Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

I don't see any point in taking this any further,.
You can have the last say.
Mick

None of us have the last say Mick.
In the end the consequences of human caused CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
___________________________

One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.

But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC. Why so ?

Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..

These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows exactly what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?

 

[rederob]

Crap. They have changed their tune.
And the mechanism for change was using proxies to create pre 1870's estimation, then tacking on real data from tide gauges, then tacking on an entirely different measuring mechanism, the first satellites in 1970s; then a new set of satellites in 1990.

Using proxy data is a scientific process, and always carries error bars to show the boundary ranges. Tide data and satellite data are very close and trend similarly upwards at an increasing rate. Both are shown on the chart above.

Basic rule no1 in science, you change measuring mechanisms or apparatus, and you change the data.
You still have not explained why there is a discrepancy in the tide data.

You should read (eg, page 1114) more about the topic and not rely on me to keep schooling you.

Discrepancies in Tide versus Satellite data has a graph showing the discrepancies.

How does this affect the global trend?
Where is your evidence that shows Curry was right?
You act like the classic denier of climate science who has nothing but obfuscation to offer.

I never mentioned global calving, I never mentioned the mechanism.
You bring in extraneous stuff as if I had stated it.

You never showed how your claim was a meaningful factor, so I did.

The graph you showed did exactly what I stated - it splced the satellite data onto tide data but omitted tide data from 1990.

For the umteenth time, read the links seeing you won't accept that the charts separately show both tidal and satellite data

I don't see any point in taking this any further,.

It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe but you did say you were interested in data and science and have shown few competencies in keeping with that.

 

[rederob]

But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC. Why so ?

Referencing people who have been denounced as deniers of climate science is never a good start.
However, it's true we should keep an open mind.
The question is, what have they offered that is credible or explanatory.
Curry accepts the forcing effect of CO2, but beyond that chooses to ignore the temperature trajectory that she cannot otherwise explain. "A host of other factors" is not an explanation, and nor is Tisdale's ENSO idea which fails the Bjerknes feedback theory.

Climate science denial is now rooted in promoting the idea of uncertainty given that there is no data or science showing that AGW can be mitigated without reducing CO2 (given that other GHG;s as not as long lasting). The problem with this idea is that the IPCC now quantifies uncertainty as best as possible and qualifies its findings in terms of probability.

In many regards antivaxxers are the same as climate science deniers. They reference discredited professionals, link to pseudoscience or debunked claims, and have a fallback on breach of human rights to support their position. They either don't understand how vaccines have rid the world of some diseases and prevented pandemics, or they don't care. How they make sense of it seems very personal and is seldom rational.

 

[BlindSquirrel]

I saw a video many years ago (around the year 2000?) on a thought experiment which didn't even try to justify whether or not CC is a real problem - I cannot even begin to think where it was now - but it simplifies the problem greatly.

The gist of it was:

This guy had a 2x2 grid drawn up with one axis showing two options of whether or not man made climate change is real, the other axis had whether humanity did something about it or not.
If CC is real, and humanity does something about it - it will cost money but humanity will survive.
If CC is not real and humanity does something about it - it will cost the same amount of money and humanity will still survive - and perhaps feel a little silly but will have a cleaner environment.
If CC is not real and humanity doesn't do anything about it then humanity will survive, have a polluted atmosphere and basically be trundling along as normal.
If CC is real and humanity does nothing, humanity (& most living things) will not have a hospitable environment and will result in social upheaval and/or mass extinction.

Listing the outcomes from most palatable to least shows that when humanity addresses climate change, the outcomes are more desirable, whether or not climate change is real - with the only chance of (basically) total annihilation happening if humanity doesn't act.

Therefore logically, it makes sense to try to stop climate change.

(I wish I could remember where I saw it online back then)

 

[mullokintyre]

None of us have the last say Mick.
In the end the consequences of human caused CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
___________________________

One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.

Well, I follow some science.
there are some things that are beyond my level of knowledge and understanding.
So I try to stick to what I reckon I can understand and follow.

But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC. Why so ?

Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..

These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows exactly what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?

I think I may have said it before, but I have always regarded the IPCC reports as more political statements than anything else.
The studies I look at use data , because I, along with many others, do not have as much faith in modelling something that is mind bogglingly complex.
Then there is the inferences that each draws from the data supplied.
Very few things are absolute, very few things are black and white, right or wrong.
There are many shades of grey (50 at last count).
Some things you can reduce to simple set of variables.
If we go back to the very start of all the climate change, and all the discussion was on the greenhouse gas effect of Co2.
The concept of Radiative forcing values for Co2 was used to describe how much temperature would increase for a given level of Co2.
The debate on what the value of forcing that can be ascribed has never been resolved.
I have seen the formula described as
R.F = 6.6 log (C/280) , where C is CO2
also as
RF = 5.35*ln(C/280)
The original value for the formula came from Myre et Al back in 1998.
The question what is the correct value for the constant in this formula has never been resolved.
Mainly because we cannot know it.
Experiments have been done using spectral analysis, but they are always an approximation of the atmosphere.
There have been a number of papers on what its value should be ( see HERE HERE ), but no one actaully knows.
So at a very fundamental level, there are unknowns.
I find the idea that we should do something on the grounds of what might happen a bit strange when there is so much conjecture on what might happen.
By all means have renewables, phase out fossil fuels because they are finite.
They are arguments I can deal with.
But the catastrophic alarmism that permeates discussion is not based on science or reason.
Mick

 

[rederob]

Well, I follow some science.
there are some things that are beyond my level of knowledge and understanding.
So I try to stick to what I reckon I can understand and follow.

I think I may have said it before, but I have always regarded the IPCC reports as more political statements than anything else.
The studies I look at use data , because I, along with many others, do not have as much faith in modelling something that is mind bogglingly complex.
Then there is the inferences that each draws from the data supplied.
Very few things are absolute, very few things are black and white, right or wrong.
There are many shades of grey (50 at last count).
Some things you can reduce to simple set of variables.
If we go back to the very start of all the climate change, and all the discussion was on the greenhouse gas effect of Co2.
The concept of Radiative forcing values for Co2 was used to describe how much temperature would increase for a given level of Co2.
The debate on what the value of forcing that can be ascribed has never been resolved.
I have seen the formula described as
R.F = 6.6 log (C/280) , where C is CO2
also as
RF = 5.35*ln(C/280)
The original value for the formula came from Myre et Al back in 1998.
The question what is the correct value for the constant in this formula has never been resolved.
Mainly because we cannot know it.
Experiments have been done using spectral analysis, but they are always an approximation of the atmosphere.
There have been a number of papers on what its value should be ( see HERE HERE ), but no one actaully knows.
So at a very fundamental level, there are unknowns.
I find the idea that we should do something on the grounds of what might happen a bit strange when there is so much conjecture on what might happen.
By all means have renewables, phase out fossil fuels because they are finite.
They are arguments I can deal with.
But the catastrophic alarmism that permeates discussion is not based on science or reason.
Mick

The ICC Reports contain climate science, so holding a view that it is "political" makes no sense. Perhaps you can explain what you mean.

The value for alpha which you query can never be perfect due to how gases mix and their vertical profiles in the atmosphere. MHSS98 has refined its calculation and instead of being a constant, alpha is now a function of the CO2 and N2O concentrations. Furthermore, absolute error factors have been calculated so that ESMs can run iterations within these ranges to determine variability:

Your comments about inferences from data is unusual. The unequivocal data shows temperature increases, rising CO2 levels, and rising sea levels. These are real things that have happened and don't need to be inferred. Attribution studies are increasingly showing that severe weather events are being exacerbated by greater energy content via warming, while bushfires are happening with greater frequency and severity.

You don't need to be a scientist to now what is happening, so when world leaders express their concern its based on what they have experienced.

(As a complete aside, last night I listened to a glaciologist on BBC radio. He was kind of glad he was being being exposed to the most rapid climate transition ever recorded. But he lamented that in 50 years time there won't be any need for glaciologists as there won't be much to study on any of the continents - except perhaps Antarctica.)

 

[Dona Ferentes]

 

[basilio]

I saw a video many years ago (around the year 2000?) on a thought experiment which didn't even try to justify whether or not CC is a real problem - I cannot even begin to think where it was now - but it simplifies the problem greatly.

The gist of it was:

This guy had a 2x2 grid drawn up with one axis showing two options of whether or not man made climate change is real, the other axis had whether humanity did something about it or not.
If CC is real, and humanity does something about it - it will cost money but humanity will survive.
If CC is not real and humanity does something about it - it will cost the same amount of money and humanity will still survive - and perhaps feel a little silly but will have a cleaner environment.
If CC is not real and humanity doesn't do anything about it then humanity will survive, have a polluted atmosphere and basically be trundling along as normal.
If CC is real and humanity does nothing, humanity (& most living things) will not have a hospitable environment and will result in social upheaval and/or mass extinction.

Listing the outcomes from most palatable to least shows that when humanity addresses climate change, the outcomes are more desirable, whether or not climate change is real - with the only chance of (basically) total annihilation happening if humanity doesn't act.

Therefore logically, it makes sense to try to stop climate change.

(I wish I could remember where I saw it online back then)

That was an elegant absolutely brilliant analysis. I was trying to find it myself to post it because, frankly, it just destroys the various smoke screens used to undermine swift comprehensive action of dealing with global warming. On any rational basis the risks associated with global warming are too terrible to contemplate. To oppose any significant action and just let "nature takes it course" presumes either

1) There is just no chance the thousands of climate scientists who have researched and warned about this are gravely wrong or
2) It's actually too late to do anything.

 

[rederob]

That was an elegant absolutely brilliant analysis. I was trying to find it myself to post it because, frankly, it just destroys the various smoke screens used to undermine swift comprehensive action of dealing with global warming. On any rational basis the risks associated with global warming are too terrible to contemplate. To oppose any significant action and just let "nature takes it course" presumes either

1) There is just no chance the thousands of climate scientists who have researched and warned about this are gravely wrong or
2) It's actually too late to do anything.

Let's assume the Curry's of the world are right, instead of the IPCC.
Where is their peer reviewed work outlining the climate factors which impact on the pathway from here?
What does their modelling tell them is likely to occur?
For that matter, where is their peer reviewed work explaining how we got to where we are?
Where is their science showing that warming is not increasing, or that the long term trend is soon to naturally end?

Remember, the IPCC first reported over 30 years ago, so it's not like there shouldn't be a fair deal out there that explains how the IPCC is completely mistaken. The Curry's of the world are critical of the IPCC relying on work that can never be certain, and the IPCC has responded to these justifiable concerns by quantifying the level of confidence they have in all their work.

As I said earlier, while climate is complex the key drivers of temperature depend on energy fluxes and the greenhouse effect. Hansen worked this out over 40 years ago and here's one of his projections for the period to 2020 based on a low CO2 growth scenario:

We instead had a much higher CO2 output since then so the actual temperature increase was much greater as shown in the chart below using various data series for the same period:

So while the Hansens of the world worked out what was likely to happen and why over 40 years, the people we are encouraged to keep an open mind to have produced nothing that is consist with events.

 

[mullokintyre]

So COP26 has come to a close after lots of diplomatic communiques and fervent words.
And what is the take?
From ABC News

The latest draft of the COP26 UN climate talks features a proposal to make sure rich countries deliver climate finance to the world's poorest nations in future years, after past promises remain unfulfilled.

• The third draft COP26 agreement maintains core demands for countries to set more ambitious emissions targets
• It also features proposals to make sure promised climate finance arrives for the world's poorest nations
• Delegates from nearly 200 nations are working overtime to deliver a final deal at the conference

The new draft agreement also maintained a core demand for countries to set more ambitious plans to tackle global warming and asked them to phase out inefficient subsidies for the fossil fuels heating the planet.

But finance has proved one of the toughest issues to solve at the meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.

Rich nations, whose emissions are responsible for the majority of human-caused climate change, failed to meet a long-held promise to deliver US$100 billion (A$137bn) a year by 2020 to support poorer countries' efforts to cope with the effects of global warming.

That has cast a shadow over the summit, making other negotiations on carbon markets and strengthening climate targets harder to unblock, with some poorer nations saying they cannot cut emissions faster unless they get more financial help.

The draft proposal, one of many drawn up by Britain to be published at the end of COP26, asks a UN committee to report next year on progress towards delivering the $100 billion, and proposes government ministers meet in 2022, 2024 and 2026 to discuss climate finance.

The regular check-ins would attempt to keep up pressure on rich countries to fulfil promises to mobilise the cash. The British proposal also asks countries to increase their contributions to deliver the $100 billion.ABC News

The draft needs approval from the nearly 200 countries represented at the summit.

Rich countries expect to deliver the US$100 billion in 2023, although some have suggested it could be met next year.

The European Union and Italy were drawing up a last-minute proposal on Friday that would use special drawing rights to help make sure the target is met next year, an EU official said.

A second draft document published on Saturday morning local time would kick off talks among countries to set a post-2025 target on climate finance.

The US$100 billion target should be delivered each year from 2020 to 2025, after which a new one is supposed to kick in.

So Nations like Australia, the EU member countries, USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand etc will be required yo hand over money to a UN committee to distribute to other nations. Nations like China, India, Vietnam, Iran, any country in the pacific or Africa, and so on.
And yet two of the biggest emitters of Co2 are net receivers of this largesse.
Anyone still think that these climate summits are all about reducing CO2 emissions and not about politics?
Mick

 

[rederob]

So COP26 has come to a close after lots of diplomatic communiques and fervent words.
And what is the take?
From ABC News

So Nations like Australia, the EU member countries, USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand etc will be required yo hand over money to a UN committee to distribute to other nations. Nations like China, India, Vietnam, Iran, any country in the pacific or Africa, and so on.
And yet two of the biggest emitters of Co2 are net receivers of this largesse.
Anyone still think that these climate summits are all about reducing CO2 emissions and not about politics?
Mick

The two biggest emitters per capita were not mentioned.
The biggest emitter to date is the USA.
Australia remains as one of the world's worst per capita offenders.

For someone claiming to use data and science you do a poor job.
China, for example, has had one project approved by the UN (in 2019) for this so-called "largesse", and to date has not actually drawn any funding against it. The UN's distribution to the project (with an end date of 2039) is expected to account for 0.1% of the total annual contribution sought from developed nations, and has been allocated to a province with a population of over 100M.
It also appears you have no idea what types of projects receive funding or why.
The hysteria in this thread continues to be from people who don't seem to know much.

 

[mullokintyre]

At the risk of being denounced as a right wing conspiracy theorist/denier/ pick you label, I had a good laugh firstly at the image, then at a response Tim Wilson gave.
From The OZ

Climate activist group Extinction Rebellion posted the picture as part of a protest outside his office, and on its roof. Wilson required Australian Federal Police assistance to leave the locked-down office to attend a function but he didn’t miss as he left. “I’m not going to be bullied or intimidated by a bunch of Eco-fascists that demand we stop the same fossil fuels they used to drive to the office and protest,” he said. “The line-up of petrol-fuelled vehicles with XR stickers was a sight to behold.”

When it comes to hypocrisy, climate zealots take the cake.
Mick

 

[moXJO]

The two biggest emitters per capita were not mentioned.
The biggest emitter to date is the USA.
Australia remains as one of the world's worst per capita offenders.

For someone claiming to use data and science you do a poor job.
China, for example, has had one project approved by the UN (in 2019) for this so-called "largesse", and to date has not actually drawn any funding against it. The UN's distribution to the project (with an end date of 2039) is expected to account for 0.1% of the total annual contribution sought from developed nations, and has been allocated to a province with a population of over 100M.
It also appears you have no idea what types of projects receive funding or why.
The hysteria in this thread continues to be from people who don't seem to know much.

Is per capita output in tons a much used metric?

 

[basilio]

At the risk of being denounced as a right wing conspiracy theorist/denier/ pick you label, I had a good laugh firstly at the image, then at a response Tim Wilson gave.
From The OZ



When it comes to hypocrisy, climate zealots take the cake.
Mick

How amusing. The world is cooking to crisp as a result of massive use of fossil fuels.
The Government puts up a position of dealing with this world wide problem with a no action proposal that includes actively supporting an extension of the gas industry.

But Mullo, The Australian and all remaining camp followers staunchly believe CC protesters are the problem.

Pick your own label Mullo.

 

[Investoradam]

None of us have the last say Mick.
In the end the consequences of human caused CC and what we fail to do to slow it down and/or adapt to it will speak far more loudly than our discussions.
___________________________

One thing I notice is that you cite numerous quite intricate studies that throw shade on rising ocean levels, other possible reasons for melting ice and so on. So yes you appear to be following the science.

But at the same time you seem to be completely overlooking/ignoring the combined science of thousands of scientists who for 30 years have followed the progress of global warming and report back through the IPCC. Why so ?

Nothing is certain. We all have to deal in probabilities. There is chance that the unprecedented rise in world wide temperatures as humans have increased GG emissions will simply stop and then reverse. It is also possible in that scenario that the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs will refreeze. Who knows what could happen..

These are all possibiities. If a thousand people jump off a 30 metre cliff then no one knows exactly what will happen to them. For all we know there may be only a few bumps, bruises and a couple of broken bones. But why should we test such a scenario and what does all the overwhelming evidence to date about such an action tell us ?

the faceless and nameless scientists who have been wrong for the past 70 years
yet the scitents who defect who make there name public and risk there reputation are defamed by the usual faceless cowards

if they really cared for the environment they would not be extracting all those poison toxic goods from the ground to make those useless wind turbines & solar panels, they rape and pillage the environment extremely more toxic products than coal, nickel, copper, cobalt, silver to name a few, extremely hard rock minerals, toxic to mine and destroy natural vegetation and forestry, the poison tailings from the refining or production are pumped back in to the environment polluting the ground and water ways whilst pumping the toxic gases in to the air at the same time,
yet this is ignored and the left blame coal from western countries who are reducing there omissions whilst ignoring largest polluting countries such as china, Russia etc whom omissions continue to rise

the greatest con for me is the cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by African children for this green energy scam. where on earth are the champaign socialists of the useless UN? do gooder celebrities, sport brat daughter of Antifa parents Gretta or marxists BLM, people raising these issues?
its about money, control and power for the select few who control this earth

yet western countries and cows farting are the issue!

leftism is the measure of how stupid a society has become.
that's based on history of what leftism does to societies of the pas! communism has never ever worked and only destroyed society's, placed corrupt evil people at the top of power at the expense of millions on millions of innocent victims.

the people that peddle this leftism crap were called "useful idiots' by vlatimer Lenin him self

 

[mullokintyre]

How amusing. The world is cooking to crisp as a result of massive use of fossil fuels.

The title of the thread is climate Hysteria.
You have just demonstrated how apt it is.
Cooking to a crisp indeed.
Mick

 

[rederob]

the faceless and nameless scientists who have been wrong for the past 70 years
yet the scitents who defect who make there name public and risk there reputation are defamed by the usual faceless cowards

Just so you know, all scientists produce work which includes their names.

if they really cared for the environment they would not be extracting all those poison toxic goods from the ground to make those useless wind turbines & solar panels, they rape and pillage the environment extremely more toxic products than coal, nickel, copper, cobalt, silver to name a few, extremely hard rock minerals, toxic to mine and destroy natural vegetation and forestry, the poison tailings from the refining or production are pumped back in to the environment polluting the ground and water ways whilst pumping the toxic gases in to the air at the same time,

Mining companies get raw materials from the ground, not scientists.

yet this is ignored and the left blame coal from western countries who are reducing there omissions whilst ignoring largest polluting countries such as china, Russia etc whom omissions continue to rise

While you ignore the role of America and Europe to get us to where we are today!
Here's the 10 year trend in emissions growth, which is likely to continue:

Russia is not increasing emissions as you suggest.

the greatest con for me is the cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by African children for this green energy scam. where on earth are the champaign socialists of the useless UN? do gooder celebrities, sport brat daughter of Antifa parents Gretta or marxists BLM, people raising these issues?
its about money, control and power for the select few who control this earth

Cobalt is no longer necessary in battery technologies. LiFePo4 is likely to take over for EVs.

yet western countries and cows farting are the issue!

Only in your mind.

leftism is the measure of how stupid a society has become.

Many might assume you were a leftist based on what you post.

 

[basilio]

https://www.ctif.org/news/wildfires-are-spreading-arcticThe title of the thread is climate Hysteria.
You have just demonstrated how apt it is.
Cooking to a crisp indeed.
Mick

Memory check here Mullo.. "Cooking to a crisp" may be a shorthand way of explaining what is going to happen as the planet warms up. But it also reflects the reality of the massive unprecedented wild fires across Canada, Europe, Russia and Australia in the past few years.

Wildfires are spreading in the Arctic

www.ctif.org

The sky turns black in Western Canada as a thousand wildfires rage throughout the nation

www.ctif.org

List of largest fires of the 21st century​

This is a list of the largest fires of the XXI century.

Rank	Name	Country	Area burned (Km2)	Deaths	Notes
1	2021 Russia wildfires[1][2]	Russia	200,000	0	[3]
2	2019-2020 Australian bushfire season	Australia	180,000	34+	[4][5]
3	2019 Siberia wildfires	Russia	43,000	0	[6][deprecated source]
4	2014 Northwest Territories fires	Canada	34,000	0	[7]
5	2009 black Saturday bushfires	Australia	21,000	173	[8]
6	2020 California wildfires	United States	18,000	31	[9]
7	2010 Bolivia forest fires	Bolivia	15,000	0	[10]
8	2011–2012 Australian bushfire season	Australia	14,000	0	[11]
9	2006-2007 Australian bushfire season	Australia	13,000	5	[11]
10	2017 British Columbia wildfires	Canada	12,000	0	[12]
11	2015 Russian wildfires	Russia	11,000	33	[13]
12	2012–2013 Australian bushfire season	Australia	9,000	4	[11]
13	2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires	Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru	9,000	2	[6][deprecated source]

 

[Investoradam]

Just so you know, all scientists produce work which includes their names.

like Mickey Mouse?

‘Mickey Mouse’ scratched from 11,000 scientists declaring global climate crisis - National | Globalnews.ca

The scientists behind the letter say a few "invalid" names among the 11,000 signatures do not diminish their very real warning.

globalnews.ca

Mining companies get raw materials from the ground, not scientists.

While you ignore the role of America and Europe to get us to where we are today!
Here's the 10 year trend in emissions growth, which is likely to continue:

some one is needing and paying for these materials!
setting up and running & continue to run a mine isn't cheap

View attachment 133052Russia is not increasing emissions as you suggest.

top polluting countries

Top 5 most polluting countries

Discover which nations pump most carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere

www.activesustainability.com

only the USA are reducing there omissions. the rest are not
the champaign socialists and other idiot left continue to ignore this and blame the cows in the USA and Australia for the worlds rising gases

Cobalt is no longer necessary in battery technologies. LiFePo4 is likely to take over for EVs.

no try again

Only in your mind.

Many might assume you were a leftist based on what you post.

now that you have tried to cherry pick my post and attempt to sound intelligent. try addressing the rest?

 

[Investoradam]

Memory check here Mullo.. "Cooking to a crisp" may be a shorthand way of explaining what is going to happen as the planet warms up. But it also reflects the reality of the massive unprecedented wild fires across Canada, Europe, Russia and Australia in the past few years.

Wildfires are spreading in the Arctic

www.ctif.org

The sky turns black in Western Canada as a thousand wildfires rage throughout the nation

www.ctif.org

List of largest fires of the 21st century​

This is a list of the largest fires of the XXI century.

Rank	Name	Country	Area burned (Km2)	Deaths	Notes
1	2021 Russia wildfires[1][2]	Russia	200,000	0	[3]
2	2019-2020 Australian bushfire season	Australia	180,000	34+	[4][5]
3	2019 Siberia wildfires	Russia	43,000	0	[6][deprecated source]
4	2014 Northwest Territories fires	Canada	34,000	0	[7]
5	2009 black Saturday bushfires	Australia	21,000	173	[8]
6	2020 California wildfires	United States	18,000	31	[9]
7	2010 Bolivia forest fires	Bolivia	15,000	0	[10]
8	2011–2012 Australian bushfire season	Australia	14,000	0	[11]
9	2006-2007 Australian bushfire season	Australia	13,000	5	[11]
10	2017 British Columbia wildfires	Canada	12,000	0	[12]
11	2015 Russian wildfires	Russia	11,000	33	[13]
12	2012–2013 Australian bushfire season	Australia	9,000	4	[11]
13	2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires	Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru	9,000	2	[6][deprecated source]

fires magically start them self?
most of Australian native parks have been heritage listed by the United Nations and closed up and have not had regular back burning for decades. going against everyone how they were looked after in the past along with how the aboriginal looked after them

poor land management and people lighting fires

Legal action taken against 183 people this bushfire season

NSW Police have taken legal action against 183 people so far this bushfire season, including charging 24 people with deliberately lighting bushfires.

www.smh.com.au

useful idiot protestors blocking back burning

Greenie Nowa Nowa protesters blocked back burning before East Gippsland bushfire | Express Digest

expressdigest.com