NSW fires

Who are you to doubt the CSIROs findings? One of the most acknowledged scientific organisations on the planet is telling us something, i'll stick to their advice, thanks.

This is exactly the problem with this debate though, nobodies reading a report here and there thinking that they know more than scientists that have been studying these topics for decades. Oh and of course if these scientists/organisations are not the same page, they have some vested interest.

Dunning–Kruger effect at it's best.

 

Conversely, are you doubting the B.O.M stats on that Chart?
All I am saying is the CSIRO have made claims in a report, but B.O.M statistics dont match their claim.
It seems rather suspect that they can claim the Country is getting steadily hotter and drier and so on, when we can easily see the exact same conditions were prevalent back in the summer of 1938-39 when the Black Friday Fires occurred.
It was the same hot and dry that the CSIRO claim we are experiencing moreso now.
If you notice, there was a period of above average rainfalls immediately after that drought period of 1938-39. 1939 was an above average rainfall year.
1939 actually had above average rain after the Black Friday fires, then 40 was again hot, then 41 and 42 were above average rain, then a few more dryer years, then 47,49 and 50 above average rains again.
CSIRO cannot make any claim that our climate is getting hotter and drier based on that past evidence - there is no indication whatsoever that this pattern of hot and dry will continue - it is a prediction, not facts.

 

And/or aspects of motivated interference.

 

No i'm not and do you think that the CSIRO doesn't rely on the BOM data to come up with their reports?

 

A bit personal?
I dont profess to be an expert at all - quite the opposite; thats why I like to ask questions and make observations.
My observations have been listed above - using the B.O.M Chart.

 

Why then havent the CSIRO come to the same conclusion I have outlined based on the B.O.M evidence?
Dont you think it is very strange that the CSIRO have conflicting statements?
They shouldnt - but they do - why?

 

There are only two sources for starting fires - humans and lightning.
Humans can only start them deliberately or accidentally, and lightning is a natural occurrence since the Planet was formed.
None of any of the news reports I have read have offered exact locations for arsonist attacks - just numbers.
This is a quick search on various stories about numbers of arsonists; you will all need to make up your own minds on where the truth sits amongst the various sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...ome..69i57.15483j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Nothing personal about that, i'm making an observation just like you are.

Again, you are reading a report here and there and thinking that you have all the answers. Her'e a report from 2008 from both the CSIRO and BOM that warns about the current situation.

Exceptional Circumstances Report

What i don't understand is why are you doubting the CSIRO findings?

Also you are asking why the CSIRO haven't come up with the same conclusion as you? I think it's because they know what they are talking about and you don't.

They are the experts, you are not as per your own admission.

 

What I dont understand is you and others are not asking the question I have been asking - why are the CSIRO making a claim, when there is evidence which contradicts the claim?
Geoff said earlier that "the climate science is in" (from the article I posted). Even that article was a conflicting piece - they blame fires on human causes (which is accurate) but then add in a disclaimer without any factual back up - just another claim, and contradicts their own evidence. Anyone can say the science is in.
What that article has basically done is akin to the weather man on the nightly news saying "we have experienced the coldest day on record in December since records began....but this is just another example of climate change". And I have seen weather presenters actually say this.
It is like they are forced to have to report the truth, but are then trying to add a disclaimer to it to support a narrative. (we actually just did have the coldest day ever recorded in December, across a few locations).
https://www.google.com/search?q=col...ome..69i57.19806j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The B.O.M chart is the climate science everyone wants, and now everyone is doubting it?
Anyway, I'll leave you all to ponder this one.

 

Again, "when there is evidence which contradicts the claim" is your own interpretation and by your own admission, you are not an expert so why are you still doubting the CSIRO's findings.

Why on earth would i listen to you or any other non SME(subject matter expert) when the experts, who have been studying these events for decades are telling me the science is in. By your logic, why do we listen to the CSIRO when it comes to anything then?

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and this is becoming a waste of time.
Anyways , good luck with it all.

 

Yes, I would arguable that we should view all Reports from the CSIRO - and indeed; ALL "Government bodies" - especially the CSIRO Report - with some degree of skepticism, based on a lot of how the Report has been compiled.
For example; .
Wearing my lack of expertise hat again - another question out of curiosity about the CSIRO Report;
In the CSIRO Report, it shows a graph depicting "number of days of dangerous bushfire weather days occurring in Victoria in Spring is increasing", but the graph only goes as far back as 1978?
Given what I've shown you on the Rainfall Map chart from the B.O.M - which dates back to 1900, why have the CSIRO not done the same?
Why has the CSIRO cherry-picked a much smaller window?, and excluded such periods as from 1900 through to 1935?...or even through to 1938 when there was the drought before the Black Friday 13th Fires in Jan, 1939?
Surely a much broader window spread over a much longer period of time will give everyone a better picture of what the patterns and trends (if any) are?
Same with the temps overall - they cite Temp rises from 1950 of over 1 degree, yet we know that the actual rise in World Temps since records began well over 150 years ago shows a 0.8 of one degree rise. A rise of that level over that period of time borders on zero impact; given that temps in many thousands of regions around the Globe can fluctuate by as much as 20+ degrees each day, week, year, decade.
What they have done there is akin to a 5 year window of the Stock Market or Real Estate Market, where in each industry, they cherry-pick a small window to push the agenda to say it always goes up, to help their cause.

 

Is it feasible to have a clearing of 20 or 30 metres radius around all these houses out in the bush??

 

But then its just the embers and not the direct flames of huge trees surrounding the house. Give me a Grader and some bags of concrete and my place would look like a Greek villa on the Mediterranean

 

For what it is worth, BOM has also been very clear for many years that climate change is real. See State of the Climate 2018: Bureau of Meteorology for instance.

 

Do you mean like these?

Greece Engulfed In Fire: Dozens Dead In Coastal Town Near Athens

 

Probably more like this...

 

In seriousness though a buffer zone should be allowed or required?!

 

The bushfire lies spreading 'wildly' on social media

How many people have been arrested for lighting the fires?
And before anyone suggests the ABC is Leftie Biased, you can always apply to their Fact Check site.