Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 3077 comments are related to the topic:
This government is a disgrace
This government is a disgrace
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 3,077
|
By:
Remember when us Aussies used to laugh about how dumb US politicians could be
  .. Those days are over  greg hunt uses wikipedia to study climate change ....  dear oh dear/ffs/omg/mugs .. |
|
By:
BREAKING: George W Bush Admits Wikipedia Source of Iraq WMD Intelligence
 ...... |
|
By:
poor hunt lol ... at least he tried i guess to get some information first  ... before speaking to the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres seen below http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/christiana-figueres/5038088 Christiana must have then sought to justify her alarmist & exaggerated politically biased statement that the NSW fires were caused by Climate Change ... what a dodo ... because she came back later and said ... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/un-climate-chief-warns-of-nsw-27doom-and-gloom27/5036814 ummm ... well yes ... err ... excuse me but i have since determined that ... "The World Meteorological Organisation has not established the direct link between this wildfire and climate change yet, but what is absolutely clear is that the science is telling us there are increasing heatwaves in Asia, Europe and Australia," she told CNN. ... she went from yes Climate Change caused the NSW fires ... to ... well science says there will be more heatwaves in australia ... ffs lol and these are the people running the ponzi carbon money plan ... and they can't even get their own science story [/b] straight |
|
By:
When students use Wikipedia it's called plagiarism, but when a politician uses it he is called the environment minister
disgrace.. maybe you could send him your copy and paste propaganda thebas |
|
By:
"The World Meteorological Organisation has not established the direct link between this wildfire and climate change yet
straight from Christia's mouth after she blamed it for the NSW bushfires not one doubt where all the propaganda is coming from whenever they come out and are all alarmist, exaggerating, and pushing a political barrow (ie give us your money) ... you know have them cold --- and have you noticed how it all started with ... getting countries to redeuce their co2 emmissions .. 5% - 25% have you noticed now the UN/IPCC tricksters no longer use that language nothing in Christiana's langiage mentioned one thing about reducing co2 ALL THE WORDS NOW ARE ABOUT ... THE CARBON TAX / TRADE PLAN ... that's the words they use ... the PLAN ffs |
|
By:
Bushfires: Coalition deploys straw man against burning issue of climate change
Government is desperate to keep bushfires and climate change apart for fear its emissions reduction policy will be found wanting Lenore Taylor theguardian.com, Thursday 24 October Bushfires in New South Wales Firefighters on duty in NSW this week. Photograph: REX/Sam Mooy/Newspix The Abbott government is desperately constructing a straw man to help it fight the potentially big political problem of rising public concern about climate change and scrutiny of its Direct Action policy. The straw man is the contention that anyone making a perfectly reasonable and scientifically justifiable point – that climate change is likely to cause a higher prevalence of the weather conditions that pose a bushfire risk – has actually been making the unreasonable and scientifically unjustifiable point that climate change has caused a particular fire. And once the straw man contention has been ridiculed, the Coalition quickly skips over the justifiable connection and contends that fires are “part of the Australian experience” and that nothing different is happening. The straw man was wielded most recently against the executive secretary of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, Christiana Figueres, who said in an interview with CNN there was “absolutely” a link between climate change and bushfires. She did not say that climate change causes bushfires. She did say climate change causes increasing heatwaves – in other words, bushfire weather. After Tony Abbott airily dismissed Figueres as “talking through her hat”, the environmnent minister, Greg Hunt, wielded the straw man defence against the UN executive in this interview on the BBC. Hunt said he had spoken to Figueres and “she indicated clearly and strongly that she was not saying that these bushfires were caused by climate change … She felt that that had been misrepresented.” Whatever she said to Hunt, she wasn’t backing away from the idea of a connection between climate change and bushfire weather in a statement she subsequently issued, in which she said: “The IPCC’s conclusions are that unless deep and decisive action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the world will experience more extreme and more frequent weather events over the coming decades. “In its earlier fourth assessment report released in 2007 the IPCC stated that: ‘Climate change is known to alter the likelihood of increased wildfire sizes and frequencies … while also inducing stress on trees that indirectly exacerbate disturbances. This suggests an increasing likelihood of more prevalent fire disturbances, as has recently been observed.’” But Hunt moved quickly from the straw man defence to the nothing-different-to-see-here “Australian experience” argument. “The point we are all making is that Australia has since European settlement had a history of bushfires … That is the Australian experience,” he explained. There is a very good reason the Coalition wants to stamp out any link in the popular debate between climate change and an increased prevalence of bushfire weather. They remember all too well the way concerns about weather events in 2006 and 2007 forced the then Howard government to take action on climate change that it otherwise probably would not have. As Howard wrote in his autobiography Lazarus Rising, “in the space of several weeks, commencing in October 2006, four separate events came together to push the climate change concerns of the Australian community to higher levels than ever before. In Victoria the bushfire season started early; the drought affecting large areas of eastern Australia lingered on … from outside Australia came the contributions of Al Gore … and Sir Nicholas Stern. “These four events coincided and dramatically increased the focus on global warming in Australia … I concluded that the government would need to shift its position on climate change.” This was apparently primarily a political consideration, since Howard says later in his book that he is “an agnostic rather than a sceptic on climate change, instinctively I doubt many of the more alarming predictions”. The Abbott government says it accepts climate change is real and that its Direct Action policy is the best way for Australia to reduce emissions by the minimum target of 5%. Despite extreme doubts being raised about that policy by economists, scientists and many experts, the Coalition has so far managed to avoid much public scrutiny of it. But in government, particularly if public concern was rising because of a confluence of events like those that confronted Howard, that scrutiny will intensify. And scientists have an inconvenient habit of not being diverted by “straw man” arguments. After interviewing Hunt, the BBC spoke to Professor Roger Jones from Victoria University, who took the same history of disastrous Australian bushfires Abbott had listed to make his “it’s all part of the Australian experience” argument and pointed out how many years had elapsed between them. “Twenty-nine years, 14, 11, nine, six, four … you might detect a pattern in that in that the gap between the fires is getting shorter,” he noted. |
|
By:
After interviewing Hunt, the BBC spoke to Professor Roger Jones from Victoria University, who took the same history of disastrous Australian bushfires Abbott had listed to make his “it’s all part of the Australian experience” argument and pointed out how many years had elapsed between them.
“Twenty-nine years, 14, 11, nine, six, four … you might detect a pattern in that in that the gap between the fires is getting shorter,” he noted. Abbott and the Liberal Party are the most deceitful bunch of incompetent environmental vandals ever elected. |
|
By:
Arson involves intentionally and maliciously destroying or damaging property by using fire.
In the case of bushfires, AIC research indicates that Australia has an average of 52,000 bushfires a year with possibly half being either deliberately lit or suspicious. As part of its extensive research on this crime, the AIC has developed a comprehensive bushfire arson prevention handbook to help reduce the number of deliberately lit fires in Australia. from the australian govt website http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/arson.html not sure what this poppyc0ck is about a gap between bushfires is ... 29 years, 14 years etc etc lol ... he must be thinking of another country or just does not understand our country at all whether a fire is disastrous or not has to do with the ground fuel available once a fire begins |
|
By:
Australian prime minister denies 25 years of research linking climate change to bushfires
Graham Readfearn As New South Wales experiences raging bush fires, Tony Abbott ridicules the link to climate change As people in fire prone areas across New South Wales review their survival plans or flee for their lives, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said he is convinced there is no link between bushfires and climate change. "Fire is a part of the Australian experience," Mr Abbott told Melbourne radio listeners. "It has been since humans were on this continent.... Climate change is real as I have often said and we should take strong action against it but these fires are certainly not a function of climate change. They are a function of life in Australia." To make his point, Mr Abbott rattled off a series of years when Australia had experienced bad bushfires. He also said that Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, was "talking through her hat" when she pointed out earlier this week that there was a link between bushfires and human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. In making his statement, Mr Abbott has dismissed out of hand the work of scientists going back more than 25 years showing that as temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions go up, so do the risks of bushfires. Christiana Figueres' hat is stuffed with evidence. New South Wales burns in October In the lead up to the current tinder box-conditions in New South Wales, Bureau of Meteorology records show the state had recorded its hottest September on record. The state also experienced its warmest start to a year, with the temperature from January to September 1.36C above the historical average. September also marked the end of Australia's hottest 12 month period on record, which came after the hottest calendar year on record. When weather and fire authorities issue warnings about the risk of fire in Australia, they use what's known as the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index - or FFDI for short. The index produces a number that corresponds to a warning level. Zero to 11 means the risk of fire is low to moderate. From 75-99 the risk is "extreme". After the horrific 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, a further category of "catastrophic" was added for times when the FFDI comes up with a number of 100 or higher. This index, developed in the 1960s, combines the most important factors that create the perfect conditions for fire. They are temperature, wind speed, rainfall and the dryness of the fuel - that is, the grasses, trees and undergrowth. Importantly, FFDI also looks at how dry the air has been (relative humidity) because drier air and higher temperatures are what "cures" the fuel for the fire. What's been happening to fire weather? A study last year in the International Journal of Climatology looked at the FFDI data from 38 sites around Australia from 1973 to 2010. None of the sites showed a reduction in fire danger and 16 of them showed that fire weather had increased significantly. While the study was not set up to find a link between human-emissions and bushfires, the study said the trends were "consistent with projected impacts of climate change on FFDI". The study, carried out by scientists from the NSW government, the CSIRO and the Bureau of meteorology, also found that the most distinct increases in fire risk were in spring and autumn, meaning the fire season was getting longer. In 2007, a study by scientists at the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and a government-backed bushfire research centre also found that Australia was experiencing more dangerous fire-prone days. The study found: Increases of 10-40% between 1980-2000 and 2001-2007 are evident at most sites. The strongest rises are seen in the interior portions of NSW, and they are associated with a jump in the number of very high and extreme fire danger days. The study also pointed out there was a strong correlation between increased risk of fire and periods of drought. Times of higher bushfire risk also tended to happen during periods of El Nino, which in Australia is associated with hotter temperatures and less rain. Professor Roger Jones, a co-ordinating lead author for a chapter in the next major IPCC report looking at climate impacts, has written about his own study into fire danger trends in the state of Victoria, which has already had a flush of damaging bushfires. He found that " fire danger in Victoria increased by over a third after 1996, compared to 1972-1996." Professor Jones, of Victoria University, also points out that recently observed changes in fire risk are already at the "worst case" level predicted for the year 2050 by a previous study. He writes: We can't consider severe fires as one-offs that happen every few decades. If they're becoming a systemic part of our environment we have to consider this really seriously. There will be a financial cost and a human cost, and we will see it repeated, if we don't plan ahead. What about the future? Twenty-five years ago, what's thought to be the very first scientific paper in the world suggesting global warming could increase the risk of bushfires was published in Australia (to give you an idea of how long scientists have been looking at this, 1987 was also the year that Aussies got a cell phone network, the year Fred Astaire died and the year Argentinian footballer Lionel Messi was born). That first study was carried out by Dr Tom Beer, who is still at CSIRO where he was back in 1987. Beer's research was prepared for a government-backed conference in Melbourne, where about 100 scientists and engineers presented their research into the potential impacts of "greenhouse-induced climatic change" to an audience of more than 250 people Beer examined almost 40 years of meteorological data from three sites and then used a computer model to project what would happen if average temperatures in those areas went up between 3.5C and 4C. He found, not surprisingly, that the risk of fire went up. Dr Beer remembers the significance of this pioneering study, telling me: Scientifically I recall being invited to meetings in the US to discuss our results which led to various US researchers undertaking similar studies in relation to the North American fire situation. There was considerable media interest in the Greenhouse conference and I was interviewed by one journalist who later told me that there was more interest in this story than in any previous story she had written. Beer followed up his study in 1995, but this time used more sophisticated modelling to look at how fire danger changed as levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went up. He says: The 1995 study using two computer models of the effects of doubled CO2 confirmed the results of the 1988 paper for south-eastern Australia, and also confirmed that the results of the 1998 paper (an increase in fire danger index with an increase in CO2 levels) was true for almost all of Australia. The models were ambiguous as to the situation in Northern Australia. The models also confirmed the link between relative-humidity and fire danger index in south-east Australia, but indicated that even in some areas of Australia where the computer models predicted an increase in relative humidity, the fire danger was still predicted to increase. Since then, there have been multiple studies which have almost universally suggested the same thing. As temperatures and CO2 in the air goes up, so to does the risk of bushfires. When Prime Minister Abbott says that bushfires are a "function of life in Australia" he's clearly correct, but to declare so confidently that bush fires are not linked to climate change in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, suggests denial. If Tony Abbott thinks Christiana Figueres is "talking though her hat" then from where is Tony Abbott talking? Answers on a postcard please. |
|
By:
Go on make another post ridiculing 25 years of research linking Climate Change to increased risk of worse bushfires.
 |
|
By:
Geez you post c rap F/F/S
 |
|
By:
increased risk of worse bushfires
what do they mean by worse ffs ... the ground fuel determines whether a fire takes hold and runs and whether or not it can be contained is determined by how many people and resources are available to fight the fire the worst bushfire in australia's history ... in terms of size of acreage burnt ... was in the mid 1800's |
|
By:
Cant you read?
You are right and they are wrong is it? |
|
By:
geez so do you ... absolute tripe lol ... worse ... better ... stronger ... weaker .. what does any of that mean scientifically
emotive rubbish that won't stand the test of anything it could also be a nicer fire or a more evil fire |
|
By:
So they could have saved all that work and just asked you
Are you Andrew Bolt ? or Christopher Monckton, |
|
By:
are you al gore ?
|
|
By:
You should write for that fictional masterpiece The Australian.
|
|
By:
you should get the IPCC to print your story about the Himalayas melting
|
|
By:
you could link a cat having kittens to climate change if you really wanted to
WOW, what a withering rebuttal that is ..... |
|
By:
So much hot air and dead wood in here......I'm announcing a TOTAL FIRE BAN on this area
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
ffs afl ... eostrogen levels increase in warmer climates ... there's a $10,000 climate change grant just waiting
very good TINS the tax is a con i can prove it julia introduced the co2 tax abbott has not yet repealed it we have had fires during the co2 tax therefore the tax doesn't work ... that's ipcc logic |
|
By:
You're talking through your hat....
So there. |
|
By:
pardon my ignorance but imo parts of Australia are an annual tinder-box in slightly varying degrees and have been as long
as I've been around. I could personally influence the annual "bushfire" figures with a box of matches if it was my wont. Ignition sources including "recently" installed electric networks, lightning strikes, careless rural drivers/smokers, "controlled" burn offs and unusual military bloopers are the dictators...not the fuel source. The fuel source is a seasonal constant. "Climate change" apart from seasonal.........., head in hands man....please |
|
By:
|
|
By:
That is all from me.
 I'll leave this vortex to you, Thebas. Good luck |
|
By:
laugh for afl
tins absolutely correct but sadly there is an issue that needs to be addressed, that Taxation wont solve even more sad are those european scoundrel vultures that have flown over our nsw bushfires to push their barrow of taxation christiana didn't say to hunt that abbott must reduce australia's co2 emmissions the deceiver said to hunt that we MUST keep julia's tax |
|
By:
Yes it is an ignorant comment, i agree.
|
|
By:
Tx, AFL.Now I know I'm right  |
|
By:
Yes you stated your ignorance and just confirmed it.
|
|
By:
Still.......the strangest unit I've ever come across on here.Good luck with it all. |
|
By:
Shouldn't you be off stalking some Poms
|
|
By:
escape the vortex while you can TINS ... and please .. leave that door open
|
|
By:
or are you going to stalk me now that we disagree?
|
|
By:
There's two or three that pique my interest  it's behavior that grabs me, not so much nationality.  |
|
By:
Yes stalking people is strange.
|
|
By:
No, AFL. You got mo than enough goin on in yo head, Brutha
|
|
By:
TB, I'll page the driver of your car rego number , requesting the owner moves it immediately.
Walk, don't run I'll lock the asylum door behind you and ignite a fire in the mail-room. If anyone survives they'll at least understand the vital importance of ignition...not the fuel source. Just kiddin. |
|
By:
It's the fuel and the composition of the fuel that generates the intensity of the fire not what started it.
F/F/S Ignorance is bliss. |
|
By:
But hey let's all ridicule and denigrate 25 years of study linking CC to the frequency and intensity of bushfires by the people who actually study the field....
because a Climate Change denying PM and Thebas and Spoon know better. |