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

It was you that went to all the effort to arrive with a figure of 183 for the year.
How relevant is that number when there are thousands of fires each week?
Stop avoiding this simple question, please.

 

Please define "the right". And are there any issues that have inspired this "right" to acts of terrorism?

 

And yet I’ve heard people discuss it as a real phenomenon that happens outside of those conditions. Hence taking their comments at face value.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion

 

What’s your point?

 

But you’ll never examine why it’s so expensive. And where are the climate change activists in the public and private sector who should be advocating for the solutions we already have to expense?

Were you upset when we sent our steel industry overseas because we didn’t want the stinky polluting mills here? Or did you worry that doing so my harm the environment more in the long run with unintended consequences like lack of forgings for nuclear plants?

I’m sorry, but making excuses for not pursuing nuclear power while spending freely on climate change research that is supposedly already “proven” is used car salesmen tactics.

 

And there is a response where there has been no research

 

Would you like to point out any errors? No, because you are way out of your element.

 

If there were any facts I would gladly point out errors but it reads like a grizzle wrapped in a gripe surrounded by political bias

 

So now there are humans humans involved. Just admit you made a mistake.

 

So you are saying you don’t know enough about the subject to discuss anything more than “it’s expensive”? Can you tell me why it’s expensive? I’ve mentioned a couple specific reasons. Would you like to make a counter argument? Posting costs isn’t an argument.

 

I’m not going to admit I made a mistake that I didn’t make. I provided you with an example of spontaneous combustion that some, not me, view as legitimate and possible. Therefore when CC deniers start talking about spontaneous combustion in relation to wildfires, I take their comments as serious. Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to identify in text.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...difficult-to-detect-in-texts-and-emails-91892
“In writing, the signal of sarcasm can be muddied. For example, say you’re texting with a friend about meeting at the movies:

Friend: I’m waiting at the front. Movie starts in 5.

You: I’m on my way now. Should be there in 10.

Friend: I’m glad you were watching the clock today.

Was the friend being sarcastic or sincere? The later you are, the more upset they’ll likely be, and the higher the probability their response is a sarcastic jab. But if your friend knows you’re usually much later, they could be sincere.”

Given I don’t find most CC deniers to have well thought out arguments; I had no reason to believe this posters were being facetious.

 

You did. You took something that was clearly tongue and cheek seriously.

 

Interesting how the Aborigines, before the WHITE invaders of Australia killed most of them off, managed to do controlled burns thousands of years ago. When the asshats at CNN post,
Australia's indigenous people have a solution for the country's bushfires. And it's been around for 50,000 years
one needs to question.

 

Given the limits of discussion through text, the claim that it was CLEARLY tongue and cheek is in accurate.

 

Even if it wasn't clear to you it has been made clear to you. So you were mistaken.

 

Who has made it clear? All I’ve seen is your assessment of the situation.

 

So you are so arrogant you can't admit a mistake?

Undesirable quality.

 

I don’t think it’s arrogant to point out that the only one who has made it clear their claims were facetious has been you. You’re claiming something to be fact based on your subjective interpretation of the situation. I’d say that’s rather arrogant in itself.

 

You thought he was being genuine

it's arrogant to understand things you don't?

Sounds like personal incredulity to me.

 

I just figured they were low information posters. Most CC deniers tend to be. Such a claim didn’t seem outside the norm.
Glad to hear you’re able to suss out the intent of the dim.

 

And we have been doing controlled burns since we got here and particularly in the territory we do have indigeneous peoples guidance and assistance

What changed this time was drought, lack of safe opportunities to do controlled burns and heat waves

 

Where in the above grizzle is there a fact?

Meanwhile I posted a SOLAR solution

And are you aware there is a solar furnace?



How about THAT for a smelter?

 

It is a fact we abdicated our abilities to forge parts for reactors.

It’s a fact nuclear energy is a valid solution to your “problem”.

It’s a fact this solution is not pursued and expense is used as an excuse.

It’s a fact we could easily remedy the expense problem.

It’s a fact we spend money and effort on less effective and non effective measures and redundant research that does nothing concrete to solve anything.

Solar energy is great. We used a similar device to your pic to render beeswax out of unusable comb when I was a kid.

But neither your smelter or mine can forge steel parts in the 500 ton range. By the way, smelting and forging are completely different processes, but I’m sure you knew that. Your picture was just a test to see if I knew that.

 

Aborigines were doing controlled burns 50,000 years ago. They also dealt with heat, floods, and drought. Too bad white killed most of them off. Shame.

 

They weren’t furiously digging up coal and selling it to China and then complaining about carbon in the atmosphere either.