Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Had an enjoyable few days in Port Fairy Vic. Go a lot and have always enjoyed a night stroll around the island as 10 to 100s of thousand Mutton birds land all around me. Last week I must admit to being shocked as only a few 100 birds came in. The trend looked more than poor to me.

Observation only of course. The Several hundred thousand birds just may have suddenly found a better place or just may be simply dead due to food shortages not related to climate change?

At a guess I would ping climate change but I am not a expert.

Where are all the mutton birds? Birdwatchers concerned by delayed arrival of migratory short-tailed shearwaters in Victoria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Kiwis eat them! I could never understand why anyone would.[bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Kiwis eat them! I could never understand why anyone would.[bigwhistle]

---

I was always told you cooked the mutton bird much like the Aussie black crow.
Toss it in a big pot of water with a large stone, boil it until half the water is gone, chuck the crow and eat the stone.

mutton birds are top eating, you eat the chicks, caught down burrows. They have been harvested for years in tassie. The oil from them is also sort after.
cheers
blaze

Never tried them - my father had, and likened them to mutton soaked in kerosine.

Quite an interesting video if your into that sort of thing.
Related directly to the thread. Climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frzf0nzX5RU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

Had an enjoyable few days in Port Fairy Vic. Go a lot and have always enjoyed a night stroll around the island as 10 to 100s of thousand Mutton birds land all around me. Last week I must admit to being shocked as only a few 100 birds came in. The trend looked more than poor to me.

Observation only of course. The Several hundred thousand birds just may have suddenly found a better place or just may be simply dead due to food shortages not related to climate change?

At a guess I would ping climate change but I am not a expert.

Where are all the mutton birds? Birdwatchers concerned by delayed arrival of migratory short-tailed shearwaters in Victoria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Ah yes, the "Griffith Island walk",...LOVE IT, I reckon one can feel quite "isolated" on some parts of it, just like when Port Fairy, or was it Belfast they used to call it, was just a Whaling Station. We've done the walk many times, sometimes in the rain, when it seems even more "natural". Never done it in the dark though, so must give that a try. Invariably see a wallaby or two there! What a lovely part of the world.
Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

This is the hype I refer too.
I don't fudge anything.
The bleeding obvious is being misinterpreted very badly.
You see red, and it's sending off alarm bells in your psychology. Just a bleeding colour for crying out loud. The hype seems to have you guys well and truly under it's spell.
So much so you miss the actual underlying data .. ie. the truth and just 'see the red' so to speak.

But yes. lets just ignore the fact that world temps warmed between 1920-1940, quite dramatically! Seems that is how science works. ignore data staring you in the face because some idiot coloured it differently! [bighmmm]

Does it really matter what 'average temp' the globe was in 1920? If so, why.
Why is it so important to you guys what the average temp should be defined as? How do you really calculate a specific value for a moving target.
The globe has no 'average temp'!
It's totally arbitrary, a human made construct that is totally meaningless, but of course it's red, so it's bad .. because red is associated with some kind of danger or whatever.
The red section is simply a set of values above a randomly chosen average number .... the 1960-1990 baseline! It's completely irrelevant.
Has zero meaning .. just a different way to look at the data and create hype.

But you're free to continue your merry delusions that the globe didn't warm by 0.4°C in approx 20 years from 1920 to 1940.

If the baseline wasn't set to this stupid 1960-1990 value, and instead set as of 1900, then from 1900-1940 average global temps increased by 0.6°C.
If you can't see that it would therefore all be red from the year 1900 and above, then you guys really need help.
There is no fudging of numbers, this is the data presented on that site .. just presentedf in a manner that causes the average person who can't read data to see red and think danger!

At the least have the courtesy to know what you're arguing about! Or as a minimum, learn to read a simple graph.

So for the record, to assist you to read a simple graph, one which you so heroically use for your arguments!
From 1900 through to (early)1940's average global temps rose by approx 0.5°C, the majority of which occurred from 1920.
From the early 1940s through to the late 60's it held stable and began to rise again steadily from the early 70's to present, for which most of that increase has been mid 1980's/1990.

If you can't see this trend ... seriously you guys need to go to specsavers.

---

You really do need to practice discussing without trying to sound superior, which isn't working.
Nothing you said challenged in any way the fact that the graph shows the annual average Australian temperature has been above average each year for the last four decades.
The calculations are done to show the effects of industrialisation.
The trend is, as I said before, so bleeding obvious that it amazes me anyone would try to dispute it.

You gotta love the denialists - they would rather risk the earth and is animals and flora than even consider they may have it wrong. If they have it wrong then ultimately the earth's climate changes in way that is dangerous to life on the planet, if they are right then all is good.

If the climate change supporters are right then we act now and hopefully all is good, if the climate change supporters are wrong and it turns out there is no threat, we loose nothing and gain a cleaner environment (a win, win situation).

If we follow the denialists we are in a win loose situation, - are you prepared to take the gamble.

Following the "Precautionary Principle", until science proves there is no damaging climate change, then based on current science (not wishful thinking) we must assume the worst.

Climate denialists are like anti-vaccinationers and the flat earth society, ignore proven science and clutch at anecdotal nonsense.

There is no alternative, so why risk it.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8758620c_z.jpgEarth-Pacific-Ocean

Garry

This bloke, a former NSW Fire Commissioner, definitely knows what he is talking about, and I agree with everything he says.

I tried to warn Scott Morrison about the bushfire disaster. Adapting to climate change isn’t enough

I tried to warn Scott Morrison about the bushfire disaster. Adapting to climate change isn’t enough | Greg Mullins | Opinion | The Guardian

Could i suggest that the members of the forum contribute to a one way ticket to China for all the alarmist warmist religious on this forum.

I suggest that you visit China and seek to talk to President Xi and advise him of your discontent at China contributing 50% of all Co2 increase in the last 10 years.

You will only need a one way ticket.LOL
Maybe you could advise him that you are demanding the Australian Government do more to reduce the 1% of CO2 that we contribute even though Australia is meeting all its Paris and Kyoto targets.
Just to highlight that the people on the forum who do believe in Climate Change but not apparently with sufficient religious fervor can name call also if you idiots want to continue name calling instead of debating in a civilized manner.
I have to say that AK83 s arguments are to me quite lucid and accurate yet are responded to with name calling and no refutation .

Regards PhilipA