Dozens of families have lost loved ones in the bushfires, thousands of homes and farms have been gutted and swathes of the east coast are scarred charcoal-black Photo: AFP/File
world

Australian bushfires extinguished, but climate rows rage on

41 Comments
By Andrew BEATTY

Australia's "black summer" of devastating bushfires is finally coming to a close, but bitter arguments over how to tackle climate-fuelled disasters are raging on.

When firefighters announced this week that all blazes in the hard-hit state of New South Wales were under control for the first time since September, the relief was palpable.

In other regions, a few fires are still being contained, but most Australians can finally abandon the grim rituals of the last half-year -- morning checks of smog monitors and "Fires Near Me" apps, deciding whether the kids can play outside, whether to flee or defend their homes.

But the after-effects will endure, and national soul searching has already begun.

"We know events like these can challenge the way we think about the world, undermine our perceptions of safety, and rupture social bonds," said disaster response expert Erin Smith.

Dozens of families have lost loved ones, thousands of homes and farms have been gutted, swathes of the east coast are scarred charcoal-black and millions have had their sense of security shaken.

"It will likely take years and a great deal of imagination for us to figure out where we go from here," said Smith.

The question of what is next for Australia is already being asked, most of all of political leaders, and it is being met mostly with finger-pointing and recrimination.

While scientists agree climate change created favorable conditions for the blazes, politicians of all stripes are acutely aware how sensitive the issue is in Australian politics.

In an arid nation whose economic strength is intimately tied to the mining and export of fossil fuels, at least four prime ministers have been ousted in part over their climate policies.

In recent weeks, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has seen his ruling conservative coalition threatened by members in rural constituencies demanding funding for more coal-fired power plants.

At the same time, the centrist wing of his party has criticized his climate targets as inadequate.

Meanwhile rebel members of opposition Labor met secretly to steer the center-left party's leadership toward a more overtly pro-coal stance.

The party's deputy leader awkwardly refused to rule out more coal subsidies, months after vowing they should end.

"They don't want to stick their heads above the parapet, at least when it comes to suggesting substantive policy," said Matt McDonald, an expert in climate politics from the University of Queensland.

One reason, he explained, is that while the hot and dry Australian continent is uniquely susceptible to the impact of climate change, it is also a world-beating source of coal.

Coal accounts for around 75 percent of Australia's electricity generation and exports of the fossil fuel are worth A$60 billion a year, the country's largest export after iron ore.

People in affluent suburbs may call for emissions cuts and green energy, but coal accounts for thousands of jobs in election-deciding districts of Queensland and New South Wales, and many more in the related aluminium smelting business.

Independent MP Zali Steggall -- a former barrister and Olympic medal-winning skier -- who ousted climate-skeptic former prime minister Tony Abbott from his Sydney seat at the last election, wants to take some heat out of the debate.

She has introduced a bill that would reduce Australia's carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and divert some contentious issues to an independent expert body.

"The debate has been very divisive," in part because of the blame game, Steggall told AFP. "There was a certain defensiveness in the early days of this debate because the finger was so squarely pointed at coal and fossil fuels."

"You have to think about a generation that worked really hard at building Australia's prosperity on fossil fuels. You have to be very careful in the debate about apportioning blame. It's not like it was done on purpose."

"It's about recognizing and being thankful for that contribution, but acknowledging that we do need to evolve," she added. "We're all going to get there in the end."

With bushfires projected to get ever more deadly and the next season a little over six months away, the risk, Steggall says, is that politicians take so long to reach consensus "it will be too late to do anything".

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Even if Australia did not export any coal and got all its energy from solar cells, it would not make any difference to the world climate. And certainly not to draught, arsonists, and brush fires.

I dont know why we keep hearing these non-sequiturs.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

WilliB - Even if Australia did not export any coal and got all its energy from solar cells, it would not make any difference to the world climate. And certainly not to draught, arsonists, and brush fires.

Arsonists? Only 6 of the 350 fires were deliberately lit. Most were lit by lightening. Your comment about coal is absurd! Australia supplies a third of the world's coal. You make it sound as if it is all Australia's fault. It is the fault of every person on the planet who turns a light on in their home with electricity supplied by fossil fuels. Even the PC you typed this comment on is powered by fossil fuel.

Now, for all the climate change zealots. Accurate climate records for Australia have only bee kept for a little over 150 years. During that time Australia has had far worse droughts, heat waves and dry winters. There has also been many large bushfires. This particular summer's bout of fires was a culmination of many different coincidences and poor governmental decisions. It is impossible to state it is a direct result of recent climate change due to CO2 in the atmosphere. The conservative Greens stopped all controlled burning of the forests ten years ago. They also stopped the cutting of fire trails for access and fire breaks. They then cut the funding to rural fire services by 50%. These are the real reasons the fires were so devastating on the east coast of Australia. It is not climate change. It is governmental policy change!

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and Japan is the world's largest importer.

Australia is the leading exporter of coal briquettes with a 40% share of an annual export market worth $67.7 billion. Japan (32%), China (21%) and India (17%) are the top importers of coal briquettes from Australia.

Australia also exports LNG and uranium. Australian LNG exports were also more than twice those of the United States, the world's other fast-growing LNG producer. 

Australia's vast resources of uranium amount to a staggering 40% of the world's total identified resources of uranium recoverable at low cost.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The climate in Australia can be assisted with modern technology. Australia used to have a large inland sea which provided additional humidity and evaporation in the center of Australia.

Find suitable low lying areas that can become large inland lakes in WA, SA and NT and pump desalinated water to those locations from the coast. Over a number of years the levels will rise and weather patterns over Australia will change. Farming in central Australia can happen and trees and other plants can be planted close to the water sources. It would be a large long term project that would provide long term employment and have an effect of reducing droughts and large scale bush fires. Pumping gas and oil long distances is not new so the technology is available to make this work. What is needed is the leadership. Australia lacks any decent leadership. There are people with the ideas that can make a difference if others are willing to listen.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

zichi:

Australia's vast resources of uranium amount to a staggering 40% of the world's total identified resources of uranium recoverable at low cost.

But aren´t the same climate activists who clamour against coal also adamantly against nuclear power? So how would the uranium ressources be relevant for them?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The conservative Greens stopped all controlled burning of the forests ten years ago. They also stopped the cutting of fire trails for access and fire breaks. They then cut the funding to rural fire services by 50%.

You capitalised Greens, so I imagine you're referring to the Australian Green party, though they are not considered politically conservative in any way.

More egregious are the falsehoods you list about their positions on controlled burning etc. A minimum of research would have disavowed you of these misapprehensions.

From their website :

The Australian Greens support hazard reduction burns and backburning to reduce the impact of bushfires when guided by the best scientific, ecological and emergency service expertise.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Accurate climate records for Australia have only bee kept for a little over 150 years. During that time Australia has had far worse droughts, heat waves and dry winters.

Last spring was the driest on record, coming after the hottest December on record, all helped by the hottest year on record. But yeah, it was 'zealots' who caused the fires.

It is impossible to state it is a direct result of recent climate change due to CO2 in the atmosphere.

How about an indirect result? I'm sure the centuries-old defined chemical properties of CO2 are some kind of mistake. Last year more Co2 was released than ever. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and last year was the hottest on record globally. But I'm sure these are not connected and are just co-incidental.

The conservative Greens stopped all controlled burning of the forests ten years ago. They also stopped the cutting of fire trails for access and fire breaks.

False, aaaand false again. They have never advocated such, and have never been in a political postion to insist on that. In fact, they are in favour of it.

Now, for all the climate change zealots.

Damn right I am. As are 97% of the world's scientists. Of course they could be wrong and the Donald 'Let's nuke hurricanes / wind farms cause cancer' Trump and the world's oil execs could be right.

Do ostriches live in Australia?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

WilliB

But aren´t the same climate activists who clamour against coal also adamantly against nuclear power? So how would the uranium ressources be relevant for them?

That's not 100% true. Some environmentalists are anti nuclear energy, mostly from dealing with the generated high grade nuclear waste for many thousands of years while other environmentalists support the use of fusion provided the reactors are built and operated to the highest safety standards. Which would mean IV generator reactors but won't be commercially available until after 2030 and would take a further 10 years at least to construct.

The cost of nuclear energy is $6,000 per kw which is equal or greater than other forms of energy.

Location is is very important when its comes to nuclear reactors. France which generates the highest amount of nuclear electricity at 70% is a safer country than Japan. It does not experience the same numerous powerful earthquakes, record tsunami and numerous volcanoes plus other natural disasters.

The Japanese reactors were not built safe enough to prevent a nuclear disaster. The over sight safety atomic agencies failed the country and the people.

Nuclear energy is a failed project here in Japan.

We have had nuclear energy for more than 50 years but has only achieved about 14% of total world power generation because most countries can not afford to join the nuclear club.

Japan burns coal fired plants to generate about 30% of the current total power but the UK less than 5% with a greater use of renewable energy and also nuclear energy.

Can't help thinking that nuclear energy absorbed huge amounts of funds which could have been used to develop other renewable energies.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

There is clearly climate change that can't can't be argued but the reasons for the change is what people don't agree on.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There is clearly climate change that can't can't be argued but the reasons for the change is what people don't agree on.

There used to be a hole in the ozone layer that was growing yearly. Scientists advised it was human use of CFC refrigerants that was causing the destruction of the ozone layer of our atmosphere. The only solution was for eradicating the use of CFC all together. The world listened and agreed on a treaty banning the use of CFC's. Alternatives are now used for refrigerants and surprise, the ozone layer started to repair itself. If we had ignored the best scientific advise we would have a much larger hole in the Ozone layer and more skin cancers the world over. Thankfully those in power at the time listened to the experts and took immediate action.

The difference today is that leaders can not make the hard call to stop using fossil fuels and some few Despot leaders deny climate change is influenced by humanity at all.

Dont bother having experts if you deny their findings. Dont bother having experts if you do not follow their advise on correcting the issues. Dont bother having experts if you think you know more than they do.

We know the issue and we know why. The experts paid to know have told us. We require leadership to do whats needed, pass the laws that are going to correct the problems tomorrow not in a few decades. It is too late then but for most leaders they will already be dead and will not have to worry, or do anything hard. For the rest just to survive will once again be a battle and involve a great deal of luck. Awesome outcome for an advanced, civilized species.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

ClippetyClop - Last spring was the driest on record, coming after the hottest December on record, all helped by the hottest year on record. But yeah, it was 'zealots' who caused the fires.

Yes, the hottest by 0.5' in the last 150 years since accurate records were kept. There have been many other severe droughts, warm winters, extreme bushfires and extreme heat waves long before the mass of CO2 was released. There was a heat wave in in the late 1890's that saw temps in Sydney stay in the mid 40's for nearly a month and killed nearly 500 people.

ClippetyClop - How about an indirect result? I'm sure the centuries-old defined chemical properties of CO2 are some kind of mistake. Last year more Co2 was released than ever. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and last year was the hottest on record globally. But I'm sure these are not connected and are just co-incidental.

Wow! Miss the point much? There is no denying climate change is real. However, it is naive to blame the bushfires in Australia solely on climate change. There were many contributing factors, many of which were coincidences.

ClippetyClop - False, aaaand false again. They have never advocated such, and have never been in a political postion to insist on that. In fact, they are in favour of it. -

I don't know where you get this information from, but it was the conservative Greens who stopped controlled burning and cutting fire trails over a decade ago. You will find the information on the internet. Have a look before you make such claims. And, just to correct you, it is the labor party Greens who are in favor of controlled burning and cutting fire trails. It is the conservative liberal Greens who banned it. Look it up!

ClippetyClop - Do ostriches live in Australia?

No, they don't. They live in Africa. I thought you would have known that. You claim to know everything else. You obviously do not and never have lived in Australia and know very little about it.

The point is, Australia has a long history of extreme weather. Jumping up and down about climate change causing these fires is extremely naive and without base. There are too many other comparative weather events that happened long before climate change was an issue to blame climate change solely for the culmination of coincidences that caused these fires.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Australian LNG exports were also more than twice those of the United States, the world's other fast-growing LNG producer. 

Fantastic. I agree, let's keep it going!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Now, for all the climate change zealots. Accurate climate records for Australia have only bee kept for a little over 150 years. During that time Australia has had far worse droughts, heat waves and dry winters.

Any “science” that goes against the party line will be ridiculed and punished.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Peter14:

The difference today is that leaders can not make the hard call to stop using fossil fuels

....and what do you want to replace them with? Are you arguing we should all go back to the stone age? And how is the world supposed to support 4 billion people then?

The idea that we can simply "stop using fossil fuels" is childish.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Accurate climate records for Australia have only bee kept for a little over 150 years. 

Ahh so we’re back to the “I don’t understand the science so it’s fake” argument.

Seems legit. Carry on.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

....and what do you want to replace them with? Are you arguing we should all go back to the stone age?

Obviously not, so why did you have to ask?

And how is the world supposed to support 4 billion people then?

Uhhh . . . You may want to check your numbers there, sport.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Any “science” that goes against the party line will be ridiculed and punished.

Thats only how science works for conservatives.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Relax everybody, large bush fires happen around every ten years in Australia, this latest bushfire season had less loss of life than the ones about ten yrs ago and yet Climate Change wasn't blamed for those ones. These ones had many reasons including lightning, arsonists, fuel build up due to lack of government burn offs, closure of fire access trials, and banning of farmers that had been previously allowed to roam their cattle in the high country.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Disillusioned

Yes it seems you are.

Read what the experts have reported and understand doing nothing will make the world disasters even more deadly. New diseases more numerous until one comes along we cant stop that has a very high death rate.

Remove your disillusion by taking affirmative action. You will feel much better when your on the right side of the information on climate change.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Andrew CrispToday 02:35 pm JST

Relax everybody, large bush fires happen around every ten years in Australia,

No Andrew, the time to relax is when the science and experts tell us we have done enough to contain and reverse the human creation of Co2 into our atmosphere and that the world is repairing itself.

Right now is the time to take action and work hard. We can all relax "AFTER" we have done what is needed.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just as there was a shift in the Earth's Magnetic north, due to the movement of the planets Magma, the Earth has also moved ever so slightly closer towards the Sun - hence the Global Climate change that we're seeing.

Although it's great that we're focusing upon other causes - such as Pollution - (which is a good thing anyway - after all who wants to live in a Trashcan) - the real cause is this spatial wobble/movement which is totally beyond our present control, hence the focus upon more materialistic matters such as Pollution.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

WilliBToday 05:03 am JST

..and what do you want to replace them with? Are you arguing we should all go back to the stone age? And how is the world supposed to support 4 billion people then?The idea that we can simply "stop using fossil fuels" is childish.

No new vehicle sold to citizens from 2021 to use any fossil fuels. Limited to hydrogen/electric or just electric vehicles. These vehicles are already being made and have been for years. As vehicles that use fossil fuels drop in numbers, so does usage. Cap their usage for 5 to 10 years and thus phase it out.

70 years ago our grandparents turned car factories from making cars to tanks and planes within a year. We have more people and better tech so that is doable.

If that can be done for a war it can be done for survival. Those who wish to live without tech have that right but nobody "needs" to.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Peter 14:

No new vehicle sold to citizens from 2021 to use any fossil fuels. Limited to hydrogen/electric or just electric vehicles. These vehicles are already being made and have been for years. As vehicles that use fossil fuels drop in numbers, so does usage. Cap their usage for 5 to 10 years and thus phase it out.

How is that a solution? The hydrogen or electricity for these cars has to be produced somewhere. So you are back to their burning fossil fuels or nuclear, both of which the activists oppose.

Talk about meaningless activism!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Peter14 - No Andrew, the time to relax is when the science and experts tell us we have done enough to contain and reverse the human creation of Co2 into our atmosphere and that the world is repairing itself.

Right now is the time to take action and work hard. We can all relax "AFTER" we have done what is needed.

Are you actually claiming that you can reverse global warming, or climate change? Or are you claiming that you can control the weather? Best of luck trying to start the next ice age.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

WilliB

How is that a solution? The hydrogen or electricity for these cars has to be produced somewhere. So you are back to their burning fossil fuels or nuclear, both of which the activists oppose.

Talk about meaningless activism!

Solar, wind, tidal power stations to replace coal & LNG. Solar panels on the vehicles themselves.

How can anyone be so useless? Talk about meaningless negativity. People like you try to stop solutions before they can get off the ground.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Are you actually claiming that you can reverse global warming, or climate change? Or are you claiming that you can control the weather? Best of luck trying to start the next ice age.

When a person gets a fever (raise in body temperature) Doctors treat the problem and get the body temperature back to normal. I suggest that should we remove the problem causing the global warming then there is a chance that over time the global temperature will return to its old equilibrium. Just like removing use of CFC's allows the regeneration of the ozone layer.

Are you saying unequivocally that that can not happen?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

For those skeptics who believe we can't stop using fossil fuels, here are things that seemed impossible but have been done.

China building a 57 story skyscraper in only 19 days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhLk7L1B_fE

China builds a bridge in only 43 hours.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/time-lapse-bridge-gets-built-in-43-hours-2015-11?r=US&IR=T

China builds a 1000 bed hospital in 10 days.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-03/china-completes-wuhan-makeshift-hospital-to-treat-coronavirus/11923000

The world stops using CFC refrigerants after depending on them for decades.

The USA put men on the moon and got them home on multiple occasions over 50 years ago.

To believe humanity is unable to achive goals it is determined to achieve is "childish and wrong".

Saying we can not stop using fossil fuels is "childish and wrong". Humanity when it works together can achieve almost anything. We can be that good. When humanity is conflicted and pulls in different directions we can be horrendous and disasters happen.

Choose where you want to be. We can make a difference and beat climate change if we work together.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Peter14 - When a person gets a fever (raise in body temperature) Doctors treat the problem and get the body temperature back to normal. I suggest that should we remove the problem causing the global warming then there is a chance that over time the global temperature will return to its old equilibrium. Just like removing use of CFC's allows the regeneration of the ozone layer.

Are you saying unequivocally that that can not happen?

The Earth has a fever? OTOH, it appears that planet Earth swings from global cooling to global warming, and back again, over, and over, and over, all without any input from lawnmowers, or lumberjacks.

What, exactly, is the Earth's normal temperature? Please be as specific as possible. Scientists, and the public, have been looking for that answer for a really long time.

Earth-dwellers should be spending their time, and money, planning/learning to live on a warmer planet. Anyone who actually believes that they can bring about the Earth's next ice age is delusional.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

OTOH, it appears that planet Earth swings from global cooling to global warming, and back again, over, and over, and over, all without any input from lawnmowers, or lumberjacks.

The usual arguement from the uninformed. Those 'swings' have causes and explanations. They don't happen just for a laugh. What do you think the cause of this 'swing' is?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What, exactly, is the Earth's normal temperature? Please be as specific as possible. Scientists, and the public, have been looking for that answer for a really long time.

Earth's normal temperature would be that temperature generated by normal seasonal forces effecting earth, including solar influences "that does not include variances caused by human industrial activities or human disturbances of the planets ecology". Scientists are already well aware of the a fore mentioned information.

I hope that is specific enough for you.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, it’s not. The Earth’s surface has swung from molten to ice covered with drained oceans. All without the assistance of internal combustion lawnmowers. The planet has even altered it’s axis. You are proposing that mankind can jump start the next ice age and then control the planet’s natural temperature fluctuations.

People should be adapting to the planet’s normal temperature cycles. At least that is possible.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The Earth’s surface has swung from molten to ice covered with drained oceans. All without the assistance of internal combustion lawnmowers.

Ok. How does that change the fact that humans have accelerated this change?

Unless you think we should be taking the words of some dude on the Internet affiliated with a particular political party in a particular country that has been pushing this line incessantly over the overwhelming agreement of scientists who say man is accelerating the phenomenon.

I hope you’re not thinking that though, it would be silly.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The best plans of the MMCO2IE (man-made-CO2-is-evil) zealots is to somehow slow down the rate of global warming/climate change. Not stop it, but slow it down.

People should be preparing to adapt to the planet’s normal temperature cycles. At least that is possible.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

People should be adapting to the planet’s normal temperature cycles. At least that is possible.

Humans have been doing that since they first walked on the planet. What people should actually be doing is to manage to live with the planet and not worsen the temperature changes that nature brings. If not then what you consider to be all natural increase in temperature will not stop until the world is as lifeless and barren as Mars is. Because like it or nor human activity is making what is natural, much worse and we keep increasing that harm every year. Keep pouring water into a glass and eventually it fills to overflowing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"A glass"?

"Not worsen the temperature changes THAT NATURE BRINGS". There ya go, undermining the main point of the MMCO2IE zealots. What your side can't seem to accomplish is finding an actual convincing argument that will convert those who don't trust, or don't believe, or don't care about, the MMCO2IE controversy. The IPCC/UN have been harping about global warming since 1988. I would have thought they should have been farther along than they are. I wonder why they have been considered untrustworthy, or so unconvincing?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There ya go, undermining the main point of the MMCO2IE zealots.

Undermining nothing champ. There is no other evidence to explain rising temperatures apart from increasing CO2 & greenhouse gasses. But let's say there is another source, let's say it's the inexplicable (and therefore conveniently unsolvable) 'Mother Nature' one that people who can't really deal with evidence spout. Us adding massive quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will make it worse. This isn't 'zealotry' or 'liberalism' or any other trendy word that 'your side' are using, it's basic physics & chemistry that was established centuries before Al Gore made you so angry.

Here's the best thing though. By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels that produce CO2 we can achieve several things. A much cleaner planet, a more stable planet, cheaper energy, energy independence, less reliance on oil producing cartels & the scum that run those countries, less wars (I don't forsee any 'Sun & Wind Wars'). Oh, and fossil fuels are going to run out at some point. What do we do then? Start thinking about it?

Why are you such a 'zealot' against these things?

People should be preparing to adapt to the planet’s normal temperature cycles. At least that is possible.

Hilarious. You want to adapt by doing nothing. Since we are not experiencing this cycle I can easily state that we are trying to adapt, you are certainly not.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

ClippetyClop - There is no other evidence to explain rising temperatures apart from increasing CO2 & greenhouse gasses.

Are you actually claiming that increasing CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the only reason for global warming? Maybe you should discuss your claim with the other MMCO2IE zealots, before they disown you.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

ClippetyClop - You want to adapt by doing nothing. Since we are not experiencing this cycle I can easily state that we are trying to adapt, you are certainly not.

"Doing nothing", is not what I said. I said that people should adapt. Your side seems to think that they may, possibly, slow global warming, or stop global warming, or jump start the next ice age.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Are you actually claiming that increasing CO2 and greenhouse gasses are the only reason for global warming?

Are you? What are you actually claiming is causing climate change, because you seem very reluctant to state a reason. Is it 'Mother Nature' perchance? Are you admitting that humans are influencing the planet's climate?

MMCO2IE zealots

Cute little phrase, did you think that one up all by yourself? Has it caught on yet?

"Doing nothing", is not what I said.

So what do you plan to do to adapt to rising sea levels, stronger typhoons, worsening droughts, crop failures etc, dwindling resources? I mean apart from 'nothing'?

Your side seems to think that they may, possibly, slow global warming, or stop global warming, or jump start the next ice age.

That's right! 'My side', me and my evil zealots who agree with 97% of the worlds scientists, we think that human influence on the climate and the planet can be lessened through 'doing something'.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ClippetyClop - Feb. 20 07:28 pm JST - There is no other evidence to explain rising temperatures apart from increasing CO2 & greenhouse gasses.

ClippetyClopFeb. 21 08:37 am JST - Are you? What are you actually claiming is causing climate change, because you seem very reluctant to state a reason.

You are the one who made the claim that, "There is no other evidence to explain rising temperatures apart from increasing CO2 & greenhouse gasses". That was is your claim. I only asked for clarification of your position.

You are the one who is trying to change the status quo, and now you are asking me to make your case for you? Unbelievable.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That was is your claim. I only asked for clarification of your position.

That is my claim. There is no other evidence that explains the rapid rise in temperatures ober the last century. Is that clear enough?

and now you are asking me to make your case for you?

No, I'm asking you to make your case. So tell us, what is this other cause of climate change that you have found? You seem very reluctant to share this vital piece of evidence with us.

And I'll also ask again, what do you plan to do to adapt to a warmer climate, since you aren't prepared to support anything that would help prevent a warmer climate in the first place?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites