Indeed, indeed, quite so, he is back, and with that curious gap in the splash that the reptiles so love, and the pond can't be bothered shortening ...
At last, and not before time!
With the pond's holyday season running down, and time running out, the reptiles' first eleven are trickling back, and if there's a leader of the pack, surely it has to be the dog botherer …and what astonishingly good form he's in after the break.
Now the pond must admit that everything the dog botherer scribbles below, he's scribbled before, and others in the second eleven admirably managed the same climate denialist tasks while he was away … but how pleasing it is to see that all that idle talk by the lizard Oz editorialist along the lines 'here no climate denialism, no climate denialism here' was so much hot air …
Instead the dog botherer gets down and dirty straight away with his patented talk of "science-based reality", though all the indications are that yonks ago he worked as a parks assistant, and scored a degree in journalism … (or so his wiki says here) … so perhaps we should be talking of an "ancient high school science-based reality, distorted by subsequent reading and absorbing of far too much denialist nonsense".
Ah, the old "it was worse way back when" trick, a routine the reptiles never tire of … and the pretence that the dog botherer is part of mainstream Australia, as opposed to a rabid botherer of dogs on the far right, even for the lizard Oz …
Given the predictability, the pond immediately began to wonder if it should have celebrated the return of this tiresome, tiring old hack, hacking out his standard talking points. Perhaps there should be some cartoons to lighten the reading load?
Yes, that might come in handy, because the denialism is strong in this one …
But wait, what's this? "The science is clear, predicting that in the southeast of the country bad fire conditions will become more common because endemic summer heat and dryness are expected to increase …"
Dear sweet long absent lord, what happened to that ravaging and misquoting and misleading use of Prof Andy Pitman, back in October last year?
The pond is sorry if such strange talk induced an anxiety attack. Please, it's just a little misleading camouflage, designed as a magician's form of misdirection…
Sure, for a moment, you might be fooled, but relax, it's denialist business as usual ...
Yep, it's all good, the planet's warming, bushfires will carry on, and so will the dog botherer, and in any case there are far more important issues to concern us and the Donald …
Oh dear, did the pond propose that the misquoting and abuse of Prof Andy Pitman had been forgotten?
He told Guardian Australia: “I misspoke – I missed a word in my statement and that’s my fault. I should have said no ‘direct’ link.
“I’m confident in the statement that there is no direct link between climate change and drought. I’m equally certain that for some regions there’s an indirect effect of human-induced climate change on drought because of the change in rainfall patterns.”
He said increases in temperatures caused by human activity would also make the impacts of drought worse.
He said: “Background warming does mean that when you get a drought, the system is more stressed than it otherwise would be.”
He said, for example, that farmers would need to get more water to livestock under higher temperatures.
Pitman said he had declined invitations to be interviewed on Sky because he felt he would be unable to communicate nuances on their programs “in such a way that their listeners won’t be misled”.
“But I have not been contacted by Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt,” he said. “I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to correct the record.”
Sky News presenters have used the statement to attack government ministers, including the water minister, David Littleproud, for refusing to rule out the role of climate change on droughts.
On The Bolt report, host Andrew Bolt said: “Even one of our most committed climate scientists, Professor Andy Pitman, admits there is no link between global warming and drought.”
In an interview with shadow agriculture minister Joel Fitzgibbon, Sky host Chris Kenny played audio of Pitman’s statement, before adding: “If that’s what the science says then politicians who link the current disasters to climate change are being opportunistic and misleading.”
Asked if he felt his views were being misrepresented, Pitman said: “Absolutely, yes. But it’s understandable from my statement that some people misunderstood what I was saying.
“People want black and white, but drought is not simple. I understand that the reporting of science is always complex and it’s hopelessly naive to think all the media wants to report the facts without fear or favour. So no, I’m not surprised [at the reaction].”
Foolish, hopelessly naive prof, here you go … with all the lack of subtlety and nuance you were expecting ...
Did anyone else enjoy that very dog botherer aside, "although many of our hottest historical readings have been homogenised downwards"?
If only the pond could do it in the style of Colbert reading one of the Donald's parenthetical thoughts … but instead a cartoon will have to suffice …
Yes, when in doubt, call on a super hero to deal with all those dreadful climate alarmists.
Or instead resort to the soothing balm of dog botherism … because it goes without saying, all the pundits are wrong, and the dog botherer is right ...
Indeed, indeed, fancy not answering questions about precedents, as if the poor buggers might actually have some more pressing questions to hand … like how to stop the country burning down …
But that's how it goes with your passionate, fervent denialist. Even as the bushfires rage, they seek to reassure themselves that everything is normal, and never mind the stories that are available at the click of the old mouse …
Read the Scientific American? What good would that do?
Warming patterns are especially acute in the Arctic, which is heating up three times as quickly as the rest of the planet, Arndt said. At the same time, the amount of sea ice in the Arctic is falling, triggering sea-level rise and contributing to global warming.
The researchers said the recent trends are clearly the result of human-induced climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Bloody climate alarmists, lathering up a panic and hysteria. Why not pause for a little light-hearted humour from the infallible Pope?
Phew, the pond always feels a little better after ingesting an infallible Pope, and with renewed strength from that wafer of redemptive delight, it's time to plunge on - because if there's one thing the pond has learned, you might complain about the quality of the denialist meals, but you can never complain about the portions ...
Another pond favourite in that carry-on about climate evangelism?
It comes when a zealot calls others zealots. It's so like the Donald, who loves to call others crazy, when it's actually classic projection, because the Donald is as barking mad as they come …
Never mind, all good things must come to an end, and so must nasty, abusive, insult-hurling dog botherers …
Yes folks, for the umpteenth time, it's all the fault of social media, the reptiles' pet peeve ...
Oh, there's a little recanting of the second eleven, who did their very best to stir up anxiety about arsonists, until they were called out …
But even here, it's used by the dog botherer as a clever distraction. You see, it's not about arson … or climate change … and so endeth the usual climate denialist lizard Oz Murdochian lesson ...
Well, here's a cartoon to go, showing how to do a dog botherer whitewash …
And here's a story by Damien Cave, in the New York Times, published 8th January 2020, updated 13th January, and available here for those who can get behind the paywall, and access the hot links …
It was headed How Rupert Murdoch Is Influencing Australia’s Bushfire Debate Critics see a concerted effort to shift blame, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change, and is presented as a barebones pond bonus, to provide a little context for the dog botherer's outing … and to note that our very own Polonius scores a mention!!
Well played Polonius. While others of the dog bothering kind were bludging, you were still scoring …like many another proud Murdochian ...
Yes, they did say that, didn't they, denying their denialism, but only until denialists of the dog botherer kind returned to do their bit to blame social media, when at the heart of the trolling was the lizard Oz itself ...
Ferals? So that's what they call the loons of Tamworth, square dancing and yah hawing at the hoedown at this very moment ...
Oh dear, what chance of that? The dog botherer is back, and soon the rest of the first eleven denialist pack will return to duty ...
Keep on reptiles, keep on, though the planet might not actually read the lizard Oz, and might just decide to do its own thing …
And if you made it through all that as well as the dog botherer, here's another cartoon just for fun … though if the caption was changed to "You're charged with putting climate science denialism before country and planet" it might have a little more local relevance ...
Hi Dorothy,
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Dog Botherer;
“A ScienceBrief assessment of research into climate change and wildfires published this month says the jury is out on Australia”
Not quite what the assessment’s statement said;
“Human-induced climate change promotes the conditions on which wildfires depend, enhancing their likelihood and challenging suppression efforts. Human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire. This signal has emerged from natural variability in many regions, including the western US and Canada, southern Europe, Scandinavia and Amazonia. Human-induced warming is also increasing fire risks in other regions, including Siberia and Australia. Nonetheless, wildfire activity is determined by a range of other factors includ- ing land management and ignition sources, and on the global-scale most datasets indicate a reduction in burned area in recent years, chiefly due to clearing of natural land for agriculture.”
https://sciencebrief.org/topics/climate-change-science/wildfires
Nor is it what the lead author of the review indicated;
“Overall, the 57 papers reviewed clearly show human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114074046.htm
Yet another case of Kenny wilfully misrepresenting the research.
DiddyWrote
Taking an oft-repeated lesson from the Doggy B, I have come to the belief that the opinions of an opinionated opinionator are not falsifiable. Therefore, as an opionated opinionator, I'm about to present some undeniable truth
DeleteBasing it on this hint from DW: "This signal has emerged from natural variability in many regions", I present the Inferno Threshold Proposition:
The causes of fires are varied, and indeed signals show this. So, what we have is a threshold phenomenon: in any given instance small changes in system states can result in thresholds being crossed and major consequences resulting.
So, if a local concentration of heat energy can start just the wrong kind of fire at just the wrong moment in just the wrong place, a mighty conflagration can easily result**. Now, just what kind of circumstances can trigger that concentration of heat energy ?
Well, one of the most common would be a localised peak in climate change warming. So given that we have had climate change warming now for over a century, I present to you that the disastrous 1939 fires were actually caused by such warming. Sure, the overall effect of global warming was still fairly small in 1939, but it existed, it was here, the planet was, however slowly, warming !
So all that was needed was a localised variability sufficient to push a small fire over the edge of a threshold into the kind of fire that generates a conflagration.
So then we have to have some suspicion that every major fire in Australia for the past 100 years was at least partially the result of anthropogenic global warming. Now, I have no idea how one might go about "proving" that proposition, but I have even less idea how one might go about disproving it.
Therefore, as a stated opinion from a opinionated opinioner (me), on the example of the Doggy B and his ophidiarium mates, it is irrefutably true !
PS: don't forget the effects of perihelion and aphelion on southern hemisphere summers and winters especially on Australia.
** if this were not so, the arsonists so beloved of the reptiles could never initiate a major blaze.
There you go again, DW, bothering the dog botherer with actual quotations and links and such like, and to what avail? Can leopards or fuckwitted denialists ever change their spots? Please, be kind, leave the dog botherer in peaceful denialism … though the pond confesses it's a little ashamed it's too lazy these days to bother to correct the dog botherer, and is content that others continue this Herculean task ...
ReplyDeleteTalking about "bothering the dog botherer" DP, here's a part of my attempt.
DeleteIt is par for the Doggy B that somehow he seems to think that February 2009 (date of Black Saturday) somehow precedes global warming - as though 'way back then' climate science simply didn't apply. Well, I suppose it is a whole 11 years ago, way back before any evidence of global warming had emerged, isn't that so ?
But then, this is the dummy who claims - without a single shred of evidence presented - that "...reverting to and locking in pre-industrial era weather patterns of the 19th century, we still would face fire threats as bad as we have just seen, and worse."
Now apart from the very obvious fact that the 19th century is actually early to middling industrial and not "pre-industrial" (as Svante Arrhenius's work back at the end of the 19th century clearly shows), what evidence does he offer for that gratuitously untruthful proposition ? Why, the usual of course: he said it, therefore it's true.
But perhaps Tolhurst could have been a touch more clear in what he said and stated the bleedin' bloody obvious that "Climate change is continuing to increase this risk". By phrasing it as "will increase this risk", he just allows the Botherer to continue pushing his lies.
And one of the Boverer's lies is that the 2009 Black Saturday fires "blackened similar vast areas" as the current fires. Does he provide any evidence at all for this ? Currently, 18.6 million hectares have been burned this time around (Australia wide) with 1.2 million hectares in Vctoria compared with 450,000 hectares for Black Saturday.
Now it's true that in 1974 117 million hectares were consumed Australia wide but they were sufficiently remote and fires of such low intensity that only $36.5 million (in today's values) of damage was done.
"because it goes without saying, all the pundits are wrong, and the dog botherer is right ..."
And not only the Doggy B, DP, the entire reptile ophidiarium holds that to be a universal truth. And so we have this Doggy B gem: "To be fair, those resisting the climate zealots have used their own spin by putting too much emphasis on arson."
So, just some "emphasis" on a bunch of lies from 'the arson zealots'.
A couple of obvious points. Not so many people die in bushfires now because we put more resources into fighting fires. Now even the smallest village will have a fire brigade with 2 or 3 well equipped trucks and good communications, and they are able to call on water bombers.
ReplyDeleteHouses "built on wooded ridgetops" burn. So we must evacuate all the Blue Mountains towns? No people will die then, but the bush will still burn and the ecology will be destroyed (I reckon Kenny has never heard of the biophilia hypothesesis) and the smoke will blanket the city, killing thousands.
A GP I know was telling me yesterday that the effects of small particulate exposure will exhibit sometimes many years into the future. Fire fighters are particularly at risk for obvious reasons.
DeleteGB (if I may be so familiar) - rather than allow the opinion writer to suggest 2009 as some kind of transition year, we might go back to 1958, when Charles Keeling started recording carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa. Now - even that was not done on a sudden whim. Several lines of research at Scripps Institution of Oceanography indicated that, yes, the world was in a warming phase, that had seemed predictable - but, this time, it seemed to be warming faster than could be explained by planetary cycles. So they looked for other possible factors, and decided it would be a good idea to follow Arrhenius and study carbon dioxide. So the case had been fairly made early in the 1950s, and good scientists simply got on with it. Well before the birth, let alone the formal education, of our opinion writer.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, Anony, I'd go right back to the 1939 'Black Friday' fires and consider that anthropogenic global warming had some effect even then. Hence my 'threshold' idea: that even small overall effects can have appreciable localised impacts when a threshold is crossed. And just the "right" (or wrong if you prefer) kind of localised impact can result in large scale effects.
DeleteBut it is just a little bit annoying that it took the time from Arrhenius's 1896 work until Keeling's 1958 actions - 62 years - before any significant organised and ongoing data gathering and research was under way.
And it's even more annoying that yobbos such as the Doggy B wouldn't even know that Arrhenius's and Keeling's work ever happened. That's why such as he push the point about the current fires not being unprecedented - to them it seems that previous fires, such as the 2009 Black Saturday, had no connection with 'global warning'. Whereas I would say that the current fires actually are precedented because those previous fires have indeed been impacted by global warming.