Climate change causes 11 year olds to light fires.

The evil C02 monster is back.

Now it forces powerlines to start raging bushfires, it forces 11 years olds to go around deliberately lighting fires, and causes the military to start weapons training and trigger bushfires also.

We must act now and get the C02 back when it was safe.

Like in 1895, when there was no cars, planes, computers, downlights, houses, cities or anything that we have today and C02 was 290ppm.

DROUGHT AND BUSH FIRES.

NEW SOUTH WALES DEVAS TATED. Sydney, September 8.

The drought, accompanied by hot winds and bush fires, still continues. Some of the country townships are not yet out of danger from destruction by flames, as this afternoon a fire broke out in the shrubbery of a house at Glebe Point, within a few minutes’ walk of the city. With the aid of the fire brigade it was subdued before it had a chance of spreading to any of the villas in that suburb.

Reports from the south coast dairy districts state that large numbers of cattle are perishing in the bogs, to which their thirst drives them, the poor beasts, weak from starvation, being unable to extricate themselves from the mud. Coming down the coast from Brisbane H.M.S. Orlando, which arrived here on Saturday, was very much troubled by the dense smoke from the bushfires. ‘ It was as bad,’ said one of the officers, bad as a fog in the English Channel at night ; it was impossible to see the lighthouse, and in the daytime it was equally out of the question to distinguish the coastline.’

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Climate change causes 11 year olds to light fires.

  1. In 1895 there were roughly 1.8 billion people in the world. Pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels were at about 280 ppm, which was from a combination of natural and man-made (coal and wood burning) emissions. That level was pretty consistent going back to at least the ancient Egyptians. Now, we’re at 7.1 billion people and the CO2 levels have reached 400 ppm. Probably the highest in a good 20 million years. 120 ppm is a substantial increase in just 118 years. The additional 5.3 billion people – the greatest population increase known to man – certainly had a great deal to do with the CO2 increase

      • I think you’re confusing the last ice age – about 2.5 million years ago – when the CO2 levels were from 180 – 210 ppm (much lower), with the Cambrian Period. The Cambrian Period was 500 million years ago, and the CO2 levels were (conservatively) 4300 – 4500 ppm. Today’s average global temperature is about 14.5 C (58.1 F), at 4300 ppm the average global temp was around 22 C (71.6 F). Sea levels were from 30 – 90 meters higher in those days, so the world was very hot and soupy. Lots of primitive life in the water, next to nothing on the arid land. (At 7000 ppm the AGT would’ve been closer to 25 C.) We definitely could not survive a Cambrian existence. In between the various ice ages the CO2 levels rose to between 280 – 300 ppm. Those are the stable levels – for life as we know it – that we should be striving for. — YUR

      • I think you said enough just then.

        The Earth was much warmer, and had 100 times todays C02 during the Cambrian when corals formed.

        Remind me how the corals will be leached again with a staggering 400ppm, when they formed at 7000 ppm?

  2. Huh! What happened to the “last glaciation” point you were trying to make??? It would be much easier to debate you if you’d stick to your original train of thought. Suffice it to say the world was quite different 500 million years ago, as it was 250 million years ago, than it is today. As was our entire solar system, the galaxy, and the entire universe. Solar levels were lower, gases and minerals that were being released by the earth were much different, some higher, some lower than today. And, the primitive plant and animal life utilized all of this differently than plant and animal life of today. Most of what was around back then is now extinct.

    Since you like changing the subject, let me ask you a question. Why is it that the global warming deniers claim that the scientists who site the effects of global warming – and, they are in the majority – have some kind of “agenda”? Do they all own stock in solar energy companies, wind farms and bio-mass concerns? Believe me, no one is getting rich off of those kind of investments. Were they all traumatized by Mobil’s flying red horse, as children? Is it just a coincidence that most of the so-called “global warming debunking” scientists are funded by the big fossil fuel companies?

    Man always boasts that he’s the top of the food chain, and that we’re the smartest creatures on the planet, and we’ve accomplished this and that, but we’re always reticent to accept the responsibilities of our actions. I think stupidity is something we all have to live with, but outright arrogance really takes the cake.

    Look friend. Nothing personal, but I just got the call to go back to work (had a 3 week forced “layoff”), so I won’t be able to devote the time to follow up with you. It’s been fun. Approve it for posting, or don’t. It’s your blog and your call.

    — YUR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s