Australian bushfires may have wiped out countless species...
- Thread starter toothlessjaws
- Start date
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Has there been large scale house building spreading into woodland, around Australian towns and cities? In the UK we have a situation (largely due to corrupt local politics) when the flood meadows that surround many English towns have been built on, leaving no buffer for (above) normal winter flooding, which then causes a huge problem in these new suburbs. I wonder if similar has happened in Australia, and housing has been built in areas the native people and early settlers would have not considered suitable. Clearly 'controlled burning' would be very difficult in built-up wooded areas.
Last edited:
I've seen several articles referencing the possibility of the collection of endangered populations for the purpose of preserving them.
Has anyone heard anything or seen any articles specifically about collecting animals other the animals that have been injured?
Also has anyone heard about endangered species being sighted all I've heard about is a population of Brush Tailed Wallabies.
Has anyone heard anything or seen any articles specifically about collecting animals other the animals that have been injured?
Also has anyone heard about endangered species being sighted all I've heard about is a population of Brush Tailed Wallabies.
It is very early days with fires still burning.
Many of the communities worst affected would be "old" towns that have quite possibly seen their populations decline in recent years. Larger towns tend not to be so badly affected.
toothlessjaws
Well-Known Member
I think this is a silly, distracting argument based on semantics. Obviously these fires are historically unprecedented. When we discuss their "cause" we are not talking about the act of how they started but instead how they became to be so destructive.
You also call out "most media outlets and Greta Thunberg" as spouting "over exaggerated ******** ", right as we are in the midst of one of the the biggest singular environmental disaster in modern times. In the years just prior to this latest disaster, we lost over a third of the Great Barrier Reef. These are precisely the sort of environmental disasters that people like Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough and climate scientists are predicting and warning us against.
So I'm curious: What precisely is it they are saying that you find exaggerated? If this is not ,in your book, an environmental disaster or is somehow "over exaggerated", then what is?
How would you like people to better describe these events to get your full attention and to drop the criticism?
What I find over exaggerated is not the actual predictions and warnings and the substance of them but the time frame is what they over exaggerate. Coral Reef systems are some of the most vulnerable ecosystems on the Earth so it makes sense. My argument is that Climate Change is a supplementary factor (albeit a strong one) of why the fires this season has consumed so much land, not the main one.
My problem with Greta Thunberg is that she is unfortunately nothing more than a puppet of a far left borderline terrorist group who has used her neurological and mental disorders to create fear in her and act on it. She is not a bad person but those around her such as her parents are.
What is scientifically predicted to happen in 80 years would be something Greta Thunberg says would happen in 5 years that’s the type of stuff I’m saying is over exaggerated.
The Great Barrier Reef is something that we unfortunately lost the chance to change the future of but we can change the future of others.
I think that it’s better to use the truth, don’t spout that the fire was solely caused by climate change and don’t spout it was caused solely by arsonists (which lighted like 0.05% of fires) More importantly those who plan to protest for climate change should not do so in anger and fear but in determination to change the world.
A lot of these protests are destructive to people from all walks, in the climate strike school protests students are losing days of their education, some of which probably failed year 12 as they missed too many days (in Victoria you need a 90% attendance rate to pass year 11 and 12), worst of the protests that I was affected by were the ones in the streets of Melbourne blocking roads and causing high scale traffic, stopping public transport making people walk back to their cars. The one the night of the Collingwood VS Geelong, an AFL finals game with attendance of 90,000 stopped trams and cars across the city.
Let’s look at the science of this, by protesting in this manner, you are blocking roads making travel times go up meaning that cars are running out of petrol and emitting more gas due to the increased travel times.
What else to protesters use, signs which are made of paper and cardboard which is cut down from trees using machines and then transported via truck to a factory which turns the bark into paper and then is transported to the store. How many different processes are used here that promote climate change, a whopping five.
Protesters need to be peaceful and honest not angry and deceitful.
If you look at the carbon footprint of all the actions you describe here, I would be very surprised if it was more than 0.0000000001% than what the Australian coal industry is responsible for and what they were protesting against (among others). So what is the "science" of this?
Citation needed.
I happen to share the quote-unquote ”neurological and mental disorders” that Greta Thunberg is allegedly being manipulated through, as do several others on this site, and you’d do well to stick to topics that you actually know a thing or two about.
toothlessjaws
Well-Known Member
Hey, thanks for taking the time to actually answer. I genuinely appreciate that you bothered to put it into words. Apologies in advance for breaking down your response into sections. I've tried not to be too picky, but its just so much easier to respond to each point separately. I'm going to now try and change your mind....
A number of the NSW and Victorian fire chiefs have gone on the record to categorically dismiss the argument that a lack of fuel reduction burning is the problem. They argue it is not a significant help to avoid the extremity of fires in conditions like this, that they actually have done substantial amount of reduction burns anyway, but that most importantly the window to burn safely has been severely narrowed by climate change. So again, even if you buy into the "we don't burn enough" argument - its climate change thats the problem. Says the fire chiefs.
I think the way you put it is a little degrading. She has Aspergers and OCD. Thats like every second person I know.
And tell me - how long exactly did it take to "loose the chance" for the Great Barrier Reef?
80 years? or was it closer to five?
Why? Why can't they be angry? Why can't they be fearful? It's fair to feel both these things. I'm mad as hell. So too is the right, about harmless stuff like the fact that some people don't like to celebrate Australia Day or that gay people want to get married. Nobody tells them they have a right to voice their opinion, so long as its just in a really quiet voice thats its easy to shout over...
Well I don't know what to say. We are talking about people protesting to save the planet and you are annoyed that you had to walk to your car after the footy. I guess thats why we continuously vote for governments that do nothing about climate change in this county. I feel like you are saying "You have a right to protest, just as long as you do it quietly, over there, where I can't see you". Well thats kinda not how it works.
This a bit of a tired argument: that all environmentalists are hypocrites and that they should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The issue isn't paper - its the way we harvest it. The issue isn't electricity - its the way we produce it. We are always going to produce some carbon and thats fine. It's the sheer amount of carbon, the fact that so much of it is unnecessary because it's produced by defunct means and that we are concurrently destroying the planets ability to process it that is the problem. We don't need to stop flying planes for example if we stopped using coal for electricity. Surely you know all this.
I feel the theme of your argument is to acknowledge there is an enormous threat, whilst simultaneously dismissing any cause for concern. You'd be good in government!
A number of the NSW and Victorian fire chiefs have gone on the record to categorically dismiss the argument that a lack of fuel reduction burning is the problem. They argue it is not a significant help to avoid the extremity of fires in conditions like this, that they actually have done substantial amount of reduction burns anyway, but that most importantly the window to burn safely has been severely narrowed by climate change. So again, even if you buy into the "we don't burn enough" argument - its climate change thats the problem. Says the fire chiefs.
I think the way you put it is a little degrading. She has Aspergers and OCD. Thats like every second person I know.
And tell me - how long exactly did it take to "loose the chance" for the Great Barrier Reef?
80 years? or was it closer to five?
Why? Why can't they be angry? Why can't they be fearful? It's fair to feel both these things. I'm mad as hell. So too is the right, about harmless stuff like the fact that some people don't like to celebrate Australia Day or that gay people want to get married. Nobody tells them they have a right to voice their opinion, so long as its just in a really quiet voice thats its easy to shout over...
Well I don't know what to say. We are talking about people protesting to save the planet and you are annoyed that you had to walk to your car after the footy. I guess thats why we continuously vote for governments that do nothing about climate change in this county. I feel like you are saying "You have a right to protest, just as long as you do it quietly, over there, where I can't see you". Well thats kinda not how it works.
This a bit of a tired argument: that all environmentalists are hypocrites and that they should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. The issue isn't paper - its the way we harvest it. The issue isn't electricity - its the way we produce it. We are always going to produce some carbon and thats fine. It's the sheer amount of carbon, the fact that so much of it is unnecessary because it's produced by defunct means and that we are concurrently destroying the planets ability to process it that is the problem. We don't need to stop flying planes for example if we stopped using coal for electricity. Surely you know all this.
I feel the theme of your argument is to acknowledge there is an enormous threat, whilst simultaneously dismissing any cause for concern. You'd be good in government!
I can’t see enough irony in this statement. I also have those quote on quote neurological and mental disorders as well as 2 other neurological disorders. Maybe you shouldn’t assume that I’m posting stuff to create drama.
Okie-doke, well hopefully you’ll learn in time that our “neurological and mental disorders” don’t invalidate our capacity for autonomy and independent thought. When you use Greta’s disability as a tool to invalidate her voice and undercut her message you hurt all of us, not least yourself.
I didn’t know Greta had OCD which I don’t have but I do have Asberguers Syndrome as well as bad Anxiety to the point where I sometimes can’t walk or move during a panic attack.
Im not dismissing Gretas opinion, I’m saying that she was brought up in a far left community with little choice to have freedom and had others using her problems and her anxiety and lack of exposure to the outside world. This was done when she was younger, not currently this was done five, six even more years ago because most children follow their parents.
Uh huh. So her parents received her autism diagnosis, and identified it as their opportunity to start grooming her at the age of ten to become the unwitting figurehead of a global social movement by her late teens?
That’s quite a theory.
A game theory oh wait wrong show
(forget that horrible pun)
But anyway this isn’t a cold hard source but it supports my theory
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...greta-thunberg-thing-is-child-abuse?_amp=true
No judgment, because I’m guessing you weren’t aware, but the Washington Examiner is not a serious news organisation. It is a right-wing propaganda rag well-known for climate change denialism. The article feigns concern for Thunberg, but what they’re trying to do is discredit her.
Thanks for the complement. You would be too.
Oops I just realised I added my response to the quote. My bad.
Given I'm far from the only person on this forum who has the "neurological and mental disorders" in question, I'd be careful how you approach these topics and think about what you say and how you say it.
- edit -
I see others have picked you up on this and you've noted you're one of us too
the note of caution remains however.
Last edited: