I politely answered crocdoc's question in my post and Crockdoc read my response and realized he was wrong again and he couldn't handle it so his head exploded and he had another temper tantrum.
Yeah right.....the blithering idiot dance.
You simply proved my point. If there were large fires in the nineteenth century that you want to associate with drought and hot temperatures when global warming wasn't around then your argument that drought and hot temperatures now must be due to global warming is basically just stupid. Which of course doesn't surprise me.
And of course, you ignored all the points I made which completely argue about this having anything to do with global warming....that is basically your modus operandi....say stupid things, post stupid gifs and then behave like a schoolchild running around in a circle claiming he has somehow won something. Grow up, you embarrass yourself here continuously.
once again
- Aussie scientists who work in the field of bush fire control are saying the problem is too much fuel due to a lack of controlled burns for many years
- The is a complete disconnect from the areas in Australia that have seen warming and the location of the fires. Many of the fires are situated where the continent has seen only marginal warming in the past 40 years
-the overall trend in Australia is for increased precipitation, not decreased precipitation. This year is an anomaly, not a pattern
- In the mid-seventies, the largest fires ever recorded in Australia occurred and it was a period of above-average precipitation and below-average temperature. This destroys the notion climate change has anything to do with the fires
-there is a very clear negative correlation of the number of controlled burns (removing fuel) versus the number of natural bush fires. As the gov't precluded citizens from removing fuel through controlled burns the number of bush fires increased. This data is published and available for anyone to read assuming they have that skill.
Is this all somehow something new? Not hardly. Back in 2013 the following appeared in the Daily Telegraph
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/greens-policies-igniting-flames/news-story/13acb741fd1d9d76a49026b00da70becIt is their continuing opposition to properly managing the fuel loads in our bush that has turned bushfires in recent times into unstoppable infernos. They might pay lip service to hazard reduction but in a thousand ways they obstruct it. In the Blue Mountains last week, in Tasmania, in Victoria, time and time again, we witness the destructive consequence of huge fuel loads - leaves, tree litter, undergrowth - built up over years without proper hazard reduction. Systematic cool burns in the winter months, which are done on a cyclical basis every few years, are needed to keep fuel loads at levels which allow firefighters to control outbreaks. "Fires run on fuel. More fuel equals more fire," says Brian Williams, captain of the Kurrajong Heights bushfire brigade for 28 years. "Limited fuel means limited fire. Hazard reduction won't eliminate fire but it keeps it at a level where we can manage it."
Australia's foremost bushfire scientist, former CSIRO researcher Dr Phil Cheney, says this fire season is very similar to 1968, with strong westerly winds in October after a dry winter. The difference is that "the forests have thickened up enormously in the past 50 years" and people's attitude to fire has changed. People used to not "whinge about a bit of smoke on their washing. It was accepted that fire was part and parcel of the environment. Now that acceptance is begrudgingly learned," Cheney says. Cheney is no climate sceptic, but he scoffs at the stupidity of blaming climate change for bushfires. "We've had these big fires forever. You'd have to come from Mars not to know that. This is a flammable continent. "The changes are not weather changes - they are not fire behaviour changes. They are lifestyle changes and fuel changes." People now live deep in the bush, with flammable native gardens rather than lawns and European vegetation. Burning off ground fuel used to be an Australian tradition. Now it's frowned upon. "As a result the fires we get are much more intense and close to homes."
How do these fires that run on the crazy amounts of fuel available start? Anything to do with global warming? No.
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/01/07/24-australians-charged-with-bushfire-arson-as-further-arrests-expected/the link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period.
Dr Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson, said the great majority of Australian bushfires are deliberately lit by “cunning, furtive and versatile criminals,” reports ABC News.
“About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson,” he said. “The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire.”
I think this is all best summed up by Delingpole:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/02/greens-made-australia-bush-fires-worse/
So to be clear, there is zero evidence of any change in climatic conditions that might have increased the likelihood or severity of these bush fires. This not – repeat NOT – a man-made climate change story, and anyone who claims otherwise is either a gullible idiot or a lying charlatan.
And let’s just repeat one more time: Australia’s bush fires have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. There is no evidence at all to support this claim; it is clearly contradicted by the temperature and rainfall record. The people who claim otherwise, especially those trying to make political capital out of the disaster by twisting the facts to suit their narrative, are either offensively ignorant or nauseatingly unconscionable.
But go ahead, continue to make a fool of yourself. You are definitely an expert in that field of endeavor.
