Global Warming

[HR]

I think you blokes are missing the point re ScoMo.

Of course the bloke is entitled to have a holiday but when you are a leader you don't take one when there's an emergency in progress.

When we were down at half time in the preliminary final Cotch didn't head for Tullamarine and fly to Thailand, he led from the front. We are entitled to expect the same from the PM.

Yeah nah TBR but only to your last paragraph.
This is a an East Coast centric mind set.
There are fires in every state, just say the Kangaroo Island fires distance to Scotts house is 1500km. The ones in the Blue Mountains are 200km, the ones in perth are 3500 km, the fires that have been burning for months in the pilbara are 4000 km from his home. Is he meant to be leading from the front across all states or just 1?
Come on a fire Chief taking time off during a crisis and the PM doing it are not the same thing.
If those fires were only in adelaide or perth do you think those states would give a *smile* about Scotts location and would Sydney's population give just one flying hoot about places they dont even know exist? No chance.
This outrage is because it is happening around the cities and mainly Sydney.

 

[Sintiger]

Deflection. I never accused you of a cheap pot shot they are your words. I said cheap gotcha. Pot shot is ad hominem, gotcha is just lazy sophistry. For someone that goes on about how things aren’t so black and white, do you see the nuisance there?

Do you also see the difference in that I’m prepared to debate and to articulate my arguments while you aren’t interested in debate (your words) and when I attempt to make sense of your postings you just claim I’m wrong without articulating how I am wrong. You just appeal to this things aren’t x and y line of argument and think that settles it.

Wrong again. I said I wasn’t interested in debate with you ..
Your deflection is hidden in semantics because you know exactly what I mean by pot shot or cheap shot or whatever the words are, and you know exactly why you posted

 

[Tigers of Old]

This is fantastic yet disturbing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1208161181350780929

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah nah TBR but only to your last paragraph.
This is a an East Coast centric mind set.
There are fires in every state, just say the Kangaroo Island fires distance to Scotts house is 1500km. The ones in the Blue Mountains are 200km, the ones in perth are 3500 km, the fires that have been burning for months in the pilbara are 4000 km from his home. Is he meant to be leading from the front across all states or just 1?
Come on a fire Chief taking time off during a crisis and the PM doing it are not the same thing.
If those fires were only in adelaide or perth do you think those states would give a **** about Scotts location and would Sydney's population give just one flying hoot about places they dont even know exist? No chance.
This outrage is because it is happening around the cities and mainly Sydney.

Only two ways out of sydney now - the pacific highways north and south. All others are closed due to fires/smoke. So yeah, having Australia's biggest city directly affected no doubt produces "outrage". And yeah, the cities could care more about the bush.

Morrison could do a lot. Even if you don't accept climate change, he could do a lot.

He could convene a Heads of Government meeting to coordinate responses between states and authorities. He could provide volunteer fireys with immediate financial relief. He could deploy armed forces to assist.

He could show national leadership in a time of crisis.

 

[Sintiger]

It’s a good shout, you don’t have to be a professional scientist to make a firm conclusion but you’d definitively need to do a bit more data analysis than ST has done. I’m going to keep claiming he made a firm conclusion until he can articulate clearly otherwise.

Seriously are you for real? I don’t have to articulate anything . If I was making a firm conclusion I would state it as a firm conclusion, you just inferred it.
The reason I know you are talking crap is because I know my position on climate change which is that I don’t understand the science and I don’t profess to and that’s what I said, I am no scientist. I don’t have the knowledge to debate it with anyone on a scientific basis. What I do know however is exactly what I said which is 20 years or so ago many scientists said extreme weather events like droughts and storms would get more extreme and more frequent and that’s what it seems like I am seeing.
That’s it, it’s no more complicated than that.

 

[tigerman]

An interesting read.

"In the Antarctic, sea ice is in the midst of its sharp seasonal decline. It is currently tracking near 2017 levels, the record low year for minimum extent. November extent was 14.89 million square kilometers (5.75 million square miles), which is 1.01 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. It is the second lowest November extent in the satellite record, about 670,000 square kilometers (259,000 square miles) above November 2016."

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

nsidc.org

 

[HR]

Only two ways out of sydney now - the pacific highways north and south. All others are closed due to fires/smoke. So yeah, having Australia's biggest city directly affected no doubt produces "outrage". And yeah, the cities could care more about the bush.

Morrison could do a lot. Even if you don't accept climate change, he could do a lot.

He could convene a Heads of Government meeting to coordinate responses between states and authorities. He could provide volunteer fireys with immediate financial relief. He could deploy armed forces to assist.

He could show national leadership in a time of crisis.

I am not outraged, i accept that we have bush fires in Australia. I dont care any more because it is our biggest city, no different in my eyes to a small town or a farm. People are being badly affected.
I don't accept climate change because we have fires in Australia? Good on ya.
Other State's are already assisting in NSW. They do have established networks.
Good point about the financial support. Could not agree more.
Good point about the armed forces. They are not trained in fighting such fires for the most part but would be more than useful in other ways.
Are there precedents for national responses to regional and state based emergencies, or is this just a Liberal Labor stoush? My thoughts are that it is more a state based situation.
Still not Scotts fault like the outraged are promoting.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I am not outraged, i accept that we have bush fires in Australia. I dont care any more because it is our biggest city, no different in my eyes to a small town or a farm. People are being badly affected.
I don't accept climate change because we have fires in Australia? Good on ya.
Other State's are already assisting in NSW. They do have established networks.
Good point about the financial support. Could not agree more.
Good point about the armed forces. They are not trained in fighting such fires for the most part but would be more than useful in other ways.
Are there precedents for national responses to regional and state based emergencies, or is this just a Liberal Labor stoush? My thoughts are that it is more a state based situation.
Still not Scotts fault like the outraged are promoting.

Bit of a strawman to say 'still not Scott's fault.'

No one is saying he started the bush fires.

The point is, he's a terrible leader. At the very least, during a national emergency, your leader needs to be present. Even if it's symbolic. Even if it's psychological. This stuff matters.

In addition, as others have outlined, there are practical things he could be doing outside of actually fighting fires.

And even though these fires aren't directly his fault, his inaction on climate change will mean that subsequent ones are, at least in part.

 

[AngryAnt]

I am not outraged, i accept that we have bush fires in Australia. I dont care any more because it is our biggest city, no different in my eyes to a small town or a farm. People are being badly affected.
I don't accept climate change because we have fires in Australia? Good on ya.
Other State's are already assisting in NSW. They do have established networks.
Good point about the financial support. Could not agree more.
Good point about the armed forces. They are not trained in fighting such fires for the most part but would be more than useful in other ways.
Are there precedents for national responses to regional and state based emergencies, or is this just a Liberal Labor stoush? My thoughts are that it is more a state based situation.
Still not Scotts fault like the outraged are promoting.

How about the fact that he ignored advice from the fire chiefs earlier this year? He refused to meet them because he was too busy on religious freedoms.

He was warned we were facing hell this summer and he chose to do nothing.

 

[TigerForce]

That exactly sums up where I sit as well SinTiger, but I'm also aware that the sheer weight of scientific knowledge on one side of the debate means you would be a fool to argue otherwise.

It's almost as though people have become so intrenched in the 'left or right, pick a side' sort of politics that have engulfed the world lately that they just have to toe the line and argue to the death for their side.

It was hysterical to see the comments from people on the scorching temperatures a couple of days ago, after painting themselves into a corner on climate change they had to be nonchalant .

"It's summer, we have hot days", "Finally summer is here", "In the 70s it was once hotter in Mildura,"

My lack of scientific knowledge aside, it was close to 40 degrees still not far from midnight the other night, that's not normal and it certainly didn't used to happen. As I said if that and the weight of scientific support doesn't convince you, then you're living in a fantasy land.

This all started from the ozone layer talk sometime in the early 80s (1983?). My experience is that I'm sure a lot of summer nights never stalled in the mid-high 20s when I was a kid 30+ years ago.

 

[HR]

Bit of a strawman to say 'still not Scott's fault.'

No one is saying he started the bush fires.

The point is, he's a terrible leader. At the very least, during a national emergency, your leader needs to be present. Even if it's symbolic. Even if it's psychological. This stuff matters.

In addition, as others have outlined, there are practical things he could be doing outside of actually fighting fires.

And even though these fires aren't directly his fault, his inaction on climate change will mean that subsequent ones are, at least in part.

Are you saying if he was a better leader and this year submitted to the demands of the Climate Change people the fires would not have happened?

I never disputed the "practical things" aspect but if you want to run over it again thats fine with me.

He is doing what he was elected to do so as far as a leader goes you should be happy because even though you dont agree with his policy he is stable, consistant and strong in his position and transparent in his communications. All pretty important traits for a leader.

Is it a strawman fight off here Coburg?

 

[HR]

How about the fact that he ignored advice from the fire chiefs earlier this year? He refused to meet them because he was too busy on religious freedoms.

He was warned we were facing hell this summer and he chose to do nothing.

Did he really do nothing?

Any ideas how we stop bush fires in Australia?

Antman I for one could not give a toss about religous freedoms (each to their own for mine) but what i have learnt on this website is that there are many many people who do and will argue the toss, so i dont want to get into this because mkst of them are on this thread.

 

[AngryAnt]

Did he really do nothing?

Any ideas how we stop bush fires in Australia?

Antman I for one could not give a toss about religous freedoms (each to their own for mine) but what i have learnt on this website is that there are many many people who do and will argue the toss, so i dont want to get into this because mkst of them are on this thread.

Point he he prioritised identity politics over science and experts.

 

[Sintiger]

That exactly sums up where I sit as well SinTiger, but I'm also aware that the sheer weight of scientific knowledge on one side of the debate means you would be a fool to argue otherwise.

It's almost as though people have become so intrenched in the 'left or right, pick a side' sort of politics that have engulfed the world lately that they just have to toe the line and argue to the death for their side.

It was hysterical to see the comments from people on the scorching temperatures a couple of days ago, after painting themselves into a corner on climate change they had to be nonchalant .

"It's summer, we have hot days", "Finally summer is here", "In the 70s it was once hotter in Mildura,"

My lack of scientific knowledge aside, it was close to 40 degrees still not far from midnight the other night, that's not normal and it certainly didn't used to happen. As I said if that and the weight of scientific support doesn't convince you, then you're living in a fantasy land.

Yes. Whatever the science and whatever the reasons what we are facing now as a country in terms of fire danger is unprecedented I would think. Bushfires on the Sunshine Coast in July was a warning.

 

[Giardiasis]

Wrong again. I said I wasn’t interested in debate with you ..
Your deflection is hidden in semantics because you know exactly what I mean by pot shot or cheap shot or whatever the words are, and you know exactly why you posted

Yeah you don’t want to debate with me, how does that invalidate my point?

I articulated my understanding of it, your inference of it is incorrect. “Cheap gotcha” is not a pot shot or cheap shot. You weren’t throwing criticism at me personally you were just trying to use a sophistry to criticise my argument (evidenced by the fact you refused to argue your point). I wasn’t throwing a pot shot at you either, I was making the point that you probably shouldn’t put much stock into your point given it wasn’t coming from a scientific point of view (and I’m more than happy to argue the point).

Your initial post was about as useful as someone saying that because there was a violent crime in the name of Islam in Bourke St this matches up with the theory that immigration of Muslims into Australia causes terrorist attacks to increase. Like I’ve said you are a smart guy so why you’d think there’s any knowledge about climate change to be garnered from your observation is strange.You’ll probably just deny you’re even suggesting that in which case there was no value from your post at all.

 

[Giardiasis]

Seriously are you for real? I don’t have to articulate anything . If I was making a firm conclusion I would state it as a firm conclusion, you just inferred it.
The reason I know you are talking crap is because I know my position on climate change which is that I don’t understand the science and I don’t profess to and that’s what I said, I am no scientist. I don’t have the knowledge to debate it with anyone on a scientific basis. What I do know however is exactly what I said which is 20 years or so ago many scientists said extreme weather events like droughts and storms would get more extreme and more frequent and that’s what it seems like I am seeing.
That’s it, it’s no more complicated than that.

Thank-you for finally articulating this.

 

[Sintiger]

Thank-you for finally articulating this.

It would have been very obvious to most because it is basically what I said in my original post. It was you who made assumptions that were not true

 

[Sintiger]

Yeah you don’t want to debate with me, how does that invalidate my point?

I articulated my understanding of it, your inference of it is incorrect. “Cheap gotcha” is not a pot shot or cheap shot. You weren’t throwing criticism at me personally you were just trying to use a sophistry to criticise my argument (evidenced by the fact you refused to argue your point). I wasn’t throwing a pot shot at you either, I was making the point that you probably shouldn’t put much stock into your point given it wasn’t coming from a scientific point of view (and I’m more than happy to argue the point).

Your initial post was about as useful as someone saying that because there was a violent crime in the name of Islam in Bourke St this matches up with the theory that immigration of Muslims into Australia causes terrorist attacks to increase. Like I’ve said you are a smart guy so why you’d think there’s any knowledge about climate change to be garnered from your observation is strange.You’ll probably just deny you’re even suggesting that in which case there was no value from your post at all.

What you were wrong about was that I don’t want to debate, it’s only you I said I don’t want to debate with.
I wasn’t commenting on anything else when I said you were wrong, just that

 

[Giardiasis]

It would have been very obvious to most because it is basically what I said in my original post. It was you who made assumptions that were not true

Maybe maybe not.

What you were wrong about was that I don’t want to debate, it’s only you I said I don’t want to debate with.
I wasn’t commenting on anything else when I said you were wrong, just that

I didn’t suggest you didn’t want to debate with anyone else, you assumed wrong.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'm a lot less fussed about Morrison not being in the country than I am about the Libs climate policies, or lack there of.