• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

New report on climate change released today

I remember angelo always using Australia as an example that climate is as stable as always have been. How is that working now?

Why are you asking me such an idiotic question when Google is at your finger tips? Bush fires were responsible for around 178 deaths and triple that number of injuries long before GW/CC/CD became the cult it is today on one occasion. Bush fires are part and parcel of Australia's landscape.

Climate change isn't a paradyne shift, it's a matter of degree. Thus the fact that you've always had a fire problem doesn't mean it's not an issue.

As one bookstore in Aussie says: The apocalyptic section is now under current events.

Angelo will defend his right to be wrong even if his house burns down and the entire continent of Australia is on fire.
 
There is zero evidence that the bushfires in Australia are caused by any kind of "man made climate change". Bushfires in Australia (like California) are a natural phenomenon, however;

More than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of the bushfire season, with 29 blazes deliberately lit in the Shoalhaven region of southeast NSW in just three months. The Shoalhaven fires were lit between July and September last year, with Kempsey recording 27 deliberately lit fires, NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics and Research data shows. Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months. NSW police data shows 183 people have been charged or cautioned for bushfire-related offences since November 8, and 24 arrested for deliberately starting bushfires. In Tasmania, where fires have sprung up in the north of the state and outside Hobart, five were caught setting fire to vegetation. Victoria reported 43 charged for 2019.

TheAustralian

A volunteer firefighter in Australia has been charged with deliberately lighting blazes during the nation's bushfire crisis. Police arrested the man, 19, for seven counts of alleged arson in an area south of Sydney, New South Wales (NSW).

BBC



So the uptick in the number of fires is more likely down to deliberate arson.


A Rapture like cult.

Well done in your rationalising of your desperate hope. I am sure it makes you feel a little bit more comfortable; Though I suspect, from your use of a mantra to soothe your worries, that it really doesn't.
 
Scott Morrison is a Pentecostal Christian, and as such believes that a) God won't let anything bad happen; b) coal was put in place by God for humans to use; and c) the world will end very soon so the environment needn't be conserved anyway.
Any documentation of that? He seems like Ronald Reagan's controversial Secretary of the Interior James Watt.

Jonathan M. Katz✍🏻 on Twitter: "I wrote about the fires engulfing Australia and the right wing's frightening next move on the climate crisis https://t.co/A34LGjmYXW" / Twitter

Disarm the lifeboats
The 2020s started early in Australia. Broiled by record-breaking summer temperatures, wildfires have already consumed an area the size of West Virginia, and are growing. Cities are shutting down under suffocating smoke. Half a billion animals are dead. People—and horses—are fleeing for their lives.

The root of the disaster could not be clearer. Australia’s annual mean temperature in 2019 was 1.5 degrees Celsius over its mid-20th century average. That happens to be the exact increase the Paris Climate Agreement was trying to limit the world to (over even-lower 19th-century levels). Worse yet, the fires themselves have exhausted half of Australia’s yearly “carbon budget”—the amount of carbon dioxide the country can expend without juicing global temperatures even more. The symptom is fueling its cause.
Author Jonathan Katz then discusses "Panic of the Elites". He starts with a scenario of a cruise liner sinking in the middle of the ocean. At first, it seems only theoretical, with only people deep below in the ship noticing anything. But as the water rises, the other people on board have to decide what to do. Do they try to save as many as possible? Or only try to save themselves?
Disaster experts can predict how most people will react: Most will try to work together to save the most people possible. As Erik Auf Der Heide, a leading disaster expert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has written, “antisocial behaviors are uncommon in typical disaster situations.” I’ve observed this myself, in natural disasters in places as different as Haiti and Staten Island, for almost all people.

But there is a notable exception. The richest people on the ship are the least likely to cooperate. There is a formal term for this, based on a 2008 paper by the sociologists Caron Chess and Lee Clarke. It’s called “elite panic.” As Rebecca Solnit has written, “Elites tend to believe in a venal, selfish, and essentially monstrous version of human nature.” And as such, they believe that only “their power keeps the rest of us in line.” If the ship—or human society—is disrupted, they think, “our seething violence will rise to the surface.”

We see it again and again in disaster—as police opened fire on unarmed black New Orleanians after Katrina, elite media emphasized “looting” in the aftermath of María in Puerto Rico, and resources were squandered on a security-led response to the Haiti earthquake, with disastrous results.
Noting
Common Misconceptions about Disasters: Panic, the “Disaster Syndrome,” and Looting by Erik Auf der Heide
Elites and Panic: More to Fear than Fear Itself | Social Forces | Oxford Academic
In his 2012 book Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, the journalist Christian Parenti predicted that elite panic would soon manifest itself in the politics of climate change:

There is a real risk that strong states with developed economies will succumb to a politics of xenophobia, racism, police repression, surveillance, and militarism and thus transform themselves into fortress societies while the rest of the world slips into collapse. By that course, developed economies would turn into neofascist islands of relative stability in a sea of chaos.

He called it “the politics of the armed lifeboat.”
JK then discussed Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, someone from an area starting to be affected. He is a belligerent Trump supporter and someone who came up with a trollish "Green Real Deal" in answer to AOC's and Sen. Edward Markey's "Green New Deal".
Australia has a lot in common with the United States: a diverse, former British settler colony with a tradition of (white) individualism, corporate capitalism, and mass media owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was born in Melbourne. Its prime minister, Scott Morrison, is also a buffoonish climate denier, whose party’s fossil fuel cronyism is similarly papered over with clumsy appeals to white nationalism. Like Trump, he ran on a promise to bar the door to refugees. In office, he has threatened an authoritarian crackdown on protests and boycotts against companies that injure the environment.
Then "ecofascists", including some very murderous ones, like some recent murderers of immigrants.
Far from facing reality, those who believe that the only way to survive is to engage in a Hobbesian struggle are engaging in a new, deadlier kind of denial. The reasons for this are obvious, in both disaster experience and climate logic.

Disasters teach us, again and again, that the only way to survive any cataclysm is if people work together.
 
About "preppers", people who prepare for coming disasters.
Zach Weinersmith on Twitter: "Do you think preppers are generally rational, given their prior assumptions? That is, if you believe a cataclysm is coming soon, is prepper behavior the most appropriate response?" / Twitter

Mika McKinnon on Twitter: "@ZachWeiner Preppers do not engage in effective disaster preparation for short or long timescales. The core premise of solitary or small-group survivalism is inherently flawed.
Bonus: The skills/training/materials valued by peepers don’t make sense for realistic apocalyptic scenarios." / Twitter

Preppers do not engage in effective disaster preparation for short or long timescales. The core premise of solitary or small-group survivalism is inherently flawed.

Bonus: The skills/training/materials valued by peepers don’t make sense for realistic apocalyptic scenarios.

If you dig into the core reasoning of the prepper mentality, it’s yet another instance of racism blended with toxic masculinity to create an imaginary foe.

Which is annoying af as yes, there are MANY realistic & near-term plausible apocalyptic scenarios.

If you want to legit prepare for The End is Nigh, the rational steps are:
1. Mitigate impending doom.
2. Strengthen community ties.
3. Use current recovery to enhance structural preparedness.

Personal preparedness is small scale. In cataclysm, we survive together or die alone.

Examples of effective pre-apocalypse prepping:
1. slow climate change, practice asteroid deflection, speed nuclear disarmament
2. fund social welfare, increase community events (parties!), strengthen arts
3. Enact coastal retreat, enhance mass transit, harden power grids

FAQ: Aren’t Preppers just people who are really in to personal preparedness?

A: No.
Personal preparedness is an activity.
Preppers are a culture.

Being personally prepared helps for everything from diaper blow-outs to evacuations, but it won’t let you ride out an apocalypse.
About Mika McKinnon: Field geophysicist, disaster researcher, scifi science consultant, science writer, public speaker, irrepressibly curious. #scicomm #womeninSTEM she/her

Mika McKinnon on Twitter: "Hi! I'm a disaster researcher (landslides in space with @ESPRESSO_SSERVI!), TV & movie science consultant, field geophysicist, & freelance science communicator. I'm usually somewhere along the West Coast of North America.
Easiest way to contact me is [url]https://t.co/7YGZMmSGrN
https://t.co/UyWIwa0P2G" / Twitter[/url]

Mika McKinnon - Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, University of California, Santa Barbara, University of British Columbia | about.me
 
Twitter bots and trolls promote conspiracy theories about Australian bushfires

Tweets with the hashtag #ArsonEmergency are coming from a "much higher" proportion of bot-like or troll-like accounts than those with more general bushfire-related hashtags such as #BushfireAustralia or #AustraliaFire, according to initial analysis by Dr Timothy Graham from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

Graham came to look at #ArsonEmergency because it was being used by some of the more suspicious-looking individual Twitter accounts he'd been tracking.

"They were really focused in particular on climate denial, and The Greens being responsible for the bushfires, and arson attacks being responsible for the bushfires as well," he told ZDNet on Tuesday.

Those last two are conspiracy theories, he said.

The Greens, or "greenies" in general, have not blocked hazard reduction burning in bushfire-prone areas. In fact they support it.

And while some bushfires are caused by arson, there is no evidence to suggest that the current season has seen a higher level of this crime.
 
Yeah, Preppers are just hoarders of bad food that don't recognize that the absolute most important two things for surviving Armageddon is clear water and dealing with wastewater.
 
Twitter bots and trolls promote conspiracy theories about Australian bushfires

Tweets with the hashtag #ArsonEmergency are coming from a "much higher" proportion of bot-like or troll-like accounts than those with more general bushfire-related hashtags such as #BushfireAustralia or #AustraliaFire, according to initial analysis by Dr Timothy Graham from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT).

Graham came to look at #ArsonEmergency because it was being used by some of the more suspicious-looking individual Twitter accounts he'd been tracking.

"They were really focused in particular on climate denial, and The Greens being responsible for the bushfires, and arson attacks being responsible for the bushfires as well," he told ZDNet on Tuesday.

Those last two are conspiracy theories, he said.

The Greens, or "greenies" in general, have not blocked hazard reduction burning in bushfire-prone areas. In fact they support it.

And while some bushfires are caused by arson, there is no evidence to suggest that the current season has seen a higher level of this crime.

Arson is a common trigger for bushfires in Australia, along with carelessly discarded cigarette butts, lightning, and unattended or poorly managed fires lit for legitimate reasons (or sudden changes in conditions that cause these to get out of control).

None of these triggers cause bushfires to become catastrophic; Catastrophic fires are a consequence of fuel load, temperature, wind conditions, and accessibility of fires to suppression or containment efforts. When conditions are right, catastrophic fires will occur - if one trigger is absent, another almost certainly will occur.

To suggest arson as a cause of catastrophic bushfires is to make a (deliberate) error in interpreting the problem - the question is not, "What causes catastrophic bushfires?"; it is, "What causes catastrophic bushfires?".

The fires have many causes. The catastrophe is due to climate changes that exacerbate those fires that do get started, and that make them harder to contain or control once they have.

Fire danger signs tell us the likely consequences if and when a fire starts; They don't warn of likely sources of ignition.

IMG_4785.JPG

The needle doesn't point to "Arson" or "Lightning" or "Cigarette Butts", because what's important is the climatic and fuel load conditions, not the specific ignition source.
 
Yeah, Preppers are just hoarders of bad food that don't recognize that the absolute most important two things for surviving Armageddon is clear water and dealing with wastewater.

Disagree on the latter--they expect to be in a situation with few people about. At that level outhouses kept well away from water sources are fine for dealing with matters. In the backcountry we obviously don't have many toilets--yet rarely do the rules require you to pack out your poo. Burying it away from the trail and away from water is normally considered fine.
 
Fire danger signs tell us the likely consequences if and when a fire starts; They don't warn of likely sources of ignition.

View attachment 25547

The needle doesn't point to "Arson" or "Lightning" or "Cigarette Butts", because what's important is the climatic and fuel load conditions, not the specific ignition source.

Yup. In some places the fire risk changes permitted activities (such as in sufficiently high risk areas you're not allowed fire that doesn't have an off switch), but that's about reducing the chance of an inadvertent ignition, not about how bad an ignition would be.
 
I remember angelo always using Australia as an example that climate is as stable as always have been. How is that working now?

Why are you asking me such an idiotic question when Google is at your finger tips? Bush fires were responsible for around 178 deaths and triple that number of injuries long before GW/CC/CD became the cult it is today on one occasion. Bush fires are part and parcel of Australia's landscape.
How is number of deaths relevant here? I am aware that bush fires are normal, I just was not aware that it was normal on that scale. But if you say so.

There's also that scourge of arsonists who in many cases are volunteer fire fighters in disguise. I understand quite a few have so far been arrested already. If true, we need judges to throw the book at them, not slap them over their wrist with a wet lettuce leaf!
 
How is number of deaths relevant here? I am aware that bush fires are normal, I just was not aware that it was normal on that scale. But if you say so.

There's also that scourge of arsonists who in many cases are volunteer fire fighters in disguise. I understand quite a few have so far been arrested already. If true, we need judges to throw the book at them, not slap them over their wrist with a wet lettuce leaf!

"Arsonists" is a key word in the current debate, that indicates a speaker who is mindlessly parroting climate denialist propaganda. As I pointed out above, arson doesn't cause fires to become catastrophic.

That you even freely admit that you don't know if the (dis)information you are spreading is true, is truly horrifying. But even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant. So that's at least two good reasons why you shouldn't be saying it at all - unless you care more about "winning" some dumb political game than you care about the truth.
 
It is very difficult to keep up with the doomsday cult timelines. I thought there was 11 years to save the planet. Teh Gruaniad has gone for one year;

Veganism might help and it’s always good to avoid flying. But the answer to Earth’s emergency must involve political, collective action – and there are countless ways to get active.

With the 26th Conference of the Parties UN climate conference taking place in Glasgow this November, there has never been a better time to add your voice to those calling for urgent action to end our reliance on fossil fuels, cut greenhouse gases and protect the planet from global heating. At COP 26, world leaders will be under huge pressure to come up with an international, united and effective response to the climate emergency.

One year to save the planet: a simple, surprising guide to fighting the climate crisis in 2020

Since COP 25 was a failure, COP 26 will surely be a success ! By COP 30, the "climate emergency" should be well and truly over !

A Rapture like cult for sure.
 
‘It’s an Atomic Bomb’: Australia Deploys Military as Fires Spread - The New York Times - "With more than a month still to go in the fire season, the government announced a large-scale use of military assets, a deployment not seen since World War II."
More than 12 million acres have burned so far, an area larger than Switzerland, and the damage is expected to only get worse in the extremely arid conditions that are allowing the fires to spread. The fires are also so hot and so large that they are creating their own weather patterns, which can worsen the conditions.

With more than a month still to go in the fire season, the government announced on Saturday a large-scale use of military assets, a deployment not seen since World War II, experts say. About 3,000 army reservists, along with aircraft and naval ships, are being made available to help with the evacuation and firefighting efforts.
The New York Times on Twitter: "The Australian government has announced a large-scale use of military assets, a deployment not seen since World War II, as fires continue to spread https://t.co/vo19HoPAot" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Remember when everyone mocked us for saying that fighting climate change is going to take a WWII-scale mobilization?
Well, it’s already starting to happen.
The question is: will we mobilize reactively to destruction, or will we act proactively for prevention? #GreenNewDeal https://t.co/nfTjuTJ13U" / Twitter


AOC's tweet got a lot of responses that stated that the fires were started by arsonists. Which provoked responses like these:

ZGreatestGeneration on Twitter: "@Dpabs1125 @AOC So arson is the reason that 2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year on record?
No one is suggesting that climate change is igniting the fires.
Climate change is responsible for the conditions that turned those fires into an environmental catastrophe.
Try to keep up." / Twitter


Benny from the block on Twitter: "@sethweathers @AOC 2019 was the hottest and driest year on record in Australia. Like, maybe climate change didn’t literally hold a match to all that kindling that was just waiting to combust... but it deeeeffffinitely helped those fires become the absolute catastrophe hey are." / Twitter
 
How is number of deaths relevant here? I am aware that bush fires are normal, I just was not aware that it was normal on that scale. But if you say so.

There's also that scourge of arsonists who in many cases are volunteer fire fighters in disguise. I understand quite a few have so far been arrested already. If true, we need judges to throw the book at them, not slap them over their wrist with a wet lettuce leaf!

"Arsonists" is a key word in the current debate, that indicates a speaker who is mindlessly parroting climate denialist propaganda. As I pointed out above, arson doesn't cause fires to become catastrophic.

That you even freely admit that you don't know if the (dis)information you are spreading is true, is truly horrifying. But even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant. So that's at least two good reasons why you shouldn't be saying it at all - unless you care more about "winning" some dumb political game than you care about the truth.

I presume your godlike powers can see the arsonists lighting of fires won't become catastrophic? Even a tiny fire lit at any point in any location has the potential to burn down a whole town in the right conditions.
 
"Arsonists" is a key word in the current debate, that indicates a speaker who is mindlessly parroting climate denialist propaganda. As I pointed out above, arson doesn't cause fires to become catastrophic.

That you even freely admit that you don't know if the (dis)information you are spreading is true, is truly horrifying. But even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant. So that's at least two good reasons why you shouldn't be saying it at all - unless you care more about "winning" some dumb political game than you care about the truth.

I presume your godlike powers can see the arsonists lighting of fires won't become catastrophic? Even a tiny fire lit at any point in any location has the potential to burn down a whole town in the right conditions.

That's the part you don't get. The "right conditions" are spreading far and wide due to climate change.
 
"Arsonists" is a key word in the current debate, that indicates a speaker who is mindlessly parroting climate denialist propaganda. As I pointed out above, arson doesn't cause fires to become catastrophic.

That you even freely admit that you don't know if the (dis)information you are spreading is true, is truly horrifying. But even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant. So that's at least two good reasons why you shouldn't be saying it at all - unless you care more about "winning" some dumb political game than you care about the truth.
I presume your godlike powers can see the arsonists lighting of fires won't become catastrophic? Even a tiny fire lit at any point in any location has the potential to burn down a whole town in the right conditions.
That is such a high level of obtuse, the triangle is a flat line.

Arsonists start fires. Conditions of the brush and ground control how easy it is for the fire to spread.
 
That's the part you don't get. The "right conditions" are spreading far and wide due to climate change.

Perhaps but there is no evidence for this claim. Be aware that climate is naturally variable.

Just because you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence.
 
"Arsonists" is a key word in the current debate, that indicates a speaker who is mindlessly parroting climate denialist propaganda. As I pointed out above, arson doesn't cause fires to become catastrophic.

That you even freely admit that you don't know if the (dis)information you are spreading is true, is truly horrifying. But even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant. So that's at least two good reasons why you shouldn't be saying it at all - unless you care more about "winning" some dumb political game than you care about the truth.

I presume your godlike powers can see the arsonists lighting of fires won't become catastrophic? Even a tiny fire lit at any point in any location has the potential to burn down a whole town in the right conditions.

I find it amusing that you consider the ability to think things through to be a "god like" power.

You apparently can't even comprehend the meaning behind your own statements.

A source of ignition is necessary, but not sufficient, for a catastrophic fire - as you yourself say, it also requires "the right conditions". And if the conditions are right, a fire will inevitably start, and become catastrophic - if not due to arson, then due to accident, misadventure, or natural causes (eg lightning). Ignition sources are everywhere, all the time; arsonists just accelerate an inevitable consequence in catastrophic climatic and fuel load conditions.

But of course, if you lack the "god like" ability to think coherently about stuff, it's easy to completely fail to grasp that simple fact.
 
Take an object that is 2 feet above the ground, drop it. Take an object 1000 feet above the ground, drop it. Same object, but different result. Why? Potential energy. Does the result of the object falling and colliding with the ground matter because why it is dropped?
 
Back
Top Bottom