(The way you interleaved your comments makes it pretty much impossible for me to quote your message without recourse to a word processor, But I’ve done my best on my phone).
Hello dear! I did used to reply fully but when I realised you didn't bother and avoided the bits you couldn't answer, I stopped wasting my time ?
So are you the goose or the gander?
Have never said that. The contention I have is not all bad weather = climate change. Something I presume people like you do?
No, that is what you’ve morphed your point into having started from the point that man made climate change is not responsible for the catastrophic fires in Australia. You have frequently, in your posts made a distinction between “natural events” and “climate change”.
I dunno, you are the "scientist", not me. I thought you'd be all over it. It's just "science"
This kind of comment is why I asked you (with no response) a direct question about what you think a “scientist” (your choice of punctuation) is.
If the climate changes then 100% yes. Will it be man made climate change? 100% no.
Nice fudge.
I literally do not understand your problem here. That is and absolutely clear and unambiguous point. The fudge must be coming from elsewhere.
Well, you’ll have to point it out to me.
I've not whatabouted this
Apart from when we’re discussing climate change and Australian fires, you raise the IOD (which is a reasonable discussion point) and then subsequently throw in, in the space of a couple of sentences with no segue, sun spots, switching of magnetic poles and astrology, and complain when these completely unrelated or even irrelevant issues are not addressed in detail.
You proclaimed yourself to be a scientist in a quite big manner to talk down to me, so I asked science questions for a scientist to answer. Stop being so sensitive.
I said I was a scientist because it is a plain fact. I also said in the same sentence that I had lived in Australia for 17 of the last 24 years, but I note you don’t call me “Australian resident boy”, so clearly the sensitivity is not a my end.
The reason for listing all of the knowledge that climate scientists apply is nothing to do with me, but about the experts you choose to disagree with by taking a climate change denial position. Argue with them not me.
I will look it up - I believe I read an article on the SMH and report on the BBC news - are they suitably non-Murdochy for your sensitivities?
a primary source would be better (eg government policy statement or even press release). In its absence a clear reference to such a release in a news article would be fine.
Try this one (I’m on my phone and can’t link directly to the video - it is the one of Shane Fitzsimmonds half way down. The rest is interesting, but not primary source).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfire-prevention-explainer/11853366
Minimally. Like you are one Google search ahead of me.
No. That was a video of a statement I referred to a few posts ago. Being on my phone, that was the best way that I could access the video to provide a link to get the actual video to your eyeballs. I intended the video because it is a primary source from an expert and not subject to substantial editorial manipulation.
Did you watch the othe video from the former fire chiefs?
But not all bad weather is climate change right? You've wandered off on your regard to conflating what I've said to suit your personal biases of people who question that shrill narrative.
You can try reductio ad absurdum as much as you like, but that is not how this conversation began.
Regarding wandering off, this all stemmed from your climate denialist position:
But in that, there is a kind of arrogance that they think they know what the biggest issue is based on their feelings and perhaps do not understand that others may not see it that way or other priorities are bigger - a big recession for example. So we have an epic bourgeoisie strop that is getting more and random as it goes on.
I can't help but feel environmentalists have fallen into a Boy Who Called Wolf scenario and do not understand that if you keep saying Wolf and nothing bad happens, people will stop listening to you. My feeling is a big majority of people understand we need to look after this planet a lot better, but are fed up of the every 10 years the ice caps will be gone, oil run out, etc etc. We aren't stupid.
Then step one of your attempt to change tack and oversimplify:
Aren't bush fires a symptom of the climate in Australia, rather than a sudden new thing that has happened in the past few years? In part, blaming the fires on climate change is some of the problem we have.
and now you’ve wrangled it round to “weather != climate durr” as I pointed out before. In fact all of your arguments have been founded on the position that “it is due to weather, not climate”, as if they are separable, and that this means that discussion of man made climate change is “hysterical”.
The temperatures that we are experiencing come from the conflation of local weather events, climate-influencing oscillations and man made climate change. Without decades of climate change resulting from the human preference to deal with concerns about recession (as you put it previously) rather than considering the longevity of our environment, we may have mitigated temperature rises and the current events would be less severe.
You said you are scientist to have a dig at me and invalidate my opinions as "mansplaining", so quite frankly science boy, it's valid. I've been called worse on here but nonetheless!
It reminds me a bit of the Bill Hicks autobiographical bit where he is reading a book in a truck stop in Texas and two blokes come up to him and push him around saying “Hey, we got ourselves a ‘reader’ here. What are you ‘reading’ for?”