On Tuesday, the editor of The Conversation, wrote:
“Climate change deniers are dangerous – they don’t deserve a place on our site”
“[The Conversation] in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts“.
Source: The Conversation
On Monday, ‘The Conversation’ published the following article on ABC News:
If climate change destroyed your town would you rebuild or relocate?
“Climate change increasingly threatens communities all over the world. News of fires, floods and coastal erosion devastating lives and livelihoods seems almost constant”.
So The Conversation’s ‘evidence’ is News reports?
Good grief! Is that what they mean by ‘evidence based’?
Will that make you flee your town?
Q. What causes bushfires in Australia?
The real causes of Bushfires in Australia were investigated by a Senate Select committee in 2010 – which based its report on information from the CSIRO – not news reports. The CSIRO is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, not a biased media organisation.
In another study in 2004, the ABS investigated the causes of bushfires in Victoria. In summary:
Further details of these studies are provided here.
The CSIRO reported on the predominant causes of bushfire intensity, while the Bureau of Meteorology reported on the predominant cause of dry fuel – which is drought:
- Dry fuel: the BoM reports that the predominant causes of drought are the El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation (measured by SOI) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). The chart shows a prolonged period of drought which has led to an exceptionally dry fuel load.
- Fuel Quantity, especially adjacent to habitation, is governed by local council restrictions and restrictive state land clearing laws. the Queensland government recently fined a farmer for using native Mulga to feed starving cattle.
- Severe storms are shown in another chart produced by the Bureau of meteorology – see below. The frequency and severity of cyclones is decreasing.
The ‘Evidence based’ article in The Conversation continues…
What happens when climate change causes extreme events to become chronic, potentially rendering some communities unviable? ‘Climigration’ is the planned relocation of entire communities to new locations further from harm. And it has already begun.
It takes a lot to convince a community to move. But extreme events disrupt communities socially, economically and physically [and] responses usually occur in one of two ways.
We can try to repair damage and continue as before, which is known as ‘resilience’.
Or we try to repair and fortify against future damage in a process of ‘adaptation’.
‘Climigration’ is an extreme form of climate change adaptation.
Source: The Conversation via ABC News
- Resilience is the quality exhibited by people dealing with the effects of human-lit fires and RFS volunteers who put up their hands to help. Resilience is NOT the utterly useless response of inner-city Greens and other Climate scare specialists
- Adaptation is the quality exhibited when we accept Hansen’s statement that: ‘Climate is always changing’ – and just get on with building dams, power stations and the things we need for our well-being. Adaptation is NOT useless protests without solutions.
JoNova summed up best The Conversation’s ban on ‘deniers’:
“The Conversation” gives up conversing, admits defeat on climate, bans all skeptical scientists from commenting!
“The editor Misha Ketchell has officially blocked unbelievers, and thus effectively admitted that they can’t reply to skeptics, and that skeptics are posing too many questions they can’t answer. They’ve been deleting skeptical comments for years, so it’s good that they finally have the honesty to admit it.
If only they had evidence they wouldn’t need to ban people.
The Conversation doesn’t even have evidence – they quote News reports instead of data and science:
News of fires, floods and coastal erosion devastating lives and livelihoods seems almost constant
This evidence-based commentary which quotes the Bureau of Meteorology, the ABS and the CSIRO would be banned and deleted by ‘The Conversation’.
NB: Both are fictitious – like The Conversation’s “evidence based” Climigration article.