spent lots of time there as a kid
The 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review also warned that fire seasons will begin earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense. âThis effect increases over time but should be directly observable by 2020,â it said.
Looks like activist piffle, KC. In truth, the fire season in 1938/39 was worse in terms of area burnt (with higher recorded temperatures, too). They claim âmore frequent droughtsâ, yet the last half-century (which encompasses the theorized Anthropogenic warming period) has been wetter on average than the two preceeding half-centuries!
Meanwhile, folks there have been resisting fire management efforts (especially controlled burns in more clement conditions) whilst complaining about increasing fire risk. Australians, of course, are hardly unique in this regard - historical American fire control policies have contributed to some devastating fires - example Yellowstone Fire 1988.
RE; Human caused global warming;
You go to nine doctors. They all say you have lung cancer. You go to a 10th doctor. He says itâs all a hoax. The reasonable person would listen to the 10th doctor, go home, light up a stogie and watch Fox News.
The really good thing about these devastating fires is that we (in Australia) have made a great start in reducing the fuel load in a huge area. These burnt areas wonât burn again for years.
Now, all we have to do is convince the tree-huggers, or the state governments could grow spines, and continue with much more beneficial fuel reduction burns in safer conditions sufficiently so that bush is burnt on about a 10-year cycle.
Perhaps the law could now be seen to be in error for the farmer who cleared bush around his homestead in contravention of local regulations and was fined $100,000. His house was the only one in his area to survive. It wasnât climate change he fought, just the stupidity of its advocates.
Hereâs a cutting from The Australian (our national daily newspaper) regarding the integrity of The Conversation website regarding climate change.
"Academic website, The Conversation , has banned publication of comments that dispute man-made climate change and will lock the accounts of readers who attempt to post dissenting views.
As part of a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets called Covering Climate Now, The Conversation said constructive positive discussions did not include having contact with âclimate change deniersâ.
The Conversation Australia said banning comments from contrarians was part of improving its climate change coverage."
Donât bother quoting from sites that wonât allow debate.
Another link to an article quoting a fairly strong climate activist regarding the actual effect of climate change on drought in Australia. Heâs well qualified to speak.
Also in The Australian:
The academic web site The Conversation has banned publication of all comments from readers who state that disease is caused by voodoo dolls and witchcraft. Also, from readers who say they have a sure-fire system for slot machines.
Nope. The Conversation didnât ban that and it wasnât reported in The Australian. But they DO ban climate scientists who disagree with their silly views on climate change because they canât handle debate.
Arguing whether climate change is responsible for wildfires is like telling a victim of the Titanic theyâre not drowning because of the iceberg, but because of the water.
Kinda misses the point.
Absolutely and without those half billion animals converting oxygen into carbon dioxide, itâs really a win for everyone!
Likely because itâs not a real debate, just disinformation.
For example the link you provided to JoNova is misleading.
Here is what Australian climate scientist Andy Pitman actually said:
Iâm equally certain that for some regions thereâs an indirect effect of human-induced climate change on drought because of the change in rainfall patterns.â
Running this stuff down is wasting everybodyâs time.
No, it doesnât. If you could point out the actual link weâd all be much the wiser ⌠but you canât so you mock. Thatâs easier.
Iâve checked but canât see where I mentioned animals anywhere. You brought that up.
I did use the words âdevastating firesâ so donât accuse me of misrepresenting anything here. I am an Australian and know people affected. I fought bushfires and still volunteer.
Itâs plain here that fully qualified seagoing officers here canât seem to get one of the basics of the fire triangle. Pull out your textbooks and read again what elements make a fire burn. Would you like a lecture? I guarantee it wonât say, âthe primary method of extinguishing fires is to expensively reduce greenhouse emissions and wait over a century and hope the temperature drops by a poofteenth. Old methods are no longer sensible nor environmentally sound.â
Please comment on the fuel aspect of bushfires. Please.
You were making a pathetic âmaking lemonades out of lemonsâ argument showing no level of compassion for loss of wildlife or peoples homes or lives. I made a funny to illustrate it.
Iâm pretty good on the fire triangle, enough to know itâs not called a triangle anymore as well as the fuel balance equations of how fire of complex organicw like brush and trees leads to much more carbon injects to the environment than animals respiration with loss of ecosphere ability to receive and convert.
Donât you have a sense of humor?
And thatâs you blathering disinformation. We have Andy Pitmanâs voice recording. Listen to it. You show you can google. Find it. (Hint: you wonât find it in the lefty Guardian) He didnât say what you said he meant to say. He said what he said and he has been accurately quoted.
He has simply been massively embarrassed amongst his climate catastrophist friends (and you know how nasty they can be when mightily miffed or even just slighted a wee bit). He could have been cast out of his well-paid sinecures at his university and attending luvvie conferences around the world.
Did he recant what he said entirely? No. Did he recant the temperature and rainfall records he quoted? No. Did he unequivocally link climate change to drought? NO, NO, NO.
You started it.
Try me with an actually funny comment.
Why on (this incontrovertibly warning Earth) should anyone waste a moment trying to âconvinceâ or even âdebateâ you? You canât convince someone completely invested in being against an issue. Itâs a waste. You always go off on these bad faith approaches to this particular issue. You know what people call a majority opinion - consensus. Thereâs no point trying to win over the 5th dentist.
Gâday mate!
See, proved my point. that remark was hilarious, 9 out of 10 scientists agree. youâre just dishonest and a troll.