Australia arrests 183 for setting bushfires that celebrities claim were caused by climate change

I think he already understands the evidence and is using it as an analogy to teach you the value of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
He seems to be failing spectacularly.

 

Agreed. He has spectacularly failed to understand how science works. BTW there is a great amount of peer reviewed scientific work which indicates that human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with our current warming. For example I can provide a link to a free book in pdf format which includes references to over 600 peer reviewed scientific papers and books. Sadly I doubt you or he would be interested

 

I think he has a much better understanding of how science works than you.
Like how several thousand reports can outweigh a few hundred.
Try posting your book so someone with the time to review the sources can check them out. It's 4am here in the land of the Iceni and I'm going to bed.

 

No, he is trying to teach YOU how science works and why peer review, which you appear to misunderstand, is an integral part of the process

Please go ahead and supply your link again because I can guarantee that those 600 papers actually say nothing of the sort

 

Just a friendly suggestion, but with all the coal you sell, and all the money you save with your healthcare program, you should have the cash to purchase all the planes you need.

Seriously though, lack of preparedness and outright stupidity of bureaucracy in dealing with wildfires is not confined to your country.

I have a friend in another state that owns/operates a sawmill. He goes to church with a forest service guy in charge of implementing fire prevention and suppression strategies. Interestingly enough, they are good friends and ride dirt bikes together often. The sawmill guy related this story to me recently.

Law states that any deforested area must have a certain number of snags left per acre for habitat. Recently the forest service were cutting a bunch of new fire breaks in an area. There was a huge internal fight between a faction that wanted clear cut and clean firebreaks and a faction that wanted to follow the law and leave snags all over in the firebreak. Even the forest service fellow had to admit to my friend things are messed up when that kind of debate happens at that level among “professionals”.

 

What is a 'snag?'

 

Those who understand science do not have closed minds. I’ve posted the link many times.

Googling 2+2=5 will produce pages of links proving that. Googling 2+2=4 will produce almost nothing. Does that mean that 2+2=5 ???

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snag_(ecology)

 

Okay.

 

One of many ...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fin...family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

 

We can create regulated markets featuring price and quality competition. Why not do that?

If we train more doctors, price competition in a market regulated to insure buyers have fair contracts.

Take a look at healthcare in the Netherlands and Switzerland.

 

Trump's final proposal couldn't get by the Senate.

 

So.....what is your point Red Lily? One of many, you say? Post links to the 'many.'

 

And you continue to either provide a link or name the text

I found these books by an unqualified ****
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/three-free-ebooks-on-global-warming-and-climate-change/

There is this free online course
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial
There is this list of texts
https://www.getfreeebooks.com/global-warming-22-sites-various-free-ebooks/

According to this source most free online texts are junk

https://apnews.com/d6d431f046c9494d8bf5bab5a07bfb55

I found a few others but gave up when I came across John Brokris”s book and found he was a proponent of cold fusion

 

Well, if you ever feel like trump, then that probably means you are wrong. That being said, you can't say there is proof that the earth is round and not that humans are causing global warming.

 

This is why I posted this
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Matter-...3?keywords=quantum+mind&qid=1578822737&sr=8-3
It cites a ton of actual science, but, like your books, it lies about what they say. The papers it cites are peer reviewed, but it is not.

 

100% of it?

 

How do you know that for sure? Is there data recorded on how much time is spent on things?

 

Whose own words?

 

So "trivial?" Does that mean that the link between drought and fires is so OBVIOUSLY SCIENTIFIC?

 

I suppose it's math speak.

 

I know that NO serious scientist says anything as ludicrously vague and general as "climate change is caused by humans." The term ANTHROPOGENIC exists for a reason, and I seem to be the only person in this thread using it. Who is using words more scientific than anthropogenic? It seems that I'm about as scientific as it gets in here!

 

How is global warming net beneficial to the human race?

 

Okay then. So how do you know that anthropogenic climate change makes bushfires worse?

 

Well I'm interested in scientific speak. So do you have any science to present which links drought with bushfires?