Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster
Before 1980 we had 4.5billion on the planet and yeah many of those were still living far less consumeristic lifestyles so maybe 1 and a bit billion modern day consumers.
Today we approach 8 billion and probably what 6 billion are consuming the fark outa the planet.
On track for 11 billion this century.
Estimates range from 1 to 4 billion as a long term sustainable population for the planet. Ie around the 1980s mark or less.
I fnd it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Select to expand quotebeefarmer said..TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda
I think I'd be a lot more concerned if Tony Abbott did like a climate graph
One of his mates lol
www.news.com.au/technology/environment/i-think-its-a-load-of-bs-pauline-hanson-wants-climate-change-left-out-of-bushfires-royal-commission/news-story/05b8869789039d7b9ad711f39916b620
Select to expand quoteroodney said..beefarmer said..TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda
I think I'd be a lot more concerned if Tony Abbott did like a climate graph
One of his mates lol
www.news.com.au/technology/environment/i-think-its-a-load-of-bs-pauline-hanson-wants-climate-change-left-out-of-bushfires-royal-commission/news-story/05b8869789039d7b9ad711f39916b620
The most sensible thing she's said in ages. Climate change is a contributing factor, sure. But letting climate change in on the agenda will befuddle the issue of what can be done right now to ease the situation.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..roodney said..beefarmer said..TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda
I think I'd be a lot more concerned if Tony Abbott did like a climate graph
One of his mates lol
www.news.com.au/technology/environment/i-think-its-a-load-of-bs-pauline-hanson-wants-climate-change-left-out-of-bushfires-royal-commission/news-story/05b8869789039d7b9ad711f39916b620
The most sensible thing she's said in ages. Climate change is a contributing factor, sure. But letting climate change in on the agenda will befuddle the issue of what can be done right now to ease the situation.
If a RC is going to produce recommendations for future actions, projected climate change has to be considered
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda
Data source is dodgy land surface temp. They have not had temp gauges spread evenly over the whole country ever and certainly not since 1910.
Also the temp gauges have many problems with poor set up locations and management. They are no substitute for satellite data.
Most temp gauges are located in urban environments, they are impacted by urban heat island effect. More people, more infrastructure, more urban heat. Alarmists love surface temp data and hate satellite data.
So, in order to create these maps they used data covering a tiny tiny fraction of the land surface and a lot of biased imagination to fill in gaps. Then cherry picked the scale and baseline to fit agenda.
Alarmist propaganda to go with a political climate change campaign running in overdrive atm.
So, the BOM is a sinister government agency with a hidden agenda to manipulate climate data, eh? Isn't it too hot for your tin foil hat?
Select to expand quoteBara said..
I find it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Yep, address that and you fix just about everything, including housing affordability and parking problems at Kyeemagh!
Even the clever Dick has started listening to me.
dicksmithpopulation.com/
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Bara said..
I find it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Yep, address that and you fix just about everything, including housing affordability and parking problems at Kyeemagh!
Even the clever Dick has started listening to me.
dicksmithpopulation.com/
Agree, it's the Elephant in the room.
Select to expand quoteHardcarve1 said..Harrow said..Bara said..
I find it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Yep, address that and you fix just about everything, including housing affordability and parking problems at Kyeemagh!
Even the clever Dick has started listening to me.
dicksmithpopulation.com/
Agree, it's the Elephant in the room.
Hopefully people like Bill Gates improve healthcare and living conditions around the world and population rates start to fall.
Yes we hope philatelists do improve living conditions and health care .
But honestly that's the job of government for its citizens.
Select to expand quoteactiomax said..
Yes we hope philatelists do improve living conditions and health care .
But honestly that's the job of government for its citizens.
It's certainly not the job of people who own stamp collections
Select to expand quoteactiomax said..
Yes we hope philatelists do improve living conditions and health care .
But honestly that's the job of government for its citizens.
Select to expand quoteBara said..Mr Milk said..
Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster
Before 1980 we had 4.5billion on the planet and yeah many of those were still living far less consumeristic lifestyles so maybe 1 and a bit billion modern day consumers.
Today we approach 8 billion and probably what 6 billion are consuming the fark outa the planet.
On track for 11 billion this century.
Estimates range from 1 to 4 billion as a long term sustainable population for the planet. Ie around the 1980s mark or less.
I fnd it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Agree humans spreading like a virus...................just interested how are you going to take out 3.5 to 9 billion people?
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..
Agree humans spreading like a virus...................just interested how are you going to take out 3.5 to 9 billion people?
Easy. Give them unaffordable mortgages and a belief that they can have everything before they have kids.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..Bara said..Mr Milk said..
Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster
Before 1980 we had 4.5billion on the planet and yeah many of those were still living far less consumeristic lifestyles so maybe 1 and a bit billion modern day consumers.
Today we approach 8 billion and probably what 6 billion are consuming the fark outa the planet.
On track for 11 billion this century.
Estimates range from 1 to 4 billion as a long term sustainable population for the planet. Ie around the 1980s mark or less.
I fnd it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Agree humans spreading like a virus...................just interested how are you going to take out 3.5 to 9 billion people?
Its happening, slowly.
i never thought i'd have a good thing to say about feminism. But i'm quite sure it's played a huge part in the decline of dating/marriage, and thus population growth. So it's not all bad.
maybe we need some more feminism action in the more populated countries.
thankyou feminism.
For our part in Australia we can stop immigration, without that we have a negative population growth.
Many cultures still have lots of kids assuming that only a few will survive to adulthood, the affluent west is meddling in that population control process resulting in refugees and therefore population growth.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..Bara said..Mr Milk said..
Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster
Before 1980 we had 4.5billion on the planet and yeah many of those were still living far less consumeristic lifestyles so maybe 1 and a bit billion modern day consumers.
Today we approach 8 billion and probably what 6 billion are consuming the fark outa the planet.
On track for 11 billion this century.
Estimates range from 1 to 4 billion as a long term sustainable population for the planet. Ie around the 1980s mark or less.
I fnd it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Agree humans spreading like a virus...................just interested how are you going to take out 3.5 to 9 billion people?
Well china tried it with the one child policy but thats been thrown away due to an approaching ageing population problem ( not enough workers to support economic growth plus all the old people)
We have that same issue here and partly address it with immigration as our economic model requires endless growth in both output and population to work. We could start by addressing that model but it's far too hard especially at a global level which is the only one that matters.
The uncontrolled alternative is a global economic depression which is funnily enough what the global economy has been trying to do since 2008 but we keep injecting more adrenaline to prolong the inevitable.
But until we admit that 8 billion people and unchecked growth is the
problem and not what fuel we use to energize it the sooner we would actually start talking about real solutions.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..The most sensible thing she's said in ages. Climate change is a contributing factor, sure. But letting climate change in on the agenda will befuddle the issue of what can be done right now to ease the situation.roodney said..beefarmer said..TonyAbbott said..
Alarmist propaganda
I think I'd be a lot more concerned if Tony Abbott did like a climate graph
One of his mates lol
www.news.com.au/technology/environment/i-think-its-a-load-of-bs-pauline-hanson-wants-climate-change-left-out-of-bushfires-royal-commission/news-story/05b8869789039d7b9ad711f39916b620
Sure, but is that wise? Be real. Pauline thinks it's a hoax. To frame her words as "sensible" is a tad optimistic.
At some point, the underlying issues need resolving.
What you advocate is that we ignore the disease and only treat the symptom.
In reality, we must and will do both and there's no point delaying treatment of the disease by using excuses.
Not only was 2019 the hottest year on official Australian records, but it was possibly the driest. The claim that climate change has not driven worse fires and perhaps started some through dry lightning that would in normal conditions be accompanied by rain is very dismissive of the evidence on the ground.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Sure, but is that wise? Be real. Pauline thinks it's a hoax. To frame her words as "sensible" is a tad optimistic. At some point, the underlying issues need resolving.
What you advocate is that we ignore the disease and only treat the symptom.
In reality, we must and will do both and there's no point delaying treatment of the disease by using excuses.
Not only was 2019 the hottest year on official Australian records, but it was possibly the driest. The claim that climate change has not driven worse fires and perhaps started some through dry lightning that would in normal conditions be accompanied by rain is very dismissive of the evidence on the ground.
Well put. Even if climate change is currently only a small contributor to fire severity/frequency one can only assume it's going to become a larger driver in the future.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..holy guacamole said..Sure, but is that wise? Be real. Pauline thinks it's a hoax. To frame her words as "sensible" is a tad optimistic. At some point, the underlying issues need resolving.
What you advocate is that we ignore the disease and only treat the symptom.
In reality, we must and will do both and there's no point delaying treatment of the disease by using excuses.
Not only was 2019 the hottest year on official Australian records, but it was possibly the driest. The claim that climate change has not driven worse fires and perhaps started some through dry lightning that would in normal conditions be accompanied by rain is very dismissive of the evidence on the ground.
Well put. Even if climate change is currently only a small contributor to fire severity/frequency one can only assume it's going to become a larger driver in the future.
Pauline has come up with some beauties but that doesn't mean every later statement is nonsense. It's what is said not who says it.
Climate change has made some contribution to current bushfires but I don't think we can "only" assume it will get worse. We're only guestimating that the measured increases in climatic averages will continue. Even if they do does that necessarily increase the severity of fires? If it gets hotter and drier the vegetation will respond. It won't produce fuel as quickly. On the other hand decomposition of fuel might slow down. The worst Australian fires were probably Black Saturday. The hardest hit areas in Victoria were those with the highest rainfall. You might argue that the farmlands in the Wimmera carried lower fuel loads and were able to be rounded up. But that contradicts the latest meme that says "fuel loads don't matter". And access and terrain, lots of variables. Maybe when we run out of petrol retirees will stop building in the hills. The fire problem could go either way.
Ian you said
"But letting climate change in on the agenda will befuddle the issue of what can be done right now to ease the situation."
I think that statement is simply misguided. We can and will do both. We are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, despite your incredulity.
Select to expand quoteBara said..IFocus said..Bara said..Mr Milk said..
Before the 1980s most households had only one car and zero air conditioners. The local shopping centre wasn't a huge mall with a huge car park and huge air conditioning.
There weren't as many middle class people in the world consuming away to ensure that there is no tomorrow. And now that China and India are really taking off it all gets worse faster
Before 1980 we had 4.5billion on the planet and yeah many of those were still living far less consumeristic lifestyles so maybe 1 and a bit billion modern day consumers.
Today we approach 8 billion and probably what 6 billion are consuming the fark outa the planet.
On track for 11 billion this century.
Estimates range from 1 to 4 billion as a long term sustainable population for the planet. Ie around the 1980s mark or less.
I fnd it amazing that in all the hysteria to "do something" population barely cracks a mention.
Agree humans spreading like a virus...................just interested how are you going to take out 3.5 to 9 billion people?
Well china tried it with the one child policy but thats been thrown away due to an approaching ageing population problem ( not enough workers to support economic growth plus all the old people)
We have that same issue here and partly address it with immigration as our economic model requires endless growth in both output and population to work. We could start by addressing that model but it's far too hard especially at a global level which is the only one that matters.
The uncontrolled alternative is a global economic depression which is funnily enough what the global economy has been trying to do since 2008 but we keep injecting more adrenaline to prolong the inevitable.
But until we admit that 8 billion people and unchecked growth is the
problem and not what fuel we use to energize it the sooner we would actually start talking about real solutions.
And last century there were lots of depopulation going on like wars and natural disasters, if those didn't happen we would be in the $hit.
Population is NOT the problem.
The way we live is the problem.
Regardless of whether population is reduced the degradation will simply continue but at a slower rate.
The end result is the same.
Only the time frame changes.
A paradigm shift would occur if all people could only get their heads around the fact that it does not require masses of stuff to achieve a fulfilled life.
Which is easier said than done because our economic model requires people to consume as much as they can.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Ian you said
"But letting climate change in on the agenda will befuddle the issue of what can be done right now to ease the situation."
I think that statement is simply misguided. We can and will do both. We are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, despite your incredulity.
Yes we can address both, but the timescales for solving each are so different they should be addressed separately. You can accept in a bushfire enquiry that the burning window might get smaller and that we need to allocate "5 times" the resources in NSW to prescribed burning rather than dwell on the ifs and buts of climate change. And ecologists might have to allow for ecotones to shift in prescribing fuel reduction (if they're not doing it already). What else? The Firies already know when to round up an edge, when to step back and do what they can for life and property, when to wait for conditions to ease. If they get a big one every 5 years rather than every 10 what's the difference?
So you firmly believe the Bushfire Royal Commission should not make ANY reference to all possible causes and factors contributing to the fires, simply because some are harder to deal with?
Is that right?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
So you firmly believe the Bushfire Royal Commission should not make ANY reference to all possible causes and factors contributing to the fires, simply because some are harder to deal with?
Is that right?
The factors contributing to fires haven't changed. Wind, temperature, drought factor, days since rain .... slope, fuel load, fuel structure. etc .
All been well researched, the understanding is still not perfect, but a royal commission isn't going to refine it.
Possible causes? Doesn't matter. A fire researcher I worked with once used to say " He who owns the fuel owns the fire"
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..holy guacamole said..
So you firmly believe the Bushfire Royal Commission should not make ANY reference to all possible causes and factors contributing to the fires, simply because some are harder to deal with?
Is that right?
The factors contributing to fires haven't changed. Wind, temperature, drought factor, days since rain .... slope, fuel load, fuel structure. etc .
All been well researched, the understanding is still not perfect, but a royal commission isn't going to refine it.
Possible causes? Doesn't matter. A fire researcher I worked with once used to say " He who owns the fuel owns the fire"
Exactly. What is changing, is the climate, yet you don't want us to talk about it and throw it in the "too hard" basket! 
So what you are all saying is that we need to reduce the population, to sustain the high living standard, that was created partly through population and economic growth, for tomorrow's population ??
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Harrow said..
Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.
Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?
Edit: It sounds like you are making this up.
www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs
"The second limitation is that many of these early observations were taken using a variety of observing methods. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology was formed in 1908 by an Act of the Federal Parliament. The formation of a national meteorological agency soon addressed the lack of national standards for instruments and calibrations, as well as limitations on the continental coverage of observations.
The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country had occurred by 1910, two years after the Bureau was formed. Standard observational practices (such as the use of a Stevenson screen to house the instruments) were in place at most sites in Queensland and South Australia by the mid-1890s, but in New South Wales and Victoria many sites were not standardised until between 1906 and 1908."
You would think from that comment that everything before 1910 was done by drunkards with a thermometer on the brick wall. This is far from the truth and there were plenty of official sites that operated prior to 1910 in exactly the same manner with Stevenson screens.
While I am sure they have to draw the line somewhere it does create perception issues with 1910 coinciding with the end of the Centenary drought and the high temperatures experienced in the late 1800's and and early 1900's that go came with it. A look at any global temperature record will show 1910 as the low point and it was hotter prior. Also plenty of Australian records to show that as well.
www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-07-16/federation-drought-analysis-finds-huge-ecosystem-losses/11312694?fbclid=IwAR1FevrnoEmMyozxoM1A1U0VthNmkKGmMBnHQpDQzMYkUnijnE1qqw3KsbI
I don't think anyone disagrees the earth has warmed over the last 50 years, including Australia. Fortunately the increased temperature has also increased rain overall.
