Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

This place is heating up

Reply
Created by beefarmer > 9 months ago, 11 Jan 2020
Mobydisc
NSW, 9018 posts
15 Jan 2020 8:02PM
Thumbs Up

1939 was a hot and dry year in Australia. It was a year with massive bushfires burning across NSW and Victoria, killing many people. It was the year of Black Friday. New Zealanders could look directly into the mid day sun as it was obscured by smoke blown across the Tasman Sea during the fires. It was the year of record high temperatures. The years following 1939 were ones of a massive drought in Australia until 1947.

According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,

FormulaNova
WA, 14044 posts
15 Jan 2020 6:24PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Mobydisc said..
According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,


Are you sure about that or just guessing that? The BoM really have no interest in hiding any of their results as they are just their results. As if they care if climate change is real or not other than just guessing it based on their observations?

I know sometimes companies try and hide things, but in the case of the BoM i think its highly unlikely.

Its quite possible for a drought to have some rainfall periods but otherwise dry and hot conditions.


Edit: Here you go Moby, the BoM even mention the world war 2 drought in their media releases:
media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1997/australias-2018-in-weather-drought-heat-and-fire/

FormulaNova
WA, 14044 posts
15 Jan 2020 6:32PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Paradox said..
FormulaNova said..

Harrow said..

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.




Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?

Edit: It sounds like you are making this up.

www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs

"The second limitation is that many of these early observations were taken using a variety of observing methods. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology was formed in 1908 by an Act of the Federal Parliament. The formation of a national meteorological agency soon addressed the lack of national standards for instruments and calibrations, as well as limitations on the continental coverage of observations.

The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country had occurred by 1910, two years after the Bureau was formed. Standard observational practices (such as the use of a Stevenson screen to house the instruments) were in place at most sites in Queensland and South Australia by the mid-1890s, but in New South Wales and Victoria many sites were not standardised until between 1906 and 1908."


You would think from that comment that everything before 1910 was done by drunkards with a thermometer on the brick wall. This is far from the truth and there were plenty of official sites that operated prior to 1910 in exactly the same manner with Stevenson screens.

While I am sure they have to draw the line somewhere it does create perception issues with 1910 coinciding with the end of the Centenary drought and the high temperatures experienced in the late 1800's and and early 1900's that go came with it. A look at any global temperature record will show 1910 as the low point and it was hotter prior. Also plenty of Australian records to show that as well.

www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-07-16/federation-drought-analysis-finds-huge-ecosystem-losses/11312694?fbclid=IwAR1FevrnoEmMyozxoM1A1U0VthNmkKGmMBnHQpDQzMYkUnijnE1qqw3KsbI

I don't think anyone disagrees the earth has warmed over the last 50 years, including Australia. Fortunately the increased temperature has also increased rain overall.


Sure, I agree with you, but if the BoM was created in 1908, then you can understand why their records are much more consistent after this time. No doubt there were other groups that were doing this job before the BoM brought it all together, but it has to start on some date doesn't it.

They do provide the data as far as I can tell from before 1910 on their website, but they have the proviso that these do not have the accuracy of the later samples. They are hardly hiding it.

Mobydisc
NSW, 9018 posts
16 Jan 2020 7:14AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
FormulaNova said..

Mobydisc said..
According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,



Are you sure about that or just guessing that? The BoM really have no interest in hiding any of their results as they are just their results. As if they care if climate change is real or not other than just guessing it based on their observations?

I know sometimes companies try and hide things, but in the case of the BoM i think its highly unlikely.

Its quite possible for a drought to have some rainfall periods but otherwise dry and hot conditions.


Edit: Here you go Moby, the BoM even mention the world war 2 drought in their media releases:
media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1997/australias-2018-in-weather-drought-heat-and-fire/


The BOM is a large organisation with many well educated employees who probably hold strong views on various matters. Different people have different ideas. Different ideas are published too.


Based on the historical evidence, the drought in Australia during World War Two was at least as bad as what we are experiencing now. However the graphic put out by the BOM tells another story. High temperatures, bush fires and droughts from past times do not fit into the current political narrative. We are told the old days were a paradise of beautiful weather before nasty and stupid humans stuffed it up.

It kind of sounds like the story of Adam and Eve being thrown out of the Garden of Eden.

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 7:57AM
Thumbs Up


While it's great to consider bias, we must also consider that the fossil fuel industry, many other businesses, and many farmers also have reason to be biased - as do many of us. So to say "the BoM may be biased" is only half the story, or less - there is at least as much bias, and much more money, pushing the other way.

What "historical evidence" are you using? Stuff I can find, like the tale here knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/environment-drought-eastern-australia/ speaks of fairly short periods of severe drought in WW2, interspersed by rain. Where I live, old farmers have repeatedly said that neither they, or their families, have ever seen anything as bad as the current drought. A few weeks ago I was talking to the bloke who runs our town water treatment plant. He has always been told that there was NO chance of the town ever running out of water - now we have less than a year's supply. These are not the stereotyped greenies or inner city latte drinkers I'm talking about; these are people who are farmers etc and whose family (and records) have been in the area for up to six generations.

One other point is that last century had 30-50 years or more between major droughts. Now we've had about five years between major droughts. That makes a huge difference in terms of recovery periods, aquifer recharging, etc.

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 9:44AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

If they get a big one every 5 years rather than every 10 what's the difference?


The difference is 40 lives and 4000 homes lost every decade instead of 20 lives and 2000 homes lost.

To many people, that's a difference worth thinking about.

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
16 Jan 2020 7:25AM
Thumbs Up

It will not make a difference to how a fire service maintains its state of readiness. Which should be what the commission addresses.
Even then the losses are unlikely to be linear as you've suggested. More regular fires will maintain pressure to do more prescribed burns, town folk will be more tolerant of the smoke from prescribed burns. Lifestylers may decide not to build homes so deeply in the bush.

The fractal perimeter of our outer suburbs is not ideal in a fire prone country. Streets stretching out along ridge lines , 2 acre blocks strung out along dusty cul de sacs. Circle the wagons, minimise the perimeter for the number of homes in the settlement. A lot easier for a fire truck to patrol the perimeter or to do a strategic prescribed burn.

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 11:43AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Paradox said..

FormulaNova said..


Harrow said..

Ever wonder why all the statistics that get shown start at 1910 and not 1900? It's because if they showed the data from 1900-1910, you might come to the conclusion that the country is cooling down.





Harrow, do you know this to be true or are you making this up? Do you have data for the years before 1910?

Edit: It sounds like you are making this up.

www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=FAQs

"The second limitation is that many of these early observations were taken using a variety of observing methods. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology was formed in 1908 by an Act of the Federal Parliament. The formation of a national meteorological agency soon addressed the lack of national standards for instruments and calibrations, as well as limitations on the continental coverage of observations.

The standardisation of instruments in many parts of the country had occurred by 1910, two years after the Bureau was formed. Standard observational practices (such as the use of a Stevenson screen to house the instruments) were in place at most sites in Queensland and South Australia by the mid-1890s, but in New South Wales and Victoria many sites were not standardised until between 1906 and 1908."



You would think from that comment that everything before 1910 was done by drunkards with a thermometer on the brick wall. This is far from the truth and there were plenty of official sites that operated prior to 1910 in exactly the same manner with Stevenson screens.

While I am sure they have to draw the line somewhere it does create perception issues with 1910 coinciding with the end of the Centenary drought and the high temperatures experienced in the late 1800's and and early 1900's that go came with it. A look at any global temperature record will show 1910 as the low point and it was hotter prior. Also plenty of Australian records to show that as well.

www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-07-16/federation-drought-analysis-finds-huge-ecosystem-losses/11312694?fbclid=IwAR1FevrnoEmMyozxoM1A1U0VthNmkKGmMBnHQpDQzMYkUnijnE1qqw3KsbI

I don't think anyone disagrees the earth has warmed over the last 50 years, including Australia. Fortunately the increased temperature has also increased rain overall.


But if the BoM was trying to manipulate data to stoke climate change fears by only choosing temperature records since 1908, why do they use rainfall records from 1900?

The BoM is upfront about why it doesn't use temperature recordings from the era of the Federation drought - at that time many thermometers used to record readings lacked "Stevenson Screens" and were therefore exposed to the elements and recorded higher temps. Here is a classic example of why the BoM is acting perfectly reasonably when they ignore the older un-screened readings; a 1907 report from a Mildura paper that showed the installation of a Stevenson Screen dropped the recorded temp by up to SEVEN DEGREES compared to nearby stations without the screens;

trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/196159366?searchTerm=%22thermometer%20screen%22&searchLimits=

There is no doubt that the lack of Stevenson Screens is a problem with earlier measurements; the famous meteorological pioneer Clement Wragge noted that their uniform use was "of the very highest importance" as early as 1886 and insisted they be fitted in Tasmanian weather stations, for example, before he used their data. Otherwise, he said later, recordings could be "seriously misleading", which is pretty obvious. So when the BoM kicked off, they started standardising screens and weather stations; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/205008054?searchTerm=meteorology%20thermometer%20screen&searchLimits=sortby . The BoM has been aware of the problem of pre-1908 data as early as - 1908! See trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14951707?searchTerm=meteorology%20thermometer%20screen&searchLimits=sortby

After about 1910, the screens were in normal use and therefore recorded temps dropped in many places. See, for example,

trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/148557564?searchTerm=%22thermometer%20screen%22&searchLimits=

This piece claims, though, that as late as the 1960s, Adelaide's temperature records were affected by poor thermometer siting, which made the city look degrees hotter than it really was; trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/133925238?searchTerm=meteorology%20thermometer%20screen&searchLimits=sortby|||l-decade=196

One interesting point is that at least two towns complained that the old records made it look as if their towns were hotter than they actually were, therefore scaring people away.

So, to summarise;

1- there were many problems with old temperature records;
2- the BoM knew of this as early as 1908;

therefore it's utterly wrong for anyone to imply that the BoM is trying to talk up the problem with pre-1908 data in order to manipulate weather records to make it look as if the climate is warming. The problem with pre-1908 data has been acknowledged for over 100 years!

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 11:59AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Ian K said..
It will not make a difference to how a fire service maintains its state of readiness. Which should be what the commission addresses.
Even then the losses are unlikely to be linear as you've suggested. More regular fires will maintain pressure to do more prescribed burns, town folk will be more tolerant of the smoke from prescribed burns. Lifestylers may decide not to build homes so deeply in the bush.

The fractal perimeter of our outer suburbs is not ideal in a fire prone country. Streets stretching out along ridge lines , 2 acre blocks strung out along dusty cul de sacs. Circle the wagons, minimise the perimeter for the number of homes in the settlement. A lot easier for a fire truck to patrol the perimeter or to do a strategic prescribed burn.


Yes, I was speaking in rough terms - just as you were when you spoke about "5 years" and "10 years" and "a big one", which is not a scientific term AFAIK.

The losses may not be linear the other way; changing climate may make the losses heavier. Volunteers may start giving up spending huge amounts of time fighting fires and doing prescribed burns. Vegetation may continue to dry and die, providing more fuel in areas where burns are impractical. An increasing population may push more people to the urban/rural interface. An ageing population and (IIRC) rising asthma rates may put more pressure on reducing the smoke from prescribed burns.

You're right, IMHO, about problems with the perimeters of outer suburbs and towns. Arguably we should be putting things like sportsfields on the outskirts as a buffer (although I suppose that reduces their efficiency as a last resort "safe" place). And IMHO if you are going to live in the bush you should be better prepared than most people currently are.

But surely the climate WILL affect the state of readiness; speaking hypothetically if the average temp dropped 5 degrees then the situation will be different to that we will encounter if it climbed 5 degrees. A change in rainfall patterns throughout the year can also be critical - some areas have historically had few serious fires because they have wet summers, and if that changes they may be in serious trouble. When ancient rainforests are burning obviously the way that area is treated must change.

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
16 Jan 2020 10:29AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..
Vegetation may continue to dry and die, providing more fuel in areas where burns are impractical.



In the short term, but trees need rain to produce litter. Have you seen the piles of litter in a mountain Ash forest? Without wildfire or prescribed burning litter builds up for 20 or 30 ys until leaf fall from above = decomposition from below. Decomposition is also affected by climate, maybe to a lesser extent?. It's only speculation which way it goes. Not something the royal commission should get bogged down with. (As Pauline has suggested)

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 1:44PM
Thumbs Up

Isn't it just speculation that it's only speculation which way it goes? Shouldn't we try to find out whether we can say which way it's likely to go?

Nope, I haven't seen a WA mountain ash forest litter. I do live near rainforests and I've been breathing their smoke for months. If the climate keeps changing, they may well form a mass of fuel after the earlier fuel like the trees that died in the last drought die off. Thousands of gums around here are in big trouble from the drought. If the climate here keeps on drying and they die, we'll have vast areas of the proverbial tinderbox ready to go. And what will replace the rainforests and gums in the long run, if they die, and how will that affect fires? Surely that is a reasonable question to ask, especially when we may be making long term decisions such as restricting settlement.

Or do we ignore the problem, allow people to settle in more areas, and then in 2040 say "oooops, your towns will burn to a crisp and we could have foreseen that in 2020 but we didn't bother to ask the question"?

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
16 Jan 2020 11:03AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..
And what will replace the rainforests and gums in the long run, if they die, and how will that affect fires? Surely that is a reasonable question to ask,


A reasonable question but not for the royal commission you won't get a consensus because we don't know. Your best guess on what will replace your local species if the rainfall does in fact drop 20% is maybe to drive west to a region where the average rainfall is already 20% less, look for similar aspect and soil I suppose, and see what grows. Talk to the local fire brigade while you are there.

evlPanda
NSW, 9202 posts
16 Jan 2020 2:43PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Mobydisc said..
According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,


BOM doesn't record fires. So there is no conspiracy there.

Which is more likely? Your memory of the 30s and 40s isn't what you think it is, or the BOM data has been covered up in a conspiracy?

Or, neither?

Temperatures




1938, 1940, and 1942 stand out as relatively hot years, especially where people live.


Droughts

1940
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1940&month=12&day=31

1944
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1944&month=12&day=31


BTW it's pretty desperate, and perhaps illustrative, when an argument depends on the ****ing WEATHER BUREAU (!) being involved in a conspiracy.

Think about it; it's ridiculous.

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
16 Jan 2020 5:11PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
evlPanda said..


Mobydisc said..
According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,




BOM doesn't record fires. So there is no conspiracy there.

Which is more likely? Your memory of the 30s and 40s isn't what you think it is, or the BOM data has been covered up in a conspiracy?

Or, neither?

Temperatures




1938, 1940, and 1942 stand out as relatively hot years, especially where people live.


Droughts

1940
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1940&month=12&day=31

1944
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1944&month=12&day=31


BTW it's pretty desperate, and perhaps illustrative, when an argument depends on the ****ing WEATHER BUREAU (!) being involved in a conspiracy.

Think about it; it's ridiculous.



You just don't realise how big the conspiracy is. It's SO big that it started as early as 1908, when the Bureau decided to go public with the fact that pre-1908 temperatures were unreliable, just so they had an excuse to discard those temperatures in studies in 2020.

I blame the Illuminatii, or the Old World Order, or the Very Deep State. And y'know what Wiki says also happened in Oz in 1908 - the Boy Scouts started, the first Rugby League premiership was run, the first Labour party member to become PM took office, and women finally got complete voting rights. Think about it - feminists and commies take power at the same time that two bunches of organised, uniformed people with branches everywhere spring up, just when we know the conspiracy started. That can't be a coincidence.

FormulaNova
WA, 14044 posts
16 Jan 2020 10:59PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Chris 249 said..

evlPanda said..



Mobydisc said..
According to the BOM the high temperatures and fires of 1939 or the drought of the 1940s appears not to have happened. Flushed down the memory hole and airbrushed out of history,





BOM doesn't record fires. So there is no conspiracy there.

Which is more likely? Your memory of the 30s and 40s isn't what you think it is, or the BOM data has been covered up in a conspiracy?

Or, neither?

Temperatures




1938, 1940, and 1942 stand out as relatively hot years, especially where people live.


Droughts

1940
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1940&month=12&day=31

1944
www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=drought&period=12month&area=nat&year=1944&month=12&day=31


BTW it's pretty desperate, and perhaps illustrative, when an argument depends on the ****ing WEATHER BUREAU (!) being involved in a conspiracy.

Think about it; it's ridiculous.




You just don't realise how big the conspiracy is. It's SO big that it started as early as 1908, when the Bureau decided to go public with the fact that pre-1908 temperatures were unreliable, just so they had an excuse to discard those temperatures in studies in 2020.

I blame the Illuminatii, or the Old World Order, or the Very Deep State. And y'know what Wiki says also happened in Oz in 1908 - the Boy Scouts started, the first Rugby League premiership was run, the first Labour party member to become PM took office, and women finally got complete voting rights. Think about it - feminists and commies take power at the same time that two bunches of organised, uniformed people with branches everywhere spring up, just when we know the conspiracy started. That can't be a coincidence.


Now you are getting the hang of it! The worrying thing that I think a lot of us find is that you can make really obvious jokes that no sensible person would interpret as anything other than a joke, and then they believe it... beware of holographic planes hitting buildings!

Harrow
NSW, 4520 posts
17 Jan 2020 7:22AM
Thumbs Up

I'm sick of this bloody rain already!

TonyAbbott
866 posts
17 Jan 2020 7:02AM
Thumbs Up

This not a parody account




Harrow
NSW, 4520 posts
17 Jan 2020 10:33AM
Thumbs Up

^^^^
Can someone please explain the above to me. The rain makes grass, which must use CO2 to grow, then the cows eat the grass, and end up releasing it into the atmosphere again. So where is the increase?

Unless it's the fuel being burned in trucks carrying the cows, which would just bring me back to my pet subject....forget the focus on climate change and just fix the population growth.

Mr Milk
NSW, 2868 posts
17 Jan 2020 10:38AM
Thumbs Up

Methane

Bara
WA, 647 posts
17 Jan 2020 8:20AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Harrow said..
^^^^
Can someone please explain the above to me. The rain makes grass, which must use CO2 to grow, then the cows eat the grass, and end up releasing it into the atmosphere again. So where is the increase?

Unless it's the fuel being burned in trucks carrying the cows, which would just bring me back to my pet subject....forget the focus on climate change and just fix the population growth.


this chart in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari which i highly recommend brings home part of the issue and how skewed the planet has become - It compares biomass of large animals. Yeah population not the root problem nothing to see here!


Harrow
NSW, 4520 posts
17 Jan 2020 12:14PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Bara said..this chart in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari which i highly recommend brings home part of the issue and how skewed the planet has become - It compares biomass of large animals. Yeah population not the root problem nothing to see here!



Must be a lot of carbon sequested in all that domestic animal biomass.

kk
WA, 940 posts
17 Jan 2020 9:36AM
Thumbs Up

Come on Harrow, we all know only bad news is good news.

There is no employment security in looking on the bright side of life.

psychojoe
WA, 1804 posts
17 Jan 2020 12:19PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Bara said..

Harrow said..
^^^^
Can someone please explain the above to me. The rain makes grass, which must use CO2 to grow, then the cows eat the grass, and end up releasing it into the atmosphere again. So where is the increase?

Unless it's the fuel being burned in trucks carrying the cows, which would just bring me back to my pet subject....forget the focus on climate change and just fix the population growth.



this chart in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari which i highly recommend brings home part of the issue and how skewed the planet has become - It compares biomass of large animals. Yeah population not the root problem nothing to see here!




Finally. A solution.
Everybody, kill your pet and eat it.

Macroscien
QLD, 6791 posts
17 Jan 2020 5:47PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Mr Milk said..
Methane




A single cow/cattle produce 70 to 120 kg of methane per year
We have 28 mln cattle in Australia
so
28 mln x .01=2,800,000 tonnes of methane our cattle produce every year

in whole world
996 mln x .1= 96.600,000 tonnes of methane is produced by cattle alone.

for comparison Australia produce 440 mln tones of coal every year almost every gram also finish as CO2.

Each human produce 1kg of CO2 every day. To ofsett/absorb it you need 1000m2 of grass lawn or 15 trees

TonyAbbott
866 posts
17 Jan 2020 6:23PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
psychojoe said..

Bara said..


Harrow said..
^^^^
Can someone please explain the above to me. The rain makes grass, which must use CO2 to grow, then the cows eat the grass, and end up releasing it into the atmosphere again. So where is the increase?

Unless it's the fuel being burned in trucks carrying the cows, which would just bring me back to my pet subject....forget the focus on climate change and just fix the population growth.




this chart in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari which i highly recommend brings home part of the issue and how skewed the planet has become - It compares biomass of large animals. Yeah population not the root problem nothing to see here!





Finally. A solution.
Everybody, kill your pet and eat it.


Eating your pets is called socialism

Chris 249
NSW, 3215 posts
17 Jan 2020 10:27PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
TonyAbbott said..

psychojoe said..


Bara said..



Harrow said..
^^^^
Can someone please explain the above to me. The rain makes grass, which must use CO2 to grow, then the cows eat the grass, and end up releasing it into the atmosphere again. So where is the increase?

Unless it's the fuel being burned in trucks carrying the cows, which would just bring me back to my pet subject....forget the focus on climate change and just fix the population growth.





this chart in Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari which i highly recommend brings home part of the issue and how skewed the planet has become - It compares biomass of large animals. Yeah population not the root problem nothing to see here!






Finally. A solution.
Everybody, kill your pet and eat it.



Eating your pets is called socialism


Eating your pets is capitalism, where the winner takes all.
Caring for your pets is socialism, where the more powerful take care of the less powerful.

NotWal
QLD, 7426 posts
20 Jan 2020 1:37AM
Thumbs Up

Potholer on the fires and climate change - no bull****, just facts - loverly

holy guacamole
1393 posts
20 Jan 2020 5:34AM
Thumbs Up

^^ Perfect.

Cue dumb dank memes in response.

azymuth
WA, 1962 posts
20 Jan 2020 6:37AM
Thumbs Up

^^^ Excellent video, well worth worth watching the whole thing.
Ending statement - amateur opinions don't matter when it comes to science, listen to the real experts

Bara
WA, 647 posts
20 Jan 2020 6:44AM
Thumbs Up

Great vid thx for posting.

" Climate change is an amplifier not the cause of the current bushfire crisis"

If the lefties would stop there we wouldn't have so much disagreement from the so called deniers.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"This place is heating up" started by beefarmer