Austraila wildfire proves climate change is anythng but a hoax

It isn't the first time authors of sociological reports have ignored their own data to reach a predetermined conclusion.

 

But CO2 is not a pollutant, a hundred times more CO2 wouldn't change anything.If you want to champion a real crisis, look at what wind and solar are doing to the environment. Both wind and solar have a detrimental footprint that every green nut ignores and that is the toxicity of all of the components in both their manufacture and the release of those toxins into the environment while being made, in operation and after they expire. Solar panels are highly toxic and the blades of wind turbines are as well, all cannot be recycled. In 20 years all solar farms will be brown fields and we'll have to stockpile all of the expended turbines, so should we then turn former solar farms into land fills?

 

We're going to call their bluff. We are not going to do what the "experts" claim is the very minimum we need to do to avoid eco-doom. We'll see their claims and dates come and go just like all of the eco-doom claims before them.

 

Man affects the weather. You can play with words all you want, But if he affects he temperature, he is affecting the weather.

According to Golem, who considers himself the resident expert on peer review, they don't actually review the article for technical accuracy. It could be completely wrong and still have a peer review.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html/

 

I am not playing with words I am trying to educate someone who is not demonstrating a very deep understanding of the topic

I do not have time this morning to review all the articles but that main link is an Op Ed written on a blog by an ex Breitbart journalist

Says it all really

 

I retired form the Air Force as a meteorologist. When arguments get into who does or does not understand weather versus climate, they have pretty well reached the silly stage. You can't really divorce the two. It pretty well ranks high on my list of who gives a crap.

 

LOL... Ok. like what? What, specifically do you suppose the science would then ask of us? Since, as you scrawl, we don't need to give up fuel burning vehicles, carbon based fuels continue to be available, etc, what exactly do you suppose that the "science" is going to deliver to the population of the world that blissfully ignores what, as you put it, "new grown ups" being on the job is going to ask for?

It seems entirely disingenuous for us to try to believe that knowing that the "average temp" collection scheme is in fact deeply flawed, your continuous assertion of "warmest in history" again is such a feeble one. First, the temperatures are being measured in the hundredths of degrees, meaning that when you say "warmest", it is by a factor of a non reelable increment in the first place. The assertion is almost laughable if it weren't such a real political threat to so many, and their liberties and lifestyles.

Seriously, you cannot simply walk into the room and say, "trust us" "we're in control" etc, and have such a feeble basis for your and justification for what is going to be implemented as a part of your scheme that "new grown ups (please tell us about how AOC fits into your narrative and her "green new deal").. That should be entertaining.

 

And I can stomp my feet and spin around and go la la la la la la. And you can’t make me believe it. La la la la la la la..........

 

If by conservative scientists you mean those who operate creation museums, then what difference does it really matter. If reality is so subjective.

 

Any time the weather is not a perfect day and all lollipops and rainbows, they blame CO2, it's jut so childish.

 

...and if there were more tornadoes, then it would only be more proof of man-made-global-warming-climate-change. That's how this scam works. Show me weather that is anything other than perfect, and the global warming enthusiast crowd will scream that it's just more proof.

There will always be a weather extreme somewhere on the planet, it's just a normal function of our planet's wind, ocean and weather patterns. But in the age of climate alarmism, normal weather is just proof of catastrophic man-made global warming.

 

The collective is about to pop a gasket... Too much snow this year, in so many parts of the west. All that water... bad..... because it just grows fuel that future dry events will bun... Bad bad bad.....Must stop the snow....

Oh wait,,... all that runoff supports the masses in Socal and other liberal cities... maybe snow not to bad?? Hmm?? no.. snow bad... future fires... bad bad...

And yes, that is exactly the superficial nature of the AGW collective...

 

I never said they were two separate things but you are not convincing me that you have researched the topic.

I don’t put any weight on anything people claim to be on the net as I have no way of verifying it. That you are able to source information is a positive But you have yet to demonstrate an ability to perform academic level critical analysis. This is nothing to be ashamed of as it is a very advanced and difficult skill taught for masters degrees and if you did your academic credits more than 15 years ago may not have learnt it even for your masters.

Most of us here are willing to teach, what is frustrating is that people who demonstrably have little to no knowledge and in some cases hilariously poor understanding of basic chemistry and physics are trying to tell people who have spent lifetimes studying these subjects that they do not know what they are talking about

Your so called “dozens of papers” was a blog disputing ONE paper

 

The world is bigger than America

Tell me, how does this global scam work?

 

Anything in excess of the ideal level is a “pollutant”

I am refusing to read past 100 times more wont change anything” because that shows you have Not taken time to familiarise yourself with the physics

 

Yes and your depth of knowledge on the subject is evident from this post

Please, it is not us that fail to provide the scientific evidence

 

I have not heard you demonstrate any great knowledge of the field. I have years of experience in the meteorology field. Provide me yours. I researched out of natural curiosity of one of my career fields.

If I remember right, in the last survey of the American Meteorological Society members, only 67% were convinced of AGW. I was a member at one time. It was virtually required by members of Air Weather Service when I was in the Air Force. There is a sizable number who have their doubts. It is far from 97% as they like to claim. When a third in the field have doubts about "established science", there is a problem.

 

LOL.. You just can't help yourself.. We can provide endless examples of just how superficial and myopic the AGW faithful are, and even then, you come back with, but the "science" says... when in reality, the science doesn't actually say what you think it does. But thanks for playing. In 5-10 years, when there's a drought (natural cycles in the Rockies...) and stuff starts burning, you'll forget you can't actually recall having said this, and you'll need reminding..

So, tell us again. What fear do you really have? Just all of it? When it snows, or rains and stuff grows, you fear that, right? Because it might at some future point burn, and that's bad, isn't it? Or is it? We just can't ever get a determinate statement from you, or folks like you. It's just all bad, isn't it. Average snow, not enough snow, too much snow, it all just ends up being "bad", and just another confirmation of your own bias. But sure, we get it.

 

Ok, what is ideal? Tell us a number. Show us a target.

 

Another unsourced claim unverifiable by any source material. I am betting this “survey” (which for all we know was conducted with the same level of “honesty” as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (see OISM hoax)) was conducted more than fifty years ago when the qualifications to be a meteorologist was the ability to stand outside holding a bit of rope

Opinions change over time and few meteorologists today deny AGW. about the past hold out is Anthony Watts and HE did not attain a degree in the subject

 

AH! Reductio ad absurdum

Still no science

Just ad Homs

 

It all here
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

 

My mistake. It was only 64%.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

And in the USA, our government spent over a hundred years making it their policy to "prevent forest fires."

Back in the old days the native Americans regularly conducted controlled burns of forests and scrub, which led to preventing wildfires. I have read where the first European settlers were amazed at what the Americans were doing. The forests of old consisted of well spaced out large old growth trees, surrounded by low lying brush. I have seen where the US forestry department had experimented with exactly this, large old growth trees, spaced far apart, with controlled burns to keep out the fuel for wildfires.

There are obviously better sources than the below, but it gets my point across.

Native American use of fire in ecosystems

 

So did the aborigines of Australia.