Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax

It’s been a political issue long before the teenager and bush fires in Australia are normal and worse now due to lack of controlled fires. 1898 and 38/39 were very bad years with hundreds killed from bush fires.

There is no trend in hurricanes or tornadoes.

 

But not necessarily causation.

 

Demanding that governments must stop people from heating their homes, driving to hospitals, cleaning undrinkable water, producing just about everything people need to survive

RIGHT NOW!!!

.... is an educated and viable solution according to you?

 

For decades environmental extremists had let out the water from the dams, prevented new dams from being built, and savagely punished – with fines up to AUS$400,000 a time – those who had cleared the scrub from their land precisely to prevent the bushfires that have now done such damage.

 

Typo. Spellcheck dos some weird things at times

Would it not be better that such disruptions in the ecology of earth have a reversible cause than it be something out of our control

 

Can you point to who is saying this please?

 

Of course it would be better. It would also be better if I could eat 10lbs of pumpkin cookies a day without having to first make them and without ruining my health.

I second your complaint about spell check.

 

We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tycoons-fossil-fuels-dismantle-climate-crisis

 

Ah, the sanctimonious approach.. LOL... The inconvenient part that the above left out is that the climate should, in fact, be warming, at least for a while as a result of the rebound from the last relatively cool period. For some reason, folks, like the above, have to demonize human existence to rationalize the fact that their world changes around them absent their consent. So, in an effort to attempt to wrest control back, they make humanity the villains here to ensure that their version of control is what they have delivered to them. Because no one, including golem above, has a method to either stop or otherwise control the climate mechanism. So, instead, many of the elites have dreamed up superficial things that make them money. Like Carbon markets and carbon swaps, all designed to not actually control the production of CO2, but at least to profit from it. And to make the average folk more likely to accept those taxation burdens, they find that scary stories worked in religion, so why not make up a few for their agnostic view and label it all science..

To put a super fine point on it, we do, in fact, know that our climates (since there are so many of them globally) change. That have changed. They are changing today, and they will continue to change because the solar ecosystem that we live in is also changing, and always will change. But that is the discomforting thing for always look to government to guarantee their future lifestyles and incomes.

I continue to ask what these folks actually intend on, and should their schemes go bad, how they intend to pay back those they stole from in their initial failures. You never get a response. But fires in Australia come with all kinds of sweet imagery, including folks photoshopping in their imaginary "fire demons"... "faces of the devil"... etc. All to connect the natural horror of nature to what they perceive is the fear dominated religious peons that gives them the necessary motivation to fork over their liberties and their money.

 

It is kind of the way I see it. Discussing global warming with an Evangelical is like trying to discuss Trump's corruption and ineptitude with them, or anything really.

 

You know what we're way better at than controlling the entire climate?

Controlling local environment.

What should we do about climate change? Control what we can control: the local environment.

Climate related deaths aren't going up. They are going down. The fact that they are going down is directly correlated with our increased use of energy. Fewer people die from storms because we can quickly transport large numbers of people out of dangerous areas. We can quickly respond to impacted areas with medical aid and resources. Fewer people die from heatwaves or freeze to death in cold snaps because we can keep them cool, warm them up, bring them water, shelter them from the elements. All of this requires the use of large amounts of energy.

A Li-ion battery has at most something like 250 watt hours per kilogram. Gasoline has 12,888 watt hours per kilogram. Propane is even better with 13,777. Why in the world would the educated smart thing to do be to abandon these incredibly energy dense fuels in favor of a fuel that we need 50X more of to match? Sure, keep finding new ways to store and use electrical energy, but don't stop finding new and efficient ways to using the fuel we already have. The fuel we have works. It works really well, and there's lots of room for improvement. Gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 35%. Even at thirty five percent, because gas is so energy dense, you can go much further. An electric tractor trailer makes zero sense. Your batteries would weigh more than your cargo, and you could only go less than half the distance before needed to refuel.

So if we keep using gas, there's a potential 65% of the energy that we could use to have a local impact on the climate. Why not take that approach?

 

Also...why is it that people believe that so called clean energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc...that extract energy directly from the environment won't have a negative impact on the environment?

Changing the system has consequences. Are you really trying to lead people to believe that all the consequences will be positive?

 

Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax.

That's a relief. For a while I was concerned that the 183 arsonists arrested by Australian authorities had something to do with it.

 

The people are not preserving the planet for future generations- instead, we are borrowing from the future and sending our descendants the bill.

However, that is not the point of the post. Large fires have been burning for some time, all over the world. Clearing jungle in South America for example has been done with fire. We have been having a rash of large wildfires lately, the most notable being in Australia and California. Nobody seems to ask the question of exactly how global warming starts these fires; it seems a bit of a stretch to say a degree or two in temperature causes spontaneous combustion. Slightly higher flammability, yes. But nobody has posed the question this way:

Does global warming cause the fires, or have the fires caused global warming?
Such fires do not only add heat (BTU) to the atmosphere, the also add a substantial amount of carbon and product of combustion like carbon dioxide.

 

Yet global warming hysteria is almost entirely driven by politics and a desire to grow government by people who work either directly or indirectly for the government.

 

Good job reading my post. I’m glad you can read.

 

I read it I just disagree with your conclusions. The problem isn't that scientist don't understand politics the problem is there selling crap no one wants to buy.

 

Yeah they don’t understand politics.

 

Of course not, the fact that we have had 26 "500-year" storms in the last decade is mere coincidence. Jeebus Christ almighty, this is an Insurance Company saying this. they make their living by examining, understanding and applying reality, not listening to made-up right-wing bullshit. How can people let themselves be so pwned by billion-dollar corps self-serving their own interests?

If all the scientists are pushing a dishonest hoax to preserve their funding WHY aren't they working for the oil companies who have literally trillions of dollars in assets? Al Gore has done very well for himself, that is true, but he and all the Universities in the world have nothing even approaching the resources of Exxon.

 

The overwhelming majority of global scientists agree, global warming is real and it is caused by human activity. Arguing with climate deniers is like arguing the existence of atoms with road kill. Centuries ago, the flat earth society made their case. How did that work out? Move on.

 

Global warming is caused by politics. All of them politicians blowing hot air.

 

There are still flat earthers. They accuse the government of lying to us about the world being spherical.

 

You aren’t familiar with statistics. A 500 year storm doesn’t mean one happens every 500 years. They can happen back to back.

 

The tornadoes have been shifting from tornado alley towards the Southeast.

 

YET

Not one comments on heat islands created by expanding metropolis sprawl.
Watch a dopplar radar of a storm line crossing the Midwest
and the precipitation weakening as that area approaches "civilization".

Not one speaks to Earth Neutral construction materials.

Or even little Israel has cooled their climate via planting forests.



Just "the majority of global" Scientist DIVING FOR DOLLARS

Science is not the pure, academic, profession we were taught to believe.
Science is as whoring as the legal profession.
Witness planting forests & construction materials effects, ignored !

Aussies know Climate Changes
Just Like the Weather.
Today they flood.



Moi, M.D. ret,
BSc Biology, Magna Cum Laude + Special Honors.

STOP ​