The fire raisers: Why we need to talk about climate change

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Despite our angry summer, warm winter and balmy spring, many commentators still refuse to acknowledge the role of climate change in the furious fire season confronting us.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the searing Max Frisch morality play Biedermann und die Brandstifter (The Fire Raisers) the hapless Mr Biedermann invites three people into his home ignoring the obvious reality that they are arsonists.  He continues to turn a blind eye as they wreak havoc through his community.

Written in 1958, the play is seen an allegory for Europe’s contrived ignorance towards the rise of totalitarianism.  Today, it could be seen as a parable for our wilful blindness towards climate change.

The September and October fires that have ripped through New South Wales are another eerie reminder of the threats that climate change could render on our comfortable existence.  There is no evidence that climate change directly caused the bushfires, climate change did contribute to the conditions that exacerbated the risk of the bushfires, and climate change will increasingly create the conditions in which bushfires can flourish.

As the Sydney Morning Herald has noted, Sydney had its mildest winter and hottest year to date temperature in 150 years.  It had 28 days in a row without rain.  These conditions, consistent with broad climate change projections, together with low humidity and strong, swirling winds, provided the context for an early start to the fire season.  This followed Sydney’s horrendous, sweltering summer – what the Climate Commission called The Angry Summer – and the broader trend of a 0.7ºC increase in global average temperatures over the past century.

So if Climate change did not light the bushfires – it may in fact have been the actions of arsonists or litterers or hazard reduction gone awry – it did help create the conditions that allowed them to flourish.  People throw cigarettes out of their car windows every day without fires starting, but if someone is idiotic enough to do it on a high fire danger day, the chances of a fire starting are so much greater.  Climate change doesn’t light bushfires but they are more likely to cause damage with hotter temperatures and drier climates.

Despite our angry summer, warm winter and balmy spring, many commentators still refuse to acknowledge climate change may be playing a part in the furious fire season confronting us.  On Sky News recently, one commentator lambasted a panellist for daring to mention climate change in discussing the fires.  Whilst the host accepted humans were contributing to rising temperatures, he refused to link climate change to the breaking news story being covered by that same television station.  He wasn’t alone in dismissing the blindingly obvious.

Whether it was the Angry Summer, previous megafires that ripped through Victoria and the ACT, the intensity of Cyclone Yasi or the extreme floods that devastated Queensland in 2010 and 2011, after every natural disaster commentators and some politicians refuse to acknowledge that climate change might be playing a role.  There must be a limit to the wilful blindness.

A recent Washington Post editorial highlighted a major National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report on climate change and extreme weather, noting “the picture they offer is of a planet in which warming has boosted the chances, in some cases significantly, that certain unwelcome weather or weather-related disasters will occur”.

The NOAA paper seems to be consistent with the forthcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  According to leaks of the reports that have appeared in Fairfax papers, the IPCC will conclude there is a more than 95% likelihood that human activity is the primary cause of warming since the 1950s, and that ongoing human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, could lead to a 5 degree increase in global temperatures this century.

Writing in The New York Times, Justin Gillis suggested the IPCC “seems to be bending over backward to be scientifically conservative”, highlighting uncertainty and emphasizing the least harmful projections, notwithstanding the tremendous risks of the worst-case scenarios.  Regardless of this scientific conservatism, Justin Gillis acknowledges the “lowball numbers” are worrisome enough, the high estimates even scarier.

The release of the IPCC report in late September was another clarion call for action on climate change, even if its release didn’t coincide with the perfect storm that welcomed the release of the last IPCC report in 2007, best demonstrated by the enormous public interest in Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Whilst some in politics and the community refuse to accept the science of climate change, it doesn’t mean climate change will go away.  Just because climate change wasn’t a top three issue in the election campaign, it doesn’t mean climate change won’t be one of the top three issues facing the new government.

Too often, political commentators treat climate change as a political issue.  They see it as a political debate over the carbon price, and ignore the underlying issue – the national interest in taking action on climate change.

Too often, politicians fall into the trap of seeing climate change as just a political issue, seeking advantage in the day-to-day politics – a play without morality.  The debate must be about the best way to deliver climate action.

Some may wish to turn a blind eye to climate change, but that will not stop climate change.  Political positioning over the so-called carbon tax will not stop the need for action on climate change.  That will be the lesson for the incoming government and all future governments.

Wayne Smith is the Director of Clean Economy Services, a renewable energy consulting firm.  His clients include solar and renewable energy companies and industry associations.  This article reflects his views only.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

17 Comments
  1. Keith 6 years ago

    If the Coalition doesn’t stop trying to frame pricing carbon in terms of electricity prices, then it’s time to make this positioning untenable. As this article indicates, it is too important to allow political games to allow avoidance of taking action on climate.

    The current climate-related costs (enhanced floods, fires, cyclones) annually are now several $billion. While it is too soon to get an accurate view of the cost, yesterday’s fires near Sydney will be around $100 mill. This puts in context nickel and diming about (disputed) savings of a $100 or so from alleged price decreases in electricity pricing (which won’t happen anyway).

    With recent multiple major floods in Northern NSW and Queensland and fires with a new dimension of intensity in the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania and now NSW, what sort of a catastrophe do we need for political consensus that action is urgently needed to curb CO2 emissions?

    • David H 6 years ago

      Clearly climate change is happening and no doubt we are experiencing the effects of this in Australia. However, the implication frequently being made by those who should know better, that by reducing carbon emission in Australia we will reduce the effects of climate change in Australia is a fallacy. Lets be clear that Australia needs to be part of a global solution.

      • Keith 6 years ago

        David,
        As one of the countries most at risk from climate change and also amongst the worst in terms of our CO2 footprint, the least we can do is stay on the path that many other countries are now well down the track on.
        In relation to climate change, the worst global citizens reside in the US, Canada and Australia. It’s shameful that we are in that position and we need to change it.

        • zlop 6 years ago

          114 out of 117 climate models were wrong,
          yet, the IPCC is increasingly certain that
          guilty you are — pay more Carbon Foolprint taxes.

          • Miles Harding 6 years ago

            Very disingenuous!
            Wrong is being confused with inaccurate here.

            Any predictive mathematical analog (model) such complex phenomena as weather and climate will have some discrepancies. It is inappropriate to refer to these models as wrong.

          • zlop 6 years ago

            “inappropriate to refer to these models as wrong” ?
            More accurate is lies, bold face lies.

            Climate is energy constrained — extra variables maximize Cooling.
            Water flows downhill — you cannot push on a CO2 rope.
            Energy does not add up — must be hiding in the Deep Oceans.

  2. Facts 6 years ago

    The First Thing that needs to be understood is that there are in Fact 2 Causes of Climate Change, and they are Non Human Causes for Climate Change at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age , and the Human Causes of Climate Change, of which Deforestation is the Most Significant Cause; yet, it is Rarely Mentioned as the Major Contributor at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation .

    I think that Carbon Dioxide has been Maliciously Slandered for so long that even Wikipedia included Innocent Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and Wikipedia says that there are 5 Greenhouse Gases, and they are water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and carbon dioxide at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas .

    There is no way to stop Water Vapour because there is Plenty of Oceans and we need Rain, and there is no way to stop Plants from Decomposing and creating Methane, and Many People do not to be Vegans because Bacteria in the Soil and Farm Animals create Nitrous Oxide, and no one wants to have no Ozone Layer, and so this Only leaves Innocent Carbon Dioxide to Maliciously Slander in order to Build a Corrupt Business Model.

    How do we know that some Islands are not sinking into the Molten Globe, rather than that the Oceans are rising at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth .

    I have heard Some Scientists say that Water Vapour Magnifies the Climate Change effects of Carbon Dioxide, but the Tropics are the Most Humid Places on Earth, and they do not Experience Climate Change, because they are Rainforests and they are Forests, and they are not Deserts, even though those who Falsely Blame Innocent Carbon Dioxide would like to make the World a Desert to Make Themselves Rich at the Expense of Others.

    This comment should be viewed as Supplementing the comments I wrote on Climate Change using the Moniker of Journalist at the Euractiv Website News Article Titled: Poland on collision course with Brussels over ‘illegal’ coal plant at http://www.euractiv.com/energy/poland-collision-course-brussels-news-529895 .

    We have heard how Carbon Dioxide is Maliciously Slandered with being Termed Pollution, but Carbon Dioxide is not Pollution, because it a Natural Substance like Salt or Water.

    At the time of a Flood, People say that there is an Excess of Water, but that Water is not Pollution, but it is Only an Excess of Water, even as the Ocean is not Pollution, but is a lot of Water, and Carbon Dioxide is not a Pollutant, but a Vital Plant Nutrient at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/ .

    I am of the Opinion that those who have Vested Interests, and who Control Many Western Governments and their Main Stream Media would even resort to destroying Coral Reefs and Sea Anemones to push this Myth that Carbon Dioxide is totally responsible for Climate Change, Compared to the Other Greenhouse Gases, or to the Real Cause of Climate Change, which is Deforestation, and Adapting to Climate Change is an Option at http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ .

    I have no Proof of this; however, we know the Track Records of those who have More Human Nature than the Average Person to put it Mildly and Diplomatically, and the Websites on this are at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/scientists-warn-sea-anemones-are-vulnerable-to-bleaching/4900230 , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching , and Some Scientists (SS) know what Chemicals could do this, they can Genetically Modify Organisms like Algae to bolster their False Claim that Carbon Dioxide is the total cause of Climate Change, and they can Easily Lie about the Tropical Regions, and Scheme against the Tropics and Other Forest Regions because they have Vested Interests in Deforestation.

    As it has been Proved Over and Over again, that there are Many Factors that are Completely Beyond the Ability of Humans to Control at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age , and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438434/MIT-scientist-ridicules-IPCC-climate-change-report-calls-findings-hilarious-incoherence.html , and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html , and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html , and http://judithcurry.com/ , and http://climateaudit.org/ , and http://wattsupwiththat.com/ , and http://www.climatedepot.com/ .

    It is a Feature of the Unprincipled and the Deceptive to Attribute Every Adverse Weather Event to be Result of Climate Change, but these things happened even when the World was almost Totally Forested, because there are Non Human Causes of Climate Change like Volcanoes, the Sun, and Solar Flares.

    There should be an Honest Proper Scientific Debate in the Technologically Advanced Countries on the Environment, with Proper and Honest Terms of Reference for this Debate on how best to Reforest the Planet to the Correct Degree.

    Carbon Dioxide is a Trace Molecule in the Atmosphere with 400 Parts per Million in the Atmosphere, or 0.04 % in the Atmosphere, and if there were no Carbon Dioxide, then all Plants would die, and the Planet would become a Desert, because Plants need Carbon Dioxide, and Humans Need Plants.

    Carbon Taxes and Emissions Trading Schemes for Carbon Dioxide are Totally Unnecessary and Counterproductive, because Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, and it is not causing Climate Change, because Deforestation is Guilty and is causing Climate Change.

    The Only Climate the Planet needs is the Climate of Reforestation of the Planet to the Correct Degree, because this is Vital for Humans.

    Regardless of what the Effect this has on the Climate of the Planet, then this is what the Earth’s Climate MUST BE, because the Human Race cannot survive on a Planet that is Entirely Deserts.

    A Carbon Tax is used by certain People to Launder Dirty Money because they Invest in Government Subsidized Solar Panels and Alternative Energy, that Always need to be backed up with Fossil Fuel Power Stations.

    This is what some Western Politicians and their Friends who have Shares in these Government Subsidized Businesses, and so they Corruptly make Money with a Carbon Tax, and an Emissions Trading Scheme.

    The Emissions Trading Scheme is a Method to Launder Dirty Money and to Evade Taxes by the Western Elite and their Bribed Politicians, and it is a way to Create Monopolies for Western Elites and they use Bribed and Corrupted and Lying Western Politicians and Lying Scientists and Lying Main Stream Media for this.

    The Emissions Trading Scheme will have Carbon Credits sold on the Market, and small companies will not be able to Compete, and they will go Bankrupt, and the Workers will become Unemployed, and the Favoured Monopolies will make All of the Money.

    The Favoured Monopolies will be able to use Government Subsidies to become Bigger Monopolies.

    There could be People who think that Some Scientists (SS) are working on Genetically Engineered Lethal Viruses that can kill 99 % of the People of the World in less than a week, and that they have been Vaccinated against those Genetically Engineered Lethal Viruses, and they could be right, because Technology does Advance.

    The Bribed Western Politicians, Some Union Leaders, the Corrupt Lying Scientists, and the Lying Western Main Stream Media hope to be among the Few that will receive a Lifelong Supply of Vaccines against Genetically Engineered Lethal Viruses, because the Earth is becoming more of a Desert as time goes by.

    If there was a 4 day working week, then Workers would drive their cars to work 20 % less than they do today, and there would be at least a 15 % Reduction in the Level of Carbon Dioxide, because Automobiles produce Most of the Innocent Carbon Dioxide, but some Western Elites, and their Bribed Politicians and Corrupt Main Stream Media want to have a Corrupt Business Model to Launder their Dirty Money and to Evade Paying their Taxes, and to Create Monopolies to Enrich Themselves.

    If Mankind is to survive, then the Entire Planet will need to be Reforested to the Correct Degree, and the Science on this is Settled, and All Scientists, Politicians, and Journalists Know these Things to be True, and Some People have Vested Interests in Lying on this Matter of Reforestation of the Planet.

    It was Vital for the Guilty Big Bankers and other Plutocrats and their Puppet Accomplices to Blame Innocent Carbon Dioxide, rather than Deforestation for their Evil Schemes to Unethically Enrich Themselves in 4 ways.

    The Big Bankers and the Plutocrats are the ones who are Deforesting the Earth to Plant certain Crops to Exploit the Third World Countries and to Enrich Themselves at the Expense of Third World and the Planet, and even Bio Fuels create Carbon Dioxide, and they Destroy Forests, but Fossil Fuels do not destroy Forests along with their Biodiversity at http://www.greenfudge.org/2013/10/14/drop-dirty-palm-rant-part-2/ .

    The Big Bankers and other Plutocrats want to have a Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme in order to push the Price of Carbon Dioxide Credits so high that smaller businesses will go Bankrupt, and Many Workers will lose their jobs, and other Workers will have to Work for Less Pay and Pay Higher Taxes, and the Big Bankers and the other Plutocrats can Create Monopolies to Enrich Themselves and their Partners in Crime who are their Puppet Politicians, their Bribed and Corrupted Puppet Western Media, and their Bribed and Corrupted Lying Scientists.

    The Big Bankers and other Plutocrats are Making Money from Fossil Fuels, and they also want to Make Money with New Industries that are called Alternative Energy, and they want the Taxpayers to Subsidize this, which Means putting Taxpayers’ Money into the Pockets of Big Bankers and other Plutocrats, who are the True Rulers and the True Winners of the Elections in Most ‘Democracies’, even though they did not appear on the Voting Paper.

    The Big Bankers and other Plutocrats want to create more Genetically Modified Crops to adapt to the Climate they are Changing, and to the Deserts that they are Creating, and thereby put the Planet at Risk, or at their Dictatorship or Both.

    The Big Bankers and other Plutocrats, do not want to Reforest the Planet, because they are making Big Money on Deforesting the Planet, and they want an Emissions Trading Scheme to Create their Monopolies, and they want the Taxpayers to Unnecessarily Subsidize their other Uncompetitive Alternative Energy Industries, and they want to Control the World’s Food Supply to Increase their Dictatorship over our Planet.

    There are Undeniable and Irrefutable needs of Humans on this Planet, and one of the Unavoidable needs is for each Country to have enough Water, and this means is that each Country has to have enough Clouds to Produce enough Rain for Food and other Uses.

    We all know that Dry Desert Soil will not put Moisture in the Atmosphere to Produce Clouds that Provide Rain at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sahara+desert&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HyVZUrToCJCtiQfn6oD4Aw&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1120&bih=639&dpr=1 .

    The Clouds that are Produced by the Oceans are not capable of providing Rain on the Land, except Mainly on the Coastal Regions, and the Equatorial Oceans Regions Produce more Rain Producing Clouds because of they are hotter areas, and so heating up the Planet would be Very Good for Reforestation, but there is no Desire from the Big Bankers and the other Plutocrats to Reforest our Planet.

    Even the Equatorial Regions will have far too Little Rain if they do not have enough Trees and other Vegetation, and this is shown by near Equatorial Region like the Sahara Desert at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg .

    This Proves that the First Priority is Produce Clouds to Produce Rain by Reforesting the Planet to the Correct Degree, and there are Many Ways to ensure that enough Fresh Water is available for Global Reforestation.

    Seawater can be piped into the Desert were the Salt is Removed from the Seawater using the Heat of the Sun, and the Salt can be returned to the Ocean.

    This Fresh Water can be used to Water the Correct Type and Variation of Trees and other Vegetation that will Provide Habitat for Biodiversity, and will Provide for Humans.

    If Fresh Water is available from other Sources, then this can be used for the same purposes and Water Treatment and Water Technology Companies know the latest in Technology with regard to Water.

    There should be Adequate Water in Shaded Areas for Birds, Animals, and that is easily accessible for them.

    The Deserts need to be Reclaimed and Reforested, and I think that if the Sahara Desert was Reforested, then it would Provide enough Rain for the African Continent, and this will Produce More Rivers that can be used to Produce Hydroelectricity.

    Plenty of seeds of Trees and other Vegetation should be stored for when there is an Unexpected Flood in a Region, and the Valley Regions which will have Plenty of Water should be Reforested with Trees and other Vegetation, and these Regions should be Watered if Needed.

    There could be Water in Large Reserves under Deserts, even as it was found in Libya, and that Fresh Water can be used to Reforest the Deserts, and certain Valleys in the Desert can be Flooded if there is enough Water, because this will put Moisture in the Atmosphere that is Needed to create Clouds.

    After the Entire World has been Reforested to the Correct Degree, and in the Correct Combination, then there will be more than enough Rain for Every Country.

    The Fact that Humans need Water, then this has to be the Primary Consideration, and whatever the Resultant Global Climate will be should not be a Matter of Thought, and we know from the Past that a Forested Planet will have the Best Climate, because Food on the Table is a Very Good Climate, and the Best Possible Climate for our Planet.

    Reforestation is Useful or Meaningful for Earth’s Environment, and for Rain Security, which is Food Security, and it is Biodiversity Security.

    It is Human Nature to Deny Things, even when no Crime was committed, and so we Know the Even Greater Tendency to Deny their Serious Crime of Deliberate Conspiracy against the Planet.

    We all Know that the IPCC Report has so Many Contradictions that it can be Made to be Anything, because this was Needed by the Conspirators in case they were caught in their Conspiracy as they have been on this matter of Maliciously Slandering Innocent Carbon Dioxide, when Everyone knows that it is Deforestation that Causes Climate Change.

    I want to start a Genuine Workers Political Party one day if I can find the help of Others, and even Bosses are Workers, and they might like these Policies, and a Major Policy will be for a 4 day working week.

    The Workers Party will reintroduce Disciple back into the Schools, because better Citizens means that there will be more Money for Aged Care.

    There will be no Carbon Tax or Emissions Trading Scheme, because there are 2 different opinions as regards the Effect Carbon Dioxide has on Climate Change, and Many Trees will be Planted in my Country if my Political Party becomes the Government.

    The Fact that Workers do not need to drive their cars to work on a fifth day, means that the Country has reduced its Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 15 % , because cars produce most of the Carbon Dioxide.

    Only People who are faithfully married to someone of the opposite sex can be Candidates to be Members of this Parliamentary Party.

    This is to Protect the Country and to Protect Workers Wages and Conditions, because those who are Unfaithful to their Spouses Could be More Easily Tempted, and because of the Global Spying Network, they could Unknowingly at the time be Secretly Filmed in Acts of Perversions, which could include paedophilia or bestiality, and they could Easily then be Blackmailed by Foreigners to the Detriment of the Citizens of the Country.

    We know that Global Spying is at a Maximum, and that it uses the Latest Technology for Secretly Recording and Secretly Filming People at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden .

    Certain People can find the Dirt on Politicians, Journalists, and Scientists, and Blackmail combined with Bribery is Very Effective, and this is why Proper Scientific Research on how best to Reforest the Planet to the Correct Degree needs to be Presented, because it has been Proven beyond Any Doubt that if Mankind is to survive, then the Entire Planet will need to be Reforested to the Correct Degree, and the Science on this is Settled, and All Scientists, Politicians, Plutocrats, and Journalists Know these Things to be True.

    • thin_king 6 years ago

      If you want to have success with your trolling, be concise and be coherent. This really just comes across as “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah”

      • Facts 6 years ago

        I have read your Statement that says that if a Person wants to have success with their trolling, then they should be Concise and Coherent.

        This is unless that Advice was based on Deception or an Inability to Think Correctly on this Matter, which should Always be seen as a possibility, unless it is Proven otherwise.

        I wonder if you looked up a link I provided, and where the Professor of Climate said that the IPCC was Hilariously Incoherent, and so you thought you would Falsely Claim that my comment was incoherent at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438434/MIT-scientist-ridicules-IPCC-climate-change-report-calls-findings-hilarious-incoherence.html .

        We know that we like to revisit our Comments, even days after we wrote them, I will give you the Opportunity to Debate me on Climate Change, and if you do not, then it could be that you have not visited this page, or that you know that what I wrote was “Truth Truth Truth Truth Truth”.

        We know that Statement is Concise, but it is Not Coherent, and Trolls may be Concise, but they are Not Coherent, because a Person who Presents Only Facts is not a Troll.

        There are Many People who Consider the Scientists who wrote the IPCC Report to be Scientific Trolls, because Climate Professor Dr Richard Lindzen blasted the IPCC report, calling it hilariously incoherent at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438434/MIT-scientist-ridicules-IPCC-climate-change-report-calls-findings-hilarious-incoherence.html .

        However, what I know is that I am Not a Troll, but a Person who cares for our Planet, and who has done personal research on this matter, and who has an Opinion and is sharing that Opinion in our Democracy.

        I do not wish to have any success as a Troll, even though I think Some Other People would like to be Successful as Trolls, and are Successful Trolls to some degree, because if they Cannot Discredit the Message, then they will Try to discredit or Slander the messenger.

        Each of my sentences are Concise, and if you learned the Facts, one sentence at a time, then you could tell Others, unless you not want Honest Facts, unlike the IPCC Scientists who are CONscience, which is a made up word, and it looks like conscience, which if Some People had More Of, then they would not be Trolls.

        The Proper Thing to do is to quote something you Allegedly Disagree with, and give you Supposed Great Learning on the Matter, because you set yourself up as a Critic of Supposed Great Learning, and you have an Opportunity to make us All Marvel at your Self Proclaimed Great Learning.

        The Fact that People have University Degrees does not mean that Some of Them are not Trolls at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate .

        Furthermore, unless Alleged or Supposed inconsistencies are made known, then they can easily be the Other Person’s Inability to understand the written word, and until an example is given, then this is how All Experienced People will view it, because there is a saying to either put up or shut up, and we all know that this saying is considered to be Concise and Coherent.

        • Facts 6 years ago

          I realize that I have to Clarify a sentence I wrote, because that sentence was Ambiguous, we know that it is Good to be Coherent, because Trolls are Never Coherent, and the sentence in question is the following sentence.

          I wrote: “We know that Statement is Concise, but it is Not Coherent, and Trolls may be Concise, but they are Not Coherent, because a Person who Presents Only Facts is not a Troll.”

          I meant to write: “We know Your Statement that you wrote to me is Concise, but it is Not Coherent, and we know that Trolls are usually CONcise, but they are Not Coherent, because a Person who Presents Only Facts cannot not be a troll.”

          It could that Some People who are asking Others to be CONcise Might in Fact be Trolls, and their Ulterior Motive is to CONtroll the Debate, rather than accept Facts, because of any of a number of Obvious Reasons.

          I am Greatly Comforted with the Fact that there are Educated and Sensible whose Hope is that the Planet be Reforested to the Correct Degree, so that Mankind can Survive on our Planet.

    • Dylan Tusler 6 years ago

      Sorry, I tried, but I stopped caring when you started linking the Daily Mail and Judith Curry in your post. I empathize with your call for reforestation, and really hope that scientists regain the ground they have lost with politicians, so that sensible and effective measures like reforestation can be reintroduced to us as a community without hysteria and hyperbole.

      In the meantime, I think you political ambitions would be better served by taking a short course on framing arguments concisely.

      • Facts 6 years ago

        I Presented the Facts of my personal research on how Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, and how it is Deforestation that is the Human Cause of Climate Change, and other are Free to put these Facts in Logical Order, but they are Inexcusable now that they know the Facts.

        I was Greatly Comforted by with your Hope that the Planet be Reforested to the Correct Degree so that Mankind can Survive on our Planet.

        The Daily Mail was not writing on Science, but was only reporting on what Climate Professor Richard Lindzen who has Read All of the IPCC Report, and who blasted the IPCC report, calling it hilariously incoherent.

        Wikipedia says that Professor Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist who is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books, and he was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

        He is a well known skeptic of climate change and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen .

        I was unaware that you knew of the Work of Judith Curry who has a PhD in Geophysical Science.

        Wikipedia says that Judith Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

        Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

        She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.

        Judith Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers, and among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

        Judith Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry .

        In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That and other blogs. Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate .

        People have Different Opinion as to how much needs to be written to be Concise Enough to offer Reasons for a Person’s Conclusions.

        It is my Opinion that I Provided a Minimum of Factual Information to Satisfy the Reader that I believed what I wrote concerning the Need to Reforest of the Planet, and so my comment was Concise, in my Opinion.

        I noted that you did not say that my personal research was incoherent, and unless incoherencies are made known, then any imagined incoherencies can easily be the Other Person’s Inability to understand certain matters.

        As a Proper Principle and Guideline, then Until an alleged example of an inconsistency is given, then that is how All Experienced People will view it, because there is a saying that the Person should either put up or shut up.

        Hopefully, those who are more Concise can look at the Information, so that the Human Race can begin Reforesting the Planet as soon as possible.

        After my research, I am Convinced that the Planet will not be affected by More Carbon Dioxide, and Forests remove Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere, and they Release Oxygen into the Atmosphere and they store Carbon in their Tress and other Vegetation, and so Reforesting the Planet is the way to store Carbon, even though Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, because it is Deforestation which is Guilty of Climate Change and for Enlarging the Deadly Deserts.

        Trees and other Vegetation put Moisture in the Atmosphere to Produce Clouds that Produce Rain that Provide Water to Grow Crops for Food.

        Dry Soil will Never place Moisture in Atmosphere, and so it is Trees and Vegetation that are Needed on the Land at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avZtD4gkM84 , as compared with at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sahara+desert&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HRphUu20GquTiQf9yoHoDA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1120&bih=639 .

        It has been Proven beyond All Doubt that if Mankind is to Survive, then the Entire Planet will need to be Reforested to the Correct Degree, and the Science on this is Settled, and All Scientists, All Politicians including the Greens, All Plutocrats, and All Journalists Know these Things to be True.

        Another Policy of the Genuine Workers Party will be to Teach Creation in Every School that Teaches the Lie of Evolution, because it is an Evil Sin to Deliberately Lie to another Human Being, the following is an Example of a Few Pages that will be added to School Books that present the Lie of Evolution.

        Today, there are over 7 billion People; in 1900 there were 1.5 billion People; in 1830 there were 1 billion People; in 1650 there were 500 million People; and at the time when Jesus was on earth there were 250 million People on the earth. We discover that the further back in time we go; there were fewer and fewer People until the Global Flood of Noah’s Day, and logically there were fewer and fewer People the further we go back from that time, and we quickly come back to one Man and one Woman. After the Creation of the first man and the first woman on this planet, they would quickly multiply and their descendants would begin cutting down the tress, for habitation and farming, and they would turn the planet into a desert (Genesis 5: 1-5). The Fact that the planet is not an entirely a desert yet, proves that Humans have only been on Earth for a few thousand years, and that they could not have come from apes. Scientists have proven that every human has the DNA material called Y-chromosomal Adam, and this proves that all humans are descended from the same man, and Scientists have proven that every human has the DNA material called Mitochondrial Eve, and this proves that all humans are descended from the same woman. The evolutionists or naturalists always resort to deception and make up their own illogical and lying theories as to why this is, rather than Confessing that God Supernaturally Created Adam and Eve in the same Location on Earth, which was the Garden of Eden. A closely guarded secret of the Lying Evolutionists is that of the work of John Haldane, who was both an evolutionist and a mathematician, and he is famous for his discovery that we today know as Haldane’s Dilemma at http://unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/oht/Haldane.PDF , with Much more Proof at http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/book/resource.PDF , and http://evolutionfairytale.com/index.htm.

        It proved to be a real dilemma to Haldane, because he proved mathematically that if genes could be replaced, then even under the most favourable circumstances it would take 50,000 billion years for apes to allegedly evolve into humans, but genes cannot be replaced. Scientists say that the Universe is only 20 billion years old, and this proves conclusively that there has not been enough time for alleged evolution from apes to humans to have occurred even if it was possible, and evolution from atoms to humans is impossible no matter how much time it is given. We know that the Invisible Gravity and that the Earth’s Invisible Magnetic Field exist, even though we cannot see them. The Bible says that God is an invisible Spirit, and the good angels and bad angels are created spirit beings are also invisible to Humans (1 Timothy 1:17). The very first man could not have had a human father or a human mother, but only a Heavenly Father, who is the Creator, and the first woman, could not have had a human father or a human mother, but only a Heavenly Father, who is the Creator. Jesus had a human mother, but not a human father, because the Bible tells us that Jesus is the Son of God, and Jesus called God, His Heavenly Father. The first man was not living before his Creation, and God made the first man Live, and this is Proof of God’s True Promise to bring the dead back to Life (John 5:24-29).

        The Bible tells us that first woman was made from the first man’s rib, and this proves that Jesus healed every type of sickness in Ancient Israel, because making Eve from a rib could be considered as the Ultimate Recorded Act of Healing (Matthew 4:23, 24). God created the Universe, and so He did knock down the walls of Jericho, and He has control over the weather, and He has moulded and shaped the earth, and made the earth do what He wants, and because God created the oceans, then this means that He parted the Red Sea, and that Jesus walked on water (Psalm 146:6). God has promised everlasting life to all those who Love Him and obey Him, and the Bible is the true History of Origins of the Human Race, and the Bible is true understanding of present world conditions, and the True Prophesy of the Future. I believe that some evolutionists have been deceived because other Deceptive and Unprincipled evolutionists have deliberately fabricating what they present as evidence, and which has later been found to have been a deliberately fabricated fraud. Piltdown man is one of the many such shams, and some cosmologists Lie by saying that the Material Universe came from nothing, but something can only come from something else or from a Creator. The Universe contains energy and matter, which cannot come from nothing; then, either something must have always existed, or a Creator with energy must have always existed. Things can never create themselves; therefore, this Proves, that it is the Creator who has Always Existed.

        The Creator could not be created, because the One who supposedly created Him would be the Creator; and, the Creator could not create Himself, because nothing can create itself. God certainly does Exit, and He could not have been created by anyone else, and God could not have created Himself; then logically, God must have always existed, and the Bible tells us that God will Always Exist (Isaiah 43:10). God speaks Only Truth to humans, which is recorded in a Book, because in this way his servants at any time in history can know the same amount of truth. Schools and Teachers give their Students the same book for each subject for good and proper reasons, if they Honest, but Many are Not Honest, because they put the Lies of Evolution in certain books. With the provision of the same information to all of us with the Bible, it shows that God is Just and that He loves us all equally, and Jesus said that Christians are not to be called Rabbi, because they all had to be brothers, and as such no extra information from God other than the Bible would be provided. Writing was the only way to record in those days, and the Bible allows us to Refresh our Memories, and the best way for our Creator to Communicate to all Humans through the ages is with a Book, and Historians do this.

        God chose Faithful and Honest People to write down what God wanted Recorded for our Benefit and Salvation. The Bible tells us that the sinless Son of God, Jesus, paid the price for the sins for all humans, and the Bible tells us because Jesus died sinless, then this means that Jesus the Redeemer did not need a redeemer, and therefore God raised Jesus up from the dead and back to Life as an Act of Justice. This is because God’s Law states that sin is the only Penalty for death, and Jesus never sinned, and therefore God did not allow this unjust situation to continue, and this is why God raised Jesus up from death to Everlasting Life (1 Peter 2:22; Revelation 1:18). According to the Bible, Jesus is mankind’s only Redeemer, and Jesus is now living forever in Heaven, and those who have died and whose sins were forgiven because they believed in Jesus, will come back to everlasting life (Mark 10:45; Romans 6:23). The Bible says that those People who Love and Obey our Creator, and who believe the Bible, and who have faith in God’s Son Jesus Christ, will live forever. “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?”(Jeremiah 32:27).

        A majority of scientists and the Bible agree on the point that the Universe must have had a beginning (Genesis 1:1).

        It should be mentioned that True Scientists with PhDs, because that God Created All Things in Heaven and on Earth

        After that point of agreement, there are several different unproven opinions that scientists who do not acknowledge that God created All things have, and each of which has real unexplainable difficulties.

        The most favored of these non sense opinions by scientists who give a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe is grossly absurd, and it goes by the name of the big bang theory.

        This opinion says that all the matter in the universe was in just one place, and then it exploded by itself, and now we have the precise universe.

        How did all the matter in the universe originally get to be in only one location, and what made it explode, and why was matter not in several locations to begin with?

        Today, 99% of the matter in the universe is hydrogen gas, which is slowly being converted into helium gas and then onto heavier elements.

        This means that if we look back in time then the universe according to the big bang theory was 100% hydrogen at the beginning.

        Stars are made of hydrogen gas, and the hydrogen gas is keep from escaping into the vacuum of space by large gravitational forces.

        There are 100 billion stars in each of the 100 billion galaxies that scientists have so far discovered in the universe.

        This would mean that if all the matter in the universe were in just one place, then the gravitational force would be so immense on that piece of matter that it would have stayed in one place.

        If this imaginary matter did explode, it would have been all hydrogen gas, and it is impossible to compress a gas in a vacuum to create stars.

        This means that the universe would have been a uniform mixture of ever expanding hydrogen whose density would be very close to zero.

        It is impossible to compress a gas in a vacuum, and the stars (compressed hydrogen) are separately by total vacuum for many light years away from each other.

        Every second in our sun, which is just a small star, converts 4 million tons of matter into solar energy.

        Scientists say that the sun can go on producing solar energy for 12 billion years.

        The Bible says that the sun, the moon, and the stars will last forever (Psalms 148:1-6).

        I know that the Bible tells the truth, and so just like there is a water cycle and a carbon cycle, there is even a star cycle.

        This means that God puts energy back into the stars or services and repairs them much the way a mechanic services and repairs an automobile.

        I think that black holes are not former stars, but are galactic vacuum cleaners that God created to absorb energy that the stars have released, and we have heard of black holes, but we rarely hear of white holes of which scientists do not know about, but some will obviously lie about, even as they lie about other things at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole .

        This absorbed energy can then be put back into the servicing and repairing of stars to keep the stars shining forever as the Bible truthfully says they will (Psalms 148:1-6).

        If we look at the sub atomic particle products of this Supposed big bang opinion, then we will see that the sub atomic particles are identical in their groupings, just like Coins are Identical in their groupings.

        For example, all electrons in the universe are all the same size, weight, and electrical charge.

        If someone exploded a big piece of metal, the product would Never be identical objects in Different Categories like Coins, but there would there be metal fragments of different size, weight, and shape.

        It is Obvious that matter was deliberately created, and also obvious that the stars had to be created.

        The electrical charge of Every electron in the Universe is equal and opposite the electrical charge of Every proton in the Universe, and electrons follow a perfect Mathematical Formula in the Atom, and their numbers must be Almost Identical for the Universe to exist in its current form.

        It is my Opinion that the number electrons and protons are in Fact Identical, but no Human Being can prove that at http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html .

        There are some scientists who say that the moon was created when an extremely large object first hit the earth at high velocity, and then went into orbit around the earth.

        The spherical shapes of both the earth and the moon could not have been the result of such any catastrophic collision.

        The earth and the moon would have both either joined up as one object, or both became fragments that have been lost in space, and so they would not be circling the sun, or even been in our solar system.

        A collision between objects as large as the earth and the moon would have resulted in more elliptical orbits for the moon, or the earth having at least two moons.

        The moon’s orbit around the earth is slightly elliptical because of the gravity of the sun as the moon constantly changes its distance from the sun as it orbits the earth.

        A collision between objects as large as the earth and the moon would have resulted in a more elliptical orbit for the earth around the sun.

        There are several theories of how the moon came into existence, and all of them have major problems that all scientists cannot explain.

        This means that ‘scientists’ have to keep coming up with new ‘theories’ and what was regarded as being a correct theory was discarded.

        This will prove true for all theories that that do not say that God created the moon.

        There are many true scientists who do believe that all the evidence proves beyond any doubt that God created the moon.

        I think that this is more than Sufficient for those who are Honest, and who use the Scientific Method.

        • Dylan Tusler 6 years ago

          Far too long again.

          Are you aware of the inaccuracies of the Daily Mail’s reporting on the latest IPCC reports? They have been widely discussed in my country. Lindzen’s comments were made prior to the release of the latest IPCC report, and didn’t seem very balanced. I got the impression he was trying to curry favour with the Climate Depot admins.

          I’m perplexed that you choose to answer two posts suggesting conciseness with even longer and more rambling posts than you originally made.

          • Facts 6 years ago

            I was Hoping that Carbon Dioxide was causing the Planet to become hotter, because hotter Oceans would put much more Water Vapor in the Atmosphere, and it would have caused Dew or Snow in the Deserts at the Icy Cold Desert Nights, because of the Water Vapor in the Desert Atmosphere, but Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, and it is Deforestation that is Causing Climate Change.

            The Reason that there is no Dew in the Deserts and why it does not Snow in the Freezing Deserts of the Night Times, is because the Air of Deserts are Dry.

            That Dew or Snow would Water the Deserts, and this would allow the Deserts to be Reforested, and that Snow would have created Rivers, Streams, and Lakes, and those Deserts would become a Forest with Much Biodiversity, and this would Provide for Humans, and Cool the Planet.

            I was Perplexed as to why Some Climate Scientists did not want more Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere to make Hotter Oceans in order to make Dew or Snow in the Deserts at Night, but I now know that Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, and that it is Deforestation that is Cause of Climate Change, and that Many People do not want to Reforest the Planet so that Mankind can survive on this Planet.

            The worst part of this Climate Change is that Caused by Deforestation is that it is Cooling the Planet, and so there will be less Water Vapour in the Atmosphere, and Only Reforestation will Increase Water Vapour in the Atmosphere to make it Possible for Dew or Snow to occur in the Deserts at Night at http://now.msn.com/global-warming-may-be-pausing-for-a-period-of-global-cooling , and http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/427980/Global-warming-No-the-planet-is-getting-cooler .

            The Important Thing to know in All of This is that Carbon Dioxide is a Vital Molecule that exists Only in Very Small Amounts, and is Innocent, and it is Deforestation that the Human Cause of Climate Change.

            Humans can survive in vastly different Climates as long as they have Water and Food, and this is why we should not even consider what the Resultant Climate of the Earth will be after the Reforestation of the Earth, because those that do have Ulterior Motives.

            The Correct Combination of Hardy Plants like Cactuses, along with Hardy Shrubs and Hardy Grasses, and Water Loving Trees and other Vegetation that Releases the Much Water into the Atmosphere will Provide the Water that Humans, Plants, Animals Need, and it Provides the Correct Conditions for Humans on this Planet.

            It is an Individual Assessment as to how long an Answer should be, and it Could Be that Some of those who are wanting Conciseness, and doing it for Ulterior Motives.

            If a comment is far too CONcise, then it Might Unintentionally Facilitate a Potential Troll to CON other People, or it Might lead to CONfusion, but not because of any Lies, but because of Insufficient Information, Reasons, and Explanations.

            I am not referring to you Specifically, but making the General Statement that Some People ask for CONsciseness, because they want Others to be CONned, because they are CON Artists

            What I am aware of is that the Summary of the Fifth IPCC Report was released on 27/9/2013, and the Daily Mail Article of the Assessment of the Professor of Climate was made on 30/9/2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf , and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438434/MIT-scientist-ridicules-IPCC-climate-change-report-calls-findings-hilarious-incoherence.html .

            What All of us who wish to engage in an Honest Debate should Know is Such Researchers have their Own Accurate Data, and so they can Spot Lies, when they see them.

            Furthermore, such Expert Researchers Always receive their Copy of these Matters before the Public does, and the Final Draft Report was Completed on 7/6/2013 at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-ar5-full-final-report-released-full-access-here/ , and the Entire Fifth IPCC Report it can Read from that Webpage.

            I am of the Opinion that the Professor Lindzen’s Comments are not meant to be balanced, but Accurate and Factual, as one would expect from True Science.

            I got the impression that he was giving his Honest Assessment, based on his many years of Accumulated Accurate Knowledge and Expertise on Climate Science, and using the Latest Facts at http://now.msn.com/global-warming-may-be-pausing-for-a-period-of-global-cooling , and http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/427980/Global-warming-No-the-planet-is-getting-cooler .

            There is a saying that says: We hear what you say, and we see what you do, but what is the Real Motive Behind it?

            It is claimed by you that you are perplexed that I answered 2 Other Contributors to the Public Debate on Climate Change, because they used the word CONciseness.

            I wonder if it is possible that a Person can place comments on an Article as 2 seemingly Different People with 2 Different Styles, in order to Provide Some Bulk and a Little Repetition, in order to suggest that more than one Person is claiming an Alleged Reasonable Objection, and one possible example could be on the Matter of being CONcise.

            I will have to Clarify a sentence I wrote to the Other Contributor, because that sentence was Ambiguous, we know that it is Good to be Coherent, and the sentence in question is the following sentence.

            I wrote: “We know that Statement is Concise, but it is Not Coherent, and Trolls may be Concise, but they are Not Coherent, because a Person who Presents Only Facts is not a Troll.”

            I meant to write: “We know Your Statement that you wrote to me is Concise, but it is Not Coherent, and we know that Trolls are usually CONcise, but they are Not Coherent, because a Person who Presents Only Facts cannot be a troll.”

            It could that Some People who are asking Others to be CONcise Might in Fact be Trolls, and their Ulterior Motive is to CONtroll the Debate, rather than accept Facts, because of any of a number of Obvious Reasons, which may or may not have been already mentioned.

            I was hoping that you liked the 4 day working week, as it will Create Full Employment, and it will give Budget Surpluses that will pay off the Debt, and it will Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 15 % , even though we All Know that Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, and it is Deforestation that is Causing

            The 4 day working week will Create Full Employment, and it will give Budget Surpluses that will pay off the Debt, and it will Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 15 % , and from my personal research, I am Convinced that the Planet will not be adversely affected by more Carbon Dioxide, and Forests remove Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere, and they Release Oxygen into the Atmosphere, and Forests store Carbon in their Tress and other Vegetation, and so Reforesting the Planet is the way to store Carbon, even though Carbon Dioxide is Innocent, because it is Deforestation which is Guilty of Climate Change and for Enlarging the Deadly Deserts.

            I say again, that I was Greatly Comforted with your Hope that the Planet be Reforested to the Correct Degree, so that Mankind can Survive on our Planet.

    • Miles Harding 6 years ago

      No facts here! Move along.

      • Facts 6 years ago

        If you were commenting on your own Comment, then you would be Correct that you did not write any Facts there.

        However, I wrote Only Facts, and The Proper Thing for you to do is to quote something you Allegedly Disagree with, and give us your Supposed Great Learning on the Matter, because you set yourself up as a Critic of Supposed Great Learning, and you have an Opportunity to make us All Marvel at your Self Proclaimed Great Learning, but the Facts stand on their Own Merit, and cannot be discredited by Anyone.

        Furthermore, unless any Alleged or any Supposed inconsistencies are made known along with Reason for why a Person Allegedly does not agree, then they can easily be the Other Person’s Inability to understand the written word, and until an example is given, then this is how All Experienced People will view it, because there is a saying to either put up or shut up, and we all know that this saying is considered to be Concise and Coherent.

  3. Kevin O'Dea 6 years ago

    The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as the still raging bushfires in New South Wales clearly demonstrates the risks in denial of climate change. I do think insurance companies need to have a chat with Tony Abbott and his mates to give them an ultimatum to lift their game in attitudes towards science and the risks of denialism.

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.