Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[TimmeT]

The scientific consensus isn't political, it's science. The political fight only exists because of vested interests who don't want action to be taken because it would affect them financially. Same thing happened with cigarettes and leaded fuel.

The science is worked on consensus argument has already been debunked.

 

[JeddaB]

The scientific consensus isn't political, it's science. The political fight only exists because of vested interests who don't want action to be taken because it would affect them financially. Same thing happened with cigarettes and leaded fuel.

Why is Nuclear Power taboo? That in itself has the possibility to solve a lot.

Why are Extinction Rebellion and the likes talking about patriarchy and white hetero power whilst they're worried about climate change.

It's pretty insular to say it's one sided.

I'm not discounting the 'scientific consensus', but I'm not about to follow it blindly either.

 

[Bazzar]

I read the article, and what a dose of runny crap.
It was a climate change rant that didnt at any stage adress the bushfires.

I thought this line was an absolute disgrace

"The trouble is, across the country people who have believed this stuff are having to swap their tinfoil hats for fire helmets."

So land owners, farmers and families and all the brave volanteers who live in high density areas, who have been hindered by state and local government forest management policies are nothing but tin foil hat wearers who have now been proven wrong?

What a POS that Rimington is, and that goes for Connoly for re tweeting it.

 

[Father Jack]

Why is Nuclear Power taboo? That in itself has the possibility to solve a lot.

Why are Extinction Rebellion and the likes talking about patriarchy and white hetero power whilst they're worried about climate change.

It's pretty insular to say it's one sided.

I'm not discounting the 'scientific consensus', but I'm not about to follow it blindly either.

You are free to ignore it if you like, but the point is that the only reason why people think that there is no scientific consensus is because of denialist politics.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I read the article, and what a dose of runny crap.
It was a climate change rant that didnt at any stage adress the bushfires.

I thought this line was an absolute disgrace

"The trouble is, across the country people who have believed this stuff are having to swap their tinfoil hats for fire helmets."

So land owners, farmers and families and all the brave volanteers who live in high density areas, who have been hindered by state and local government forest management policies are nothing but tin foil hat wearers who have now been proven wrong?

What a POS that Rimington is, and that goes for Connoly for re tweeting it.

I mean, they don't even hide the fact that this is all about hijacking the issue for political facilitation. It's naked.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The science is worked on consensus argument has already been debunked.

It isn't if you don't think, listen or read.

 

[Snake_Baker]

By definition it's science, not politics.

It's how it's utilized that matters when we are referring to the layperson, and the issue is being outrageously abused by political and bureacratic crabs.

 

[JeddaB]

You are free to ignore it if you like, but the point is that the only reason why people think that there is no scientific consensus is because of denialist politics.

I do agree that is a major part of it, but denialist in this context is a broad term.
There's people who understand climate change and a sceptical of the human races part, people who are sceptical of the figures being used because there's conflicting data, or because of the boy who cried wolf concerning the dooms day scenario, and people who flat out deny it's existence. To lump them all together and point and scream denialist isn't the way.

There's only a handful of irrefutable laws in science. Tried and tested time after time with only 1 stable conclusion each time, whilst the large majority of it is what we believe to understand at that point. Science is forever changing and adapting because it's a human invention.

You said that I'm free to ignore it (which I'm clearly not), and used the term denialist to blanket over anyone who isn't all in. Funnily enough you ignored both points I made to show it isn't as one sided as you're suggesting.

 

[Father Jack]

I do agree that is a major part of it, but denialist in this context is a broad term.
There's people who understand climate change and a sceptical of the human races part, people who are sceptical of the figures being used because there's conflicting data, or because of the boy who cried wolf concerning the dooms day scenario, and people who flat out deny it's existence. To lump them all together and point and scream denialist isn't the way.

There's only a handful of irrefutable laws in science. Tried and tested time after time with only 1 stable conclusion each time, whilst the large majority of it is what we believe to understand at that point. Science is forever changing and adapting because it's a human invention.

You said that I'm free to ignore it (which I'm clearly not), and used the term denialist to blanket over anyone who isn't all in. Funnily enough you ignored both points I made to show it isn't as one sided as you're suggesting.

I'm saying that there's a consensus, and that isn't political, it's science.

 

[Bazzar]

History of disasters shows there is nothing new about nation’s destructive blazes
By CRAIG JOHNSTONE
2:30PM DECEMBER 31, 2019

While there is no doubt these bushfires are bad and may get worse, fuelling more talk of the nation battling an unprecedented fire threat this summer, the blazes that continue to plague the eastern states and Western Australia are nothing new.

They do not compare with some of the more extreme fire disasters in Australia’s short history, such as the Black Thursday conflagration of 1851 that burned five million hectares and was so intense that ships 30km off the coast of Victoria reported coming under ember attack.

Those fires covered one-quarter of what is now the state of Victoria, including the Portland region, the Plenty Ranges, the Wimmera and Dandenong. Twelve people died and one million sheep perished.

Then there have been the more recent blazes in which scores of lives were lost. Geoscience Australia estimates that between 1967 and 2013, major bushfires killed 433 people, injured another 8000 and caused $4.7bn in damage.

Among them were the blazes that swept across NSW and other states in the summer of 1974-75, the worst bushfire system the nation had faced in 30 years. Although there were just three deaths and about 100 injuries attributed to the fires, the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience estimates about 15 per cent of Australia’s physical landmass, about 117 million hectares, had extensive fire damage.

Much of the fire threat was in the sparsely populated far west of NSW, yet property damage was extensive: 50,000 stock lost and 10,170km of fencing destroyed, according to the NSW Rural Fire Service. The fire burned 1.5 million hectares in the Cobar shire and 340,000ha in the Balranald shire.


Then there was the Moolah-Corinya fire that the NSW Rural Fire Service says was the largest ever to be put out by firefighters at the time. The perimeter was more than 1000km.

In the late 1970s, it was the Blue Mountains’ turn. It weathered two bad fire seasons. In late 1976, 65,000ha were burnt. The following year another 54,000ha went up, one life was lost and 49 buildings destroyed.

Two years later the Southern Highlands was hit by major fires and the next year fires burnt more than one million hectares in total across NSW.

More at

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Father Jack]

It's how it's utilized that matters when we are referring to the layperson, and the issue is being outrageously abused by political and bureacratic crabs.

Well yes, and I believe that as a result we are doing nothing because we are confused, and that only plays into the hands of one side.

 

[Father Jack]

We're really Feeling the Bern now:

 

[Fat Yak]

We're really Feeling the Bern now:

Bernie ****ing Sanders BWAAAAAAAH

 

[Bigfootyfan27]

We're really Feeling the Bern now:

Old Bernie thinks communism is a good thing as well!

Indigenous groups call for return of traditional fire control methods

Ancient Aboriginal fire control methods are being used in workshops to promote traditional fire management as a means of fire control.

mobile.abc.net.au

And the LWNJs still cry climate change! When you decline back burning along with majority or fires being lit by arsonists what do you expect

 

[quotemokc]

Must also be Australia's fault for all the flooding in Africa.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I'm saying that there's a consensus, and that isn't political, it's science.

What actually is the consensus? I.e. what is it that all the scientists agree on?

That climate change exists? The cause(s)? The impacts and timelines? The most appropriate solution(s)? Etc.

Possibly a dumb question, but I hear/read a lot about there being a consensus but not what it actually entails.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Must also be Australia's fault for all the flooding in Africa.

You're touching on a vital issue

 

[GetDimmaBack]

You're wasting your time.

Climate science via "feelz" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual climate science

I feel that climate change is a furphy

 

[GetDimmaBack]

You are free to ignore it if you like, but the point is that the only reason why people think that there is no scientific consensus is because of denialist politics.

Professor Mickey Mouse agrees with this.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I feel that climate change is a furphy

There's enough evidence to suggest there's some effects, but anything beyond that is pure speculation.

There's definitely a political agenda at play here for other purposes, but I can't work it out with any conviction. Perhaps it's a peak oil thing?

 

[JackOutback]

I'll bet anything no one here will listen. Podcasts like this and similar links I post, no one cares.

Being given alternative advice on why/how these fires occur, and what action should be taken into consideration in the future, is in direct contrast to the climat alarmists best interest.


Captain Brian Williams is currently in his 9th straight week of fighting these fires, and exclusively blames fuel loads.
1% of effective fuel load management and locked parks in the last 20 is having this catastrophic effect.

In the last few days we've seen both ends of the evolutionary scale.
Bushfire hero Captain Brian Williams at the top, and low life Tex Perkins at the bottom.

Did you listen to all the fire experts that explicitly linked this fire season to climate change? Or just the ones the support your existing world view?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Good luck with that Nando's, sadly it seems I live in a Nando-free state.

Well that's WA off the holiday list.

For some reason I thought the Test started today. That's what holidays are for, losing track of time.

 

[Snake_Baker]

History of disasters shows there is nothing new about nation’s destructive blazes
By CRAIG JOHNSTONE
2:30PM DECEMBER 31, 2019

While there is no doubt these bushfires are bad and may get worse, fuelling more talk of the nation battling an unprecedented fire threat this summer, the blazes that continue to plague the eastern states and Western Australia are nothing new.

They do not compare with some of the more extreme fire disasters in Australia’s short history, such as the Black Thursday conflagration of 1851 that burned five million hectares and was so intense that ships 30km off the coast of Victoria reported coming under ember attack.

Those fires covered one-quarter of what is now the state of Victoria, including the Portland region, the Plenty Ranges, the Wimmera and Dandenong. Twelve people died and one million sheep perished.

Then there have been the more recent blazes in which scores of lives were lost. Geoscience Australia estimates that between 1967 and 2013, major bushfires killed 433 people, injured another 8000 and caused $4.7bn in damage.

Among them were the blazes that swept across NSW and other states in the summer of 1974-75, the worst bushfire system the nation had faced in 30 years. Although there were just three deaths and about 100 injuries attributed to the fires, the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience estimates about 15 per cent of Australia’s physical landmass, about 117 million hectares, had extensive fire damage.

Much of the fire threat was in the sparsely populated far west of NSW, yet property damage was extensive: 50,000 stock lost and 10,170km of fencing destroyed, according to the NSW Rural Fire Service. The fire burned 1.5 million hectares in the Cobar shire and 340,000ha in the Balranald shire.


Then there was the Moolah-Corinya fire that the NSW Rural Fire Service says was the largest ever to be put out by firefighters at the time. The perimeter was more than 1000km.

In the late 1970s, it was the Blue Mountains’ turn. It weathered two bad fire seasons. In late 1976, 65,000ha were burnt. The following year another 54,000ha went up, one life was lost and 49 buildings destroyed.

Two years later the Southern Highlands was hit by major fires and the next year fires burnt more than one million hectares in total across NSW.

More at

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Forget about any perceived publisher bias behind any of this stuff, at this point in time, there really is nothing unique about the bush fire scenario so far.

If the same events ocurred in January & February, then it would have claims. Summer isn't over.

 

[JackOutback]

Look at you, playing political games.

 

[Bazzar]

Did you listen to all the fire experts that explicitly linked this fire season to climate change? Or just the ones the support your existing world view?

Who were the fire experts?
And didnt you read the end of the article I posted?