ALTRAV,

The reason that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the warming of the planet over the past 240 years is that it is the only probable cause viz greenhouse gas emissions from human action, that can be fully correlated with the recorded temperature increase over the period.

No other probable cause of warming during the period under consideration can be correlated with this temperature rise.

This is what the scientific community is saying. This is the cause and effect scenario that has produced the hot dry conditions across Australia that have given rise the the bushfire catastrophes we are seeing in 2019/20.

AGW denialists like Soot 'Beam uo me Scotty' Morrison, you, Hasbeen, Loudmouth, individual, mhaze, Shadow Minister and the rest of the usual suspects do not want to acknowledge the correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and rising mean global temperature because you just do not care about it.

That's why you lot don't want to protest to the big emitters of the world who are responsible for producing the dangerously high levels of greenhouse gases that have made Australia a victim of AGW.

YOU JUST DO NOT CARE

ALTie,

You like the forums marry band of old farts, are totally blinded by the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, due to your personal philosophical bent. Your rabid belief that CC is simply an unsubstantiated lefties plot, hatched to destroy "civilisation" as you know it, is irrational in the extreme. Regardless of what you say, or what the rest of the forums old farts say, and what political conservatives say, human induced climate change is having an adverse effect on weather. A combination of a prolonged drought, higher temperatures and other weather phenomenon, in part caused by CC, added to that our own failure to act at a much higher political level, including the inaction of the Morrison conservative government, along with state governments, when the imminent danger of catastrophic bushfires were indicated.

Of course I expect you to blow back with your usual amount of indignation, insult and rage, or retreat to the same old hackneyed CC deniers talking points. Fortunately those of your ilk are sinking more and more into that very small minority. I look foreword to the day when deniers like you, and the politicians you support, are totally swept aside, replaced by those that will take the necessary vigorous action required on climate change. Whilst the few die hards like you and the rest of the forums old farts are left to prattle on incoherently on some street corner, with no one giving you the slightest of attention.

Paul1405,

The AGW denialists have painted themselves into a corner.

The dilemma for them is now to explain why they just do not care that Australia is a victim of the dangerously high levels of greenhouse gas emissions produced by China, US, EU, Japan, Russia and India who together account for about 75% of the emissions that are causing the excessively hot dry conditions that have given rise to the bushfire catastrophes of 2019/20.

"WE DO NOT CARE' is the catchcry of today's AGW denialists.

Hi Paul,

Yes: "A combination of a prolonged drought, higher temperatures and other weather phenomenon, in part caused by CC, .... "

and, to a large extent, changes in policies on reducing fuel load across national parks as well ?

Why did the bureaucrats in NP administrations decide to wind down their fuel reduction programs, if that is the case ? As someone noted, a bushfire needs three things: dryness, fuel load and ignition. There's not much any NP service can do about dryness - drought is a pretty common feature of Australia - or ignition, such as lightning strikes and the odd arsonist.

But surely it can do something about fuel load - not just in cool-burning, etc., but removal and mulching, putting in fire-breaks, and probably much more. Of course, this would mean far more staff doing the grunt work, and fewer in their offices. And far more funding, but what's all this costing ? Thirty lives, thousands of homes lost, and many billions in re-building.

So yes, Paul, you're right, it's all in part caused by climate change.

Cheers,

Joe

So yes, Paul, you're right, it's all in part caused by climate change.
Loudmouth2,
Yep, the Social Climate !

Hi Joe,

Two choices, catastrophic weather outcomes, caused by climatic conditions, fires, floods, cyclones, droughts etc etc, whatever. We can accept these outcomes are "normal", we are just having a bit of a rough trot. Accept that and, we can assume things will settle down, and it will be business as usual sometime in the future. The other choice is we can accept there has been an irrevocable change in climate to the extent that the new "normal" will see us battling more and more with these extremes.

Should we accept the first premise, carry on as we have been, and things settle down, well and good. That first choice costs use nothing more, the deniers are vindicated and its back to business as usual, excellent outcome. Should we accept the second choice, and its wrong, it costs use something, oh well we got it wrong but we are still relatively well off. That choice was a bit of bad luck on our part, but so be it. Should we choose two and its the correct choice, we would receive immeasurable life saving benefits, can't deny that. However should we accept the first option, and its wrong and number two is the reality, then don't bother about the outcome because we wont be here to see it. What is your choice?