How Many Homes Have to Burn ...
before Australians generally and our government in particular understand that the term "Global Warming" does mean, "Optional Policy Direction" or "Expensive Luxury That Will Damage The Economy"?

One man has died, as many as 100 homes have been destroyed in the nation's capital and hundreds of people have been evacuated from resorts in the Snowy Mountains as bush fires razed vast tracts of Australia's south-east today.

After last year's "50 Year Events" the current human inhabitants of this vast land went back to their usual ways, slapping their jeans and dusting off their hands and thinking, "well, that's taken care of that for another 50 years". Except that's not how it works. There is nothing to stop a 50 year event being followed by a 60 year, or 100 year event. According to the Minister in charge Bob Debus, this is a 100 year event just 12 months after the 50 year event.

And still our half-witted government lines up beside the equally bone headed American Government claiming that "it ain't proven". I have no wish to see anyone's home burned to the ground, but if it takes 200 or 300 homes to burn down in our nations capital to get their attention, maybe, just maybe it will be worth it.

As for our economy, with a record wheat crop before the drought being turned into the worst in a generation, with homes burning and millions spent in fighting fires and insurance premiums sucking dry what remains of the economy, where now is the case for global warming not being important enough to "afford". Afford it or not, we are now paying.