Greta Thunberg

One wonders what would be the motivation for arson? Simple hooliganism or extremist greens trying to prove a point?

It is not necessarily arson. When I farmed in NSW I was, like all other landholders (and their emplyees), a member of the local fire brigade. I was involved in fighting three fires only, but two were accidentally started by humans, and the third was thought to be by someone discarding a cigarette end from their car window. This was in a National Park and it took us two weeks to extinguish it.

I twice saw a tree struck by lightning during dry storms and neither started a fire. I have never known a fire start from lightning and dry storms were more frequent than any thunderstorms I ever encountered in the UK or here. I am very dubious that many fires are started by lightning strikes.

The Greens (and I am most definitely not one of them) are in favour of controlled cool season burns whereas the other parties appear not to have any policy regarding controlled burns. Consequently it is unlikely to be genuine arson by one of their members. The problem has been that for two or three years, the length of time depending on the part of Australia concerned, conditions have been too dry to have the number of burns generally required.
 
Your posts #156 and 161 most certainly were not hypothetical so do not now try to wriggle out of what you posted.


Oh come on.

I was being kind .. but to be quite frank you are taking the mickey.

Having refused to confirm my assertion that CO2 was not a major factor at the end of the last Ice Age I began to make hypothetical exmaples which I have referenced MANY TIMES.

But you keep on attempting to take them out of context. It's not my problem you cannot read what is front of you nor you willingness to dodge someone else's observations of facts when it doesn't fit your agenda.
 
GHG is not a generalistic term; it is precise and is not a device. They are specific gasses. You do not understand the effect of GHGs if you think that the term is used to manipulate some section(s) of the world’s population. You appear not even to know how GHGs affect the temperature of Earth. Way past time that you did.


GHG IS an generalistic term.

That has born evidence by the fact almost every gas has a quantification of how much it attributes to "Climate Change" .. which is bloody obvious given every element in excistence plays a part in Thermo Dynamics.

ALL elements on the Earth affect the Temperature and I note that the majority of the Sun's energy hits the Earth's surface NOT GHGs.
 
Why is it futile to attempt to control the levels of GHGs? I continue to use GHG because it is not CO2 alone that is responsible for rising temperatures. I do not follow your remark (surprise, surprise) about the doctrines of religious zealots of Climate Change. Care to give an explanation?


I've made the observation multiple times.

CO2 barely has any influence .. if it did then on mulitple occassions in Earth's history, including the last Ice Age where there are multiple other factors at play ALSO reducing the warming influence of the Sun .. we'd have a race condition.

CO2 is just a very small minor player compared to the Sun's influence.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun guarantees temperatures will continue to rise AND given the fact temperatures increases will lead to more natural processes that release more CO2 there is practically nothing to be gained.

Even if Human CO2 emissions stopped instantaneously both temperatures AND CO2 will continue to rise as it has always happened after an Ice Age.
 
At least we know where you stand on air travel – perhaps. Are you just opposed to it for holidays, or for all purposes? I travelled by air to move here from the Black Isle. Over the ensuing 17 years I have also used it for my son’s first Master’s graduation (missed the second and his PhD), his wedding, a granddaughter’s Christening and my mother’s funeral. Do you take holidays? If so where do you go and how do you travel?


No I don't go on holiday.
 

manhill

Member
It is not necessarily arson. When I farmed in NSW I was, like all other landholders (and their emplyees), a member of the local fire brigade. I was involved in fighting three fires only, but two were accidentally started by humans, and the third was thought to be by someone discarding a cigarette end from their car window. This was in a National Park and it took us two weeks to extinguish it.

I twice saw a tree struck by lightning during dry storms and neither started a fire. I have never known a fire start from lightning and dry storms were more frequent than any thunderstorms I ever encountered in the UK or here. I am very dubious that many fires are started by lightning strikes.

The Greens (and I am most definitely not one of them) are in favour of controlled cool season burns whereas the other parties appear not to have any policy regarding controlled burns. Consequently it is unlikely to be genuine arson by one of their members. The problem has been that for two or three years, the length of time depending on the part of Australia concerned, conditions have been too dry to have the number of burns generally required.
I think some fire starting in WA turned out to have been a fireman when I visited a long time ago.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
It is not necessarily arson...
Are there weaver-bird colonies in Australia? In Zim I've seen them start bush-fires; some say it's down to the sun being focussed onto the dry grass etc. through the 'lens' of a dew drop. I won't say that's impossible, but I think it unlikely. I've seen many colonies steaming / smoking and I'm certain that it's just the same as when a stack of hay goes up over here - a gradual temperature increase and then spontaneous combustion.
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
Going by what some in Australia are saying this isn’t an entirely natural disaster, the greens with good intention but little thought of the practicalities have limited the amount of controlled burns that can be done in the cool season which has meant there has been more “fuel” for these fires to burn out of control, furthermore it is thought a lot of the fires are arson so whilst it’s most certainly a disaster for the natural environment and wildlife it’s not entirely a natural disaster.

Widely reported to be blamed on the greens, but again apparently not something we can blame on them. I haven’t the references to hand, but I have read that the greens have been pushing for more controlled burns and others have refused.

Like most things, the truth is not always clear to see.
 

br jones

Member
Widely reported to be blamed on the greens, but again apparently not something we can blame on them. I haven’t the references to hand, but I have read that the greens have been pushing for more controlled burns and others have refused.

Like most things, the truth is not always clear to see.
According to our australian correspondants ,they havnt done many controlled burns as its been to dry even in winter ,they are having a severe drought of 4 years or so ,its a pefect storm as such
 
Oh come on.

I was being kind .. but to be quite frank you are taking the mickey.

Having refused to confirm my assertion that CO2 was not a major factor at the end of the last Ice Age I began to make hypothetical exmaples which I have referenced MANY TIMES.

But you keep on attempting to take them out of context. It's not my problem you cannot read what is front of you nor you willingness to dodge someone else's observations of facts when it doesn't fit your agenda.

At #155 I posted (inter alia) :
It seems everyone accepts that ice ages have come and gone in the past. How did they end? A bit of guesswork is the usual story, but try Refs.3 and 4 for some decent modern research. You may also recall what happens in the event of a quick release of CO2 Ref.5. At the same time I am happy to go along with the notion that they ended with a change in the tilt of the Earth’s orbit . Ref.6.

You asked me at #156 and 161 to answer the question I had already answered at #155. You reminded me at #163 that you had asked. It is not my problem if you do not read what is in front of you. I continue to have the utmost difficulty in responding to you in a reasonable manner when you do not even know what you have posted and the responses to these posts. Indeed it seems pointless attempting to have a debate with you.

I am not dodging anything and I have no agenda. I have asked you before to tell me about anything that I have inadvertently missed because you have previously made the same false claim. I believe I have answered all questions you have put to me, although it seems you do not read the answers, and I am as sure as I can be that I have not taken anything out of context that you have posted. Again, if I have, please tell me the context in which you meant it, but do not attempt to again use the excuse that your responses to me at #156 and 161 were hypothetical as they most clearly were not. The phrase “I have asked you to provide evidence” - showing that you are repeating your request to me, is most definitely not hypothetical.

GHG IS an generalistic term.

That has born evidence by the fact almost every gas has a quantification of how much it attributes to "Climate Change" .. which is bloody obvious given every element in excistence plays a part in Thermo Dynamics.

ALL elements on the Earth affect the Temperature and I note that the majority of the Sun's energy hits the Earth's surface NOT GHGs.
I accept that GHG is the general term used for the few gasses that cause forcing of temperatures, but not that it is a “generalistic” term for all, or even most, gasses. There are many gasses which do not cause forcing and are therefore excluded from the term GHG including oxygen and nitrogen. Those gasses which are not GHGs do not affect the Earth’s temperature. Your last sentence confirms what I suggested was the case – you do not understand how GHGs affect the temperature. In fact some of your posts deny that they do, whilst admittedly some others accept that they have an insignificant effect.

I've made the observation multiple times.

CO2 barely has any influence .. if it did then on mulitple occassions in Earth's history, including the last Ice Age where there are multiple other factors at play ALSO reducing the warming influence of the Sun .. we'd have a race condition.

CO2 is just a very small minor player compared to the Sun's influence.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun guarantees temperatures will continue to rise AND given the fact temperatures increases will lead to more natural processes that release more CO2 there is practically nothing to be gained.

Even if Human CO2 emissions stopped instantaneously both temperatures AND CO2 will continue to rise as it has always happened after an Ice Age.

True, you have made the observation many times, but that is what it is, an observation or personal opinion; and here we go again with your swithering as to whether CO2 has a teeny weeny effect or none at all. Make up your mind one way or the other and as previously requested of you, if you settle for a positive but “insignificant” (to use a former term of yours) amount tell me how much you consider that insignificant amount to be.

Why does it concern you so much if CO2 levels increase; and other GHGs of course, since a lot of Methane would be released with the melting of the permafrost? If your assertion about the nil or minimal effect is correct, surely it does not matter if levels increase, or if people go on holiday multiple times via aeroplanes.

As I asked previously, how long is this continuing temperature rise to last - on the hypothesis that GHGs have no, or minimal effect on what will happen? Most interesting would also be your conjecture on the temperature levels which will be reached.
 
Widely reported to be blamed on the greens, but again apparently not something we can blame on them. I haven’t the references to hand, but I have read that the greens have been pushing for more controlled burns and others have refused.

Like most things, the truth is not always clear to see.
According to our australian correspondants ,they havnt done many controlled burns as its been to dry even in winter ,they are having a severe drought of 4 years or so ,its a pefect storm as such

That is what I said yesterday at #221.
 
Are there weaver-bird colonies in Australia? In Zim I've seen them start bush-fires; some say it's down to the sun being focussed onto the dry grass etc. through the 'lens' of a dew drop. I won't say that's impossible, but I think it unlikely. I've seen many colonies steaming / smoking and I'm certain that it's just the same as when a stack of hay goes up over here - a gradual temperature increase and then spontaneous combustion.

I recall that there are weaver birds in Australia, but I cannot even remember what species it is or what it looks like. I am like you and "hae ma doots" that it could be a dew drop acting as a magnifying lens. Brush turkeys build a mound on the ground that could possibly be like a compost heap - similar to crocodiles, but that too is unlikely in the areas of most of the fires.
 
@FonterraFarmer I am surprised nobody else has responded to you. It is not a photograph, which is obvious if you take more than a cursory glance - note the lack of smoke blurring any of the fires. Also knowing where the major population centres are away from the capitals indicates that their street lights do not show. It is an "artist's impression" with a lot of artistic licence included.
 
@FonterraFarmer I am surprised nobody else has responded to you. It is not a photograph, which is obvious if you take more than a cursory glance - note the lack of smoke blurring any of the fires. Also knowing where the major population centres are away from the capitals indicates that their street lights do not show. It is an "artist's impression" with a lot of artistic licence included.
The fact that information is being put up in the media that is blatantly incorrect is nothing more than fraud, that said I actually know people who were evacuated from Mallacoota that have also stated that what has been portrayed by the media has been incorrect or at best manipulated for sensationalism.
That said it doesn't hide the seriousness of the situation in Australia but does question the authenticity and reliability of the media.
Much like we say about our PM, just say what you have to say but once only and cut the bull s**t.
 

bovrill

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
East Essexshire
The fact that information is being put up in the media that is blatantly incorrect is nothing more than fraud,

but does question the authenticity and reliability of the media.
Such is the way of the modern world ?

It does appear that if you know any details about a news story, the media, whether mainstream or social, will get it wrong. Which then makes me assume that everything else they write is also wrong.

Someone has linked a Guardian article earlier, probably on the Monbiot thread, about bees in almond orchards that is so full of inaccuracies and downright lies, that it blurs the few real facts into insignificance.
 

rob1

Member
Location
wiltshire
Such is the way of the modern world ?

It does appear that if you know any details about a news story, the media, whether mainstream or social, will get it wrong. Which then makes me assume that everything else they write is also wrong.

Someone has linked a Guardian article earlier, probably on the Monbiot thread, about bees in almond orchards that is so full of inaccuracies and downright lies, that it blurs the few real facts into insignificance.
Even these so called "fact check" sites are full of crap on many issues, as someone once said information is power, spreading false info creates power
 

arcobob

Member
Location
Norfolk
unnamed(1).jpg
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top