Originally Posted by
Chocks Away
I nice dodge with an irrelevant "fact" . The claim being pushed by the likes of Andrew Bolt and parroted by you is that we don't have to worry about climate change because all the fires were deliberately lit.... Wizofoz... mate... I never said such a thing and you know it so don't go trying to put words into my mouth!
The climate has always been changing and to think we have such a major hand in it is sheer stupidity!
Three volcanos are chuffing away North of Australia right now with a total of thirteen active today... bushfires' CO2 in comparison... meh!
It's very simple but astounds so many. What Bolt; Credlin; The IPA; Reuter; AAP etc have questioned and pointed out (but NOT the climate change weeping zealots of Ch10 / ABC / SBS / CNN / DW / TwitterSewer etc) is that it's CAUSE & EFFECT... if there were no deliberately lit sparks there would not be so many fires AND if there wasn't so much un-attended to undergrowth / fuel, they would not be so intense. Is that so hard to comprehend?
The facts are clear just as per the example I mentioned as an immediate example that day, of idiots lighting the fires!
Happy Landings
Man made CO2 is 100 times the output of volcanoes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/Strange Bolt hasn't mentioned that, don't you think?
So, if you are happy to believe that the output of CO2 by volcanoes effects the climate, you MUST believe that man-made CO2 is worse, musn't you?
Now, what evidence do you have that ANY of the catastrophic fire were deliberately lit? And were we not in drought, would it matter? Idiots can't light fires if there is no dry foliage to lite- even a denier can't deny that- but probably will anyway.