3 ms·
I was tuned into 2GB and heard Alan Jones make the argument, (no surprises here): 93% [I think, something high...] bush-fires are not started by natural causes
by quickthrower2 7y ago
I was tuned into 2GB and heard Alan Jones make the argument, (no surprises here):
93% [I think, something high...] bush-fires are not started by natural causes ... all this climate change rubbish!
The arson narrative is that the arsonists are causing the fires, not climate change. Because, in this world view, everything bad can only have one factor contributing to it's cause.
No one says "yes there is an arson problem but if they didn't start the fire there is a good chance something else would have started a fire in thousands of sq km of bush, and the fact that all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway." because that's too long and boring and doesn't fit in a tweet let alone a hash tag.
- datashow 7y agoEven if we accept "all the bush is super dry and it's very hot means it is most likely that would start a fire anyway", this is still far from linking the fires to climate change. I am not saying it is not linked to climate change, but to establish scientific evidence to this causal link requires complicated analyses. Why am I getting downvoted for this? Someone care to explain?
- missosoup 7y agoYou need complicated analysis to correlate the prolonged drought and all-time record breaking heat to climate change? Why are you putting climate change in quotes? Even hardcore paid Oil shills don't deny climate change at this point, they only deny that it's anthropogenic. The bureau of meteorology even made a pretty infographic showing the effects of climate change: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/
- datashow 7y agoWhat? I never noticed I put those quotes... Weird. I just removed the quotes. ... On the main point. Yes, correlation is easy. Causation? I don't know, because I don't work in climate science. Is obvious correlation sufficient to establish causation in climate science?
- missosoup 7y agoCausation between years of consecutive drought and record-breaking temperatures leading to record-breaking wildfires is not hard to establish. Trying to deny that would require some impressive mental gymnastics. Causation between human activity and climate change resulting in that temperature anomaly, is fundamentally hard. Especially in a field like climate science where every model carries a big bundle of assumptions some of which are just educated guesses. But the models for anthropogenic climate change have been pretty bang on at predicting the temperature anomaly that we're seeing today. That doesn't formally prove causation but it's certainly enough evidence that we need to start acting to mitigate climate change now, there's no more 'complicated analysis' needed. At this point it's a bit like arguing over whether hitting the iceberg is really what's making the titanic sink, while standing on the submerging deck.
- datashow 7y agoYour first paragraph didn't mention climate change. Is it now established that record breaking temperatures are always caused by climate change? OK. I got downvoted on this. What is wrong here?
- missosoup 7y agoRecord breaking temperatures and an increasing global mean temperature anomaly is by definition climate change. What you're asking is the equivalent of 'is it now established that the deck of the titanic increasingly submerging underwater is caused by it sinking?'.
- datashow 7y agoSorry, I meant anthropogenic climate change. I didn't know that's the confusion.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y agoSo, your suggestion is that the dry forests cause climate change? Or is it the fires? Or does a common cause cause climate change and dry forests and fires, but the forests drying out has nothing to do with temperatures? Like, are you seriously asking whether scientists have looked into whether high temperatures and low rainfall cause dry forests and whether dry forests burn more easily? Do you really think it is a big unsolved question in science whether hot air dries stuff and whether dry stuff burns more easily than wet stuff, and maybe it's actually dry stuff that makes air hot and the fire causes the things to have been less wet before they burned?