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

If climate change was a hoax, how would 'green jobs' contribute to a better world? They'd be pointless.

 

The problem with the Climate Council stuff is that it doesn't source any actual science linking climate change to bushfires. It just links the increase in dryness and temperature to bushfires. Now listen, I can say that I'm confident that this is the case, it seems obvious enough, but I just want to see the science. Further, how do we know that even with less dryness and less temperature, that the fires wouldn't have been just as bad? Are we really to believe that these fires would have been totally impossible 5 or 10 years ago with the exact same fuel load? We can't know can we.

Well these are just statements and they too don't link to any actual science linking climate change to bushfires.

 

Not if they replaced unpleasant polluting jobs like coal mining.

 

So you think it is obvious but you need scientific evidence before you are convinced?
How about conducting your own scientific experiment.
Take some bone dry hay and some slightly moist grass and see which is easiest to set on fire and which burns hottest and quickest.

 

The problem is, no bushfire in history involved "slightly moist grass."

 

And this is where you seem to be wanting me to do YOUR research for you! Can you not google?

(((((Sigh)j)))

I will concede this much

Type in the term “google scholar”

Then type into google scholar the terms “climate change bushfires”

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=bushfires+climate+change+&btnG=

This now lists all the academic papers on the subject. You Can even focus it down to a specific year

I have here by clicking “since 2016”

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=bushfires+climate+change+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Remember just because YOU have not seen the “science” does not mean it does not exist

 

You are joking yes? Fires can start in moist hay IF there is bacterial breakdown leading to temperature rise and spontaneous combustion

 

Translation: You believe what you are told to believe and ignore the inconvenient science.

 

Well yeah, I realise that. To be fair, you can't say that I said it doesn't exist.

 

No, I contented myself with a short search. I do not see why I should spend hours online doing research for someone else

 

Ummm
Do you actually know what the word anthropogenic means?

 

So you have no understanding of Trump's healthcare plan.

 

Telling ^^^

 

Longer growing season, more arable land, more precipitation, greater yields, reduced mortality from cold related illness (cold kills people at a rate 10X that of heat), more water from irrigation, reduced costs of transporting goods, .... The costs only exceed the benefits due to the costs of airconditioning based on current technologies. Using the consensus IPCC climate sensitivity of CO2 this will not occur for 100 years when the global gdp will be ~ 20 X what it is today.

 

That's kinda the point.
Hotter climate with less rainfall produces more easily combustible fuel.

 

According to the IPCC global warming produces more precipitation.

 

And more droughts. Depends where you are.

 

The IPCC does not predict more droughts.

 

Where in the multiple reports does it specifically state that?

 

Really? And you know this how?

 

I'm lost - what science did you present?

 

I am lost

What is it you are specifically after? I gave you the links to MULTIPLE published peer reviewed science journal articles

Do you want me to read them for you as well?

 

Do you mean proof of the degree that global warming is anthropogenic?

 

LOL. Do you think that post was in reply to you? You may want to check again.

 

It looked like it but you could have been replying to someone I have on ignore