Arson in Australia

[Lord of Planar]

So much ‘arson’.

[emoji849]

All I see is another unsourced graph that anyone could have made or altered.

Besides, there are many lines above the 2019 line in the first half of the year, and November is when it spikes.

The same month they started arresting people for arson!

 

[Threegoofs]

All I see is another unsourced graph that anyone could have made or altered.

Besides, there are many lines above the 2019 line in the first half of the year, and November is when it spikes.

The same month they started arresting people for arson!

Yes, it clearly shows arson must be responsible.

[emoji849]

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, it clearly shows arson must be responsible.

[emoji849]

I didn't say that. I see you have no critical thinking skills. I pointed out the coincidence. Keep in mind, I am one who repeatedly points out correlation does not mean causation.

But it is still alarming that you repeatedly post unsourced graphs, and expect is to accept them of faith.

I'm sorry. That may work for your fellow worshipers of the AGW dogma, but I don't have religious like faith in the climate sciences like you do.

I demand scientific evidence. Not faith-based evidence.

Why is it so hard for you to give us the link you get things from?

Are you ashamed of your sources?

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Forgotten Fact: 1974/75 Australian Bush Fires Were More Than 9 Times Greater Than Those Of 2019/20![/h]By P Gosselin on 11. January 2020
German climate blogger Snow Fan here presents some background on Australian bush fires.
It turns out that the 1974/75 bush fires were considerably larger in area than the 2019/20 bush fires we have been witnessing.

The Australian bush fires of 2019/20 have seen an area as big as southern Germany (see above). But in 1974/75, they covered an area as large as France and Spain combined! Source: www.wetteronline.de. ​

Snow fan writes:

On the completely exaggerated climate alarm in the German media on the current bush fires in Australia, a pleasantly objective report from WetterOnline: ‘In the summer of 1974/1975, an area in Australia burned to the tune of about the size of Spain and France. For the sake of perspective: Bush fires are generally nothing unusual in the Australian summer. Often large areas are affected. The last time a huge fire raged was in February 2009. The so-called Black-Saturday-bush fires killed over 170 people and destroyed 1800 houses. […] Since the beginning of the great bush fires in October 2019, more than 100,000 square kilometres of land burned throughout Australia, which is roughly the size of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg combined. Thousands of houses were destroyed.'”
​

Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have a combined area of around 105,000 square kilometers, so there’s no doubt this season’s bush fires have been devastating.
But WetterOnline reminds Australia has seen much worse:

In the summer of 1974/1975 the flames burned over an area of about one million square kilometers. This corresponds to an area about three times the size of Germany.”
​

That means an area that is nine times greater than what has been affected this year! Back in 1975, however, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were BELOW the “safe” 350 ppm.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Debunked – BBC News Video Which Supposedly ‘Debunks’ #ArsonEmergency Claim[/h]Posted on 12 Jan 20 by JAIME JESSOP • 5 Comments
The BBC are at it again with their fake news propaganda. This time they set themselves the task of debunking claims of an arson emergency re. the Australian bushfires. Here’s the video: Australia fires: Debunking 'arson emergency' claims - BBC News First off the presenter quotes some ‘research’ which supposedly demonstrates that around a third of Twitter accounts posting the #ArsonEmergency … Co

 

[Sunsettommy]

Faktantarkistusblogi

Australian bushfire season 2019-2020 – Severity, reasons and conclusions

December 12, 2020

Excerpt:

Australian bushfire season 2019-2020 is now the climate topic of the year – severe bushfire season has caused more than 2000 houses to burn in the state of New South Wales (NSW) alone. At least 27 people has died and likely over 1 billion mammals, birds and reptiles has been lost in these fires (1).

Various media sources (1) and Wikipedia pages for 2019-2020 Bushfire season (2) provides estimates that between 8 to 11 million hectares of land has been burned so far. This really sounds severe, but how large is the amount of burned land when comparing to the earlier seasons?

Annual burned area in Australia

There are couple of excellent sources to place this bushfire season in the context. While trying to find scientific evidence into this matter I found a study Giglio at al 2013 (3). The paper describes a fourth generation Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED4). This data set was created by combining 500m MODIS burned area maps with active fire data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS) and the Along-Track Scanning Radiometer (ATSR) family of sensors. Paper also provides burned area data for Australia and New Zealand (combined) for the years 1997-2011.

But, luckily the Louis Giglio and the team has continued to work with this subject and has created excellent source of all burned area and fire-based emissions datasets you would ever need. MODIS Collection 6 (C6) MCD64A1 burned area dataset (4) provides satellite-based burned area data for all continents – and also for Australia.

All this data is available at globalfiredata.org web site with a great analysis tool available at the same place. Currently the dataset provides burned area data for the years 1997-2016. You can select continent or country and several options about the source data from emissions to burned area.

Let’s start with burned area data for Australia:

LINK

======================

Warmist lies needs to stop.

 

[Threegoofs]

Faktantarkistusblogi

Warmist lies needs to stop.

That’s about as coherent as your usual posts.

 

[Steve Case]

Here's Paul Joseph Watson's spittle spewing take on the Australian bush fires: You Tube

If you don't have nearly ten minutes and like out back colorful language here's a LINK
where you can skip right to it (-:

 

[Buzz]

Here's Paul Joseph Watson's spittle spewing take on the Australian bush fires: You Tube

If you don't have nearly ten minutes and like out back colorful language here's a LINK
where you can skip right to it (-:

Factcheck: Is there really a green conspiracy to stop bushfire hazard reduction?


Large parts of New South Wales have been in the grip of catastrophic fire weather this week as firefighters desperately work to save homes, properties and lives.
But as firefighters try and beat back the bushfires, a familiar blame game began with critics pointing fingers at “greenies”, claiming they get in the way of hazard reduction efforts that might have reduced the size and scale of the disaster.
“These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires,” says Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, who has been researching bushfires for 40 years.
“They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.”
[h=2]So what are the claims?[/h] The chief accuser is Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce who says “greens policy” gets in the way “of many of the practicalities of fighting a fire and managing it”.
Among Joyce’s claims, made in several interviews this week, are that Greens policies have made hazard reduction activities more difficult.
This claim, just to be clear, is about the policies of a party that has never been in government.


Joyce also blamed the Greens for “paperwork” that made it harder to carry out hazard reduction activities.
“It’s not burning because they burnt off, it’s burning because they didn’t burn off,” Joyce told SkyNews.
According to Bradstock, Joyce’s claims are familiar but “without foundation.”
“It’s simply conspiracy stuff. It’s an obvious attempt to deflect the conversation away from climate change.”
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
He said: “Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”


Read the rest here.

 

[Jack Hays]

Factcheck: Is there really a green conspiracy to stop bushfire hazard reduction?


Large parts of New South Wales have been in the grip of catastrophic fire weather this week as firefighters desperately work to save homes, properties and lives.
But as firefighters try and beat back the bushfires, a familiar blame game began with critics pointing fingers at “greenies”, claiming they get in the way of hazard reduction efforts that might have reduced the size and scale of the disaster.
“These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires,” says Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, who has been researching bushfires for 40 years.
“They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.”
So what are the claims?

The chief accuser is Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce who says “greens policy” gets in the way “of many of the practicalities of fighting a fire and managing it”.
Among Joyce’s claims, made in several interviews this week, are that Greens policies have made hazard reduction activities more difficult.
This claim, just to be clear, is about the policies of a party that has never been in government.


Joyce also blamed the Greens for “paperwork” that made it harder to carry out hazard reduction activities.
“It’s not burning because they burnt off, it’s burning because they didn’t burn off,” Joyce told SkyNews.
According to Bradstock, Joyce’s claims are familiar but “without foundation.”
“It’s simply conspiracy stuff. It’s an obvious attempt to deflect the conversation away from climate change.”
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
He said: “Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”


Read the rest here.

The answer is yes.

[h=1]Australia Bushfires – Is Blaming Greens a Conspiracy Theory?[/h]Posted on 05 Jan 20 by JAIME JESSOP • 50 Comments
About 60,000 km² of forest area and farmland has been burned to a crisp so far in what are probably the most devastating wildfires in Australia’s recent history. Hundreds of thousands of farm animals have died in the blazes, dozens of people have been killed, many are missing and it’s estimated that

 

[Steve Case]

Factcheck: Is there really a green conspiracy to stop bushfire hazard reduction?


Large parts of New South Wales have been in the grip of catastrophic fire weather this week as firefighters desperately work to save homes, properties and lives.
But as firefighters try and beat back the bushfires, a familiar blame game began with critics pointing fingers at “greenies”, claiming they get in the way of hazard reduction efforts that might have reduced the size and scale of the disaster.
“These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires,” says Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, who has been researching bushfires for 40 years.
“They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.”
[h=2]So what are the claims?[/h] The chief accuser is Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce who says “greens policy” gets in the way “of many of the practicalities of fighting a fire and managing it”.
Among Joyce’s claims, made in several interviews this week, are that Greens policies have made hazard reduction activities more difficult.
This claim, just to be clear, is about the policies of a party that has never been in government.


Joyce also blamed the Greens for “paperwork” that made it harder to carry out hazard reduction activities.
“It’s not burning because they burnt off, it’s burning because they didn’t burn off,” Joyce told SkyNews.
According to Bradstock, Joyce’s claims are familiar but “without foundation.”
“It’s simply conspiracy stuff. It’s an obvious attempt to deflect the conversation away from climate change.”
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
He said: “Blaming ‘greenies’ for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”


Read the rest here.

From your link:

Bradstock says: “In New South Wales, hazard reduction work is governed by
policies that are set by coordinating committee chaired by the Rural Fire Service.
They bring together all players – with representatives from farmers, environment
groups and governments.

Bradstock says research “overwhelmingly” demonstrates that creating a
40- to 50-metre fuel break around a house can give it a much greater chance
of surviving fires.

He says property holders are largely free to carry out these activities themselves
without needing to seek permits.

I wrote this a few days ago:

When you read stuff like this, you really begin to understand that
something is seriously wrong in the political world we all live in.

Liam Sheahan was fined $50,000 by his local council for illegally clearing trees
His decision was vindicated when his house remained after Black Saturday fires
Every other home at Strath Creek, in central Victoria, was destroyed in the blaze
Mr Sheahan, 64, believes property owners should be allowed to clear their land
As fires rage in NSW, politicians refuse to discuss if preparations were adequate

Link to story
​

My arm chair is 10,000 miles away, and it's really difficult to sort out what the truth is.

What I haven't seen is a link to the policies and regulations that require the 50 meter
fire breaks or the regulations that prohibit clearing trees.

And as you know, my view is that of all the causes as to why the fires start and why
they burn so fiercely, "The Climate Crisis" is last on the list. It's all you guys talk about.

 

[Drawdown]

The rains have come and have extinguished several of the fires

Rain brings joy for Australian firefighters, farmers

Drought-breaking storms dumped desperately needed rain on some bushfire-ravaged parts of eastern Australia on Friday, while giving joy to many farmers who have faced losing precious livestock and crops.

The rains gave exhausted firefighters a boost in battling some of the blazes, with more relief expected over the weekend as the wet weather is forecast to hit other hotspots.

 

[Buzz]

The answer is yes.

[h=1]Australia Bushfires – Is Blaming Greens a Conspiracy Theory?[/h]Posted on 05 Jan 20 by JAIME JESSOP • 50 Comments
About 60,000 km² of forest area and farmland has been burned to a crisp so far in what are probably the most devastating wildfires in Australia’s recent history. Hundreds of thousands of farm animals have died in the blazes, dozens of people have been killed, many are missing and it’s estimated that

Hmmm... lots of insinuation that "greens" caused a reduction or limited fire prevention activities but not one shred of evidence that they were actually responsible.

Maybe you can show me what I am missing?

:lamo

Just kidding! I know you will do no such thing and are completely incapable of actually debating anything.

 

[Jack Hays]

Hmmm... lots of insinuation that "greens" caused a reduction or limited fire prevention activities but not one shred of evidence that they were actually responsible.

Maybe you can show me what I am missing?

:lamo

Just kidding! I know you will do no such thing and are completely incapable of actually debating anything.

[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics / Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Appeasement: The Root Cause of the Australian Mega-Fires[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from The Savvy Street By Vinay Kolhatkar I still remember 1994. My wife and I drove through the Royal National Park in Sydney’s south, several weeks after bushfires (or wildfires as they are known in the U.S.) had ravaged its heritage-listed insides. The 16,000 hectare park, the second oldest in the world, boasts of…
[/FONT]

 

[Buzz]

From your link:

....

I wrote this a few days ago:

...

So, you found a guy who had to pay 100,000 because he cut down a "fire break" twice as wide as allowed. It looks to me more like clear-cutting to increase the area for his crops. And then he tries to justify this clear-cutting by claiming it is what saved his home from the 2009 Black Saturday fire. But that is BS because he admits that he lost several vehicles, other personal property and that his house caught fire several times. I would say the only reason the house was saved was because he and his family ignored evacuation orders and stayed to put out the fires. So his "fire break" would not have saved his house if they hadn't stayed.

So... if a 100-meter fire break around a house was not enough should property owners be allowed to cut down whatever they want? I am sure that there were plenty of neighbors who were not "greens" that were pissed about this guys clear-cutting as it was an eye-sore.

And this doesn't actually back up that idiotic video of yours that I was debunking. I still haven't seen any proof that shows "greens" were responsible for these fires.

My arm chair is 10,000 miles away, and it's really difficult to sort out what the truth is.

What I haven't seen is a link to the policies and regulations that require the 50 meter
fire breaks or the regulations that prohibit clearing trees.

Did you even look? Or did you just believe a couple of denialist lying A-holes?

And as you know, my view is that of all the causes as to why the fires start and why
they burn so fiercely, "The Climate Crisis" is last on the list. It's all you guys talk about.

Actually... I NEVER push "The Climate Crisis". All I do is debunk denialist BS. But I realize there are plenty of people who do. And I don't blame them because they are probably right.

The fact of the matter is that this current fire crisis in Australia is being caused by numerous factors including arson, excessive fuel, heatwave, and drought. But of all those causes the only two that can be shown to be significantly higher this year are temps and drought. And whether or not those two factors are caused by AGW or are just related to it is certainly debatable. But to say they are the least likely is just more denialism.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, you found a guy who had to pay 100,000 because he cut down a "fire break" twice as wide as allowed. It looks to me more like clear-cutting to increase the area for his crops. And then he tries to justify this clear-cutting by claiming it is what saved his home from the 2009 Black Saturday fire. But that is BS because he admits that he lost several vehicles, other personal property and that his house caught fire several times. I would say the only reason the house was saved was because he and his family ignored evacuation orders and stayed to put out the fires. So his "fire break" would not have saved his house if they hadn't stayed.

So... if a 100-meter fire break around a house was not enough should property owners be allowed to cut down whatever they want? I am sure that there were plenty of neighbors who were not "greens" that were pissed about this guys clear-cutting as it was an eye-sore.

And this doesn't actually back up that idiotic video of yours that I was debunking. I still haven't seen any proof that shows "greens" were responsible for these fires.



Did you even look? Or did you just believe a couple of denialist lying A-holes?



Actually... I NEVER push "The Climate Crisis". All I do is debunk denialist BS. But I realize there are plenty of people who do. And I don't blame them because they are probably right.

The fact of the matter is that this current fire crisis in Australia is being caused by numerous factors including arson, excessive fuel, heatwave, and drought. But of all those causes the only two that can be shown to be significantly higher this year are temps and drought. And whether or not those two factors are caused by AGW or are just related to it is certainly debatable. But to say they are the least likely is just more denialism.

Note the firefighter link.

[h=2]Extreme Fuel Loads In Victoria[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 17, 2020 by tonyheller[/FONT]
On October 30, 2019 Victoria was warned that extreme fuel loads put Victoria at risk.

Link​

Scientist David Packham on what’s really causing the bushfires​

 

[Buzz]

[FONT=&quot]Climate Politics / Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Appeasement: The Root Cause of the Australian Mega-Fires[/h][FONT=&quot]Reposted from The Savvy Street By Vinay Kolhatkar I still remember 1994. My wife and I drove through the Royal National Park in Sydney’s south, several weeks after bushfires (or wildfires as they are known in the U.S.) had ravaged its heritage-listed insides. The 16,000 hectare park, the second oldest in the world, boasts of…
[/FONT]

Still nothing at all that shows "greens" are responsible.

I'm done reading your stupid posts. If you think you have found something then quote the exact text that says this. Otherwise... quit wasting everyone's time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Still nothing at all that shows "greens" are responsible.

I'm done reading your stupid posts. If you think you have found something then quote the exact text that says this. Otherwise... quit wasting everyone's time.

[FONT=&quot]CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) is Australia’s national, state-owned science agency. In 2015, CSIRO bushfire scientist David Packham had [/FONT]warned[FONT=&quot] that “forest fuel levels [in the state of Victoria] had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years,” a situation he attributed to “[/FONT]misguided green ideology” and which presented “an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment.” Packham recommended the tripling of the fuel-reduction burning target. But in fact, even the minimum target agreed by both major political parties was not met, only a quarter of it was done (less than a tenth of what was actually required).

Scientist David Packham on what’s really causing the bushfires

 

[Buzz]

[FONT=&quot]CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) is Australia’s national, state-owned science agency. In 2015, CSIRO bushfire scientist David Packham had [/FONT]warned[FONT=&quot] that “forest fuel levels [in the state of Victoria] had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years,” a situation he attributed to “[/FONT]misguided green ideology” and which presented “an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment.” Packham recommended the tripling of the fuel-reduction burning target. But in fact, even the minimum target agreed by both major political parties was not met, only a quarter of it was done (less than a tenth of what was actually required).

Scientist David Packham on what’s really causing the bushfires

Just because you can quote one guy(likely a denialist) who claims that misguided green ideology caused an increase in fuel, that is not proof that greens actually caused this.

You're going to have to do better than that, Jack!

 

[mike2810]

Just because you can quote one guy(likely a denialist) who claims that misguided green ideology caused an increase in fuel, that is not proof that greens actually caused this.

You're going to have to do better than that, Jack!

What did cause the increase fuel load then?

It takes heat, fuel, and oxygen for a fire. How hot a fire will burn and how fast it will spread are characteristics of the type of fuel, fuel load, fuel moisture, and fuel continuity. The condition of the vegetation (fuel) is influenced by the weather (short and long term).

imo, management practices play a greater role in fuel loading than "climate change".

 

[Jack Hays]

Just because you can quote one guy(likely a denialist) who claims that misguided green ideology caused an increase in fuel, that is not proof that greens actually caused this.

You're going to have to do better than that, Jack!

He's Australia's national bush fire specialist. You're simply denying. The point has been made.

 

[Buzz]

He's Australia's national bush fire specialist. You're simply denying. The point has been made.

He is a retired bush fire specialist. And I found a video interview of him where he cites his source for his belief that greens are partly responsible(it is about 5 minutes into it). And he quotes Roger Underwood who is a denialist that posts on the denialist Jennifer Marohasy's website. And all Roger said is that the greens profit by all the fires because they can blame it on global warming. So... that quote is not proof that the greens are responsible for the build-up of fuel.

Sorry, Jack. You haven't proven anything except your inability to tell the difference between fact and propaganda.

 

[Buzz]

What did cause the increase fuel load then?

It takes heat, fuel, and oxygen for a fire. How hot a fire will burn and how fast it will spread are characteristics of the type of fuel, fuel load, fuel moisture, and fuel continuity. The condition of the vegetation (fuel) is influenced by the weather (short and long term).

imo, management practices play a greater role in fuel loading than "climate change".

I don't know what exactly is increasing fuel loads. I suspect that the reluctance by many conservatives to spend the money necessary to do the job has a lot to do with it. But I haven't seen anything to make me believe it is the greens who did it. Or that there is suddenly an increase in arson either.

 

[Steve Case]

So, you found a guy who had to pay 100,000 because he cut down a "fire break" twice as wide as allowed. It looks to me more like clear-cutting to increase the area for his crops. And then he tries to justify this clear-cutting by claiming it is what saved his home from the 2009 Black Saturday fire. But that is BS because he admits that he lost several vehicles, other personal property and that his house caught fire several times. I would say the only reason the house was saved was because he and his family ignored evacuation orders and stayed to put out the fires. So his "fire break" would not have saved his house if they hadn't stayed. So... if a 100-meter fire break around a house was not enough should property owners be allowed to cut down whatever they want? I am sure that there were plenty of neighbors who were not "greens" that were pissed about this guys clear-cutting as it was an eye-sore.

What that looks like to me is you really don't own land in Australia. Here in the
United States, a lot of places allow you to do what you want if you own the property.
That used to be true in Chicago Mr. T's House is for sale

Mr. T’s former North Shore home hits the market asking $7.5M The Lake Forest
location of Mr. T’s infamous ‘tree massacre’ has reentered the market

Follow the link, it's quite the place and looks like cutting down the 100 trees was
probably a good move. The neighbors were upset because Mr "T" doesn't fit the
image of what their neighbors are supposed to look like. Well that's my opinion,
but it's probably spot on. Lake Forest has since written some zoning restrictions
on tree cutting.

I know of a couple who moved to Wyoming or maybe it was Montana and bought
a nice chunk of land to build on. They went to the county clerk to find out what
they could and couldn't build on the property. The clerk asked, "Do you own and
have a proper deed for the land?" "Yes, we do" and the clerk said, "Build what
you want" The story I heard didn't say anything about trees, but I expect they
could cut 'em down.

Besides that the guy, [as you wrote] saved his house by refusing to follow the
order to leave his house that the namby pambies issued. By the way, did you
take a look at what this guy had to say about the AU government on that Paul
Joseph Watson You Tube Time Mark 2:58 Colorful language is always fun (-:

And this doesn't actually back up that idiotic video of yours that I was debunking. I still haven't seen any proof that shows "greens" were responsible for these fires.

Neither have I, Paul Joseph Watson is over the top, but then so are a lot of
the darlings on the left.

Did you even look? Or did you just believe a couple of denialist lying A-holes?

I don't know what the motive for the arsons are. What I do know is that if arsons
have been a problem over the years, our wonderful so-called main stream media
hasn't reported it up until now.

Actually... I NEVER push "The Climate Crisis". All I do is debunk denialist BS. But I realize there are plenty of people who do. And I don't blame them because they are probably right.

On this nice snowy Saturday afternoon I don't feel like looking through your
previous posts other than to note that name-calling i.e., "denialist" looks like
pushing "The Climate Crisis" to me. Well that's just my opinion again (-:

The fact of the matter is that this current fire crisis in Australia is being caused by numerous factors including arson, excessive fuel, heatwave, and drought. But of all those causes the only two that can be shown to be significantly higher this year are temps and drought. And whether or not those two factors are caused by AGW or are just related to it is certainly debatable. But to say they are the least likely is just more denialism.

Well average temperature is up about a degree since the 19th century.
Considering that most of that increase is in winter, at night and in the
higher latitudes, my opinion again, is that it doesn't have much of
anything to do with the last few months of weather in New South Wales.

 

[Threegoofs]

He is a retired bush fire specialist. And I found a video interview of him where he cites his source for his belief that greens are partly responsible(it is about 5 minutes into it). And he quotes Roger Underwood who is a denialist that posts on the denialist Jennifer Marohasy's website. And all Roger said is that the greens profit by all the fires because they can blame it on global warming. So... that quote is not proof that the greens are responsible for the build-up of fuel.

Sorry, Jack. You haven't proven anything except your inability to tell the difference between fact and propaganda.

I think he understands the difference well.

And he disseminates propaganda.