|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 20, 2020 2:21:57 GMT
As to the cause for the intensity of the fires, I'm still collating, but as I said earlier some think the fires are being set deliberately by a Directed Energy Weapon. Because you are an ignorant hick lost in his own fantasy world, and not someone who understands or cares about evidence. You're a pro-establishment Internet talking head, not worth listening to.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 20, 2020 2:32:20 GMT
I was a bit surprised to find out how right wing Austrailia is. They didn't legalize gay marriage until 2 years after the US did (and we were already kinda late to the party). Also they seem to produce quite a few alt righters/white nationalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 20, 2020 2:40:41 GMT
Because you are an ignorant hick lost in his own fantasy world, and not someone who understands or cares about evidence. You're a pro-establishment Internet talking head, not worth listening to. I'm actually an anti-establishment rebel, but unlike you, I understand evidence and science. You are just a hick lost in his own fantasy world.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 20, 2020 2:52:13 GMT
Hey look, something else you dont understand. The issue with the fires is not how they started, which if this was applicable would be what this video is driving at, but the level at which they burn and their intensity, this is due to the nature of the fauna itself, how easy is is to burn and hard it is to contain, the global warming theory suggests that because temperatures are higher, then the fauna is in a much more flammable condition. So now that we have cleared up that starting the fires was not an issue, lets look at the real issue. The condition of the fauna is what is making the fires so bad, the current accepted narrative is that global warming drove this, do you have a differing opinion on the cause for the intensity of the fires? From the OP: As to the cause for the intensity of the fires, I'm still collating, but as I said earlier some think the fires are being set deliberately by a Directed Energy Weapon. Hey Erjenious, Molar asked me where I get my information from..... here is something for you to read if you are still 'collating'. www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/statement-regarding-australian-bushfires?fbclid=IwAR0Qw2Xk_48SIGPbzk5Y7Nns6a3eS6cXTrBG5U_4gJ5GWt2BIOwY26DDKlAI try to go to the source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 3:31:16 GMT
Hey, if you don't like that you're probably not going to like this either. This is what some think is the real culprit in the Australian fires, and the fires in California. Hey look, something else you dont understand. The issue with the fires is not how they started, which if this was applicable would be what this video is driving at, but the level at which they burn and their intensity, this is due to the nature of the fauna itself, how easy is is to burn and hard it is to contain, the global warming theory suggests that because temperatures are higher, then the fauna is in a much more flammable condition. So now that we have cleared up that starting the fires was not an issue, lets look at the real issue. The condition of the fauna is what is making the fires so bad, the current accepted narrative is that global warming drove this, do you have a differing opinion on the cause for the intensity of the fires? By "intensity" do you mean how far it spreads?
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 20, 2020 3:44:40 GMT
Why is someone letting their hysterical woman post political stuff on the religion board?
Some people don't know how to control their women.
I bet you her burqa is even wrinkled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 3:49:47 GMT
Maybe you should try to read them too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 19:41:00 GMT
Hey look, something else you dont understand. The issue with the fires is not how they started, which if this was applicable would be what this video is driving at, but the level at which they burn and their intensity, this is due to the nature of the fauna itself, how easy is is to burn and hard it is to contain, the global warming theory suggests that because temperatures are higher, then the fauna is in a much more flammable condition. So now that we have cleared up that starting the fires was not an issue, lets look at the real issue. The condition of the fauna is what is making the fires so bad, the current accepted narrative is that global warming drove this, do you have a differing opinion on the cause for the intensity of the fires? From the OP: As to the cause for the intensity of the fires, I'm still collating, but as I said earlier some think the fires are being set deliberately by a Directed Energy Weapon. Scott Morrison is a backwards thinking evangelist who is also a climate change denier. He is not in any way qualified to discuss the nature of the forest fires. The fires have been caused as they always have, lightening strikes and arson. The issue is not how the fires started, they start every year and there is no mystery around that. There is no mystery as to why they are so intense either, actual scientists had predicted this would happen well before the fire season was on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 19:43:22 GMT
Hey look, something else you dont understand. The issue with the fires is not how they started, which if this was applicable would be what this video is driving at, but the level at which they burn and their intensity, this is due to the nature of the fauna itself, how easy is is to burn and hard it is to contain, the global warming theory suggests that because temperatures are higher, then the fauna is in a much more flammable condition. So now that we have cleared up that starting the fires was not an issue, lets look at the real issue. The condition of the fauna is what is making the fires so bad, the current accepted narrative is that global warming drove this, do you have a differing opinion on the cause for the intensity of the fires? By "intensity" do you mean how far it spreads? Heat, speed of spread etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 19:44:45 GMT
Hey look, something else you dont understand. The issue with the fires is not how they started, which if this was applicable would be what this video is driving at, but the level at which they burn and their intensity, this is due to the nature of the fauna itself, how easy is is to burn and hard it is to contain, the global warming theory suggests that because temperatures are higher, then the fauna is in a much more flammable condition. So now that we have cleared up that starting the fires was not an issue, lets look at the real issue. The condition of the fauna is what is making the fires so bad, the current accepted narrative is that global warming drove this, do you have a differing opinion on the cause for the intensity of the fires? So global warming is affecting the animals ability to be more flammable than the flora? Yes, ordinarily the extremely flammable koalas would soak up the flame. I always mix up flora and fauna, apologies for confusing you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 22:23:16 GMT
By "intensity" do you mean how far it spreads? Heat, speed of spread etc. I have not seen how to reconcile rising ocean levels with drier air. I thought the ocean level rose because of melting polar ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 22:24:21 GMT
Heat, speed of spread etc. I have not seen how to reconcile rising ocean levels with drier air. I once ate a worm as part of a survival training exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 22:42:06 GMT
I have not seen how to reconcile rising ocean levels with drier air. I once ate a worm as part of a survival training exercise. Another theory for decreasing polar ice (my theory) is that the atmosphere is colder than usual. Polar ice depends on moisture added to the atmosphere in the tropics since most moisture is added there. When it is colder than usual the tropics add less moisture. Direct sunlight very gradually removes polar ice which is not replaced as before when the atmosphere held more water. Notice this theory is consistent with drier air in Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 20, 2020 22:42:57 GMT
A garbage country on a garbage island. The U.S. military should've made Mad Max a reality by testing atom bombs in the outback during the Cold War years. At least then Australia would've turned into an interesting place.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 22:46:07 GMT
I once ate a worm as part of a survival training exercise. Another theory for decreasing polar ice (my theory) is that the atmosphere is colder than usual. Polar ice depends on moisture added to the atmosphere in the tropics since most moisture is added there. When it is colder than usual the tropics add less moisture. Direct sunlight very gradually removes polar ice which is not replaced as before when the atmosphere held more water. Notice this theory is consistent with drier air in Australia. Hold on just to be clear, we have actual properly researched and presented academia that show incontrovertibly that the global temperature is rising but you think that the ice caps are decreasing in size because there is less evaporation cos it is too cold in the tropics? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 22:49:24 GMT
Another theory for decreasing polar ice (my theory) is that the atmosphere is colder than usual. Polar ice depends on moisture added to the atmosphere in the tropics since most moisture is added there. When it is colder than usual the tropics add less moisture. Direct sunlight very gradually removes polar ice which is not replaced as before when the atmosphere held more water. Notice this theory is consistent with drier air in Australia. Hold on just to be clear, we have actual properly researched and presented academia that show incontrovertibly that the global temperature is rising but you think that the ice caps are decreasing in size because there is less evaporation cos it is too cold in the tropics? Apparently not. You shouldn't have hired so many atheists. They aren't half a smart as they think they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 22:51:57 GMT
Hold on just to be clear, we have actual properly researched and presented academia that show incontrovertibly that the global temperature is rising but you think that the ice caps are decreasing in size because there is less evaporation cos it is too cold in the tropics? Apparently not. You shouldn't have hired so many atheists. They aren't half a smart as they think they are. Look we all know that you dont understand what proper research or verified scientific theories are, but is there any way you could try not to be such an asshat about your ignorance?
EDIT:
Actually Arlon lets do it this way, please present one argument against Global Warming, just one at a time, see if you can stick to the facts and back up what you say with evidence, not your personal website. I want to see if you can actually present a cogent case
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 23:04:16 GMT
Apparently not. You shouldn't have hired so many atheists. They aren't half a smart as they think they are. Look we all know that you dont understand what proper research or verified scientific theories are, but is there any way you could try not to be such an asshat about your ignorance? I say the air is drier because it's colder and less water is added to it by bodies of water, especially the oceans. You say it's drier because it's warmer. Would you like to reconsider? Actually if the air is already dry, as it typically is in winter, heating without adding moisture makes it effectively "drier" ("relative" humidity). Many people notice this when they have a problem with dry skin in winter. That might explain how it got dry in Australia except that it fails to explain how the air got drier in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 20, 2020 23:16:43 GMT
Look we all know that you dont understand what proper research or verified scientific theories are, but is there any way you could try not to be such an asshat about your ignorance? I say the air is drier because it's colder and less water is added to it by bodies of water, especially the oceans. You say it's drier because it's warmer. Would you like to reconsider? Actually if the air is already dry, as it typically is in winter, heating without adding moisture makes it effectively "drier" ("relative" humidity). Many people notice this when they have a problem with dry skin in winter. That might explain how it got dry in Australia except that it fails to explain how the air got drier in the first place. Of course it's not winter in Australia. Actually Arlon lets do it this way, please present one argument against Global Warming, just one at a time, see if you can stick to the facts and back up what you say with evidence, not your personal website. I want to see if you can actually present a cogent case
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 20, 2020 23:29:28 GMT
I say the air is drier because it's colder and less water is added to it by bodies of water, especially the oceans. You say it's drier because it's warmer. Would you like to reconsider? Actually if the air is already dry, as it typically is in winter, heating without adding moisture makes it effectively "drier" ("relative" humidity). Many people notice this when they have a problem with dry skin in winter. That might explain how it got dry in Australia except that it fails to explain how the air got drier in the first place. Actually Arlon lets do it this way, please present one argument against Global Warming, just one at a time, see if you can stick to the facts and back up what you say with evidence, not your personal website. I want to see if you can actually present a cogent case As usual you're missing the point. The point is that a colder atmosphere is a drier one, whatever the season. Most people know this because it is in winter that they have more difficulty with dry skin. If you don't yourself you can consult sales data on skin moisturizers. That it is currently summer in Australia doesn't explain why the air is dry, neither does anything you have to say about it. Yet you have the audacity to ask me to be cogent.
|
|
