Dr. Willie Soon Shredding Wildfire Alarmism. Source Youtube.

Watch Dr. Willie Soon Surgically Shredding Climate Change Forest Fire Alarmism

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Video of Dr. Willie Soon at his awesome best, obliterating the absurd climate driven wildfire narrative under the weight of the evidence he presents.

One of the most shocking slides in Dr. Soon’s video was an environmentalist and climate activist, who was convicted in court of deliberately setting fires.

As an Australian I’m acutely aware that screaming alarmists like the BBC in Britain and CNN in the USA painted a wildly sensationalist picture of the impact of the 2019-20 fires on Australia. I had friends in Britain contacting me to ask me if I was OK.

Watching Dr. Soon rip apart their flimsy exaggerated claims is like a breath of fresh air.

4.7 38 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
77 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 6, 2021 6:23 pm

We had relatives in the UK contact us at the time to ask if we were affected by the fires. We live in Darlinghurst in a terrace house in the centre of Eastern Sydney and chances of there ever being a bushfire here now are less than zero unless it is a bitumen fire. Many Climate Alarmists love to start bushfires as they see it as a holy act in support of the Glorious Cause of fighting ‘Global Warming’. They have little understanding of anything else either.

Dennis
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
September 6, 2021 8:53 pm

Of course in Australia where country houses are built can be a major bushfire potential problem and many, too many lifestyle change seekers build in bushland and ignore fire breaks and fire fighting equipment and building design.

And then complain loudly when they are burnt out, and often without insurance.

Australia has always been the land of droughts and flooding rains and natural disasters resulting. The most recent climate and weather changes commenced about 130,000 years ago to drier conditions, the rainforests retreated over time to about 3 per cent of forest today and eucalypts that can survive droughts replaced them, eucalypts that need occasional fires to regenerate.

nickc
Reply to  Dennis
September 7, 2021 9:18 am

There has been some studies looking at the tropical forests deliberately burned off over time resulting in the now mostly dry landscape

Dennis
Reply to  nickc
September 8, 2021 3:17 am

The retreat of rainforests in Australia commenced around 130,000 years ago, the first migrant Australian Aborigines arrived 65-70,000 years ago according to the last upgraded estimate based on dating excavations in cave floors in Northern Australia, Kakadu National Park.

Season burning tradition as far as I can discover dates back maybe 10,000 years. By that time the climate zone was much drier than 130,000 years ago.

But of course there are examples of “tropical forests” that were deliberately destroyed by fires, South America Amazon Region an example.

Willem post
September 6, 2021 6:47 pm

Friends of the Earth set fires in California as well, when forests were most dry, to hype the Climate Change message.

Those evil folks are so fanatic, they would make Hitler and Stalin blush.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Willem post
September 7, 2021 1:52 am

These arsonists are truly evil people, right up there with the Spanish Inquisition. It is actually interesting how devotees of a particular ideology can sublimate any and all decent impulses in order to further the aims of their beliefs. Surely they must know that to deliberately set a fire in a dry woodland is wrong but they do it anyway in the mistaken belief that they will draw attention to what they have been told is is a worsening situation that will destroy all mankind. It never occurs to them that they are the problem and not even a wee part of any solution!

Or maybe nutters are naturally attracted to such causes….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Willem post
September 7, 2021 8:03 am

I’ve seen videos these people make of themselves while driving, starting a chain of fires along a highway. Sick stuff.

Dennis
September 6, 2021 8:46 pm

After Australia signed UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability, circa 1990, many State Forests set aside for selective commercial logging operations were changed to National Parks and bans introduced on logging, mining, new dams, just about everything. The National Parks & Wildlife Services (most of them State responsibility) have not managed the vast areas of land as Forestry personnel did which resulted in decades of build up of fire hazard materials on the ground and tangled undergrowth perfect of wild fires to develop from.

Permits for burning off and general clearing of fuel on the ground have been difficult to obtain from local government councils by volunteer bushfire units, farmers and other land owners.

The Greens have managed to gain positions of influence in local government and state level and seem to believe that land management should be left to nature ignoring that hot wild fires kill plant life and native creatures. As compared to the Australian Aborigine’s seasonal burning land management tradition to burn in patches when the weather conditions are favourable (seasonal) and allow new burning to run out of fuel when the bushfire reaches the nearby “patch” that has minimal fuel load and the fire goes out. Noting that managed areas produce cool fires compared to hot wild fires.

Of course the climate hoaxers (climate change is natural Earth Cycles) and creative accounting of a warming trend blame bushfires with their warming scare campaign, deceptive commentary.

Rory Forbes
September 6, 2021 9:17 pm

It’s almost a requirement of the media to mention catastrophic “climate change” here in British Columbia, especially during a particularly hot Summer. Most of the province is covered by coniferous forest (especially pine in the central regions). No one mentions the fact that there is evidence of vast fires covering large percentages of the province.

AGW true believers hate history and will rarely try to upgrade their willful ignorance. Chicken Little Syndrome is rife here, every time we get a bit of smoke. I’ve experienced forest fires, and fought them too, for most of my nearly 80 years. The remote areas aren’t so remote any longer … so there is far more property damage today (and as others have mentioned, far more arson, too).

Zig Zag Wanderer
September 6, 2021 11:38 pm

I had friends in Britain contacting me to ask me if I was OK.

I used to get that all the time, whenever there was a fire, flood or cyclone (ie pretty much all the time) in Australia. I had to point out to them that it was like me being worried about them in the UK if they’re was a flood in Africa.

People don’t often understand how large Australian really is. I often drive up the east coast. It’s like 3 or 4 days drive from Sydney to Cairns, for example. Then you have to add a day if you start at Melbourne. If you want to go to the very top, and your vehicle is capable, that’s another 2 days, maybe 3, if the weather will even let you (roads disappear in the wet season). That’s up to 8 days to drive up the east coast.

Last edited 10 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Oldseadog
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 7, 2021 9:55 am

Once I went from BC to Sydney and it took us 21 days. I worked out that on the same ship at the same speed it would take 28 days to go round Australia from Sydney back to Sydney.

TonyG
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 7, 2021 12:38 pm

“People don’t often understand how large Australian really is.”

U.S. too. I remember a couple visiting NYC who were planning to visit Seattle one day, then go see the Alamo the next day, and finally go to Disneyworld on the third day.

Charlie
September 6, 2021 11:54 pm

‘All views expressed are strictly my own and should be yours too.’

Love it, Willie.

griff
September 7, 2021 12:17 am

Hardly a reliable witness, is he?

and there are more fire days now in California than before and a longer fire season…

There are fires across the globe, notably this year in the Med…

fires in Australia in recent years have taken out actual rainforest, something not seen in the last 200 years…

fires occur even in well managed forest (e.g in recent years in Sweden)

More heat, more heatwaves, more drought, more fires. That’s the fact of the matter.

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 12:30 am

More than what, when, how many? You always make BS statements with no data. Funny that fires always occur in dry seasons and the more fuel and the stronger the wind the more intense the fire.

Maybe you never went to Scouts or similar and learnt about fire or maybe it is just your pants that are on fire. Get some commonsense please.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 12:34 am

I see the group humourist has chipped in

Last edited 10 days ago by David Guy-Johnson
Walter Pate
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 12:42 am

The griff-bot reappears. Spewing @ClimateScientology BS as usual.

Duker
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 1:28 am

But doesnt more heat lead to more moisture in air and more rainfall….see New York City this week.

Extreme cold in Texas was global warming too,…that Junior high school stuff

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 2:58 am

“and there are more fire days now in California than before and a longer fire season”

Yes, griff. And there is much less scientific management of forests, and there are much less forest engineers (and much more “environment experts”), and there are much more law, rules and regulations preventing the rational management of forest (their cleaning, thinning and economic exploitation of the wood). You can check that in the official statistics of California; did you?

PeterW
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 3:39 am

Grif….

I live in the western half of NSW. It is the hotter, drier half….. and in the season under discussion we had zero serious fires.

Yes, there was a drought. We have a history of droughts going back to the earliest days of european settlement, and strong scientific evidence from multiple studies, showing that longer and more severe droughts have happened previously – none of which is explained by the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Nor are your claims consistent with the BOM rainfall records, which show that Australian rainfall, Eastern Australian rainfall and Eastern Australian SUMMER rainfall have all tended to increase over the last 50-60 years.

Blunt truth is that the fires occurred where there was a lot of fuel. Not in the hottest and driest part of the state.

Deal with it!

Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 4:48 am

How does it work, griffter? Is it….is it SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION?

mark stevens
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 4:55 am

…but, I thought you said there was 6% more rain… anyway, you do realize there are less heatwaves than in previous decades, don’t you? (it’s not even close).

JimF
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 5:32 am

As the article asks, “why focus on length of the fire season-just ask, are there more or less fires?” Sorry griff, there’s less. https://phzoe.com/2021/02/17/trend-in-global-fires/

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 5:59 am

What griff finds to be a fact, almost never is.

Heck with data proving that the number of fires is down. The models say fires should be up, therefore they are. That’s the only “data” a true believer needs.

Sara
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 8:33 am

Geezo Pete, Griffypoo, what dimension of sight and sound and “mind” are you living in?

FIRES DON’T START WITHOUT AN IGNITION SOURCE.

Oh, it can be a lightning strike, or a downed electricity transmission line, or ARSON, and the ambient temperature, including “heat days” in California, have NOTHING – ZERO, ZIP, NADA – to do with it.

Fires can’t start without an ignition source, period. Spontaneous combustion in forests? Ain’t no such thing.

The ignition point for wood (trees, you ninnyhammer) is, as I clearly state below, 390F to 500F, so please tell us just WHEN and WHERE these temperatures exist on Earth, outside of cookstoves and volcanoes and the random meteor.

Are you sure you’re living on Planet Earth?

I’m really concerned about your association with reality these days, Griffypoo.

Last edited 9 days ago by Sara
Nick Graves
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 11:40 am

He knows far more than you do, so is a reliable witness.

You are a reliable witless.

(Other wordplays are available).

TonyG
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 12:40 pm

How many fires SHOULD there be, griff?

Alex B
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 2:48 pm

Forest fires in Sweden? I live in Norway and can assure you that if that was the case on a notionable scale it would be on the news here. Crickets….

george1st:)
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 4:53 pm

Tropical green rainforests never dry out , its the crap on the ground that can set it alight .

wadesworld
Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 8:44 pm

Shouldn’t the Australian bushfire season be worse this year than that epic year griff? C02 has only gone up.

David Guy-Johnson
September 7, 2021 12:32 am

Splendidly done

John Phillips
September 7, 2021 4:02 am

“One of the most shocking slides in Dr. Soon’s video was an environmentalist and climate activist, who was convicted in court of deliberately setting fires.”

Other than an anonymous tweet, what evidence do you have that he actually is an environmental activist? I am assuming you mean the guy mugshotted but not named at around 15:20? (nb I haven’t watched the whole video, there’s no way I’m sitting through an hour of Soonisms)

The arsonist would seem to be one Johnny Mullins and the press coverage I’ve seen describes his motive as starting fires so he could film them to boost views of his facebook videos, he apparently had aspirations to be a TV weatherman. No mention of environmentalism.

But that would mean Dr Soon was drawing an entirely false conclusion for political reasons, and I am sure he would never stoop so low. So I look forward to conclusive evidence of Mr Mullins’ environmentalist views and activism. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3930526/Aspiring-weatherman-starts-forest-fire-films-reporting-desperate-bid-draw-viewers-Facebook-channel.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/weatherman-kentucky-arson-wannabe-arrested-starting-wildfire-a7414736.html

Last edited 9 days ago by John Phillips
John Phillips
Reply to  John Phillips
September 7, 2021 5:29 am

PS I have just noticed that Mr Mullins was convicted 5 years ago. Not sure of the relevance to the devastating wildfires of more recent years….

Also not sure about the wisdom of relying on a tweet from ‘cosmic consciousness enthusiast’ ‘Dr Sundance’, whose twitter profile comes with a health warning. But I am sure proper research was conducted before accusations were flung…..

Last edited 9 days ago by John Phillips
nyolci
Reply to  John Phillips
September 7, 2021 6:53 am

But I am sure proper research was conducted before accusations were flung…..

😉 The DenierSphere is well known for their deep, exhaustive, systematic, and conscientious research.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
September 7, 2021 7:01 am

Meanwhile neither of you two could find anything wrong with his presentation about the climate change forest fire alarmism…….

You two are ankle biting, thus trying to deflect and insult to create a diversion, I saw though that easily.

John Phillips
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 7, 2021 8:21 am

As I said, I didn’t watch the thing. Soon kissed goodbye to his credibility around the time of Soon and Baliunas, in my view. Feel free to precis his arguments.

The ‘green activist setting fires’ claim seemed unlikely so I did a little digging. It is beginning to look very much like lazy, lying propaganda.

But I will apologise if it turns out Mr Worrell did research the charge before making it.

Last edited 9 days ago by John Phillips
John Phillips
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 7, 2021 8:36 am
nyolci
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 7, 2021 9:57 am

Meanwhile neither of you two could find anything wrong

??? And this is after John Phillips has shown the “climate activist” thing was BS…
Furthermore, I would like to add the standard point here. Before the satellite era (in this specific case, the mid 80s, I think, but it may be later in Australia), forest fire acreages were unreliable, and those numbers shouldn’t be used. Please consider this.

John Phillips
Reply to  nyolci
September 7, 2021 11:00 am

In the US, it was not so much satellites, as the fact that prior to 1983 there was no nationally-agreed methodology for collecting the data and so there was scope for double- or possibly even triple-counting.

https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

Last edited 9 days ago by John Phillips
nyolci
Reply to  John Phillips
September 8, 2021 6:08 am

Anthony Banton easily settled the matter (see further down). These numbers are completely unreliable in Australia, they sometimes include eg. savanna fires (an entirely different category), sometimes do not etc. So Soon either used the data he could get in 1 minute too hastily (haha, nomen est omen), or intentionally used bad data.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
September 8, 2021 11:01 am

Before the satellite era (in this specific case, the mid 80s, I think, but it may be later in Australia), forest fire acreages were unreliable, and those numbers shouldn’t be used.

That is pretty rich coming from someone on the side of the debate that routinely ignores accuracy and precision in any quantitative discussion! At what level of uncertainty do you recommend data be completely ignored? Does that apply to temperatures and ocean pH as well?

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 8, 2021 1:20 pm

At what level of uncertainty do you recommend data be completely ignored?

At the easily demonstrated level of corruption. Just as in this case.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 7, 2021 9:31 am

This from the guy who claims that things must be true because it was peer reviewed.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2021 10:31 am

it was peer reviewed.

Well, this is how science works. And you know, what? I rather believe in a peer reviewed article (that conforms well with usually a lot of other articles, in science you don’t really have things in a vacuum) than in a blogpost in an obscure, industry financed blog from a guy who demonstrably made bad “research” in the past.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 7, 2021 3:14 pm

So having a couple of your besties whose livelihood depends on proving global warming exists, look over your paper is the gold standard for science. Really?

BTW, I”m still waiting for you to provide evidence that this site is industry funded,
The last time I asked, you just proclaimed that all your friends know it is and then insulted anyone who disagrees with you and your friends.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
September 8, 2021 2:04 am

couple of your besties whose livelihood depends on proving global warming exists

A few corrections:

  1. not my besties
  2. not a couple. In a sense, the whole of natural science is “on my side”. But more importantly, climate science.
  3. Their livelihood depends on scientific research. They are not tasked with proving global warming. That is the result of their research. You always confuse these. Please try harder at last!
  4. There are these persistent allegations about funding, conflicts of interest etc. So far, none can be taken seriously.

The last point leads us to the next one:

I”m still waiting for you to provide evidence that this site is industry funded

Sorry, I didn’t realize you wanted this. Okay. So this cabal is very closely connected to various think tanks (most notably: Heartland, the premier bullshit-monger). These think tanks, in turn, are financed by the fossil fuel industry (this is proven to the point of being an axiom 🙂 ). The same applies to most of the relevant politicians. Anthony is famously a “fellow” (or wtf) of Heartland.
Regarding specifically the funding of this site, while Anthony tries to muddle the matter (check the faq), it’s obvious that he gets major funding from Heartland, and Heartland helps channeling some big donors to it. Is that right, Anthony? You can come clear with an honest accounting now 🙂 It is also clear that some money comes from losers like you via small donations. The whole purpose of this blog is to be here so that the real sponsors can claim there’s “controversy” pointing to the few dozen sites like this. You and the other suckers are the fluff, the filling, the required ballast here.

Last edited 8 days ago by nyolci
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
September 8, 2021 11:07 am

“Why everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese. There is no point in providing evidence. It is self-evident.”

nyolci
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 8, 2021 11:20 am

This is a standard, and unfounded allegation from you (the science deniers’ side). We (the rational side) always provide evidence or at least a way you can find it. I don’t know specifically what your problem here, in the faq of this blog Anthony writes about his misadvantures regarding finance.

Observer
Reply to  nyolci
September 8, 2021 11:50 am

So anyone being funded by “industry” is suspect, as is funding from individuals as they’re “losers”… given that every professional – by definition – gets paid by someone, what is that unimpeachable, no-strings-attached source of funding? What’s left besides government or educational bureaucracies that rely on bigging up threats to justify their own funding?

nyolci
Reply to  Observer
September 8, 2021 1:24 pm

What’s left besides government or educational bureaucracies

Nothing. You see it right. Congratulations!

that rely on bigging up threats to justify their own funding?

??? Perhaps I was too quick to give you credit…

Anyway, now you apparently don’t deny industry funding (and the inevitable conflict of interests that arises), do you?

Last edited 8 days ago by nyolci
Derg
Reply to  nyolci
September 7, 2021 9:35 pm

Lol

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2021 1:47 pm

This from the guy who claims that things must be true because it was peer reviewed.”
This from the guy who makes things up. Got a reference for your claim re the German floods? “There are a dozen floods of equal or greater magnitude during the the last 500 years.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
September 7, 2021 2:24 pm

How much of your payday are you willing to fork over for the Green Net Zero Fantasy Raw Deal, CCP-Simon?

Put your money where your keyboard is…

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 7, 2021 2:45 pm

Probably more than you.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
September 7, 2021 9:47 pm

Yep, won’t give a straight answer, just like all other the fakes. A climate hypocrite—not a surprise at all.

nyolci
Reply to  Simon
September 8, 2021 1:28 pm

Probably more than you.

🙂 Exactly! These losers are willing to pay to the very scammers who fool them.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
September 7, 2021 3:18 pm

Once again, Simon declares that any fact that doesn’t fit his religious convictions, is just made up.

Took all of 30 seconds to find this one.

Of course Simon will reject it because youtube isn’t a climate scientist approved site, therefore it isn’t true.

Simon, aren’t you tired of making an ass of yourself yet?

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2021 7:32 pm

Haha you are such a laugh. So I watched your little movie. Tell me Mark what does the first line say? “Nine” flood rich periods. But that’s all over Europe. And no indication of whether any of those produced rainfall like Germany just got. Maybe you need to take a little longer than 30 seconds…..

Derg
Reply to  Simon
September 7, 2021 9:36 pm

Ahh the Russia colluuuusion turd shows itself. Clown show indeed Simon.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
September 7, 2021 9:51 pm

And the Pencil-neck Schiffhead/Vindman/Chiaramella phone call hoax.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
September 7, 2021 11:03 pm

Yawn.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
September 7, 2021 11:03 pm

What a loser.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
September 7, 2021 11:16 pm

Are you talking about Lloydo again.. I agree.

Now onto your Russia colluuuusion 😉

John F Hultquist
September 7, 2021 6:13 am

So far this year, in the western USA, fire acreage is reported as
Acres: 5,073,241 . . .
while the prior 10 year average to Sept. 6th is …
Acres: 5,883,336

So roughly: 800,000 fewer acres this year than the 10 year average.

Makes one go “Hmm! ?”

TonyG
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 7, 2021 12:44 pm

“800,000 fewer acres this year” – they’re bigger acres, or something…

Andy H
September 7, 2021 6:43 am

Australia was heavily into carbon farming. I call it tinder farming.

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/water/policy/carbon-farming-initiative

Sara
September 7, 2021 7:16 am

Well, I went to the trouble of looking up the ignition point/temperature of wood, which is 390F to 500F, or 250C to 300C, and unless some sort of furnace effect is underway, the claim is spurious. It is hogwash, baloney, twaddle, and a whole lot of fabrication made up of moonbeams and fairy dust.

The ignorance in this idea that forests spontaneously ignite is disgusting, especially when the assumption is that no ignition source is needed. Just BOOM!! and the wooded areas go up in smoke! Hogwash!

Last edited 9 days ago by Sara
TonyG
September 7, 2021 9:37 am

You have to understand that 1968, 1969, 1974, and 2002 are prehistoric, so they don’t count.

September 7, 2021 10:05 am

See these Sept 2019 BoM and Australian ABC media articles quoting the BoM stating that “sudden stratospheric warming” would worsen drought and fire conditions for the 2019-2020 summer.
There has been much amnesia about the above BoM/ABC Sept 2019 articles in Australian Federal and State Govt circles – who all want the “climate change” agenda pushed.

BBC gets Downunder climate change wrong 29 June 2021
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6752

and

ScoMo’s NRRA birthed in memory lapse 5 May 2021
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=6696

Anthony Banton
September 7, 2021 11:29 am

So is Wikipedia a “reliable” source of information now?
Funny how it is when it supports the ideological bias here.

but it seems not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bushfires_in_Australia#1974-75_NT_fires

”1974/75 fire season[edit]The entries for the 1974/75 fire season are getting a little out of hand. We now have multiple entries for the same season (one for the whole season, one each for several states). Most problematic is the nature of these fires. The vast majority of the land being listed as burned were not bushfires but savanna fires, annual events that burn through enormous areas of grasslands. To add to the problem, there were also legitimate bushfires that season. I have checked the source material, and some of it explicitly refers to large areas of savanna grass fires. If this becomes a precedent, then there will be entries almost every year for areas averaging >25MHa. This will effectively bury actual bushfires where life, property or infrastructure was lost. I’m looking for comments or suggestions for resolution.

Although at present on a “sabbatical” I feel compelled (as ever here) to rebut “ fake news”

Yes, yes I know …. I can guess the angry wailing

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-trap-with-bushfire-area-statistics-in.html

in short there are fires that are a danger to life and are natural, and than there are those that are controlled burns that cover vast areas, and that bother no one.

As is said on the Wiki page above the article is a mess with some years early on including the safe, controlled ones and others not.

Of course Soon chose to do no checking (?) and drilled the myth ever deeper into those entirely unsceptical “sceptics” mind’s …. From whence they never escape.

Last edited 9 days ago by Anthony Banton
John Phillips
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 7, 2021 1:36 pm

OMG he resurrects the 1974 Australian Savannah fire data ?! And this is meant to be ‘surgical’?

Last edited 9 days ago by John Phillips
Derg
Reply to  John Phillips
September 7, 2021 9:38 pm

Is this like-bristle cone research?

nyolci
Reply to  Derg
September 8, 2021 5:08 am

No. Soon’s is plain bullshiting.

John Phillips
Reply to  nyolci
September 8, 2021 5:50 am

Point is, this has been known about for years. You can separate Aussie fires into vegetation wildfires, these are the one that do the damage and get the headlines, and savannah fires, these burn large areas but in a controlled, usually harmless way. Savannah fires are not usually included in the overall acreage burned for reporting purposes, but for some reason the wiki entry did include them for the 1974 season. Nick Stokes covered it in depth.
 
You can see from the graph below just how much of an anomaly this was. If correct, about 15% of the country burned.
 
This is obviously ridiculous. But not too ridiculous to make it into Dr. Soon’s presentation, along with the fake green activist arsonist. If this is ‘surgical’, what does dishonest propaganda look like?

WUWT 1974.JPG
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 8, 2021 11:12 am

The vast majority of the land being listed as burned were not bushfires but savanna fires, annual events that burn through enormous areas of grasslands.

If these are annual events, then why don’t they provide a baseline of fires every year?

Eric Vieira
September 8, 2021 1:25 am

Hard but maybe effective: what about life sentences for deliberate arson in forests?
That should make at least some of these people think twice…

September 8, 2021 11:23 am

Some ill informed people yes climate activists are also blaming the fires here in British Columbia on the supposedly man created climate changes. I say supposed because I am a firm believer in most if not all climate changes as caused by our Sun.

%d bloggers like this: