Bush Fires

coach

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
11,447
Reaction score
6,504
How many of thousands of years would you like?

Here is a 9,000 year graph



Here's 150,000 years

So it’s a cycle, 120k earth warming according to you graph
Cooled
Now warming again
Cheers for that graph...
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.

Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.

Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.

The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.

The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).

At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

See how this works?

The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.

Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”

The Verdict: It’s a cult
Your choice to focus on teenage activists, celebrities and politicians rather than the huge amount of meteorologists and scientists who have produced peer reviewed studies based on accurate facts and data is telling. There's no point ar4guing any more with you. You think it's a cult and no amount of arguing with you will convince you otherwise. Unless you want to answer the longstanding challenge of preventing evidence of peer reviewed, rigorous studies backing your position there is strong science behind the argument against man made climate change, it's not really worth going around in circles.

Nice emotive writing though. You could write political speeches.
 

maroondog72

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
25,893
I'm not hiding, I'm just trying to abide by the requests of mods and to not to get caught up in the game of belittling and caricaturing my ideological opposites. You should try that.
Coming from you that is priceless lol
 

Kennelnator

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,447
Your choice to focus on teenage activists, celebrities and politicians rather than the huge amount of meteorologists and scientists who have produced peer reviewed studies based on accurate facts and data is telling. There's no point ar4guing any more with you. You think it's a cult and no amount of arguing with you will convince you otherwise. Unless you want to answer the longstanding challenge of preventing evidence of peer reviewed, rigorous studies backing your position there is strong science behind the argument against man made climate change, it's not really worth going around in circles.

Nice emotive writing though. You could write political speeches.
If Greta cant save us, Superman will!
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.

Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.

Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.

The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.

The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).

At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

See how this works?

The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.

Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”

The Verdict: It’s a cult
Parts of that are almost right. For example, climate alarmists do often ignore research that doesn't support their stance. That's not scientific at all. In fact it spits in the face of the scientific method. It doesn't matter how strongly you support something. If you're not accepting all the evidence then your methodology is flawed.

But you have to look at the other side of it. Quite often when deniers are asked to provide research, they provide research. When it's pointed out that the research provided not only didn't pass peer review, but it was shunned by its peers for being highly flawed, then the conspiracy stance starts.

I'm not attempting to strawman the debate though so I'm more than happy for you to provide this research and I will actually look into the research. If it shows that the other climate scientists are wrong and there's no methodological flaws in it then I will happily champion the research myself as the truth should always come first.

Side note, the whole 12 year thing I kind of disagree with. I disagree with what you said firstly, "12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death". I mean that's a bit of a strawman. The 12 year thing comes from the UN and they never said anything like what you said. They said that tlwe had 12 years to stop irreversible damage. Not that it would result in a fiery death of all humans. AOC took this one step further by saying that humans would die in 12 years, but she retracted it later and who listens to politicians and celebrities when we have actual scientific research?
 

ALX25

Kennel Enthusiast
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
517
I'm actually surprised that the major role Lantana camara and other introduced species brought to this country for forestry, agriculture and horticulture pursuits has escaped much media scrutiny.
 

Dognacious

Kennel Immortal
Staff member
Administrator
Premium Member
NF Draft Champion
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
23,482
Reaction score
10,883
The government has the laws already to give someone who starts a catastrophic fire up to 25 years in jail. They need to enforce this more. I dont care if its a teenager and it fucks up their life, how many lives are lost or fucked up by the fires? If we started seeing people getting hefty jail sentences for lighting these fires, maybe it will deter firebugs. The punishment needs to fit the crime. If you burn your own house down with nobody inside (like insurance fraud) you can get a decent jail sentence, but havent seen anyone get a long sentence yet for burning down 100 houses with people in them and wildlife killed. This would be a good time for them to start coming down hard on the idiots starting the fires.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
So it’s a cycle, 120k earth warming according to you graph
Cooled
Now warming again
Cheers for that graph...
Yep. But it's never warmed this fast in the history of the earth. At least, not that we're aware of.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411

Dognacious

Kennel Immortal
Staff member
Administrator
Premium Member
NF Draft Champion
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
23,482
Reaction score
10,883
I think the main issue i have with climate change advocates, is not that they believe the climate changing is causing trouble, its that they dont have any realistic solutions or timeframes to execute them. I am all for the government putting more money into alternate/cleaner fuel research, but outside that, what else is realistic?

-Carbon taxes do nothing positive. All they do is make goods more expensive to produce and makes imports from places like China more attractive as they are cheaper. And there is no way China look like doing anything to reduce their massive carbon production.

-Removing mines in Australia is a ridiculous idea. It would put tens or hundreds of thousands of people out of work, since mining is our largest export, which would flow on to all other businesses as there is less money to spend around. It could make us a 3rd world country.

-Timeframe. Most of them want us to stop mining and using fossil fuels RIGHT NOW. Apparently the world will die SOON if we dont. Ok so we stop mining fossil fuels. Then what do we use for power? Can the country afford enough solar or wind powered power stations to service everybody, considering how much it costs? And if they could, could it be installed quickly? No, not at this time. And again it would put the cost of producing anything up, making imports more attractive, making us poorer.

We would only end up importing the things we stop mining anyway, because we need them. Or are people happy to live without power? There is no way we can afford the more climate friendly alternatives right now, on a large scale.

And everyone using electric cars is unrealistic too currently. And a fools contribution to helping the environment. This is because electric cars need to be charged to work. Where do people think the power comes from to charge the cars?

In time and with more research we may be able to afford to do things like only use friendly fuels, but this cannot happen overnight, which is how fast some expect it. Most climate protestors ive seen have the problem, but no realistic solutions. But they expect the government to magically have these solutions, and they want it yesterday.
 
Last edited:

maroondog72

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
15,086
Reaction score
25,893
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses.

Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers.

Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.

The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain.

The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple).

At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

See how this works?

The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.

Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”

The Verdict: It’s a cult
Scientology?
 

Nexus

Super Duper Ultimate Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
10,647
Reaction score
4,382
I think the main issue i have with climate change advocates, is not that they believe the climate changing is causing trouble, its that they dont have any realistic solutions or timeframes to execute them. I am all for the government putting more money into alternate/cleaner fuel research, but outside that, what else is realistic?

-Carbon taxes do nothing positive. All they do is make goods more expensive to produce and makes imports from places like China more attractive as they are cheaper. And there is no way China look like doing anything to reduce their massive carbon production.

-Removing mines in Australia is a ridiculous idea. It would put tens or hundreds of thousands of people out of work, since mining is our largest export, which would flow on to all other businesses as there is less money to spend around. It could make us a 3rd world country.

-Timeframe. Most of them want us to stop mining and using fossil fuels RIGHT NOW. Apparently the world will die SOON if we dont. Ok so we stop mining fossil fuels. Then what do we use for power? Can the country afford enough solar or wind powered power stations to service everybody, considering how much it costs? And if they could, could it be installed quickly? No, not at this time. And again it would put the cost of producing anything up, making imports more attractive, making us poorer.

We would only end up importing the things we stop mining anyway, because we need them. Or are people happy to live without power? There is no way we can afford the more climate friendly alternatives right now, on a large scale.

And everyone using electric cars is unrealistic too currently. And a fools contribution to helping the environment. This is because electric cars need to be charged to work. Where do people think the power comes from the charge the cars?

In time and with more research we may be able to afford to do things like only use friendly fuels, but this cannot happen overnight, which is how fast some expect it. Most climate protestors ive seen have the problem, but no realistic solutions. But they expect the government to magically have these solutions, and they want it yesterday.
Thats my biggest issue, there is no silver bullet out there to fix everything. Alot of the advocates, particularly the younger ones seem to see everything in black and white, thats not the reality unfortunately.

Im happy to hear any suggestions on REALISTIC things we can do to help that wont cripple the economy.
 

Cosmo Kramer

Waterboy
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
51
Reaction score
56
What does everyone think of this meme/image?

Perhaps slightly simplistic, but it does speak to the fact that many people are erroneously attributing these entire events completely to climate change. Good for political point scoring, but very mistaken and unscientific.


bfires_cc - Copy.png
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Not really. I mean, you just threw out the se strawman there again as they're really not even insinuating that climate change started the fires.

That said, ignoring the arsonists is a problem and provably driven by an agenda. It's not a strawman but it is still a deception problem.
When you leave out the facts, and dribble on about a political agenda like global warming which they’re doing, that is insinuating. What else are people going to think who are just reading these msm articles 90% left wing.
 
Top