Bush Fires

[Dawgfather]

If anyone wants an example of the rabid frothing media and their obsession with climate change, take a look at the interview between Craig Kelly and Good Morning Britain this morning.

I woke up this morning reading how Craig Kelly 'got owned' and how he was hopeless and misinformed etc. Then I watched the actual interview 20 minutes ago and my impression was very different from every media article I had read:

- Craig Kelly was composed and polite whereas Piers Morgan, his co-host and the weather girl were quite rude, raised their voices and seemed intent on proving a preconceived point rather than conducting an interview and learning anything.
- Craig Kelly held his ground and offered his own opinions politely but seemed to get shouted down.
- Piers Morgan and the two women with him seemed intent on using their TV Show as some sort of political platform instead of giving Kelly a chance to speak.

 

[Dawgfather]

I'm not saying arsonists didn't start the fires. You and several others claimed that climate change couldn't have started the fires because arsonists started them.

Im merely pointing out that what you are presenting is a strawman as people aren't saying "Climate change started the fires"

They may not be saying that specifically but most media types / celebrities / elites are all saying that this is a climate emergency and that this is a sure sign of global warming.

What would a reasonable person interpret from this?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This explains the link between climate change and fire severity/danger. Note that it's never about climate change starting fires. That's just illogical. Climate change is an alteration of the existing climate. It's about it making it dryer and hotter, so fires are more likely to start. And making it windier and more chaotic, making fires harder to control.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...ate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539d2.html

 

[Hacky McAxe]

They may not be saying that specifically but most media types / celebrities / elites are all saying that this is a climate emergency and that this is a sure sign of global warming.

What would a reasonable person interpret from this?

The simple conclusion. You don't even need to draw it yourself as most articles are saying it. Climate change makes it dryer, hotter, more difficult to control fires.

I'm not sure how you can jump to "it started fires" from that.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This one is from The Guardian. King of the leftist media:

The link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and increased bushfire risk is complex but, according to major science agencies, clear. Climate change does not create bushfires but it can and does make them worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...etween-climate-change-and-bushfires-explainer

 

[bricktamland]

You can blame some local councils and greens for the mess that is, low level foliage including shrubs, dry grass and trees used to be removed and pruned every quarter.. they said it was disrupting wildlife and flora and fauna and here we are with foliage anywhere between 0-1500 mm off the ground which is the fuel to take the flames tree to tree. They will argue that they have never been in power
In government but it’s their policies and deals they have to make with others to make these things happen. Greens have contributed to this

 

[Cappuccino]

his dads a pilot from the eastern suburbs, dont bother arguing with him CaptainJackson
carbon emissions paid for his childhood

 

[Dawgfather]

his dads a pilot from the eastern suburbs, dont bother arguing with him CaptainJackson
carbon emissions paid for his childhood

Whose Dad are you referring to

 

[CaptainJackson]

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2006/11/how-many-trees-did-bob-carr-really-save-a-note-from-cinders/

Bob Carr is labor

Bob Carr did not have minority government

Try again

And you're telling me that since 1995 these policies that effect hazard reduction have never changed

Fuck logic hey, lets just make up bullshit

 

[Craystar]

Bob Carr is labor

Bob Carr did not have minority government

Try again

And you're telling me that since 1995 these policies that effect hazard reduction have never changed

Fuck logic hey, lets just make up bullshit

Logic?

Do you have any in that indoctrinated melon of yours?

Labor, Liberal, Greens - it does not matter. The fact is that Climate Change is a total wank.

Time to go back on the tit Greta

 

[CaptainJackson]

Logic?

Do you have any in that indoctrinated melon of yours?

Labor, Liberal, Greens - it does not matter. The fact is that Climate Change is a total wank.

Time to go back on the tit Greta

So You have NOTHING. Got it

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You can blame some local councils and greens for the mess that is, low level foliage including shrubs, dry grass and trees used to be removed and pruned every quarter.. they said it was disrupting wildlife and flora and fauna and here we are with foliage anywhere between 0-1500 mm off the ground which is the fuel to take the flames tree to tree. They will argue that they have never been in power
In government but it’s their policies and deals they have to make with others to make these things happen. Greens have contributed to this

If they have contributed I think it's only with anti-deforestation stuff. That said, it was Howard who put the deforestation policies in place.

 

[xreedmatic]

Bob Carr is labor

Bob Carr did not have minority government

Try again

And you're telling me that since 1995 these policies that effect hazard reduction have never changed

Fuck logic hey, lets just make up bullshit

Just as the Nazi’s brainwashed the German children, the global warming (aka "Climate Change") movement, which hijacked environmentalism, has unfairly used their captive audiences in schools to influence their young minds.

This sort of manipulation of young children’s minds takes advantage of the fact that children are impressionable and often lack the education and experience to discern truth from fiction.

The strategy of the organizers is reminiscent of that used by the Hitler Youth leaders in Nazi Germany.

One of the worst nightmarish examples of this type of manipulation is David Suzuki’s statement:

“The North Pole, once a wintery wonderland, is no longer safe for Santa’s Workshop. Climate change is melting the snow and ice, and the rising water is getting too close for comfort. Santa must relocate — fast — to make sure that all the nice boys and girls still have a Happy Holiday.”

We have a great responsibility to teach children as well as adults how to recognize the signs that they are being exploited.

Propaganda is a persuasive and widespread message designed to advance the interests and agenda of a particular group.

What sets it apart from other mass-communication techniques is that it bypasses logic by using faulty reasoning – logical fallacies – and emotional appeal.

Some logical fallacies constantly used in man-made global warming propaganda are:

1. Ad hominem (against the man) attacks – which either directly calls names, such as “climate denier” or indirectly disparage those who disagree by assaulting their credentials or character.
2. “Straw man” – distort your opposition’s argument and then knock it down.
3. “Bandwagon” – This technique states that there is a consensus of the majority in favor of the agenda, and that anyone who disagrees is on the “fringe,” and that there is something wrong with the person who disagrees. This works because of the basic human need to be on the “winning team.”
4. “Appeal to authority” – We are told that we need to “trust the experts” without being given any direct information about the truth of the matter. The telltale sign is the lack of information. We are never told that there are other experts who disagree with the “experts.”
5. “Moving the goalpost” – When Mother Nature didn’t cooperate with the global warming models and Earth stopped warming after 1998, the global warming alarmists changed their slogan from “global warming” to “climate change” and even “climate disruption” to incorrectly imply that this was causing storms, droughts, etc.
6. “An appeal to sympathy” is made by blaming those who disagree for the plight of the polar bear and the victims of storms, droughts, and floods.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Let's keep the discussion civil please people. No personal attacks.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'll just address some of your points as I see them:

Some logical fallacies constantly used in man-made global warming propaganda are:

1. Ad hominem (against the man) attacks – which either directly calls names, such as “climate denier” or indirectly disparage those who disagree by assaulting their credentials or character.

Unfortunately both sides do this. It's a divisionary tactic where one side calls them "deniers" and the other calls them "alarmists". Fact is that both sides often lose site of the big picture. Deniers say "Climate change is a big wank" while alarmists say "We're all going to die". Both are wrong according to the actual experts (This part further discussed in part 4)

2. “Straw man” – distort your opposition’s argument and then knock it down.

Again, both sides do this. You can see it above with certain people saying that the MSM is saying climate change started the fires. Unfortunately alarmists do this too

3. “Bandwagon” – This technique states that there is a consensus of the majority in favor of the agenda, and that anyone who disagrees is on the “fringe,” and that there is something wrong with the person who disagrees. This works because of the basic human need to be on the “winning team.”

This is a difficult issue. Consensus is something that does not happen in the scientific world. But now we have 13 independant studies saying that there is a consensus and every well respected scientific organisation has come out saying that man influenced climate change is true. But there's something there isn't a consensus on. How much of an impact man is having and what the long term impacts will be.

That's not to say that we're not sure how much our CO2 is affecting the atmosphere. We are sure of that. We can measure it, we know that CO2 traps heat, and we know how much heat it traps. We're just not sure of how much impact we have vs the feedback effects and other earth system effects. For example of how little we know about this, we don't know how much oxygen sea organics provide us. It's between 20% and 70%

4. “Appeal to authority” – We are told that we need to “trust the experts” without being given any direct information about the truth of the matter. The telltale sign is the lack of information. We are never told that there are other experts who disagree with the “experts.”

There's two factors to address here. Firstly, an appeal to authority fallacy addresses that you should not trust someone just because they are in a position of power. That's completely true. But it loses its effect when most of the experts all agree on the subject and you're asking people to take the opinion of others over the expert. This is the same reason why hundreds are now dying from diseases that vaccines nearly wiped out.

The other part to address is the "without being given any direct information about the truth of the matter". This is a bit of a strawman. The information and data is mostly available for you to look for yourself

5. “Moving the goalpost” – When Mother Nature didn’t cooperate with the global warming models and Earth stopped warming after 1998, the global warming alarmists changed their slogan from “global warming” to “climate change” and even “climate disruption” to incorrectly imply that this was causing storms, droughts, etc.

A few problems with this too:

"Earth stopped warming after 1998" - Not true at all. This was a myth created by deniers

The change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" - This was done because the term "Global Warming" only encompasses a small part of climate change. Global warming is still a thing, but Climate Change covers Global Warming along with many other aspects

There is also this misinformation thing deniers do when they say that none of the projections have come true. They base this assumption off the satellite measurements of one team who have long denied climate change is real. This team found much lower temperatures than projections. Problem is that 2 other teams got the same satellite data and concluded that the first team was wrong. The first team's measurements also didn't match with the 700 other measurement stations taken independantly over the earth. The 2 other teams measurements matched with the rest of the measurements. So we have to ask, who is wrong? The 702 teams or the 1 team?

6. “An appeal to sympathy” is made by blaming those who disagree for the plight of the polar bear and the victims of storms, droughts, and floods.

This is true. It's how people sell things. They appeal to the plight of others. Appeal to the better nature. And when you're combating campaigns of denials funded by fossil fuel companies, using a little emotion is probably a good thing.

 

[Flanagun]

Let's keep the discussion civil please people. No personal attacks.

I do not want to live in a world where I can't trade insults with @PowerfulWhaman

 

[Dognacious]

Just as the Nazi’s brainwashed the German children, the global warming (aka "Climate Change") movement, which hijacked environmentalism, has unfairly used their captive audiences in schools to influence their young minds.

This sort of manipulation of young children’s minds takes advantage of the fact that children are impressionable and often lack the education and experience to discern truth from fiction.

The strategy of the organizers is reminiscent of that used by the Hitler Youth leaders in Nazi Germany.

One of the worst nightmarish examples of this type of manipulation is David Suzuki’s statement:

“The North Pole, once a wintery wonderland, is no longer safe for Santa’s Workshop. Climate change is melting the snow and ice, and the rising water is getting too close for comfort. Santa must relocate — fast — to make sure that all the nice boys and girls still have a Happy Holiday.”

We have a great responsibility to teach children as well as adults how to recognize the signs that they are being exploited.

Propaganda is a persuasive and widespread message designed to advance the interests and agenda of a particular group.

What sets it apart from other mass-communication techniques is that it bypasses logic by using faulty reasoning – logical fallacies – and emotional appeal.

Some logical fallacies constantly used in man-made global warming propaganda are:

1. Ad hominem (against the man) attacks – which either directly calls names, such as “climate denier” or indirectly disparage those who disagree by assaulting their credentials or character.
2. “Straw man” – distort your opposition’s argument and then knock it down.
3. “Bandwagon” – This technique states that there is a consensus of the majority in favor of the agenda, and that anyone who disagrees is on the “fringe,” and that there is something wrong with the person who disagrees. This works because of the basic human need to be on the “winning team.”
4. “Appeal to authority” – We are told that we need to “trust the experts” without being given any direct information about the truth of the matter. The telltale sign is the lack of information. We are never told that there are other experts who disagree with the “experts.”
5. “Moving the goalpost” – When Mother Nature didn’t cooperate with the global warming models and Earth stopped warming after 1998, the global warming alarmists changed their slogan from “global warming” to “climate change” and even “climate disruption” to incorrectly imply that this was causing storms, droughts, etc.
6. “An appeal to sympathy” is made by blaming those who disagree for the plight of the polar bear and the victims of storms, droughts, and floods.

I edited your post xreed, to remove the personal attack on another user (only removed the first sentence). Its ok to have an opinion one way or the other on climate change, but try and avoid making it personal against other users, thats all we ask. You can debate the issue without name calling or picking fights.

This is for everyone.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I do not want to live in a world where I can't trade insults with @PowerfulWhaman

Yeah, I enjoy you guys going at it. But some people prefer to not participate in that sort of banter. So we have to protect them too.

 

[Flanagun]

Yeah, I enjoy you guys going at it. But some people prefer to not participate in that sort of banter. So we have to protect them too.

Ok Greta.

Seriously, I get it.

 

[maroondog72]

Australian flora and fauna have developed strategies to cope with bush fire over thousands of years and are a necessary part of the ecology,obviously the more intense a Fire becomes the more it affects the ecology.The intensity of the current fires are man made but it’s got fuck all to do with global warming,these fires are created by excessive fuel load on the ground they become so intense they become canopy fires and generate their own weather systems,very little can survive these fires.
The fuel loads that are burning now where created by locking up vast areas of national park to grazing animals.The reduction/outlawing of back burning to reduce emissions and the outlawing of any type of land clearing for fire breaks etc.
So congratulations to the greens who with the help of the Labour Party made all these fine pieces of legislation a reality.