Seems like the WA ‘Percent of Art Scheme’ is a good example of unintended consequences, in this case aka ‘improper priorities trying to make one size fits all for allocations of budget.’
If they own up to it and fix it they could be forgiven. If they do the normal pollie thing and stonewall defending what they wrought, they deserve the criticism.
I wouldn’t call this statement being a denialist, but possibly a realist.
There have been many experts that have indicated that there have been a nunber of fsctors which has potentially lead to the devastating drought and subsequent bushfires. This includes climate change (note…includes as there will also be a range of other factors as well).
There has been talk about future inquiries to determine the causing factors and how Australia can better prepare for future similar events…such events are likely to occur again in the future as historically they have also occurred in the past.
I plan to wait until any inquiry finding and recommendations are released rather than pointing the finger solely at a single issue/factor such as that occuring in the likes of (social) media/twittersphere/armchair experts.
Although the report is a snippet, Ms. Rinehart has a long history of reinforcing her scepticism, that is akin to denial.
Even the firies are not so simple minded. Yes, it is complex but if the heat was not increasing year over year, and droughts were not as common as they are, would there be as many serious bush fires? Maybe we should just rake the forests more, as Trump admonished Californians?
I worked with climate scientists from the US, AU, CA, DE, and UK from 1990-2009 as a ‘tool maker’ of sorts so am quite biased on the veracity of their research. The consensus of evidence points in a direction that some people are not willing to accept today, and probably never will.
Inquiries are political beasts, not solutions to problems, more often than not.
Some WA residents are really putting their money where their mouth is.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
H. L. Mencken
The consensus is likely that there are a large number of contributing factors to the drought and bushires, ranging from natural factors to human induced factors. At the moment the media is very decisive in relation to blaming one factor, whether this is climate change, poor vegetation management (backburning through to clearing controls) practices, an MPs left foot etc.
Most who understand climate and weather systems would know that it is far more complex than a singular factor, and many factors both natural and human factors will be at play. Each will have their own role in the existing situation and change the risks to the natural and built environment.
It is unfortunate that those blaming singular factors have dominated the airways allowing those with differing singular views to discredit the other…also allowing them to reinforcing their own position or views.
Not necessarily the case and only applies to parliamentary or vested group triggered inquiries. There are many other forms of inquiries, such as through independent reseach (universities, CSIRO etc) which usually have access to leading experts in various fields to provide unbiased contributions to the research undertaken. Such in the past has and in the future will provide invaluable contribution to the discussion. Such research is also not about the 24 hour media cycle, nor sound bites, but about establishing facts associated with a particular event.
I only wrote that because
Recommendations of experts in the subject matter on the basis of research and evidence have been consistent and made for many years. Just one more might be enough?
edit:
A provocative thought. We might well have left it too late. It’s possible that we’ll need to abandon Australia, in part if not in total. How would we manage the retreat?
In response to recent posts in this thread, part of a comment from another forum:
Mealy-mouthed distinctions between “cause” and “increase likelihood/severity/duration” are a case in point.
[edit 1]
Morrison has indicated reluctant support for the concept of a Royal Commission into the current bush fires. Watch very carefully for mealy-mouthed weasel words in the terms of reference (assuming it comes to pass).
[edit 2]
Global warming is a primary driver of the fires and the preceding drought. Denial is either irrational or dishonest.
Australia needs action on many levels:
Ten years should be long enough to substantially transform our economy and set it up for a sustainable future. There will still be work to do, but planning for that should wait until we see how far we go by 2030. Australia’s renewable energy riches are greater than our fossil fuel resources (and renewables will never run out). We’ve delayed too long.
[edit 3]
This looks promising:
[edit 4]
And another possibility:
[edit 5]
OK, this is getting to be a bit much, but:
[1] Among the culpable, I’d rank Murdoch media high on the list. For their treachery, Australian assets of the empire should be forfeit. Proceeds could be devoted to supporting the ABC. Murdoch executives and family belong in prison (IMHO).
[edit 6]
A story of hope:
In relation to climate change and drought, the Bureau of Meteorology has a good webpage which summarises what causes droughts in Australia…
The BoM states:
Put simply, drought occurs when there’s not enough rain. In Australia, we have highly variable rainfall—after all, we’re famously a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. A lot of this variation—but not all—can be explained by what’s happening in the climate system. Australia’s climate is affected by a number of different drivers and some of them influence rainfall.
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) are two major drivers of Australian rainfall—and an El Niño and positive IOD occurring together can reinforce each other’s drying effects. It should also be noted that while El Niño is often associated with low rainfall, it isn’t always the case.
The BoM also indicates the role that climate change plays in droughts in Australia. The BoM states that:
Is climate change making drought more likely?
Yes—in southern Australia. The State of the Climate report produced by the Bureau and CSIRO shows that for many regions there will be more time spent in drought, with a decrease in cool-season rainfall over coming decades. This is associated with a shift in the track of rain-bearing fronts so they now occur further south, rather than affecting Australia.
Since the 1970s there’s been a strong trend of lower rainfall in southwestern Western Australia in the cooler months, especially over May–July. In the southeast we’ve also seen a change from the late 1990s. In southwest Western Australia, the impact of the shift in fronts was seen earlier because these were the primary source of rain in the cooler months. In southeastern Australia, the impact wasn’t as marked initially because rainfall there comes from more varied sources, such as northwest cloud bands coming from the tropics and cut-off low pressure systems.
The decrease in rainfall, with the decrease in the number of very wet years, means it’s becoming harder to properly recover from drought, in terms of replenishing water reserves. This means that even though there may be enough water to meet short-term needs, we are more vulnerable if drought occurs again because we don’t have the reserves to sustain us over periods of lower-than-average rainfall.
Increasing temperatures can also play a part in increasing the impact of drought, by exacerbating the intensity of dry conditions. Australia, along with the Earth as a whole is warming because of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. The shift in average temperature means we are seeing more extreme weather, including temperature extremes.
The information on the BoM website indicates that climate change does not cause droughts, it however has increased the time that areas of Australia are in drought (increased severity) and also has affected rainfall patterns (declining trend since the 1970s) particularly in Southern Australia. It also appears that climate change may also reduce the the wet cycles between droughts (making drought recover more difficult) and also increasing temperatures associated with droughts.
It’s only the science denying clowns in government, supported by Murdoch media, fossil fuel lobbyists and the brigade of shock jocks that many seem to listen to and believe, that are coming up with that straw man argument (that climate change causes droughts), so that they can knock it down.
No one who understands the science is suggesting that this drought is caused by climate change, only that CC is making things much worse, and that we can expect more of this in future as the temperature continues to rise. And rise it will, if too many countries follow Smoko’s lead in doing nothing about reducing emissions.
Agree, but it is is unfortunate that publically available information has somewhat been railroaded by armchair experts, keyboard jockeys, twittersphere, politicians, journalists, celebrities, activists and the list goes on that are stating that the direct cause of the current drought and fires is climate change or global warming.
It is lucky that we have the likes of BoM who are generally independent of the government to provide a popular scientific view on climate, its changes, its effects and its impacts. It will be interesting how much BoM is involved with the proposed Royal Commission, along with other independent experts.
However, when viewed from the layman’s perspective and ‘the publics boots on the ground experience’ the differences are somewhat semantic even while not technically and scientifically correct. That the land mass is drying out with less rainfall and more warmer temperatures can be called ‘Zelda’ but that does not change what is happening.
Climate change exacerbates the affects of drought. With the level of linguistic ability, general attention span, and grasp of sciences and especially complex sciences, is it tilting at windmills to separate droughts, climate change and its impact on the outcome of droughts, and public / governmental responses when trying to get denialists attention? Yes, it does open the door to attack this specific issue or that specific issue (Gish Gallops), but that would happen anyway.
edit: Instructive why the media is what it is, how it is, both pro and con.
Does arguing semantics about whether global warming “causes” something or only makes it more likely/last longer/more severe, clarify or obfuscate? The latter, methinks, and that’s the intent.
Meanwhile, a little perspective:
Speaking of which:
Deliberate misinformation is a consumer impact (as are the deaths and destruction to which delaying action has contributed). The behaviour of Murdoch media is criminal in character. It should be criminal in law.
Hopefully such inquiries (there well be many I’d reckon, even per jurisdiction) will come up with something useful - however I don’t hold out a lot of hope that they won’t be substantially tainted by and motivated by politics - because when it comes to change, I feel the only people politicians listen to is other politicians (real or aspiring) …
You discount the ‘opinions’ of their donors? 
Scotty is consistent if nothing. Seems his voters think consistency is good even when it demonstrates an inability to learn. Will that be the same next week, and more importantly next election?
No need for further comment?
How do you measure the effects of the fires on:
Fortunately parliament is not sitting in Canberra until February. We’ve been spared the added cost of needing to relocate it to another place, tba?
P.S.
Excuse me putting environmental impacts first before loss of human life. Both are tragic and unacceptable. I do challenge the views of some in the media that we need to clear/burn more habitat and destroy more of the environment to mitigate the risks to our own existence. Human kind in the short term is at much less risk of being driven to extinction than most other species.
