 3!

FIRE 3: "It's a conspiracy to tax the world and create a world government." Blah blah blah, on and on they go, never once being interested in an actual adult conversation about what the science says. They don't even realise their opinion has been bought for them, paid by the Koch brothers! http://youtu.be/IaKm89eVhoE

They don't debate, they rotate, from red herrings to straw-men to cherry-picking. Don't waste your time with tinfoil hatters like these.

ALTRAV,

What's wrong with wanting an intellectual discussion expressed in articulate English. Some of us just don't like struggling to understand Bogan-speak.

JOSEPHUS,

> “So Max we are left with 15,000,000 fossil fuelled vehicles with no fuel”
Don’t be intentionally obtuse! We can’t magically click our fingers overnight and wake up and have 40 new CAP1400’s all purring away in the background! It was a vision over 15 to 20 years for replacing coal, and maybe longer for oil as there are other challenges there. Remember, France scaled up their nuclear production to 15 reactors a year at their highest rate, and that was with older regular reactors. We have access to state of the art new stuff coming out on the market that they didn’t. We might get 10 CAP1400’s built and then switch to ThorCon’s super-cheap boat-nukes, built in shipyards with block-build tech at SUPER FAST speeds and super-cheap. These are passive safety Molten Salt Reactors that are built for speed and cheap price, NOT breeding. But they’ll gladly sell their waste on to MCSFR breeders when MCSFR’s are finally perfected.

Also, EV’s are NOT as polluting as oil as more of their on board electricity goes towards forward motion, not just heat. Efficiency to the wheel is higher. The wastes are managed at the power plant. See dude, mining and refining of everything will become cleaner and more carbon neutral as those vehicles are shifted to hydrogen or synfuels or whatever.

>“Wind turbines and solar and battery storage abandoned for the new age specialist Nuclear energy.”
That’s just moronic! The more EV’s we have with smart-grid connections, the more we can utilise BOTH baseload reliable nuclear power AND intermittent solar and wind, as a smart grid can talk to the EV and say “Sun’s just come out! Want to charge?” and the EV can reply back “Oh baby, you know it!”

Synfuels can replace airlines at a reasonable price.
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/

There are many materials that can replace concrete in construction.

Josephus, when you stubbornly cross your arms and insist we can’t do the modern world without fossil fuels, you are condemning future generations to Mad Max when we inevitably run out. Has this basic thought not occurred to you?

Mr Opinion re: ScoMo.

I was asking some friends what they call the ash falling from the sky, and remembering that the Inuit have dozens and dozens of different phrases for snow. Were we going to end up like that with ash, especially when we saw apocalyptic scenes of Sydneysiders raking black sludge off the beach!

We were throwing around terms like "Summer snow" as "White Christmas" was playing in the background.

Then someone said "ScoMoSnow!" and I lost it — eggnog nearly shot out my nose! ;-)

Mr O,

Look at the brains we have to deal with;

"as bitumen is a biproduct of coal". Josephus, how much bitumen do you get out of coal? Just asking.

Just a reminder to the Left big egos, Labor's Joel Fitzgibbon recently stated that “if Labor’s (emissions) scheme had been in place for the last 6 years we’d be experiencing the same bushfires”. But you just keep on making jackasses of yourselves and blaming Scott Morrison while people are dying or losing everything they own in bushfires - you totally insensitive and ignorant whackos.

Fester, Mr O only passed in Arts degrees not engineering. Mastering on how to socially change a society to accept Marxism. He knows how to scare a society by propaganda and demeaning of Democratically elected leaders. He is brilliant at that, he relies on his University lectures to give him advice as he does not know how to think for himself. He is not a leader of people, just a follower of some University Marxist Clown.

The world needs engineers who can adapt to changing conditions not Chicken Little voices; telling us the sky is falling. He has no on the job experience of handling physical events.

Paul, Bitumen is a by product of fossil fuels. Bitumen is an oil based substance. It is a semi-solid hydrocarbon product produced by removing the lighter fractions (such as liquid petroleum gas, petrol and diesel) from heavy crude oil during the refining process.

Hi Josephus,

I cannot understand why AGW advocates don't want to discuss geoengineering. They believe that the current weather patterns will be commonplace, they acknowledge that all the mitigations they propose wont make a speck of difference for many decades, yet they would seem to have no interest in interventions which could change things in weeks to months. Why is there so little interest?

Cheers

Mr O, well, well, now the truth comes out.
EVERYONE?
Mr O is announcing that he is better than those on this forum.
Would you care to elaborate in your best articulated, intellectual, English, discussion, although I fear those of us who you consider bogans, according to you will not understand.
And so, as I fear that most of us here on OLO might come under your description of bogans, might I suggest, you cease and desist commenting on this medium and find another that's more to your level of intellect and arrogance.
You will now be ignored, as we can't understand you because you don't talk bogan-speak.

Altrav, please advise the Opinionated one that he go to the Conversation web site.
They do not allow anyone they consider to be deniers on their site.
He will be at one with the elevated ones there.

TTBN,
Technically that’s correct, as the western world are guilty of GENERATIONS of ignoring the climate warnings given Time Magazine warned us in 1956 https//tinyurl.com/sy3f2sy
And the Bell Telephone company Science Hour warned us in 1958! (2 minutes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s

I don’t think we’re blaming ScoMo for the fires, but for his CONTINUAL denial of climate change causing the conditions that are making these fires so record breaking and awful! We’re blaming him and his government for FUTURE fires that will dwarf today’s fires. We’re blaming him for Adani, the NSW Liberal government for approving individual coal mines that collectively will dwarf Adani, and for the general air of climate inaction and old-man-denial that so characterises the Liberal government.

And given what I’ve been reading about the ecological responses to bad burns, we might be blaming ScoMo for bad ‘fuel load management’ as The Greens may actually have some science behind NOT wanting to burn certain areas for certain specific ecological reasons and future scrub growth that can make future fires even WORSE, not better!

Science and ecology: tricky and counter-intuitive things sometimes! Not as easy as sitting in your armchair channelling old-man-grumpy vibes that sound like old-wives-tales the more you click your Ruby Slippers together and chant "There's no climate change! There's no climate change!" Slow down there Dorothy, and learn some science. Your ruby slippers aren't working.

ALTRAV,

I go out of my way to avoid bogans and I expect bogans to reciprocate.

TIME MAGAZINE 1956: ONE BIG GREENHOUSE

Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate...

...They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.
__________________________________

So Deniers, the "Climate Conspiracy" has been running for 64 years and counting! This "Conspiracy" you believe in has got to dwarf James Bond's Spectre? (That's it: I'm investing in a Tinfoil hat because I don't want that Thar Guv-ern-myant to Mind Control my ass!)

Max Green,

Why do you and some others keep talking about climate change 'deniers'. I don't deny that the climate is changing. I recognise climate change when I say it's not the cause of bushfires. I don't know anyone who denies climate change: the climate is always changing - naturally.

I think that we are going to have start calling you lefties 'history deniers'. Just because something has happened only once in your lifetime doesn't mean it hasn't happened before. Anyone with an understanding of Australia before and after European settlement understands that bushfires can’t be prevented. The evidence of history shows that Australia recovers from drought and fire and flood. But there is a tendency among alarmists who disregard history to project today’s misfortune into the future, believing that they will get worse because things have warmed gradually in their own short lifetimes.

Even the IPCC doesn't connect climate change, fires and drought. Warmist Dr. Will Steffen denies any connection.

I'm fascinated by your moniker, Max Green. Maximum greenie? You have a shady namesake: an Australian shyster lawyer and embezzler, murdered in Cambodia.

Just remembered reading something about this a while back.

In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer
stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with
environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in
Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which
the distribution of the world’s resources were to be negotiated.
Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, "We redistribute
de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

I did a google on his name and found a lot of references to his
revealing statement.

I know some will reject it saying he only a member of the IPCC and
they have some sort of agenda.
Of course thinking about it, it makes sense, it is not possible to
affect the amount of co2 in the air while China and India are burning so much !
Read it anyway.

Please note the bush fire emergency was declared on November 12th from fires lit on 9/11. Sound familiar? What does 9/11 suggest about political arsonists? Latest arsonists emerge from bush in Georges Hall.

From Wikipedia, On 12 November 2019, catastrophic fire danger was declared in the Greater Sydney region for the first time since the introduction of this level in 2009 and a total fire ban was in place for seven regions, including Greater Sydney. The Illawarra and Greater Hunter areas also experienced catastrophic fire dangers and other parts of the state, including the already fire ravaged parts of northern New South Wales. The political ramifications of the fire season have been significant.

ttbn, there's something about this Max guy that I can't quite put my finger on, but I have had my suspicions about him, and I think he is hiding more than his name, but I agree with you, his name gives us a speculative look at who he bats for.
His language and info are too well rehearsed, and he pushes too bloody hard as if he is under instructions from a higher source.
As I have said before, if you have to push/sell something so hard, it means it's not what it is purported to be, it therefore needs hard sell to convince the ones who do not believe or find it hard to believe what they are trying so hard to sell.
He does not FEEL like one of us.
By 'one of us', I mean he sounds too familiar and knowledgeable about this topic, on a higher than domestic or social level.
I have my suspicions and as usual will put him on my 'watch' list, basically putting together info or bio on him as I do with things I wish to know more about.

From the scientist that set up the first computer Climate model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

Oceans release Methane as well as CO2.

I certainly do not "KNOW" for certain that ADW is not real.
What does seem to be real is the historical warming that occurs every
250 to 300 years.
Could it be that both AGW and the historical warming are occurring at
the same time ? What affect would that have ? Additive ?
The last peak in Historical warming must have been around the 15th or
16th century and the current one is thought to be around 1995 +-.
The last cool period was in the end of 18th century.
The next cool period would be in about 300 years time.
Because of the cycles within cycles the period could be different every cycle.

GUYS, Josephus has linked a video on you tube that pretty much debunks all this CO2 is bad, mantra.
This scientist says that CO2 is a good thing and will help green the earth.
So what's the problem?
I'd like others to watch the video too.
I watched most of it, got bored, but not before I heard him say that CO2 was of itself, NOT a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite.
I can't remember all the details but, it will give the denialists another leg up to a higher rung in this on-going boring battle of twits.

TTBN,
Oh no, a Denier called me a Shyster. Boo hoo the internet hurt my feelings today!

You’re a climate denier BY quoting the stupid mantra you just repeated without thinking. Suggestion? Don’t take so many paragraphs next time. Just say “Climate’s changed before y’all” and then spit your tobacco wad into the old western spittoon next to your grandpappy’s rocker on your redneck ranch veranda.

Has the climate changed before? YES.
Do the IPCC know that? YES.
Have they studied what NATURALLY changed the climate before? YES.
So is today’s warming NATURAL? NO!
Is today’s warming good news? For a few places, yes. But for the overwhelming majority of global ecosystems and economy, NO!

“Climate’s changed before y’all!” is the number one most red-neck, unthinking kneejerk reaction from postcode-Dumb, Dumb-town, Dumb-land!

Here you go — you’re the winner!

(If by ‘winner’ I mean most cliché boring dumbass climate Denier I’ve met today. But 15 years of debating you people has taught me you’re all so friggin PREDICTABLE and BORING!)

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

http://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html

What you SHOULD do is finish the sentence!

“Climate’s changed before y’all, and nearly wiped out life on this here planet! So the answer? Go NUKULAR!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Global_warming

Then I’d be happy and call you my redneck brother.

Getting shrill aren't they ?

Don't worry about all these Leftie Schoolies trying to hijack OLO, they'll soon run out of cut & paste material. The problems discussed require common sense which of course leaves them with nothing but satire & humourless ridicule in reply to any thread relating to everyday problems.

ALTRAV,

I would say that Maxie is a plant from some extreme Left activist show. He came out of nowhere, as you say, 'rehearsed'. He has the patter of a sideshow barker.

He certainly returned my serve with aggression, mistakenly accusing me of calling him a 'shyster' when it was a lawyer of the same name who was the shyster. Perhaps his sensitivity to the word stirs something in him.

He doesn't accept that I'm not denying climate change (no surprise there), but actually calls me a "climate denier", meaning that I don't believe there is a climate! I suppose it's easy for some people get a bit muddled when they are fuming because someone has questioned their piffle.

I'm so glad his feelings were not hurt; I had no intention of hurting his feelings. Perhaps it is his technique to try hurting the feelings of people he disagrees with.

And, yes Bazz; "shrill" suits Max. He's had a chance to respond reasonably, but he has proven himself to be just another verbal head-batterer from the Left. Just what we needed:).

I find it incredible to witness the depths of investment, belief and conviction, that some people will go to in believing something which is merely an allegation or theory, and not an actuality.
Where-as the fires are real, they are an actuality because they exist, it is happening, now.
Where is the evidence and fallout of the allegation that CO2 is guilty of all these crimes it is accused of.
Allegations at best.
We know that the fires are a DIRECT result of arrested burn-offs.
We know that the intensity and severity of the fires are due to hot and windy weather, together they all conspired to the end we are now witnessing.
We know, the GREENS are behind the cessation of burn-offs.
We know that CO2, is a good gas.
We know that CO2 on it's own is not harmful.
WE know that GW, CC has happened before.
We know that the ice age or cooling period, has happened before.
We know that the climate goes in cycles as does the rest of the universe.
So why is it that the climate freaks, believe in something that is not proven nor showing any evidence of what they purport.
The "facts"they keep bleating about are just that facts.
Any attempts at trying to accuse CO2 to the weather patterns is a good ole' attempt at straw man reasoning, at best.

Dear Max Green,

I suppose it has also dawned on you that all of the AGW denialists happen to be bogans.

Who was the bogan who said bitumen is made from coal? I suppose he also thinks he can make coke from petroleum.

"He doesn't accept that I'm not denying climate change (no surprise there), but actually calls me a "climate denier", meaning that I don't believe there is a climate!"

Sorry TTBN, but your silly semantics don't fly. You previously said:

" I don't know anyone who denies climate change: the climate is always changing - naturally."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9037#297932
That one word NATURALLY means you just dismiss the ANTHROPOGENIC causes of climate change. It's all just natural, see? The climate's changed before, see? You're a piss-ant little cliche, see?

I love the wiki on climate deniers, but just wish there was a new, stronger term. Like Denial-tards! That sounds about right. Denial-tards.

Anyway, the wiki has you deniers worked out!

"Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics", which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[9] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Again, it's not my fault you Denial-tards have decided you're smarter than every National Academy of Science on the planet.

MR OPINION,
it's been so long since one of them has tried to debate the science with me I'm officially bored.

TTBN didn't even TRY to answer that he was quoting THE most basic Anthropogenic / Human caused climate change myth. He just turned around and played a bunch of really crap unconvincing semantic games! EG:-

>"but actually calls me a "climate denier", meaning that I don't believe there is a climate!"

I read that and winced for our country, that these uneducated bogan idiots get to VOTE! What a retard!? I mean, what hope is there when these dumbass climate deniers are actually patting each other on the back for their dumbness? They're standing in their dumbness, celebrating it!

ALTRAV is so blunt he can't divine that there are "natural" forcings and "human" forcings on the climate. He can't understand that the Milankovitch cycles that caused the ice age cycle can't explain 40% of the extra energy in the system! The sunlight changes triggered it, but where did the extra cold in the cold part of the cycle come from? Trapped CO2 under ice sheets! Where did the extra heat in the interglacials come from? FREED CO2. In other words, the very natural ice-age cycle he's turning to has evidence of CO2's power to warm and cool the planet if it is released or trapped!

Again, climate sensitivity models are BASED on our understanding of paleoclimate.

But this dumbass just says “Climate’s changed before y’all” and CELEBRATES his accomplishments! Wow. Dunning Kruger's much?

Max cannot accept there are different scientific opinions to his with:"have decided you're smarter than every National Academy of Science on the planet."

Max it is not us bogans you are arguing against the fact is there are scientists on the other side who see minimal effect causes of CO2 on the Climate created by fossil fuels. There are factors other than coal, gas and petroleum that pollute the atmosphere. Try chlorine, methane and burning wood as a sample. How much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere by the present fires

Mr G, again it's YOU who are trying too hard a sell.
There is NO consensus on anything, their are the scientists against and those fore.
There is no one opinion even amongst the experts, so stop mouthing off as if only you have the answers and only your opinion is correct.
It's arrogant neanderthals like you who deny the existence of any evidence that might contradict your twisted and vial attiude that you are better than everyone else.
Well smart-arse, you have finally been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
I'll bet you scoffed at my suggestion to look up the video Josephus has so kindly linked to on page 27.
It is clear and unambiguous.
It is an interview with the guy who started all this CO2 hoo-haa, 40 years ago (approx).
So before you boorish, arrogant little man say anything else, look at it, then TRY and explain your mantra after that.
At the very least, tone it down, I believe I was the least favorite person on OLO, then there was SR, and he's about on a par with you, but now, you can carry on with pride, in the knowledge that you are now at the top of that much revered pile of cow pats.

Josephus said; "as bitumen is a biproduct of coal" then ran away and googled it.

Any 2nd year high school science student knows bitumen comes from crude oil, apparently Josephus didn't know that, he doesn't even have the level of science knowledge of a 13 year old. Shameful, with his primary school grasps of science he wants to debate with Mr O who knows the subject to the university level.

Father Joe, stick to the biblical BS, its more your calling.

Max Green descends to name-calling very quickly when he doesn't get his own way. Just another Leftist thug we don't have to bother with.

Hey Max Green,

"That one word NATURALLY means you just dismiss the ANTHROPOGENIC causes of climate change. It's all just natural, see? The climate's changed before, see? You're a piss-ant little cliche, see?

I love the wiki on climate deniers, but just wish there was a new, stronger term. Like Denial-tards! That sounds about right. Denial-tards."

The question is 'does his argument have a basis of merit?
- Has the climate changed before, or hasn't it?

Lets look at the issue surrounding the existence of the Piri Reis Maps.
It's clear that the coastline of Antarctica has previously been mapped by humans prior to the current ice levels.
It's also known that the whole northern portion of Africa turned to desert over a relatively short period 500 - 1000 years.
Did humans play a part in this? I don't know.

Some say the ancient city of Atlantis is 'The Eye of Africa' right there in plain sight.
But in that story, the city was destroyed overnight, as the seas poured in.

The important point here is that humans have had to adapt and climate and master their own environment for millennia in order to survive, and in this respect nothings actually changing at all.

I hate the climate change 'agenda', but I'm all for practical improvements that are in the nations best interests.

Give me practical, reasonable and viable ideas that don't have a negative or detrimental impact on the nations jobs and economy, and I'll support them.

Instead what you want to do is through fuel on a divisive issue that has resulted in the entire planet being at each others throats.

- I don't want no part of this -

Just give me practical, reasonable and viable ideas or else I don't care about any of your agenda, whether there's a basis for a changing climate or not.

ALTRAV,
>"By 'one of us', I mean he sounds too familiar and knowledgeable about this topic, on a higher than domestic or social level."

That's just so interesting, and so sad! Guys, I don't think you understand. I hardly know any of this stuff. Climate science is HARD, and I only know about 2% of it. I’m not a scientist. I caught a bad case of “the humanities” in my education.

But the Denier arguments here are truly pathetic. At least MHAZE had me looking up IPCC definitions and reports. That debate was INTERESTING, even if MHAZE totally embarrassed himself at the end. I’ve been in other forums where real scientists were really sophisticated Deniers. I’ve struggled to answer their objections and had to go to other real climate scientists to get the answers. But you guys are cardboard cut-outs of climate deniers. You keep repeating BORING old mantra's like:-

>"The climate's changed before, y'all!"

I mean, DER! OF COURSE IT FRIGGIN HAS! The IPCC bases the essential CLIMATE SENSITIVITY MULTIPLIER ON THIS *SCIENTIFIC FACT*. Rather than being some weird “Inconvenient Truth” some climatologists overlooked, paleoclimate is the FOUNDANTIONAL SCIENCE essential to understanding how this complex planet interacts with increased CO2.

Or what about:-
>"There were these Ice Ages, y'all!"

DER AGAIN! They KNOW that! They KNOW what causes it. Does the Denier?
It’s wobbles in the Earth’s orbit affecting incoming sunlight. But there’s a problem. The changes in sunlight are not enough to explain all the temperature changes. It turns out CO2 causes 40% of the temperature changes in an ice age. As ice expands, carbon in tundra and permafrost gets trapped and plunges the temperature down further. As it melts at the end of an Ice Age, CO2 is released and raises the temperature another 40%. (See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf

With the Ice Ages, the trigger is natural variation in the Earth’s wobbles. But CO2 played a scary part of the extremes!

With today, WE are the trigger releasing CO2. Different trigger, same effect. WARMING!

ARMCHAIR CRITIC,

“I hate the climate change 'agenda'”
Which part of it? There’s climate science, and then there’s climate activists and it is a very broad movement with a lot of different agendas being pushed under this one umbrella. There’s probably some hard left ultra-greenie back to the land romantics that I disagree with. I’m called an “Eco-Modernist”. We have a Manifesto!
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english
Grab a coffee and have a good half hour read. It’s the history of civilisation, energy density moving from wood to coal to gas and oil and finally how nuclear power can provide all our energy needs for a billion years. We love practical, scientific solutions, even GM foods!

“Give me practical, reasonable and viable ideas that don't have a negative or detrimental impact on the nations jobs and economy, and I'll support them.”

Well, reality check: just as home refrigerators replaced backyard the ice-hauling industry, Australia’s 38,000 coal mining jobs WILL have to go. (Figure from here.)
http://www.tai.org.au/content/how-many-coal-jobs-check-facts

That might seem like a lot, but the Australian economy turns over 200,000 jobs a month.
AND those jobs will be phased out over 20 years because it’s going to take at LEAST that long to build all the nukes we need. So I don’t care that coal jobs will be lost, but what I do care about is that we have wonderful retraining schemes to help all Australia’s unemployed get back into work.

“Instead what you want to do is through fuel on a divisive issue that has resulted in the entire planet being at each others throats.”

Hitler invaded Poland. What was Britain to do, accommodate him? Watch “The Darkest Hour” to see how close they came to doing so but for Churchill! Boy that Cabinet was divided! Many of life’s most important things are divisive — and just because they are does not give responsible adults licence to avoid thinking about the whole subject.

Climate change is real.
Fossil fuel particulate pollution is lethal, and they’re finite.
They will run out.
It’s time to thank them for industrialising us and leave them.

Max Green is a big yawn. Leave him to bang his head against the wall.

Hi Max Green,

It looks like it has just dawned on ScuMo and his mates that there may be something in this global warming cum climate change stuff.

They'll probably ponder on it for about 30 seconds, look at each other and say DERRRR, and then go back to business as usual trying to work out how to build up their multibillion dollar slush fund to buy votes at the next election.

I think ScuMo has fallen on his own sword.

What started out as the accidental prime minister is now the Claytons prime minister.

Here's your big chance Barnaby. Go for it mate!

MrO, please carry on, don't hold back, by all means, say what you think.
You've passed the point of mentally challenged, now your getting to the point of mental deficient.
It won't be long and you'll be relegated to level of total mental failure, unable to engage in a level of conversation with the general public, at a level society considers normal, in fact it is in the realm of those already institutionalised.
If you can't make sense, don't comment!

ALTRAV,

Everything and anything I write or have ever written on this website and any comments I have made on this website are and have only ever been intended for my eyes only.

If you don't like the way I rant and rave to myself than just turn your eyes away.

If there was any doubts about the suitability of ScoMO being PM it was been shown by Rudd's disendorsement. All we need now is criticism from Turnbull. Both these men showed atrocious judgement in leadership and continue to demonstrate their bitterness and ignorance.

Well I think Max might be coming around to some discussion on futurist thinking rather than an evangelist for Global Warming panic. Lets hope he continues to talk reasonable to us bogans. I cannot say the same for Mr O as he is still in preschool talking to himself.

Max you are now in charge of converting the Greens opposition to nuclear power and the design and locations of these generators. Stop the GW panic and calmly move into this field.

Hi Josephus,
I appreciate your new tone, but I will not stop talking about the science of climate change as I see fit.

It's a sad generalisation but as far as generalisations go, it seems true. The Left Wing seems to say "Climate change is real so we're all going to have to commit to renewable energy and be prepared to tighten our belts and live with higher energy bills, maybe even a semi-Amish lifestyle!" The Right Wing tends to shout "There is no climate change, and NUKULAR IS THE ANSWER!" It seems to be in the very air we breathe of our political echo chambers. It's rare you get some in the middle that can think outside the normal tribal demarcations and admit that global warming is happening faster and more catastrophically than our first models predicted, while *also* admitting that renewable energy has its own limitations.

Dr James Hansen is *the* climatologist that diagnosed and popularised our climate problem — but no one believes him on the solution! He says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. http://tinyurl.com/yclaf2sn
Instead he says the world should build 115 reactors a year! http://tinyurl.com/zp3552t

Here he is with friend Michael Shellenberger at COP23. http://youtu.be/v1f4BKsFrCA
Various Greens parties attacked Dr HANSEN! The ARROGANCE of them!

Dr Hansen promotes breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 storage problem into today's energy solution.

I'm thinking of making book on how long ScuMo has left in The Lodge.

Oh I think Mr O is lost! Looking for some enlightenment from his Marxist lecturers! He has nothing positive to say in his book!

Max, I am for wave and tidal production of energy. I live in tidal lakes area where tidal flows could be harnessed for our local electricity needs

SCOMO's political ad seems on the nose, especially when first put up it had a DONATE button. Not to the Red Cross or firies, but to the LIBERAL PARTY! (Facepalms!)

Yay, everyone celebrate! ScoMo's finally called up the reserves and agreed to lease 4 new DC10's. Should have happened a month into these uttery a-typical, record breaking fires on the ADVICE of the Fire Chief's who TRIED TO MEET WITH THE STUBBORN RECALCITRANT IN WINTER ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS!

Maybe if he had taken their meeting, we might have had the extra resources nearer the start of the fire season, not when it's half over? What a dumbass!

As the ABC says:
_______________________________

Within the Government there is widespread acknowledgement that the PM's Midas touch has gone missing during the bushfire crisis.

This has not been his finest moment, to put it mildly...

...It's one thing to express "deep regret" if anyone was offended by the Hawaiian holiday.

It's entirely another to concede the Coalition has badly mishandled the whole climate debate for the past decade. There's no sign the Prime Minister is about to do that...

...The fire season still has a long way to run and Morrison can't afford any more missteps.

The first job of a leader during any disaster is to be there.

Right now the Prime Minister stands accused of turning up late, blaming the states and then seeking to make political capital out of the crisis.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-05/fire-response-puts-focus-on-scott-morrison-political-judgement/11841152

Max,

If we put ScuMo in charge of bushfire prevention in Antartica he would probably still make a stuff up of it and burn the South Pole to the ground.

PS You were asking me about some appropriate nicknames for ScuMo. How about No-Snow-Sco-Mo.

Josephus, I have considered all the known forms of renewables, and I have found one commonality.
The fewer the moving parts, (mechanisms) the better.
This has been part of my history, career.
The wind mills are simply a fantasy, sure you can get power from them, but at what cost, reliability being the big one, and I don't mean them breaking down/failing, which they are doing at an alarming rate.
You see the short sightedness and eagerness/ignorance of those like the GREENS, thought that it was only a matter of increasing the fan area and you could increase your energy production.
Well that isn't the way it works.
Just think of the dutch, and their WINDMILLS.
Then there are the solar panels, again unreliable although they lead the way with NO moving parts, just not enough power per unit of surface area.
I'll cut to the chase, there are more than one system of reactor based power generation, and they all do not employ any mechanical means.
The one leading the race is water, as in hydro, with only one real moving part.
So back to ZERO moving parts, Nuclear and thorium salt are two that come to mind.
Alan has been promoting thorium, and for the life of me I don't know why it has not been given a research grant 50 years ago.
I can only speculate that the pollies have not figured out a way of skimming money out of it yet.
Nuclear is not the demon it once was, so if we can just kill all the GREENS, or at least attack them leaving them so damaged that they might finally reconsider their stance, that if people are prepared to treat them with such contempt, then maybe, just maybe, they should drop their whole stupid mantra.
So I ask that everyone consider the NEW nuclear, or even thorium salt, as the power generators going forward.

Josephus thinks I want to write a book on ScuMo being in The Lodge instead of make book.

God bless his little heart.

Mr O, now you've reached your natural and obvious low brow bogan level.
If your going to insult or abuse do it like a man.
Frankly your childish, churlish manner is not welcome here.
We all throw sh!t at each other, as and when, but you, you just keep on, and I'm wondering if you suffer from some mental abnormality, like that Swedish maggot.
If so then I apologise and simply ask/suggest, politely that you tone it down a little, or save it for when someone attacks you, the moderators may feel you were justified under those circumstances, but if not and this IS your normal level of social interaction and intercourse then I must give you a heads up, you WILL be reported.

ALTRAV,

For the second time, STOP READING MY COMMENTS.

"Alan has been promoting thorium, and for the life of me I don't know why it has not been given a research grant 50 years ago."

Thorium WAS given a small grant over 50 years ago, but they shut it down exactly 50 years ago this Christmas just gone.

JFK and Jackie toured this reactor.

http://energyfromthorium.com/2019/12/24/msre-shutdown-50th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

MrO, now you are being delusional, actually thinking that I would ever take an order from someone with such an unhinged and emotionally compromised mind and twisted attitude such as you have continually demonstrated.
It is clear, you have issues.
For that I can sympathise, but if you think I'm going to do ANYTHING you might suggest, you only confirm your level of mental incompetency.
No Mr O, I in fact will be looking even closer at your submissions, as I hope and suspect, will the moderator as well.
So carry on by all means, this just might get interesting and you will end up being kicked off by your own hand.

One of the oldest scientific organisations, the Royal Society, has a climate statement below. (But of course, "They" have bought them all out and threatened their wives and children! ;-) )
__________________________________

The clearest evidence for surface warming comes from widespread thermometer records. In some places, these records extend back to the late 19th century. Today, temperatures are monitored at many thousands of locations, over both the land and ocean surface. Indirect estimates of temperature change from such sources as tree rings and ice cores help to place recent temperature changes in the context of the past. In terms of the average surface temperature of Earth, these indirect estimates show that 1983 to 2012 was probably the warmest 30-year period in more than 800 years.

A large amount of observational evidence besides the temperature records shows that Earth’s climate is changing. For example, additional evidence of a warming trend can be found in the dramatic decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice at its summer minimum (which occurs in September), decrease in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the global average upper ocean (upper 700 m or 2300 feet) heat content (shown relative to the 1955–2006 average), and in sea-level rise. Source: NOAA climate.gov (larger version)

A wide range of other observations provides a more comprehensive picture of warming throughout the climate system. For example, the lower atmosphere and the upper layers of the ocean have also warmed, snow and ice cover are decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking, and sea level is rising (see Figure 1b). These measurements are made with a variety of monitoring systems, which gives added confidence in the reality that Earth’s climate is warming.

http://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/

Max, thanks for that, I really appreciate it.
So tell me do you know the real reason the MSRE project was shut down?
I am a cynic and rarely accept the reasons given by those who stood to gain by a particular situation.
For what little I know about MSRE, I could not find fault, and yes my knowledge and understanding of this concept is slightly more than domestic, but certainly not at a level of technical discussions unless they are in domestic terms.
If you have any further info I'd appreciate it, as I have always believed that if the public won't accept conventional or historical nuclear power plants, then surely MSRE is the obvious, other semi-nuclear choice.

Come off the raw prawn Greeny.

Those temperature records stretch all the way back to the last homogenisation or correction, which ever came last.

Prey tell Greeny, are you a gravy train rider, or just another useful idiot?

For a moment I thought Max was suggesting something useful, but I see he has returned to scare tactics. It is a pity1

ALTRAV,

You are right I cannot stop you from reading my comments.

Just keep in mind that everything and anything I write or have ever written on this website and any comments I have made on this website are and have only ever been intended for my eyes only.

Josephus, you are amazing, Max puts up a reasonable piece from 'The Royal Society', you lampoon him for it, I expect that from 'No Brains' Hasbeen. Yet you are one of those half wits who believes biblical BS like Noah and his ark, is a literally true climate event in world history. At what age did the religious fundos get inside your head to convince you to believe in nonsense?

Paul1405, Max made suggestions on how to deal with less polluting electricity generation; which is a positive step toward dealing with climate change. As far as a previous Earth flood, your mob are claiming that will happen again, so if we are to be saved from the flood you need to be building a boat. The flood story is a universal story even in primitive tribes and the early Chinese language tells the story.
Newton suggests it did happen.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

MrO, I don't know what to say, because I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Jokes and pokes aside, I don't know what you mean.
You see, I'm a bit thick and don't get sarcasm or innuendo, never have.
I lack the ability to understand jibes or quips.
Anyway, the problem with your statement, from my understanding of it, is that, this is a social medium, and as such once you write something and post it, all those people who are logged onto that thread will see what you wrote.
You see, that's the way it works.
There is NO option for writing something on OLO and only you can read it.
Well there is if you don't log on.
But hey, carry on, I obviously have misunderstood you.

Hi ALTRAV,

The Molten Salt Reactor didn't get further R&D because:-

1. Nixon
It was being shut down to fund a much bigger MSR experiment, but Nixon diverted funding from it to another breeder reactor for political reasons and jobs in seats that would help political mates. In video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI

(Funding eventually went to the INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR that uses sodium as a coolant. Still a very good reactor, but of course, sodium is explosive if in contact with water and we don't want that! But I'm still sure the Integral Fast Reactor he funded would have survived a power outage like the Fukushima diesel generators being knocked out. Here is ACTUAL footage of the Integral Fast Reactor running a complete Fukushima style power outage! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU&feature=emb_logo )

2. Cold War
The MSR by products are much harder to reprocess into bomb grade material. The Cold War was raging, and getting as much weapons-grade plutonium as you could was the pissing contest between the Soviet Union and USA. The military wanted regular and fast reactors, not thermal MSR's.

Interestingly, the Megatons to Megawatts program saw the bankrupted Soviet union selling a bunch of their weapons grade material to the USA for America to burn in her reactors! Apparently 10% of America was running on old Soviet bombs for 20 years, equivalent to running the WHOLE of Australia on old nuclear warheads for 2 decades!

A STAGGERING amount of bomb grade stuff was burned!

"A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants."

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

Just shows how much you have to dilute Highly Enriched to Low Enriched if 500 tonnes becomes 15,000!

Josephus,
I know the head of Moore College's Old Testament department, Dr Andrew Shead. He tells his students that the flood narrative is in full blown Ancient Middle-Eastern (AME) Cosmology, complete with a flat-earth, the heavenly spheres holding back the waters of heaven, and actual floodgates that had to open for all that water to flow through to cover the highest mountains.

He also tells me he thinks there was an actual Noah, and some sort of boat. But the creative narrative structure of Genesis 1-11 was written with theological messages in mind, in a symbolic narrative that takes the literal events and dresses them up in a *literary* format that was far more colourful and theologically important. Dr Shead said there was a Noah and some sort of boat and some animals from the region on that boat. Scientifically the flood was probably one of the heavy regional floods in the Middle East. But rather than just have Noah walk out of the region, God wanted Noah to trust him and build a boat.

Today we are all engineering and empiricism, but we're missing the point of the passage if we approach it this way. It's BASED on a real (probably local event), but DRESSED UP in AME Cosmology metaphors.

It's the same with Genesis 1. For example, if you read, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!" hopefully you don't react all scientifically and shout "Boo! Boo! Juliete is *not* a giant ball of super-heated fusing hydrogen!" Trashing early Genesis with *science* is simply missing the genre. It's a theological polemic correcting the theological claims of the creation myths of surrounding cultures, not a literal engineering manual of what God made on what day.

Dr John Dickson, Phd in history and theology, explains further. http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

My point? You don't need to fear the old earth that climate science might indicate. Christians are free to believe both the bible and modern science.

This is a repeat which may inform some on here.

The amazing lack of knowledge of the emergency management structure
is something that will need attention.
The ridiculous criticism of the PM over the announcement of the Federal
government setting up a new organisation was amazing.
Anyone with any nous would know that the PM has to first inform the State Premiers.
He does not run around telling public servants first.
Where the PM can be criticised is that he did not give enough time for
the information to be disseminated by the Premier.
The TV is always on in Emergency Management Control centres so they
saw the public announcement and got their knickers in a twist.
The announcement does not have an immeadiate affect as most defense
assets were already in the field and the 3000 would take a day or two
to be organised.
They will not be firefighters but will be organised for the recovery.
Still, you don't criticise the commissioner as he is under significant
strain and may have been up all night. Reading between the lines I
think he understood the situation.

Every District and Local area has an Emergency Management Committee
which does not control Response function as that is the job or
whichever combat organisation is activated.
Currently it is the RFS.
There is a Disaster Plan, known as Displan.
It has three components, Preparation, Response ans Recovery.
We are currently mostly in Response mode but starting to activate recovery.
The committees provide anything the combat organisation requests,
food, buses for evacuation, communications support, such as the
organisation to which I belong that has sent a small team to Bega to
provide communication services.

It is a bit like a swan, gliding along on the surface but a hive of activity underneath.
Most of the activity never gets seen on TV.

Hey Max Green and Josephus,

http://youtu.be/oDoM4BmoDQM
This video discusses a flood in northern Africa and the destruction of Atlantis.
It also mentions evidence for this flood.

The bushires are a gift for the Left, thriving as they do on fear-mongering. They are playing on the fears and confusion provided by the current conflagration, creating the fiction that they would do things better if they were in charge; at the same time thanking their lucky stars that they are not in charge right now. It’s much easier to sit back and throw muck when you have no responsibility whatever.

TTBN,
want to pick up the science of what we were discussing last before you go hurling ridiculous insults around?

See, there was this story called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." It's about a kid that lied, and kept trying to get attention about a wolf coming, and then when the wolf came no one believed him and the wolf ate him.

But here's the problem.

People THINK the climate scientists have made all these false predictions, but the climate science actually checks out.

Deniers THINK the climate scientists are the boy who cried wolf 3 or 4 times before, and so we can ignore them now.

But the climate science actually checks out!

Deniers THINK this is just another instance of the climatologists crying wolf, but they never did before. They warned that they had seen wolves in the area. They warned that there WERE wolves, and that they would be here soon. But they had NEVER said the wolf was already in the village. But in these fires, we can hear the wolf howling off in the distance. Some have seen him up close and personal in their villages!

So it turns out there are 2 morals of that story.
1. Don't lie, or it may come back to bite you.
2. If someone cries wolf ALWAYS go and check or people die!

I have no interest in battling egos and small minds.

Or discussing science, it seems.
As long as you're being *honest*. ;-)

Increasing the absorption of CO2 by one percent would totally offset net human CO2 emissions, yet there are fewer than a hundred scientists world wide considering how this might be achieved. Most of the research is by computer modelling as any attempt to conduct field research is howled down by protestors. Why would the true believers refuse to investigate the validity of the only means of offsetting carbon emissions within a short time frame?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

FESTER
Some might, but I don't rule out geoengineering.

I just don't think it's as economical as not burning coal in the first place when nuclear power comes in cheaper than coal by avoiding all coal's health costs, which double the real cost of coal. But then when you add geoengineering it looks like this:-

LET ALONE BUILDING A HUGE CO2 RECOVERY SYSTEM on TOP of:-
1. PAYING FOR COAL
2. PAYING FOR COAL's PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT
3. PAYING FOR CO2 TO BE SCRUBBED OUT OF THERE WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE JUST AVOIDED BURNING COAL IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I mean, all that makes nuclear a complete bargain!

Youtuber "Answers with Joe" will be covering CO2 recovery and sequestration techniques this year, so I'll no doubt learn more as time goes on. Youtube "Real Engineering" said there are some possibly exciting technologies on the horizon.

But it all comes at a cost, and as coal kills 3 million people a year and is bad for us and ultimately is finite, why not just switch to nuclear now?

Max, if you don't mind, I'll forgo the lecture on how many people are being killed by coal.
3,000,000 a year?
Really?
You see Max this is why I and others like me refuse to accept all this climate HOO HAA.
It's just too ridiculous to believe.
And this is the theme throughout this whole campaign, scare mongering.
Oceans rising here but not there.
Water temp rising here but not there,
I'm sorry but all the modelling and theories in the world do not match the truth.
I have read some truths, they are those things that take the facts and put them in their proper place, and the truth will automatically follow.
CO2 is an essential gas, it is not the culprit it is touted to be, we need it, in fact the guy that started all this said himself that we need CO2, its a good gas and will help re-vegetate the globe if allowed.
There are just too many flaws in the GW, CC thing that is going on right now.
Too many questions, and too many people willing to accept whatever lies are put in front of them, instead of asking questions or doing their own research.

Max,

By the reckoning of climate change advocates, nuclear, or any other low emission technology, wouldn't change things for generations. Understanding the carbon cycle is of far greater importance. I favour ocean fertilisation as it has the potential to lock up CO2 as carbonates, generate cloud and rainfall (absorbing further CO2 if the rain falls on land), and feed marine life, so potentially delivering an economic benefit from increased fish catches. Further, it is relatively inexpensive and simple to implement. Would it work? Who knows, but every time someone wants to test the idea they are howled down by screaming environmentalists and the regulators get cold feet.

Cheers

the bottom line is you need to be extremely dumb or deceitful to think man can control the climate.

runner, good for you, I've said exactly the same thing before.
I hope more people keep driving this point home, and just maybe we can put reason and common sense back in front again and not this BS, and lies, we are being subjected to.

'Beam up me Scotty.'

Craig Kelly on the spot:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/good-morning-britain-host-piers-morgan-rips-into-prime-minister-scott-morrison-over-bushfire-response/news-story/ab36d90238a1a357dc155c500fdd4d9f

Don't you just love it when Craig Kelly tries to tell Piers Morgan that this environmental crisis is just natural and we get it all the time.

'Beam up me Scotty!'

Küresel &#305;s&#305;nma ile ilgili tüm devletlerin kat&#305;l&#305;m&#305;yla yap&#305;labilecek ortak bir çal&#305;&#351;ma ile daha h&#305;zl&#305; sonuç al&#305;nabilir.

"the bottom line is you need to be extremely dumb or deceitful to think man can control the climate."

So fifty million years ago a little arctic fern can reduce atmospheric CO2 from 3600ppm to 600ppm and bring the age of greenhouse earth to a close, yet over seven billion intelligent human beings are kidding themselves if they believe they can influence the weather?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-the-fern-that-cooled-the-planet-do-it-again/

Don't blame "The Greens" for fuel management in the bush because it's not even a political decision! The Firies themselves are in charge of this. By thumping the arm of your chair and chanting "They should have burned off!" you may in fact be blaming the very Firies you thank with your next breath. The Firies are in charge of this, and they said it was too dry to burn when they normally do and wanted to speak to our Prime Minister about this back in winter. He rejected their calls for a meeting.
http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-fire-brigade-dispels-the-rumour-that-greens-are-to-blame-for-bushfires-20200105

Max Green looks like being the new Foxy, in which case we just have to wait a while for him to go 'pop' and depart. He is running neck and neck with Mr. Have-I-Told-You-About-My-Degrees?

Remember all the exhortations from the tree huggers to plant more trees? There was a mania for tree planting to help the environment. Now the trees are burning. Native trees, particularly the 600 or so different eucalyptus, with their inflammable oil, are one of the main reasons for Australia's inevitable bush fires; constantly shedding leaves and bark, adding to the fuel load that Max and The Greens (good name for a band) don't want cleared.

We need to think about this 'suicide by tree planting' business.

merve002,

Can't argue with that :)

Some of us have been following this global cooling, global warming, climate change , ozone layer hysteria for many decades. If it was even partly true none of us would be here today. Wake up stupid!

Runner wrote: "the bottom line is you need to be extremely dumb or deceitful to think man can control the climate."

What if we NUKE OURSELVES? Yes, just as Mt Pinatubo blew all that muck up high in the air and lowered global temperatures...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects

... so too nuclear bombs could slow down global warming. Indeed, Scientific American published a study that said just a small exchange of 25 Hiroshima sized nukes from Pakistan and the same from India (total of 50) would delay global warming a decade! If we REALLY went at it in a BIG exchange between Russia and America and China, the Northern Hemisphere would hit an ice age in a nuclear winter, and BILLIONS would starve to death!

Nasty scenarios.

But the same science of Solar Radiation Management could be used directly. SRM is the SAME SCIENCE that generated the FALSE 1970's warnings that an Ice Age was coming. It was a valid scientific question, but the maths was wrong, and the scientist involved recanted his paper within a few years. The vast majority of climate papers from the 70's predicted warming.

We could pump dust up long hoses attached to huge balloons, or just fly wide-winged jets up 20km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

The problem? If try to get rid of ALL our man-made warming this way, we could cancel the Indian monsoon and a billion Asians go without water for crops.

Or as Fester says, we could sequester CO2 in ocean fertilisation (which I would love to see trailed more, despite whatever Naomi Klein says) or even Tim Flannery's giant seaweed farms idea, which also stimulates the ocean food chain and could feed a world of 10 billion all the seafood they could eat. http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/saving-the-oceans/

Why? Because it lowers CO2.
Because CO2 traps heat.
This is science.

Seriously RUNNER, have you read this?
"I’m a Climate Scientist Who Believes in God. Hear Me Out. Global warming will strike hardest against the very people we’re told to love: the poor and vulnerable. Dr. Hayhoe is a professor and co-directs the Climate Center at Texas Tech University."
http://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/sunday/climate-change-evangelical-christian.html

I don't know why people are so lazy.
They are prepared to accept a convenient lie than to look for the truth.
Of course intensity, severity of these current fires are directly due to the GREENS, and no one else.
I don't care what smart arse attention seeking idiots with personal agenda think or say, they are irrelevant to the facts or in fact anything they themselves are not a party to.
So when dick wads like Piers Morgan et al, try to make out they know anything about anything, I would be the first one to point out that their job is reading a cue card, that's it.
They are experts at NOTHING, their personal opinion is a total irrelevance and they should be reminded of that.
As for trying to score brownie points by attempting to put a minister of a foreign govt down, based on his personal opinion of the matter, rates the guy as low as you can get.
Now if you're going to believe everything you read and hear, then I am going to balance the debate back into the realm of truth:
The GREENS ARE responsible for this disaster.
The PM did NOT fly out of the country ignoring the fires.
Once the status of the fires had been determined and accepted as such, then and only then, does the appropriate chain of command inform the PM, in accordance with proto-col.
The PM knows that this GW, CC BS is a beat-up, and I think he knows why too.
He, like most other leaders are advised to go along with the peoples mood, or at least to be seen to, if they want to retain their status, and all it's perks.
That's OK, because he knows things we don't and he doesn't dare go against public opinion, even though he knows the public is wrong.
So the reason the GREENS are responsible for this disaster is because labor needed to ensure their success at the ballot box, in doing so they preferenced the GREENS, and that is how it all started to go wrong.

The Greens are certainly behind the ferocity of bushfires - impeding proper land management, clearing and burn offs. But what about the moronic politicians who didn't have the guts to tell them where to go? The Greens are only a miserable minority, after all. There is far too much pandering to freaks and minorities in Australia. What the Greens have been allowed to get with is a disgrace. These fires will not be forgotten in a hurry; nor should the Green's contribution to them be forgotten by the major parties and the electorate.

Of course the fact that the vast majority of fires are lit by arsonist is ignored by the alarmist. If they were truely alarmed the arsonist would give them something concrete to deal with. But no keep up the hopelessly flawed narrative. By the way. Is the rain in Broome cause by man made climate change. If not why not as every event is interpreted by the alarmist through a false narrative.

THE GREENS DID IT?

Oh wow, you guys are just sooooooo duuuummmmb!

1. WHO IS IN CHARGE?

You guys sound like you don’t even know how the country you live in WORKS? Don't blame "The Greens" — it's just not a political power that authorises fuel reduction burns.

"He said the suggestion that The Greens had a “controlling voice or are an influence in any way” was not true. “It’s sort of wishful thinking because the reality is the Greens don’t have much power over fire management,” he said."
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/the-debate-over-hazard-reduction-burns-after-catastrophic-fires/news-story/c06b3e6f9bc7429128d03bdf18a40486

Fuel management burns are the responsibility of State public servants in Parks & Wildlife or Fire Agencies themselves.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction
http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-fire-brigade-dispels-the-rumour-that-greens-are-to-blame-for-bushfires-20200105
http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-programs/hazard-reduction-program
http://parks.des.qld.gov.au/managing/pdf/fire-mgmt-brochure.pdf

2. THE SCIENCE SAYS SOMETIMES BURNING DOESN'T WORK!
Uninformed broad-scale hazard reduction burns can change ecosystems, threaten species, and make future fires hotter!
http://theconversation.com/our-land-is-burning-and-western-science-does-not-have-all-the-answers-100331
http://theconversation.com/a-surprising-answer-to-a-hot-question-controlled-burns-often-fail-to-slow-a-bushfire-127022
Paragraph B of 1939 Royal Commission, here.
http://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leonard_Stretton-1939_Bush_Fires_Royal_Commission_Report.pdf

3. LIBERAL GOVERNMENT RECALCITRANCE!

The retired Fire Chief's with many lifetimes experience between them tried to meet with Scott Morrison back in April and May 2019, and warn him that these fires would be unlike anything Australia had EVER seen in scale, and were asking for more services and aircraft. They were rejected.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/former-fire-chief-calls-out-pm-over-refusal-of-meeting/11705330

A strong negative Southern Annular Mode was detected in Sept 2019.
http://theconversation.com/a-hot-and-dry-australian-summer-means-heatwaves-and-fire-risk-ahead-127990

EVEN IN DECEMBER SCOTT MORRISON ACTED LIKE EVERYTHING WAS NORMAL!

10th December 2019: "The prime minister has rejected calls for more help for firefighters as the New South Wales bushfire crisis is expected to worsen.... Asked about concerns over how long the tens of thousands of volunteer firefighters – many who have been away from work for weeks now – were expected to continue without pay, Morrison said they “want to be there”.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/10/scott-morrison-rejects-calls-for-more-help-saying-volunteer-firefighters-want-to-be-there

So DO THE MATH! Whose fault is it really, hmmmm?

you really think quoting news.com and the guardian gives your posts any credibility Max? They would of been the same fools criticising Tony Abbott when he was out fighting fires.

btw any reports on the abc of Tony Abbott putting his life at risk to save homes? Thought not, to busy with its idiotic attacks on Morrison who they see to think can make it rain. The regressives love causing havoc and blaming everyone else. The only mistake Morrison has made is not to stand up to these Green hypocrites. He could certainly learn a few things from Trump.

RUNNER - arsonist's can't start fires in the rain, can they?
Read my links above. SCOMO and his team ignored ALL the signs that this year was going to be the worst!

TTBN — you ought to be ashamed, and don't know how this country's government services are structured and have bought into a retarded National Party leader's conspiracy theory mantra, from a guy who can't keep it in his pants!

ALTRAV - ditto to the above!

You people are a joke, and are seriously dragging this forum's IQ down.

Honestly Altrav, once you had your petty little rant above did you bang the arms of your armchair and declare "My word! My word!" the way a stubborn old grandpappy out of a western might?

If you just say it to yourself 4 times it MUST be true, hey! (Winks.)

Except you lot are constitutionally ignorant and departmentally challenged.

You just don't know how this country works.

Ignorant little pissants.

'RUNNER - arsonist's can't start fires in the rain, can they?'

are you sure Max. Have you considered that you need rain for fuel to grow.

"TTBN — you ought to be ashamed, and don't know how this country's government services are structured and have bought into a retarded National Party leader's conspiracy theory mantra, from a guy who can't keep it in his pants!"

I'm certainly ashamed of you, Max. You lie about about the Greens culpability; you lie about a connection between climate change and bushfires. To cut a long story short, there's not much you don't lie about.

I'm also ashamed of an education system that has taught you to spray such gibberish by the yard, with yards more of references to people just like you. You and people like you - all the dupes of fraudsters -are a greater threat to Australia than natural phenomena that you don't understand.

Blah blah blah, assertion assertion assertion.

But where the heck is the evidence, Dude?

I'm not lying.

I just think I'm write.

To change my mind I need one thing.

Evidence.

Answer these 3 questions:

1. WHO IS IN CHARGE?
2. WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY ABOUT THE SUCCESS OR OTHERWISE OF FUEL REDUCTION?
3. WAS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT WARNED?

I need evidence.

I have changed my mind before. 12 years ago I was anti-nuclear. It was a forum (a bit like this, but, you know, unlike this in that it was actually SMART) that changed my mind.

It can happen.

But I need EVIDENCE.

Without that you're just another annoying little piss-ant whining that I won't buy the shiny tinfoil hat you're trying to sell.

See, it's ACTUALLY a State government AGENCY that determines whether or not we burn off, isn't it? Not political parties! Until you can show me, with references, that "The Greens" had any power to interrupt these state agencies, you're just a whining little beeeatch!

I mentioned Max's verbosity in my last post, and here he is, trying to drown us in a sea of words again. I have always been of the opinion that you should use the fewest words possible to get you message across. That is, get to the point before you put people to sleep. Verbosity is also often used to hide the truth.

As 19th Century novelist, Honere de Balzac, wrote: "A flow of words is a sure sign of duplicity".

Max, was it not the greens who have always preached against logging, land clearing and so on?
Labor made the decision to bring them on board (preferences) and they were blackmailed into adopting some of their policies, or they would not back some of labor policies.
And so it is that the greens ARE responsible for this catastrophe.
If it makes you feel better, we'll add the labor party as co-conspirators and therefore equally guilty.
Federal govt makes the decisions about matters like Crown land.
The states make the decisions about how to execute the decision made by the feds.
If Morrison ignored the request made by a govt department, the info must have been flawed or inconclusive for him to reject it.
If that is truly what happened and not some greens trying to get the blame shifted away from them.
I'm still trying to work out how "keeping it in his pants", and global warming are connected.
Although I am curious as to where you are headed with that one.
Anyway, as for knowing how govts work, it sounds like we just might know enough to know BS when we hear it.

TTBN & ALTRAV,

TTBN: I said a lot of words. Lots of true words, with facts attached with verifying links and government sources. You said a lot of words about my words, but contributed no evidence.

Grow up, be RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN POSITION LIKE A MAN, and do your own damn homework. Justify your own positions with reasonable arguments and facts and verifying links. Or, if you can't handle the heat, just get out of the kitchen Dorothy. OK? Now just click your ruby slippers together and recite 3 times, "There are no State government agencies..." and this pesky sensation of being wrong will soon go away.

ALTRAV,
The Greens might have protested against logging in old growth forests to protect biodiversity, and for that, I salute them! They may have raised particular ecosystems as particularly unsuitable for fuel reduction burns, and for that I salute them! The 1939 Royal Commission found some bushlands get WORSE when you burn them too much!

“Federal govt makes the decisions about matters like Crown land.”
Hazard Reduction burns? Got any evidence for that?

“The states make the decisions about how to execute the decision made by the feds.”
Hazard Reduction burns? Got any evidence for that?

“Anyway, as for knowing how govts work, it sounds like we just might know enough to know BS when we hear it.”
Yeah, sure! ;-) It actually sounds like you’ve been caught rubbing peanut butter all over Mr Winky! Let me remind you how the world works, with something we call EVIDENCE!

“Political parties of any denomination do NOT influence the decisions of organisations like FRNSW, ACT Fire and Rescue, ACT and NSW Rural Fire Services and Parks and Wildlife Services when choosing when and how to do Hazard Reduction burns. It just doesn’t work like that. The main reason Hazard Reduction burns are cancelled or delayed is due to the predicted intensity of the burn exceeding the limits that would make it safe for firefighters, native flora and fauna and obviously you wonderful people.”
FRNSW Station 428, Queanbeyan
https://www.facebook.com/groups/951618864874073/permalink/2735127049856570/

Just read this article:

As 6 Million Hectares of Australia Burned, Seven Times the Size of Amazon Fires, Germany Acted

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/as-6-million-hectares-of-australia-burned-seven-times-the-size-of-amazon-fires-germany-acted/news-story/e802e7344f5ce54b35bc31c13ec30f01

I thought great some other country just up and took the initiative without asking;
Maybe they sent some water bombers or something to help us out.

- I should've known better than to think that...

Have they trialed explosive charges to fight bush fires?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/22/fighting-wildfires-explosives-australia/9392851/

"And who knows what the rest of summer might bring?" (From The Mercury article).

But, hang on. Haven't the warmist told us that they know what is going to happen?

"The fires have led to social disruption on a wartime scale."

Oh, come on! The current fires are worse than many people have seen in their short lifetimes, but they are in no way comparable with warfare. The writer of the article, Peter Boyer, clearly has not seen much warfare either.

Just more emotional, headless-chook bullshite from the gutter press.

"Climate hysteria conveniently absolves green academics from culpability for the human, environmental and economic disasters that they HAVE VISITED ON AUSTRALIA through their bad advice to governments on land and fire management. ('Firestick Ecology' by Vic Jurskis, veteran forester and fire expert).

The real tragedy is that as horrendous as these fires are, it is still not enough to make the policy/decision makers sit up, listen to people who actually know what's needed to prevent a recurrence.
No, as per perpetual ignorance/arrogance, they will again consult 'experts' on whose advise they'll again pay them insane amounts of tax Dollars to achieve the standard Nothing !
I think it's high time we, the public, demand that these bureaucrats be made accountable & if found guilty of failing, they be dismissed without payouts !
This would bring insurance premiums down to affordability !

I'm buying one of them 'Thunberg Generators'...runs on hot air & rhetoric - should be a winner !

Albie, order me one to, would you.
Thanks mate.

Now Max the axe.
You really are an extremely annoying person, by continually asking for evidence, WTF makes you an authority on anything.
I could not care less about evidence or facts, because there are too many lies being quoted as facts, and too much evidence is fabricated or twisted to suite the wrong agenda.
Just accept the FACT that there are those amongst us who are a little more aware and suspicious about so many things and people in life.
We have read and learned enough of the 'non-mainstream news' to know when something doesn't quite add up.
Personally I couldn't give a rats what NASA or anyone who stands to gain financially from a situation, has to say.
And before you flap on any further about evidence or proof or links or whatever.
Unless you are personally involved, first hand, with anything you try to push onto the rest of us, just shut up, because you are no more or less informed than the rest of us.
The difference is that morons like you will believe anything you see or hear, where-as we won't.
We are more pragmatic, objective and mature enough to know, you NEVER believe or take anything at face value.
People like you that do are, subjective, immature, gullible and naive, just to mention a few faults inherent in you and your lot.
So if you want to continue contributing to this medium, take it down a notch or two, you are getting too close to the sun, which means you are at risk of crashing and burning.
If someone doesn't report you, the moderators are watching, and they won't hesitate to knock you off your perch.
You want evidence for what I just wrote?
Keep it up, and you'll get all the evidence you seek, and then we'll see if I know what I'm talking about or not.
Oh yes, that's right, political parties DO influence the organisations you mentioned, and more, why?
Because they are the govt, you know the mob that runs Australia.

individual,

You were going to get back to me to tell me why it is that you know about all of those Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.

We can ask each other questions and have a good old chat between the two of us.

Of course, when you say you know about this stuff I'm assuming you have an Arts degree. I mean you're not going to try and pull the wool over my eyes by saying you know about this stuff because you have a degree in engineering or law or accounting or architecture or some other vocational area?

I'm all ears, start talking.

Of course if you don't come up with anything convincing then I can only assume that what you have told me is just one big lie.

Poor RUNNER is reduced to just attacking my sources "The Guardian" and "News.com", without really showing why (other than sheer bias) he will not accept the inconvenient truths from these sources.

So, what if I quote that Watermelon (SO Green on the outside, so Red on the inside!) ALAN JONES? Yeah, that 'climate change is crap' guy that tries to argue with the science by quoting Australia's 1.3% of global carbon emissions.

That guy. What "Green Left" conspiracy is he promoting? (I'm joking of course!)

"Even Alan Jones - the conservative radio host who is no friend of the left - this week said the Greens have been "unfairly blamed"."

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/is-more-prescribed-burning-the-answer-to-bushfire-threat

Also, what the HELL kind of science is this? "are you sure Max. Have you considered that you need rain for fuel to grow." D'uh! Talk about diversion and sheer dumbassness. If this is going to be the quality of your posts from now, I'm pretty sure you're not worth replying to any more. It's just too dumb to demand my time. When are you going to learn to THINK!?

'Beam up me Scotty!'

http://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2018/nov/27/scott-morrison-tells-kids-going-on-climate-strike-to-get-back-to-school-video

Sorry, was that you individual just saying that one doesn't learn anything about history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc., by doing an Arts degree?

Or was that Shadow Minister, Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth, Bazz and runner saying it?

ALTRAV,

“>WTF makes you an authority on anything.”

I’m not. The people I quote are the ‘authorities’, like the Fire Station I quoted saying “It’s not the Greens fault” because they know Grandpappy’s like yourself are chanting “It’s the Greens, it’s the Greens” and slamming the arm of your armchair and saying “My word” to yourself and backslapping any fellow tinfoil hat retards that chant the same crap.

Even Alan Jones is sick of it!
>Even Alan Jones - the conservative radio host who is no friend of the left - this week said the Greens have been "unfairly blamed".
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/is-more-prescribed-burning-the-answer-to-bushfire-threat

> We have read and learned enough of the 'non-mainstream news' to know when something doesn't quite add up.
Ha ha ha! I love how you quote tinfoil hat websites as a better authority than REAL news and REAL scientific sites!

Oh cry me a river will you, you poor right-wing version of a snowflake! Stop whining for respect and EARN my respect by being a badass blogger that HAS A FRIGGIN CLUE and supporting evidence.

Now, before you go changing the topic to NASA, I'll just remind you where we are.

WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RUN HAZARD REDUCTION BURNS?
The Greens? Or the State Agencies?
It’s not hard!

A little evidence on how this country actually WORKS would be good!

>We are more pragmatic, objective and mature enough to know, you NEVER believe or take anything at face value.

Yeah. Now even the FRNSW services are “in on it” by openly stating The Greens don’t have authority to run a burn! Don't take our Firies as authorities! They're in on it, I tell you! (Dumbass!)

ALTie old cock, I thought you and I had got off on a good foot for 2020, but alas I see you have slipped back into your Il Duuce fascists outfit once more and are spruiking more rabid right wing nonsense like "The Greens are responsible for the bushfires!"

I can't have you spreading fraudulent lies like that old cock, without giving you a decent ticking off. Firstly put down your copy of 'Mein Kampf', I know it was personally autographed by your good mate, and he was by a very dear friend, who taught you everything you know, but listen to me you old cock get your facts correct before coming on here again and trying to spread spurious lies! Otherwise you will find yourself once more hanging upside down in the village square!

Paul and Max, You are both cherry picking "facts".
I make it clear that the GREENS ARE to blame.
I don't care what some shock jock said, or anyone not directly involved with the issues, he like the rest of politics follows the money, the rest are just opinions, based on nothing at all.
I don't give references and links and evidence because it is those very things that are written to cater to particular agenda.
Why is it when I do make a point or give a reason, you lot conveniently deflect or ignore it altogether only to come back with the same old crap, again and again.
You see, unfortunately, all your lot are just as guilty as us because as I have said, unless you were actually part of what you preach, you are merely giving an opinion.
The examples I give are rare because I rarely come across material that even remotely sounds believable. I mentioned previously how NASA wrote how the earth was increasing it's 'greening' footprint, which was attributed to the CO2 levels.
This was taken as a good thing, even though it came as somewhat a surprise.
So you see I look for the contradictions in cases such as this.
They are few and far between but they exist, so before I run off screaming that the world is going to end, if I think it's a load of BS, then I start to question the BS, and if I find ANY anomaly I WILL report it.
So you keep on believing your BS, and I'll keep on finding the truth.

Let us put the blame for the fires on the arsonists. They should be publicly named and shamed and incarcerated for life if they have been responsible for causing a death, directly from smoke or burns, or indirectly from causing restrictive access to a patient needing urgent medical attention.

Most of us have gas or fuel in our homes that is highly combustible but we do not deliberately throw flames into the canister. Combustible material will not burn unless lit, or exposed to a flash point. We should know if those arsonists are linked by an idea or purpose; if so it should be exposed. Tasmania and Kangaroo Island are not in the line of the extreme temperatures of central Australia.

It was Tasmania's warmest January since records began with many warm days, and only a few cool days, the main feature of the month
The mean temperature for the month was 2.50 °C above average, clear of the previous record from 1961 when the anomaly was +2.24 °C
Daytime temperatures were record warm, ranging between 22C and 28C with the State's mean maximum temperature 3.22 °C above average, exceeding January 1961 when the anomaly was +2.99 °C

Tasmania missed most of the extreme heat that affected the mainland.

180 arsonists have been arrested since the start of the bushfires. How much CO2 needs to be removed to stop arson?

Josephus, the reason behind these temperatures, which by the way, are not indicative of anything, are due to a 'shift' or anomaly in that the weather patterns haven't changed but shifted Eastwards.
We, on the other hand are experiencing cooler weather than normal.
The kinds of weather/temperatures you are experiencing in the East are exactly what we are used to.
For reasons known only to the earth and maybe a handful of scientists, the earth has slowly revolved within it's own skin, if I may use that description.
So NO GLOBAL WARMING or CLIMATE CHANGE.
If there is any evidence that things are heating up on a global scale then it has to do with much greater and stronger influences than merely burning of fossil fuels.
I can imagine if that were the case then the meters would be off the charts over this current catastrophe.
I would like to see the readings after a few months when all this settles down again, I'll bet there will be nothing to report.

ALTRAV,
> you are merely giving an opinion.
Oh, so Grandpappy says it's MY OPINION that State agencies are responsible for Hazard Reduction burns? (Then slaps his armchair, "My word! My word!")
_________________________________________________

Managing fire-prone NSW national parks requires a three-pronged approach, including fire planning, community education, and fuel management. When it comes to fuel like dead wood, NPWS conducts planned hazard reduction activities like mowing and controlled burning to assist in the protection of life, property and community.A hazard reduction burn is a fire ignited by management and controlled to burn in a predetermined area under specific weather conditions to attain planned fuel management outcomes. Hazard reduction burning – sometimes called planned burning or prescribed burning – reduces the overall fuel hazard in strategic areas of a park and can significantly reduce fire behaviour, aiding fire suppression efforts and helping to protect life and property. Through the Enhanced Bushfire Management Program (EBMP), NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) will treat over 135,000ha per year in 800 or more planned hazard reduction activities. Achieving this is highly dependent on suitable weather conditions, given the narrow window of opportunity that exists in NSW for burning safely and effectively.
http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-programs/hazard-reduction-program
_________________________________________________
Hang on a minute, I'm sure they meant to say "The Greens"? Maybe NPWS are in on 'the conspiracy'? I'd better turn my tinfoil hat up to 11, because 'they' are in EVERY website!

Other than the usual suspects, the "bored" school children, arsonists, pyromaniacs etc who will, hopefully for the sake of those affected, be found and convicted - why has there been such a large scale fire threat on so many fronts in the wake of Greta Thunderpants ? Has there been an orchestrated event this summer and who exactly is behind it? In my lifetime there are several instances of events where extensive areas were burnt with loss of homes, businesses & lives. As bad as the current fires are, they have (as yet) not claimed as many houses or lives as did the respective fires of 1961, 1967, 1994, 2009 & 2013. These words (cut & pasted from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/agric/completed_inquiries/2008-10/bushfires/report/c02 ) echo today as they will in the ensuing state/territory inquiries & ineveitable Royal Commission...and I quote: " there has been grossly inadequate hazard reduction burning on public lands for far too long;
local knowledge and experience is being ignored by an increasingly top heavy bureaucracy;
when accessing the source of fires, volunteers are fed up with having their lives put at risk by fire trails that are blocked and left without maintenance;
there is a reluctance by state agencies to aggressively attack bushfires when they first start, thus enabling the fires to build in intensity and making them harder to control..." Start at the bottom where the local councils decide that a bicycle track going 10 kilometres out of town, leading to nowhere in particular is vastly more important to some or another bunch of "squeaky hinges" than a few lives saved by a fire crew able to access a small gully and put out a much smaller fire. No brainer really.

Albie, thank you, I find it a little tiresome that the group of virtuous no-nothings, keep hammering their points home with a constant barrage of convenient "facts", which when put to the test fall short because what they are pushing is not what they purport it to be, references or evidence backed.
We may never know who is guilty of lighting the fires, but we can all see the evidence ferocity of the fires, in front of our very eyes.
FUEL LOADS.
We don't know who did or said what, if anyone is truly guilty of this catastrophe, but unfortunately for the GREENS, we do know their politics and they have aggressively promoted saving forests and trees and stopping burn-offs as they were destructive to flora and fauna.
All this is on the record, so these alarmists can blame the record, if they dare try to refute this FACT.
Then we have the mental and emotional deficients, like the idiot woman on TV, crying over some damn kangaroos.
She does not realise that all of the transport and tourist industry and a majority of Australians are relieved and celebrating the fact that there will hopefully be fewer road deaths caused by these vermin who insist on engaging with motorists in fast moving vehicles on highways and roads in general.
I honestly believe there are people out there who would rather see a person die than an animal injured, let alone killed.
Unfortunately this tells us a great deal about Aussies and their priorities.
God help us all.

Hi Albie and Altrav,
The first point is to thank Ablie for confirming that STATE AGENCIES (not political parties) are in charge of fuel reduction. I’ll also freely admit they’ve not been funded enough under our Liberal governments!

Conservation concerns for some areas are legitimate. Not all Aussie Bush responds the same way to “Hazard Reduction” burns. Sometimes it will just make it worse! So even from a HAZARD REDUCTION point of view, there’s still way too much old-man armchair thumping going on here and not enough humility to try and get your heads around the complicated science. Ecosystems management is NOT the same as burning through all the fuel in your woodshed!

The 1939 Royal Commission findings:-
__________________________________
"The Condition of the Forests.—When the early settlers came to what is now this State, they found for the greater part a clean forest. Apparently, for many years before their arrival, the forest had not been scourged by fire. They were in their natural state. Their canopies had prevented the growth of scrub and bracken to any wide extent. They were open and traversible by men, beasts and wagons. Compared with their present condition, they were safe. But the white men introduced fire to the forests. They burned the floor to promote the growth of grass and to clear it of scrub which had grown where, for whatever reason, the balance of nature had broken down. The fire stimulated grass growth ; but it encouraged scrub growth far more. Thus was begun the cycle of destruction which can not be arrested in our day. The scrub grew and flourished, fire was used to clear it, the scrub grew faster and thicker, bush fires, caused by the careless or designing hand of man, ravaged the forests; the canopy was impaired, more scrub grew and prospered, and again the cleansing agent, fire, was used. And so to-day in places where our forefathers rode, driving their herds and flocks before them, the wombat and the wallaby are hard put to it to find passage through the bush."
http://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leonard_Stretton-1939_Bush_Fires_Royal_Commission_Report.pdf

Well Max, someone is not telling the truth.
The blacks used fire as part of their hunting proto-col, and lightening strikes were and still are the norm in this country, so I cannot take this 1939 report with any sense of confidence.
I will however listen to Joe (loudmouth) if he chooses to buy into this little debate.
As it stands for me, fires in this country are and have always been the norm, and once they start they keep going till they are stopped naturally, no matter how many acres or flora and fauna was torched.
So Joe, if your out there, I might ask if you would like to add some light to this 1939 Royal Commission report.

The Aboriginals used a much tinier patchwork method burning by the acre, not by tens or hundreds of hectares at a time.
http://theconversation.com/our-land-is-burning-and-western-science-does-not-have-all-the-answers-100331

Hazard Reduction has destroyed homes and so tougher polices are in place requiring 3 to 5 days AFTER the burn to also be favourably cool weather.

“Controlled burns do not remove all fuels from an area. And forests accumulate fuel at different rates - some return to their pre-burn fuel loads in as few as three years.”
http://theconversation.com/a-surprising-answer-to-a-hot-question-controlled-burns-often-fail-to-slow-a-bushfire-127022


________________________________
The Commissioner on Wednesday defended the RFS' record on hazard reduction burning, saying the agency was not comprised of "environmental bastards", indicating prescribed burns were done with the priorities of people, property and the environment in mind…
… "Hazard reduction burning is really challenging and the single biggest impediment to completing hazard reduction burning is the weather," Commissioner Fitzsimmons told ABC Breakfast.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/hazard-reduction-burns-are-not-the-panacea-rfs-boss-20200108-p53poq.html

ALTRAV wrote:
> For reasons known only to the earth and maybe a handful of scientists, the earth has slowly revolved within it's own skin

It’s not that big a mystery, but is to do with how extra heat pushes weather and ocean systems around. They MODELLED this stuff and put it in the Garnaut report in 2008 that … “projections of fire weather "suggest that fire seasons will start earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense".

When asked how he feels over government inaction on climate change, Garnaut said:
________________________________
"It's one of sadness, that I was ineffective. Having been given the opportunity to talk to Australians on this issue, that I was ineffective in persuading Australians that it was in our national interest to play a positive role in a global effort to mitigate the effects of climate change," he said.
However, Mr Garnaut said, "although things are bad, they will keep on getting worse if the concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere keep increasing".
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/how-a-climate-change-study-from-12-years-ago-warned-of-this-horror-bushfire-season

But will Australians like Captain Grandpappy grumpy-pants listen to the science? Nope. Got an armchair to thump, My Word, they do!

Max, believe what YOU want, I believe what I know.
Stop going over the same old trash you've been posturing for as long as you've been here.
Enough already, you can carry on like some spoilt brat sh!tty that I won't come around to your bent and twisted, frankly unrealistic mantra, and I don't care what scientist or expert said, I've already told you a million times, I can counter every one of your points with counter points.
So you go ahead and believe that YOU are the ones who stuffed up the planet.
I do not, and until EVERYONE agrees on one final determination, and we remove money and incentives from this equation, I remain resolute in my convictions of what I KNOW to be the truth, not the facts.
So carry on breaking other peoples stones, you are if nothing else an annoying distraction.
But then some here will probably welcome your kind of entertainment.
I DON'T!

Mr Opinion, here's a real simple explanation of the situation. Firstly get a glass of water (at any ambient temperature above freezing or below boiling temperature) and place in it a block of ice from your ice cube tray. Secondly get another glass of water identical to the first one...hey let's get really scientific and actually use a measuring jug and put identical quantities of water in each glass for a joke. Observe what happens to the first glass when the ice block melts and mark the glass at the level. Lastly get the ice tray and fill one of the compartments to the same level you did to make the ice block and have it placed into the second glass of water. As old Professor Julius Sumner-Miller would exclaim: "Dictu mirabilis" (A miracle to note). Now Mr Opinion how is it that two identical quantities of water albeit in two different states (one liquid, one solid) added to two equal quantities of water cause flooding on Biblical (or is it GWA proportions ?) when their levels are identical? Mebbe there is perhaps a bit of jiggery pokery and a good degree of B-S going on behind Ms Thunderpants and her backers? Mebbe its the fact that continents "shift" over the Earth's tectonic plates causing some shift in the tidal height and datums recorded in the Littoral Zones. Oh "Global Warming" and "increased Carbon Dioxide levels" I hear the shrill retort. Ah yes the quantities of water will expand slightly as the temperature increases, but what then the effects on levels of salinity lowering or raising as the the temperature gradients slide in either direction? The so called Alarmist Science community has been resoundingly called out for fiddling the books. Surely, like the Creationists pick a 6,500 yr figure (The Noah Event) some now decide that 240 years is a sufficient time frame to base their "science" upon...what utter and complete balderdash Sir! The Climate Scientists are ignoring the basic law(s) of thermodynamics at the very least.

Aaaaawww, da paw wittle Altrav wants to be taken sewiously but can't find the dawta! Eeees a cuwtie wittle boy with da own beweifs.
__________________

Twelve years ago, economist Ross Garnaut made a prophecy that has devastatingly come true.

In the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, which examined the scientific evidence around the impacts of climate change on Australia and its economy, he predicted that without adequate action, the nation would face a more frequent and intense fire season by 2020...

...But he noted: "If you ignore the science when you build a bridge, the bridge falls down."...

The total cost of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires was estimated at $4.4 billion.

Conservative estimates put the final cost of the current Australian bushfires well into billions of dollars, while some analysts say it could cost the economy $20 billion in lost output.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/economic-bushfires-billions-ross-garnaut-climate-change/11848388

__________________

Black Saturday was AWFUL in terms of the sheer loss of life.
But, as many here keep saying, human beings adapt.
We learn stuff. We figure out how things work, and although we've already caught the Black Saturday hectares burned, we've learned how to get out of the way better, and know how to evacuate towns faster. So the lives lost are at least down.

People are also learning to respect the climate science. Your generation are about to fall off their retarded coal-is-good perch, and make way for what should have happened a generation ago.

Cleaning up our energy system.

It's not my fault you hate science, that's your business.

But when you come to whining about "your beliefs" in a blogging contest, go home. Put up, or shut up. It's that simple.

Max, I don't know who you're taking the piss out of but you are a fool for carrying on like a fool, hows that for evidence.
Carrying on like you do has only relegated you to the corner of the classroom with your back to the class, so who's a whiny little whimp now?
I don't know if you're a man of age or a child of stupidity.
You carry on like the latter.
I knew I was right about you, now everyone knows what an arse hole you really are.
You are the epitome of the saying, "keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool, rather than open it and have it confirmed".
Please keep on talking to yourself as I don't talk to people with delusions of grandeur and mental issues.

Yeah, as I said about 20 pages ago, the IQ of this forum has fallen.

I was just trying to fit in.

But as no-one here can be bothered putting up a SERIOUS attempt with challenging facts and data and authoritative links, I think I'm done.

I think seeing you slapping the arms of your chair chanting "It's the Greens, I tell you, it's THE GREENS!" really indicated the senility factor here.

I think I'll have a break for a few days and see if anything improves later on. Conversing with the last handful of Deniers has seriously been some of the most childish, lazy blogging I've come across in ANY Denier forum. You guys are the worst.

Did someone say something?
Oh, thought I heard a noise but as it was nothing important, it doesn't matter.
Though I must admit the air is suddenly much cleaner with a tinge of freshness to it, much better.
Hope it stays that way.

Very pleased to have the disapproval of the likes of Max. Blinded by his warped narrative and claiming science is on his side. What a joke. Talk about deniers!

runner,

You remind of Barnaby Joyce. You and him think alike.

That also goes for Shadow Minister, Hasbeen, mhaze, individual, Loudmouth, Bazz, and the usual suspects.

Thought I heard that noise again.
I must be hearing things.
My, my it's nice and peaceful once more.
I wonder what changed.
Although there are still some noises that pop up now and again, but you can't expect complete perfection, can you? with those who are always right like SR and Paul, just to name a couple.

"with those who are always right"

Hail Caesar, Il Duce the omnipotent one;

Are you not the very one who claims you have no need to be informed on any subject, as you are an expert on everything? Always referring to those with a different opinion as dills and maggots. I thought you prided yourself on your vast wealth of knowledge. Oh if I keep typing this garbage I am going to puke!

A few months back, as it happens, I had to check out a national park in NSW on Google, so much easier these days. A small NP, its fuel-reduction program specified that the fuel load be reduced every '20 to 150 years'. 150 years. I'm not kidding. 150 years. The bloody forest would have time to grow, drop everything, and grow again, in that time.

Even twenty years seems far too long - a lot of stuff can build up in twenty years. Of course, the cute, furry animals need somewhere to burrow, but if their choice was to keep looking for shelter, or to perish in a 1000-degree conflagration, along with every other cute, furry animal within cooee, I know their pitiful little answer.

Is there climate change due to too much CO2 ? Of course there is. Is it relevant to Australia's droughts and subsequent bush-fires ? Maybe, I look forward to the evidence. Is the build-up of undergrowth and fuel a major factor in such conflagrations which wipe out all those cute, furry animals ? I think so.

Five- and ten-year-year burns - and other removal practices besides burning - surely should be considered, even if it means far more staff on the ground, year-round. Mosaic burning, fire-breaks, etc. also. Or do we do all this all over again in five or ten years ?

Joe

271 posts, and nothing has changed; no minds have been changed. No conclusion reached. Just the same steaming bullshite - just like real life, where nothing will be done while we wait for the next lot of bushfires to talk crap over.

You know, I think it ironic and fortuitous, but has anybody cared to take note of the heading for this topic?
I love it, it says it all, without the need for debate.
It is a statement of fact, and a perfect one at that!
"Global Warming Garbage"!

Joe,

Google is great as the free version allows us to see the recent past.

The town of Vivonne in SA is being evacuated, according to the news, and a quick Google shews a town that is immersed in gum trees.

There are plenty of fire retardant native trees that are ornamental as well as shady, so let's get rid of the eucalypts around houses and along roads.

ISSY, apparently according to the jelly brains and the greens, we can't do that, because the poor little koala's will run out of food and die, so we must plant eucalyptus trees everywhere, irrespective of the needs or safety of humans, and as it turns out, the koala's too.
So watch out you may get a green knife in the back for making such outrageous suggestions.
Where will the poor little, cute and furry koala go, if they can't come into town and avail themselves of all the wonderful services, amenities and ambiance that Aussie country towns have to offer?

Nobody likes to see animals suffer, but human interference AGAIN is the only reason that there are koalas on KI. They are not native to the island, having been shifted from the mainland by some smartarses during the clamydia infection.

The local KI inhabitants will tell you they are a nuisance, eating more than is growing.

Steelies and Paul's ideology has just led to mass destruction, Now they just batten down and continue their hate fest. No wonder the Greens/left are so despised. Haters will be haters.

Ref. KI,

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/calls-for-koala-cull-due-to-surging-kangaroo-island-koala-numbers/news-story/8d42f0f23419fa68e653fdf4e57ce44e

Had the Koalas been culled then thousands of them would not have burned to death, which is rather obvious but they would have suffered much less.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/kangaroo-island-bushfires-grave-fears-for-unique-wildlife-after-estimated-25000-koalas-killed

Joe / Loudmouth,

you're so right aren't you? So informed? You'll just dictate policy from your high-point of 'common sense' and armchair logic?

Every 5 years will fix it! My word! (Slaps armchair.)

Seriously, you armchair experts make me sick! Your echo-chamber here is causing one of the largest, mass-scaled cases of Dunning-Kruger's dumbassed-ness I've ever seen!

Listen you little pissant, Adjunct Associate Professor Phil Zylstra from Curtin University says Hazard Reduction might only be marginally effective for 3 years. THREE YEARS!
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/hazard-reduction-burns-not-a-silver-bullet/11846684

So while you ignorant, science denying little pissants pontificate on your flights-of-fantasy, out in the REAL world where REAL science is done and empirical measurements of the Aussie bush before and after fire management is scientifically measured, your conclusions are shown to be WORTHLESS. As in, worse than worthless, over-regular Hazard Reduction can CHANGE the bush and make FUTURE FIRES WORSE! (1939 Royal Commission.)

Seriously, when I debated MHAZE I was challenged to read IPCC reports and examine stuff. While debating MHAZE was frustrating, at least I learned something in that debate.

But you Deniers, you usual suspects? I feel like I'm wiping drool from your slack faces as you loll about in your stroke chairs.

Are you actually contributing KNOWLEDGE, or just congratulating yourselves on echoing the Denial-o-sphere in here?

You need to take a long hard look at yourselves.