Current Affairs Australian Bush Fires

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can do that:-LINK

For every link you provide, I can provide one that will back my opinion up. Not much point really is there.
You're right, if you are going to counter two peer reviewed journals (which is what was linked by verrauxi) with one opinion piece from a magazine, there really is no point.

Yes, scaremongering does a disservice, because it leads to people arguing about the minute details which really don't matter rather than looking at the bigger picture and completely distracts from the issue at hand.

You should check out some of Barry Rathbones posts in the climate change thread for some evidence of this and how it completely derails discussions.
 
I can do that:-LINK

For every link you provide, I can provide one that will back my opinion up. Not much point really is there.
There is plenty of relevance to this exercise, particularly if you read and think critically about each hyperlinked study. If you read the Forbes article you linked to (written by a former Mobil-Exxon employee who teaches about the Gas/Oil Industry), he is comparing two different things in order to make a false equivalence. He is talking about a study of personal opinions of climate scientists using a 7-point Likert scale to measure their opinion on climate issues; the papers I linked to are a survey and enumeration of published peer-reviewed climate studies. Apart from problems in using a Likert-scale, measuring personal opinions of scientists is very different then measuring the peer-reviewed literature that scientists produce. I know Christian scientists who believe in god, but still produce good peer-reviewed work on evolution. In asking about a belief in god, these scientists would answer a survey as "yes" but their peer-reviewed research on evolution would indicate that evolution has occurred--there is a difference between opinion and research. The other study cited by the author of the link you provided is by Richard Tol, who in fact does believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change; he just argues with the methodology. In one of those two links that I provided and that you didn't read, one study is a response to Richard Tol's criticisms. The author of the Forbes Op-Ed piece you linked to might be a dispassionate and objective scientist, but I'm a bit wary of his political agenda, in the same way that I'd be wary of believing a paper written by an author who works for Phillip-Morris Tobacco claiming that the scientific consensus that smoking causes lung cancer is less than 97%.
 
Ahhh, the quoting of statistics to support an argument.

I was always told that there are lies, damned lies and then statistics, @verreauxi those two 'HERE' links are a perfect demonstration that even with their analysis the 97% consensus is only based on a very small percentage of the total papers.

There is no 'overwhelming consensus' because the science currently does not support one.

Here's a thought for all you climate alarmists, has any one of the vast number of studies established what is an acceptable level for the global surface temperature or percentage of atmospheric CO2? The answer is no BTW, so how can all these scientific papers provide such consensus?

Not sure what to do here: One the one hand you don't seem to believe in counting and can't seem to tell a difference between ordinal numbers, unoriginally claiming there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" when faced with a study that tallies up the results of other studies, yet on the other hand you are another interweb-science guy who already has all the answers that us dumb scientists with our statistical models can't seem to arrive at.
 
Who cares? That 97% came from one peer reviewed paper, but almost all of them agree that it is somewhere between 90 and 100. It's impossible to be completely precise when determining a consensus, but even the lowest percentage you accept, and it is likely to be a lot more, is 80%. That is still huge. Your gripe seems to be with Greta and Noels Edmonds and the media, so I presume if they told you the earth was round you'd go the other way on that?

The outlets that push climate denial are almost routinely institutes and think tanks run by lawyers and lobbyists for fossil fuel companies. What does your gut tell you about that?

I don't have a gripe with anyone. I am saying I am not convinced that global warming is man made, but for some weird reason a few people on an internet forum cannot accept this opinion. It's just an opinion. I am not responsible for policy, so the world is safe for now.

Anyway - I am going with the geological records - not my gut. If you look back over my messages, I am defending my opinion - I am not telling anyone they are wrong for thinking what they think - I am really not qualified to do that. You might be right about global warming. Or I might be. Or maybe it's a mixture of both. I mentioned in an earlier response to someone that I don't feel that strongly about this issue. This is true - I really don't give it much thought.

Also - There is a massive difference in 80% and 97%. Saying 1 in 33 scientists does not support the global warming narrative, sounds completely different than saying 1 in 5.

Anyways - Thanks for your points and all that, but I am going to leave this now. It's taking up too much time ha.

Enjoy your evening.
 
Not sure what to do here: One the one hand you don't seem to believe in counting and can't seem to tell a difference between ordinal numbers, unoriginally claiming there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" when faced with a study that tallies up the results of other studies, yet on the other hand you are another interweb-science guy who already has all the answers that us dumb scientists with our statistical models can't seem to arrive at.

Plenty of reading between the lines there, but to respond. I have no issues with counting and I am able to tell the difference between ordinal numbers. But as I said statistics are not to be trusted as they are generated to provide the answer that the analyst wants. No I'm not an 'interweb-science guy' I am a person who shows interest in expanding my knowledge. If you are as you allude a scientist then you should be able to comprehend the need to complete personal data research with a search outside of the 'approved list of papers'.

There is no consensus.
 
After the great Victorian bush fires of 1939...did we have climate change back then or just fires??
Anyway with Morrison mooting Royal Commission to investigate, aka, push it down the road, a quick check shows that many of the Recommendations 1939 Inquiry have yet to be implemented. Due to lack of political will, eg, Cost and/or it might upset some section of the vote.
Oh and then the war got in the way.
Then there were other big fires...there are no small ones here...over the years, the last in 2009.
The resultant 2009 Inquiry came up with most of the same suggestions as the 1939 Inquiry.
10 years on - Nothing!

We have already had countless bushfire inquiries. What good will it do to have another?
The Conversation
/
By Kevin Tolhurst
Posted1 day ago, updated1 day ago
Good fire and land management needs to be done with long-term perspective, not a short-term political focus.(Supplied: Gena Dray)
As our country battles the most extensive fires of our lifetime, there are increasing calls for a royal commission into the states and territories' preparedness and the Federal Government's response to the disaster.
A royal commission has coercive powers beyond a government inquiry, and the need for one implies there are facts and evidence that would otherwise be "hidden" to an inquiry or review.
Research I've recently conducted with other fire experts has concluded there have been 57 formal public inquiries, reviews and royal commissions related to bushfires and fire management since 1939, most of which are listed here.
I have given expert evidence to at least seven of them, including the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.
That is more than one inquiry every two years in the past 80 years. Do we need yet another?
Previous reviews that went nowhere
Some of the recommendations of the Stretton Royal Commission following the Black Friday fires of 1939 have still not been fully implemented.
Many of the recommendations of the subsequent 56 inquiries have not been fully implemented either, so it raises serious questions about whether another royal commission will offer anything new or compelling.
The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission had a budget of $40 million and ran for about 18 months.(AAP: Andrew Brownbill)
Royal commissions are also expensive and time consuming. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission had a budget of $40 million and ran for about 18 months.
This cost did not include the very considerable time and resources committed by various government agencies, companies and individuals who prepared and presented evidence to the commission.
When these costs are taken into account, I estimate the total cost of the commission to Victoria would have been much more.
This begs the question as to how money spent on a federal royal commission could be better used to deal with bushfire management across the country.
A comprehensive fire management plan already exists
In response to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and various other inquiries, fire managers from government agencies in all states
A better way forward
Over the past 20 years or so, the tertiary education for land managers, such as professional foresters and rangers, has been reduced to the level of generic "environmental science". This has largely been due to the politicisation of public land management.
Bushfire science is complex and fire management even more complex, so we need to have highly trained and qualified people managing our parks and forests. Instead, we typically have groups of individual specialists trying to collaborate without the strong leadership and direction such a task requires.
Are hazard reduction burns effective in managing bushfires?
A firefighter conducts a fuel-reduction burn at sunrise or sunset in bushland.
RMIT ABC Fact Check finds the link between planned burns and the risk of dangerous bushfires can be a complicated one.
Read more

We do not expect a physicist or chemist to build a bridge, even though they could provide great detail about the forces acting on it and the metallurgy of the structure.
Instead, we employ engineers. Likewise, we should not expect botanists, zoologists, ecologists or environmental scientists to manage the natural landscape. That, however, is what is happening now
 
I have mentioned this earlier - The geological records show the Earth's temperature rises and falls in cycles. This has always been the case. This year and this decade may be the hottest on record, but the records only go back a couple of hundred years. Going back thousands of years, temperatures have been far higher, and a lot lower than they are now. That's basically it. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I do believe we need to smarten our act up with em
I don't have a gripe with anyone. I am saying I am not convinced that global warming is man made, but for some weird reason a few people on an internet forum cannot accept this opinion. It's just an opinion. I am not responsible for policy, so the world is safe for now.

Anyway - I am going with the geological records - not my gut. If you look back over my messages, I am defending my opinion - I am not telling anyone they are wrong for thinking what they think - I am really not qualified to do that. You might be right about global warming. Or I might be. Or maybe it's a mixture of both. I mentioned in an earlier response to someone that I don't feel that strongly about this issue. This is true - I really don't give it much thought.

Also - There is a massive difference in 80% and 97%. Saying 1 in 33 scientists does not support the global warming narrative, sounds completely different than saying 1 in 5.

Anyways - Thanks for your points and all that, but I am going to leave this now. It's taking up too much time ha.

Enjoy your evening.
Don't worry, this came through loud and clear in your posts.
 
Plenty of reading between the lines there, but to respond. I have no issues with counting and I am able to tell the difference between ordinal numbers. But as I said statistics are not to be trusted as they are generated to provide the answer that the analyst wants. No I'm not an 'interweb-science guy' I am a person who shows interest in expanding my knowledge. If you are as you allude a scientist then you should be able to comprehend the need to complete personal data research with a search outside of the 'approved list of papers'.

There is no consensus.
If you are interested in "expanding" your knowledge you should definitely read a statistics textbook: statistics are not "generated to provide the answer that the analyst wants"...that is among the dumbest things I have ever read on GOT, and that's saying a lot.
 
There is no consensus.

This sounds a lot like "There was no collusion" which amounts to a personal opinion based on a gut feeling. It is most definitely not a good-faith search for the "need to complete personal data research." If you want to stick to fossil-funded pseudo-science to find those studies that fall "outside the approved list of papers" (whatever that means), then you are doing a good job. Serious questions: where do you stand on the moonlanding, fake or not?...vaccinations, good or evil capitalist plot?...or earth, flat or spherical?. These things are definitely "outside the approved list of papers" and will stunt your "need to complete personal data research." Best of luck to you.
 
If you are interested in "expanding" your knowledge you should definitely read a statistics textbook: statistics are not "generated to provide the answer that the analyst wants"...that is among the dumbest things I have ever read on GOT, and that's saying a lot.

You can believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Having read the Climate Change thread as well as this one it is clear you have a different standpoint to me and there is little chance of you changing my mind or me changing yours so further discussion will be futile.

Enjoy the rest of your day/night (wherever you are in the world) and I'll enjoy mine.

Looking forward to a win against the Hammers though.
 
Serious questions: where do you stand on the moonlanding, fake or not?...vaccinations, good or evil capitalist plot?...or earth, flat or spherical?. These things are definitely "outside the approved list of papers" and will stunt your "need to complete personal data research." Best of luck to you.

Moon landing is real, vaccinations are good for the human race, the earth is an oblate spheroid.
 
Another one comes in swinging, but leaves with a "Well, it's just my opinion" after Verrauxi brutally pounds them with truth. Ferocious

What a fu*king plank, it's pretty clear Verrauxi has his opinion as many others do in this thread, all I've done is withdraw because I just don't have the energy any more to deal with alarmists.

I have my opinions, you have yours, but at the end of the day we're all blues and should get along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top