Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Oh dear, it now seems that the US military (the bleeding heart liberals that the are) are also part of the global, socialist conspiracy under the cover of AGW.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
The article is just a pile of alarmist poo.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
“We have heard from the scientists on climate change, with their meticulous data on ecosystem degradation and species loss. ”
I searched but couldn’t find a list of the species lost due to mmgw.
Where is the meticulous data?
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Oh dear, it now seems that the US military (the bleeding heart liberals that the are) are also part of the global, socialist conspiracy under the cover of AGW.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
The article is just a pile of alarmist poo.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
“We have heard from the scientists on climate change, with their meticulous data on ecosystem degradation and species loss. ”
I searched but couldn’t find a list of the species lost due to mmgw.
Where is the meticulous data?
So both the military and the industrialists in the USA can spot an opportunity (or possibly need in this case) to make a case to fund their operations.
Hardly a surprise.
They have people employed to predict future commitments and since the military in the US has a much wider role than, say, the military in the UK (or indeed just about any other country in the world) both "at home" and "overseas" it is hardly surprising that they will need to make a pitch for their capabilities in the light of what some future government might commit them to doing.
Should that future government be green leaning (or should one be trying to influence voters about what sort of government they might want to elect) then it makes sense to pitch the bid in terms they will understand.
If the book is as summarised in the article it sounds like the planners are making a solid pitch to get people to commit to keeping military funding going based on all of the future threats that people have been proposing. The more threats the merrier as it justifies their existence as an organisation well beyond the limits of a formal war machine. Which has pretty much always been the case for the US military funding rationale.
Meanwhile our PM is, apparently, going to ask the British Military to provide 100 personnel to help out with the floods "oop north" and the BBC reports that
"Meanwhile a Doncaster salon offered free "pamper" sessions for local children affected by flooding, and dozens of swans were rescued from oil from an upturned barge in Rotherham and cars which had been trapped in flood water."
Presumably the SAS working incognito?
The UK military, by way of comparison, expects that is might be called in from time to time in small numbers to help out with random problems like the current flooding.
The US military expects to be part of a response to anything adverse weather related and at scale. It always has on the basis that its a big country with very big natural weather events and it makes sense to use the military establishment that it already pays for to help out in times of need.
Which is why the senior planners needs to keep abreast of all of the concepts that they think the politicians will react to and have funding and resources in place for whenever the politicians think their vision needs to confirmed.
Hardly a surprise.
They have people employed to predict future commitments and since the military in the US has a much wider role than, say, the military in the UK (or indeed just about any other country in the world) both "at home" and "overseas" it is hardly surprising that they will need to make a pitch for their capabilities in the light of what some future government might commit them to doing.
Should that future government be green leaning (or should one be trying to influence voters about what sort of government they might want to elect) then it makes sense to pitch the bid in terms they will understand.
If the book is as summarised in the article it sounds like the planners are making a solid pitch to get people to commit to keeping military funding going based on all of the future threats that people have been proposing. The more threats the merrier as it justifies their existence as an organisation well beyond the limits of a formal war machine. Which has pretty much always been the case for the US military funding rationale.
Meanwhile our PM is, apparently, going to ask the British Military to provide 100 personnel to help out with the floods "oop north" and the BBC reports that
"Meanwhile a Doncaster salon offered free "pamper" sessions for local children affected by flooding, and dozens of swans were rescued from oil from an upturned barge in Rotherham and cars which had been trapped in flood water."
Presumably the SAS working incognito?
The UK military, by way of comparison, expects that is might be called in from time to time in small numbers to help out with random problems like the current flooding.
The US military expects to be part of a response to anything adverse weather related and at scale. It always has on the basis that its a big country with very big natural weather events and it makes sense to use the military establishment that it already pays for to help out in times of need.
Which is why the senior planners needs to keep abreast of all of the concepts that they think the politicians will react to and have funding and resources in place for whenever the politicians think their vision needs to confirmed.
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Oh dear, it now seems that the US military (the bleeding heart liberals that the are) are also part of the global, socialist conspiracy under the cover of AGW.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
The article is just a pile of alarmist poo.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov...
“We have heard from the scientists on climate change, with their meticulous data on ecosystem degradation and species loss. ”
I searched but couldn’t find a list of the species lost due to mmgw.
Where is the meticulous data?
LongQ said:
So both the military and the industrialists in the USA can spot an opportunity (or possibly need in this case) to make a case to fund their operations.
Hardly a surprise.
They have people employed to predict future commitments and since the military in the US has a much wider role than, say, the military in the UK (or indeed just about any other country in the world) both "at home" and "overseas" it is hardly surprising that they will need to make a pitch for their capabilities in the light of what some future government might commit them to doing....
It's a good job the global media/scientific community/ inter-governmental/seat of learning conspiracy doesn't extend to Haymarket Media ain't it? Else we'd be deprived of your peer-review busting AGW analysis.Hardly a surprise.
They have people employed to predict future commitments and since the military in the US has a much wider role than, say, the military in the UK (or indeed just about any other country in the world) both "at home" and "overseas" it is hardly surprising that they will need to make a pitch for their capabilities in the light of what some future government might commit them to doing....
Religion meets politics.
This (below) is a selection of comments from Dr Robert Giegengack the former Chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, who is no fan of widespread fossil fuel use. He set out some basic pointers over at the political blog Climate Depot.
This (below) is a selection of comments from Dr Robert Giegengack the former Chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, who is no fan of widespread fossil fuel use. He set out some basic pointers over at the political blog Climate Depot.
- Global Warming/Climate Change began as a scientific discussion. It has evolved into a polarizing political argument (whenever a scientific understanding depends on a “consensus”, we know it has become political), and from there to a semi-religious campaign advanced by well-intended people who feel, deep in their hearts, that they are “saving the planet”. Many of those people have chosen to allow their good intentions to override their scientific objectivity. As soon as people who disagree about scientific conclusions start calling each other pejorative names, we know that the discussion has become primarily political, not scientific.
- I know the work of [MIT’s Dr. Richard] Lindzen, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer, [Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith] Curry, [Climatologist Dr. John] Christy, [Princeton Physicist Dr. Will] Happer, etc.I share the skepticism that these people have expressed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent the primary driver of the climate change now under way.
- We know that the climate “warmed”, with a few unexplained reversals, from ~18,000 years ago until ~1830 AD, as a consequence of factors that have controlled climate for all of Phanerozoic time. It defies the imagination to suggest that those factors abruptly ceased to operate ~300 years ago just to accommodate our need to attribute contemporary climate change to human activity.
- It beggars the imagination to assert that the natural factors that drove the warming trend from 18,000 years ago to ~300 years ago (with some unexplained temperature reversals) abruptly stopped operating at the end of the Little Ice Age to accommodate our political need to attribute climate variability to human industrial activity.
- Climate models are instructive, but they lead to scenarios, not predictions. They can be manipulated to yield desired outputs.
You seem to have missed out some of the other things that he said. Here, let me help you...
There is little room to doubt that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from a “preindustrial” value of ~280 ppm to ~415 ppm today is the consequence of human transfer of carbon from storage in the rocks as fossil “fuel” to the combustion product CO2 in the atmosphere. Review of the Phanerozoic history of atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been ~2,000 ppm, and that in early Paleozoic time was as high as 7,000 ppm. A major global glacial period occurred in Ordovician-Silurian time, when CO2 was ~7,000 ppm and a continent lay over the South Pole (astronomers tell us that solar radiance then was somewhat lower).
However, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 415 ppm today is more rapid than any increase in CO2 documented from the Phanerozoic record.
It’s complicated.
But we know that the “anthropogenic” CO2 now in the atmosphere will be there for centuries, if not millennia. Nothing that we are doing, or even contemplating doing, can possibly reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 within the time frame of the projections of future warming.
Meanwhile, many environmental threats that are both more threatening and more immediate than climate change and can be addressed with resources and technology now at our disposal are being largely ignored in the political campaign to unite the world behind a climate-change threat.
There are many very good reasons to terminate our use of fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, reasons that do not depend on the influence of CO2 on climate.
They include:
1. Particulate matter from burning of fossil hydrocarbons is a well-documented public-health threat.
2. Fossil hydrocarbons represent the essential feedstock for the petrochemicals, nitrogenous fertilizer, and pharmaceuticals industries. We are burning up the future of those industries for short-term gain.
3. The elaborate, multi-tiered distribution network that transfers hydrocarbon energy resources from their source(s) to factories and generating stations to end users is old, creaky, inefficient, and subject to: a) human and mechanical failure; b) natural disasters (storms, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, landslides, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.); c) Solar excursions (e.g. CMES, or Coronal Mass Ejections), and d) deliberate sabotage.
We would be more secure with a distributed system of energy-generation that would enable energy users to generate energy close to the end demand.
1. We are now depleting our reserves of fossil hydrocarbons at a rate one million times faster than they are being replenished.
2. In any period of time, the Sun delivers to the top of the atmosphere 8,500 times more energy than all of human civilization uses in the same period of time.
We don’t need the threat of anthropogenic climate change to reform our energy system. The changes we must achieve in energy generation and distribution are all changes we should be pursuing if we knew the globe was cooling.
Future historians will look back on the ~300-yr era of extraction and combustion of fossil hydrocarbons as a curious, irresponsible anomaly.
There is little room to doubt that the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from a “preindustrial” value of ~280 ppm to ~415 ppm today is the consequence of human transfer of carbon from storage in the rocks as fossil “fuel” to the combustion product CO2 in the atmosphere. Review of the Phanerozoic history of atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been ~2,000 ppm, and that in early Paleozoic time was as high as 7,000 ppm. A major global glacial period occurred in Ordovician-Silurian time, when CO2 was ~7,000 ppm and a continent lay over the South Pole (astronomers tell us that solar radiance then was somewhat lower).
However, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from a pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 415 ppm today is more rapid than any increase in CO2 documented from the Phanerozoic record.
It’s complicated.
But we know that the “anthropogenic” CO2 now in the atmosphere will be there for centuries, if not millennia. Nothing that we are doing, or even contemplating doing, can possibly reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 within the time frame of the projections of future warming.
Meanwhile, many environmental threats that are both more threatening and more immediate than climate change and can be addressed with resources and technology now at our disposal are being largely ignored in the political campaign to unite the world behind a climate-change threat.
There are many very good reasons to terminate our use of fossil hydrocarbons as fuel, reasons that do not depend on the influence of CO2 on climate.
They include:
1. Particulate matter from burning of fossil hydrocarbons is a well-documented public-health threat.
2. Fossil hydrocarbons represent the essential feedstock for the petrochemicals, nitrogenous fertilizer, and pharmaceuticals industries. We are burning up the future of those industries for short-term gain.
3. The elaborate, multi-tiered distribution network that transfers hydrocarbon energy resources from their source(s) to factories and generating stations to end users is old, creaky, inefficient, and subject to: a) human and mechanical failure; b) natural disasters (storms, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, landslides, earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, etc.); c) Solar excursions (e.g. CMES, or Coronal Mass Ejections), and d) deliberate sabotage.
We would be more secure with a distributed system of energy-generation that would enable energy users to generate energy close to the end demand.
1. We are now depleting our reserves of fossil hydrocarbons at a rate one million times faster than they are being replenished.
2. In any period of time, the Sun delivers to the top of the atmosphere 8,500 times more energy than all of human civilization uses in the same period of time.
We don’t need the threat of anthropogenic climate change to reform our energy system. The changes we must achieve in energy generation and distribution are all changes we should be pursuing if we knew the globe was cooling.
Future historians will look back on the ~300-yr era of extraction and combustion of fossil hydrocarbons as a curious, irresponsible anomaly.
A curious irresponsible anomaly?
Since we started using fossil fuels how much has life expectancy grown? How about the advances in medicine and education.
If it weren't for fossil fuel use would any of the modern low pollution technologies exist?
If it weren't for coal coming to the rescue then the complete deforestation of the UK and Europe would have happened many lifetimes ago. By the end of the 18th century there were hardly any forests left in Germany such was the demand for wood for building, industry and firewood. People were left burning fence posts, doorsteps, etc to keep warm.
If it weren't for coal just imagine what several centuries of deforestation would have done with respect to soil erosion. Farming wouldn't exist as we know it now. Human population would be a fraction of its current size, and what a harsh life it would be for those that were here.
Woodland and forest in the UK, Europe and N America is now more extensive than it has been for centuries, and all thanks to burning fossil fuels.
Far from stealing childhoods and destroying the planet, our use of fossil fuels has given people life and helped to preserve nature.
Since we started using fossil fuels how much has life expectancy grown? How about the advances in medicine and education.
If it weren't for fossil fuel use would any of the modern low pollution technologies exist?
If it weren't for coal coming to the rescue then the complete deforestation of the UK and Europe would have happened many lifetimes ago. By the end of the 18th century there were hardly any forests left in Germany such was the demand for wood for building, industry and firewood. People were left burning fence posts, doorsteps, etc to keep warm.
If it weren't for coal just imagine what several centuries of deforestation would have done with respect to soil erosion. Farming wouldn't exist as we know it now. Human population would be a fraction of its current size, and what a harsh life it would be for those that were here.
Woodland and forest in the UK, Europe and N America is now more extensive than it has been for centuries, and all thanks to burning fossil fuels.
Far from stealing childhoods and destroying the planet, our use of fossil fuels has given people life and helped to preserve nature.
Gadgetmac said:
You seem to have missed out some of the other things that he said. Here, let me help you...
No need. I indicated clearly that a selection had been posted, mentioned specifically that the scientist in question was not a fan of widespread fossil fuel use (RTFP) and gave a link to the material which you managed to use as intended.Nothing in the extra material reduces the impact of the selected comments which you ignored.
Let me remind you.
- Global Warming/Climate Change began as a scientific discussion. It has evolved into a polarizing political argument (whenever a scientific understanding depends on a “consensus”, we know it has become political), and from there to a semi-religious campaign advanced by well-intended people who feel, deep in their hearts, that they are “saving the planet”. Many of those people have chosen to allow their good intentions to override their scientific objectivity. As soon as people who disagree about scientific conclusions start calling each other pejorative names, we know that the discussion has become primarily political, not scientific.
- I know the work of [MIT’s Dr. Richard] Lindzen, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer, [Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith] Curry, [Climatologist Dr. John] Christy, [Princeton Physicist Dr. Will] Happer, etc.I share the skepticism that these people have expressed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent the primary driver of the climate change now under way.
- We know that the climate “warmed”, with a few unexplained reversals, from ~18,000 years ago until ~1830 AD, as a consequence of factors that have controlled climate for all of Phanerozoic time. It defies the imagination to suggest that those factors abruptly ceased to operate ~300 years ago just to accommodate our need to attribute contemporary climate change to human activity.
- It beggars the imagination to assert that the natural factors that drove the warming trend from 18,000 years ago to ~300 years ago (with some unexplained temperature reversals) abruptly stopped operating at the end of the Little Ice Age to accommodate our political need to attribute climate variability to human industrial activity.
- Climate models are instructive, but they lead to scenarios, not predictions. They can be manipulated to yield desired outputs.
jagnet said:
A curious irresponsible anomaly?
Since we started using fossil fuels how much has life expectancy grown? How about the advances in medicine and education.
If it weren't for fossil fuel use would any of the modern low pollution technologies exist?
If it weren't for coal coming to the rescue then the complete deforestation of the UK and Europe would have happened many lifetimes ago. By the end of the 18th century there were hardly any forests left in Germany such was the demand for wood for building, industry and firewood. People were left burning fence posts, doorsteps, etc to keep warm.
If it weren't for coal just imagine what several centuries of deforestation would have done with respect to soil erosion. Farming wouldn't exist as we know it now. Human population would be a fraction of its current size, and what a harsh life it would be for those that were here.
Woodland and forest in the UK, Europe and N America is now more extensive than it has been for centuries, and all thanks to burning fossil fuels.
Far from stealing childhoods and destroying the planet, our use of fossil fuels has given people life and helped to preserve nature.
Exactly, and as per the Kuznets Curve the benefits for environmental protection of economic growth have started to outweigh any genuine adverse environmental impacts (this excludes carbon dioxide levels, as this trace gas is a benefit).Since we started using fossil fuels how much has life expectancy grown? How about the advances in medicine and education.
If it weren't for fossil fuel use would any of the modern low pollution technologies exist?
If it weren't for coal coming to the rescue then the complete deforestation of the UK and Europe would have happened many lifetimes ago. By the end of the 18th century there were hardly any forests left in Germany such was the demand for wood for building, industry and firewood. People were left burning fence posts, doorsteps, etc to keep warm.
If it weren't for coal just imagine what several centuries of deforestation would have done with respect to soil erosion. Farming wouldn't exist as we know it now. Human population would be a fraction of its current size, and what a harsh life it would be for those that were here.
Woodland and forest in the UK, Europe and N America is now more extensive than it has been for centuries, and all thanks to burning fossil fuels.
Far from stealing childhoods and destroying the planet, our use of fossil fuels has given people life and helped to preserve nature.
The earth scientist writing over at Climate Depot moved from an analysis of the current religious and political nature of climate change, which stands any objective scrutiny, to a restricted cost-benefit analysis which mentioned costs but lacked sufficient mention of the major benefits, which you helpfully discussed ^.
In certain quarters, if a person makes a detailed statement then it must be taken as either entirely accurate or entirely inaccurate; another common fallacy. A post such as yours setting out clearly how elements of the article with a restricted one-sided view fail, was timely Elsewhere, powers of analysis are limited, either cognitively or deliberately.
More climate politics:
Greta Thunberg Couldn’t Be More Wrong About Australian Bushfires
https://climatechangedispatch.com/greta-wrong-aust...
Key snip said:
As Andrew Bolt points out on this Sky News Australia bulletin, a recent NASA study found that in the last 18 years, bushfires in terms of land burned have decreased, not increased.
Jo Nova, meanwhile, wrote earlier this year that — as in the U.S. — what is really making these fires so destructive is poor management.
Australian states that burn off the underbrush in rotation – such as Western Australia – experience far less wildfire damage.
For others less able to appreciate what a selection or a snip means: there's more at the link.Jo Nova, meanwhile, wrote earlier this year that — as in the U.S. — what is really making these fires so destructive is poor management.
Australian states that burn off the underbrush in rotation – such as Western Australia – experience far less wildfire damage.
LongQ said:
So both the military and the industrialists in the USA can spot an opportunity (or possibly need in this case) to make a case to fund their operations.
NASA were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of them! The demise of much of space exploration and the Shuttle programme was easily offset by their plans for ice monitoring, climate monitoring, temperature monitoring and solar monitoring satellites and missions.They're clever, them NASA folks!
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
Unless his conclusion is that arson is part of some left wing conspiracy. Sadly this would not surprise me in the least.
In other news, tb's fellow denier Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce has shamed himself by claiming Solar magnetic fields are responsible for the more dangerous fires and that it's probably Green party voters that have been dying anyway.
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
Unless his conclusion is that arson is part of some left wing conspiracy. Sadly this would not surprise me in the least.
In other news, tb's fellow denier Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce has shamed himself by claiming Solar magnetic fields are responsible for the more dangerous fires and that it's probably Green party voters that have been dying anyway.
Is no one thinking about them?
More to the point there are huge areas of land that are primarily covered in plants that are highly volatile in certain seasons. Passing thunderstorms and their lightning are often enough to start some burning as has been the case for millenia.
A couple of hundred years ago, especially in places like NSW, people started moving inland and making homes in the areas that were somewhat at risk. It wasn't so long ago that no one from the settlers had mad it through the Blue Mountains to discover what was on the other side.
Now there are highly populated routes right through the volatile forests and the development of Sydney has pretty much filled the entire area from the coast to the Mountains.
That the perception of risk is heightened is hardly a surprise. It would be expected irrespective of any marginal change in overall average temperatures that may have been recorded. And of course the 'risk' will financial loss plus loss of life, both of which could be avoided by banning humans from living in the at risk areas. (Since people are obviously too stupid to make up their own minds about the risks. Right?)
stew-STR160 said:
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
What is the mechanism for a small addition to a trace gas extending the fire danger season ?
PRTVR said:
stew-STR160 said:
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
What is the mechanism for a small addition to a trace gas extending the fire danger season ?
It's clear that any climatic event that takes place is now squarely blamed on climate change. Venice floods are now climate change according to the recent news...doesn't matter that it's flooded higher than it is now in the past.
Ooooh I'm sounding all conspiratorial...
stew-STR160 said:
PRTVR said:
stew-STR160 said:
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
What is the mechanism for a small addition to a trace gas extending the fire danger season ?
It's clear that any climatic event that takes place is now squarely blamed on climate change. Venice floods are now climate change according to the recent news...doesn't matter that it's flooded higher than it is now in the past.
It's not about whataboutism it's pure and cynical opportunism by alarmists seeking to gull politicians and scare children.
Still it was good to see a non-spam post from an agw supporter (wotf) based on data and objective reasoning, with no sign of a defeatist personal angle.
Climate Crisis Croaks - see IEA on Bloomberg - fossil fuels in full flight through the forties.
Decarbonisation 2025 / 2030 dreamworlds debunked by the IEA on Bloomberg 13 November 2019, with 2050 extremely unlikely.
stew-STR160 said:
It's clear that any climatic event that takes place is now squarely blamed on climate change. Venice floods are now climate change according to the recent news...doesn't matter that it's flooded higher than it is now in the past.
Quite right on Venice which is another favourite for alarmist hype.Venice floods regularlt and apparently this is global warming, and it will only get worse, because the IPCC says so.
Floods in Venice are local and seasonal. The worst in recent times happened in 1966 when over 70% of the city was flooded, it was also bad in 1986, and again in 2018/19. No worsening trend, getting less bad overall.
Tax gas on holiday.
LongQ said:
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
More on the shameful political exploitation of bushfires in Australia for scaremongering purposes.
Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
More shameful turbospam whataboutism. Ignores the blindingly obvious conclusion that an extended fire danger season is bad whether fires are deliberately lit or not.Thanks to the Australian Institute of Criminology which completed an extensive analysis of bushfire data for approx 280,000 fires, some interesting data is available which takes the discussion beyond simplistic refusal by some Australian authorities to remove the natural cause of fires: the proportion of Australian bushfires that are lit deliberately varies between regions but on average across the country, 13% are recorded as being deliberate and another 37% are recorded as suspicious. Simple arithmetic says that between 13% and 50% of fires are set deliberately.
Unless his conclusion is that arson is part of some left wing conspiracy. Sadly this would not surprise me in the least.
In other news, tb's fellow denier Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce has shamed himself by claiming Solar magnetic fields are responsible for the more dangerous fires and that it's probably Green party voters that have been dying anyway.
Is no one thinking about them?
More to the point there are huge areas of land that are primarily covered in plants that are highly volatile in certain seasons. Passing thunderstorms and their lightning are often enough to start some burning as has been the case for millenia.
A couple of hundred years ago, especially in places like NSW, people started moving inland and making homes in the areas that were somewhat at risk. It wasn't so long ago that no one from the settlers had mad it through the Blue Mountains to discover what was on the other side.
Now there are highly populated routes right through the volatile forests and the development of Sydney has pretty much filled the entire area from the coast to the Mountains.
That the perception of risk is heightened is hardly a surprise. It would be expected irrespective of any marginal change in overall average temperatures that may have been recorded. And of course the 'risk' will financial loss plus loss of life, both of which could be avoided by banning humans from living in the at risk areas. (Since people are obviously too stupid to make up their own minds about the risks. Right?)
But it is an absolute fact that the fire season is longer and more extreme in Australia due to climate change. Consequently the fuel reduction season is shorter and less safe.
The only way to deny this fact is to dispute the partiality of every scientist and scientific institution involved.
Which turbo et-al will now proceed to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff