It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hey, Climate Change Activists: MANY Australian Bush Fires Are Deliberately Set

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




Magma is very close to the surface and when it moves to the orientation of the new magnetic pole or as it moves, the entire world is going to see dramatic changes with EQ's and with strange weather.


Does the term "Curie temperature" mean anything to you? Magma is not affected by magnetism.


You are not qualified to discuss this. You have dismissed too many facts to consider your opinion worthy.
ETA

You will notice i never debate orbital science or imaging of distant objects in the Solar System with you, I am not qualified.
edit on 7-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Heh.

Says the guy who thinks magnets attract water.

So you haven't heard the term "Curie temperature."

edit on 1/7/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Heh.

Says the guy who thinks magnets attract water.

So you haven't heard the term "Curie temperature."


So Says a guy without a Chemistry degree challenging the facts. You have nerve.

I am not here to character assassinate.

I am here to tell it like it is.
edit on 7-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




I am not here to character assassinate.

Then present a valid refutation to my statements.

Demonstrate that water or magma are affected by Earth's magnetic field. Provide evidence.

edit on 1/7/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2020 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nope, I have already many many times. You deny facts that is all there is to it.

Facts about pollution.


edit on 8-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Nope, I have already many many times.

No. The closest you've come was talking about a comb and a stream of water.

That's not magnetism, that's electrostatic attraction.

Try it with a magnet.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
I willingly accepted your challenges and you have willingly exposed your bias. I cannot say how disappointed I am that people like you would continue to pursue that angle but silly people do silly things I guess.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I assume you meant to reply to me rather than yourself.

You have not demonstrated that magnetism affects either water or magma.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




Nope, I have already many many times.

No. The closest you've come was talking about a comb and a stream of water.

That's not magnetism, that's electrostatic attraction.

Try it with a magnet.


Thanks for proving you don't know AGAIN. This isn't something you know and have repeatedly demonstrated this. There is nothing left for you but defeat with this subject. You don't know molecular level information and you don't want to admit there is a weak magnetic affect on all objects especially water molecules in a gaseous state.

You need to study gasses.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




This isn't something you know and have repeatedly demonstrated this.

Incorrect.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 12:56 AM
link   
There really is no point. There is no longer any credible debate in regards to climate science, it is settled. I am not going to argue with you people, it's a waste of Fn time. The weight of peer reviewed science speaks for itself, you people are on the wrong side of history. The heads of fires services in NSW, Victoria and NSW have all stated that the climatic conditions have caused the severity of the fires, not a lack of controlled burning, or arson. The CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have been warning of the risks of increased fire conditions due to Climate Change and all have stated that they support the evidence that climate change is being caused by carbon emissions primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.

I gotta say, the sort of misinformation being spread about these fires in enraging. I am not sure I can hold back acts of physical violence against this kind of ignorance being spread if I encounter it in person. I am all for diverse opinions but in this case it is outright dangerous. There are vested interests from a certain political bent on anything to do with the climate change issue and it is making it impossible to take the action that is required to try an at least slow down the damage that is being done. That is why it infuriates me. You people are just plain WRONG. History will not look kindly.



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Before fire fighters, lightning strikes would hit Forrest and cause fires that would burn for months to years.

The co2 these fires produce is tremendous.

And its kinda of a natural cycle.....because after the fires the soil becomes extra rich.

I believe there are even natural fires that have been going on for 20 years plus.

Many natural coal deposits are burning underground



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

to quote one who is famous for doing what she/ her handlers are doing.



You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel



edit on 8-1-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223

There is much peer reviewed literature out there, however due to many recent revelations of bad practices from climate scientist and organisations in positions of influence (withheld data, rounding anomalies, statistical scales used that happen to smooth out past peaks and troughs in the graphs, etc.), much of that literature is now dubious because there are trails of references based on false data going back decades.

This is the elephant in the room currently in climate science... a vast majority of that literature is now not trustworthy... and a side effect of this is that the current "experts" who have jockeyed their way into power over the last couple decades, likely are basing their beliefs on old and now defunct data.

Scary...

Papers that I read in the past, and believed (and used by governments to make policy), now have to be re-evaluated to see if their references are tainted, and thus their conclusions.

I struggle currently finding good literature that you can source the raw data from, and isn't just referenced to some other study that references bad data down the chain, or reaches a dead end in terms of "commercially funded research". There is precious little actual "open data" collected, as opposed to all the proprietary data or interpretations of the publicly available data.

When I do find the raw data, not massaged to present a certain viewpoint, I struggle to see the level of change and thus alarm that the "environmental alarmists" are pushing.

What I see is a very small bump of human effect (may even be a statistical anomaly), in a much more epic cycle of global climate change. Last time I looked, the current warming still fits very well with predicted warming coming out of the mini ice age that we are still in, and if anything it appears to be a bit cooler globally than it should be.

Who knows though... I saw a completely different point of view recently that studied global satellite imagery to show that the increase in Co2 has actually had a massive vegetative effect globally over the last couple of decades... basically the planet is greener than it has ever been in recorded history because plants have increased growth due to increase in Co2 concentrations. This is a new line of inquiry, so the jury is out over the implications of this... but one implication could be that there is more fuel than ever to burn over the last couple of decades, which is a potential contributor to this year's particularly bad circumstances.

To me this shows that it's much more complicated than we yet understand, and anyone who suggests they know for sure (like activists on any side) are usually the most wrong, and will make wrong decisions that effect us negatively into the future.

Let's all thank the vocal minority!



posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The reports of mass arson attacks as seen in the opening post and elsewhere are a HOAX initially spread by bots on social media. The misinformation has since been picked up and gone viral on social media platforms and Media outlets. This thread needs to get deleted or thrown in the HOAX bin. Here we go,



As authorities fight the flames on firegrounds around the country, an ABC investigation has revealed a battle of a very different kind online.
One area of misinformation has been the hashtag #ArsonEmergency on Twitter.



Queensland University of Technology (QUT) researcher Dr Timothy Graham analysed a sample 315 accounts posting #ArsonEmergency and said around a third of them displayed highly automated and inauthentic behaviour.



A number of the tweets took police figures out of context and claimed almost 200 arsonists had been arrested in NSW.
The actual number of people charged with deliberately lighting a fire is 24 — even fewer managed to spark large blazes.


Link
www.abc.net.au...



Victoria police say there is no evidence any of the devastating bushfires in the state were caused by arson, contrary to the spread of global disinformation exaggerating arsonist arrests during the current crisis.



The reported figure of 183 also includes 101 individuals from Queensland who were “picked up for setting fires in the bush”. But a Queensland police spokeswoman said the figure included a broader range of offences than arson, including the breaching of total fire bans, and was not a total of arrests, but a total of “police enforcement actions”.



Queensland police said between 10 September and 8 January there had been 1,068 reported bushfires in the state, of which 114 had been deliberately or maliciously lit through human involvement and have been subject to police enforcement action.



But exaggerated claims about arson during the current crisis have also been used to undermine the link between climate change and the longer, more severe bushfire seasons currently being experienced in Australia.


Link
www.theguardian.com...

Here is the Fire and Arson section of the Queensland police news, there are a few arson arrests, mainly house fires and not very recent. mypolice.qld.gov.au...

So as you can see, it is fake news based slightly on facts that steamrolled on social media. If there were indeed hundreds of arsonists out there delibrately starting bushfires, there would be news briefs from Police chiefs ect. But most are people not sticking to fire bans, discarding cigarettes etc.




posted on Jan, 8 2020 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?
What caused the 1939 fires ? Kangaroo farts ? Lol



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




This isn't something you know and have repeatedly demonstrated this.

Incorrect.


I was correct.
So just why are you a tool of the UN IPCC?
Be more specific please as to why you are. There is no denying your tool like attitudes on many subjects. They ARE liars. YOU don't WANT TO KNOW the truth. you want to TELL US what YOU think it is and you are WRONG a lot.

I gave you the proof on Dr Ball of U of Toronto beating them in a defamation suit when he proved the data was altered.

I gave you proof the data was manipulated also by members of the UN IPCC panel of scientist. I share the lecture from one of several professors who says the IPCC used their name but it was NOT correct and he does NOT approve of the 97% consensus. Dr W Soon.

Yet, you keep shilling for liars and acting like you know molecular chemistry and molecular biology and astronomy and politics and god knows if you are not CIA after all you act so shill like and might have more than one account you are so silly sometimes.

We need to know the truth you are a denier of the truth, period.

ETA

You use your knowledge to belittle the data and belittle the concepts so much I am saying I was absolutely correct Phage, absolutely correct.


edit on 9-1-2020 by Justoneman because: typos



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?
What caused the 1939 fires ? Kangaroo farts ? Lol


And the planets that have shown dramatic climate change, that one likes to pretend that didn't happen. Our climate change is about the Sun and magnetic field cycles. That will prove to be the facts when the propaganda machines lying for dollars finally gets shut down.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?
What caused the 1939 fires ? Kangaroo farts ? Lol


And the planets that have shown dramatic climate change, that one likes to pretend that didn't happen. Our climate change is about the Sun and magnetic field cycles. That will prove to be the facts when the propaganda machines lying for dollars finally gets shut down.
You know it . Climate change is bunko science



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?
What caused the 1939 fires ? Kangaroo farts ? Lol


And the planets that have shown dramatic climate change, that one likes to pretend that didn't happen. Our climate change is about the Sun and magnetic field cycles. That will prove to be the facts when the propaganda machines lying for dollars finally gets shut down.
You know it . Climate change is bunko science


I know S-Hg-NaCl.

What gets me is these Solar cycle deniers think they can just pound the false data and say it is what it isn't and that hurts my profession of Environmental Scientist. It may hurt me personally I M O because I will be associated with the liars when the pendulum swings back toward the facts being used that are real and not tweaked. Nor do I like the long term cycles being ignored totally with BS explanation for why THIS TIME is different.

It is what the data reveals not the cherry picked short window with limited range of data compared to Historical data, that makes what the "Solar Cycle Deniers" out to be telling us a lie.

It is about the whole data set that proves the lie of omission the "Solar Cycle Deniers" use to declare victory over the 'climate change deniers'. Yes, it is this time because power grabbers like Al Gore. They are using the lies to fuel their income while never actually having the conviction and living the life of a conservative who cares for he Earth as they claim to be.

The "Solar Cycle Deniers" waste much but still want not. We get labeled fools by those very idiots pretending to be experts and declaring it is settled. Well Dr Feynman's ghost needs to visit them all.

We are now being targeted to be without electricity and fuel for heating as happened in Cali 2019. Mean-while the "Solar Cycle Deniers" party it up, laughing at us on MSM and tell us from their perch of narcissism to do what they say just not what the "Solar Cycle Deniers" themselves do.



edit on 9-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join