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

Originally Posted by 101RRS

But you go with the hype and ignore the facts when they do not suit your argument.

If you can show me an actual example of this notion, I won't take this remark as an insult.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Yes, outback has far less fuel than in the coastal forests, so it's much easier to get a cool burn out back than it is in the forests, particularly once an extreme drought has dried out the vegetation.
....

So the theory is that fuel loads are lighter 'outback', which you would then reasonably assume that lighter fuel loads would produce less fire overall(in terms of area affected by a fire).
Why was the 1974 fires to much more 'extreme' then?
With the use of the term 'extreme', that means 6 x the area affected than the current fire did?
So lighter fuel conditions shouldn't produce such large fire areas, and you'd also reasonably assume that cooler weather would also help mitigate the size of a fire.
Also, the main areas affected were in this outback region (western NSW) in a year when it also had one of the highest ever recorded years of rainfall both the previous year to the fire('73) and in the same year as the fire itself.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

.... because it's already doing huge damage to this country and the science says that is going to get much worse.
...

Again, this is wrong.
The science doesn't say that it's going to get much worse. The scientists are saying this, the media latch onto it and propagate it.
It's a hypothesis that they make based on their interpretations of some data. They manipulate the data(I believe to suit a need) .. so the cycle goes on and on.

There is no data that says it's going to get worse. Literally impossible.

Did you know that even NASA(as an example of 'your science') .. are of the opinion that there is a 95% likelyhood that current climate change is anthropogenic?
That is, even they have a small amount of doubt as to the causes of the current climate shift!

What you latch onto are the attention seekers in the science community. Those that are out to prove some point to grab attention for their own benefit .. usually to garner more funding for their research.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Seventeen trees, more to the point, it saved you dollars that you can spend on polluting fossil fuels.
You do realise, without trucks you wouldn't have fossil fuel, solar panels, clothes, food or a house?
Is your mantra "Do as I say, not as l do"?

Another unprovoked personal attack, which totally ignores the points I made in what was intended to be a serious post about how North Queensland can have a prosperous future, without referring to you in any way.
Rather than report your unprovoked personal attacks as being against forum rules, as I'm here to discuss issues and not get into personal stuff, I think I'll just ignore you.

Maybe Pedal Powered ah la RFDS?. Before it's time I reckon.




Alfraed Traeger: Giving the Outback its voice | Royal Flying Doctor Service

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Another personal attack.

No more personal than your inaccurate, repetitive calling me and others denialists. At least my statement is factual.

V8Ian has a very Valid point Mick and I don't think that his criticism was "Personal" He is simply referring to the "Mindset" of your average Climate Crusader.
The VAST majority of the "Climate Crusaders" are unwilling to Personally suffer to affect Australia and the Worlds carbon output by forgoing life's little luxuries like air conditioning travel, consumerism etc. and yet they expect everyone else to.
Lets also face reality here and admit that installing solar at home is MORE about saving money than it is about saving the planet, Also give a bit of thought to the millions of Australians that are renting or simply are unable to afford the cost of installing a solar system at home.

Saving 17 trees is admirable However have you given any thought into the amount of trees that were lost when your house and land was developed, Or the amount of greenhouse gasses that were produced to manufacture everything you own ( even the very solar panels on your roof) then consider the amount of fuel used while galivanting around the country purely for pleasure.

These are the same people that are now Insisting that thousands of Australians must now become unemployed by closing the coal mines while driving around in their luxury SUV's with all their flash camping gear aboard that the majority of which was produced using the very same coal they are complaining about.

I call that Hypocrisy.

The thing I like about this thread and certain others on this forum, is that they save me having to pay for a newspaper subscription!

Originally Posted by Saitch

The thing I like about this thread and certain others on this forum, is that they save me having to pay for a newspaper subscription!

Only if you were considering a subscription / donation to the Guardian.

Low intensity cool burns can still spread over a large area, but don't burn as intensely, for example they might just spread along the ground and leave the canopy untouched.
The science is very clear about the severity of climate change and that human activity is making it more severe, there is no doubt about this among actual climate scientists, including NASA.

Originally Posted by AK83

If you can show me an actual example of this notion, I won't take this remark as an insult.



So the theory is that fuel loads are lighter 'outback', which you would then reasonably assume that lighter fuel loads would produce less fire overall(in terms of area affected by a fire).
Why was the 1974 fires to much more 'extreme' then?
With the use of the term 'extreme', that means 6 x the area affected than the current fire did?
So lighter fuel conditions shouldn't produce such large fire areas, and you'd also reasonably assume that cooler weather would also help mitigate the size of a fire.
Also, the main areas affected were in this outback region (western NSW) in a year when it also had one of the highest ever recorded years of rainfall both the previous year to the fire('73) and in the same year as the fire itself.



Again, this is wrong.
The science doesn't say that it's going to get much worse. The scientists are saying this, the media latch onto it and propagate it.
It's a hypothesis that they make based on their interpretations of some data. They manipulate the data(I believe to suit a need) .. so the cycle goes on and on.

There is no data that says it's going to get worse. Literally impossible.

Did you know that even NASA(as an example of 'your science') .. are of the opinion that there is a 95% likelyhood that current climate change is anthropogenic?
That is, even they have a small amount of doubt as to the causes of the current climate shift!

What you latch onto are the attention seekers in the science community. Those that are out to prove some point to grab attention for their own benefit .. usually to garner more funding for their research.