Quoting Jafo,

reply 2815

What's needed to add....micro-climates is all well and good...and places like Oodnadatta and Death Valley are going to get a bit warm because they're in the middle of a big land mass.....

...but 46.2 was essentially on the coast....and about the southern-most bit of Oz that isn't Tassie.

That means some seriously warm shit was blowing down from the North and oblivious to the latitude.

 

Needless to say, Hobart had snow on its beaches last SUMMER.

Nope, nothing odd re the weather at all...

Wasn't arguing...was adding. To you and me, the changes are obvious...and what worsens them is shown (on the smaller scale) by cities.

The 1939 fire wasn't five million hectares, it was two...

Look it up already.

That's right, blame somebody else for those weekly visits to the shrink... and for the padded cell you built in the basement.

And believe me, it's a very thin line between weekly outpatient visits and becoming one of the inmates running the asylum.

Well, after the third time or so being told it was smaller after I gave you the numbers, I assumed you were just ignoring me.  Since I'm already an asshole, making assumptions is pretty safe.

The actual acreage burned is less important than the conditions.  47 C in the shade, an unusually dry heat described as being like a furnace rolling south onto the continent, irrespective of the southerly latitude.  Unless one assumes that people were too stupid to use a thermometer before your government started keeping an official record of it, it's safe to say that the 1851 day was hotter than the 2009 conditions, and that the 1939 conditions were well in line with it as well, thus making that particular set of occurrences rare, but common enough to have taken place three times just since whitey hit the beach.  Since the official temperature station(recently replaced and moved to a nice little ball field) used for Melbourne's official results at the time was in the middle of urban sprawl and isolated from proper air flow, the past readings, taken before the neighborhood was a paved paradise with a tiny park next to it, were likely both significantly hotter than the actual conditions in 2009.

Pretty sure no one has said this disproves climate change, just that you can't list modern disasters as proof of it based on their unprecedented nature when similar events have taken place before.  The rabid environmentalists have been doing this with every major fire, hurricane, tornado, etc, and they're invariably nothing new when one does some digging.  No one at all rational has ever said man hasn't done anything to adversely affect the environment.  The sheer level of deforestation should result in something at the least.

While that would explain hair loss and organ failure, I don't think you can blame it for your pinko commie leanings.

Actually, both fascists in general and the racist types like the KKK in particular have historically been progressives, not conservatives.  The Klan was basically an unofficial arm of the Democratic party at it's inception, overthrowing Republican governors after the Civil War was one of their primary goals.  The group was only ostracized by the party when their efforts failed to have any significant impact in bringing Democrats to power in the south.  They've been a mainstay in the party since, you may have heard of the Dixiecrat walkout and the brief formation of an independent party before they melted away back into the rats nest following a crushing defeat.  I don't believe any are left in power at this point, but it's been a matter of old age.  The last I recall was Strom Thurman, who died in office as a Senator.

They're progressives in the purest sense, they wish for the government to make things "better" by forcing something to happen, instead of getting out of the way and leaving people alone.  Collectivists.  They have tended to be states rights oriented though, but only because the national government putting restrictions on racism is what gets them riled up in the first place.  The only serious difference between fascists and communists is that fascists believe in corporate welfare to get everyone a job, while socialists believe in personal welfare to give everyone money directly.  If you were making a jab at Trump in particular, he may be running as a Republican, but his history is that of a progressive Democrat, with a great deal of monetary support going their way, and various statements on his political leanings aligning with them.  I have no idea how he came to the conclusion that he needed to run on this side of the fence, let alone while claiming to be a conservative.

It's actually a far more intelligent ideology than communism is, but that's like saying someone with an IQ of 20 is smarter than a rock.  They'll both doom you in short order, one by a fast coming economic collapse, the other by an entrenched corporate government with bloated inefficiency at every turn and massive barriers to market entry.

The true alternative to being a pinko commie or any kind of collectivist, is being an individualist.

That capacity isn't particularly diminished.  Trees are sustained capture, but they're not particularly efficient converters and are typically replaced with some sort of rapidly growing crop, which produces far more oxygen for it's mass, and land based flora as a whole isn't carrying the majority of the workload, oceanic algae blooms are the primary force, potentially comprising 85% of the generation.  They're a significant cooling factor at the surface however, trapping solar energy and using it to create carbohydrates.  A row crop yields significantly more infrared than a forest, cities of course are massive concrete and steel heat sinks.

Possibly, fascists and commies are like establishment Republicans and Democrats, they hate each others guts and fight tooth and nail over the details, but mostly they just want the same thing.  A bigger government with more goodies to buy power for themselves with..

Individualists believe that an individual should succeed or fail on his own merits, and that it's not society's fault if someone capable of succeeding doesn't.  In my case, I think Uncle should fuck off entirely and get out of the safety net business in general because churches and other private charities have historically done a far better job, and continue to do so today.  Others prefer that for the truly disabled, mentally and physically, aid is acceptable at a government level, but under no circumstances does someone get a check because they're an irresponsible fuck up that can't hold down a job.

Collectivists believe that the collective is responsible for it's members, which naturally opens up cans of worms all over creation with many people not being able to rationalize any sort of reasonable limit on how much help people should get.  In this country, the collectivist agenda in both parties has resulted in massive financial aid to what are basically whores, pumping out kid after kid without any responsibility to provide for them.  These children then grow up without anything approaching a decent role model, entrapped in a state of poverty that encourages them to let someone else take care of them, and perpetuate that degrading cycle on the next generation.  In many states, low skill workers would actually be better off financially if they got divorced, took up drinking, and applied for the various financial aid programs as chronic alcoholics.  Places like Hawaii have so much aid between the state and federal programs, that a single mother who can't keep her legs closed or take a damn pill once a month(which is also free) can end up getting more in benefits than the median income.

I can see your point and agree to a point, but to generalise and throw a blanket over everyone who claims benefits is like saying everyone with a lower than average IQ is a fucktard.  We all know that some aren't born as fortunate as others, and that they did not choose to be less able to hold down gainful employment.

There are always abusers of these welfare schemes, but then there are genuine cases where people have legitimate reasons to seek help.  And NOT ALL women who have multiple children are whores who can't keep their legs shut.  In fact, I find that generalisation offensive.   My daughter has five kids, but she is far from being a whore and behaves far more responsibly than suggested above.  Her first three children were born in wedlock and had a father to care/fend for them.  However, he turned to drugs and became a chronic alcoholic who completely lost the plot and began beating them and my daughter.  It was at this point, when the violence began, that she left him for the safety of her children and herself.  Sadly, though, that was not the end of her misery with him.

A few months later he turned up on her doorstep proclaiming he had changed and how it would never happen again.  It did, however, and she was bashed in front of her children, dragged into a bedroom and raped.  The result was ongoing depression, physical injuries and an unwanted pregnancy [she cannot take birth control pills]. A similar thing happened two years later when he got out of jail, only this time he broke into her home and raped her.... and still he only got 20 months jail for it.

So there you have it, NOT ALL single mothers are whores who can't keep it shut.  My daughter ended up with two additional children because she was forced into submission.  She is currently receiving a benefit to help her get by, but it's not something she wants and, now the kids are older, she is actively seeking employment to make her own way.

The thing is, she was a complete mess and suffered badly because of the abuse, and understandably so, but she battled through the pain and depression of it all and, despite it all, she is a good mother to those children.  I help out where I can [sadly, her mother died 2 years ago and can't], but she is determined to stand on her own two feet.

Still wanna throw a blanket of blame over everyone who gets a benefit?

Okay we will leave it at that.  I sort of read it differently at the time but I don't want to make it an issue.  I guess that living in different societies with often different circumstances can lead to misunderstanding.  I don't see the kind of societal mess that you do, except on the news, and therefore my understanding of what you see on a daily basis is not as complete.

Thing is, he was a decent bloke to begin with... somebody who worked and took care of his own.  What happened to bring all that down I don't know, and why he turned to drugs I don't know.  I just know that he bacame somebody you wouldn't inflict on your worst enemy.  Many was the times I wanted to intervene and remove my daughter and grandkids from his grasp, but I had also seen how doing that had backfired on others, so I waited until she'd had enough and was ready to move on.  Now I am able to help without being seen as interfering in her life.... cos these days she mostly comes to visit me with the grandkids, which is great now I don't get around so well, and I wait for her to ask for help and/or advice.  It's so much easier that way.

At the moment she is living in a not so good area that's rampant with juvenile crime, drug use and dead-end neighbours who just leech off government, churches and anyone else foolish enough to put their hand in their pocket to help.  Sadly it's all too common a thing in 'Housing Commission' [government housing] areas, and my daughter hates it, so I have been in touch with some helpful people and we are all working together towards getting her moved into a nicer area where it's private rentals and the lifestyle better suits them all.

Fortunately, we don't have the gangland violence or shootings like you do, well not in our neck of the woods, but a bad neighbourhood is a bad neighbourhood no matter where you are.

I think the scientist said a small avg earth temp increase say 5 degrees F would melt the ice caps, shift weather patterns to unpredictable local patterns. So nothing to worry about if you live on Mars. 4 degrees doesnt sound like much but on a global avg it is huge.. The key being GLOBAL AVG, not local..

The propaganda war is proceeding apace, however.  More BS about how many people will be displaced by the year 2100 (that's right - 2100) by rising sea levels.  The scare mongering is simply relentless.

I think 114 pages of it deserves this one...