So, because I'm the only one to post any data or reference any quotes from sources, it looks like others (read: bandy) are just trying to mince words to avoid admitting they are wrong.
So, firstly Bandy is now trying to say that he
isn't linking the bushfires to climate change...
What specific claim of mine are you referring to mate, I mean I don't know what you think I've claimed that requires a link
Cool. If that is the case, then I give my honest and sincere apologies for misjudging your position. And I say that without any facetiousness, Bandy - my honest and sincere apologies.
However, to be straight, I don't think that is your position.
I also don't think you are honest to outrightly stake a position. Now that you've seen the data your position will be to avoid a position - it means you don't have to give up the bushfires=climate change stance by denying it.
Bandy's convenient position is now to say he isn't taking either side, and to try and simply mince words with me to avoid accepting the data.
Cool - anyone who is being honest with themselves can see straight through that PouPou-esque stance.
And a good example of how Bandy is being facetious on this (all of a sudden trying to deny that he is linking bushfires to climate change) is the reference to
regional affects:
Increases in the frequency or intensity of ecosystem disturbances such as droughts, windstorms, fires and pest outbreaks have been detected in many parts of the world and in some cases are attributed to climate change (medium confidence)
Now, the implication here is that this is in reference to Australia - so I'm wrong!!! Because the IPCC doesn't say that this doesn't refer specifically to Australia!!! So, I'm wrong!!!
...despite the fact that I have already covered this - in regards to drought, the IPCC is specifically referring to West Africa and the Mediterranean. How do I know this? Because they specifically say so.
NASA data also backs this up by showing precipitation has
increased across Australia over the last century.
This is getting repetitive, and I've already won the argument by using actual data and referring to the IPCC itself, so I'll just sum up my victory and leave the word mincing to the self-righteous leftoids like Bandy...
* The IPCC has backtracked on its earlier link between droughts and climate change, now calling those earlier claims "overstated" and revising their position to "low confidence";
* The EPA backs this up by showing global precipitation trends over the last century+ highlight increased precipitation;
* NASA backs this up by showing that significantly more areas of the world are experiencing increased precipitation and, thus, more of the world is now less subject to drought;
* The IPCC backs this up by stating that only West Africa and the Mediterranean have increased drought risk over the last century and (once again) that the link between this and "climate change" is low confidence.
Now, Bandy, try and mince words all you want.
The data is in. It sits with me.
I'm right.
You may not have the balls to put your beliefs down on this page (that bushfires=climate change) because you've already been proven wrong but it doesn't matter - everyone knows where you stand and everyone knows you are wrong.
And blah blah links blah blah - you know where to find the data.
You just haven't read it.
Ever.
I have - every word of it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my posts on this matter.
Call me whatever names you want. Say I ran away. Blah blah blah.
If you're being honest with yourself and not playing political pointscoring internet games then you know any such claim is a lie.
But live it if you want. I don't care. Both of us know that I'm right, even if you don't have the courage to admit it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I bid you all a good afternoon.
).
