JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe

The Age in Melbourne said they were “keen” to get a piece like this from David on Tuesday, but on Wednesday decided not to go with it.

Unfortunately figures on fuel loads are rare. David used to do carbon accounting for the Australian Government, which included developing the ability to estimate forest debris in Australian forests from a combination of plant models, satellite data on vegetation, and weather data. That capability exists in the Department of Environment, in the unit that produces Australia’s carbon accounts. However the figures here are only what David has heard from other sources over the years, and do not reflect any official or government figures. – Jo

UPDATE: Skynews tells us Defence admit starting the mega Lithgow fire last Wednesday. “A massive fire burning in Lithgow and the Blue Mountains was caused by explosives training which was being carried out in the area by the department of defence.”

————-

Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe

Dr David Evans

The bibles of mainstream climate change are the Assessment Reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) every six years or so. The latest was issued recently, in September 2013. Significantly, it backs away from the link between climate change and specific extreme weather events.

The IPCC says that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [that is, adjusted for exposure and wealth of the increasing populations] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” The IPCC claim only to have “low confidence” in their ability to project “changes in frequency and duration of megadroughts.”

The official report does say that “drought, coupled with extreme heat and low humidity, can increase the risk of wildfire”, but there is no drought in southeast Australia at the moment.

They also say “there is evidence that future climate change could lead to increases in the occurrence of wildfires because of changes in fuel availability, readiness of the fuel to burn and ignition sources.” Carbon dioxide is a potent plant fertilizer. According to NASA satellites there is more living plant matter today, with a 6% increase in the twenty years to 2000. So there is more to burn.

Some academic papers conclude that climate change might be a contributing factor (Cai, Nicholls), others say it is not (Crompton, Pielke).

If there was any specific evidence that linked climate change to bushfires or extreme weather events, we know they would be trumpeting it loudly. That they don’t, speaks volumes.

There has been a hiatus in the rise of average global air temperatures for the last fifteen years or more. Basically the world hasn’t warmed for the last decade and a half. While this does not rule out warming in some regions, climate cannot have been much of a contributor to the worsening bushfire situation over the last fifteen years.

People have been burning off to keep fuel loads low in Australia for thousands of years.

Current fuel loads are now typically 30 tonnes per hectare in the forests of southeast Australia, compared to maybe 8 tonnes per hectare in the recent and ancient pasts. So fires burn hotter and longer. (The figures are hard to obtain, which is scandalous considering their central importance. There is also confusion over whether to include all material dropped by the trees, or just the material less than 6mm thick–it is mainly the finer material that contributes to the flame front.)

The old advice to either fight or flee when a bushfire approached, and to defend property, only made sense when fuel loads were light. The fire wasn’t too hot, it was over in a few minutes, and we could survive. With the high fuel loads of today, fighting the fire is too dangerous in most cases.

Eucalypts love fire, because it gives them an advantage over competing tree species. Eucalypts regenerate very quickly after a fire, much faster than other trees, so periodic fires ensure the dominance of eucalypts in the forest. Eucalypts have evolved to encourage fires, dropping copious amounts of easily flammable litter. Stringy bark trees are the worst, dangling flammable strings of bark that catch alight and detach from the tree to spread the fire a kilometer or two downwind.

Picture lighting a fire in an outside fireplace. The more newspaper and twigs you pack in, the hotter and faster the fire will burn. Extra heat ignites thicker denser wood, which fuels the fire for so much longer. Now imagine being an ant living in or around that fireplace, and wondering whether to fight or flee. The forests of southeast Australia are our fireplace, and the eucalypts are piling up the easily flammable material around us.

Bill Gammage wrote an excellent book, The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines made Australia, which was awarded the Prime Minister’s Prize for Australian History and the Victorian Premier’s Literary Award in 2012. The first Europeans in Australia noted over and over that Australia looked like a country estate in England, like a park with open woodlands, extensive grassy patches, and abundant wildlife. Where Europeans prevented aborigines from tending their land it became overgrown, and the inevitable fires became dangerous and uncontrollable.

Particularly memorable is the account of driving a horse and carriage from Hobart to Launceston in the early 1800’s, before there were any roads, simply by driving along the grassy park underneath the tree canopies. Try doing that today.

People will die and property losses will be high until we relearn these lessons and reduce fuel loads again.

 

References

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (176 votes cast)
Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe, 9.7 out of 10 based on 176 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m8jewmf

548 comments to Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Absolutely spot on David. And people still want to live amongst the trees. It will happen again.

    450

    • #
      King Geo

      I fear for those living up in the Darling Ranges – this area has received 1000mm+ since May and now the weather is warming up and the luxurious “eucalypt forest and undergrowth” drying out. Imagine how much the fuel load is now. Mr Premier (I am a fan of Colin) how is the “prescribed back burning” going? It needs to be happening right now – there is a window of opportunity for the next 2 months before the really hot “Summer Heatwaves” commence. We don’t want to see a repeat of the current catastrophic NSW fires here in the Darling Ranges and our Southwest.

      341

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        True. Hopefully you and all of us have written to the Premier, their local member and the Minister to stress the need for action.

        I did smell smoke today in Perth but no fires have been reported. Perhaps the cold-burn has started.

        170

      • #
        John Brookes

        Surely you are kidding. Its too late for prescribed burns now.

        114

        • #
          Greebo

          Depends on where you are. Sure, in the Blue Mountains it’s a little late, but here in the Dandenongs, where I choose to live, it’s pouring rain. The spring growth has exploded, and the next dry spell is exactly when the burns are needed, or February could be a disaster ( again ).

          20

        • #
          ColdinOz

          Just what is your expertise in prescribed burning

          31

      • #
        Truthseeker

        I think I have a solution at very little cost to the taxpayer.

        1. Legislate that if fuel loads are more than x tonnes/hectare then insurance companies paying out claims for fire damage can reclaim those payouts from Local and State Governments.
        2. Allow the insurance companies to engage the local fire departments to periodically audit all areas where property is at risk to register the current level of fuel loads per hectare. Those results are made public and are gazetted by area.
        3. Sit back and watch fuel reduction burns happen like clockwork.

        Simples …

        80

        • #
          Greebo

          Works for me. The added advantage could perhaps ( we are talking about insurance companies, after all ) be that the Fire Services Levy could go towards some funding of the CFA or it’s equivalent where you are, and reduce the need for tin rattling and sausage sizzles. In 2013 Governments should be damned for their lack of funding to fire services.

          10

    • #
      cohenite

      I agree; very timely given the outrageous claims coming from the likes of Bandt, Pitman, Figueres and this deplorable effort from academic Liam Phelan.

      383

    • #

      It would seem that Al Gore has forecast that the Army, young kids and others, due to climate change, will start more fires. As he stated “bushfires will become more common” due to this.
      So perhaps we should investigate why mental disturbances in people become more common.
      Starting with Al Gore.

      230

      • #
        Richard the Great

        Yes, but I wonder when Al Bore & lesser mindless minions will start using increased CO2 as the latest rallying point: “If it wasn’t for all the CO2 the plants would not be growing so prolifically and the fuel load would not be so high after such a small elapsed time”. We have:

        1. Global warming
        2. Climate change
        3. Climate disruption

        We await:

        4. Atmopheric compositional disruption resulting in an increased incidence of non linear, interdependent, chaotic, Australo-phyto- blasto-induced Megalo pyritic events.

        161

    • #
      steve

      Time to start suing Councils/Greenies/both for damages – anyone who obstructs proper fire risk reduction practices like back burning ( i.e. called common sense ) is placing the community at heightened risk.

      402

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Greens leader Christine Milne said Mr Abbott had insulted Ms Figueres with his hat comment but that the real losers out of his “science denialism” were future victims of extreme fires, droughts and storms.

        “Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister for science denialism. He thinks his opinion on global warming outranks the evidence of the best scientists in the world. It is arrogance in the extreme,” Senator Milne said in a statement.

        “The Prime Minister’s hubris on global warming will see Australia swelter and burn, and our people suffer.”

        Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-official-talking-out-of-her-hat-on-bushfires-and-climate-change-says-tony-abbott-20131023-2w0mq.html#ixzz2iazWoJKn

        147

        • #
          Ian

          I’ve just received advice from GetUp that there is to be a National Day of Climate Action on November 17 see below

          “Fires continue to ravage NSW as the world’s top scientists, and Australia’s frontline firefighters,[1] say the link between extreme weather and climate change has never been clearer. Yet at the same time, our leaders march blindly on, determined to undo everything we’ve fought for.

          Why? They want our permission to turn their back on the greatest challenge of our time.

          Are we going to give it to them? Hell no.

          We have a plan. It starts with huge mobilisations. It starts in Perth – but we need your help.

          On November 17, people all around the country are stepping up to host and attend the largest, most diverse National Day of Climate Action our country has ever seen. Are you in?”

          My answer to that is categorically No. But it will be very informative to see just how many do join in the protests as it will give an indication of the numbers that believe Ms Milne and the Greens she leads are right about climate change.

          120

          • #
            Steve

            I am amazed at the amount of energy the hard Left has using climate as the trojan horse to acquire power.

            Watching socialists in action is like watching people “posessed”….maybe literally…

            231

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Well lets put it this way, I suspect they will only need one plate of lettuce sandwiches on gluten free, organic, sustainable, fair trade, non GM, wholemeal, wholegrain, low fat, low salt free range bread.

            100

          • #
            Steve

            Hi Satetyguy – my reply at 1.4.1.2 was in repsonse to Ian at 1.4.1.1

            Didnt want you to think I was being rude to you.

            Cheers

            50

          • #
            Paul

            The way the media choose to cover it will be worth watching.

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Exactly 100 years to the day that “The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party splits into two groups; the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks”.

            Hmmm….working….
            …thinking….
            …nah, I can’t make an analogy out of that either. :)

            Unless…

            Unless we can get some portion of the Green/Left who are fair-minded traditional environmental conservationists to publicly split from GetUp and denounce the carbon price plan to tax tree food as being ill-conceived, insignificant to bushfire severity, and not in tune with Australian bush ecology.

            Yeah, tell me I’m dreamin’.

            10

        • #
          Steve

          Ha!

          How about those who lost their house because greenies blocked common sense back burning?

          The greenies should just shut up now. I have a few mates who are very down to earth and live in the bush.

          I’d love to be a fly on the wall if a greenie started spouting off about the fires and climate change erronous link – they’d be called out on it pretty quickly and shown to be wrong double quick.

          140

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Agreed.

            And to whoever is red thumbing my quotes from Christine Milne…. stop shooting the messenger…. geez

            If your a warmbot, fair enough.

            123

            • #
              Andrew

              I gave you an extra red one for that LOL.

              But now that you mention it, I object to the subliminal messaging conducted by this site – Green is good (thumbs up). We need a neutral colour.

              00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Ahh yes. The rubbish lie that greenies have stopped prescribed burns.

            124

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Ahh yes. The rubbish lie that greenies have stopped prescribed burns.

              John,why do you even bother?

              The tale of the Victorian man fined $50,000.00 by his local Greenie council for daring to fireproof his property, and whose house was the only one standing in a two kilometre radius after the 2009 Victorian bushfires, is now part of Greater Australian Folklore Legend.

              It is just one of many similar, confirmed stories of greenie interference leading to “unintended consequences” that ultimately cost lives, or property, or both.

              You can come here and pretend all you like that it didn’t happen.
              All you do is make yourself look even more stupid – if that is possible.

              301

      • #
        Bob Campbell

        Exactly Steve. I can’t understand why no one has, or even a class action by some legal firm as happened with the Vic power company power lines starting fires.

        50

        • #
          Steve

          Yeah I think this option of legal approach needs to be seriously considered – not because I’m bloody minded, or hate greenies, rather there needs to be some form of restoring common sense, and a big profile case could be just the thing.

          The good thing about a legal case would be that the science would be dragged out into the open and there would be no where to hide. I think a lot of people would contribute financially, to see common sense restored again.

          Then we could move on to removing wind fams.

          130

          • #
            John Williams

            An interesting parallel is the current Greenpeace whackos on trial in Russia, originally for terrorism but now downgraded to charges that still carry a penalty of 7 years in a labour camp.
            God bless the Russkis.
            The Greenpeace mob never received more than a cross word prior to this.
            I cannot imagine there will be much enthusiasm in future for any activism against any enterprise that carries a Russian connection.
            Lest you think I exaggerate , Google the taking of Russian diplomats in Beirut in the 1985 and the Russian Alpha group response.
            Or the May 2010 Russian response to the Somali pirates.
            Lets hope the Western Governments grow a spine after these examples.

            150

        • #
          John Brookes

          I don’t think you can sue the government for not taking action on climate change.

          021

          • #
            Ian

            Hey John Brookes did you watch the program on Catalyst about the saturated fat/cholesterol story. It seems that the Heart Foundation may well have got it all wrong. The parallels between the resistance to the debunking of the “cholesterol causes heart disease” mantra and the doubts that “CO2 from human use of fossil fuels causes global warming” are so similar. A very cogent remark was that those who promote the theory cholesterol causes heart disease refuse to recognise the existence of data that refutes that theory. Now isn’t that just like the climate scientists and their sycophantic hangers on? I urge everyone to watch it if you can as the evidence against this long held belief is convincing and as I’ve sad it so closely parallels what is now happening with the Climate Change debate

            211

            • #
              PADDO09

              Ian, I too, watched catalyst last night and was struck by the parallels with the arguments for the justification of Climate Change. It was an excellent program (Itwill be repeated on the ABC on Saturday. Well worth another look

              100

          • #
            Backslider

            I don’t think you can sue the government for not taking action on climate change.

            What the F are you talking about? You have climate change on the brain. What “action” do ypu think should be done? Are you saying that climate change caused these bush fires? What evidence do you have?

            I hear talk of “extreme weather”, however our weather has been nothing other than normal.

            The talk is for sueing due to negligence in not reducing fuel loads.

            50

          • #
            Greebo

            Isn’t that precisely what these guys were doing?

            Didn’t this bloke try as well?

            00

          • #

            You can try to sue the government for anything. You can sue individuals for anything. Greebo has a couple of great links on this.

            00

    • #
      SA Beinke

      CSIRO seems to agree with Dr David Evans. But no matter, the MSM has little interest in researching or hearing facts that don’t fit an apocalyptic headline.

      121

      • #
        SA Beinke

        This link I hope works, that describes the science from our own CSIRO. The Historical Perspective section is enlightening for the uneducated or misinformed.

        40

    • #
      John Oh

      I did a whole lot of Chrisco deliveries in Kinglake West and Kinglake in 2009, a great forested area. Some places were so dense that the only way I could find houses was on rubbish night. The bins were on the road….A few months later, those exact areas were the ones hit. With some fires created by lack of maintenance and clashing transmission wires. Don’t tell me they wouldn’t have known about this possibility, when inspecting power lines…. It seems those who are in charge can make huge mistakes and make all sorts of wild claims. (And be completely wrong!)

      20

  • #
    MadJak

    Well we wouldn’t be expected to have a well informed, well researched, factually based article in the age would we?

    Surely the readers of the Age would go into an absolute meltdown if that happened.

    I can see why they wouldn’t publish it, it’s far to avant-garde for them.

    321

  • #
    Manfred

    Excerpts from the “principles” of the Greens NSW Bush Fire Risk Management Policy as follows. I think there is little doubt where their priorites lie. The preservation of precious human life and habitation do not appear to feature as the over arching, pre-eminent goal. This is a glimpse of a devastated, fire ravaged landscape in a Gaia centered Green utopia of politically orchestrated ‘natural’ selection.

    “Assumptions about traditional European bush fire prevention, mitigation, control and management need review in the light of the need for ecologically sustainable management.”

    “There is an urgent need to correct the common misconception that responsible fire management always involves burning or clearing to reduce moderate and high fuel loads generally throughout the landscape, irrespective of where they occur.”

    “Many vegetation communities and plants cannot survive frequent fire; for this reason frequent fire has been listed as a key threatening process by the NSW Scientific Committee under the Threatened Species Conservation Act.”

    “Ecologically appropriate fire regimes are required to maintain biodiversity and functioning ecosystems.”

    “Education of councils, land managers, land-holders, the general public, fire management planners and fire fighters is needed and should be publicly funded. Such education should target specific audiences and address a broad range of ‘bush fire’ and environmental issues.”

    “All Fire Fighting Agencies and Land Managers should be issued with guidelines as to the specific implications of the legal requirement for ecologically sustainable fire management and receive training on the environmental effects of bush fires.”

    “New development that requires the clearing of native vegetation on adjoining properties should not be permitted in identified Bushfire Prone Areas, where such development is likely to put lives or property in danger or involve substantial
    protection and suppression costs including loss of environmental
    values.”

    310

    • #
      cohenite

      Manfred, do you have a link for that?

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      When you read that, its NO WONDER that winter burning etc has all but stopped.

      There are way to many bureaucratic hoops to jump through for even the most resolute to ever get anything done.

      A Greens plan for DISASTER !!!

      332

      • #
        • #
          AndyG55

          now hunt for some data for 20-30 years ago.

          10

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Sorry I don’t believe it, there has been almost a week more GHG gone into the atmosphere since it started plus the emissions from the fire. How could the situation possibly not be getting worse ? It doesn’t make any sense. Its like Chewbacca living on Endor. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

          30

        • #
          Maverick

          The answer to your question Johnb, is that whilst the hectares have grown, the percentage of the fuel reduction burn of NSWs forests has not, because of the large increases in national parks and state forests seen in this state.

          Andrew Bolt addresses it here.

          40

        • #

          It’s a tiny fraction of the managed area. Less than 4%.

          At that rate, fuel will build up for over 25 years on average before a controlled burn in any specific area.

          40

        • #
          AndyG55

          They USED to maintain fire trails properly.. Now they are mostly an overgrown mess.

          They USED to clear back from houses.. now they let the undergrowth up to the back fences

          Farmers USED to be able to clear adequate fire breaks around and within their properties without question.. now they have to file reams of paperwork.

          And its ALL because of inner city pseudo environmentalists who basically have zero idea of the consequences of their ignorant agenda.

          People like Brandt. Dangerous people !!! People who will do great harm to society if they aren’t stopped.

          Is it really any wonder that there is a build up of combustible material.. basically .. everywhere. !!

          130

    • #
      steve

      Yes, I just cant imagine how having a pile of stuff to catch fire and drive a bushfire, could not be a significant risk.

      Which alternate universe do these people inhabit?

      Perhaps in Politburo, today, we decree that black is white.

      201

    • #
      Aussie

      Alfred thanks for posting this because there is an immediate error or rather a Green myth that springs right off the page.

      “Many vegetation communities and plants cannot survive frequent fire”

      This statement is totally erroneous. It is based on what evidence?

      The facts are: the seeds of some trees, e.g. pines or pinecones, need fire to generate. The pinecone bursts open in the fires and the seeds are released so that they can re-generate. I learned this fact in Canada in a region where there are lots and lots of pine trees.

      Also, after the 1983 bushfires in the Adelaide Hills the Women’s Weekly had a spread with photographs that showed all of the new flora life that was being generated after the fire. There was a lot of new flowers and the like that began to spring up in the aftermath of the fire. In other words those plants needed the fires to re-generate.

      The Greens are extremely ignorant. They think that they know what is best but even their own manifesto shows them to be extremely ignorant about the generation of plant life. None of them have the scientific or botanic background to even begin to understand how all of this works.

      The fact is: the fires that we see each summer on a regular basis do in fact regenerate new life. Backburning is better because it is a controlled situation.

      90

      • #
        johnb

        here is the full para above from greens link

        “Further, many vegetation communities can undergo severe decline in
        biodiversity with long term fire exclusion. Ecologically appropriate fire
        regimes are required to maintain biodiversity and functioning
        ecosystems.

        20

        • #

          That is; the functionality that they deem it should have.

          The natural world flourishes with species dominant in particular areas. It has done so for billions of years.

          “Biodiversity” is an arbitrary, political concept. It doesn’t mean what people think it does. It never does, being political claptrap. Nobody knows the minimum or optimum number of species that need to exist in a particular place.

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          What they say

          NOT what they do..

          Learn BOZO Greens are ALL about “seeming” haven’t you learnt that yet ?????

          You try to go an cut down some trees to protect your property, or clear a patch around your house.. see what real green tape is all about. !!

          101

    • #
      Grandma

      I’m old enough to be genuinely literate, but I have absolutely no idea what this sludge means. I guess that’s its point – who’d bother trying to unpack it.

      10

    • #
      Greebo

      I’d love to sit Milne down with a person I know who lost her parents in the Black Saturday 2009 Victorian fires, so she could ‘explain’ her policies.

      30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    There is a related thread over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog

    80

  • #
    stu

    Give a thought to those unsung frontline fighters – tongue firmly in cheek!

    80

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    i spent 3 years fighting forest fires in the Troodos mountains. Fire science is pretty simple, if it wasn’t firemen couldn’t understand it. All you firemen out there will have been taught the triangle of fire. Visualise a triangle with three sides marked, Heat, Oxygen and Fuel. To stop a fire you have to break the triangle at one of the corners. In the mountains there is always a heat source somewhere. It can be natural, man made, accidental, negligent or deliberate, but the existence of a heat source is a matter of when, not if. Mountainous areas will always have a wind of some description, so oxygen in abundance is ever-present. In practical terms heat sources and oxygen cannot be controlled by human agency in the Australian bush The only part of the triangle that can be controlled by man is the fuel. From following this blog on other threads, the idea of
    control by clearing the undergrowth is well understood. Furthermore, it’s the fireman’s way of preventing wild fires. Last year,when visiting WA and driving from Perth into the hinterland, I was struck by the enormous amount of choked woodland situated up to and frequently well into towns and villages – a disaster waiting to happen.

    Australia has a population of c 23,000,000 living in a land area the size of the contiguous USA. To my mind it beggars belief that federal and state governments have not managed to fulfil conservation priorities whilst protecting the lives and property of Australian citizens, especially as in a liberal democracy protection of the people and their means of existence is the reason for the requirement of any government at all. If the putting of Australian citizens and property in harms way is a deliberate act of policy, then those who advocate it are being criminally negligent.

    680

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Well said.

      As a counter to the informed comment here on Jo’s blog we find examples like this from our local paper”

      “Dr Liam Phelan is a senior lecturer in the school of environmental and life sciences at the University of Newcastle.

      IS it appropriate to talk about the link between climate change and bushfires even as fires are still burning? Even as lives are threatened and lost, property is destroyed, and firefighters are still battling?

      Adam Bandt, the federal member for Melbourne, came under attack last week for referring publicly to the link between climate change and the more than 90 bushfires that were burning across NSW.

      There are two key issues in play: the link between climate change and extreme weather events, and how we as a society should respond to that link.”"

      It goes on and on but he has established the LINK.

      Full article: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1857878/opinion-climate-change-is-fuelling-fires/?cs=308

      One comment in response to his tirade was written by someone I know well:

      In part:

      ” It is total rubbish to suggest that forty years of a NO FIRE policy is not the cause of the recent fires seen in Victoria (190 dead), Tasmania (many lost their livelihoods) and now New South Wales over the last few years.

      Every person with any knowledge of the bush knows that undergrowth is at historic levels not previously seen during the last 50 years. Kindling is now stored up to 2 metres high on most tracks through local bushland, fire trails, once regularly maintained have been grown over and a super firestorm is ready to go.”" ………..

      The question is now; How do we translate this catastrophe into permanent, enforceable, no nonsense, Government policy to go back to the future and have large scale winter hazard reductions perhaps paid for in part by Insurance companies?

      There is no other way; we are currently seeing the result of forty years of a “No Fire” policy designed by people who have never seen the bush let alone been part of it.

      We must again Fight Fire With Fire!

      KK

      400

      • #
        Redress

        KK
        Al Gore has just hopped on the bandwagon and said that the link between the NSW bushfires and climate change is proven,
        The science is settled.

        At least that’s what NOT my ABC is reporting.

        170

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Unfortunately it IS your ABC and you are paying for it whether you like it or not Redress. :)

          KK

          140

          • #
            Redress

            KK
            During the 1970′s, I was an employee of the ABC.
            My comment about the ABC being NOT my ABC refers to the fact that when I worked there the ABC abided by the governing act………unlike now.

            210

            • #
              mareeS

              Redress, as another fugitive from what’s now THEIR ABC, and a tax funder to boot, I’m unhappy with what used to be a fair and frank organisation. Makes my former work as a fair and frank servant of the Australian public a bit pointless, seeing that it’s now the final refuge of intemperates and loonies.

              Privatise it now, Tony!

              90

        • #
          Manfred

          As I mentioned in a previous post, Al Gore appears obsessed with fire, more politely perhaps, appears preoccupied with fire. From the perspective of habitual socio-political pyromania, maybe it is understandable. And it seems any climate conflagration is ‘useful’ to the practiced spin meister. His previous efforts to purchase footage of a fire storm were however, doused by failure.. The footage was not sold to him because of a potential for it to be used ‘by alarmists’ for deception. And now they’re at it again – peddling the moment for all its worth.

          When the ashes settle, I think the emergence of reason and fact will do them like a dogs dinner.

          80

          • #
            Ross

            It is worth repeating : WELL DONE TONY ABBOTT for publically saying that Christiaia Figueres , Gore and co are talking rubbish when referring to a supposed link between AGW and the fires.
            As an aside it is significant the MSM in NZ have picked up on the NASA figures of ice growth in the Antarctic and openly questioning how that tallies with AGW.
            Small but significant steps in the right direction.

            232

      • #
        cohenite

        There is a response to Phelan here.

        40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thanks for the link.

          I met the author of the article at Lord Moncktons meeting in Newc’le.

          Puts it all in perspective.

          I hate hearing about arsonists and fire bugs because although obviously they are bad news, the discussion diverts attention from the real criminals:

          The State and Federal Governments which did away with regular HR burns forty years ago and bowed to green pressure so that people can’t even protect their homes by lopping overhanging branches let alone carry out limited protection burns.

          KK

          130

        • #
          mareeS

          Dr Liam Phelan (for a doctor he is), resides at the University of Newcastle, second only to Monash for the number of unemployable graduates of environment and media courses begging at the doors of business and THEIR ABC.

          Now that the Great Lie of AGW has been exposed, and Fairfax is no longer hiring, these pets will no longer have to worry about HECS repayments in the foreseeable future, because they will be retraining into some other discipline that actually pays a salary and makes a productive contribution to the nation, such as engineering.

          (Did I really suggest engineering? God forbid one of them gets a chance at designing a bridge, or a ship, or an aircraft. Maybe I should have suggested Latin translation.)

          141

      • #
        Greebo

        There is no other way; we are currently seeing the result of forty years of a “No Fire” policy designed by people who have never seen the bush let alone been part of it.

        We must again Fight Fire With Fire!

        KK

        Isn’t that exactly what we are doing? I know, we all sat on our collective arses because we we thought it would all go away, when the truth was that our future, and our children ( to our eternal shame ) were being hijacked. Aren’t we now fighting back? I, in my own simple way, with no science, fight back by being here, and pointing to here when I talk to my family members who are younger than me, who can Twit or Bookface to their mates. And they do.

        20

    • #

      I believe it was after the Yellowstone fire in 1998, the US stopped the “suppression at all costs” and now lets fires burn in the remote areas. California has rules about not clearing brush (at least in some areas) but many other places encourage clearing. Not that many people actually do so–at least until their cabin/house burns down the first time.

      The problem is we have somehow lost the ability to bend nature to our will. Everyone knows that reality is what you want it to be. Fires SHOULD never burn down town, tornadoes should never hit populated areas, hurricanes should stay off shore, it should rain when we need it and not when we don’t, rivers should not flood. Somewhere along the line we made Gaia mad (maybe excess CO2 causes some kind of rage and Gaia is thus infected?) and now we can’t control the weather like we used to. People still live along the shore and near mountains of brush, but in the past Gaia was kind and saved all the people. If we just would stop angering Gaia the bliss would return……..

      163

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The problem is we have somehow lost the ability to bend nature to our will.

        Or is it that we’ve lost the will to bend nature to our will? We have the ability to do better when it comes to controlling wildfire. But we don’t seem to want to do it.

        ————————–

        Nice parody. It’s too bad no one is listening. ;-)

        130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Kevin,

      Well said. And absolutely the truth. I have lived too many years in sagebrush country to believe otherwise.

      60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Thank you Kevin

      I have heard about the Heat, Oxygen, and Fuel triangle before, but only in the context of enclosed spaces. It has never occurred to me, that the model could reduce to just a single factor in open spaces. A real “light-bulb” moment.

      110

    • #
      edwina

      Whenever I write on other blogs or in response to a newspaper article about AGW I often am criticized for not being a scientist. This is despite me using science truths such as Newton’s laws are used for space travel. Someone wrote back to me saying Newton’s laws are not 100% perfect because course corrections are needed on trips to the Moon. (huh?)

      True, I am not a scientist. But it amazes me Al Gore received the 2007 Nobel peace prize for his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” when he too is not a scientist. I was incredulous when I once heard him say that geothermal energy was limitless because the earth’s temperature below the surface was MILLIONS of degrees. To counter his ignorance he now just says he reads as many scientific reports that support AGW. Ok, but I (and others) read reports showing an alternate view.

      So it seems to boil down to which ‘source’ of science or reports one leans toward. Personally, I would rather lean toward scepticism rather than outright 100% belief in a newly born science with so many holes in it.

      180

      • #
        Manfred

        Healthy scepticism is a very, very healthy place to start, particularly when it comes to evaluating institutionalised anything and progressive “science” in particular. A useful heuristic: does the objective empirical evidence allow one to conclude that the findings may not be due to chance, bias or confounding.

        100

        • #
          Speedy

          Manfred

          The first duty of a scientist is to question everything, especially their own theories. If a scientist is not sceptical, then he is not a scientist.

          A scientist relies on scepticism, not faith. Faith is a great foundation for religion, but not for a science.

          Cheers,

          Speedy

          50

          • #
            Manfred

            Actually Speedy, a first duty is to know when, how and what to question. Questioning ‘everything’ is in fact quite pointless. Science cannot falsify for example the beauty of a sunset or indeed ‘faith’ as indeed you appear to suggest. This is why we struggle against the fervent faith of those that believe in CAGW, extreme climate related events, crop circles and UFO’s to name but a few.

            When evaluating the results of research scientists usually engage in a critical examination of their methodology for limitations (shortcomings) that might potentially compromise their findings, void their findings or indeed open their findings to a new interpretation. This critical process is also undertaken by colleagues in peer review. It is not undertaken in pal review. In the course of a critical analysis of any results, one is compelled to ask several questions, an example of some being: could the results be due to chance? Could they be due to personal or other biases (these are numerous indeed), or could they be due to confounding (eg. some other unknown/unrecognised variable that influences (conceals or magnifies) the observation.

            Scientists have many duties and roles. However, in my view the pre-eminent ‘duty’ is the exercise of INTEGRITY in the scientific process.

            50

    • #
      King Geo

      Kevin your comment cuts to the chase – it should be sent to the decision makers in WA, QLD, NSW, ACT, TAS, VIC & SA. NT are not at significant risk from bushfires. Money saved by axing the Carbon Tax (and forget the ETS) should be used for “prescribed back burning” of all of Australia’s eucalypt forests – year in year out. Also scrap the A$ billions wasted subsidizing uneconomic & inefficient “Green Renewable Schemes” – it’s time to stop the waste of tax payers money and put it to better use.

      70

      • #
        crakar24

        Some of the biggest bushfires i have ever seen have been in the NT, granted there are no greenies there to witness them. One of the big ones was lit accidentally by the DoD.

        60

    • #
      RealOldOne2

      Spot on Kevin. In the U.S. while the serial alarmists cry ‘Climate Change’ when wildfires occur, the U.S. Forest Service has concluded: “Modern management practices designed to protect forests (for example, restricting thinning or excessive harvesting) have produced increasingly dense vegetation. In recent years, wildfires occurring in overstocked forests consumed brush and smaller trees (ladder fuels), growing into larger, more intense fires” – USDA Forest Service, ‘Biomass to Energy:Forest Management for Wildfire Reduction, Energy Production, and Other Benefits’2010

      Just one more example of man’s hubris, thinking he knows better than nature. Same is true of the present climate alarmists’ proposed climate geoengineering such as CO2 sequestration. The cure may be worse than the disease.

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        … the U.S. Forest Service has concluded: “Modern management practices designed to protect forests (for example, restricting thinning or excessive harvesting) have produced increasingly dense vegetation. In recent years, wildfires occurring in overstocked forests consumed brush and smaller trees (ladder fuels), growing into larger, more intense fires”…

        It would also help if humans didn’t have such a proclivity for building into heavily forested or heavy brush areas with houses packed in so densely that it’s impossible to defend them all when a fire does happen. But I agree with the Forest Service. Clearing out the old growth, thinning out the trees, specially removing the dead and dying ones, would be a big step back toward better ability to fight the fires. They are going to happen and in Southern California the losses have been measured in billions — repeatedly too.

        50

  • #
    PeterW.

    David…

    With respect, the advice on bushfire survival – defending or leaving – was always conditional, and I understand that it was developed to suit modern conditions, post the Ash Wednesday fires.

    It was noted that a disproportionate number of people died on the roads, trapped when they attempted to flee at the last minute. The advice was designed to cause people to plan ahead. If leaving, to leave early. If not, then to prepare the dwelling and to then actively defend it.

    It seems that many in the media have misconstrued this to be advice that a last-minute decision to “defend” an unprepared house is a normal and reasonable option. It isn’t, although it may still be marginally better than being caught in your vehicle on a narrow, bush-lined road.

    Rational people in a fire-prone environment would prepare their home, in case they did not have the option of leaving.

    Other than that, I agree very much. I must look up Gammage’s work. My own reading was mostly Eric Rolls and Geoffrey Blainey.

    130

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Just ordered “The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines made Australia,” on amazon.uk. £18.08 with free delivery for UK buyers.

      70

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    The Age is like the rest of the left wing media that cannot accept that “their side” lost the last election, they want to cling to the negative stuff that they were promoting in the leadup to the election and forget the terrible wipeout of the greens.

    The Greens themselves know that they are answerable for the wholesale locking up of forests, keeping out those that knew how to manage fuel reduction by sustainable logging- the cheapest and best method of working with an industry that exists to maintain and protect it’s Timber extraction. Blindly protecting bushes and trees was a feature of the Victorian fires, even imposing draconian huge fines to prevent people creating firebreaks and access for fire reduction purposes.

    I was hardly surprised that the Greens and Adam Bandt almost leaped on the Climate issue almost like a godsend to head off the inevitable, that they will be held directly responsible for some but not all of the conditioning of bush and forest and their wish to separate forestry industries from any access even if it loses jobs, exports, and contracts economies.

    Hope they are held to account, and also any media that omitted or censored comments from fire fighters who when asked give the very practical answer, that climate change wasn’t an issue in previous fires, and it is not an issue today, except for those that want to exploit disasters for their own political purposes. I note that Tony Abbott a fire fighter gave that same answer.

    Exploiting and trying to raise scares for political advantage is stupid infantile behaviour. Adam Bandt is playing to city believers who still can’t figure why they got wiped out at the last election, If you want confirmation, go to facebook or twitter and see how they are playing to those with ultra short memories or the lack of ability to read and research – urban armchair self appointed conscience warriors!!

    Science has nothing to do with their propaganda, their agenda, or their professed concern.!

    291

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Tony Abbott said the Head of the UNFCCC was talking out of her hat! :D
      Of course our old friend Graham Readfearn had to stick the boot in…
      Australian Prime Minister denies 25 years of research linking climate change to bushfires

      Check the comments on that Guardian page and on Reddit’s Australia page over the next 6 hours to see how the punters handle Tony’s succinct rebuke.

      I think it’s hilarious. `bout time we had someone do some straight talkin’ `round here!

      160

      • #
        llew Jones

        I think, on observation, that in Abbott we really did get an outstanding, highly intelligent PM. His ability to handle the “affairs of state” with aplomb, stay involved in activities such as fire firefighting and not let being PM go to his head is a measure of that intelligence.

        As far as the alarmist sect of climate science spin on bushfires, promoted by the ABC, is concerned my money is on the “true scientist” Abbott who relies not only on his hands on experience (i.e. observation of evidence) of real, mainly NSW bushfires but also his accurate knowledge of the past history of NSW bushfires, back to the time when atmospheric levels of CO2 were not much above 280 ppm.

        There is a very real sense in which the history of weather events related to the relevant atmospheric concentration of CO2 is by far the best indicator of the nonsense that passes as alarmist evidence for ACC. That is, in this context at least, history trumps science.

        222

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Im with you Llew. 7 or 8 years ago I wouldnt have given you tuppence for Abbott. But his development as a thinker and as a conservative minded, yet libertarian statesman has been something to behold.

          100

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          That is, in this context at least, history trumps science.

          Probably the study of history is science. The direct observation of what has happened in the past is very instructive, not only regarding brush fires and how to deal with them but other things like tax and social policy as well.

          It seems incontrovertible to me that direct observation of something constitutes science. Certainly the alarmists are saying so because they’re pushing today’s experience as proof of their theory. They just selectively choose what they’ll look at and consequently draw the wrong preconceived conclusion.

          30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Thanks David for yet another thought provoking read, the facts and information regarding the Aboriginal methods of managing their environment have been blurred into the realm of “Conventional Wisdom” today and I for one would like to get actual accounts of their old practices of burning.
    Even Lord Monckton mentioned this in his address and said there was evidence of Aboriginals removing large/heavy timbered areas but moved on before he could elaborate, a very old bushman back in the 70′s told me early settlers witnessed Aboriginals burning a huge fire front and slowly following it living off new growth and with confidence that other fires could not reach them.

    120

    • #
      Redress

      Hi Yonniestone

      My family held a forest lease for over 20 years [1920-1940] in a national park created by Kristina Keneally and the greens a while back.

      Each year my Grandfather would burn that forest under the direction of the local Aborigines. He had this Heath Robinson contraption fueled by kerosine which he lit and then drove like crazy over the area the aborigines wanted burnt.

      Today you cannot ride a horse through the country which was once open woodland.

      Jo, I have photos to prove my story.

      310

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Redress thanks for the insight, the photos would be interesting to see, was the kerosene fire lighter a Heath Robinson because it was made from parts around the farm? :)

        80

        • #
          Redress

          Yonniestone

          Will have to try and find the photo, but from memory a kero container of some sort, taps and pipes, so yes, parts from around the farm.

          50

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Yonnie

      Bill Gammage has written a book which goes into the firey past of the Australian continent.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sko-YDIULKY

      Some parts were a bit detailed but all in all a good outline of the Aboriginal way.

      KK

      60

      • #
        Yonniestone

        KK thanks for the great link, I referred to “Conventional wisdom” as a group think type phenomenon of more recent times, where due to excessive media and political influence the so called “Conventional wisdom” of today is very corrupted and false, I would say at least 80%.
        With this you can find CAGW and the perception of what Aboriginals were doing in the past firmly engraved in our current “Conventional Wisdom.”

        50

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “New development that requires the clearing of native vegetation on adjoining properties should not be permitted in identified Bushfire Prone Areas, where such development is likely to put lives or property in danger or involve substantial
    protection and suppression costs including loss of environmental
    values.”

    I had to read that about 4 times to make sure I got it right.

    Im speechless….

    80

    • #
      Maverick

      In other words:

      “Humans can’t clear vegetation to build a house, because we believe that vegetation ranks ahead of humans”

      Spoken and Authorised by: “But it Does not apply to Me Greenie, 19 Eve St Erskineville NSW, a dilapidated brick, concrete, steel and glass building with an asbestos roof and concrete paving and asphalt roads out front.

      If you want a laugh Google and Street View the Greens NSW, headquarters – 19 Eve St Erskineville NSW

      30

  • #
    John Knowles

    As someone on the ground around Bilpin over this past week I can understand where David Evans is coming from. We try to do small winter burns but are hampered by environmental red tape. Winter burning needs to be carefully controlled so as to not scorch the trees but is vastly preferable to what we’ve seen in the Blue Mtns recently.
    Some of our nights of burning control lines north of Bilpin were very instructive. Some patches burned slowly and others fast and some places were so dense with leaf litter and dry scrub that they quickly escalated into their own little willy-willys or tornados of fire which had to be quickly cooled off with foam.
    It irritates me when people bleat about climate change and bush-fires. Australia has had fires for millenia but since we’ve had the power to stop accidental fires in the cool seasons we’ve developed a landscape heavily loaded for more severe summer wild-fires.
    This is elementary stuff.

    240

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      John. Is it possible to harvest the undergrowth by clearing and chipping, then turning it into soil improver? Working on a rotation basis of some clearing and some burning, would that cater for environmental concerns while producing a valuable resource to help agricultural and gardeners?

      71

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Sadly Kevin I think that hand or machine clearing or chemical controls are probably overall just impractical if not also very expensive.

        It seems that fire is the only real way of making safe the land we live in.

        On another tack, it is an appalling betrayal of Volunteer RFS Firefighters to fail to manage this problem at the State and Federal levels and then send in expensive helicopters and even more expensive politicians to hos e down the flames.

        I will always remember coming across the memorial at Perry’s Look-down across from Katoomba where several young people died trying to race a fire up the cliff. That was about 1960 well over half a century ago and we are still dealing in disaster.

        KK

        80

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Hi. Chemical controls are a non-starter, Agent orange and all that. For the rest, has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis of clearing around built-up areas against the human, environmental and monetary costs of fire damage over a period of years? The results might be startling.

          40

          • #
            Aussie

            Councils have green tape that prevents homeowners clearing trees and brush away from their homes.

            In 2009 one of the highlighted stories concerned that of a man who was fined by the local council because he cleared the trees from around his home. This was the only house left standing.

            What is required as a first step is to get rid of the green tape. Let people clear the trees surrounding their properties so that those properties are a little bit safer. Getting rid of the trees close up to a house should be a priority.

            80

            • #
              Steve

              I think in the case of people who have been burnt out, that a class action against councils who refused to let people clear land or back burn might be in order.

              Its ironic – councils grind down bits of footpaths in case someone trips on them and sues them.

              I dont see any difference between a trip hazard and averting a firestorm.

              But if concrete could sprout leaves, then waht a conundrum you’d have.

              60

      • #
        John Knowles

        Kevin, manual removal of the dry matter is a good approach but is labour intensive and only suited to areas close to settlements. In the case of the main Blue Mtns fire the army fired a shell on a practice range which set fire to the grass and after a few days we had 40,000 hectares of blackened bush. Clearly it is not practical to manually remove large areas of inaccessible National Park vegetation and the sandstone county here is so short of soil minerals and humus that manual removal would rapidly deplete the thin soil. Cool season burning, followed by rain is the perfect solution. Ash returns nutrients to the sandy soil and there is a substance in smoke which washes down in the rain and is a superb germination stimulant.
        KK is probably right,- fire is the way but I stress that it must be done tactfully. The rough barked gums flare up fast and if you get too hot a fire the bases of trees cop permanent damage so I frequently foam the bases of trees shortly after they’ve caught alight. Once the fire has burned back into dense woodland, away from a track, there is an oxygen deficit which limits heat intensity. Flame front speed decreases and wildlife can easily burrow, fly or run away.
        Environmental concern is often only an emotional issue in the minds of well-meaning people.

        130

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Thanks for your reply. As you can see from my conversation with KK, it’s the areas close to settlements I’m advocating manual removal from. Ref. the drop-shorts, I imagine that there’s a Lt Colonel somewhere quietly but hurriedly investigating the purchase of an alpaca farm :)

          30

      • #
        Aussie

        Kevin I have no expertise in the area, but, based upon what I have learned in recent years, some vegetation or plant life actually need the fires to survive and spread their seeds.

        Otherwise, if it was feasible, you suggestion might have some merit to at least get the fuel situation under control.

        40

    • #

      John. it is great to hear from someone who was there. Trust everything was OK for you. Bilpin was very much in the thick of it. Photos welcome, and more information or details about the red tape and how it affects fuel management would be good too.

      110

      • #
        John Knowles

        Everything is just fine in no-where Berambing but the press had a field-day and we eventually told some of them to leave as they were interfering with truck access. Bilpin was never in any real danger as we had a couple of still days and cool damp nights to burn-in a fire-break. Much of the smoke over Sydney in those telly shots was us burning a control line back into the main fire.
        Ironically, one of our problems was from the Rural Fire Service Sydney control centre who sent out text message warnings. During Saturday’s community briefing in Bilpin Hall we were reassuring residents and suggesting they stay to put out embers from our near-by back-burns. During this sensible discourse many mobile phones started receiving alarming warnings from the RFS with advice to evacuate !
        Unfortunately our power has been off all Wed and on Thurs and Fri I’m out all day mopping up remaining pockets of fire so the info and photos will have to wait.

        110

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          “..many mobile phones started receiving alarming warnings from the RFS with advice to evacuate !” SNAFU! Those were the days. :) More power to your elbow John, and those you are working with. For what it’s worth the thoughts of this old fireman go with you and your colleagues.

          40

        • #

          Funny, I didn’t hear stories like this on the news… thanks. Your first hand experience beats junior reporters second hand stories.

          50

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you David, I was living in Sorrento on the Mornington Peninsular in Victoria during the 1983 Black Wednesday disaster. The Country Fire Authority (I think), after much dedicated effort, produced a wonderful colour brochure on how to live in amongst the tranquil but deadly trees etc. It even portrayed a specific tree that could be safely planted around houses that would act as a fire break sometimes. I had one in my backyard and I could not get the leaves to burn. Another handy hint was not build under over hanging trees, which works for me, also considering the little understood fact of “Deadfall”. However there was a great outrage by the people who wanted only native trees and all the other waffle. The Insurance Companies threatened to refuse to insure those who did not follow the CFA guidelines, and it went on and on and on. So for the benefit of my serenity, I stopped taking notice.

    110

  • #
    PeterS

    Let me get this straight. The global warming alarmists are blaming the recent fires on runaway global warming and not on the surplus fuel, dry windy conditions as well as the high temperatures. Does this mean they want the world to have a mini ice age so that we never have any hot weather during summer thus preventing any future wild fires? Are they that moronic? It appears so but I shouldn’t be surprised.

    170

  • #

    UPDATE: Skynews tells us Defence admit starting the mega Lithgow fire last Wednesday. “A massive fire burning in Lithgow and the Blue Mountains was caused by explosives training which was being carried out in the area by the department of defence.”

    The Rural Fire Service said an investigaion had found the training exercise was responsible for causing the blaze, which has burnt out more than 46,000 hectares and sparked fears of turning into a ‘mega-fire’.

    The RFS later said there were no total fire bans in place on October 16 when the army started the fire.

    Does global warming cause DOD…

    170

  • #
    A C Osborn

    It is wonderful how in such a short time the “Greens” can overturn the experience, knowledge and common sense gained over thousands of years by the greenest of Australians (Aborigines) and a hundred years of the same learning by the colonists.
    Their power is awesome and completely misguided, the Government adoption of their policies Criminal.

    PS on your previous thread on the fires I asked how many heavy fire fighting Tanker and Super Tanker Aircraft Australia possess, do you know?
    I know you have a lot of helicopters and light tankers.

    200

  • #
    BilB

    “Current fuel loads are now typically 30 tonnes per hectare in the forests of southeast Australia, compared to maybe 8 tonnes per hectare in the recent and ancient pasts”

    Pure speculation David and not supportable by empirical evidence. The Australain “bush” has not changed its properties in any way significant enough to deliver a 3.5 fold increase in plant matter. The East coast is I suspect a little wetter than the past 30 years but that should also increase the rate of docomposition. The fact is that the bulk of the bush was never subject to fuel load reduction, only the parts near some towns.

    All of that aside the real cause of more intense fires is only wind speed. Talking with the chief fire assessor in Springwood last night he said that the duration of a fire is just seconds to a few minutes as far as any one spot is concerned, and that duration is a product of the windspeed. The most damagaging effects of the fire are the radiant energy and the gas temperatures. A fire that burns slowly burns more vertically and the radiant energy has the most damaging influence. A high velocity fire burns horizontally and the gas jet temperature is the real danger.

    To appreciate the difference go back to the video of the Canberra fire. This fire attacked houses at high velocity burning across an open grass field with very little fuel load per square metre. But because the fire was travelling horizontally the fuel load was immense as it was effectively “accrued” as the fire travelled across the paddock close to the ground. The result was an intense high velocity sheet of super heated gas which cut through buildings like a hot knife through butter, burning some 500 houses in the process.

    The experiments with CO2 enhanced plant growth from memory concluded that in the presence of a high CO2 availability build bigger root systems rather than more foliage. So where this holds true there would be a very marginal increase in fuel production.

    This, from my reading on the subject, is a blatantly false extention of compounded (negatively) exaggerated claims

    “Basically the world hasn’t warmed for the last decade and a half”

    False.

    The Springwood fire was not started by climate change either. It was broken power lines that hit the ground and sparked to ignite material the caused the fire.

    However climate change has set up the pressure systems in the path that they are following to deliver hot dry air from the centre at this time of year that caused a small spot fire to become an out of season destructive high velocity fire event.

    I do register Jo’s list of September and October fires that do deserve some study.

    In conclusion all it will take is just another decade to determine if these events fade away as they would for a passing climate “fluctuation”, or continue to be progressively more devastating.

    As they say “only time will tell”.

    553

    • #
      Heywood

      “Basically the world hasn’t warmed for the last decade and a half”

      False.

      Actually true. (If you don’t provided evidence, why should we?)

      224

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Bill you habitually sound like an idiot

      176

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      I think you will find that the fuel loads have increased significantly. During the previous drought conditions there was not such a vigorous understorey in the forests (which is required to carry the fire – your grassland example).

      Ironically an extended drought would help to reduce fuel load as the understorey succumbs to drought stress. (But it needs to be several seasons so that the litter breaks down).

      I was a alarmed driving through southern NSW and eastern Victoria last year at the amount of fuel in the bush. Areas which had been burned only 5 months before were growing so vigorously. (As a kiwi forester with some experience of controlled burning – and fire fighting a colleagues “uncontrolled burns” – and some knowledge of the ecology of the Eucalypt forest – seeing it first hand was sobering. I think David’s figure of 30 tonnes per hectare was on the low side for the area we visited.

      A number of others have discussed alternatives to burning – such as mechanical chipping or chemical means. One that could be investigated is the application of nitrogenous fertilisers. (Hear me out). In pine forests aerial application of nitrogen after pruning or waste thinning accelerates the breakdown of the slash. (It gets the micro-organisms working). Maybe judicious use of urea in areas around townships would help accelerate the breakdown of litter.

      130

      • #
        steve

        Welll….we need to start suing Councils/Greenies/both for damages – anyone who obstructs proper fire risk reduction practices like back burning ( i.e. called common sense ) is placing the community at heightened risk.

        61

      • #
        BilB

        I wasn’t doubting the current fuel load estimate, Grant NZ, I was casting doubt on the notion that in the past average fuel loads might have been 8 tonnes. Fact is that a fuel load of 8 tonnes can be correct for anywhere at some time. I’m sure that we have all walked through “bushland” with fuel loads of zero. Obviously this would be in the months after a comprehensive bush fire. So it follows that every are that has experienced a fire will have an 8 tonne fuel load for a time. But what was implied, though, is that the stable fuel load with growth through to decomposition could be 8 tonnes. I do not believe that to be the case.

        16

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ahhhh ignorance, thy name is BilB !!! The personification of all that is daft.

      Keep going twerp, you are good for a laugh. :-)

      114

    • #
      Backslider

      However climate change has set up the pressure systems in the path that they are following to deliver hot dry air from the centre at this time of year that caused a small spot fire to become an out of season destructive high velocity fire event.

      Wow Bilb…. you are very very good at making stuff up, I’ll give you that much.

      So this is the meme folks – It’s “extreme weather” caused by “climate change” which caused these bush fires.

      Fact: The weather has been by no means extreme or unusual whatsoever. Australia has fires, just as it always has.

      170

    • #
      ColdinOz

      You should know something about your subject before you express what is simply an uninformed opinion. Have you ever been involved in measuring fuel levels Bill? I have. I have. And I can tell you that 30 tonnes per ha may well be conservative. I have been involved in measuring up to 100 tonnes per has in karri tingle forest in SW WA. That was only litter measurements and did no include suspended or standing fuel.

      You also understand nothing about fire dynamics. Wind speed is only one of the factors in fire intensity. Fuel load, fuel moisture, soil moisture, humidity and ambient temperature are contributing factors. Why did the fire spread so rapidly across the paddocks in the case of the Canberra fire? Because they were paddocks with nothing to impede air movement.

      It is a basic physical priciple that in a fir event the total thermal output is directly related to the total amount of fuel consumed.

      Intensity is related directly to the total amount of fuel consumed, and also directly related to the rate of combustion of that fuel.

      Wish I had time to write more here.

      190

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “All of that aside the real cause of more intense fires is only wind speed.”

      So if you took a match to a pile of concrete, provided you had enough wind behind you it would burn?

      Interesting theory, have you seen your doctor lately?

      72

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I have seen concrete burn.

        Well, at least melt. It was in a heavy rain storm, and a transformer, mounted on a platform supported by four concrete poles, started to flashover. Now usually, this would blow the protective cut-outs, but for some reason that didn’t happen. What we got was a lot of blue fire on the platform, and the concrete supports started to turn to glass, which slowly flowed down the supports. Eventually, one collapsed, tipping the whole structure over, and bringing the live wires along with it. When they touched the ground, the breakers further up the line tripped.

        When the flashover started, I was quite close – about 20 to 30 metres away. My hair stood on end, literally. By the time the structure collapsed, I was about 120 metres away, watching from behind a truck-trailer unit. As they say, the brave shepherd knows when to get the flock out of there.

        140

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I have seen concrete explode from exposure to an intense heat source quite a few times.
          Usually with an oxy torch cutting steel base plates just above the concrete and once welding too close to it.
          It sort of POP’s like a low grade firecracker and throws powder and chunks everywhere, I’m usually expecting it to happen but it’s quite exciting when you don’t. :)

          40

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      BilB;

      “However climate change has set up the pressure systems in the path that they are following to deliver hot dry air from the centre at this time of year that caused a small spot fire to become an out of season destructive high velocity fire event.”

      Ferchrissake..!

      How is that even possible? So CO2′s intelligently pushing high pressure systems around the country in the most inconvenient ways and, somehow increasing wind speeds wherever there’s a small spot fire? What’s wrong with you? Are you an aligned Gorebot, McKibbenite or a dyed in the wool Flim-Flammerite?

      How is it even “out of season” when bushfires have occurred in this country many times as early as September and even August?

      Explain your “science” (seance) re your comment!

      140

    • #
      ExWarmist

      When you are emotionally attached to a hypothesis – the presence of failed predictions results in cognitive dissonance where the evidence of failure is literally ignored in favour of preserving the emotionally satisfying hypothesis.

      70

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    “The Australain “bush” has not changed its properties in any way significant enough to deliver a 3.5 fold increase in plant matter.” But a short-sighted policy has left the bush overstock with suitable fuel.

    “Basically the world hasn’t warmed for the last decade and a half”
    False

    AR5 doesn’t agree with you. The consensus, however difficult it was for the IPCC to spit out through gritted teeth is that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 17 years.

    “The experiments with CO2 enhanced plant growth from memory concluded that in the presence of a high CO2 availability build bigger root systems rather than more foliage” .
    Your memory serves you poorly. All parts of the plant grow better with higher CO2 levels. Additionally empirical evidence from satellite monitoring suggests a “greening” of 8% in recent years.

    I take that you use,”Climate Change” as a euphemism for Dangerous man-made Global Warming, so I take it that you have the evidence, going back to the 1930′s to show that the present weather conditions are not the result of natural variation?

    252

  • #
    Norman

    I am amazed how f@@@@@ stupid some Australians seem to be its like DUH its obvious that if you live in a house in the blue mts surrounded by trees (which you aren’t allowed to cut) you will eventually die in a bush fire. The odds are staked against you. The do good greenies involved in State and Fed governments are probably directly responsible for hundreds of deaths like Flannery for the drownings in Queensland 3 years ago by advising that it never rain again. When are you going to educate your people that is the question?

    202

  • #
    pat

    Gammage’s “Biggest Estate” is such a wonderful book. read it a while back – it was in the local library.

    we’ve had the American bombs on the Great Barrier Reef, & now one of the fires caused by the Defense Dept – the military is looking more dangerous than CAGW. the confirmation is already in the foreign press:

    23 Oct: USA Today: AP: Kristen Gellineau: Military exercise sparked big Australian wildfire
    A military training exercise ignited the largest of the wildfires that have ravaged Australia’s most populous state over the past week, investigators said Wednesday…
    Fire investigators found that a massive fire near the city of Lithgow, west of Sydney, began Oct. 16 at a nearby Defense Department training area, and that the blaze “was started as a result of live ordnance exercises” at the army range, the Rural Fire Service said in a statement.
    The fire has burned 180 square miles and destroyed several houses, but no injuries or deaths have been reported in the blaze…
    The Defense Department declined to comment on the investigators’ findings, but had earlier confirmed that an explosive ordnance training exercise was conducted Oct. 16…
    The revelation drew anger from Mark Greenhill, mayor of the community of Blue Mountains, which has been ravaged by several of the fires over the past week.
    “I would have hoped on a day like that — which was a dry day, a hot day, with the winds — the Australian military would have known it wouldn’t be a good time to be igniting,” Greenhill told the Australian Broadcasting Corp…
    New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell came to the military’s defense.
    “I want to ensure that this doesn’t detract from the efforts that Defense have made over the past week in assisting the state’s emergency services battle these fires,” he told the Seven Network…
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/23/australia/3168637/

    23 Oct: Herald Sun: AAP: Paul Osborne: Carr, Loughnane point to carbon tax woes
    THERE’S one thing retiring former foreign minister Bob Carr and Liberal federal director Brian Loughnane agree on – the carbon tax dealt a blow to Labor at the 2013 election.
    Mr Loughnane and Senator Carr, who will retire on Thursday, offered post-mortems on the election at separate events in Canberra on Wednesday…
    Senator Carr, who was re-elected for a six-year term in September but announced on Wednesday he’d quit without serving a day, said Labor could win back government within one term under new leader Bill Shorten but needed a more cautious policy on climate change.
    The carbon pricing issue had been mishandled and should have begun under Kevin Rudd in 2007 with a modest scheme applied only to the electricity sector’s output, he said.
    “To have moved cautiously to start with, that … would have been a canny approach,” Senator Carr said…
    “In my view Labor did not need to introduce a carbon tax because the Greens ultimately would have continued to support them on the floor of the House,” Mr Loughnane said.
    “I don’t believe Bill Shorten believes in a carbon tax.”…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/carr-loughnane-point-to-carbon-tax-woes/story-fni0xqi4-1226745436491

    51

  • #
    pat

    this goes on and on, but most commenters aren’t buying it:

    22 Oct: Bundaberg News-Mail: Al Gore’s documentary team focuses on Bundaberg
    BUNDABERG’S record floods will feature in a climate change documentary, 24 Hours of Reality: The Cost of Carbon which screens online today and tomorrow.
    Members of Al Gore’s climate advocacy group The Climate Reality Project, visited Bundaberg last month during the flood forums to film footage for the documentary.
    Australia is one of six continents featured in the project and Bundaberg will feature in the Australian segment which looks at how human health threats are exacerbated by climate change…
    Before 24 Hours of Reality screens, we asked The Climate Reality Project CEO Maggie L. Fox what you need to know about climate change…
    MAGGIE: But the truth is, we don’t even have to look at scientific reports to see the truth about climate change. We can just look out our windows or turn on the television to see the many ways that climate change has become a daily reality for all of us, from the Angry Summer you just experienced in Australia to the biblical rains and flooding we’ve just had in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado…
    The effects of climate change are as much a part of our daily reality as the price of milk, and so we use contemporary culture to connect the dots between dirty weather events and the costs we’re all already paying for carbon pollution…
    As part of our video coverage, we’ll speak to local residents who experienced these dirty weather events firsthand.
    Bundaberg is an essential part of this story. Although we can’t say unequivocally that climate change alone caused the floods, what happened in Bundaberg is happening over and over all around the world where an extreme weather event strikes and shatters all kinds of records…
    After all, if 97% of doctors told these same people that their son or daughter needed to have an operation to live, they listen to the experts and get the operation.
    But when 97% of climate scientists are telling them man-made climate change is a reality, they ignore the experts and seize on some myth to explain their beliefs. That’s a choice. And the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers perpetuate this process by publicly repeating things they know aren’t true and have been disproven countless times to confuse people and protect their bottom line…
    http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/bundaberg-and-climate-change/2058502/

    06

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Al Gore weighs into debate over links between bushfires and climate change

      This week, a United Nations official said the devastating fires in New South Wales proved the world is “already paying the price of carbon”.

      Prime Minister Tony Abbott dismissed the comment on Wednesday, accusing the official of “talking through her hat”.

      He argued that “fire is a part of the Australian experience” and not linked to climate change.

      But Mr Gore, a Nobel laureate for his work to fight climate change, has told the ABC’s 7.30 that climate change will bring about more extreme weather.

      “Bushfires can occur naturally, and do, but the science shows clearly that when the temperature goes up, and when the vegetation and soils dry out, then wildfires become more pervasive and more dangerous.

      Gore ‘weighs in’? Yes folks, it’s celebrity grudge match of the year, Tony Abbott versus Al Gore!
      Letsss Geeeeet Readyyyyy Toooo Rumbllllllllllee…. hehee

      90

      • #
        Backslider

        Bushfires can occur naturally, and do, but the science shows clearly that when the temperature goes up, and when the vegetation and soils dry out, then wildfires become more pervasive and more dangerous.

        How contradictory is that?

        The vegetation and soils have not dried out – there is abundant fuel due to abundant rainfall and a lack of burning off. If on the other hand the vegetation and soil had dried out then there would be less fuel – that’s known as drought.

        90

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    I wonder did Elton pen this one for Australia. Living in a Tinderbox

    20

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Fascinating read. Here in the US we have the same problem. Aggressive fighting of fires has led to the increase in intensity due to the amount of fuel that is available. It has only been within the past few years, and then not universally, that the forestry service has realized that small control burns save you from massive fires by getting rid of the fuel.

    The subject of Eucalyptus is also an interesting one, as we do have those trees in California. I have noticed the bark, but never associated the mischievousness of their nature. But I do know that they are a very dense wood, and ideal for pit burning (for BBQ). So I suspect they not only regenerate faster, but in low intensity fires, also survive.

    60

  • #
    Tim

    Every Australian summer we have this heated discussion. And every year governments don’t address the issue or look at legislation to correct the damage done by the green’s crazy agenda. Surely to ‘err on the side of caution’ would be logical.

    Why does a minor, radical political group still call the tune on Aussie policy, eh Tony?

    120

  • #
    Alan Ogden

    A european example of the military conducting live fire exercises when adverse conditions are present.

    Daily Mail 2009

    30

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    The world drags itself back from an LIA and Global Average Temperature rockets by 0.8K over a century and a half.
    The biosphere responds by increasing plant growth and modern society reacts by preventing removal of fire-fuel on environmental grounds.
    Suddenly selected local temperatures rise by hundreds of K.
    Green turns to black and Greens bay hysterically with delight crowing that man is indeed evil.
    They have a point. It is evil to price energy out of the reach of so many during cold winter months. It is evil to ignore basic fire safety.
    Whether by Ice or by Fire the actions of reckless environmental zealots bring misery and death in their wake.
    They are beneath contempt.

    120

  • #
    Frankly Skeptical

    Greens, alarmists including our dear old aunty ABC and All Bore would have us believe that “Global Warming/Climate Change” is “proven” and responsible for the NSW bush fires.

    Listen up Nongs they are due to any one or more of the following:

    1. Lack of permitted fire trail clearing
    2. Lack of permitted back-burning
    3. Hooligan arsonists
    4. Global Warming inspired arsonists
    5. Pre-pubescent arsonists
    6. Cigarette butts.
    7. Smouldering camp fires
    8. Throw-away matches
    9. Lightening
    10. Throw-away broken bottle glass
    11. The prevailing and pre-fire weather not climate
    12. Apparently, Dept of Defense training

    And thanks to the Wednesday (Oct 23) Australian’s ‘Cut and Paste’ for debunking the ABC notion that Bushfires in October are something new or too early in the season. In summary: Bushfires some very severe in August, September and October during 1918, 1928, 1932, 1948, 1951, 1965 and 1994.

    160

    • #
      Albert

      I worry that some idiots will now start fires to prove in their minds the link with CC since the UN has confirmed it
      The UN is a beneficiary of our carbon tax so they have a financial interest to maintain it and fight the Abbott government

      90

    • #
      Frankly Skeptical

      I should have included in my list:

      (13) Wind induced sparking electric power wires in trees

      And thanks to a Ozzie letter writer: the 1851 bushfire in Victoria burning one quarter of Victoria where a million sheep and 12 people perished.

      00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    If you keep your house a mess and don’t bother to clean it up it is more likely to burn down than if you keep it neat.

    Same way with some forest without management, sometimes I think greenies plan these things so they can have something to yell about “global warming”

    What other tangible evidence do they have? Nothing at all, just their big mouths and their name calling (Right Chester, Michael, Margot et al?)

    62

  • #
    AndyG55

    We should be invoking “the Precautionary Principle” an using it to get rid of Green tape that stops people doing decent clearing and burn-offs.

    The PP is the darling of the CAGW bletheren.

    93

    • #

      There is an anti-wind group in Canada that does that. Their fifth demand is: “That the application of the Precautionary Principle be applied due to increasing worldwide reports of adverse harmful effects of wind power.”

      110

    • #

      The “Precautionary Principle” can be used to stop most government action, given that most regulation and planning has large unintended adverse consequences.

      40

  • #
    AndyG55

    Everybody should do a google search for “global environmental governance”.

    62

  • #
    Joe V.

    OT. Closure of one of Scotland’s only two oil refineries is announced.
    Grangemouth to close with loss of 800 jobs.
    Its chairman blames energy costs, which he says has been driven up by high environmental taxes.

    Meanwhile , the Conservative Prime Minister at last signals an intention to – cut Green taxes – while their LibDem coalition partners protest.

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    As expected, Liam Phelan does not have ANY science in his background.

    He as a BA and dabbles in Earth Systems Governance.

    A true far-left socialist wanting to control the actions of others.

    http://www.newcastle.edu.au/profile/liam-phelan

    80

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps.. his PhD was entitled ……. wait for it……

      “The relationship between anthropogenic climate change and the insurance system: Imperatives, options, and reflections on theory. “

      90

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Earth Systems Governance”? LOL

      Sounds about as relevant as Period Instrument Restringing

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        On the contrary, they are trying to get a general governance of ALL environments around the world.

        Think EPA on steriods.

        40

  • #
    Bribie John

    Brought up in the bush, and doing hazard reduction for many years causes me to believe every word of Davids article is true.

    130

    • #
      ColdinOz

      Spot on John. I work in fire surveillance in WA over the fire season. Not only scientific fact, but you only need junior high school physics to realise that the greater the amount of fuel, the more uncontrollable any fire will be.

      In addition to that fact are 17 years of my personal observations which show that the higher the fuel load, the more likely an ignition as a result of elevated and aerated fuel which increase over time. This is clearly demonstrated during electrical storms where ignitions are far more likely to occur in longer unburnt areas.

      70

  • #
    ColdinOz

    Just waitinjg to hear about the known scientific link between “explosives training and climate change”.

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      Climate change, worshiped by the Greens

      Greens like the Muslims

      Muslims like explosives training

      only 3 degrees of separation !!

      30

  • #
    Backslider

    On a lighter note – I once lived in a little farm house up in the Tinderry Range close to Canberra. I was a little concerned about some very long dry grass that had accumulated close to my home.

    One morning I awoke to the distinct crackling of a fire (or so I thought)…. quite alarmed I raced outside expecting to be confronted by an inferno. Instead, there they were. A big flock of Gang Gangs sitting in a tree cracking open berries that grew on a tree close to my home….

    30

  • #
    warcroft

    People will die and property losses will be high until we relearn these lessons and reduce fuel loads again.

    Sometimes we have to go the way of stupid people to remember why we do thing a certain way.

    40

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Interesting that 18th C botanical descriptions and fauna surveys support the idea that a thick understory was supporting abundant wildlife. Small mammal, birds ans reptiles were observed in large numbers and these require this sort of vegetation for food, shelter, protection and water/humidity (dense undergrowth holds in more water). Where clear understories exist today, such animals are not to be found.

    The thing that is difficult to assess is how habitats affected by land clearing, competition from pests, and habitat fragmentation compare with a light understory without these other pressures for supporting smaller fauna.

    03

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Would you think the animals had evolved over a period of two centuries to adapt to a cleared understory?

      60

      • #
        Gee Aye

        not sure I understand your comment Brian. The fuel load changes implied in this post suggest an increasing understory since European settlement.

        Regardless, evolution’s role in this time frame is selection from existing adaptive variation within species and behavioral and morphological plasticity.

        02

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          “morphological plasticity”

          Isnt that how Lumosity works?

          50

        • #
          Brian G Valentine

          The fuel load changes implied in this post suggest an increasing understory since European settlement.

          Not necessarily,since a denser forest top would prohibit the growth of new trees because the seedlings don’t get any light.

          Evidently less shady trees allowed the development of a more densely populated woodland

          30

        • #
          Dave

          GeeAye,

          Do you think fuel loads are the same tonnage per hectare today?

          I think it is in the distribution, not overall, the land has changed and now the large National & State Parks have a much higher fuel load than what they did in the 18th C equivalent.

          Have you got a link to the fauna surveys that back up high density and distribution of the thick under story? Why are the majority of bad bush fires occurring in the parks areas?

          70

          • #
            gee Aye

            reply to first question is no, although “fuel load” is confusing as old growth forests hold a lot of combustive stuff that is hard to burn. Amazing how many small soft bodies animals pop out of half buried logs following a fire.

            I actually don’t want to continue this sub thread further though. I find MVs comments distasteful.

            08

            • #
              gee Aye

              apologies wrong subthread!

              OK… agree mostly with what you say but I question what opportunity exists for bad fires in non NP or SP? There would certainly be no fires of we gave ourselves a UK landscape.

              06

              • #
                Dave

                GeeAye,

                I never said we should revert NP & SP’s to a UK landscape, I said this should come under the traditional methods of regular back burning to reduce fuel load, nothing more nothing less.

                40

            • #
              Dave

              ????

              Why?

              MV hasn’t commented on this sub thread GeeAye.

              But before this you say:
              “as old growth forests hold a lot of combustive stuff that is hard to burn.”

              Combustive stuff is now categorised into hard, medium and easy to burn GeeAye?

              Maybe you’d better stop in this thread because you appear lost in other things.

              Dave

              40

              • #
                gee Aye

                Gee Aye PhD and Bess Price PhD know each and have worked in similar areas although not together.

                I never promoted the noble or even nobel savage concept and whatever Greg’s background does not demonstrate from you a knowledge of what people did and knew 300 years ago but it is probably comforting to you.

                06

            • #
              MemoryVault

              I find MVs comments distasteful.

              Can’t have anything interfering with the beloved “Noble Savage” myth eh, GA?

              The fact that it’s been ultimately responsible for more suffering and death than just about anything else amongst aborigines in the last 50 years is neither here nor there.

              Sometime you might like to have a read of what Bess Price PhD, and now member of the NT Parliament, thinks of the “Noble Savage” fairy tale. Or you could try talking with a real black fella.

              .
              Like my mate Greg who visited today.
              Oh – did I forget to mention he’s a black fella?
              Got the initiation scars and all.

              110

  • #
    dp

    This is not a problem unique to Oz – the city of Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco, had a major firestorm in 1991 in which eucalypts played a major role:

    http://oaklandnorth.net/oakland-hills-fire/

    http://oaklandnorth.net/2011/10/31/after-1991-fire-oaklanders-debate-growth-of-eucalyptus/

    The fear of them is on-going:

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Thousands-of-East-Bay-trees-face-ax-4567798.php

    10

  • #
    RoHa

    David, are you polluting the conversation with facts again?

    You’ve been warned about that.

    40

  • #
    pat

    Joe V -

    u linked to the UK Telegraph article. guess the public has had enough of this scam:

    23 Oct: UK Telegraph: David Cameron pledges to cut green taxes next year despite Lib Dem objections
    Green taxes on household energy bills will fall next year despite Liberal Democrat objections, David Cameron’s aides have said
    According to Government figures, the green levies add £112 to a typical household bill. The money is then used to pay for loft insulation schemes and subsidies for renewable energy projects, under the Coalition’s rules.
    Downing Street sources said that, if there was no policy change, green levies could rise from the current £112 to £194 – or 14 per cent of the typical household bill – by 2020…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10399287/David-Cameron-pledges-to-cut-green-taxes-next-year-despite-Lib-Dem-objections.html

    all political parties played their part in bringing about this energy crisis…but scoring partisan political points still trumps all other considerations:

    23 Oct: UK Mirror: Energy bills: ‘Panicking’ Cameron under fire as green tax pledge sparks Coalition war
    Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander says Prime Minister’s pledge is ‘not going to happen’
    “We have made commitments on environmental levies as a Coalition, the Conservatives haven’t put forward any alternative proposals to us,” he told the Scotsman newspaper.
    He added: “There is no commitment to roll back environmental levies, quite the contrary, it is a very important part of our long term strategy to tackle climate change and the security of our energy supply.”
    A Lib Dem source went further, accusing Mr Cameron of making the announcement to “get himself out of a hole” at Prime Minister’s questions…
    “Liberal Democrats in Government will not allow the Tories to undermine our commitment to the environment; hurt the fuel poor; or destroy our renewable energy industry.”
    The pro-environment Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith branded Mr Cameron a “muppet” for abandoning green measures…
    A spokesman also admitted that the competition review would not take place until next year – meaning it would do little to help customers being hit by price hikes at the moment.
    The announcement started to unravel when it was pointed out that many of the green taxes went to support the poorest households with their energy costs.
    Government figures show the green levy includes £50 to pay for the energy company obligation which helps poorer households with insulation and other energy saving measures.
    A further £11 goes towards the warm homes discount aimed at helping the poorest households with their energy costs.
    Labour pointed out that of the £112 added to bills to pay for green measures, £67 had been introduced by this Government…
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-pledge-roll-back-2484882

    00

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    from post 16.6
    “ColdinOz
    October 24, 2013 at 8:27 am · Reply

    You should know something about your subject before you express what is simply an uninformed opinion. Have you ever been involved in measuring fuel levels Bill? I have. I have. And I can tell you that 30 tonnes per ha may well be conservative. I have been involved in measuring up to 100 tonnes per has in karri tingle forest in SW WA. That was only litter measurements and did no include suspended or standing fuel.”

    In the mid 1980′s I worked for a Red Gum sawmill on the Murray River and we found similar volumes excluding anything that could not be picked up with a ‘grab’.

    It amazed the, then, NSW Forestry Commission who allowed us to conduct the trial and the then supportive local Forestry head made it his business to bring in HO folk to inspect the operation and results for themselves.

    Bring back sawlog harvesting in all fire susceptible forests and you will see a reduction in forest fires because you have equipment and experienced bush workers on the spot.

    And stop giving insurance to councils that do not allow sensible clearing and burning strategies.

    If the Blue Mountains are like this then what is the current situation in The Dandenongs?

    80

    • #
      Aussie

      Cockatoo must be due to burn to the ground again. I hate to think of how bad it might be in the Dandenongs.

      20

  • #
    Tim

    To me, the ‘prepare, stay and defend’ option is foolishly dangerous.

    What’s wrong with preparing as possible – having up to date house and contents insurance – taking some valuables and getting the hell out of there early, leaving it to the professional fire fighters?

    As Ned Kelly would have said: “Your money or your life.”

    31

  • #
    pat

    who initiated the call with Greg Hunt? what’s to spar about when, behind the MSM spin, Figueres was hinting at a possibility & admitting no link was proven?

    23 Oct: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Australia, U.N. spar over wildfires and climate change
    Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N.’s Bonn-based Climate Change Secretariat, told CNN earlier this week that there was “absolutely” a link between climate change and wildfires.
    She hinted at a possibility of linking the Australian fires to global warming…
    “I think the official in question is talking through her hat,” Abbott told Fairfax radio on Wednesday.
    “Climate change is real and we should take strong action against it,” he said…
    Figueres later dug in her heels, pointing in a statement to a U.N. scientific panel’s finding that decisive action was needed to avert more frequent and extreme weather events in coming decades.
    “Climate change is known to alter the likelihood of increased wildfire sizes and frequencies,” she said in the statement, issued after she spoke by phone with Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt.
    Combined with more stress on trees “this suggests an increasing likelihood of more prevalent fire disturbances, as has recently been observed,” she said, quoting a 2007 report by the U.N. panel…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-climate-australia-wildfires-idUKBRE99M0U920131023

    CNN – no strangers to propaganda. as with Gore’s latest propaganda effort, it’s all about putting a PRICE on carbon dioxide:

    (VIDEO)21 Oct: CNN: Mick Krever: Absolutely’ a link between climate change and wildfires, U.N. climate chief Figueres tells Amanpour
    There is “absolutely” a link between climate change and wildfires, U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday.
    Wildfires are raging in a ring around Sydney, Australia, as that country experiences its hottest year on record.
    “The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet,” Figueres said. “But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.”…
    ***Proponents, Figueres included, believe that it is only by putting a tax on carbon – on fossil fuels – that the true cost of energy, taking into account the effect on the environment, can be reflected…
    Right now, Figueres said, emissions are still rising; humankind has to get past peak emissions by the end of the decade, she said, so that zero net emissions can be achieved by the second half of the 21st century.
    “What we have seen are just introductions to the doom and gloom that we could be facing. But that’s not the only scenario,” she told Amanpour. “We could – as humankind – we could take vigorous action and we could have a very, very different scenario. That’s a scenario that is worth examining.”
    http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/21/un-climate-chief-absolutely-link-between-climate-change-and-wildfires/

    02

  • #
    Thumbnail

    An astounding photo of Mt Eccles Before and After appears in this link.

    Source: “The Biggest Estate on Earth” by Bill Gammage and this blog.

    50

  • #
    thingadonta

    I am a skeptic of catastrophic AGW, but I think Abbott and co might lose this one. Here are my reasons.

    A small amount of warming in recent decades comes from increased greenhouse gases. I think most has come from the sun, which increased output during the last 200 years or so, levelling off and then declining in the late 20th -early 21st century.

    If you get warmer temperatures without a change in rainfall, fires will increase in frequency and intensity. So a small component of fire behaviour must have been because of human greenhouse gases, even if the dominant factor in recent warming was the sun (and clouds changes).

    However there is another factor, that of management of vegetation and undergrowth. The increase in the conservation estate whereby formerly logged areas have been converted into conservation estate means fires in these areas will be larger and more intense. When a conservation area is proposed, changes in fire susceptibility are rarely considered, most consideration is given to protecting biodiversity, yet a single fire will kill most of the animals in such an area. (This happened in Canberra where an entire research program of koalas, from memory was killed in the fires about a decade ago).

    People should also be able to clear land near the houses, and rules for infrastructure development near bushfire prone areas is a step forward. But this doesn’t address those areas where infrastructure and houses already exist close to fire prone areas. Also, areas of logging should not be transferred to the conservation estate close to urban dwellings without due consideration of changes to fire behaviour and intensity, where the build-up of fuel loads will become greater.

    27

    • #
      Aussie

      Your theory is wrong because you have left out something important. Over the last 12 months we had high levels of rainfall, so much so, that Warragamba dam overflowed.

      The increase in the rainfall has brought about the increase in the growth of the fuel or undergrowth. Then, after June the rainfall fell away. The last heavy rains that caused local floods was roughly June or July.

      This rainfall pattern matters. The rains make the difference.

      60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Thinga

      Your comment.

      “So a small component of fire behaviour must have been because of human greenhouse gases”.

      Must agree with you IN PRINCIPAL.

      BUT.

      Effectively and in every practical way it is TOTALLY WRONG. An analogy which is more the truth than you might imagine.

      I think we could perhaps agree that if we were weighing an Elephant and a mosquito alighted on its’ back, we would see no difference in the weight?

      Quantitatively the Human Effect on World Temps is less than that of the mosquito.

      In the same vein I have been known to “fly around ” in our home.

      Admittedly only for a very short time, but I have “Flown”.

      Yes I jumped off a chair and flapped my arms.

      Human origin CO2 has about the same influence on the elephant as the mosquito and my flapping arms on my “flight time”.

      I know; for Warmers , Reality Really does Suck!!!

      Please do not try this at home.

      Do not jump off chairs and definitely do not walk around an elephant looking for mosquitoes, especially under its’ tail.

      KK

      10

  • #
    mem

    I have been tracking the role of Science Media Centres in promoting climate alarmism and wondered if these bodies could be petitioned to include a range of scientific views on this issue.As you will note the expert opinion on the Australian Science Media Centre climate section is clearly crafted to continue the warmist message Read Here http://www.smc.org.au/2013/10/rapid-reaction-nsw-bushfires-experts-respond/#more-13608 the Rapid Reaction from the appointed expert.I have included below a lengthy piece I prepared on the development of these bodies.While established to help media interpret science it would seem to me that they have become PR units for the IPCC and warmist followers.Any thoughts and response would be appreciated. (please feel free to edit).Regards and love your work.

    The BBC recently received significant criticism for giving Professor Bob Carter airtime to discuss climate change. Predictably criticism came from warmist groups, academics and media such as the Guardian. But less expected was the outburst from the British Science Media Centre (BSMC).The vehemence of the response from the BSMC is notable as this self proclaimed “independent” body was set up to, “provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”
    My concern is that Science Media Centres are serving to restrict scientific debate and the flow of information to the public.
    Science Media Centres have been established in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan and more recently the USA, based broadly on the UK model. The Australian Science Media Centre (ASMC) was initiated by Baroness Susan Greenfield a scientist from the University of Oxford, who was a visiting Adelaide “Thinker in Residence” in 2004. (Australians may recall that John McTiernan, former adviser to PM Gillard enjoyed the same thinking privilege at around the same time). The ASMC is located in Adelaide and operates nationally.
    While Science Media Centres purport to embrace a range of scientific views, using an extensive list of experts on any one matter and a peer reviewed “rapid response draft system” to assist journalists to interpret important concerns, there is not one dissenting view or skeptical expert listed. In essence Science Media Centres operate as a funnel for the official IPCC view and for warmist scientists.
    Below is a blogpost from the BSMC which was authored by the Senior Press Officer at the BSMC. It attempts to seem fair whilst doing the opposite. The biggest give away statement is where the author says,” Peter Stott, a climate scientist who has a long and distinguished publication record in climate science, got four minutes; Bob Carter, who hasn’t, got the same”. He rudely dismisses Professor Bob Carter’s eminent and well published scientific career and implies that media time should be equal to papers published! So much for the independence of the BSMC! I note that there has been no defense of Professor Carter’s qualifications or experience from the ASMC.
    I sincerely hope that Australian scientists and Australian media (News Ltd is represented on the ASMC) will be as angry as I am (member of the public) that this gross abuse of both the scientific debate and of the scientists that dare to pursue a non conventional line is occurring.
    OCTOBER 8, 2013 QUOTED FROM HTTP://WWW.SCIENCEMEDIACENTRE.ORG/GIVE-THE-BBC-A-BREAK-OVER-THEIR-IPCC-COVERAGE/
    This is a blogpost by Tom Sheldon, Senior Press Officer at the BSMC.

    The IPCC has published the first part of AR5, its long-awaited report on the climate. Media coverage was pretty straight with the dominant conclusions of the report broadly reflected in the headlines and loads of the best climate scientists in the mix. So why have some scientists weighed in to attack the BBC for its coverage? Does the corporation really deserve a kicking or should scientists be celebrating?
    The specific target of the attack was World at One which featured an interview with Bob Carter, an Australian climate sceptic. Presenter Shaun Ley was woefully briefed and failed to challenge Carter on some basic myths. The format too was lazy: Peter Stott, a climate scientist who has a long and distinguished publication record in climate science, got four minutes; Bob Carter, who hasn’t, got the same. It was a tedious set-up which harked back to the bad old days though fortunately Peter gave a passionate and compelling interview. Nonetheless, the lay listener was given no other clue as to which of these was the more authoritative voice.*
    This interview has gone on to be described by John Ashton as “a serious lapse if not a betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC’s reputation has been built over generations”; some took to Twitter to further denounce the BBC for ‘letting sceptics back on the airwaves’.
    So a single example has been held up as evidence that the BBC is still wedded to the false balance Professor Steve Jones savagely chastised them for in his 2011 review. It’s true that the traditional editorial habit of balancing a yea with a nay does not work for science, and slamming the BBC for this has become something of a blood sport amongst scientists in recent years – the SMC playing its own part in that.
    But too many leading scientists continue to condemn the media from an out of date evidence base that would be shameful in their field of research, ignoring the fact that much has changed for the better – not least thanks to hard petitioning by BBC science journalists like Richard Black, Roger Harrabin and David Shukman. Scientists have gone from being a weak voice to a major player in a vast range of stories and it feels like a step too far to condemn the BBC when the Jones recommendations have been absorbed so broadly across the corporation.
    I also know from talking to BBC producers and journalists that they agonised over walking the right line on AR5. On the day of publication the Today programme trailed the report in several slots without a sceptic to be found. A Costing the Earth special on climate change featured a panel debate where the closest thing to a sceptic was Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Climate scientists outnumbered sceptics ten to one on the airwaves, with headlines and content overwhelmingly reflecting the findings of the IPCC.
    The climate science community was busy around AR5. At the SMC alone we arranged dozens of broadcast interviews, issued over thirty quotes from climate scientists across every discipline, and gathered journalists and scientists to watch the IPCC press conference live and engage in a Q&A immediately afterwards. So you might expect us to join the calls for dissenters to be sidelined.
    But the SMC has never been about stifling other voices; science does not own the issue of climate change. We should remember that AR5 is a report for governments on a defining subject of our time. Surely therefore a key responsibility of the media that day was to bring the science into the broader context of politics and society. That needs to be done intelligently and delicately – but also independently. For science to demand dominance on this (or any) subject feels wrong and will only fuel those who talk of scientism – the tendency of some in science to act like it is the only way to interpret the world.

    Of course scientists, like anyone, are entitled to shout when the media get it wrong. If you don’t say yes to the question ‘do you shout at the radio when science is being misrepresented?’ you don’t get a job at the SMC. And if you bugged our office you would hear staff trying to persuade lazy producers to break the habit of pro vs. anti on a daily basis. But there is a big difference between shouting at the radio and trying to persuade journalists of our case than publicly slamming the media and demanding apologies and explanations. Ashton says that by giving Bob Carter a platform the BBC “will be undermining its friends when it needs them most”. The interview might have annoyed a lot of climate scientists, but I don’t believe the BBC should view scientists as its friends. The free press should never be the mouthpiece of science.
    The SMC refuses to scour the country looking for outliers on climate change or GM crops to feed the media’s thirst for mavericks. We are here to reflect the weight of scientific evidence on these issues from the mainstream. But that does not mean that we want a media which simply suppresses the views of dissenters in science. Yes, editorial decisions must be taken intelligently. Is the interview about climate physics, or the extent of ocean acidification, or even about the strength of the evidence?

    Putting up a scientist against a non-scientist in that case really would be false balance – and we try to persuade producers of this on a daily basis. But a wider discussion about the response of government or of individuals – or even about the IPCC itself – must be open to a variety of voices.
    And we should remember (with a wry smile) that climate science owes its high media profile to those competing voices. Without a row in society I fear our main complaint to the BBC would be about the lack of any coverage at all. As things stand climate scientists already have the ears of the public; they now need use that voice to good effect, not silence the competition. And having listened for years to our best climate scientists versus the Bob Carters of this world I am more convinced than ever that climate science has nothing to fear from these encounters. Far from making me angry they often have me cheering on the scientists whose integrity and expertise is almost always a match for those they encounter. Do we really need to demand apologies and explanations from the media for featuring guests we disagree with – just as scientists are getting ever better at demonstrating their superior expertise?
    The media must play their role shrewdly. Some sceptics do have a tendency to go much further than their expertise allows but the smart editorial response to this is not to sideline the outliers and avoid the argument. Much better that producers and presenters are wise to the myths and specious claims in advance and, when embarking on an interview, are equipped with the knowledge they need to challenge unscientific assertions or spot cherry-picked data. That’s the media I want to see – a thoughtful, informed and challenging media which find their way to the truth by a combination of the right guests and well-informed presenters. We all learn more that way.
    Scientists enjoy more channels than ever before to communicate their work directly to their target audiences, bypassing the media mechanisms and news values which often simplify or distort in ways we find frustrating. But with national news media the rules are different; these are the conditions of a press which is independent, critical and fiercely protective of its right to reflect other viewpoints.
    News coverage in the media has always had a tense relationship with science but we should acknowledge progress where it’s made. BBC science coverage in particular is better and more prominent than ever. That episode of World at One was not the BBC’s finest (three quarters of an) hour. But nor was it representative of the BBC’s coverage overall. I believe the BBC’s clear, fair, science-heavy reporting of AR5 should be a cause for celebration by climate scientists. By wading in to criticise we unfairly condemn an organisation which got so much right that day.
    end

    30

    • #
      ianl8888

      So please point to BBC interviews where pro-AGW scientists were rigorously cross-examined on the empirical evidence for the “positive feedback” hypothesis

      50

    • #
      Backslider

      The specific target of the attack was World at One which featured an interview with Bob Carter, an Australian climate sceptic.

      So “Bob Carter” is sceptical of the climate? Interesting….. they make him sound like that bloke down the local pub.

      How about “Professor Bob Carter, an eminent Australia scientist.

      These people make me puke.

      60

    • #
      steve

      Controlling the message….Goebbels would have been very proud!

      10

  • #
    Peter H

    Royal Commission into Victorian fires read recommendations.

    2009 VBRC – Commission Reports – 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal …
    http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports
    The final report was delivered to the Governor of Victoria on the morning of 31 … Summary; Volume I—The Fires and the Fire-Related Deaths; Volume II—Fire …

    10

    • #
      Peter H

      Following are the recommendations associated with Fuel. The Royal Commission made no reference to Climate that i can see

      laND aND fuel MaNageMeNt
      recoMMeNDatioN 56
      The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on
      an annual rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land.

      recoMMeNDatioN 57
      The Department of Sustainability and Environment report annually on prescribed burning outcomes
      in a manner that meets public accountability objectives, including publishing details of targets, area
      burnt, funds expended on the program, and impacts on biodiversity.

      recoMMeNDatioN 58
      The Department of Sustainability and Environment significantly upgrade its program of long-term data
      collection to monitor and model the effects of its prescribed burning programs and of bushfires on
      biodiversity in Victoria.

      recoMMeNDatioN 59
      The Department of Sustainability and Environment amend the Code of Practice for Fire Management
      on Public Land in order to achieve the following:
      ■ provide a clear statement of objectives, expressed as measurable outcomes
      ■ include an explicit risk-analysis model for more objective and transparent resolution of competing
      objectives, where human life is the highest priority
      ■ specify the characteristics of fire management zones—including burn size, percentage area burnt
      within the prescribed burn, and residual fuel loading
      ■ adopt the use of the term ‘bushfire’ rather than ‘wildfire’.

      recoMMeNDatioN 60
      The State amend the exemptions in clause 52.17-6 of the Victoria Planning Provisions to ensure that
      the provisions allow for a broad range of roadside works capable of reducing fire risk and provide
      specifically for a new exemption where the purpose of the works is to reduce bushfire risk.

      recoMMeNDatioN 61
      The State and Commonwealth provide for municipal councils adequate guidance on resolving the
      competing tensions arising from the legislation affecting roadside clearing and, where necessary,
      amend environment protection legislation to facilitate annual bushfire-prevention activities by the
      appropriate agencies.

      recoMMeNDatioN 62
      VicRoads implement a systematic statewide program of bushfire risk assessment for all roads for
      which it is responsible, to ensure conformity with the obligations in s. 43 of the Country Fire Authority
      Act 1958 and with the objectives expressed in the VicRoads 1985 Code of Practice.

      60

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning all

    Let’s face it. Anytime there’s a disaster and the newspapers are splashing people’s misery across the front page, the greens are onto it like a bunch of seagulls on a chip. And like the seagulls, they squawk long and loud but, in the end, all that they are saying is – “give me more”. And to complete the analogy, as they fly off, they cr4p on you.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    201

    • #
      Heywood

      Nail. Head. :)

      81

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      So what are greenie dolts going to do to occupy their time?

      There has to be some disaster that “humans” are causing for them to become apoplectic about, otherwise they cannot find purpose or meaning in life.

      Volunteer work to help others is right out of the question. They need to PROTEST something

      71

    • #
      crakar24

      Oh Speedy you should get to produce this stuff

      Cheers

      11

      • #
        crakar24

        Having a bad day i meant to say Speedy should get paid to produce this stuff, reason why i am having a bad is because some moron (lets call them an environmental type) decided to go from 80KPH to zero in the shortest possible time which in turn cause the Territory behind them to go through an emergency braking proceedure which in turn forced me to do the same unfortunately my bull bar “nudged” the back of the Territory leaving two very small dents which of course will translate into many thousands of dollars to my insurance agency.

        Now why do you suppose this fuckwit decided to do a full brake test at 80KPH? Any guesses? Did a child run out onto the road? Where they cut off by a truck? No none of the sort this dick head slammed their brakes on to avoid hitting a duck, yes thats right this half wit greeny moron endangered the lives of at least 5 people plus themselves so they could avoid hitting a ducking [Snip].

        And no this is not another poor attempt at humour.

        51

      • #
        crakar24

        Ok i need to take out the special words

        Having a bad day, i meant to say “Speedy should get paid to produce this stuff”, reason why i am having a bad is because some moron (lets call them an environmental type) decided to go from 80KPH to zero in the shortest possible time which in turn cause the Territory behind them to go through an emergency braking proceedure which in turn forced me to do the same unfortunately my bull bar “nudged” the back of the Territory leaving two very small dents which of course will translate into many thousands of dollars to my insurance agency.

        Now why do you suppose this Duckwit decided to do a full brake test at 80KPH? Any guesses? Did a child run out onto the road? Where they cut off by a truck? No none of the sort this retard slammed their brakes on to avoid hitting a duck, yes thats right this half wit greeny moron endangered the lives of at least 5 people plus themselves so they could avoid hitting a ducking pluck.

        And no this is not another poor attempt at humour.

        ——————————————————————————–

        51

        • #
          Speedy

          Crakar

          Life is clearly not just. The clown in the front car could have simply leaned on the horn, and the duck would be out of it. If duck didn’t move fast enough, then that’s just natural selection at work and I happen to know some good duck recipes.

          Unfortunately, the clown leaned on the brakes – big time – and now you and the Territory owner will be having expensive discussions with representatives from the crash repair industry. Whereas the duck and the clown will continue their lives in blissful ignorance. And it’s debatable which one would have the higher level of self-awareness.

          Cheers,

          Speedy

          60

  • #
    Tim

    I heard that, unlike the US, Australia doesn’t use fire retardants in water bombings. Would this have anything to do with green issues? Anyone?

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I was tempted to point out that the Greens are the retardants, but I will resist that temptation. Oh, wait?

      161

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Between incompetent bureaucrats, lying superannuation fund managers, and an insurance assessor trying to screw me out of the proceeds of a policy I’ve contributed to for 30 years, I’d had a bad week anyway.

    So I turned to Jo Nova for a bit of sanity. After reading the last couple of articles, plus comments, I was in such a state I had to go pop a few heart tablets. I think the only time I’ve ever read such a collection of left-wing, feel-good namby-pamby politically correct garbage was my son’s high school social studies text book. I was right royally p*ssed off.

    Then, out of the blue, about three hours ago, an old bushie mate unexpectedly rolled up. Greg is a retired hunter, crocodile trapper, top-end tour guide and professional photographer who lived most of his adult life ranging between Katherine and Cape York, until a stingray barb destroyed his ankle and he had to retire.

    Seeking an ally in my righteous indignation, I started to read Greg some of the comments about aboriginals managing, cultivating, and conserving the bush – “for thousands of years”. Instead of indignation, Greg started to laugh. The more I read, the more and harder Greg laughed.

    Pretty soon huge tears were rolling down Greg’s cheeks, and he was laughing so hard he had to hang onto the table to stop from falling out of his chair. I kept reading and Greg kept laughing, until eventually he begged to me stop before he ruptured his hernia.

    So after that we started speculating on kangaroos extending the grasslands by nibbling out all the tree seedlings, and big salties herding Barra to their breeding grounds to ensure a sustainable catch in future years, and then Thumper threw us both out on the front verandah so she could get some peace and quiet while she started cooking tonight’s bolognaise.

    .
    Anyway, Greg left about a half hour ago and I feel much better know.
    I just thought I’d share that with you all.

    111

    • #
      Gee Aye

      So you had a good laugh comparing your opinion on the likely abilities of Indigenous Australians to manage the land to suit their needs with a parody of those of a marsupial and a crocodylian?

      Laugh? I nearly…

      111

      • #
        Dave

        GeeAye,

        Australia has changed from the 1770′s and now is broken basically up into the following:

        1. Farmers and graziers own 135,997 farms, covering 61% of Australia’s landmass.
        2. National & State Parks have 9,300 separate parks covering 13% of Australia’s landmass.
        3. Commercial forestry have approx 19% of Australia’s landmass (Govt & Private).
        4. The rest is cities, private & government land not included above which covers 7%.

        The majority of bad recorded bush fires have been in National & State Parks, and about 80% of government owned forrestry sections. Imagine the outcry if some large grazing properties spread and caused the damage that just happened. The lawyers would go mad with litigation.

        The thing is today, we can’t go back 200 plus years, but it is time for the governments (Federal, State and Local) to pull their socks up and start working out how to fix a problem that they have bought about. It is not Climate Change nor going back to old aboriginal practices that aid the current situations from happening again and again.

        It’s the National & State Parks and Reserves that need cleaning out, this is where the fuel loads are, the majority of weed infestations are, and the biggest holder of feral animals. The majority of Australian National Parks are a complete and utter bloody disgrace and totally mismanaged. They spend more time regulating visitor signs and toilets than managing the park areas. Then spend huge amounts on solar powered and eco-friendly ranger huts instead of monitoring and reducing fuel load.

        We’ve only got to control roughly 13% of the landmass as a country, and if it is forestry, pastoral lease, farm, etc then it is the responsibility of the landholder full stop. If they are responsible for fire spreading and causing damage to home or person, then they should be responsible.

        Today is 2013, not the 1770′s, so we can’t go back to the old (aboriginal) management of properties, apart from National Parks etc. The National Parks call in the Fire Services only when this sort of stuff happens. Federal Government push for totally enclosed environment areas is a joke in their current form.

        130

        • #
          gee Aye

          sorry – out and about, touching base and about to move on so this is a first impressions response. Just a comment on “the majority of bush fires in state and national parks”… can you tell me where else bush fires can happen? Is the proportion different to expected by chance? Most clarity if we stick to areas considered fire prone by the type of vegetation/habitat rather than who manages them (ie vast areas of arid zone in private or public hands present negligible “major” fire risk).

          and yes much has changed since 1770 and I think a lot of comment by scientists and others makes out that they really understand all the impacts of these changes. They don’t.

          Regarding monster fires… mid 1800s produced some huge ones, including areas of Victoria minimally impacted (including indigenous societies), to that point, by European settlement.

          25

        • #
          AndyG55

          The Royal National is about due for a burn.

          That will be CRAZY when it does go up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Glad I’m not in the Heathcote, Waterfall or upper Wollongong areas.

          40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Are you saying the part you don’t believe is that the aborigines lit fires with the motive of “managing the land” for fire-suppression purposes other than their own personal food gathering self-interest?
      If so, okay, I get the joke.

      A few months ago I saw on an ABC documentary some old black and white film made in the early 1960s in South Australia of aborigines setting fire to bushland to drive the kangaroos out of cover and into an open field where the hunters are waiting.
      They also showed that because different types of plants regenerate from the fire at different rates, they could come back to a burned area at predictable times to gather particular types of useful plants in larger quantities.

      Here’s a couple more videos of apparently traditional burning practices.
      Fire Hunting in Australia http://youtu.be/j8zb44roDTM
      The indigenous fire workshop cape york http://youtu.be/WBjuHjYZ-RA
      Aboriginal Wetland Burning in Kakadu (2005) http://youtu.be/e1uYBgaqeT0

      The main difference between their approach and today in my opinion is economics; when one’s housing technology is so basic it can be rebuilt anywhere quite easily from local materials, there is no great problem with a major bushfire burning down your hut. If a fire got out of control that’s not so bad for the people. It’s not quite the same cost/benefit tradeoff with a $150K brick/metal house.

      20

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Hi Andrew,

        That aboriginals in some parts of Australia have been setting fire to the local landscape since time began (whenever they had access to fire) to kill or drive out wildlife, is an observable, demonstrable fact.

        That it was ever done in any sort of planned, ordered, predetermined manner in order to manage, cultivate, alter or conserve bushland to the aboriginal’s benefit, is part of the “Noble Savage” myth first officially promoted during the Whitlam years.

        100

    • #
      Speedy

      MV

      Sorry, but I’ve got to call you out on grounds of tautology. Really, from a man of your intelligence.

      “Incompetent bureacrats”? You know any other types? “Lying Superannuation Fund Managers”? As opposed to the honest ones? (They’re down at the bottom of the garden next to the fairies.)

      Next thing you know, you’ll discover an “ABC Warmist journalist”?

      Unfortunately, as you and Crakar have found today, bad things can happen to good people. Here’s a little skit on career choices…

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      If the ABC was Relevant Part 54….
      (Jet-lagged edition)

      [Scene: A typically chaotic teenager’s bedroom. BRYAN is discussing career options with his son, JOHN.]

      Bryan: So, John, what are you going to do when you leave school?

      John: Actually, Dad, I’d like a career in organised crime.

      Bryan: Private or Public sector?

      John: Whaddya mean?

      Bryan: Private sector is like your garden variety Bikie member. Their job is to cause misery and harm to society through violence, extortion and drugs.

      John: And the Public sector?

      Bryan: Climate Science, mostly.

      John: What do Climate Scientists do?

      Bryan: Their job is to only cause misery and harm to society through extortion and fraud.

      John: Where’s the money come from?

      Bryan: Bikies beat up the people who owe them money, but Climate Scientists just get the government to do it for them.

      John: How?

      Bryan: With Renewable Energy Targets, Carbon Taxes, Electricity bills etc. That sort of thing.

      John: What’s the pay like?

      Bryan: Bikies get a lot of money, but most of it goes to the government when they get caught. Think of the “Proceeds of Crime” provisions as an industry super tax.

      John: What does a climate scientist get?

      Bryan: An indexed salary, paid fortnightly, with holidays, super and perks.

      John: Perks?

      Bryan: Junkets to exotic locations and the opportunity to lecture the Western world on the need for simpler, low intensity lifestyles.

      John: Where do they go?

      Bryan: Rio, Bali, Can-Cun…

      John: Copenhagen?

      Bryan: Not any more.

      John: And the Bikies?

      Bryan: They go to gaol. Also at taxpayer expense, but it’s not a junket. More an occupational hazard.

      John: What’s job security like?

      Bryan: In the Bikie world, if you stuff up, they beat you up and kill you.

      John: What happens to climate scientists?

      Bryan: No climate scientist has ever been sacked on grounds of incompetency.

      John: Sounds great – how do you get in?

      Bryan: It’s all about being seen and making an impression. Bikes only get their colours after a grueling probation period, during which they must perform no less than three acts of conspicuous thuggery.

      John: How do you make a climate scientist?

      Bryan: Usually, it’s a high fibre diet.

      John: Don’t get it.

      Bryan: A small joke on my part. Again, it’s a case of making an impression. Wannabe climate scientists hang around academic institutions producing scary, convoluted and semi-plausible scientific papers. The more conspicuous ones get picked up by the peer review system and, after that, they’re in.

      John: Sounds great Dad. Thanks for your help.

      Bryan: So what are you going to do?

      John: I think I’ll be a Bikie. Climate science sounds dishonest.

      Bryan: I’m proud of you, Son.

      130

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Thanks Speedy.

        I needed a good laugh about now.

        50

        • #
          Speedy

          MV

          Never mind a laugh – it was your English that disturbed me! Use of tautology is a dangerous precedent and before you know it you’ll be uttering oxymorons such as “radical improvement”.

          A worry indeed.

          English aside, I hope tomorrow is better for you.

          Cheers,

          Speedy.

          20

  • #

    Perhaps we should look at local councils, who are all members of the International Council for Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) a member organisation of the IPCC (and the United Nations, doing locally, acting globally)who are putting into place these crazy rules and regulations, backed by various government departments. These are civil (semi Public)servants carrying on union backed ideals as part of their New World order campaign. Clinton, Gore Obama, WWF Oxfam etc all back their ideas without your real consultation. They use a system called the Delphi Technique to manipulate meetings! See this page…. http://www.wangarattacity.com/disclaimer

    71

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have used the Delphi Method (which I assume is the same as your Delphi Technique) for many years. It is a tool used within wider research projects, such as Futures Research, or Strategic Forecasting.

      It is used to forecast long-range trends in science and technology, when there are a significant uncertainties and complexities that need to be resolved, and which preclude the more traditional statistical methods of forecasting.

      It comes in two “flavours”; one to arrive at a consensus of geographically dispersed experts in the field; and the other to have the (geographically dispersed) experts identify alternative options, and then present all of the supporting evidence for and against each option.

      The process is cyclic, in that it has at least two passes of the subject material. The first pass elicits information from all of the experts, with the second and any subsequent passes gathering concurrence or critique of the results from previous cycles. There is an analysis phase at the end of each cycle, where each identified factor is weighted against the others, to either find a common point of consensus, or to find common groupings of alternatives. The weighting process is transparent, and agreed ahead of time, and all participants see all of the information at the completion of each cycle. The experts do not have to totally agree (in fact they seldom do), since the purpose is to find the most likely alternative or alternatives, and not to set anything in concrete.

      Now, apart from using this with Councillors (who are seldom experts in anything), how do your concerns relate to the above?

      32

      • #

        If you had followed the link you would see how it relates. Nothing to do with forecasting but to manipulate decisions at meetings.
        I guess that would be too hard for you.

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          What would be too hard? Following the link? Well, in actual fact, I could figure out how to do that.

          So I did follow the link, but sort of lost interest when I got to the sentence that said, “It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war”. Because that is total rubbish. If you disagree, please explain how it was intended to be deployed, by whom, and against what targets.

          Or, alternatively, what you are describing is not the Delphi Method, as defined by The Rand Corporation, who were “tasked” with creating plausible scenarios for future weapons development, both within the Western Alliance and within the Soviet Bloc. As a secondary “task” they had to devise plausible scenarios for counter measures for each of the original scenarios.

          It had nothing to do with Psyops.

          What you have got, in my view, is a bunch of clerical people, with minimal training, who have created a sham process, and given it a name that somebody has read somewhere in a magazine, because it sounds like it refers to the Delphic Oracle. Now that is a problem, for certain. And something needs to be done about it, for sure. So the worst thing you can do, is go along with their story. You need to do some research, and then confound their process by presenting the real Delphi Method.

          If you send an email to Jo, and ask her nicely, I will ask her to forward a diagram to you (always assuming that I can find it).

          31

          • #

            And in this case we now have bodies who are privately owned, putting themselves into public meetings to set up the general public to agree to things they dont understand. Councillors aside, it also happens there.
            But as an intelligent being you would know this, and so try and rubbish this type of exposure.

            10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              What are you accusing me of, John?

              01

              • #

                Read and understand.

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Read what? Understand what?

                I asked you a direct question, and I get an evasive answer. “Why would that happen?” I ask myself.

                You turn up here, promoting your own web site, that contains at least one factual inaccuracy, and when that is pointed out, you get defensive rather than engaging to find out more. Doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?

                I find it very odd.

                50

              • #

                I am not promoting my website. I am promoting what I see is happening.
                To ask what I’m trying to say, and use the tones you’re using, isn’t odd, its divisive.
                Blind LABOR party supporter perhaps?
                I got sucked in there once, saw what they were pushing, and found it was manure.
                Middle class has invaded the supposed working class LABOR party. They use your type of rhetoric.
                What book are you using?

                11

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                We are all concerned by what we see happening.

                But you arrive here, complaining that a local council is highjacking meetings by misusing a process that I happen to know a fair bit about. So I explained how the process was supposed to be used, as a counterpoint to what was on your site.

                Instead of using that information, to start a conversation, You accused me of not looking at the site and finish with an unnecessarily snide remark.

                So I pointed out the process had nothing to do with psychological weapons (I have no idea where you got that idea), but if used properly, it would get around your meeting highjacking problem.

                You then respond with the sentence, “But as an intelligent being you would know this, and so try and rubbish this type of exposure.”, which effectively accuses me of somehow being complicit in what is happening at your local council.

                So I challenged you to say exactly what you meant, and you replied with condescension.

                And when I challenge you on that, you accuse me of being divisive, and go into a rant about the Australian Labour Party, when I am not even in Australia. Jeeze mate, what are you smoking?

                I was trying to help. Why did you come here in the first place? Eh?

                32

              • #
                John Oh

                “It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war”. Because that is total rubbish. Really?
                Explain why its rubbish….

                http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM

                http://www.whale.to/b/delphi.html

                01

              • #
                John Oh

                From the explanation of the Delphi technique:

                “Facilitators” are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.

                Is this what you are trying to do Rereke? Seeing you know about the Delphi technique?

                01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Well, at least we are now engaging. Which is useful. And thank you for the references.

                Here is my analysis. My explanation on why the psychological warfare reference is rubbish is addressed at the end.

                The first webpage you referenced appears to be undated, which is less than useful. The second webpage is dated 2002, with a copyright 1997 – 2002.

                Both webpages refer, in their titles to, “The Delphi Techinque”.

                The undated paper makes reference to the “technique” being, “developed by the Rand Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s.”

                The 2002 paper makes reference to the “technique” being. “developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.”

                It is interesting that the wording of these two statements is extremely similar.

                The undated paper starts out by stating that “The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. [That is also my understanding, as explained below]

                Further down, the undated paper present an explanation of some psychological group dynamics manipulation techniques that can be employed to direct a group of people (within the same room), to reach a predefined outcome. This is totally contrary to the concept of the technique being used to explore options or a concensus with a dispursed group of experts.

                The 2002 paper also presents a series of steps to be followed in applying counter psychological manipulation techniques to confound a facilitator, who is driving to a required solution.

                Now let me selectively quote from a publication on intelligence analysis techniques:

                Delphi is a method for eliciting ideas , judgements, or forecasts from a group of experts who may be geographically dispersed.

                The Delphi method was developed by the RAND Corporation at the beginning of the Cold War in the 1950s to forecast the impact of new technology on warfare. It was also used to assess the probability, intensity, or frequency of future enemy attacks. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Delphi method was also applied to forecasting long-range trends in science and technology. Futures research is similar to intelligence analysis in that the uncetainties and complexities one must deal with often preclude the use of traditional statiistical methods, so explanations and forecasts must be based on the experience and informed judgements of experts.

                A variant called “Policy Delphi” is based on the premise that the decision maker is not interested in having a group make a concensus decision, but rather in having the experts identify alternative policy options and present all the suporting evidence for and against each option.

                Unquote.

                So, my conclusion is that the name, and some of the bonafide history, of a technique that is widely excepted, and regularly used, in military and government circles, may have been hijacked by various activist groups, and even by activists working within local government agencies, where there are less checks and balances.

                The claim that the method (or “technique”) was designed for psychological warfare purposes is pure bunkum. Psychological warfare is the process of casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the minds of the enemy, and thereby lowering the enemy’s morale, and reducing their motivation to fight.

                Managing a discussion by experts is hardly going to have any psychological impact on any sort of enemy, real or imaginary.

                However, in the two examples given, the reference to psychological warfare may well be intended to provide motivation for the reader to resist whatever facilitation process is being used, which is, after all, the primary intent of both examples you provided.

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                In answer to your comment at #50.1.1.1.6

                No, that is not what I am doing, and I do not know about the Delphi Technique, as it is called in the articles you provided.

                But I do know about the Delphi Method, which is as I described and which does not have, nor need a facilitator, if electronic means are used to ensure that all participants get a copy of every opinion statement.

                10

            • #
              John Oh

              OK I was trying to understand your line of questioning. And the statement “rubbish’.
              There is so much devious behavior I am concerned about what others intentions are.
              To state rubbish, without going further in this a flat media, intercourse doesn’t always portray proper intent of writer(s).
              I did not write that article but found it and accept methods like this or similar are used by educated people to sway political issues their own way.
              Our local council was sacked
              Elected people were sabotaged. Environmental issues were the main reason, but were hidden, as was ICLEI. .
              As a council candidate, I wondered where their policies were coming from. Agenda 21 and ICLEI is alive and well.
              And this stuff is all over the world (OBAMA and others Gore, Clinton even the EU.)

              11

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It is the new normal.

                I apologize for my original assumption that the Delphi Technique was the same as the Delphi Method.

                I think it is fair to say that we now agree that they are different, and I was wrong to make that assumption?

                10

              • #
                John Oh

                No worries. I also apologise for calling you a labor party supporter….
                Well I didn’t but you suggested you might be.
                As I wrote, its now party for middle class (EG many are public servants, pollies law makers/enforcers, educators, do gooders) who do no one any good….except themselves.
                If you’re one and feel you are different, and want to change things, let me know, we could start a revolution in the system…

                00

      • #
        Len

        Our friend Matt B has been re-elected last Saturday for another four years (to 2017)with 1036 votes in the Town of Vincent election.

        10

        • #
          Mark D.

          Town of Vincent, I’ll skip traveling there if I ever get to WA. If there are 1036 people that actually like the smarmy Mattb, it’s no place for me to waste time.

          40

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Aah – the City of Vincent.

          Highest density of prostitutes (male and female), and drug addicts in Western Australia.

          Homeplace of Hyde Park, where they have to lock the public toilets at 6.00pm to discourage “socially unacceptable behaviour” (according to the sign outside the male dunnies).

          And, of course, location of Walcott Street, home to more latte serving, trendy, left-wing curbside cafes than anywhere else in the world, outside of San Fransisco and inner Melbourne.

          A crumbling decaying, inner city suburb, totally reliant on state and federal handouts, abandoned by all except those with utterly no sense of self-worth, looking for fast internet connection to play Warcraft, cheap rent, and their next fix.

          .
          A truly exemplary example of the Green Dream made manifest by MattB and the other True Believers.

          71

      • #
        Angry

        A good article on the Delphi Technique……..

        The Delphi Technique: Let’s Stop Being Manipulated!:-

        http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html

        10

    • #
      Speedy

      John Oh

      I wouldn’t mind betting the Gillard “Citizen’s Assembly” was organised (i.e. rigged) along those lines. And the “citizens” would be all the easier to dupe, being full of themselves; Cate Blanchett would have loved it.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      70

      • #
        John Oh

        Never call a meeting unless you have already stacked the cards?
        Yes you’re right. That was always going to happen. The local water boards are consulting the general public, where only a few turn up, and making decisions that are not in the public interest.
        “But we consulted the general public!” when they implement decisions.
        Its time we had some honest politicians.

        10

  • #
    handjive

    Off topic:

    Old Weather. org
    Help scientists recover Arctic and worldwide weather observations made by United States’ ships since the mid-19th century.
    These transcriptions will contribute to climate model projections and will improve our knowledge of past environmental conditions.
    Historians will use your work to track past ship movements and tell the stories of the people on board.

    Old ship logs seen holding Arctic clues

    10

    • #
      crakar24

      Oh i see we can use captains logs from the 1800′s as a source of data for model inputs but we cant use radio sonde data from the 1960′s because its accuracy is dubious and we cant use Becks measurements either for the same reasons.

      10

  • #

    craker24 Data wasnt corrupted by the ABC then…

    30

    • #
      crakar24

      The ABC is a infotainment/propaganda outlet they can only corrupt the process not the data

      Cheers

      42

      • #

        With the publicity the ABC give pseudo scientists and as representatives of Australian citizens you should be informed They have stacked people like Peter Cundall (a Environmentalist, a Communist but a nice gardener See Wikipedia) and others into that organisation. I once worked with him. Unionism was his game. Other green and labor party supporters also enjoy positions in that organsation. Neutrality has lost the plot in the ABC Now they have of all people a former NSW chief justice Jim Spigelman as chairman. I ask why?
        Perhaps their lack of neutrality is showing. The Global Environmental Governance is rearing its head. Look for Nigel Farage, Geoffrey Bloom on YouTube to see what the British disease is doing in Australia. Even the poms are sick of them and their environmental waste and scams.
        The ABC is doing a lots of damage and gaining public support by this….

        51

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The Global Environmental Governance is rearing its head.”

          I brought this issue up at post #29.. no-one seemed to grasp the implications.

          30

          • #

            Good. I’m glad you noticed and would like to state this:
            Some people see thing happen, some people make things happen, others wonder wth happened.
            Then there are those who would like you to ignore what is happening, (nothing to see here type of stance) while screwing the country.
            The Thomson affair is only the tip of the iceberg.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWU_affair
            I wonder if Abbott will see past the current fog of expense claims and go for the real rorts that would land the LABOR party in quicksand?

            20

  • #

    I experienced this myself in January this year at my home in the Tasman Peninsula, where green tape had prevented fire authorities from performing planned hazard reduction burns, and large parts of the area had had no major fire in forty years. In the state forests around my property, the ground fuel was piled so high that walking through it required a machete. Everyone down here knew that when a fire did eventually occur, it would be disastrous, which is exactly how it panned out: many of our friends lost everything but their lives.

    “Green” my foot. Those mongrels have a lot to answer for.

    http://libertygibbert.com/2013/01/15/tales-of-an-aussie-refugee/

    100

    • #
      Speedy

      Ozboy

      ALWAYS. ALWAYS when dealing with these sort of people, don’t listen to what they say. Look at what they do.
      As in your example, they produce fire-traps for the people they are supposed to serve. Killing people for the sake of an ideology.

      Trouble is, they always sound nice but their results (intended or otherwise) always turn out custard.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      80

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Just checking out the weather with a view to go fishing on Sunday (assuming all the water doesnt evaporate between now and then), interesting numbers…

    October minimum temperature
    lowest this month 7.5°C 7th
    lowest on record 3.9°C 7th 2012
    average this month 10.3°C +0.9°C
    long-term average 9.4°C

    October maximum temperature
    highest this month 19.0°C 20th
    highest on record 21.2°C 23rd 2001
    average this month 14.9°C -0.4°C
    long-term average 15.3°C

    October rainfall
    wettest this month 12.2mm 23rd
    total this month 43.0mm 12 day(s)
    long-term average 51.3mm 12.5 day(s)
    wettest on record 131.8mm 2005
    driest on record 5.8mm 2012

    30

  • #
    steve b

    What amazes me in all this discussion is that the obvious link between these fires and CO2 emissions is being ignored. CO2 emissions have continued to rise exponentially for over a hundred yrs. Why are we getting side-tracked discussing climate change when the issue now is CO2? Wake up. Haven’t you heard; the earth is getting greener.
    From the above article it states clearly >”Carbon dioxide is a potent plant fertilizer. According to NASA satellites there is more living plant matter today, with a 6% increase in the twenty years to 2000. So there is more to burn.”
    Every year since 2000 CO2 emissions have risen exponentially.

    10

  • #
    ceetee

    Great article. I think that the point about increased CO2 levels and ergo increased vegetation is an important one. Seems to me the actual architects of this current emergency over there are the environmentalists with their very narrow eurocentric ideas about fires in the “new world”. Fire is like CO2. It’s an integral part of the cycle of nature. You can’t stop it because at some stage nature will smack your hubristic arse and put you in your place. In warmer climates with low rainfall/ humidity the only way nature can recycle nutrients is through fire. (If I’m wrong about that, feel free to correct me, I won’t throw a tanty over it) I’m not in any way trying to diminish the hardship of those affected, in fact I believe they have a case against all those who prevented them from taking prudent measures to protect themselves and their properties ie firebreaks and controlled burnoffs. I still don’t understand why so many Australians would still nevertheless take that risk.

    40

    • #
      scaper...

      I believe you are confusing environmentalists with eco-fascists.

      Environmentalism is achieving a balance of the needs of humans and nature. Just like a good marriage I suppose…give and take on both sides of the equation.

      Eco-fascists care not for the environment…it is a means of control, hair shirts and self flagellation is what they desire for the populous.

      30

      • #
        ceetee

        I don’t know, maybe I am. I know what you’re saying but isn’t it the case that many so called environmentalists give themselves that moniker only to disguise their eco-fascist credentials. It’s their Trojan Horse. Anyway, whatever happened to good old fashioned “conservationists”?.

        30

        • #
          scaper...

          Conservationists have cornered the jam making industry.

          I’ll put it another way…the eco-fascist is the doppelganger of an environmentalist.

          20

          • #
            ceetee

            OK, then let me ask you a question. I compost my garden waste. Not because I am trying to “save the planet” (that phrase annoys the shite out of me) but because it is easy, elegant and the garden thrives on it. Does that make me an eco-fascist, an environmentalist or a jam maker?

            30

            • #
              MemoryVault

              An intelligent gardener.

              50

            • #
              scaper...

              Definitely in the jam making category.

              I burn everything in my fire pit and now I supply power to over half of a suburb.

              It’s called “renewable energy”. Tyres, polystyrene, any flammable waste that will arc up the pit.

              Prefer whale oil when the pit smoulders but them Japs have had a hard time supplying the stuff. Decided to find an alternative locally.

              You know that if you slaughter and render down koalas it can produce more oil per weight than a whale? Got some in the fire pit boiler now.

              Next week I’ll be experimenting with emus. Ah…the lucky country.

              31

  • #
    handjive

    End of the thread- off topic again …

    Are you scientifically literate? Take the quiz -

    You may have an opinion on climate change, evolution education, stem-cell research, and science funding.
    But do you have the facts to back up your opinion? This quiz will test your basic scientific literacy.

    10

  • #
    Old woman of the north

    The first disastrous fires after burning was stopped by the new settlers occurred in the 1940s and burned millions of acres of land.

    We have had several good years lately and the fuel build up has been enormous, especially where forestry has been stopped and all land care removed, forestry trails overgrown, even bridges removed. These fires are extremely hot and impossible to control without any burned areas to slow them down.

    The stupidity of urbanites who have not idea what they are doing by living in a forest without clearing around their homes leads to the present type of disaster – repeated every few years some-where or other. Burning of all forests should have commenced months ago to reduce the fuel load in a patchwork pattern.

    Even fire fighters today seem to revel in the heroic fighting fires rather than mundane fuel control in an ongoing process.

    110

    • #
      ceetee

      And there ya go! History teaches us lessons we are quick to forget innit?. We really need to do something about the kids in positions of power and influence.

      50

  • #
    Old woman of the north

    Sorry I meant 1840s. A la the painting shown on the ‘Art of Australia’ on Tuesday evening.

    20

  • #
    AndyG55

    I PLEAD for the Liberals, under Mr Abbott, to bring in MANDATORY winter back-burning, MANDATORY clearing of fire breaks around urban area and MANDATORY fire trail clearing within bush areas.

    Use the DIRECT ACTION funds to do this. Heavy fines for non-compliance.

    FORCE councils to comply REGARDLESS of the moronic Green agenda.

    Get rid of green tape that makes farmers wait for ages for permits to clear hazardous growth from their land.

    Make sure that national parks DO NOT become a major combustion zone !!

    ……………………………………

    Its time to try to PROTECT Australia as much as possible against these spring and summer bushfires.

    Time to put the Greens and their idiocy back into the 8% MINORITY that they represent !!

    151

    • #
      Dave

      Andy

      Thumbs up, I totally agree. Four really good points.

      MANDATORY winter back-burning, MANDATORY clearing of fire breaks around urban area and MANDATORY fire trail clearing within bush areas.
      1. Use the DIRECT ACTION funds to do this. Heavy fines for non-compliance.
      2. FORCE councils to comply REGARDLESS of the moronic Green agenda.
      3. Get rid of green tape that makes farmers wait for ages for permits to clear hazardous growth from their land.
      4. Make sure that national parks DO NOT become a major combustion zone !!

      I’m going to email the stupid Greg Hunt now, with your points Andy if you don’t mind?

      111

      • #
        AndyG55

        Pointless emailing him.

        He has his brains in his little toe.

        And there’s still plenty of room in his shoes.

        60

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Are we talking about the SAME Tony Abbott,PM, who thinks the ABC is “just fine the way it is”, and the SAME Greg Hunt, Cabinet Minister, who’s on a personal crusade (at taxpayer’s expense) to set up an international body to put an agreed price on “derdy carbon pollution”?

          If so, good luck with that.

          50

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Word on the street is… this thesis was written in 1990 by the same Greg Hunt we’re talking about.
        “A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay”

        Is Hunt just another Big Government neo-classicist meddler in Liberal clothing?
        1. Claims companies and people are unable to put a price on non-monetary intangible costs. CHECK!
        2. Says politics should decide the price of pollution, not the market. CHECK!
        We wuz robbed.

        The 5 billion dollar question is… did he ever think his “pollution tax” would be applied to CO2.

        40

        • #
          Dave

          Word on the street is….

          Correct, little Greg Hunt and Rufus Black were mates at Ormond College and participated together in this debate.
          WUDC Glasgow 1990. Winner: Yale (Matt Wolf & John Wertheim) Finalists: Ormond College (Rufus Black & Greg Hunt), Sydney A (Andrew Bell & Adam Spencer), ANU (Clayton Young & Daniel Mulino).

          Greg and Rufus wrote this little essay sometime after this. There is no mention of CO2 pollution as this was mainly an ethical discussion on pollution not CO2. Rufus is the current master of Ormond and is Associate Professor who began his appointment in 2009. Associate Professor Rufus Black is an ethicist. If you watch this talk he did at the Creative Innovation 2011 Conference.

          Rufus is near enough to an Agenda 21 wet dream. He is basically a fruitloop and an elitist.

          His famous statement is the same as the re-elected Councillor of the Town of Vincent, Mr. MattyB who also said this:

          “Wear you Jumper, don’t turn on the heater.”

          If Greg Hunt is anything like this little wimp, god help us.

          20

  • #

    As Pete Seegar wrote, way back in 1955,

    WHEN will they ever learn

    The information to reduce ground fuel has been there from almost antiquity.

    WHEN will they ever learn

    50

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    I need a shower. I’ve just waded through a malodorous swamp.
    Ok, it was just the comment pages of the Guardian about how evil the Ozzie PM is by denying the CC link to Bush fires but I feel unclean none the less.
    You folks in Oz really do have a problem judging by the vitriol and naked emotions displayed on that rag.
    Forget fuel-load that’s just contrarian excuses. It’s all to do with evil capitalism.
    Bush fires are a gift to the eco-crazies and there’s no way that they’ll take sensible pragmatic action to reduce future disasters willingly.
    So what if innocents suffer, they’ll become glorious martyrs for the cause. Over harsh, possibly, but when confronted with such overwhelming stupidity wrapped in stifling sanctimony I despair.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, such stupidity and moronic characteristics are seen all over the world, not just by the Greens but by so many others, in particulate the Republicans and Democrats in the US, and the EU clowns. It certainly is a mad mad world, and it’s getting worse.

      30

      • #
        steve

        Ah yes but you can t have such a world-wide Moronacracy ( is that a word? ) without deliberate intent.

        It seems as the population gets dumber, we move from a Democracy to a Moronocracy.

        Either way, the sh*t seems to float to the top.

        00

  • #
    Backslider

    So the Surrealist does his usual thread bomb thing and posts about climate and the bushfires back in the Antarctic sea ice thread….. what a total FW. I hope the mods remove it…. or better still, move it here where its on topic and you can all tear him to shreds *evil*.

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Skynews tells us Defence admit starting the mega Lithgow fire last Wednesday. “A massive fire burning in Lithgow and the Blue Mountains was caused by explosives training which was being carried out in the area by the department of defence.”

    One might ask the Australian Department of Defense why ordinance capable of starting a fire was being used on land obviously not cleared of combustible material for a safe distance all around the practice area. Was this another case of being unable to clear the land because of stupid carbon sequestration regulations like we saw with Peter Spencer or was it plain old carelessness?

    Will there be an inquiry or not?

    50

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Mow that is a very interesting spin on the issue Roy.

      Worth following up.

      This one could go full circle, back to the every present Green Tape.

      Here in our local council area we have people living under nature.

      Sounds nice but by nature I am referring to almost horizontal boughs on 50 ft high gum trees.

      When it rains, the extra weight can bring something like that down on your roof; but the council is adamant, it must not be cut.

      We had one “shed” over our back fence and it weighed about 400 lbs.

      Time for a change in thinking on Nature.

      KK

      30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Just goes to show , always proof read.

        Now ……….. if I had we wouldn’t have a word that was half moo and half cow.

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I always thought a cow was all moo to begin with. Perhaps you’ve stumbled onto a new species? Maybe something shadowy and hard to detect like Yeti or ghosts? Better apply for a grant to investigate it and find out if it’s dangerous. ;-)

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        KK,

        You echo my thinking exactly. Time for a change — a big one too.

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        KK,

        Sorry for the long time between replies. I got sidetracked, a real problem around here.

        ————————–

        About trees: the original owner of the house I’m living in planted a Eucalyptus tree very close to the street and the driveway. Of course, as they do, it grew fast and was soon too big for it’s place. And as you know, Eucalyptus is brittle and if stressed too much it breaks right off. I tolerated this tree until we had a very windy storm that broke loose a major branch and sent it pointed end down right into the street. It hit so hard that it gouged a big 8 or 9 inch long hole in the pavement about 1/4 inch deep. If there had been a car parked there it would have been skewered like a hot dog at a 4th of July picnic (at my expense). Since the tree technically belonged to the county I needed their permission to remove it but they (surprisingly) mailed me the permit after just a phone call and waived the permit fee. The tree was soon gone.

        The danger from large trees is a very real one and gets worse with age. Around here Oak trees are protected like they were their weight in gold and it’s not so easy to get permission to even trim one when it becomes a menace. I’ve several stories about fights with the city to get permission to trim off just one overhanging branch that is clearly a danger because it’s become too weak to hold itself up.

        20

        • #
          steve

          I was in my shed when half of a very large gum tree landed on it ( it was a “V” shape with two trunks at base of tree ). This left me slightly shaken but still upright, and a quick call to the council saying this 3o’ monster had to go as the bit left overhung the council footpath and was used every day by school kids. The SES attended and probably backup up my claim.

          10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Roy and Steve

          Hard hitting stories there.

          Seems like this “preserve trees at all costs” perspective is almost world wide, at least in Western countries.

          I understand that many years ago New Zealand had a regulation that said that no tree could be planted within one and a half diameters of the expected crown.

          This theoretically gave the dwelling clearance from any shedding but not if it falls as happened to Steve.

          KK

          00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      KK,
      didn’t know you were living in the Adelaide Hills (I suspect not, but Council is 55% tree huggers, so same stupidity).
      Large tree on house diagonally behind has shed 3 branches in last 8 years, one over 2 tonnes. This despite lopping several times.

      One chap who got action had a tree right outside his house (15 feet in old parlance). No way could it be touched until he got a lawyer friend to write letter to Council requesting that they reply in writing indemnifying him (house owner) from any damage caused by falling branches. The tree was cut down next morning.

      Just a suggestion.

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Tree horror stories.

        Every time TV shows a storm blowing through somewhere recently they show either a house or a car that has been crushed under a tree.

        We have moved house since the episode above which was a neighbors tree that messed up our fence.

        One of their trees was gigantic with a lot of growth on one side facing North.

        One day it rained.

        Probably an extra 40 lbs or so of water sitting through the leaves and the soil softened a bit and way it went.

        It started to crack and then all 60 ft of this huge thing fell uphill in slow motion towards their house.

        No damage no injury but trees are not fluffy little things they talk about at Council Meetings.

        KK

        10

        • #

          My blog has pictures of nature correcting this problem! We had a huge snow storm the first of the month, with all the trees still having their leaves on. The city is still trying to clean up the branches in the parks and other public areas. Volunteers cleared the cemetery of branches. If one does not attend to pruning on a regular basis, the trees come down. I regularly prune my trees (I live in the county, so no real regulations concerning trees) and I only lost a couple of branches off a locust trees and one large Russian olive tree branch. We also actively knocked the snow off as the storm occurred. My area is subject to high winds, which gives one more incentive to prune and maintain the trees. I’m very happy I don’t live in a place that restricts such practices. (We also only got a fire station within 10 miles about 4 years ago, meaning you either mow and clear, or you burn.)

          10

  • #
    Anthony

    Ok, first of all I am afirm believer in climate change. I believe its caused by humans and I believe that 95% of what climate scientist are saying is true.
    My reasons for believing this and being deeply concerned about climate change is simple. I love this planet I live on, I love it’s diversity in both nature and in humans and I don’t want to loose that. I like being able to swim in clean water, I like be able to breath clean air and I certainly like to be able to feed myself.
    That’s what motivates my concerns about climate change.
    But I don’t understand what drives a climate change deniest? I understand that some “experts” are funded by fossil fuel companies, their motives are pretty clear. But what motivates the rest of you, what motivates you to think that so many scientists are wrong?
    What motivates you to think that polluted waterways and polluted air is not a bad thing?

    27

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      OK, let me see if I can explain.

      Belief is actually a matter of choice. You choose what you believe. You may not do it consciously, but at some point a choice is made.

      Often, it is made for social reasons, because others around you have already made their choices, and you go along as part of the group. There is nothing wrong with that, it is part of being a social animal (as we all are). The group constantly reinforces the decision as part of its society, and so the fact that a choice was ever made becomes forgotten.

      At other times, the choice is made because of curiosity. If people are unsure of what to believe, then they may take steps to find out more about the subject, for themselves, and let the facts they discover, influence the decision.

      Both of these choices are valid. One can be considered extroverted, and the other introverted, and neither of them needs to be judgemental.

      Now, having explained those differences, lets discuss the differences of opinion, and the level of agreement, between the social acceptance of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the Skeptical Questioning of Human Influence.

      Both groups believe that the climate changes. It is self evident. It is simply not a point of disagreement.

      You claim to believe that the change in climate is caused by humans. Skeptics will question why the climate changed more dramatically in the past, when there were considerably less humans, and no human industry, to influence it.

      You claim to believe that 95% of what climate scientist are saying is true. Most skeptics will agree with that. But they will also question how important the non-truth of the remaining 5% of what they are saying is? Also, skeptics will question what, if anything, is not being discussed or considered by climate scientists at all? Scientists, like everybody else, make assumptions. What if their assumptions are wrong? Skeptics try to find out.

      You say you love this planet we all live on, you love its diversity in both nature and in humans and you don’t want to loose that. You like being able to swim in clean water, you like be able to breath clean air and you certainly like to be able to feed yourself. I do not know any skeptic that would not agree with you whole heartedly on any of that. It is simply not a point of difference.

      The point of difference is in the reaction to climate change.

      Climate scientists, who are almost totally funded by Government grants, either directly, or through Universities, or through various Quango foundations; exist to investigate (and find issue with) changes in climate.

      If they said that there was no man-made influence in climate, and that it all came down to natural variation, then they would be out of a job. This is not to say that they lie about the situation. But it must introduce a degree of professional bias into their deliberations, and the way things are expressed.

      On the other side of the debate, some scientists (mostly Climatologists, Meteorologists, and Atmospheric Physicists) question the reliance that climate science places on the use of computer models (which are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable*), but fail to explain the mechanisms of climate change in terms used by those three specialities. Some scientists are funded by grants from fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel production is all about Physics and Chemistry and Geology, and these experts will also have specialist knowledge that can be expressed in debate. Would you wish to deny them the right to have an opinion?

      I cannot speak for any other skeptics, but for me, science is all about the question, “Why?”. It is the one common question to all of science. Except, it seems, climate science, where we are told that the “science is settled” , and “there is no further room for debate”.

      Also, (patentable discoveries notwithstanding) every field of science will release all of its data and methods to skeptical peer review, by anybody who can understand it, excepting climate science, which refuses to allow other disciplines to see, and inspect, and verify, their workings. That is what makes me a skeptic. What are they trying to hide, is my natural response. That is what motivates me.

      I don’t think anybody believes that polluted waterways and polluted air are good things to have. But they have no relation to climate change as it is presented.
      Pollution, in all its forms, is an engineering question, and not one for science.

      Finally, if you are going to call skeptics, “deniers” or “denialists” then you will need to be prepared to state what it is that they deny.

      * I have, in my time, worked as a modeller, so I speak from experience. Models are great when working at the purely theoretical level. But at the practical level required by climate simulations, there are just too many unknown unknowns to guarantee any degree of accuracy. They are good approximations, but they are not truth.

      70

    • #
      Ian Hill

      Anthony, when I became interested in this topic four years ago the first thing I wanted to do was find out for myself what the science “said” about the heating effect of carbon dioxide. When I saw the declining logarithmic graph, which basically says that heaps more of the stuff does bugger all, I knew something was fishy.

      It didn’t take me long to discover that climate scientists and hangers-on, such as Al Gore, were cheating. One prominent climate scientist, Professor John Overpeck, said in an email to a colleague, “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. That was in 1995. The MWP was an era warmer than the present. In Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” he displays a huge graph showing correlation between temperature and CO2. What he doesn’t say is that the CO2 graph lags temperature by about 800 years. In other words, it is temperature change which causes the CO2 change which is absorbed and released primarily from the oceans.

      Then there was the authority in the US, I think the Environmental Protection Agency, which legally declared CO2 a “pollutant”. I believe the chair of the agency has admitted she didn’t have a clue how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Of course, since humans and animals breathe out CO2 and plants need it to survive, it cannot be a pollutant, can it?

      Then there is the behaviour of the main stream media, all the corruption in Europe with their emissions trading scheme and the absurd policies of the Green movement, not the least being a desire to slash world population to about 10% of what it is now.

      So you see Anthony, there is a lot to be sceptical about. The majority of us may be the wrong side of 50, but we have seen enough corruption in our lifetimes to know that the whole affair is about money and nothing else.

      30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “When I saw the declining logarithmic graph”

        I saw some information, actual measurements, recently that suggested that the effect of CO2 was logarithmic up to about 200ppm, and then flattened out completely. ie it is threshold limited.

        If this is the case, then it makes a total mess of basically any CO2 forced climate change hypothesis,(well, even more of a mess).

        11

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ah, my little red thumbed friend..

          Do you want to come out to play ?? Please. :-)

          21

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I saw some information, actual measurements, recently that suggested that the effect of CO2 was logarithmic up to about 200ppm, and then flattened out completely. ie it is threshold limited.

          Being logarithmic it’s actually going to always increase but at an ever decreasing rate. Right now, according to the theory, the graph of supposed CO2 effect is well beyond the point where it has a meaningful slope. In other words, it might as well be a flat line. The controversy about the equation is all about the size of the coefficient that you multiply by the logarithm.

          The real — and still unanswered — question is, does CO2 in the atmosphere act the way the theory predicts? The real world evidence so far says no.

          I hate to keep beating this drum but that unproven theory has been stretched way past the breaking point.

          10

    • #
      steve

      What alerted me to AGW being BS was the fact it was being pushed like pure propaganda.

      Whenever people rely on basic bully/thug tactics and telling people not to question their point of view “the science is settled” just makes me more supicious ( science is never settled..it evolves ).

      Then…. Al Gore got an oscar for what is political propaganda, and I realised the rot went allllll the way to the top, and AGW was just a massive lie. Then add in the missing MWP and the hot spots, the infamous hockey stick graph, the bumbling IPCC, the clear use of pressure tactics to force peopel into line, and you have a well oiled propaganda machine. This flies in the face of what is proper process for science and more like politics. BIG RED FLAG.

      I have spent a *long* time around politics and science, and when I saw agitprop techniques that Stalin and Lenin would have ben proud of in use, I knew I was right it was BS.

      A major problem by its nature should be self evident. As such, after a bit of basic reaseach and my own observations, backed by a lot of common sense revealed it was BS.

      QED

      31

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the science is settled”

        Saying that to any REAL scientist should be like waving a red rag at a bull. !

        Yet, for so-called climate scientists, it is their meme. !

        10

    • #
      Backslider

      What motivates you to think that polluted waterways and polluted air is not a bad thing?

      What/who in the World has made you believe that we think that?

      CO2 is not pollution.

      30

      • #
        Anthony

        Oh that’s easy, comments that ii have read on here like
        Greenies
        Tree Huggers
        Save the Planet, it hate that
        Basically a lot of what I have read on here is very anti protecting the environment and a lot of hate towards anyone cares for it.
        And the fact that thinking that producing more CO2 is not a bad thing, in turn the by-products from producing CO2.

        13

        • #
          Backslider

          The reason you read comments like that is because the people we are talking about are NOT conservationists, but rather have a political agenda and only use “environmentalism” as a hook to gain support from people like you.

          As for CO2 being bad, how about having a listen to what real scientists have to say?

          10

        • #
          Heywood

          Anthony,

          You have your opinion, and that’s great, but I don’t think there are too many here who are ‘anti-environment’.

          I invite you to have a read of Jo’s book before you comment further. It might help you understand where we are coming from.

          Also, as Rereke stated above, if you are going to throw the ‘denier’ label around, be prepared to back it up with some evidence on what we deny.

          10

        • #
          Backslider

          Let me put it to you another way: Were we to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial (270ppm) then we could not feed many of those who are not already starving today. Its a simple as that.

          If you can show to us all empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming in a catastrophic way, we are all ears. We have all been waiting for years, yet nobody has been able to produce it.

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Tree Huggers”

          I love trees,

          trees love CO2.

          Why the heck would anyone who loves trees, hate CO2. ?? !!!!!!!!!

          No sense at all !

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          “very anti protecting the environment”

          I would LOVE to be able to protect the environment from those cockroaches call wind turbines.. The very antithesis of environmentalism. Pure avian destruction.

          no true environmentalist should countenance their existence.!!!

          41

          • #
            AndyG55

            Ahhhh.. my red thumbed friend HATES bird life. !

            31

          • #
            scaper...

            Yeah, illustrates my comment somewhere up the page concerning eco-fascists and conservationists.

            Those whirly gigs are toxic, not only to the humans and fauna that are ground based but to the birds.

            Link

            10

            • #
              AndyG55

              Everything considered, from the neodymium mining and refining, to the massive concrete foundations, to the devastation caused to avian life…

              ….they are probably one of the most environmentally destructive devices EVER created by man.

              The poster child for alternative energy !!!!

              21

              • #
                scaper...

                Funny how the warmists revert to antediluvian concepts as a panacea for the perceived ills of the planet.

                What next, human dynamos based on the hamster wheel discipline? Reminds me of graffiti I saw on the Cronulla to Central line in the seventies.

                “Beam me up Scottie, there is no intelligent life forms here.” Another one…”God rolls his own’”

                Such prophetic observations.

                20

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I understand that some “experts” are funded by fossil fuel companies”

      NAME ONE !!!!

      30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Anthony

      Obviously you are smart enough to detect that this blog is different.

      One of the differences to SkS and Algore is that many of us are scientists and or engineers who have some capacity to work it out.

      We are mostly very concerned about the planet and I know many on here express concern about the environment in different ways.

      We are deeply concerned about pollution of lakes, rivers and oceans and of course, the atmosphere.

      We are also deeply concerned about the lack of scientific rigour and truth telling worldwide with regard to Man Made Global Warming.

      You will find lots of “discussion” on many blogs about the need to reduce CO2 output.

      Rarely will you see a discussion on the stupidity of the “Incineration by MM CO2″ scam.

      The idea is easily dismissed by any competent scientist who understand the law of diminishing returns as it relates to CO2 absorption of IR.

      As it currently stands the Earth re re-radiates IR and existing CO2 soaks up a very very large proportion of that ground IR at the specific wavelength involved.

      Adding more CO2 will do next to nothing.

      The only way more CO2 can absorb more IR is if more IR is produced.

      IR is a direct consequence of the amount of inbound Solar Insolation.

      For the world to get hotter there is only one way: The sun has to shine harder!

      Additionally the above CO2 mechanism is just a very small part of the atmospheric heating and cooling process and any slight variation is inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

      CO2 is not a poison and is not dangerous.

      KK

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        KK

        Slight correction:

        CO2 … is not dangerous at normal room temperature and pressure.

        20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Thank you RW.

          I stand corrected and will never try to snort that white powdered variety crushed from dry ice.

          KK

          10

      • #
        Anthony

        Would seem that I have upset a couple of people in reply to Blacksliders questions. Just repeating terms I have read on here. If people don’t like the impressions that those terms give them, then maybe they shouldn’t use them.

        In regards to your reply, first cheers for the laymens reply, not all of us are scientists.
        Questions
        What happens to the CO2 once it reaches saturation point with IR, assuming it does reach a saturation point.
        IR is heat, correct? Where does that heat go when absorbed buy the CO2, what happens with the CO2? (Hope that makes sense)
        How is CO2 related to ocean acidification, if at all?

        I understand that CO2 is not dangerous, unless that’s all you have to breath (hehe) but the extraction processes and corporate corruption is.

        12

        • #
          Backslider

          Would seem that I have upset a couple of people in reply to Blacksliders questions.

          I don’t see anybody upset. Some people get a little cynical when they hear the same warmist toff over and over. We get a lot of trolls on this blog. If you however show that you are open minded and willing to learn then they will treat you accordingly. Everybody is happy to answer valid questions.

          CO2 absorbs heat energy emitted from the earth’s surface. It releases this energy, some back toward the earth, some back into space. Because there is only x amount of infra red radiation in the bandwidths that CO2 is able to absorb, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does nothing above the saturation point.

          The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly proportional to the amount of CO2 in the ocean and the warmth of the ocean, not how much we emit. This is governed by Henry’s law, a scientific law that has been known since the early 1800′s. We can see this from ice core samples, which show that rises in atmospheric CO2 correspond with rises in the earth’s temperatures (not the other way around!). As the ocean warms (as we have come out of The Little Ice Age), atmospheric CO2 has risen. Sure, some is from human emissions, but it does not stay there, but rather balances. The amount of human emitted CO2 is miniscule when compare to the whole natural carbon budget.

          The ocean is not acidic and never will be. It is alkaline. Alkalinity is in fact more corrosive than acidity. This is why for example fish have a thick mucous membrane on their skin. The term “acidification” sounds nice and alarming, which warmist extremists like, however a more correct term is “neutralisation” or “less alkaline”. That is, less corrosive.

          The PH balance of the ocean varies and can swing up or down quite significantly. This is perfectly natural and does not appear to bother marine life. Any changes due to CO2 are small when compared with natural variation.

          100 years from now we will be burning very little in the way of fossil fuels, however to try and stem our use of them now would only hurt us because right now we do not have viable alternatives. When most people think of electricity generation for example they only think of domestic use, not realizing that the bulk of electricity is used by industry. The power required by industry could not possibly be satisfied by renewables (other than hydro). Renewables fail to even satisfy domestic requirements (I know, I have used them – not hooked up to the grid).

          Like you I am not a scientist. I am sure that others here however can answer all of your questions to your satisfaction.

          20

          • #
            Anthony

            Ok, so the warmer the ocean the more CO2 in the atmosphere.
            The CO2 levels in the atmosphere balance out with the oceans due to Henry’s law.
            CO2 absorbers IR, reflecting some back out to space, some back to earth.
            So what would happen if say, we released 100s x the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere than we currently do?

            01

            • #
              Backslider

              So what would happen if say, we released 100s x the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere than we currently do?

              The World would become a very green paradise.

              The notion that more and more CO2 equals more and more heating of the atmosphere is patently false.

              10

              • #
                Anthony

                Yeah I read that in the skeptics handbook.
                I don’t fully understand why when you introduce more of something that reflects heat that it it doesn’t actually reflect more heat. To me it defies logic.
                But hey, I’m not a scientist.

                And why is it when even I ask a question I still get a red thumb? (Joke)

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                But hey, I’m not a scientist.

                You don’t need to be.

                Think of atmospheric CO2 as an ordinary kitchen sponge. The sponge has a certain, fixed capacity to soak up water. If you mop up some spilled water, only one of two things can happen. Either you will get all the water without reaching the capacity of the sponge to absorb it, or the sponge will reach its capacity to absorb, and you will have wring it out before you can mop up more water.

                If one accepts the “greenhouse” theory of CO2 (which I don’t, but irrelevant here), then one must also accept the observed fact that CO2 only displays its magical greenhouse properties within a certain, tightly defined bandwidth of energy. That available bandwidth of energy is already pretty-much fully “absorbed”.

                To use the the sponge analogy, you’ve already mopped all of the spilled water (energy). Getting a bigger sponge (more CO2) will have no effect whatsoever.

                30

            • #
              MemoryVault

              So what would happen if say, we released 100s x the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere than we currently do?

              Most of it would end up in the ocean, initially as carbonic acid, but very quickly combined with dissolved alkalines to form various compounds. The end result is the oceans would become infinitesimally “saltier”.

              Eventually, somewhere in the distant future, ALL readily available carbon will have become CO2, been dissolved in the ocean, and ultimately become limestone or similar sediment on the ocean floor.

              At that point carbon-based life-forms – including us – will have ceased to exist on this planet, or, out of necessity, evolved into something else.

              Oh, and before you ask, yes, the oceans would STILL be alkaline.

              30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Couple of good responses there MV.

                The other thing about extra CO2 in the atmosphere is that when it rains it is precipitated to Earth.

                Now, once dissolved in rainwater it is an acid and helps break down rocks which get washed to rivers, then to oceans where!!!!!

                They enter the ocean and provide Ca to react with dissolved HCO3 (ex CO2) and it’s derivatives and make it LESS ACIDIC.

                The Cycle of Life, and Chemistry.

                So.

                Far from being an acidifying agent, atmospheric CO2 actually helps make the oceans alkaline by breaking down Ca based rocks.

                KK

                10

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      As soon as you dip into that “clean” waterway, you dirty it. So you have ruined it for everyone else. Congratulations.

      As for your wondering, I wonder why you are so ignorant about a subject you want to pontificate on. I suggest you educate yourself. Fossil fuels does not fund the skeptics. Skeptics do not deny anything (other than self righteous ignoramuses). Skeptics do not like pollution. What you have spouted is called talking points. In other words, you can get a tape recorder to do that. And it requires no more brains than a rock.

      What skeptics are ASKING (see? Do you see DENYING in ASKING?) is why has science been scuttled for the sake of an agenda. Skeptics are practicing scientists, not charlatans.

      We see no warming for 17 years, and ask why. We see no melting of Antarctica, and ask why. We see CO2 rising, and no resulting meltdown of the planet and ask why. And we see fires, tornadoes, hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons rising and falling irrespective of the CO2 levels and ask why.

      You do not seem to want to ask why. You seem to want to “believe”. Belief is a fine thing, in moderation. You can find it in every religion. But science requires proof, not belief.

      10

      • #
        Anthony

        I am no scientist, so I rely on people who understand the data to interpret it, where then I read it and come up with my own conclusions.
        In this I have also seen where only small parts of facts are taken and then presented as a whole truth. (Antartica ice sheet is a classic one)
        And being a person who believes that human induced climate change is a real thing, I tend to see this cherry picking more on the denielist side (not skeptic, thank you for pointing that out, you were not the first)
        But after reading comments from people on here who deal with facts and are skeptics, (and not the angry dogs) I am sure it happens on both sides.

        (Please don’t confuse “belief” in the religious sense with what I “believe”. What I believe is based on what I have read and what I see, not based on blind faith)

        03

        • #
          Anthony

          Sorry, Artic, not Antarctic

          03

          • #

            Arctic or Antarctic, ice is melting at the rate it’s melting. There’s no cherry-picking. The predictions from the models were WRONG–completely wrong. In fact the ice melted faster than predicted, then refroze faster than prediction. So that part of the theory has to be discarded or researched and corrected. It also has to be called wrong, if we are talking science. A real scientist looks at the mess, announces he failed in the modeling and starts looking for where the error occurred. He does NOT say people are cherry picking and eventually his model will be right.

            30

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Arctic, not artic.

            20

        • #

          Perhaps you can explain why warmists throw out so much data and rely on models. Where, in any examples, do warmists use ALL of the data and not adjust it. I have been reading on CO2 levels and was shocked to find out just how many thousands of measurements are ignored by those in climate science. Find me examples of climate change scientists using proper statistics, ALL of the data, presenting the raw data so their analysis can be checked, etc. Then we can discus the insulting, useless “cherry-picking” statement and see if it has validity. Thus far, you have proven nothing and just called names. PROOF. We need proof.

          “Small parts of facts”–like the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet either is or is not growing. How that applies to the climate overall may be debated, but the facts on the sheet getting larger or smaller are what they are. If we start playing with “only one type of ice is expanding” or “all the old ice is melting” or “it’s just temporary”, then we start playing word games and semantics, but no science will be seen in that.

          Cute with the spelling of “deniaelist” so you could skate through the moderation filter. So very clever. If we are not allowed to be called skeptics, then you are going to wear the title of “Believer in a religious” sense. Why do you get to insult (covertly) yet we are supposed to believe you have something other than faith? People with faith-based beliefs cast insults because they have nothing more–where’s your “more”? If you use demeaning titles for people, you get demeaning titles in return. Stop with the behaviour and maybe you will be taken seriously. You’re not really showing any understanding here and little evidence of reaching your own conclusions. You sound like virtually every other warmists out there reading from the playbook (the Antarctic ice comment was a dead giveaway) from a playbook. At least demonstrate you can think independently if you are going to call people names and claim you aren’t a faith-based religion follower.

          30

          • #
            Anthony

            Actually the denielist part is a direct referance to those who are paid by oil companies to de-bunk climate change science, not a referance to people who are skeptics of the science. Though I made that clear in the bracketed statement there after.
            I will ignore the last part of your comment as a misunderstanding ,except, my “more” as you put it, is here, reading the other side of the story.

            03

            • #

              I really would like to see proof of oil company shills. Are there warmests who are liberal party shills? I know you don’t have proof, but I have to try. To avoid any confusion, you could just have used the correct term: paid persons who spread the information the oil companies want spread. It’s not denial, it’s a job, assuming these persons exist.

              If you don’t want to go back to the pre-industiral age, how then to we return to pre-industrial CO2 levels? I am impressed that you live in a developing country. Do these people want to improve their lives so they can live like we in the USA and Australia do, or do they want to stay pre-industrial?

              You may ignore the last paragraph, except as noted, please use the correct description in the future. What you used is name-calling. Also, you are here reading the rest of the story, just as many of the readers here regularly read papers and sites on climate change. I do applaud you at least coming here and reading.

              I will be awaiting your proof of warmists who do not cherry pick–it’s something I have searched for high and low and not found. Now, since I live in a country with running water and electricity courtesy of fossil fuels, I must go get a replacement for my washer pump and hopefully my floor will remain dry. Later.

              20

              • #
                Anthony

                Oil company is a quote I used from you. But what’s the point, I can tell when a person is hell bent on blood.
                Gracias

                03

              • #
                Backslider

                how then to we return to pre-industrial CO2 levels?

                This would be devastating to agriculture. Its a very silly notion and is in fact impossible, since atmospheric CO2 levels are governed by Henry’s law, not by how much CO2 we emit…. CO2 has risen because we have come out of The Little Ice Age. Were we to stop emitting CO2 entirely, atmospheric levels would decline very little.

                20

              • #

                Anthony: “I understand that some “experts” are funded by fossil fuel companies”–so what part of oil company does not fit into fossil fuels? You stated fossil fuel companies–oil, NG and coal. They were definitely your words, even if you chose to use one term (fossil fuel) to cover three industries. Why are you accusing me of starting the oil company line? I’m out for using clear language. Try it.

                10

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Guess all the “denielist” are the alarmists then since they are the ones getting millions from fossil fuel companies.

              Your problem is you are a good sheep. You bleat well, but never bother to check the man behind the curtain. “Energy” Companies are in much more than just fossil fuels. Whether they get you energy from oil, or wind, they make money. Lots of it. So they do not care. But it is a convenient scapegoat for the illiterate and mindless sheep out there. They create a meme and stick to it, and facts be damned.

              Try education. It is not a punishment.

              00

              • #
                Anthony

                “Herding skeptics is like herding cats.herding leftist progressivists islike herding sheep. – Beth Cooper”

                You use someone eslse words to insult me, oh the irony of it.

                Maybe you should read some of my other post before throwing your intellectual superiority around.

                (The only thing that keeps most humans from making true progress is their inability to see past their own state in ego) -no credit needed

                01

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Anthony

                You use someone eslse words to insult me, oh the irony of it.

                #1 – I do not plagiarize.
                #2 – It is not an insult.
                #3 – There is no irony in simple facts.

                You “claim” to have come here to learn. Instead you continue to toss out ad hominems, petty insults, and non sequiturs.

                Here’s a clue for you. Learn to read. Then learn how to comprehend what you read. Then get an education.

                You have just proven you are a liar, ignorant, and an idiot. But then I suspect you already knew of your qualities.

                BTW: Try “else”. It works better when you can actually write intelligently.

                00

              • #
                Anthony

                Sorry mate, you missed my point.
                The irony I am trying to point out is that you are calling me a sheep, while using someone else’s phase to do it. Which is believing that what someone else says is correct. Aka, being a sheep.

                01

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Anthony –

                I missed nothing. If that quote referred to you, you made the reference. I did not assign it to you.

                So you called yourself a sheep. And everything after that is your own guilty conscious talking.

                00

              • #
                Anthony

                Really dude, like really?
                If your going to say something at least have the guts to stand by it.
                Because I really don’t want go into all of your post to pull out your references to me with the words “sheep” “bleating” and “flock” in it.
                It’s all a bit school yard, don’t you think?

                00

              • #
                Backslider

                @PhilJourdan – I really think you need to pull your head in…. at least until your own reading and comprehension skills improve.

                00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          I am not the one with blind faith in people I have never met nor know of their competency. You are. There is no confusion. YOu have stated your case, and it is one I will not share. I will not blindly follow any man. You are welcome to.

          But do not confuse your religion with science. Your faith with facts. You came here spitting falsehoods, and then expect us to cower under your fierce faith.

          Sorry, it does not work that way.

          Herding skeptics is like herding cats.
          herding leftist progressivists is
          like herding sheep.
          – Beth Cooper

          20

          • #
            Anthony

            I base my beliefs on what I read and learn. The fact that I am here on this website is part of that process.
            If you wish to slander that choice and class me as a sheep, that is your choice. But I think that says more about you than it does about me.

            04

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Anthony

              You mention Deniers and Sceptics “on the take from ” big oil or whatever.

              This is chronic theme from the Pro AGW movement; it is a philosophy based on a fragment of true science that has been lifted and misrepresented. Variations in Man made CO2 cannot possibly influence the temperature.

              On the pro warmer side we have large, or Big End of Town business interests, which love Global Warming.

              As disparate as Goldman Sachs, the bank which loves commissions from Carbon Trading, and General Electric which makes the motors for wind turbines.

              I think it is very likely that these two groups would want to enhance the status of Global Warming as threat so they can make more money.

              On balance in life you are more likely to have your income downgraded if you are a known Anti to the accepted CAGW theory.

              KK

              10

              • #
                Anthony

                Ok Kieth, you answered my next question, what would motive the, as it is called here, the warmest movement.

                But cannot the same can be said for those pushing the [snip] side also, that it is driven by money also.

                I mean argument fits both sides of the coin.

                And please, before the angry dogs come out and pull me to shreds again for using the ‘[snip]” word, it is referance to those motivated by things other than facts. NOT SKEPTICS!!!!!

                [your spelling stinks. Stop with the "D" word or else.] ED

                03

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                I don’t know of anybody on this site who is being paid to complain that the “Science” of MMGW is wrong.

                Wr are just scientists and taxpayers applalled at the fact that we are being ripped off.

                Tim Flannery, a plant biologist? was earning $180,000 for three days a week as “climate scientist.”

                This was purely a promotional/advertising job.

                I can assure you I am far more qualified than he will ever be on this topic.

                I think may unprincipled people would become Climate Enthusiasts like Tim for the right money .

                Academia is full of them.

                KK

                10

              • #
                Heywood

                ” those pushing the deniel side”

                ” those motivated by things other than facts”

                I really think you need to re-think this line of reasoning.

                Are you saying that skeptics deny facts?

                If so, exactly what facts are being denied? Try quantifying your use of the term denial.

                30

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Ok Antimony,

                We are probably finished here.

                Good luk with yur serch dude.

                Many have come here to see how many comments they coukld rack up; in the past they have been referred to as spacers.

                Uou have done well.

                KK

                30

              • #

                Anthony–This is why one should stick to the science only and not the motivations. The science and evidence is all that matters, irregardless of the motivations of those reporting it. It is not proof the theory is wrong just because Al Gore made a huge amount of money off the thing. It’s not wrong because university grants may to those who push the theory. It’s wrong because the science is wrong. No matter who said it or why.

                20

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                And what you’ve said her Sheri, that’s the bottom line.

                Always good to keep that in front of us so we stay on track.

                KK

                10

              • #
                Anthony

                No, I don’t think a skeptic denies facts. It a term that I have used here incorrectly and have been corrected on…many many times in many many colourful ways :-)

                Keith, what I came here to find out was what motives people to not believe in human caused global warming, what I found out was my naivety on the subject.

                31

              • #
                Backslider

                what I found out was my naivety on the subject

                It is a very rare thing that a warmist will come here and admit to something like that so openly. Kudos.

                We hope that you continue to learn and leave no stone unturned. You will find that nobody here is afraid of the science, which is something you won’t find on warmist sites.

                Unfortunately a lot of the discussions here between warmists and regular members get quite heated, however if you start you own polite discussions everybody here will gladly answer any question you care to throw at us.

                30

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              You come in here and make false accusations with no evidence to support you. You use ad hominems to attack the posters. And then you feign indignation because someone calls you out on your childish behavior?

              Sorry if I do not cry for your supposed hurt feelings. Given your total disregard for facts, evidence and any rational discourse, my description stands.

              If you do not want to be called a sheep, stop bleating. And drop the “pity me” facade. You will get no pity.

              11

              • #
                Anthony

                I can’t help the way you see the world mate.

                01

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I can’t help the way you see the world mate.

                You apparently cannot read either.

                00

              • #
                Anthony

                I really didn’t think I would have to explain to you what I mean by that comment. I gave you more credit than that.
                But here goes.

                You say my feeling are hurt, which they are not.
                So that’s your perspective on the world.

                You say I have a disregard for evidence and facts.
                Again, your perspective. You confuse lack of knowledge with arrogance. We are not born with the knowledge of the universe, (maybe) we learn it.

                You say I’m playing the “pity me” card, which I am not.
                Again, it is how you see the world.

                People can only see the world as they see it. It is why eye witnesses are so unreliable. You see my responce and comments as you do, I can’t help that. Its your perspective based on your experiences. Once you start to see past that, is when you start to see some amazing things.
                Its called being at piece with yourself, or knowing yourself. It’s what I class as true intelligence. And people who I see as having both true intelligence and academic intelligence are the people I respect the most.
                There are a couple of people on here like that, they are the ones I have listened to the most.

                The truth is, whether you wish to believe it or not, is I came here t find out what motives peoples thoughts here, and what I got was a good hiding for my ignorance and an education on climate science.

                If you believe me great, if you don’t, I can’t help you. Your perspective on the world is your own.

                01

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Anthony

                You say you do not need to, then you do. I wrote based upon what you WROTE. Not what you are. It is clear from your rantings that you have trouble communicating effectively or clearly. Nevertheless that is all anyone here has to go on. What you write. So if YOU are unclear, do not expect people to understand what you “feel”, only what you “write”.

                As for your disregard of facts and evidence, that is not my perspective. That again is your writing. You come in here and declare that everyone who is against AGW must be for pollution, yet pollution was not even mentioned until you brought it up – with no evidence or facts to back you up. You then start tossing around the term ‘denier”, not even knowing what you are talking about, merely repeating a talking point you learned from your handlers who pre-fed you (inadequately I might add).

                This is not real life. This is a blog. And you are only known by what you write. You write poorly. Or so your bleating goes now. That is not our problem. If you want to communicate clearly, learn what you are talking about, learn to communicate clearly and come back.

                Until then, your writing is who you are here. And my statements stand. You are free to withdraw them. We will see if you do.

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                We have a nesting cross-over here. The exchange of the previous five comments belong further up the thread.

                00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Anthony,
              Further up the thread you “said”

              … what I came here to find out was what motive[ate]s people to not believe in human caused global warming

              I am not sure if you have had, from your perspective, a satisfactory answer to that question.

              Way back, at #65.1, I said, “… Science is all about the question, ‘Why?’. It is the one common question to all of science …”. True science always starts from a skeptical position. It starts from a position of unbelief.

              So, for example, I can say that I have no belief in telepathy. I am skeptical about the whole proposition of thought transference. If a hundred researchers in the field of telepathy say that they have build a computer model of brain synapsis, and the model they have designed shows that it is perfectly feasible, and they have used the model to identify the area of the brain responsible, I still will not believe them. If somebody says, “I was thinking about my Aunt Flo, last Wednesday, and ten minutes later she ‘phoned me”, I would say that was coincidence but not evidence.

              The one thing that would convince me, is an experiment that had the transmitter send a large number of messages, randomly selected from a large pool of such messages, to a receiving person, down the hall, who could state the message, with an accuracy that was significantly better than chance. To be fully convincing, this experiment would need to be repeatable by other senders and receivers, in other locations, and at other times. This requires full disclosure of data and methods.

              That is how empirical science works.

              That process is not used in climate science. Instead, those of us who question the departure from the empirical scientific method are not just called skeptics, which is a true description, we are branded as skeptics, as if questioning and having a sense of unbelief are bad things.

              Climate Change (whether man-made or not) is not proven. The computer models that apply the known theoretical mathematics that describe various aspects of the weather, have not been independently verified, and history shows that they are certainly not accurate.

              Climate scientists talk in terms of “the consensus”, but in real science, there is no such thing. The best a real scientist can expect is grudging acceptance of a theory, until such time as somebody else comes along and proves it wrong. That is how science progresses.

              Finally, there is nothing in the above that demonstrates whether or not any real changes in climate are caused by human activity, rather than the random state of nature. So even if it does exist, it has yet to be shown that climate change is our fault.

              20

              • #
                Anthony

                Actually received a couple of good, and very in-depth answers, some of which have influenced the way I think about things. So thank you for your reply.
                I can certainly say its been an interesting experience so far in both my views on climate change and in human behaviour.
                No matter how educated some people are, it doesn’t exempt them from the basic human flaw of intolerance, it only gives them new ways to display it. This I have found on both sides of this argument. (I am not exempt)
                In relation to climate change, my mind has open to the possibility that the popular belief on this is wrong. I have done a bit of research into it, but so far have only found information that either uses “brands”, as you put it, to discribe people who do not agree with their views, or where funding puts a ? mark above the results. (Craig D. Idso, for one. Ashamed, because I really hope his findings are valid)
                But for now, i can’t say that I am converted, but I certainly have one foot over the barbed wire fence.

                Again, cheers very much for your reply.

                10

              • #
                John Oh

                Anthony:
                You came here to learn about “Climate Change” Here is a link to a UK site which shows how overseas politicians are responding.
                A bit of light entertainment. Does he give them hell: Youtube link>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqK_aoP-3Ds
                Just follow Farage and Bloom by going to YouTube and put in their names. Then do the same for Monckton. These guys are priceless….and enlightening. Especially look for when Farage takes on the president of the European union, calling him a wet rag….amongst other things…

                00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I like being able to swim in clean water, I like be able to breath clean air and I certainly like to be able to feed myself.

      Anthony,

      That same statement would be made by anyone here who, as you want to put it, denies the reality of climate change. When you simply believe what you’re told without investigating yourself, you’ll not find any sympathy on this blog. That’s not because you disagree with us but because you do not show any evidence that you’ve actually educated yourself on the science involved to the point where you can support your position.

      When your argument is like this,

      But I don’t understand what drives a climate change deniest? I understand that some “experts” are funded by fossil fuel companies, their motives are pretty clear. But what motivates the rest of you, what motivates you to think that so many scientists are wrong?
      What motivates you to think that polluted waterways and polluted air is not a bad thing?

      You haven’t done your homework. On the basis of this question alone you show me that you don’t understand the issue.

      …what motivates you to think that so many scientists are wrong?

      The number of people who believe something is true has nothing to do with whether the belief is actually true or not. Remember, once it was widely believed that the Earth was flat and the sun and stars circled the Earth. Galileo, a real scientist, was persecuted for having the gall to build a telescope and then report his observations to the world. He narrowly escaped execution for his heresy. He had actual evidence to back him up. The Pope had none but that didn’t stop him from threatening Galileo with death.

      It’s actual evidence that counts. Go look at the actual science and see if you can find evidence that CO2 is the cause of anything. Then you’ll get a better reception here.

      30

    • #
      Backslider

      Go look at the actual science and see if you can find evidence that CO2 is the cause of anything.

      Read that one again Anthony.

      Go look at the actual science and see if you can find evidence that CO2 is the cause of anything.

      When you find that evidence, please come back and we will be all ears.

      30

    • #

      Wow, Anthony, that is an interesting few sentences there. As others have noted, the skeptics are not funded by fossil fuel companies. Any more than warmists are funded by Al Gore. Wait, are warmists funded by Al Gore? Hopefully not.
      Anyway, what motivates skeptics to think so many scientists are wrong is that we have examined the science and found it flawed. Contrary to what warmists are told, the science is not that complicated. You don’t need years of study and a PhD to find flaws in the methodology. It helps if you can do mathematics and you have some training in science. At that level, you can start to see the flaws in the data and statistic usage. As AndyG55 says, we looked at actual measurements.
      As for being anti-environment, some of us actually blog about conservation and good land usage, some work in the field, but I don’t know of any who want dirty water, polluted areas, or anything close. We love the planet–which is part of why we fight this global warming political scam. If we were to return to pre-industrial days, disease and death would multiply exponentially. Those were not “the good old days”. Sadly, many who want to return to these times have no clue whatsoever what they were like. How many people do you know who had polio? I ‘m betting none. Or died from cholera or malaria? Whooping cough? How many people do you know who had outhouses and got water out of a well pump?
      So rest assured, we don’t hate nature, we aren’t oil company shills (yes, I love that word–sorry :) ), and we do care very much about the world we leave to the next generation. It’s why we’re here.

      20

      • #
        Anthony

        Sheri,
        Thanks for clearing up the difference between a skeptic and an “oil company shill”. Would appear a few toes were stepped on with that error.
        I’m not one for turning back to a pre-industrual world, I like progress to much and am always in amazement at what man can create. I’m more of an ideologist (thou I know it’s not a reality, but it doesn’t hurt to aim high) mixed in with a touch of environmentalist, kicked in the arse with a realist.

        P.s. my grandmother had an outhouse, and I am currently living in a developing country, so some of the things you mentioned are on my doorstep.

        02

  • #
    Stew Green

    OZ Fires : lot of CO2 produced
    - figs on twitter said this weeks fires emitted 40million tonnes of CO2 in ONE week whereas entire Oz coal burn is 200Mt/year , but didn’t quote a source
    - a debunk in January said skeptics were wrong cos only 4Mt of CO2 in the January fires, but surely that means at 44Mt in 2013 now http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-bushfires-emit-more-carbon-than-burning-coal-11543
    - However a scientist quoted in old Reuters report said natural fires in 2006-7 was 550Mt http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/26/us-australia-fires-carbon-idUSTRE51P12120090226
    - even the GREENKORAN Guardian Feb 2009 chose to quote his 330Mt/year average CO2 from forest fires fig
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/13/carbonemissions-australia

    00

  • #
    Anthony

    If you also want to swim in clean water, breath clean air, why would you take the notion that continuing on the same path is ok?
    Why would you not support change towards making the planet a better place?
    Our oceans are polluted, our air is polluted, wildlife is become extinct, forest are disappearing and so on. To support climate change is to desire a move away from that kind of life style. To be against it is to say “business as usual”. To think our planet can support a “business as usual” approach is nothing short of self destructive, and don’t need to be a scientist to see that.

    What would you rather be, a skeptic and change nothing and hope that in a decade of two that you are right.
    Or a believer and head towards a change that will make for better living conditions for every living thing on this planet, weather your right or not?

    And lets face it, the only people who are going to loose out if we move to a renewable future are the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel corporations (now there is a motive for promoting skepticism/denielism if there ever was one)

    15

    • #
      Dave

      Anthony,

      So CAGW causes (85%) bush fires in National and State Parks, and Government owned forestry reserves (approx 18% of Australia’s landmass) Anthony. What are the forcings that causes this very selective choice of CAGW induced bush fires?

      You also say:
      weather your right or not

      Did you mean “whether you’re right or not“?

      30

      • #
        Anthony

        See that’s what lets you guys down, no one has said global warming causes bush fires. You can’t take what has been said and twist it to fit your argument.
        That’s not dealing with facts, that’s being a propergandist.

        07

        • #
          Mark D.

          no one has said global warming causes bush fires.

          Oh you are new here. Search ““Michael the Realist” for one, though I’m sure he thinks he speaks for many people.

          It is a prevailing thought among his crowd.

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          “no one has said global warming causes bush fires”

          No, just half the propagandists on the ABC !, and the Greens, like Bandt

          And some people who call themselves academics, but are really just social studies and political studies flakes.

          But you are right, no-one with any actually knowledge or understanding has linked the bushfires to climate change, just “believers”

          41

          • #
            Heywood

            No Andy. It’s just a coincidence that the ALPBC and the Greens start talking about climate change and bushfires at exactly the same time as houses are being lost in a bushfire. There is absolutely no implication that AGW causes fires at all.

            /sarc off

            20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          You want to try to do some research? Like ANY?

          http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/gw/fire.html

          And that is but one of THOUSANDS of hits when you GOOGLE.

          00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Our oceans are polluted” Yes, we need to work on that, but it is NOTHING to do with climate change.

      “our air is polluted” Our air is far far cleaner than it was 40-50 years ago

      “wildlife is become extinct” Name one species that has become extinct in the last 20 years…. NO, there are actually way more know species than there were 20-30 years ago

      “forest are disappearing” Well stop chopping them down for biofuel plantations and wind turbines. In fact, Forests are actually expanding around the world, thanks to the highly beneficial affects of CO2 above the baseline that plant life has had to suffer for so long.

      33

      • #
        John Oh

        An interesting aside: Biomass eg wood is being used by British power stations, due to it being pointed out that coal pollutes, (A lot cleaner now with new technology) is not renewable and so they use wooden pallets, wood from swamps etc, which can be seen as renewable. Shipped all the way from the USA.
        The BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815 Thats not logical is it?
        A change of mind regarding what environmentalists are pushing has to be seen in the light of Bandt actually admitting that he looked at environmentalism as a way of pushing socialism Link >>> http://tinyurl.com/rubberbandt
        I was convinced Gore was telling us the truth at one point….
        Remember one thing. >> A lie can travel around the world before truth can get its pants on!<<
        Sorry about every one else arguing the hell out of your arguments, but we have all been there and started asking questions.
        I hope you can understand…

        00

      • #
        Anthony

        Melamprosops phaeosoma (black faced honeycreeper)
        Native to the United States and last seen in 2004
        Source
        http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106008926/0
        Tachybaptus rufolavatus(Alaotra grebe)
        Native to Madagascar and declared extinct in 2010
        Source
        http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/106003630/0

        There is actually alot more than I care for…unfortunately.
        I would list more, but the whole process on a smartphone is a bit painfull.

        03

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          The Poouli or Black-faced Honeycreeper (Melamprosops phaeosoma ) is a critically endangered and possibly extinct bird species that is endemic to Hawaiʻi…..Threats
          Habitat destruction

          Tachybaptus rufolavatus – Thorough surveys of Lake Alaotra in 1989, and further surveys in 2004 and 2009 failed to find any evidence of the species. Considering the last confirmed sighting of the species was in 1982, and in view of the threats to the species, its lack of mobility and restricted range, this species is now considered to be Extinct.

          So you have a lie, and a species gone extinct before AGW started. WOW! And both were due to habitat loss. Nothing to do with Global Warming.

          You realize how stupid that makes you look?

          10

          • #
            Anthony

            Si, and if you look at the history underneath where you copied the quote for the achybaptus rufolavatus, it lists it as critically endangered up until 2009, then as extinct in 2010.

            The Melamprosops phaeosma, true, it lists it as possibly extinct, but no reported sightings since 2004, which unfortunately doesn’t work it it’s favour. Not exactly a perfect choice for an example, but not exactly out of the realms of Andy’s question either.

            My original comment was based on an entire human impact on the environment notion, not just global warming. And unless the koalas are knocking down the trees, I think that includes habitat lost.

            03

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Try again. In both cases the reason for extinction (for very minor subspecies) is habitat loss. Not AGW. So you lied on one and blew it on the other.

              The challenge to you is to find a species that has gone extinct due to AGW. You have failed so far.

              And here is a clue for you. 93% of all species of animal to have every roamed the planet have gone extinct. And less than 1% of those species was due to any action of man.

              00

              • #
                Anthony

                You missed a very important part of my post -

                My original comment was based on an entire human impact on the environment notion, not just global warming.

                I am sure both species would be happy to know that you consider their extinctions to count for nothing because they were only a subspecies.

                Not sure about the 93% bit, was always under the impression it was 99%. Anyhow, your figure of less than 1% is pretty vague. Is it 0.1%, 0.5% or closer to 0.00000002%? Because if it is closer to 1%, that is a hell of a lot of animals for our species to wipe out, considering how short a time we have been here. Even if that figure has a few more 0s in it, it’s still nothing to be proud of.

                03

              • #
                Mark D.

                Just like a Warmist Troll Anthony. How will you prove any extinction is human caused?

                Playing games with decimal points won’t change anything.

                On to “habitat loss” just what is that?

                10

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Mark, are you being serious or vexacious with this?

                How will you prove any extinction is human caused?

                the way to do this is simply by observing it. For example observing humans removing habitat required for breeding or food or observing humans killing and eating them. There is no requirement for subterfuge or conspiracy or making things up or demonising or agendas or models.

                How about passenger pigeons or Tasmanian Tigers or Falkland Islands Wolf? The list is very long before you get to a species where there might be some debate about whether it was humans that done it.

                02

              • #
                Mark D.

                Aw Gee, it isn’t that easy. Humans may have been the last cause but lets just say if a particular specie was killed down to the last ten by bad genetics, or any other reason then humans came along and did in the last ten. You blame humans for the entire failure? Bad science there.

                Conspiracy! where do you get that from what I said? If anything it is you that have such notions.

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Anthony

                You apparently do not even know where you started.

                Our oceans are polluted, our air is polluted, wildlife is become extinct, forest are disappearing and so on.

                You were then challenged to name what went extinct. You failed.

                And my statement stands. I know we took care of the dodo and the passenger pigeon. That means it is greater than 0% (although pollution was not the cause for either), but it is less than 1%.

                And I guess you have to preserve every family name less that subspecies of man go extinct. Really? So much for finding a red winged purple tipped warbler since they are all gone (just a difference in hair coloring, but that apparently is a subspecies – look it up).

                00

            • #
              Anthony

              Mark, are yoy implying that humans are not responsible for the extinction of any wildlife?
              Im pretty sure with very little research you can find the answer to that.
              Actually i think the decimal point in Pgil’s statement is very important. Lets say there has been a million species on this planet,,and Phil claims humans are responsible for 0.1% then that is 1000 species. So if i move the decimal point to 0.01% it’s only 100 species.
              I don’t really know how many species have existed on this planet, i doubt anyone does, but I’m sure it’s more than 1m. So the position of that little decimal point makes a big difference to Phil’s statement.
              Habit loss was something Phil introduced to the conversation. I’m sure he is happy to explain it to you, but it’s pretty simple to understand and I’m pretty sure you know what it is. So why sre you even asking?

              Troll? If asking questions, making wrong assumptions and defending yourself against relentless cross examinations is trolling, then yes, I’m a troll.

              13

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Antimony

                Yu did good.

                But your front buttons have popped on your shirt and we can see the beer gut and it ain’t pretty.

                They are calling, “come back come back Anti, we need you at Skeptical Syense”.

                KK.

                22

              • #
                Gee Aye

                KK,

                I already knew what Antimony was (although not terribly much about it) but I had to look it up as I could not think how it could be an insult or a joke, pun or whatever.

                Now, thanks to you, I know heaps about it but still don’t get the reference.

                01

              • #
                Mark D.

                Mark, are yoy implying that humans are not responsible for the extinction of any wildlife?

                I think you need to think about it more. If a predator other than a human was really the last one to eat the last one would you know any better? We’re not the only one at the top of the food chain. A losing creature at the skill of “survival of the fittest” was probably not doing well BEFORE humans were on the scene.

                It is a particular trait of green weenies to WANT to blame humans for any and everything.

                10

              • #
                crakar24

                Mark,

                A good example that immediately springs to mind is the Panda, this species has evolved to the point that it would have been extinct in a very short time.

                They can only eat bamboo found in a very small area, their reproduction rate is very low for various reasons so it was only a matter of time before they became extinct……….but not now, thanks to mankinds generosity the species will live on in one form or another we have two of the useless things in our zoo, they sit on their arse all day every day eating.

                Now the zoo could have got flesh eating, fang gnashing big bad ass gorillas or something but no they get stuffed animals.

                We tried to get them to mate but they could not be bothered so now we are going down the IVF path.

                So rest assured all you Panda lovers man will ensure the species does not die out.

                Cheers

                20

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Gee

                If I knew what you were talking about I would answer it.

                Unfortunately I can’t recall what my original comment was about so if you have interpreted it please let me know.

                Confusing, isn’t it.

                Anti is just a Spacer, but as always: Good Practice!

                KK

                10

              • #

                Anthony (ignore the troll remarks–people do jump on bandwagons a lot)–unless you are rejecting Darwin’s theory, species go extinct all the time and are replaced by others. Humans are one of those species. Humans being responsible for extinctions is no different than any other species or event being responsible. Problem is, people try to push evolution and Darwin and then welch out on the the “species go extinct all the time” part by claiming humans caused the extinction. The only way around this is some very questionable philosophical stuff about how human managed to “evolve” a conscious or by injecting religion. (There is a third–that we are an alien species, but that’s out in left field.)

                Crakar24 gave a good example with pandas. The panda failed at evolution–it cannot adapt. Darwin’s theory says it goes. Same for many, many other species.

                Add to that the positively political use of the term “species”. The preble’s jumping meadow mouse–an endangered rodent in Wyoming–can only be identified by autopsy/dissection (or so it is stated by several sources). It is in no way expedient or scientific to divide species down that far and then try to save all of said species. Science can divide the species to subatomic differences if they like, but it’s flat out insane to believe that kind categorization is going to be useful to anyone other than scientists and politicians. I would bet Darwin never envisioned condors being called to different species because they live in different locations. Or wolves. Which brings up species being endangered in places where construction, ranching, and other human interests occur and can be manipulated while running in packs in the frozen north where no one cares. Geography does not determine species, except in politics.

                There are a great many things about extinction that science has distorted due to politics. Generally, these are very emotional–few people get upset if a spider species goes extinct. Who wants to reintroduce termites, biting flies and mosquitos to an area? Where’s the outcry to save the venomous snakes that terrify people on site. Think about it. We save warm and fuzzy critters. That’s not scientific, is it?

                Lest you misunderstand, I am not for wiping out species just because “we can”. I would love it if pandas could adapt–but they cannot. I am a realist. Every living thing on this planet uses up resources and competes. Humans are no different. Some species will be lost, generally those that could not adapt. New species will emerge. Humans cannot change the reality of that. Even religion (with a few exceptions) generally acknowledges this. There have been extinctions in the past and there will be in future. Some massive, some not. Humans can do nothing to change this.

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Actually since the total number of species to have existed on this planet is not known, not even to any degree of accuracy (the estimates are 5-15 MILLION – a variance of 200%), the decimal point is IRRELEVANT. The truth is less than 1%.

                Learn math. And significant decimals.

                10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                BTW. If I had said “1%”, the decimal point would be significant. Since I said “less than 1%” that means it is anywhere from 0 to 1%-1. A broad range, but I was not being super accurate, merely pointing out the frivolity of your claim.

                As the decimal does not matter because I did not quote an exact number or percentage, you are wrong again. And quite frankly, given the uncertainty of the number of species to have existed, any exact number would not be accurate.

                00

              • #
                Gee Aye

                This thread has become very funny. First is Mark D’s evidence free arm waving about species having bad genetics (whatever that means?) along with a denial that actual evidence exists that species became extinct because of the activities of humans. Then there is Craker’s made up thing about Pandas (Craker, you sure know a lot about Panda evolution and physiology maybe you should publish), endorsed and expanded upon by Sheri – who shows a complete misunderstanding of natural selection in evrything else she writes. Then there is everyone saying that no matter what the cause, if an animal cannot adapt and goes extinct it is natural. Really?

                01

              • #

                I suppose “completely misunderstanding of natural selection” is less problematic than a complete inability to form rational, well-thought out responses. Well, not to the person making such comments–they’re always utterly clueless and oblivious to said state. That’s okay–someone has to be the complete fool on the thread. Thanks for volunteering, Gee Aye.

                21

              • #
                Gee Aye

                I am arguing from incredulity because I don’t know where to start. Frankly, I think that it is rude to expect someone to spend the time deconstructing then correcting statements made in ignorance. Go and read some background and stop trying to argue using the information that just pops into your head.

                11

              • #

                Gee Aye the mind reader who knows what every person on this thread has read or taken classes on, what they researched and what they are thinking. How cute……..And thanks for confirming my previous statement. You are utterly clueless. I will waste no more time on this–I have much, much better things to do.

                31

              • #
                crakar24

                You are right GA this is a funny thread when you join and talk crap, what was it again????? Ah yes

                Then there is Craker’s made up thing about Pandas (Craker, you sure know a lot about Panda evolution and physiology maybe you should publish), endorsed and expanded upon by Sheri

                I dont need to publish GA as someone else already has, from the Adelaide Zoo website (the idiots that should of got the big hairy ass Gorillas)

                Bamboo is full of protein, fats and carbohydrates, which is found beneath the tough woody exterior. However, the panda’s stomach has not been adapted to break the bamboo down, so they struggle to get the nutrients needed. In fact, only 10% of the nutrients available are absorbed by the panda. This is why the panda spends so much of its day eating. Of course, the relaxed, laid-back lifestyle of the panda helps.

                So we have an animal that in its natural habitat only eats Bamboo nothing more, nothing less. Straight away this is a MAJOR FLAW in its evolution as it is now restricted from expanding into other geographical areas unlike us humans that can eat almost anything

                But lets read on, oh look bamboo is full of really good stuff but alas the panda has not evolved efficiently enough to actually take advantage of this situation, therefore for paw full of bamboo they eat they only get 10% of all that really good stuff which is why they sit on their ass all day eating, this is another MAJOR FLAW in its evolution.

                So GA i stand by what i said before the Panda is an evolutionary dead end, destined to become extinct due to its own stupidity however due to the generosity of man the species will continue to linger.

                11

              • #
                Gee Aye

                this is a MAJOR FLAW in its evolution

                rests my case as to why I can only splutter with incredulity. Go and read some more.

                01

              • #
                Mark D.

                Gee, that’s the farthest you’ve popped out of your shell! I’m proud of you. Finally I can call you a green weenie with evidence. Remember this is a blog, we take liberties and shortcuts with language. Crakar24 knew what I meant, Sheri seems to have it right, why can’t you and Anthony get what I’m saying?

                In the interest of complete understanding let me say that I agree that certain species have been stressed to the point of extinction by humans. I really don’t want to get into the subject any deeper right now it’s off topic other than to say that deep Green is identifiable because they really believe humans are the problem. They suffer guilt about it.

                I agree with you that this whole thread is leaning towards bizarre though. How about we put this back on focus? Anthony was the one we were quizzing wasn’t it? Lets ask him to spell out what it is he has “learned” about those of us he called “deniers” shall we? Lets see if he really has warmed up to us skeptics.

                What do you say Anthony?

                20

              • #
                crakar24

                GA,

                So let me get this straight, we have an animal that has evolved to the point that it only eats bamboo, however its stomach has not evolved along with to the point where the animal can only draw on 10% of the nutrients contained in the bamboo, therefore it has to eat near on 24 hours a say just so it can sustain life.

                How is this not a major flaw?

                I suggest you go back to giving me red thumbs at least you where good at that.

                11

              • #
                crakar24

                GA you missed one 67.2.2.1.4

                Your standards are starting to slip

                10

              • #
                Gee Aye

                if you mean thumbs, I get told off whenever I write about them but since this was brought up. I didn’t thumb you. As I’ve suggested before, check with the mods if I am right as they’d surely be able to match my posting’s data with that of the thumber.

                01

              • #
                Anthony

                @Mark D
                Well it would appear that the panda has given Itself the short evolution straw, but it would appear you have given yourself an even shorter one

                Lets see here, I NEED a total per day of:
                Protein 4 grams
                Carbohydrate 30 grams
                Fat 12 grams
                total calories 240
                To live.

                00

            • #
              Gee Aye

              Mark,

              I was careful to give you three examples of species where their demise was recorded, observed and the data interpreted and commented upon well before any such thing as a green perspective existed by people who were hardly aligned with anything like a green outlook and before any AGW was discussed.

              01

              • #
                Mark D.

                Righto Gee, what about the thousands of species claimed to be “endangered” used as a tool of the Green Weenies to obstruct nearly any kind of development?

                Even though, as others have mentioned, that many of them prosper outside of some geographic (political) boundary.

                00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “the only people who are going to loose out if we move to a renewable future”

      roflmao..

      You really have zero idea do you.

      When you can point me to a renewable source that operates 24/7/365 and can do so without subsidies and doesn’t cost many multiples of the cost of coal powered electricity, I might think you have something worth saying.

      43

    • #
      AndyG55

      “head towards a change that will make for better living conditions for every living thing on this planet”

      The VERY BEST thing for development of living conditions is the provision of solid, reliable, dependable energy.
      That is what allowed western society to develop.
      The lack of it is what holds back third world countries.

      Currently there are only 3 ways of getting this.

      1. hydro-electricity, if you have sufficient rainfall and suitable terrain for large storage dams. The only place that has these in Australia is the West coast of Australia.

      2. Nuclear power of some sort.. Thorium will probably the power of the future, unless something else is discovered soon.

      3. Coal or gas fired power stations.

      Without one of these sources of energy, humans are destined to burn substandard fuels causing harm to themselves and all around them, even dung. They are force to cut down trees to cook food. They live a sub-standard existence. This is what the anti-CO2 agenda has trapped them into. Its cruel and its inhuman… and YOU believe in it. !!

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “the West coast of Australia.’

        I meant to type.. west coast of Tasmania !

        30

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. and ONLY when humans are comfortable in there own existence, do they have the wherewithal to properly look after the environment !

        by holding third world countries back from a solid, dependable energy supply (which can only come from a fossil fuel source in most third world countries) , you are deliberately harming the environment.

        This is the Green agenda for you !!

        30

    • #
      Backslider

      Our oceans are polluted, our air is polluted, wildlife is become extinct, forest are disappearing and so on.

      Anthony. Clearly you are still very young. Trust me, I was a teenager in the 70′s and the World is a MUCH cleaner place than it was back then. We are continually improving as we progress.

      Many forests are disappearing because poorer countries are refused funds to build electricity plants, so people continue to burn wood. Others are disappearing to plant crops for bio fuels. We have devastating bush fires due to green tape…. you were saying?

      30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Pollution =/= AGW. If you want to do something about pollution, fine. Do not sell us a lie to get your way.

      Indeed, the very solutions to AGW are very pollution intensive. You think Haiti is a paradise? Their Carbon footprint is negligible. So we all should aspire to Haiti? Take a trip there and tell us how wonderful this new world really is.

      10

  • #
    crakar24

    No Anthony to support climate change is to stop emitting CO2, you will still have polluted water, polluted air, animal extenctions and so on.

    40

    • #
      Anthony

      Your not taking into account the affects of getting these CO2s out of the ground. Both on an environment level and human level.

      16

      • #
        Dave

        Anthony,

        Where in the world do we get CO2 out of the ground?

        20

      • #
        AndyG55

        And what effects would they be:

        Cheap electricity for all?

        Enhance biosphere?

        Enhanced crop sustainability and production, more food for all.?

        Coal is Carbon that USED to be in the atmosphere, but got accidentally buried.
        That Carbon BELONGS on the surface and in the atmosphere. !

        21

        • #
          Anthony

          Mate, your talking about carbon that had been produced over millions of years, burried and has now been released in 150 years…..
          If I have a spoon of sugar in my coffee each morning, it tastes a little sweet, but if I put a years worth in one cup…..it ain’t going be to good for me.
          Not sure what the point of the rest of your question is…pretty sure everyone wants cheap power and food.

          35

          • #
            AndyG55

            We have released but a tiny amount of what is buried.

            Again, you show you have basically zero understanding of what you are talking about.

            32

          • #
            AndyG55

            At the moment we have about 1/4 of a spoonful of sugar in that coffee.

            And the coffee is still bitter.

            22

          • #
            Mark D.

            Mate, the amount of “sugar” was very small 150 years ago and it still is very small today. You’re bought by the anti human idiots.

            00

          • #
            crakar24

            I hate coffee so i need heaps of sugar lol.

            We are/have/do take into consideration of digging carbon or if you like coal out of the ground.

            What pollutes the water is mostly manfacturing, what pollutes the air is mostly manufacturing now if your plan is to drive up cost of power so they cant operate or give them power they cant use (un reliable wind etc) then they will shut down.

            Now if that is your plan then it is very cunning however would it be easier to just simply shut them down? You wont have food, clothes, power, computer, house………well just about everything would go but you will still have a tree to hug.

            21

            • #
              Anthony

              Seriously dude, a tree to hug?
              There is no doubt that the whole model does not work.
              Capitalism which drives consumerism which drives manufacturing which drives mining which causes pollution and also causes wars for resources, corruption and greed.
              The system does not work, unless you are at the top of that food chain of course.

              05

              • #
                Backslider

                There is no doubt that the whole model does not work.

                So tell us Anthony. What model works?

                10

              • #
                Anthony

                Seriously Blackslider, are you asking or just being condescending ?
                I though I was the one labeled as “the troll”

                14

              • #
                Backslider

                I think its an important question. You believe that capitalism does not work. Clearly then you must have an answer as to what you think does? If you don’t wish to answer, then why make such statements? What makes you think I am trolling you? Why are you afraid of imagined condescension.

                Most importantly, how is this related to CAGW? (I’m not saying it isn’t).

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Anthony.. why are you using a computer ?

                10

              • #
                Anthony

                My responce was to cracker24′s statement that manufacturing requires lots of reliable power, which to quote crackar24 is what mostly pollutes air and water.
                The large amount of manufacturing is due to consumerism, which is driven by capitalism. That’s how I am relating the two subjects.

                I have no answers to a solutions, im not an economist. I also don’t have to be a doctor to know that drinking poision is a bad think, and if i did, it doesn’t mean I know how to make myself feel better.

                Not sure what you mean by your last question?
                I use to keep in contact with people back home (tablet) to research where I want to head next, to book stuff, for entertainment, and to get my arse chewed off by intellects.
                Why do you ask?

                02

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                The large amount of manufacturing is due to consumerism, which is driven by capitalism.

                That is not strictly true. Capitalism is the investment of money in an enterprise in order to a) help the enterprise trade, and b) get a financial return on the investment. It has nothing to do with consumerism, per se.

                Consumerism used to be driven by advertising, but that is now passé. Consumerism is now driven by social factors, assisted by social media and the web.

                How many environmentalists own a smart phone? All of them.

                20

              • #
                Anthony

                @ Rereke
                Yeah but to get that return, do they not need to stimulate the consumer to buy?
                I mean, money is what drives this whole model that puts pressure on both resources and the environment.

                If, say in an ideal world, people only bought what they needed, rather than what they wanted, the environment would have to be better for it.

                11

              • #

                In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, to create that “ideal” world you would have to remove homo sapiens from the earth and replace them with a species lacking in competition, greed, and other vices that have run through the species since basically day one. You are postulating that using as little of the planet as possible would be best. Why? Humans are the only species I can think of that have any such ideation. For example, do elephants get together and decide how much food they need, how many baby elephants to add, factor in other occupants of the area and then eat only the amount of food they calculate they need?

                Also, who decides what people “need”? Do you need more than a mud hut? More than 1500 calories a day? No car? Lights, heat? Who makes that decision?

                Yes, humans can be very wasteful–we have mountains of landfills to attest to that. We also now compost yard waste at the landfill near where I live. There are a large number of recycling plants. It would be nice if a printer lasted more than a year or two and if it wasn’t cheaper to just buy a new one. Recycling electronics gives people work–many of the companies employ mentally handicapped individuals. People change their behaviours to adapt to their needs.

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                … to get that return, do they not need to stimulate the consumer to buy?

                That depends on the size of the organisation and the way that the business is structured.

                One guy going around cutting lawns for people, is limited by the speed he can work, and the number of hours available in a day. Stimulating the customer to buy more, gains him nothing and is actually detrimental to his reputation.

                But if he takes on somebody else to help, then he can double the number of customers, so he will try to stimulate other customers to buy his services, so he can pay the extra worker. He can grow in this way, until he runs into competition from other lawn cutting companies, or the market saturates. Any time and money he spends on trying to stimulate the market at that point is probably wasted, and even if it is not, it will help his competitor as much as it helps him.

                So return on investment is always limited by external factors, and stimulation of a market only rarely increases demand, all it does is move business from one company to another. Advertising pizza does not make people decide to buy more pizza, in addition to what they normally eat. It may take business away from the local hamburger joint, but that is not increasing consumerism.

                Businesses rarely, if ever, expand the size of their market, what they spend on promotion is done to protect jobs in their business, and show the people who lent them the money to get started, a fair return on that investment.

                If you want to decrease consumerism, get the Government to ban all forms of advertising, but don’t blame the people who provide money so that other people can have jobs.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                If, say in an ideal world, people only bought what they needed, rather than what they wanted, the environment would have to be better for it.

                Lets see here, I NEED a total per day of:
                Protein 4 grams
                Carbohydrate 30 grams
                Fat 12 grams
                total calories 240

                To live.

                I want more than that but you say I shouldn’t. Where will this end Anthony?

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri, queen of pedantry:

                In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately, to create that “ideal” world you would have to remove homo sapiens

                Logic much?

                Troll bandwagon indeed……

                00

              • #
                Anthony

                @ MarkD
                Did you scroll all the way down here looking for other things I’d posted, or did you just use the “find on this page” feature?

                00

              • #

                Mark D–I actually call it obsessiveness, not pedantry. Easier for the masses to understand. It comes from taking the time to actually respond to trolls and other somewhat hostile commenters both here and elsewhere. Semantics and minor details are the meat of troll arguments and I respond as I do in anticipation of troll arguments. I apologize if my obsessiveness is bothering you. I’d vow to do better, but we both know that’s not likely, so I will continue to use such detail/pedantry and you can/will continue to point it out.

                00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Anthony the newest troll the word is EFFECTS! only a douche gets that wrong.

        33

        • #
          scaper...

          Finally got off the floor doubled over in laughter.

          Propergandist??? I bet the person has come through the education system, being indoctrinated by the leftists.

          ‘Loose out’.

          HAHAHAHAHA!

          I wonder what the oil content is of an eco-fascist? Would make a great movie…’Scorched Green’.

          31

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yep, I can hardly get over his apparent lack of any sort of real knowledge at all.

            Seriously, if he wants to come here he should be prepared to politely ask questions and to learn, and not come here with his mind already totally brainwashed.

            23

        • #
          AndyG55

          Not sure that this guys is actually a troll… just ignorant.

          Once he opens his mind, he may have a propensity to actually learn.. who knows.

          Anthony, we invite you to come back.. to read, and to think and to learn.

          Can you do that ????

          33

          • #
            AndyG55

            hummmm.. I take it that the answer is … No !!

            10

          • #
            Anthony

            I hope that the fact that I am still here answers that question.

            21

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              It does, and we appreciate your company, in spite of what some of my colleagues say.

              11

              • #
                Heywood

                I concur Rereke.

                Anthony doesn’t come across as the garden variety troll we see around here. He seems like a guy who has only been fed one side of the story. He seems open to learning the skeptical point of view, so I so good on him.

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Yes Anthony – please hang around and learn. Just ignore [snip] PhilJourdan.

                [Bad day at the office? I don't think that was deserved.] ED

                11

              • #
                Backslider

                [Bad day at the office? I don't think that was deserved.] ED

                Yes, it was. Please take the time to read his posts.

                01

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Gee Backslider, I love you too.

              I guess us [snip] can express ourselves without resorting to infantile insults and potty mouth.

              Try reading your own posts.

              00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          IMNSHO, slagging off a fresher just because they’re bad at spelling is a dick move.
          It could have been a great opportunity to explain a Null Hypothesis, highlight the skullduggery of the IPCC, and show the plausibility of natural climate change. He could have been Jo’s first conversion!
          But now we may never know.

          I mean, he was actually asking us an important question: Why do you believe what you believe?

          That’s rare.

          10

          • #
            ceetee

            Anthony, people are just frustrated with you because every response to your questions is ignored by you. You are a maelstrom of contradictions and angst.

            11

          • #
            scaper...

            Andrew, I’m slagging off at the education system and I have every right to, will in the future regardless of your savant opinion.

            00

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Indeed, as is your right, but…. ya might wanna check who I was replying to.

              One way that works for the first 5 nesting levels is to put the mouse cursor on the left border of a comment, then use the mouse wheel to scroll up until the pointer is inside another comment box, that’s the “parent” comment that the first comment was replying to.

              00

      • #
        Backslider

        Your not taking into account the affects of getting these CO2s out of the ground. Both on an environment level and human level.

        So tell me Anthony. Are you sitting there pedalling madly away to power your laptop? Or are you in fact hooked up to the durdy coal power grid like the rest of us?

        Do you buy your food in a supermarket.

        Do you drive a car, use public transport, fly in airplanes?

        What are the soles of your shoes made of?

        I could go on…….

        31

      • #
        Backslider

        Oh… and could you please tell me. How many solar panels or wind turbines would it take to power the average aluminium smelter?… just as an example of something I know you rely on.

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Actually, since aluminium smelting generally relies on a continuity of process, I doubt it would even be possible to smelt aluminium using solar energy.

          You might just get enough energy at some stage during the day to restart the process, only to have it stop when the sun went down or behind a cloud.

          20

          • #
            Backslider

            Now I’m sure our friend Anthony relies on many things that require mining. This is a much smaller scale to an aluminium smelter, however the same question applies:

            I was once on a drag line. These machines are powered by electricity. How many solar panels or wind turbines would it take to generate the 16 megawatts required to power it? Could this machine run day and night as it normally does? What kind of battery bank would be required to power it at night?

            30

            • #
              Anthony

              Isn’t there new technology in the works where they use salt to store the excess energy produced during the day as heat and release that at low production times?
              Don’t know how much is needed to smelt aluminum, only that there is a lot of sunlight out there hitting this planet.

              20

              • #
                Backslider

                Well, first you have to get the power. There may be a lot of sunlight, however we are talking about millions of acres of solar panels or wind farms…. then the fact that their reliability is so low.

                There is a guy around here named TonyfromOz – he is an absolute expert on these matters so see if you can hit him up. He will quickly dispell the dreamist myths about renewables.

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “Don’t know how much is needed to smelt aluminum”

                Wellllllll. Lots. I’ll use the Alcoa smelter at Point Henry, Geelong, Victoria as an example.

                “The current power demand of the smelter is 360 MW for a 185,000 tonne annual production capacity, of which approximately 40 per cent is met by the Anglesea power station. The Point Henry smelter, along with the smelter at Portland, use 18 to 25 per cent of Victoria’s electricity production

                To put it in perpective, the worlds only ’24 hour’ solar plant using the molten salt method of energy storage you mentioned, the Gemasolar project in Spain, produces a max 19.9 MW of power at any given time. That means you would need to build 18 of these solar plants, covering an area of 3330 Hectares, just to power one Aluminium smelter. The worlds largest solar plant, the Ivanpah project in the Mojave Desert, is capable of producing the power (it can output up to 375 MW) but it can only do this for a maximum of 8 hours per day. Aluminium smelters run 24/7.

                20

              • #
                Heywood

                “There is a guy around here named TonyfromOz – he is an absolute expert on these matters so see if you can hit him up”

                Absolutely, although I consider myself a ‘Tony-lite’. ;)

                21

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                But, every hectare of solar panels you have, is one hectare of food production you have lost.

                21

          • #
            Backslider

            The fact is that these kids have not a clue about industry and just how much energy is required to power it. Domestic use is only a very small fraction of our overall power requirements.

            20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              But if Anthony lives in an urban environment, or a Halls of Residence, then all he gets to see is a little lighting and power for cooking and computing.

              Going off topic, I was once invited, by a friend, to visit one of New Zealand’s Hydro stations, at Lake Benmore. As part of the “tour”, I was taken onto a platform that overlooked the inlet sluice for just one turbine. You literally could not hear yourself speak, for the noise, and the raw power of that water was palpable. Amazing experience.

              00

      • #

        Like all the mining and manufacturing required for those “renewable” energy sources?

        20

  • #
    Andrew

    The idiocy of this article leave me speechless.

    00

  • #
    Mickey Reno

    It’s so nice to see good common sense from time to time. Thanks, Jo.

    00

  • #
    Anthony

    Wow, just asking what motivates your beliefs. Would swear by some of the over emotional responces backed with demeaning comments that I just murdered your mothers.
    Facts are really good, and i find this shit interesting. But defensiveness and slander normally denotes guilt, close mindness or that someone has something to hide. Which leaves me to wonder how many of you actually believe in what you are saying? (Some, not all)

    26

    • #

      “What motivates you to think that polluted waterways and polluted air is not a bad thing?” Seriously, you’re just trying to learn? If we came over to a warmist site and asked why everyone there hates human beings and are socialists, first off, the comment would probably be deleted. If not, I suspect “emotional” responses would be found there also. So are warmists close-minded (if the comment is deleted, the answer would be “yes”) and guilty and have something to hide? Warmist sites engage in ad hominem attacks, slander and are very defensive, so based on your statement above, the answer would be “yes”, warmists are definately close-minded, guilty and have something to hide.

      Why would people come here and post stuff they don’t believe? Is that what the people who believe in climate science do–go around posting things they don’t believe?

      “What motivates you to think that polluted waterways and polluted air is not a bad thing?” That’s how you asked about our beliefs? That’s not an enquiring mind, that’s like asking if we still beat our wives. If you really were interested in our beliefs, you would have used less inflammatory language. I sincerely doubt you were just inquiring about our beliefs. If so, you really need to work on those people skills. Using demeaning comments such as you opened with generally do result in responses in kind. If you’re idea of inquiring about beliefs is “why are you polluting the planet” why would you be surprised when people ask why you’re a sheep spouting warmist propaganda?

      20

      • #
        Anthony

        Yeah, i did come here just to find out what motivates your beliefs, it was my sole reason for folling the link here.
        And yes you are right, my approach was way off.
        The question should have been,
        “Why do you think that the current popular consensus that human caused climate change is wrong?”

        12

        • #
          Heywood

          Hi Anthony,

          “Why do you think that the current popular consensus that human caused climate change is wrong?”

          The biggest problem with this kind of question, apart from the fact that ‘consensus’ is a political construct, not a scientific one, is that it assumes that sceptics hold a completely opposite view from the more ‘mainstream’ position on AGW.

          In fact, even on this site, there are many varying opinions on the issue. There are those who completely disagree that the green house effect even exists, and that CO2 has zero effect on the atmosphere, and there are those who agree that the world is warming and will continue to warm with CO2 emissions, but disagree with the rate of warming or the consequences. Everyone here has there own reasons as to why they are sceptical of the ‘mainstream’ position.

          So when you ask why people think that human caused climate change (or AGW) is wrong, a majority of people would not think it is completely wrong, just some aspects of the theory is flawed.

          If you want an understand more, read Jo’s books here and here, sit back, relax, read the comments here and ask valid questions.

          Most people here should be more than happy to answer, but bear in mind that there are many ‘trolls’ who visit here and can get quite abusive, so if you get a short, sharp response from someone, it may be because they have just been dealing with one of our resident time wasters.

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            In short, it is a microcosm of anywhere you get a bunch of real scientists and/or engineers in one place.

            10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Anthony. We are trying to EDUCATE you.

      To do that, we have to wake you up out of your brain-washes stupor.

      If that means we need to be harsh on you.. tough !!

      32

      • #
        Anthony

        Lol, I love that comment…puts a smile on my face.
        Maybe that is the approach we need for our education system.

        (Just so its clear, im laughing in a haha sense, not a negative sense)

        01

    • #
      AndyG55

      The one thing that drives the climate change meme is the STUPIDITY of demonising CO2.

      Yes, we should be doing all we can to stop real pollution, but CO2 is NOT POLLUTION at any level it could possibly get to in the atmosphere.

      It is a highly beneficial trace gas, that provides the building blocks for ALL LIFE ON EARTH !

      This is what you NEED TO LEARN !!

      22

      • #
        John Oh

        AndyG55 The fly in the ointment is the banks. CO2 is a cash grab for them. Making money out of nothing has always been their game. I doubt if at this time Americans the gold to back up the debts it has. Banks operate in the same way. CO2 is part of this game. Fraud is rife with these carbon “credits”
        http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html
        It isn’t about carbon credits its about a fraud projected on workers. They cannot afford all of these eco “friendly” technologies, which create heir own pollution.
        Solar panels/Wind Power/ locking up of private land / shutting down factories by corporations like ford/GMH/ Toyota due to high costs of serving these morons who spout the planet is warming. That tree to hug? Sorry mate we will need it for firewood….its eco friendly….to cut it down and burn sustainable (hate that word) biomass.

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Furthermore.. the amount of money WASTED on trying to control this life-giving gas, could have been spent on many other WORTHWHILE things .

        Better health care, ObamaCare could probably have been totally funded by that wasted money in the USA !!!

        Infrastructure improvements around the world. Especially third world.

        Real scientific research to the actual benefit of mankind.

        Sorry, but the whole climate change agenda has been an utter disaster for the whole world and has put it back, development-wise, a good decade or two.

        21

        • #
          Backslider

          Sorry, but the whole climate change agenda has been an utter disaster for the whole world and has put it back, development-wise, a good decade or two.

          I think longer. We are now running into the second generation of kids who have been totally brainwashed, just look at Anthony.

          How long do you think it will take for that to wear off? These people become policy makers, so the effects will be felt for a very long time.

          20

          • #
            AndyG55

            I stand corrected.:-) (even though I’m currently sitting)

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Backslider,

            How long do you think it will take for that to wear off?

            Less than you might think. Look at the assimilation of East Germans into the wider German republic, after the wall came down.

            It didn’t take long for people to adjust. If anything the old East Germans are better capitalists than the more traditional Westerners.

            10

    • #
      Backslider

      i find this shit interesting.

      So why is it then that when people answer your questions you have no response?

      Sheri’s assessment is on the money, however I have chosen to ignore your bad attitude for the time being.

      It’s up to you to choose what you believe, however if you really want the ideal World that you dream of the first step is politeness and tolerance. If you don’t show that, which you haven’t, don’t be so surprised that some people get their hackles up.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        I think its more frustration on our behalf.

        EVERY warmist believer that comes here, comes with a blinkered brain-washed viewpoint,

        and shows a basic ignorance of most of the actual science,

        and no propensity to even want to learn.
        .
        .

        Its no wonder that have to rely on “belief”.

        22

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Anthony,
      never mind what our “motives” are, because that in itself is a mistake in your thinking. All people can become biased in the information sources they seek because of their preconceived beliefs and you are no different to the rest of us. One way to minimise this error is to investigate the issue in a logical way.

      0. Reset

      Letting other people do your thinking for you is what has lead you to this situation. If you take nothing else away from what I say here, at least resolve to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions more often.
      You’re also going to have to read more widely than you have been, and to tackle subject areas which may not be within your normal experience. You’re going to have to read scientific papers instead of relying on activist journalists to “interpret” the science for you. This takes time. Usually only the summary “Abstract” of the paper is available for free, but sometimes you can find a free copy from the home page of one of the authors if you’re lucky. When reasing them, it is also amazing how much value you can get from these papers by initially skipping over all the words and jumping straight to the graphs of their experimental data. The measurements are the important thing, since all other logic relies on them.

      You’re going to have to stop caring about what people will think of you for asking awkward questions and reassessing the climate change issue. You will see peer pressure, baseless assertion, and ridicule thrown at you to inhibit you from checking alarmist claims and to keep you from splitting up that group. Just tell them that if you question everything and you still find there are a bunch of undeniable facts that point towards future CO2 levels being a major problem, you can always re-join the warmists and go protesting coal trains and whatever else floats your boat.

      1. Modelling

      First try to understand the reality of the climate/CO2 situation, past and present, and how it works, including knowing the numbers and quantities involved. This is the most difficult part. There is plenty that we don’t understand, stuff that even cutting edge scientists don’t understand. This is where you will discover the first lie of the climate change crowd: that “The Science is settled”. It’s not, it’s an active area of research.
      We’re not just talking “the icing on the cake” either. There’s some quite fundamental parameters and phenomena that are not understood well enough to make a completely bottom-up global circulation model of the Sun/Earth system that can be run 93 years into the future with reliable results.
      Knowledge Gap 1: Science didn’t even begin to measure ocean temperatures reliably until 2003, yet the ocean is the main heat repository of the planet.
      Knowledge Gap 2: They don’t even know the “climate sensitivity to CO2″ parameter, which is absolutely crucial for projecting the impact of higher CO2 levels.
      Knowledge Gap 3: The Svensmark Effect has been found to be the main driving influence on the long term climate and marine biodiversity of the planet over millions of years, yet it was not really discovered until 2003 and not proven well until 2011, and it certainly was not used in any of the 12 climate models the IPCC used for their official advice to world governments, not even in their latest report released last month.
      The climate change crowd call this “settled science”. I hope you can see it isn’t settled.

      I don’t deny facts, I just reject assertions that don’t seem to logically follow from facts. I have gone through an exercise of deciding what evidence I would have to see to convince me to change my mind, which is why I can legitimately call myself a “skeptic” and not a “denier”.

      2. Projection

      Only when you understand the history of climate and CO2 can you get some appreciation for what is normal and acceptable on Earth. Only then can you begin to take the 2nd step and judge how much difference our CO2 is making and how much or how little a problem that might be in the future.

      The problem with the sources of information you’re (probably) usually using is that they are written by activists who start with manufacturing a problem, to give themselves a reason to fight, then they pick out a combination of facts and exaggerated opinions to support that problem. I am not claiming that everything they say is false, e.g. from the few articles I’ve read on SkepticalScience for example they usually start out okay before they take a twist and go into extrapolative catastrophe mode. In particular they like to rely on alarmist opinions of scientists, because they make the mistake of thinking that anything a scientist says must be “Science”. It’s not. Anyone can be a scientist, you just have to apply the scientific method. When “scientists” don’t apply the scientific method properly they stop being scientists and the conclusions they draw from that activity are much less reliable.

      Projecting a model of one output variable into the future works okay if the model is correct AND you can predict the future values of all the input variables. For the climate the bottom line here is: if you can’t predict the output and magnetic activity level of the Sun, you can’t predict the climate on Earth.
      The IPCC’s authors didn’t even try to predict the magnetic activity of the sun in their climate projections, despite the effect being known since 2011. But I did say we should not worry about motivations, so let’s just say the IPCC crowd made “an honest mistake”. ;)

      3. Solutions

      As for the economics of it all, that’s really a distant 3rd place consideration after understanding the climate and gauging the size of the “problem”. While you are still in Geology 101 you do not need to look at the economics of carbon emissions reduction, because until you have figured out whether there is any real problem to be solved you do not need to price any solutions.

      4. Why

      But you did ask about motivations, so I will tell you mine. Honestly, the $515 per year direct carbon price cost per household… does not even worry me. I don’t care. The effect of renewable energy policies on our electricity price is a far more costly impact of the climate crisis nonsense, but even that isn’t my real motivator.
      What I care about is that our parliament imposed a tax on the people to solve a problem for which there is absolutely no decent evidence that the problem is happening or will ever happen. I hoped our government policy wonks and CSIRO scientists had better BS detectors than that. I think that’s a big deal. My psychological attraction to the fake “climate crisis” then is it gives me an opportunity to “be right when everyone else is wrong”. The way the real science is progressing on climate keeps pointing in the direction of Mainly Natural Climate Change and I’ve been following the issue since 2008.
      It’s only a matter of time before the public wakes up to the facts.

      50

  • #

    [...] interested in the real reasons Australia’s bushfires have been severe are directed to JoNova, rather than the lying left-wing bunglers at Slime. Australia all ablaze in the imaginary world of [...]

    00

  • #
    Al Watt

    The ignorance and arrogance of AndyG55 (is this reference to IQ) and other alumni of Google University is astonishing. People like you wouldn’t know [snip crass] how to interpret complex climate data. [SNIP more crass] this has been the hottest year on record ever! With respect to the fuel load article, how does Dr David Evans think the dry fuel got there? Something to do with unprecedented floods followed by unprecedented heat maybe. Doctor of what, spin?

    ——————-
    Yawn. Another drive by bully — parroting the inaccurate bumper sticker lines they’ve memorized. – Jo

    25

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao !

      Nice to know I’ve got right under your skin,

      and produced a nice incoherent ramble from you.

      I like a good laugh.. please try again ! :-)

      21

    • #
      AndyG55

      ps… looks like I just caught meself a little 10cm mullet !! yeeehaw !!

      10

    • #
      Backslider

      Something to do with unprecedented floods followed by unprecedented heat maybe.

      There has been nothing “unprecedented”.

      Your so called “records” rely on ACORN data which is even more manipulated than Hansen’s. We think they had a competition going.

      If you are able to show “records” from unadjusted data we are all ears.

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      And Jo, he’s about as bullying as a Chihuahua behind a 2ft fence :-)

      00

  • #

    [...] Filed under Cross Filed under » Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    The man responsible for electricity supply in South Australia says power would be turned off if his state was confronted with conditions like those prevailing on Black Saturday in Victoria.

    Vince Duffy says SA’s shut-off policy enables power companies to cut electricity once certain conditions relating to heat, humidity and wind velocity are reached.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/powerline-failures-linked-to-bushfires/5050204

    Complete madness.

    You cannot prevent all bushfires from starting. Mitigation of damage should be the first and main risk response, not avoidance. Home owners have to shape up or ship out. Backburning has to be done regardless.

    Just start prosecuting companies whose lines failed and watch the problem sort itself out.
    Surely the businesses that use most of the power would rather pay a slightly higher access fee to cover extra line inspection and maintenance than to get power cut off during production.

    00

  • #

    [...] Fuel Loads Not Climate Change Are Making Bushfires More Severe « JoNova [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] Why doesn’t the ABC have a balance of opinions from actual bush fire experts or climate sceptics with opposing views like David Evans, who submitted his article to the Age, but was refused at the last minute. Fuel Loads Not Climate Change are Making Bushfires More Severe [...]

    00

  • #
    IanM

    Oh my gosh, who would ever thought an ex-politican could make ludicrously exaggerated claims that are designed to elicit an emotional response from an audience? Excuse my facetiousness not!
    It is indeed true that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” – So said Abraham Lincoln.
    Urban encroachment into timbered areas, excessive fuel loads and lack of hazard reduction burns are mainly to blame. I strongly suspect that Al Gore would be opposed to hazard reduction burns in principle because they are performed by humans and therefore “unnatural” and he would argue that such burns contribute to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon. He would argue that this atmospheric carbon in turn produces more bushfires. Yet he also has the nerve to preach the doctrine that all uncontrollable bushfires are inherently unnatural and are caused by global warming. His doctrine reeks of self-righteous hypocrisy, distortion, and political double-speak. He wants us to do nothing to mitigate the problem of bushfires yet he still blames us for the problem when it occurs. His crusade has achieved little apart from providing insult to our intelligence.

    00

    • #
      Backslider

      in principle because they are performed by humans and therefore “unnatural”

      Humans are in fact a perfectly natural part of the environment, so nothing we do is “unnatural”.

      00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh Anthony, where are you ???????

    Yoooo hoooo Anthony………

    Hmmm. was he really “learning” or was he “LEARNING” about skeptics.

    00

  • #

    [...] “drought, coupled with extreme heat and low humidity, can increase the risk of wildfire”, but there is no drought in southeast Australia at the moment.’  And he added prevention of burn-offs meant,  ‘Current fuel loads are now typically 30 [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] coupled with extreme heat and low humidity, can increase the risk of wildfire’, but there is no drought in southeast Australia at the moment.”  And he added prevention of burn-offs meant, “Current fuel loads are now typically [...]

    00