• Be cool and Register to set your username and display picture get the full features of the site. Talk Bulldogs NRL News, match reviews, live score, ladder, injuries, player signings and team performance.

Bush Fires

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
I can't believe how crazy the climate change propaganda has become since the fire emergency. Particularly in the SMH (which I try to read each day so that I'm exposed to ideas that don't fit my own consensus).

Today's SMH had so many articles and references to climate change that I lost count. It's not just at the front of the paper, it had managed to find it's way into the 'Money', business, letters to the editor sections as well.

Some of the comments and claims in there are actual outright lies (for example claiming that the Koala is at risk of becoming extinct when it very clearly is not).

I totally respect every persons right to their own opinions and of course that means people who have the opposite opinion to me, but I believe it's now becoming dangerous.

Climate change is no longer (what is ever?) a scientific debate. It's become a religion and unless you swear to be a believer, you are written off as a denier and some sort of leper.

People who support climate change might think it's a good thing, but I guarantee you won't get effective / useful policy when there is so much emotion and fanatacism about climate change instead of cool heads and rational thought.
I had a look through the SMH articles. The Koala extinction one is a bit of a play on words and play on hearts. It doesn't actually say they are facing extinction as a species. It says that they are driven toward extinction sooner, and that they have a chance of becoming extinct in NSW.

It's a bit of a play on words as most people hear "extinction" and think that means the end of the entire species. So SMH have played on that emotional misunderstanding. Extinction can just mean the end of a family or the end of a group (for example, NSW Koalas). That's possible, but it's unlikely that all Koalas would go extinct.

That said, people often think that Koalas are Australia wide. But they're actually only east coast creatures. Stretching from the middle of Queensland coast down to Victoria. Still unlikely to go extinct but it's a massive loss of the species.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
I had a look through the SMH articles. The Koala extinction one is a bit of a play on words and play on hearts. It doesn't actually say they are facing extinction as a species. It says that they are driven toward extinction sooner, and that they have a chance of becoming extinct in NSW.

It's a bit of a play on words as most people hear "extinction" and think that means the end of the entire species. So SMH have played on that emotional misunderstanding. Extinction can just mean the end of a family or the end of a group (for example, NSW Koalas). That's possible, but it's unlikely that all Koalas would go extinct.

That said, people often think that Koalas are Australia wide. But they're actually only east coast creatures. Stretching from the middle of Queensland coast down to Victoria. Still unlikely to go extinct but it's a massive loss of the species.
If I was a journalist and I truly believed it was my job to present the facts to people so they could make their own minds up, then I wouldn't be using the words koala and extinct in the same sentence because it's clearly misleading at best or blatantly lying if you took the words literally.

Of course, this is not to say there aren't big problems and glaring issues that most people in Australia are concerned about. I think every single person in Australia feels genuinely worried about what just happened and would like to know what could be done so that it didn't happen again.

If anyone thinks reducing emissions is an answer, they probably want their head read because it wouldn't change the fact that:

- Fires start by intentional or accidental human interactions with the bush (arson or otherwise) or by lightning strikes (nothing to do with climate change)
- Fires are exacerbated by fuel loads (clearly an issue although the cause of the issue could be a combination of government red tape/beauracracy which prevented land owners from clearing their own land as well as lack of fuel management in national parks)
- Fires are also exacerbated by the shocking drought going on in eastern australia. Droughts are a natural occurrence in Australia. The severity of this drought is what has people talking but it's not clear whether this is due to climate change or otherwise.

So if you are looking for answers to the shocking bush fires, I think the most practical solutions lie in how we manage:

- Arsonists
- Fuel loads
- Emergency services responses

For me, the climate change debate is not a concern when I'm talking about bush fires and I also don't think there is any policy Australia could enact from a climate change perspective that would make any difference to bush fires in this country.
 
Last edited:

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
19,923
Reaction score
4,792
I don't think Koalas are even functionally extinct. The fact that there's an estimated 80,000 is WORST CASE scenario... I'm sure their numbers are high. Look at how big the bushland is in this country. There's no way they can all be accounted for. If humans left them alone, I'm sure they'd be fine. Climate Change though has NOTHING to do with the koalas numbers, as @Dawgfather said, it's not climate change that's causing these bush fires.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
I don't think Koalas are even functionally extinct. The fact that there's an estimated 80,000 is WORST CASE scenario... I'm sure their numbers are high. Look at how big the bushland is in this country. There's no way they can all be accounted for. If humans left them alone, I'm sure they'd be fine. Climate Change though has NOTHING to do with the koalas numbers, as @Dawgfather said, it's not climate change that's causing these bush fires.
Can I also say I've watched countless koala videos since new years eve and the number of times I've sat there with tears in my eyes feeling the worst feelings as I see animals burning, dying and in pain from their burns. I'm a massive animal lover and it's such a waste of beautiful animals and when you realise how many have been killed it makes you feel damn awful.

So it's not like I'm some unemotional / heartless person that hates animals.

If an australian animal is/was truly endangered I'd be there supporting it and doing whatever I could.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
19,923
Reaction score
4,792
Can I also say I've watched countless koala videos since new years eve and the number of times I've sat there with tears in my eyes feeling the worst feelings as I see animals burning, dying and in pain from their burns. I'm a massive animal lover and it's such a waste of beautiful animals and when you realise how many have been killed it makes you feel damn awful.

So it's not like I'm some unemotional / heartless person that hates animals.

If an australian animal is/was truly endangered I'd be there supporting it and doing whatever I could.
I love animals too mate and hate what's happening to our beautiful country. I just loathe how others use these disasters to try and send a message of some non-existent thing to the rest of us. Climate change for example.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
I also noticed a few days ago that on smh.com.au, the top 4 articles on the website were each climate change focused.

Is that really smh.com.au presenting the news or is it smh.com.au pushing an agenda?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
If I was a journalist and I truly believed it was my job to present the facts to people so they could make their own minds up, then I wouldn't be using the words koala and extinct in the same sentence because it's clearly misleading at best or blatantly lying if you took the words literally.
In an ideal world. Was discussing this with friends the other day when they pointed out sensational headlines. One mate said it best, "Facts area boring and they won't sell a story without a little spin". Unfortunately everyone does it but it's all part of the capitalistic world we live in.

Of course, this is not to say there aren't big problems and glaring issues that most people in Australia are concerned about. I think every single person in Australia feels genuinely worried about what just happened and would like to know what could be done so that it didn't happen again.

If anyone thinks reducing emissions is an answer, they probably want their head read because it wouldn't change the fact that:

- Fires start by intentional or accidental human interactions with the bush (arson or otherwise) or by lightning strikes (nothing to do with climate change)
- Fires are exacerbated by fuel loads (clearly an issue although the cause of the issue could be a combination of government red tape/beauracracy which prevented land owners from clearing their own land as well as lack of fuel management in national parks)
- Fires are also exacerbated by the shocking drought going on in eastern australia. Droughts are a natural occurrence in Australia. The severity of this drought is what has people talking but it's not clear whether this is due to climate change or otherwise.

So if you are looking for answers to the shocking bush fires, I think the most practical solutions lie in how we manage:

- Arsonists
- Fuel loads
- Emergency services responses

For me, the climate change debate is not a concern when I'm talking about bush fires and I also don't think there is any policy Australia could enact from a climate change perspective that would make any difference to bush fires in this country.
There's two things you need to keep in mind:

1) Australian droughts are primarily affected by the El Nino/La Nina cycle and the Indian Ocean Dipole. Both the El Nino/La Nina cycle and the Indian Ocean Dipole cycle are in neutral phase. This means that they have zero impact on Australian climate. So we should have no drought this year

2) I could be completely wrong about everything when it comes to climate change and bushfires. But current research has strongly linked climate change with bushfires (Not starting bushfires though. No one is saying that)
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
I also noticed a few days ago that on smh.com.au, the top 4 articles on the website were each climate change focused.

Is that really smh.com.au presenting the news or is it smh.com.au pushing an agenda?
Considering that climate change is the major concern right now, probably just reporting the news. Pushing an agenda would be articles saying, "Climate change is a hoax, they're all lying to you"
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
Considering that climate change is the major concern right now
That's the part where I generally disagree with you.

Major concern to who? We've run a number of federal elections over the past 10-12 years and on a number of occasions, the coalition won election on the basis of far less aggressive climate policies.

I just don't believe climate change is the #1 issue for many people. For left leaning types it's the perfect issue because their only solution is to give government as much power as possible to fix it.

But for the average aussie, they care about whether they can get ahead in life and create a decent life for their family.

The only reason climate change gets so much air time is because a few institutions are completely over-run with certain political ideology:

- Media
- Teachers

Both these groups of people have a huge if not blanket monopoly on how information gets disseminated and what views people take on certain issues.

Have you ever seen school kids in large numbers publicly voicing an opinion that climate change is not the emergency it's often made out to be? Of course not, because teachers have only been giving one side of the story.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
There is some research around but there is still a lot more research needed on bushfires, climate change and bushfires, and anything else related. But ignoring the current research and declaring "It doesn't exist" based on a hunch, isn't going to help anyone

https://scholar.google.com.au/schol...bushfires&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Didn't say that climate change effects on bush fires don't exist. I'm open to the possibility.

However, if you want to come up with solutions and practical methods that will actually make a difference, then climate change policies are at the very back end of that list.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
That's the part where I generally disagree with you.

Major concern to who? We've run a number of federal elections over the past 10-12 years and on a number of occasions, the coalition won election on the basis of far less aggressive climate policies.

I just don't believe climate change is the #1 issue for many people. For left leaning types it's the perfect issue because their only solution is to give government as much power as possible to fix it.

But for the average aussie, they care about whether they can get ahead in life and create a decent life for their family.

The only reason climate change gets so much air time is because a few institutions are completely over-run with certain political ideology:

- Media
- Teachers

Both these groups of people have a huge if not blanket monopoly on how information gets disseminated and what views people take on certain issues.

Have you ever seen school kids in large numbers publicly voicing an opinion that climate change is not the emergency it's often made out to be? Of course not, because teachers have only been giving one side of the story.
I should have stipulated that it's the major concern to SMH readers. In other words, left leaning readers.

That said, teachers are given one side of the story because the vast majority of research supports one side of the story. It's like evolution. It's taught in science because the research supports it. But as our understanding changes the curriculum is updated. For example, when I was in school we were taught about scaly dinosaurs. Now it's taught that dinosaurs were feathered.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
I should have stipulated that it's the major concern to SMH readers. In other words, left leaning readers.

That said, teachers are given one side of the story because the vast majority of research supports one side of the story. It's like evolution. It's taught in science because the research supports it. But as our understanding changes the curriculum is updated. For example, when I was in school we were taught about scaly dinosaurs. Now it's taught that dinosaurs were feathered.
I was also taught the hole in the ozone layer was getting bigger and was going to kill significant percentages of the population with skin cancer.

Fast Forward: "2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery"
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

I think it's fine for teachers and schools to discuss climate change, but they should be presenting balanced teaching and not just scaring kids into thinking the world is about to end in a matter of years. From what I can tell, teachers have been teaching kids something along the lines of 'climate change is not up for debate. It will kill life on earth and it could kill life on earth as soon as 10-15 years from now so you had better get out and protest'.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
Didn't say that climate change effects on bush fires don't exist. I'm open to the possibility.

However, if you want to come up with solutions and practical methods that will actually make a difference, then climate change policies are at the very back end of that list.
I definitely understand where you're coming from with that. The primary focus needs to be on what will have the most immediate impact. Clearing debris, better fire protocols, etc.

And that should be the primary focus, but if climate change is having a big impact then those solutions are band-aid solutions. Much needed band-aid solutions but still band-aid solutions. It's like developing a brain tumour and treating it with aspirin. Sure it'll reduce the symptoms and probably reduce the immediate damage, but the tumour will keep growing and it'll only make things worse.

As I said earlier, we're in a neutral cycle where we shouldn't have drought and we shouldn't have extreme bushfires. Eventually we'll enter a period of extreme drought and things are going to get much worse. And that's only for the coming decade. In 50 years time a poor cycle could be absolutely devastating.

Also keep in mind that as humans we can tackle more than one problem at once. So we can focus on fixing the immediately problems while also focusing on fixing the long term problems. Pretending the tumour doesn't exist isn't going to make it magically go away.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
I should have stipulated that it's the major concern to SMH readers. In other words, left leaning readers.
This I can accept and it's a fair point. But I think it takes us down a dangerous path to a point where America is currently at where news organisations are either left or right and no one is just factually reporting the news.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
7,629
Reaction score
5,204
I was also taught the hole in the ozone layer was getting bigger and was going to kill significant percentages of the population with skin cancer.

Fast Forward: "2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery"
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

I think it's fine for teachers and schools to discuss climate change, but they should be presenting balanced teaching and not just scaring kids into thinking the world is about to end in a matter of years. From what I can tell, teachers have been teaching kids something along the lines of 'climate change is not up for debate. It will kill life on earth and it could kill life on earth as soon as 10-15 years from now so you had better get out and protest'.
We were warned about the hole in ozone layer, it was treated as an emergency

Everyone immediately acted to repair the ozone layer

2020 Ozone layer repairs itself

Conclusion: Lefties being fucking alarmist over nothing

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you actually think about what you write?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
21,043
Reaction score
5,686
I was also taught the hole in the ozone layer was getting bigger and was going to kill significant percentages of the population with skin cancer.

Fast Forward: "2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery"
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

I think it's fine for teachers and schools to discuss climate change, but they should be preventing balanced teaching and not just scaring kids into thinking the world is about to end in a matter of years. From what I can tell, teachers have been teaching kids something along the lines of 'climate change is not up for debate. It will kill life on earth and it could kill life on earth as soon as 10-15 years from now so you had better get out and protest'.
Yep. Do you know why the ozone hole is so small?

Because humans did something. It's called "The Montreal Protocol"

Back in 1987 all the countries got together and signed an agreement to stop using CFCs. This included everyone from the politicians to the companies producing the aerosols. Thanks to that the ozone healed.

If we didn't do it then we wouldn't be worrying so much about climate change as the ozone depletion would be a major problem. By the year 2070 the ozone would be so depleted that we would receive 3 times the UV exposure. Extra heat and extra radiation. Minutes in the sun would highly dangerous.

The same thing we did back then, we're trying to do now with CO2 but everyone is trying to stop it. We averted disaster with the ozone. We're not sure if we'll do it with climate change.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
Yep. Do you know why the ozone hole is so small?

Because humans did something. It's called "The Montreal Protocol"

Back in 1987 all the countries got together and signed an agreement to stop using CFCs. This included everyone from the politicians to the companies producing the aerosols. Thanks to that the ozone healed.

If we didn't do it then we wouldn't be worrying so much about climate change as the ozone depletion would be a major problem. By the year 2070 the ozone would be so depleted that we would receive 3 times the UV exposure. Extra heat and extra radiation. Minutes in the sun would highly dangerous.

The same thing we did back then, we're trying to do now with CO2 but everyone is trying to stop it. We averted disaster with the ozone. We're not sure if we'll do it with climate change.
Separate topic but I think the risk of the ozone hole was greatly over stated and I also think that boiling the entire cause of it down to CFCs rather than natural variations was also incorrect.

Claiming that the green policies somehow fixed it within such a short space of time is also eye brow raising stuff.

Is it just a coincidence that the exact same structure of argument is being used to float global warming? i.e. find a problem, make the problem sound catastrophic (e.g. the world will end in 12 years), attribute the problem to something man made that you can't see or smell or make sense of and then say that government needs extra powers to solve the problem.

I'm not saying I believe that global warming is a sham and a direct copy of previous environmental shams but it's at least interesting to notice the similarities.
 

Dawgfather

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
1,182
We were warned about the hole in ozone layer, it was treated as an emergency

Everyone immediately acted to repair the ozone layer

2020 Ozone layer repairs itself

Conclusion: Lefties being fucking alarmist over nothing

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you actually think about what you write?
I'd estimate that I spend more time thinking about what I write than you, given that I generally add nuanced opinion to what I'm talking about instead of just calling names and laughing at people with the opposite opinion to me.
 
Top