Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Deliverance]

What proof in the referenced area proves any of these people know more than Christine Finlay?

They've been published and employed in the field. Her thesis was about feminism in bushfires, from the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences.
If you're quoting her you're truly lost

 

[Hawk_francais]

Alarmist, again.

The same article also said it could increase by 5% by 2020 and 10% by 2050.

Can you tell me what is not alarming about this fire season? Something tells me that a 30-60% increase of fire risk days might be pretty bang on the money.

You fundamentally misunderstand this science. The temperature is going up. If it's not at a 300% increase in 30 years, it will get there eventually unless we lower our emissions.

 

[Deliverance]

It's too late to rely on lowering emissions solely.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It's too late to rely on lowering emissions solely.

There is no consensus that supports this.

Nor is there proof.

 

[Fadge]

Fascinating

Hawk_francois - You might find this video of interest.

 

[mcnulty]

I think we can all be grateful the science isn’t contested in YouTube clips.

 

[mcnulty]

The point is if whoever made that video has something of merit to say, he can publish his results and subject them to appropriate scrutiny. That’s how it works, fortunately.

The reason I suspect he hasn’t is BECAUSE he doesn’t, he wants to bypass the proper channels and preach to the converted, most of whom will have no idea what he’s actually talking about but will nod their heads on cue.

There are thousands more, and as far as the science is concerned they don’t matter.

Sorry, but thems the rules.

 

[JackOutback]

Try to stay away from overtly political data. Do your homework on the people that present the data.

Data isn’t political.

 

[mcnulty]

Lets call it a hunch...

 

[Bazzar]

They've been published and employed in the field. Her thesis was about feminism in bushfires, from the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences.
If you're quoting her you're truly lost

"Over the past year or so a refreshing voice from the wilderness has emerged to champion the bushfire fighters’ cause.
Dr Christine Finlay, a Newcastle resident, is arguably the most highly qualified academic researcher into bushfire and disaster management in Australia. Her whistleblowing has ruffled the feathers of the establishment to the extent that she now finds it hard to get paid work in her chosen field.
Put simply, her PhD thesis concludes that we have bushfire management horribly wrong. She uses the four letter ‘‘f’’ word a lot as she sees fuel as the key issue.

“It doesn’t matter how many helicopters and trucks you send to these firestorms, they will make no difference to the outcome,” she said.
“It is only by getting rid of the fire fuel that we will be able to tame the bushfire menace.”
Sometimes my mind drifts back to those happy bushfire-fighting days of yesteryear.
I vividly recall one Saturday when a local plumber wandered into the station.
“When are youse going to burn off that rubbish around my house?” he said.
“When you give us a case of beer,” was the reply.
“OK,” piped up the plumber.
We dived into the truck, roared around the corner and had the scrub burnt off before he had time to fetch the carton.
Doing such a thing today would see us behind bars. Sad, isn’t it?
Geoff Walker is a journalist, author, life member and former president and deputy captain of Lemon Tree Passage Bushfire Brigade

OPINION: Bushfire risk keeps growing

Smoke and mirrors make it hard to burn off fuel to reduce bushfires, writes Geoff Walker.

www.newcastleherald.com.au

 

[its free real estate]

You're quoting politicians and a media organisation with a clear and undeniable political agenda. I can't see how you can pretend you're taking a non-political path. Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?

“The first rule is that you must not fool yourself, for you are the easiest person to fool”

seems Snakey is ignorant of this little maxim.

 

[its free real estate]

Bazzar has proved himself definitively anti-science, an ignoramus and a liar to boot. One of the other deniers is a full blown conspiracy theorist. It's not really a group of Enlightenment thinkers in here on the side of climate change being bullshit. More misfits and losers IMO. Isaac Newton was an incel though, died a virgin, so maybe you other freaks are on the right track!

 

[HairyO]

Tell me about the Maunder Minimum. Are you linking sunspot activity to a cold snap in England? The minimum that occurred 50 years after the beginning of the Little Ice Age?



So you are being dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.
“People cause wildfires” is true whether you are talking about deliberate or accidental lighting of fires or you are talking about human activity increasing carbon dioxide.

Which fires are because of climate change?

Why are those ones different to the thousands of fires before ?

For reference, 1968 was a far worse early fire season.

And in the late 1890s hundreds of people died from prolonged extreme heat.

 

[Crankitup]

Problem I have is that people here are treating this as a political debate.

It’s not a political debate. It is an event that is happening that can be understood using observable data and tested models. It happens whether you believe it or not, whether you want to be alarmed or not, whether it affects your business model or not.

Science is the best process to understand climate change and to promote solutions. Not dialectics, politics or faith. Science needs a healthy dose of skepticism, but also needs people with the ability to accept the data that are staring them in the face.

On here you get deniers dragged kicking and screaming to reach any conclusion that human activity is changing our planet on an unprecedented scale. They use ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, strawmen arguments, whataboutism and red herrings in their arguments when in all likelihood they are approaching this like a footy supporter: they’ve chosen their side and will continue to support that side no matter what. The science is clear.

How much of this thread and the CC Arguing thread have you actually read? From my experience you have things the wrong way around. It's the alarmists that constantly revert to ad hom and obfuscation as soon as they start running out of answers to anything that challenges their presuppositions.

 

[its free real estate]

How much of this thread and the CC Arguing thread have you actually read? From my experience you have things the wrong way around. It's the alarmists that constantly revert to ad hom and obfuscation as soon as they start running out of answers to anything that challenges their presuppositions.

As opposed to outright irrationality and misunderstanding of basic concepts from the denialists.

 

[Crankitup]

As opposed to outright irrationality and misunderstanding of basic concepts from the denialists.

I'm glad you popped your head up. You are the classic example of what I was saying. As to misunderstanding basic concepts, you nail that one frequently too. Like confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and calling the latter a toxic poison rather than the first.

 

[its free real estate]

I'm glad you popped your head up. You are the classic example of what I was saying. As to misunderstanding basic concepts, you nail that one frequently too. Like confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide and calling the latter a toxic poison rather than the first.

I never confused monoxide with dioxide, dummy. We went over that. We already established that carbon dioxide is indeed toxic. You agreed that it was toxic, did you not?

You however confused the measure of a stock with a flow. When pressed you got confused and couldn't remember your source from however many years ago. It's not about sources, it's about measuring transitions between states and measuring the state itself. Any year 12 physics student can tell the difference.

 

[Clems Knee]

How much of this thread and the CC Arguing thread have you actually read? From my experience you have things the wrong way around. It's the alarmists that constantly revert to ad hom and obfuscation as soon as they start running out of answers to anything that challenges their presuppositions.

What do you mean by alarmists? People who look at the data and are terrified by it are not alarmists, they are realists. If anything climate scientists have done us a disservice by using conservative estimates in their predictions. Those conservative models have gone by the wayside and the truly scary models are the ones that fit the data.

If you are still clinging to a a notion that our climate is just going through a natural cycle and it had nothing to do with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or that the current fires are comparable to historical fires, I really think you should educate yourselves. There is real evidence to say you are wrong.

I would ask the conspiracy theorists and denialists to not repeat a pet theory after it has been debunked here. That must be especially frustrating. Just like creationists claiming that dinosaur and human footprints were found together, over and over.

It’s okay to back the wrong horse, but the horse you backed has been turned into glue. Stop backing it.

 

[Hawk_francais]

Arguably the most ridiculously abused political term in existence right now.

In fact, it's not even arguable.

Sometimes Australians are incredibly naive about fascism. Leaning on or defunding independent public broadcasters, violence or threats of violence against political opponents/dissidents/protests, suppression of information, non-adherence to human rights charter... these fascist characteristics are evident in many current governments, including our own (Nauru and Manus Island media blackout, anyone?). We are generally woeful about calling these things what they are, and fighting against them.

With the US now in the grasp of a capricious loon who has no constitutional nor strategic understanding, and who probably wipes his arse daily with pages from the international charter of human rights, the EU is the largest body of constitutionally protected freedom in the world. Yet even in Europe, countries like Hungary, Slovakia and Poland (the last two are even EU member states) have governments who assassinate political enemies, who simply dismantle media and courts who would publish or investigate their crimes, and who punish acts of protest. Looking east of Europe, Russia and China (who practically wrote the book on the abovementioned) are becoming increasingly imperialistic in their outlook.

If you think it's a silly time to talk about fascism... well I dare say you have never lived outside of Australia. Break out of that. Well anyway this thread isn't supposed to be about fascism so maybe we should just take it elsewhere

 

[its free real estate]

Crankitup, I'll explain it to you in basic year 10 mathematics, the simple stuff they teach kids before you get to derivative calculus.

If the measure of say, carbon dioxide in the air at time T is C0, and at an interval T+t where t is measured in years, is C1, then the increase can be calculated as C1-C0, ie

ΔC = C1 - C0.

Where does ΔC come from? Well if the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources per year is Cn, from anthropogenic sources per year is Ca and the amount sequestered per year is Cs, then:

ΔC = (Cn + Ca - Cs) × t, where t is the number of years.

However, Cn, Cs, and Ca are not constant. They vary through time. So more accurately, we can calculate C1 as




Where Cn, Ca, and Cs are all time variant. If Cn ⋍ Cs over time (why would they not be) then the contribution to ΔC can be said to be almost entirely anthropogenic, even if Ca is only a fraction of Cn.

Do you understand?

 

[Clems Knee]

Which fires are because of climate change?

Why are those ones different to the thousands of fires before ?

For reference, 1968 was a far worse early fire season.

And in the late 1890s hundreds of people died from prolonged extreme heat.

The Garnaut report got it right in 2008. And he was an economist.
“Fire seasons will start earlier, end later and be more intense. This effect increases over time but should be directly observable by 2020.”

Can you give me evidence to back up your assertion that 1968 was worse across Australia than this season? If it’s in The Australian, you’d have to quote for me so as to get around the paywall.

Are you really comparing the death rate of the 1890’s, when medicine and technology (ie Science) had not progressed to the point of motorised fire engines and pumps to now??

 

[Hawk_francais]

Fascinating

This is hilarious man.

You live in Melbourne, right? Open the window, smell the air. As he says again and again in the video, REALITY.

 

[Crankitup]

I never confused monoxide with dioxide, dummy. We went over that.

Reinventing history again I see. We never went over whether you had confused carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide because you never answered my question on that point => #2,990. In fact you dodged or ignored that specific issue on a number of occasions e.g. #1,812 & #1,818. What we DID go over was your subsequent mental gymnastics in trying to justify your repeated statements that carbon dioxide was a toxic poison in the context of a discussion about climate change.

We already established that carbon dioxide is indeed toxic. You agreed that it was toxic, did you not?

No. That's not what I did. You're trying to reinvent history again. What I said was this #1,824.

 

[Crankitup]

What do you mean by alarmists? People who look at the data and are terrified by it are not alarmists, they are realists. If anything climate scientists have done us a disservice by using conservative estimates in their predictions. Those conservative models have gone by the wayside and the truly scary models are the ones that fit the data.

If you are still clinging to a a notion that our climate is just going through a natural cycle and it had nothing to do with the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or that the current fires are comparable to historical fires, I really think you should educate yourselves. There is real evidence to say you are wrong.

I would ask the conspiracy theorists and denialists to not repeat a pet theory after it has been debunked here. That must be especially frustrating. Just like creationists claiming that dinosaur and human footprints were found together, over and over.

It’s okay to back the wrong horse, but the horse you backed has been turned into glue. Stop backing it.

So let see I ask you a question and you ignore it and change the subject instead. Is that much better than the obfuscation you are accusing others of?

Let's start afresh though. If you look at the poll results for this thread you will see that when I joined it I chose - "I'm undecided". I have said several times in this thread and the CC Arguing thread I am agnostic on the issue (#657).

I used to be basically an eco-fascist before becoming agnostic on the issue. I'm still agnostic. Some here have expressed disbelief in that statement based on my posts but I follow the principle that any hypothesis has to be testable and falsifiable. Climate models aren't falsifiable as many climate scientists have admitted. The fact that I have no confidence in the temperature record due to homogenisation and compromised temperature stations is another issue.

Another issue for me is that there seems to be a popular idea perpetuated that CO₂ levels are at an unprecedented high. In reality there has been periods when there has been 18 times the levels of CO₂ that we presently have, with no cars, factories etc around to blame for it. The levels can rise & fall markedly without mankind's help. Approximately 97% of CO₂ emissions are from natural sources. Thinking that by fiddling around with the remaining 3% of emissions for a gas that makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere, when many argue that CO₂ isn't the major driver of our climate, seems a bit silly.

CO₂ gets all the limelight whilst a GHG that exists in MUCH higher concentrations in our atmosphere (water vapour) gets largely ignored by AGW believers. The excuse most often given is that its effect is hard to quantify but the reality is that its effect is so large that it makes a nonsense any discussion of CO₂.

I said the following in this forum 11 years ago and no one has responded with anything to change my mind.

... with CO₂ making up only 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere, anthropogenic CO₂ makes up 2-3% of that 0.038%.

2% of 0.038% is 0.00076%. Does that mean that if AGW were true, humans would only be responsible for around 0.00076% of any fractions of a degree centigrade the earth warms by? Of course not. I just stand by my original proposition;

Show me positive proof that the infinitesmally small contribution man makes to the earth's total CO₂ output is more a driver of climate than the level of solar activity, or the much more abundant GHG, water vapour and you'll have me as a convert to AGW alarmism.

There might be some debate around the margins. For instance a percentage point one way or the other as far as CO₂ makeup in the atmosphere and how much is from anthropogenic sources but not the general thrust of what I'm saying.

P.S. I use the term alarmist every time someone accuses me of being a denialist despite me saying repeatedly that I'm agnostic. I would prefer to go back to being an eco fascist to be honest but no one has been able to solve the basic conundrum I have presented above. Maybe you will be "the one".

 

[Bigfootyfan27]

Mate, do some reading. Even butterflies figured out climate change is real. I'm sure you can as well. We need solutions. Not distractions.

Learn some history *******! Before ever commenting on a species the lasts for several days!