I posted the IPCC's conclusions.....
No, mate, you didn't. You posted a paragraph or two from the IPCC report that stated they had low confidence in the relationship between climate change and drought, If you've done all the study on the subject you claim, you'd know firstly, that "low confidence" is not the definitive statement of "no causation" you falsely make it out to be, and secondly that the reasoning behind that "low confidence" is a lack information and data on droughts, you know, the kind of stuff actual science needs to draw a conclusion.
,..... backed by data from the EPA and NASA.
Yes, data that shows increased global rainfall. which is all fine and dandy, but you then go on to link this with your erroneous claim above, and attempt to deduce from that there is no relationship to the severity of the bushfires, because duh, more rain.
The problem there is your "logic" is flawed. And the reason is that despite having more rain, we still have drought. Now setting aside whether or not climate change has had any influence on the depth of the drought or not, we do know a few things.
Yes, Australia has been getting more rain in general, this past year aside being the driest and hottest on record.
We also know that the atmosphere contains more Co2, and what's relevant ( and so very ironic ) about that here, is that sceptics so often dismiss the importance off that with the line that it is harmless plant food.
So if we have all this extra rain, and we have all this extra plant food, we don't need a study to tell us that plants are gonna do pretty well in that environment, and they're gonna grow more than they otherwise would have done, great hey.
Except, when you follow that with a year of no rain, and higher temperatures, the plants don't like it so much and will dry up, shed leaves , die , you know, standard stuff. So we now have drier, warmer conditions, and all this extra dead plant material, which as it happens is also described as fuel load.
We also then have a multitude of statements from those in control of such things that their ability to reduce these loads through longer fire seasons means we have even greater fuel loads than would other wise be the case.
So even if we ignore any influence climate change has or does not have on drought, because wee really don't know, we still get drought, and we also get the other conditions that are influenced by climate change that do influence the severity of the fires we have seen.
All of which very clearly points to your definitive statement of.........
We've already conclusively shown on this forum that the bushfires have nothing to do with climate change.
.....................as complete bunkum.
I understand that it doesn't suit your political narrative (the narrative that has a total lack of data behind it), and I understand the cognitive dissonance that you experienced.
It's ok, buddy.
If smug was a scientific discipline, you'd have a Nobel prize mate. Pity it'd have no justification though.
