30mins of NETFLIX emits 1.5Kg of CO2

Yes, the policy had been for a very long time to have controlled fires that burned sections of the forests creating natural firebreaks with no fuel so that any fires hit those and slow/stop and can be controlled from there. It helps to protects properties etc.

And since it was done each year they could rotate the sections burned so no one section died. Our forests handle low intensity bush fires. So with no large build up of dead undergrowth, and doing it in early spring during the cooler weather the fires were low intensity, and kept small and controlled.

But for a decade or so there has been none done because they claimed it killed wildlife too much, but with the low intensity there was little of that too since the fires were very slow moving during the cooler months.

That is why the intensity was so large, its Australia, fires happen even with the controlled burnoffs, but rarely too big too handle. Ash Wednesday in South Australia was one exception a few decades ago. Our Eucalyptus tree has its sap burn at higher intensities than petrol, so you can imagine that once the bush fire exceeds a certain level the bush virtually explodes in very high intensity fires. Its almost instant death if you are caught near those.


Thanks for writing that. I haven’t heard it mentioned once in the media here in the UK. We just get told it is due to a heat wave, likely due to climate change.


If you want better UK media I recommend Twitter. I was aware of this presumably from there. Lots of important stuff is filtered out or given scant coverage in UK MSM.

1 Like

What do you follow on Twitter, though? It is just a platform.

(Size of) Fires could have multiple causes I would think.

1 Like

Sure, but it is always easier to blame something nebulous and external.

1 Like

I doubt my follows would be the same as your preferred follows, but you can see who I follow here https://twitter.com/markhughes/following and here https://twitter.com/safepress/following It takes time obvs, but the results are very good IMO.

1 Like

Yes that is yet another factor in causing the wide spread fires. The heat wave is perhaps the reason it was this year and not last year or next year.

The thing is that it is not one single factor. Like the Ash Wednesday fires back in the 80’s IIRC was as bad as they were due to the heat wave that occurred then.


CO2 is the gas of life. Noting wrong with emitting it. The planet needs it.

1 Like

You can also have too much of something. And it seems we certainly have CO2 enough in the air atm:


There is almost no CO2 in our air. Look it up.

I think it’s more about the increase in proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount by comparison to other gases. I.e. 400ppm is not much, but when we compare it to the proportion over the last 3 million years, it’s pretty damn big.


If you’ve got batteries and solar at home to the point you never use the grid, that’s cleaner.
Any CEO that doesn’t commit at highest priority (in front of profit) to go 100% green needs to step down or be pushed out. We should have been done with that pimpery in 1950!

Take co2 up to 600ppm all the time and people start to get sick literally. Even 500ppm. Now the industry standards setters are aware of this and doubled the sick point to 1000ppm but that’s really BS from what I can tell with some ugly personal experience with these numbers. A lot of people end up dropping the concentration with oxygen bottles, much better just to drop some of the CO2. Of course not enough CO2 in the air is also pretty immediate death because we need a certain amount of ambient CO2 to process oxygen- you know breath in a bag for a bit…

But what we don’t need is fossil fuel profit. Even without the pollution and climate change people intentionally knowingly taking it or promoting it should in my opinion (at this point) be in prison serving life sentences without the possibility parole. That’s freedom!

There is no right to exploitation
No right to enclosure
No right to rent seeking
No right to profit

But by all means take advantage of:
Passing in a cell

I dont mind more CO2 in our atmosphere. In my opinion this planet is doomed if no process or
a species had started to free CO2 into the atmosphere again. The planet was really on the brink to die if CO2 levels had been allowed to go further down.

A good Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c&t=1858s

Please concentrate on the data presented in the speech. And please research the data given in the speech yourself so you know it to not be false.

If the guy from your reference (Patrick Moore) drinks a glass of Roundup (which is safe according to him), or says it is unhealthy, then I’ll take him more seriously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA

1 Like

It’s not individual opinions that count so much as the preponderance of evidence presented by the scientific community as a whole. You can find one or two so-called experts that can give a convincing argument for most anything. Consensus by the experts is what we are looking for and I think that has been made clear over the last several years of intense climate scrutiny.


Ah, nice to see a polite discussion about these topics. There are 5 things I would like to say, the first is that equating the giver of life aka carbon and 2 parts oxygen as a poison is quite chilling.
The second is as far as levels are concerned there are scientists who say we are at dangerously low levels of CO2. However the agenda has been set to not give any of these sceptics coverage.
As far as the fires were concerned (in australia) another big factor was the mass number of arsons and or accidental fires caused too. This again is something which does not fit the narrative therefore is largely ignored.
Furthermore there are literally dozens of alarmist predictions about “global warming” which have fallen flat on their face but each time these alarmist statements are sent down the memory hole and replaced by new ones.
It’s telling that a few years ago they changed the label from “global warming” to “climate change”. Yet when you look at their “green solutions” they are causing immense financial waste not to mention colossal environmental damage both current and future things like wind farms and solar farms fit that bill.
Moreover it has become a political weapon of power we need to x and x change to whatever we like to “fight climate change” thus if you opppose that then you are enemy of this earth.
These are insane times we live in

There is nothing “chilling” about it.
Almost ANY substance can act as a poison at the (in)correct dosage/exposure.
Describing CO2 as the “giver of life” whilst ignoring H20 are any other number of molecules/elements is just wilfully ignorant.

You don’t get to try to distort the debate with cheap tricks like that.

You are in this forum, presumably as an investor in MAID, hoping to make a buck of the backs of others scientific work(yes, this IS science) but you seek to denigrate the accepted peer-reviewed scientific evidence for climate change.
I smell hypocrisy and greed.