# Forum More Stuff At the end of the day  fighting fires

## DavoSyd

has anyone ever defended their home or a neighbours against a bushfire? 
what was it like? is it something you can do without much training? or too crazy to consider? 
the RFS says that when the fire is approaching:   Go inside but stay alertShelter in a room on the opposite side ofthe house from the approaching fire andone that has a clear exit out of the housePatrol inside the house, including the roofspace looking for sparks and embersProtect yourself from the heat of the fire 
then once it has passed:   Check your roof spacesGo outside and put out any part of yourhouse which is alightCheck under the house and any decksCheck on your pets and animalsEmbers or sparks can start spot fires formany hours after the fire has passedIf you can, contact your familyand friends and check onyour neighbours 
it sound a bit simplistic - but presuming my house is not well alight, i could make sure it is not impacted by ember attack? 
our house is in "bush setting" with about 10 big gumtrees around, but its a few hundred meters from actual bushland (Berowra Valley Regional Park). 
i have a 10L pump sprayer (12m spray range) and three garden hoses (on 30m reels) and will fill the bath too.  
our neighbours have a pool, but we don't have anyone with a pump on our street...   
or  
just get out of there and cross my fingers?  :Cry:

----------


## Moondog55

If you are going to stay and fight You probably need to invest in some proper gear.
 PPE for a start 
Fire resistant loose and baggy boiler suit for protection from radiant heat which is the big killer, maybe some ultra light woollen underwear as a skin protection layer for burn through from embers, several smoke masks with exhalation valves, heavy leather boot ditto with gauntleted gloves, hard hat with neck flap goggles. At least 1000 litres of water in a tank and a good diesel pressure pump and a couple of runs of small fire hose with good fire fighting nozzles [ our local Bunnings has stocks of all this stuff except the overalls- they do at the start of every fire season] don't even think about trying to fight a fire without the proper PPE, bushfires can have multi megawatt radiation for every metre of firefront.
You can also make reflective ponchos from RFL home wrap that would give you an extra 20 seconds of protection if you simply have to run to a safe place; you do have a safe place ready ? Stocked with first-aid gear for burns and with plenty of drinking water for washing smoke from your eyes?

----------


## johnc

Get out is the only thing that would have reduced deaths in Marysville when the fires hit their. Before then we believed a well prepared home was a safe place, now a safe place is nowhere near fire. Everything differs but if you are near a state park you can come under sustained ember attack. You don't sound as if you have much idea perhaps joining the local fire brigade would be a better plan, at least you would learn a lot about fire

----------


## DavoSyd

Yeah, seems sensible, plus since the fire rating tomorrow is catastrophic - they say not to stay to defend. Just get out.

----------


## toooldforthis

I live in, and on, the bush.
I have a fire plan - run away. *BUT*, you still need a plan if you can't get out.
The RFS info you outlined is ok, sort of. My safe room is the laundry/toilet, regardless of fire direction. It also has the manhole so I can check roof space, and an exit door. 
What moondog outlined above is good. Cotton/wool clothing. Good boots. Mask. googles. Hard hat.
Some stored water and buckets - if the firestorm is bad then you may be without mains water, or electricity for a pump. 
See if you have a local facebook page for Fire Info in your area - I have a general fire chat page for Perth Hills which is always full of good info - seminars, workshops, links & tips. I also have a FB page for my suburb & surrounds - this is only for current fire situations. Social media is the fastest info carrier - but be aware of bad info, panic posts etc. Go outside and have a look, a smell, check wind directions. 
This govt website is the go to for me. https://www.emergency.wa.gov.au/#
your state should have one too?
but be aware the govt sites are a bit slower, probably because they try and validate the info before posting (I have been under threat 30 minutes before that site had any info). 
We also have a phone tree for my immediate neighbours, their phone numbers and data (pets? water? etc). 
By reading info sites (FB & your council, if in a fire zone) you can glean a lot of good info.
eg:   put the embers in a bucket, not a bucket of water on the embers - you water wil go further.each year *rehearse* your evacuation procedure - if in panic mode it will be easier.have a list of what you are going to pack and take - in priority order, you might not get time, or have access, to get it all. chargers, torches, radio, batteries, keys..I have a fire/security case (from officeworks) which has all my important papers, computer backups etcI even reverse park my vehicle in fire season so I can drive straight outknow your escapes routes and which to use depending on direction of fire

----------


## toooldforthis

further more...  

> This is excellent info just posted on the Bushfire Awareness Safety site about what to do if you are told it is too late to leave. Definitely worth a read.  Although data states that 2/3 of Black Saturday fatalities died while sheltering in or near their house, research by bushfire scientists revealed that they did not die BECAUSE they were sheltering. They died because they did not know how to shelter safely. SO WHEN THE BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY MESSAGE IS “It I s too Late to Leave, You Should Take Shelter and Stay Indoors” - WHAT SHOULD YOU ACTUALLY DO?      IF YOU CANNOT SHELTER IN A BUILDING * Shelter behind a wall; beside a large fire resistant tree (that has no flammable undergrowth); in nor beside a car; in a dam (if no vegetation is near either), in a ditch, (cover yourself with earth or blanket); crouch beneath a blankets (must be PURE WOOL) on bare ground or an already burnt area. IF YOU CAN SHELTER IN A BUILDING Before you go inside: * Shut off gas and electricity at the mains. * Put pets inside: dogs on leash, cats in covered cages. * Take in outdoor furniture, doormats, hanging baskets, plastic pot plants. When you are inside: * Make sure all doors and windows are securely shut.  * Turn off air conditioners; cover their internal vents. * If windows are unshuttered, cover with blankets (must be PURE WOOL), heavy quality quilts, foil or wet towels.  *Move flammable furniture away from windows.  * Close internal doors to limit fire spread if embers enter and ignite inside. * Put on protective clothing and nose mask and drink often. * Keep blankets (must be PURE WOOL) handy. * Cool off when possible. * Watch the conditions outside if possible through a small window or peephole. Do not open a door or window to look outside. * When you are sure flaring shrubs have blackened, it’s safe to go out again. (Burning tree trunks do not generally emit killing radiant heat.) PASSIVE SHELTERERS * DO NOT SHELTER IN AN INNER ROOM. Not in the hallway. Not in the bath. If you shelter in ANY kind of inner room – no matter how many doors it has – you could be trapped. Embers may have ignited sub-floor or wall cavities or rafters in the ceiling space,. Flaming walls or ceiling could collapse on you. Toxic fumes from smouldering furnishings, synthetic furniture or wall linings could overcome you. * STAY BY A DOOR THAT EXITS TO OUTSIDE in protective clothing and with blankets (must be PURE WOOL).  * It is vital for passive shelterers to exit as soon as the potentially killing radiant heat from fames has died down.  ACTIVE SHELTERERS * Take hose, sprayers and ladder inside with you.  * Fill bath & troughs with water, immerse towels, roll up and place at door gaps and window ledges. Plug keyholes with play dough, blue-tack or soap. * Fill containers (e.g. garden sprayers) with water; put these, with dippers, mops etc, in each room. * Watch for invading embers. Particularly in the ceiling space, through windows, gaps under doors. Spray or hit with wet mop any sparks, embers or smouldering furnishings.  * If any ignition cannot be extinguished, close the door of that room. * Maintain easy access to an exit door.  * Never go outside during a flame front to douse an outside ignition. EXITING * Exit with great care, preferably from a door that is sheltered from the wind. * Wear protective clothing & nose cover, cover yourself with your blanket (must be PURE WOOL), crouch, lower your eyelids and open the door gradually.                 The quintessential bushfire survival resource is a                        HEAVY DUTY PURE WOOL BLANKET.               Covered  with their blanket and with a flask of water        people have withstood the most catastrophic conditions.   Extracted from my Essential Bushfire Safety Tips (CSIRO 2012), www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6969.htm                (If you can't afford to buy - most libraries have it.)

----------


## toooldforthis

and again... 
if you are going to/have to stay and defend then you can do a lot to make sure your house/asset is protectable as possible.
from my local shire:    

> The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) - How does your's measure up? Mundaring Residents and possibly similar requirements for our surrounding shires (check your local, shire website) 5. Asset (Building) Protection Zone Specification The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) for habitable buildings and related structures, as defined within this Notice, must meet the following requirements, unless varied under an approved ‘Alternative Fire Management Arrangement’ as defined within this Notice, and applies only within the boundaries of the lot on which the habitable building is situated:  • APZs for habitable buildings must extend a minimum of 20 metres out from any external walls of the building, attached structures, or adjacent structures within 6 metres of the habitable building  • on sloping ground the APZ distance shall increase at least 1 metre for every degree in slope on the sides of the habitable building that are exposed to down slope natural vegetation  • APZs predominantly consist of managed vegetation, reticulated lawns and gardens and other non-flammable features  • all grass is maintained to or under 5cm  • fuel loads must be maintained at 2 tonnes per hectare or lower  • Clear separation distance between adjoining or nearby tree crowns  • a small group of trees within close proximity to one another may be treated as one crown provided the combined crowns do not exceed the area of a large or mature crown size for that species  • trees are to be low pruned (or under pruned) to at least a height of 2 metres from ground  • no tree, or shrub over 2 metres high are to be within 2 metres of a habitable building  • tall shrubs over 2 metres high are not planted in groups close to the habitable building and ensure there is a gap of at least three times the height (at maturity) of the shrub away from the habitable building  • there are no tree crowns or branches hanging over habitable buildings  • ensure the roofs, gutters and walls of all buildings on the land are free of flammable matter  • install paths and non-flammable features immediately adjacent to the habitable building  • wood piles and flammable materials stored a safe distance from habitable buildings

----------


## DavoSyd

OK wow, hopefully tomorrow is OK and won't need this info, but there's so much to consider when you really start thinking about it!  
i think i'll check with our neighbors on their plans etc - some of them have been here 30+years... so probably seen a few close calls!

----------


## joynz

You can read an entire publication from the royal commission into the Black Saturday deaths which describes exactly how and where the deceased people were found, what they were doing (many were very skilled, prepared and experienced in bush fires) and cause of death. 
It’s sad reading - but also respectful.  Many of the victims perished in their houses, several while trying to travel on foot to a nearby dam etc. once the house caught alight.  The super heated air and radiant heat meant that people just collapsed when outside.  Many were found in their bathrooms. 
Others died because their cars crashed due to lack of visibility in the thick smoke.  Sobering reading.

----------


## DavoSyd

> You can read an entire publication from the royal commission into the Black Saturday deaths which describes exactly how and where the deceased people were found, what they were doing (many were very skilled, prepared and experienced in bush fires) and cause of death. 
> It’s sad reading - but also respectful.  Many of the victims perished in their houses, several while trying to travel on foot to a nearby dam etc. once the house caught alight.  The super heated air and radiant heat meant that people just collapsed when outside.  Many were found in their bathrooms. 
> Others died because their cars crashed due to lack of visibility in the thick smoke.  Sobering reading.

  yes, i was reading the Black Saturday Wikipedia page this morning, gave me goosebumps. Very frightening. Kind of prompted this thread actually...

----------


## Moondog55

I just watched the 7:30 report on ABC
Young family with 10-K's worth of pushbikes and no firefighting gear?????????
But they survived because they left early
If you live in the bush you need to have more knowledge and be prepared with the right gear and have a plan of action, my sister has 2 houses near Taree and at the moment she is in Geelong with Mum. She can't go home at the moment, may not have a home to go back to, we don't know anything more yet

----------


## DavoSyd

> If you live in the bush you need to have more knowledge and be prepared with the right gear and have a plan of action,

  yep, lived next to the bush my whole life - always had the evac. plan sorted. but this 'catastrophic' situation is a bit new, so i was wondering about who's actually fought a fire to save a home (no one posted yet) and what it's like? and also whether the RFS's to do list was a bit simplistic?   

> my sister has 2 houses near Taree and at the moment she is in Geelong with Mum. She can't go home at the moment, may not have a home to go back to, we don't know anything more yet

  damn, that's pretty scary - the not knowing anything feeling... 
my sister is north of Port Maq. they have been on standby for the last few days...

----------


## doovalacky

I've only been involved in moderate fires, nothing like the firestorms occurring in various places currently.
Personally unless you have a decent supply of water, fire pump, and a sprinkler or other method of wetting down house while staying inside I would not stick around for any major fire if place is surrounded by vegetation.
By decent amount of water I would be looking at the order of 10K liters. A good fire pump uses something in the order of 300L per minute.
It is simply amazing the heat even a grass fire can create let alone trees.  
Some good info posted above. Clean gutters are a must if you want to reduce chance of place catching alight. Reduce nearby vegetation especially up against walls and remove plastic flyscreens.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

We are in a rural property on the edge of a very large forested area of NSW. 
The house is still a work in progress in terms of making it even relatively resistant to ember attack. Unfortunately, there currently are just too many nooks, crannys and catch points around the place plus the gable walls, whilst faced with Ironbark, are basically perforated and backed with cypress lining boards to form the internal walls. 
So in such a scenario...it probably wouldn't survive even if we tried to save it and had the water to do it (we don't). So we aren't going to try. 
What we have done is created a perimeter of 50 to 70 metres with no understorey around the house. And the shed sits in a bare area in an open paddock. So that's safer. Otherwise it's only an 8 minute run to the town pool! 
I'll load the important paperwork and data into a couple of boxes in the morning and take them down the shed and then just see how the day progresses... 
M'lady should be back from her five day shift in fire control in the north east by lunchtime too. With luck...all we get after that is just another bloody dust storm.

----------


## Moondog55

I've only been involved in small fires and those are hot and scary enough.
For big bushfires like these you need to think about nuclear weapons scale heat, IR radiation and noise on the Hiroshima scale

----------


## Marc

> Get out is the only thing that would have reduced deaths in Marysville when the fires hit their. Before then we believed a well prepared home was a safe place, now a safe place is nowhere near fire. Everything differs but if you are near a state park you can come under sustained ember attack. You don't sound as if you have much idea perhaps joining the local fire brigade would be a better plan, at least you would learn a lot about fire

  Best answer yet. 
I have been involved in bushfire fighting to save a neighbour's orchard, my son in law is with fire and rescue NSW and two of my daughters have completed the training and passed all the hurdles and are sitting for the interviews that usually take a few goes to pass. 
The general consensus from them is that what the firefighters can do is very limited. Water bombing is severely dependent from resources at hand. What the homeowner can do is a bit like how long is a piece of string.  
If you have seen or rather felt the heat from a raging fire on your skin and eyes, your cloths heating up so much that if you press them against your skin they burn, if you felt the panic of the heat combined with the choking lack of oxygen and smoke, you will probably agree that even your best Aussie Chief Honda powered 3" pump will not be easy to use for long by yourself. Yes, it can be a God sent in a marginal situation, if you have abundant stamina, are strong like an ox and have balls of gold and water at hand.  
 I will avoid questioning the very questionable "what to do" by the RFS posted above. What seems nonsensical for one situation is a life saver for another. There is no a simple rule to follow, and that is why so much nonsense is said and suggested with good intentions. When you communicate to a population you need to produce something that fits everyone, adn clearly there is no such thing.  
Obviously the goal of saving assets has methods that imply personal risk. The goal of saving life, is much easier to achieve, if considered in time. It is not as glamorous as fighting a wall of flames or even amber attack, but can be 100% successful. Have an escape route and take it in time.  
In our case, the house is on a slope on the edge of a river. Fire can come from the hill behind us or from the other side of the river that is a cottonwood plantation. 
I have all the equipment I need to combat ambers, however if the house up hill goes up in flames, I know I can not win that battle and I rather confront a bunch of armed intruders than a wall of flames. My escape route is the river. If the fire comes from the opposite site, I may have a bit more time, but that is likely to be false sense of security given by a 100 m wide river. Ambers travel for km, many km. 
If worse comes to worst, taking to the water in the boat will most likely be the sensible choice. Sure I can have the pump on the bow just in case. 
Saving the lives of your family is the only thing that counts. 
And as usual in times of crisis no one is willing to point fingers because it is not the australian way. I understand that. 
But as it is blatantly obvious every time year after year, it is the green moronic ideas that are at fault, and the even more moronic and criminal councils who allow development in areas that should remain free of buildings. And their obsession of punishing the farmer with actions that would make the KGB proud. 
Nex to our house there is a council reserve. It was just grass for decades, that I graciously mowed for free because the council came about 3 times a year and i wanted a buffer from snakes. 
Now a group of zealous volunteers spearheaded by a paid council contractor, calling themselves "bushies" have declared the area "Bush regeneration" and planted hundreds of trees and bushes one of top of each other on a strip along the river. The geniuses have now created a corridor for fire to get to my house when before there was a good buffer. The choice of trees is also astonishing. They have planted casuarina trees one meter apart, blue gum trees 3 meters apart and many other unknown to me species all sprinkled with smaller bushes between them for good measure. All the trees grow skinny and tall fighting for light and are all bent out of shape. 
Things we do when we are so deluded to believe we know better what is good for the other person.

----------


## Bedford

> so i was wondering about who's actually fought a fire to save a home (no one posted yet) and what it's like?

  I have, it's generally a little more complicated than just putting the wet stuff on the red stuff. 
We were burnt out in the 1962 fires, I fought fires most years from the early seventies, mostly forest/scrub areas but often containing houses. 
In Ash Wednesday fires in '83 I had a crew in St Georges Rd Upper Beaconsfield, we went to the far end and found fire and some houses under threat, we saved these houses but ran out of water so had to go back out. 
As we headed out there was nothing left in front of us, all burnt as far as we could see, there were people running out to the road trying to get a ride out, I have no idea how many ended up on the truck. 
The fire must have turned which allowed it to cross behind us but in doing so unfortunately took the lives of twelve CFA firefighters.  Firefighters Memorial | Monument Australia   

> On Wednesday 16th February 1983 , a call was received from Narre  Warren tanker that they and another tanker from Panton Hill were in  trouble and trapped. They where situated on St Georges Road, Upper  Beaconsfield, on the top of a hill. When the change came through the  fire travelled from High St, up the hill to St Georges Rd, a distance of  half a kilometre, in eleven Seconds. With such speed and ferocity, they  never stood a chance. The radio went dead, fire-fighters were fighting  for their own lives, trying to take cover by getting under their trucks  for protection.  
>   At dawn the next morning two burnt out fire trucks and twelve fire  fighters where discovered by Narre Warren First Lieutenant, Frank Clarke  at St Georges Road, Upper Beaconsfield. One of those on the truck was  his Captain, and 5 other members from Narre Warren. Forty seven people,  fire-fighters and civilians, were to die on this day at fires all over  the state. Forty six of these people died when the wind changed.

  We got out of there and had to get back to Cockatoo as one of my crew lived there, when we got there his wife's car was there, burnt, his house was burnt, the local cop was there and there where two bodies in the gutter. 
I'm not going any further with this........... 
The sensible thing to do if you have enough warning is to leave and go somewhere safe.

----------


## Moondog55

If I lived in a bad fire area I would be building a bunker; but I think that I would be using that bunker to store the stuff I would not want to lose and not as a fire refuge if the fire was that intense. I have friends in Sydneys Western edge, right on the National Park boundary with a steep fire prone slope below the house, in a street built along the ridgetop. I agree with Marc that this development should not have been allowed but it was. I have stayed there and it is a lovely area and very pretty but it is not a fire safe house and even with the swimming pool as a reservoir their pumps and sprinklers probably wouldn't help so I hope they planned to pack up the valuables and leave early.
The very scary thing about these fires now is that somewhere safe may be a hundred klicks away

----------


## toooldforthis



----------


## DavoSyd

good luck out there today everyone, stay safe and act early.

----------


## Marc

Well ... yesterday passed without much happening despite the high temperature and wind, and the ominous sky the colour of lead that obscured the sun to an orange blotch that does not even show on photos. 
Much better today. Let's hope it lasts and we get some rain. Spare a thought for those who are in the midst of the fight for their life.  
And for God sake check your insurance. Are you even insured, for how much and does it cover fire, flood and everything else. 
Talk to a broker if not. Forget the chicks on the NRMA or GIO call center.

----------


## Moondog55

Much of Australia will simply be uninsurable after these fires, or at least that is my conjecture, if insurance is available the premiums in a high risk area will be huge.

----------


## Bedford

> Much of Australia will simply be uninsurable after these fires, or at least that is my conjecture, if insurance is available the premiums in a high risk area will be huge.

  Anything that burnt this year would be a pretty low risk for the insurers for probably the next ten years.

----------


## johnc

We will remain insurable, however some high risk pockets may be denied cover, premiums will rise though it is based on pooled risk, if the number in the pool have increased claims then premiums have to rise to cover future payouts. If you have a home in the middle of dense bush or scrub you may find that much like low lying flood land you become uninsurable. For the last couple of decades large insurance pools have recorded increased rates of claims as a result of storms, tempest, flood and fire. This is disclosed by large ASX listed insurers and underwriters in annual reports.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Much of Australia will simply be uninsurable after these fires, or at least that is my conjecture, if insurance is available the premiums in a high risk area will be huge.

  conjecture? hardly...  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-...-risk/11624108 
but let's not let this thread become a platform for off-topic diatribe.

----------


## DavoSyd

our neighbours were set up with roof sprinklers and were "going to stay" and the guy three down had his pool pump and hose set up - they reckoned it wouldn't be so bad because the land near the creek wasn't so dry as the ridges would be... 
they said i was right to be leaving with my young family, the oldest couple were also going to be leaving at the first sign of danger.

----------


## toooldforthis

I know everybody is probably following the news/stories. 
but this is what _catastrophic_ fire conditions means:  

> The heat ahead of the fire front ignited nearly everything in its path. Before he saw any flame my neighbour’s car exploded. They just escaped with their lives.

  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/15/this-is-climate-changed-pray-for-rain-pray-harder-for-leadership#comments   

> "We had tractors and spray rigs and water and generators, we had what we thought was enough to protect us," Mrs Duff said."Looking back now and after going through it, we were never ever going to stop it. It was igniting 12 kilometres in front of the fire.

  https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-11-16/drought-affected-farmers-dealt-another-blow-with-fires/11704476**

----------


## Marc

Trust the guardian and the abc to drag the climate change fraud at this time.

----------


## Bedford

> I know everybody is probably following the news/stories. 
> but this is what _catastrophic_ fire conditions means:

  Yes but there's nothing new in it, https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/history-a...past-bushfires and that's only Vic.  https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/history-a...ck-friday-1939

----------


## DavoSyd

> but this is what _catastrophic_ fire conditions means:

  and looks like:  https://twitter.com/NSWRFS/status/1195536420049281024 
(sorry for the Twitter link - you can hopefully view with relative ease though...)

----------


## Bedford

Well you can kiss your ass goodby now, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...JA2qMYZ_QTrlKA

----------


## woodbe

There is less water around making a dry hotter place and that allows more fire in places that were not burning years ago. 
The arrival of fire is coming early because less moist in the winter. Some of them haven't enough water for years. 
Hopefully, the government will get going and stop thinking the fire is the same every year.

----------


## Marc

> Hopefully, the government will get going and stop thinking the fire is the same every year.

   
if you think that "government action" is required to mitigate bushfires, and if you believe that this action is reducing human CO2 production, you are part of the problem.  
Bushfires are part of our landscape but can be managed with proper fuel reduction and with bans on developments close to bushland.
It is government green policy, enacted for political reasons to gain votes and win elections that bans fuel reduction, and stops clearing around buildings that causes this disasters that are all man made. 
It is council criminal manipulation that allows for buildings to go up in places there should never be a building and then stops clearing to please the green dementia.  
Yet the most important point at this time is to remember that over 50% of fires are deliberately lit. And they are deliberately lit because the consequences are relatively minor if the person is found. The political milage the demented greens get out of fires is way more valuable than the risk of starting fires. 
Just like the "cruelty" staged with paid actors that was never investigated and no one was charged and sent to gaol, lighting bushfires is a political exercise of the deranged and the inane that should be charged for what it is, an act of terrorism. 
And if anyone thinks that bushfires will diminish if we close coal fired power stations, that person needs professional help real fast.

----------


## woodbe

> if you think that "government action" is required to mitigate bushfires, and if you believe that this action is reducing human CO2 production, you are part of the problem.

  If the government action doesn't get going, then there will be more and more killed people and their houses. 
Most people understand there is a big problem in the world. Places with houses were safe for long time but the water has reduced over time and is burning now with high winds. 
The problem with the government is that most of them haven't learn about the climate from hundred of scientist people working to understand the world. They think it's fine to dig up more coal and burn it for years. 
And yes, using more CO2 for years is part of the problem. Yes, there are other problems like some people start fires etc, but the change of the heat and the lost of water is making it way harder.  *The catastrophic bushfire season is an opportunity for leadership — if only someone would seize it* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...rship/11708632

----------


## Uncle Bob

> If the government action doesn't get going, then there will be more and more killed people and their houses.

  The Government (if you can call this useless lot that) ain't going to do jack. They finally might take notice once their bums start burning. At least they heads will be protected while in the sand.

----------


## John2b

Long before the IPCC had published anything on climate change or global warming, more than 30 years ago Australia's CSIRO had already warned the guvmint of the day that due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, bushfires like those occurring now could be expected with increased frequency, increased intensity, over wider areas and staring earlier in the year. Those projections have turned out to be stunningly perceptive, both here and in North American and Europe. You can read some of the warnings from 1988 here: "Greenhouse - Planning for Climate Change" https://books.google.com.au/books?pr...page&q&f=false

----------


## Bedford

> *Folau links bushfires to same-sex marriage* 
> Sacked Wallabies  player Israel Folau has linked bushfires in NSW and Queensland to the  legalisation of same-sex marriage and abortion. 
>  Speaking at the  Truth of Jesus Christ Church in Kenthurst, Folau used a 12-minute sermon  to warn the congregation that the natural disasters were no  coincidence. 
> "Look at how rampant these bushfires, these droughts, all these things have come in such a short period of time," he said. 
> "It's only a little taste of God's judgement."

  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...er-18/11712170

----------


## Marc

*Folau says bushfires a warning from God*   

> Sacked Wallabies player Israel Folau has linked bushfires in NSW and Queensland to the legalisation of same-sex marriage and abortion. Speaking at the Truth of Jesus Christ Church in Kenthurst, Folau used a 12-minute sermon to warn the congregation that the natural disasters were no coincidence. "Look at how rampant these bushfires, these droughts, all these things have come in such a short period of time," he said. "It's only a little taste of God's judgement."

   
A vindictive God punishing sinners is not new. For millennia, religions of all descriptions have convinced the masses that they are worthless trash, destined for eternal fire of damnation. 
Today the new religion of climate change, is using the same strategies honed to perfection for centuries by the cast of false prophets and assorted claque of cheerleaders. The fact that we had much worse bushfires in the forties and fifties is of course dutifully ignored. An drought and floods etc. No self sex marriage legislation then ... may be too much fornication after the war? Who knows! 
A solar eclipse was once enough to call the followers and chose someone to decapitate to appease the gods' anger. 
Today bushfires that are statistically 50% deliberately lit by demented morons with an axe to grind and with political motivations, is enough to bring out the nincompoops, queers and left handed that all chant in chorus, "the government is at fault for burning coal". 
Is there a difference between modern day "greens" and Israel Folau? 
Not really. Both are false pretend prophets, both are wrong by a country mile, and both have two or more conflicting agendas.  
Sad really ...

----------


## DavoSyd

> Long before the IPCC had published anything on climate change or global warming,

  to be fair - the IPCC was officially created in 1988 and published its First Report two years later  :Wink:    

> more than 30 years ago Australia's CSIRO had already warned the guvmint of the day that due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, bushfires like those occurring now could be expected with increased frequency, increased intensity, over wider areas and staring earlier in the year. Those projections have turned out to be stunningly perceptive, both here and in North American and Europe. You can read some of the warnings from 1988 here: "Greenhouse - Planning for Climate Change" https://books.google.com.au/books?pr...page&q&f=false

  Pearman et al. took it all to Hawke and Bob announced in 1990 that his government wanted the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2005.  
but as Pearman currently acknowledges:   

> Those investing in the fossil fuel industry worked diligently to try to stop action on the reduction of emissions, he says. As a scientist you think many years ahead and out to the turn of the century and beyond. But in a business with investment in a coal mine, their interest is in what happens in the next five years. Those industries have been very effective.

----------


## Bros

Can’t you build a house that by design is fire resistant?
Tin roof with all the ends at the gutter sealed.
No external wood, decks etc.
Sheets of Hardiflex that can be used to to cover each window and door.
A firebreak that is twice as wide as the tallest tree.
All the above with an early escape plan is about all you can do.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Can’t you build a house that by design is fire resistant?

  https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...ay-innovations

----------


## John2b

> to be fair

   OK, put 'Not' before "long before..."  :Blush7:

----------


## Marc

Global warming my foot. 
Propaganda and opportunistic political shise  
https://theconversation.com/humans-light-85-of-bushfires-and-we-do-virtually-nothing-to-stop-it-126941

----------


## toooldforthis

> Global warming my foot. 
> Propaganda and opportunistic political shise  
> https://theconversation.com/humans-light-85-of-bushfires-and-we-do-virtually-nothing-to-stop-it-126941

  not sure what your point is there? Are those comments relevant to the article you linked? 
anyway, around me most of the bushfires we have had to contend with are deliberately lit (often in the same area each year)
and some have been lit accidently by humans (angle grinder was one of the worst) or human neglect (power pole on private land came down due to age) 
not wanting to derail this thread from fighting fires to the cause of the fires, but here is an interesting link for you: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1194493088783167490.html

----------


## toooldforthis

> Cant you build a house that by design is fire resistant?
> Tin roof with all the ends at the gutter sealed.
> No external wood, decks etc.
> Sheets of Hardiflex that can be used to to cover each window and door.
> A firebreak that is twice as wide as the tallest tree.
> All the above with an early escape plan is about all you can do.

  yep. common sense really? 
Some states (WA & Vic that I know of) already have regulated this.
1st you get a BAL rating for your building site - Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) 
This rating then determines what building materials you can use - these have been incorporated into the Australian Standards from what I gather? for example:  https://www.agwa.com.au/documents/item/174 
They say complying doesn't add much to the cost of building but locals who have attempted have found it so cost prohibitive they have sold their blocks of land/bush. 
So you can't just use common sense, you have to follow the new rules (they now apply to renovations as well here, not just extensions or new builds) - which imho are bureaucratic in the extreme because they have tried for a one size fits all. If you have ever dealt with council you will see the problem.
The whole house has to follow regs - you can't design around it. eg: an internal courtyard? glazing must follow regs even tho it won't face the fire front. A (fireproof) bunker in/under the house? So what says council.
I am a little sceptical of the whole thing tbh (but that is my natural disposition anyway). In the event of a serious fire I doubt a house built to the new regs will be less costly to repair/rebuild than a timber stick structure - a tangled mess of steel versus a pile of ashes. The only advantage of being more fire resistant is it does allow a few more minutes for residents to escape.

----------


## John2b

> Global warming my foot.

  Never in the history of Australia has there been such well staffed and well equiped response teams available to deal with fires, not ever. Never has there been as much monitoring, advanced warning and resources spent on anticipating fire behaviour, not ever. Never has there been so much monitoring and tracking of known arsonists, not ever. Never in living history in Australia has there been bushfires in rainforests like there have been this year. Never before in the recent history of Australia has the proportion of cleared land been greater than this century, i.e. the last 19 years. Where I live lightning started has most of the serious fires in the past couple of decades, even during _falling rain_. Who would put money on decreasing fires risks in the future? I guess it has nothing to do with higher air temperatures, lower levels of ground moisture, lower humidity, warmer winters - you know the consequences of climate change that climate researchers have been saying for decades would increase bushfire risks. Fortunately up until now Australia has been relatively spared of serious bushfires unlike California over the past decade or so. Something has changed to increase bushfire risk and it has nothing to do with sociopathic behaviour, opinion, doctrine or politics. What is it?

----------


## craka

> Never in the history of Australia has there been such well staffed and well equiped response teams available to deal with fires, not ever. Never has there been as much monitoring, advanced warning and resources spent on anticipating fire behaviour, not ever. Never has there been so much monitoring and tracking of known arsonists, not ever. Never in living history in Australia has there been bushfires in rainforests like there have been this year. Never before in the recent history of Australia has the proportion of cleared land been greater than this century, i.e. the last 19 years. Where I live lightning started has most of the serious fires in the past couple of decades, even during _falling rain_. Who would put money on decreasing fires risks in the future? I guess it has nothing to do with higher air temperatures, lower levels of ground moisture, lower humidity, warmer winters - you know the consequences of climate change that climate researchers have been saying for decades would increase bushfire risks. Fortunately up until now Australia has been relatively spared of serious bushfires unlike California over the past decade or so. Something has changed to increase bushfire risk and it has nothing to do with sociopathic behaviour, opinion, doctrine or politics. What is it?

  Whether climate change is part of the issue or not, lets say for  argument sake it is. However the largest portion of the problem is severity of the fires due to the  amount of damn fuel on the ground resulting from the restriction of annual and  prolific areas of burning that hasn't been done in recent decades, a lot  of which was done by pastoralist and indigenous people.  No fuel or  very little fuel on the ground and you only have ground fires, not  canopy fires. 
As far as NSW fire season starting earlier look at the records.   https://apo.org.au/sites/default/fil...38-1132401.pdf
NSW fires were happening in Oct way back in 1926.

----------


## John2b

If only more was done that caused the problem in the first place, the problem would go away. Not! Read the accounts of the first explorers of Australia to understand the vegetation 'load' back then. Spoiler: 21st century ideas of the 'firestick' bush management of indigenous Australians are largely a figment of the imagination of people who should realise that the tooth fairy has more credibility. Here's a government school classroom map from the early 1900s before the information became too inconvenient and was erased from history.

----------


## craka

> If only more was done that caused the problem in the first place, the problem would go away. Not! Read the accounts of the first explorers of Australia to understand the vegetation 'load' back then. Spoiler: 21st century ideas of the 'firestick' bush management of indigenous Australians are largely a figment of the imagination of people who should realise that the tooth fairy has more credibility. Here's a government school classroom map from the early 1900s before the information became too inconvenient and was erased from history.

  Mate dunno where you grew up, however I grew up in NSW in areas that are now currently under threat by fire, but I was just of an age I remember of an era where people generally pastorlist would burn off in nature reserves in cooler time of year to reduce fuel on the ground, no permits/no permission required.   
I do respect you wanting to take action on making the climate better by greener way of living and I have not problem with that, a lot of which I actually agree with. However don't be blinded by an agenda.

----------


## John2b

Well I grew up in the mid north of SA, which is largely irrelevant. So is whether I want to live a greener way, whatever that is. Never in the history of the European settlement of Australia have so many resources been available to mitigate and fight fires as recent years. Despite that fires are becoming significantly more widespread and damaging in recent years. Yes, people burned off small areas in the past, but dwarfed by what was not touched. I was there too.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I was there too.

  similar to the 'weather is not climate' hurdle.  
so too is the 'but we were allowed to burn off ground fuel in the past' recollection... 
reality is this:   

> _A bush fire is burning in the Wollemi National Park area is more than 427,000 hectares in size and is out of control._

  RFS 
did and farmers & indigenous peoples really burn off *half a million hectares* annually? 
really??

----------


## METRIX

> Cant you build a house that by design is fire resistant?
> Tin roof with all the ends at the gutter sealed.
> No external wood, decks etc.
> Sheets of Hardiflex that can be used to to cover each window and door.
> A firebreak that is twice as wide as the tallest tree.
> All the above with an early escape plan is about all you can do.

  
That all sounds easy in reality it's not as simple as that. 
The biggest hurdle to building a fire resistant home is cost, depending on what BAL rating you are in with FZ being the highest, it can easily add an additional 40% to the build cost. 
The below article gives an insight to regulations for building in BAL rated areas.  https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magaz...shfire-design/

----------


## METRIX

> https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...ay-innovations

  As much as a lot of the designs in that article look fantastic, the cost to build these would have been very excessive given the amount of glazing in them if they were compliant to higher BAL ratings. 
Windows and doors are the two weakest entry points for fire to enter a home, then any exposed timber such as cladding and decks.
Most of those designs might be ok in a BAL 12.5 or possibly BAL 19 but certainly not in the higher BAL rated levels. 
The below graph shows how the ratings were designated, the only way to achieve higher level of BAL ratings for glazing is to have rated steel shutters that are integrated into the design/ 
Recently manufacturers have started to offer BAL 40 and FZ rated glazing systems, these can achieve the rating without the need for shutters, I say recently as in the last 4 -5 years. 
When those houses were rebuilt there was non such systems available, so it would be interesting to see how those houses would fare in a real bushfire situation. 
Below is how the rating system was achieved, 5 years ago my mate had a quote to do his FZ rated house glazing in FZ rated windows without the use of screens / shutters, the cost for the glazing was $150,000 higher then regular glazing, needless to say he chose to go the higher rated windows with shutters. 
There are now a lot more manufacturers offering BAL 40 & FZ rated glazing systems due to the market requiring these, so the price would have come down but they are still at a premium price.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxW66O9mM9E

----------


## METRIX

> has anyone ever defended their home or a neighbours against a bushfire? 
> what was it like? is it something you can do without much training? or too crazy to consider? 
> the RFS says that when the fire is approaching:   Go inside but stay alertShelter in a room on the opposite side ofthe house from the approaching fire andone that has a clear exit out of the housePatrol inside the house, including the roofspace looking for sparks and embersProtect yourself from the heat of the fire  
> then once it has passed:   Check your roof spacesGo outside and put out any part of yourhouse which is alightCheck under the house and any decksCheck on your pets and animalsEmbers or sparks can start spot fires formany hours after the fire has passedIf you can, contact your familyand friends and check onyour neighbours  
> it sound a bit simplistic - but presuming my house is not well alight, i could make sure it is not impacted by ember attack? 
> our house is in "bush setting" with about 10 big gumtrees around, but its a few hundred meters from actual bushland (Berowra Valley Regional Park). 
> i have a 10L pump sprayer (12m spray range) and three garden hoses (on 30m reels) and will fill the bath too.  
> our neighbours have a pool, but we don't have anyone with a pump on our street...   
> or  
> just get out of there and cross my fingers?

  1 x 10L pump sprayer you would have no chance, that would only put out a small garbage bin fire. 
Friends live in lower Portland which is currently burning and the fire front is approaching their property. 
They were told if they want to stay and protect the home the minimum they would require is 10,000 litres of water available such as a dam or pool, 20,000 is recommended, 2 x off grid fire hose pumps, they need to be off grid as the power generally gets cut when the fire approaches, 2 x 20 meter minimum fire hoses and two relatively fit men to control the hoses. 
My first house bordered on Lane Cove National Park, when the fires came through there it was very scary as they burnt right up to the back of the property.
I can still remember the firefighting aircraft passing over our houses dousing the flames. 
The only precautions I could do was to remove all ignition sources such as leaves, twigs etc that usually covered the backyard (bushy block), blocked the gutters and filled them with water as this is a common source of a roof catching fire, generally the gutters are full of dry leaves, these catch fire from embers and can ignite stray sarking or exposed timbers around the gutter line and wet down any timbers such as the deck. 
Luckily the fires were put out and no houses in my immediate are were lost, it was a rude awakening for me as to how quick the fire appeared, it was only later I found burnt holes through the shade sails that were out the front of the house from embers. 
Don't rely on your hose to fight any fire as the water pressure will drop dramatically due to loads form the fire fighters taking water from hydrants and all your neighbours turning their hoses on at the same time, this is what happened at that house, the water pressure dropped to about half of what it normally was. 
Below is a picture taken at the Blaxlands Ridge fire recently by a mate who is in the RFS, look very carefully at the picture and be amazed what you can see, this is a real photo, the devil is in the detail, now think how inadequate your 10L sprayer is.

----------


## toooldforthis

> [snip] ... 
> When those houses were rebuilt there was non such systems available, so it would be interesting to see how those houses would fare in a real bushfire situation.

  here is an article on one.
I think there is a little bit more to the article than meets the eye tho (intensity of fire for one, what was fire and what was backburn for another)  https://www.winghamchronicle.com.au/story/6522058/firies-amazed-by-fireproof-house-at-mount-george/?fbclid=IwAR2pSMmOAYHdNpJX4vq55YNNmxx11kf4T0EacEip  dUw9blFUO45AjO-DCzk     

> There are now a lot more manufacturers offering BAL 40 & FZ rated glazing systems due to the market requiring these, so the price would have come down but they are still at a premium price.

  neighbours here in Perth Hills have been saying they can't find much in the way of suppliers over this way.
as I said earlier, many are choosing not to build and have sold/are selling.

----------


## METRIX

> here is an article on one.
> I think there is a little bit more to the article than meets the eye tho (intensity of fire for one, what was fire and what was backburn for another)  https://www.winghamchronicle.com.au/story/6522058/firies-amazed-by-fireproof-house-at-mount-george/?fbclid=IwAR2pSMmOAYHdNpJX4vq55YNNmxx11kf4T0EacEip  dUw9blFUO45AjO-DCzk    
> neighbours here in Perth Hills have been saying they can't find much in the way of suppliers over this way.
> as I said earlier, many are choosing not to build and have sold/are selling.

  
Interesting to see it survived, the gravel boundary would have had a lot to do with it, so the flames don't get near the house, so the major thing would have been to make it ember resistant, and it obviously worked. 
Yes sourcing BAL rated stuff can be difficult as there is not the money in it for manufacturers, luckily there are more products coming on the market in the east. 
Recently wanted to purchase a house on a large block in Sydney that backed onto a small amount of bush, intentions were to sub divide the block. 
There was a heap of council documentation with the contract that basically stated even though it was possible to subdivide due to size requirements etc and put a FZ rated house at the lower part of the block the council (Hornsby) would not give approval to a subdivision and another dwelling to be built due to risk of fire. 
Could take it to the land and environment court and turn over the councils blockage as the council does not have the authority to block this if proven technology can be used to make a dwelling resistant, but would it really be worth it, I decided not worth the hassle of fighting the council. 
They stated a minimum 10m setback from the back boundary as an exclusion zone and was not to be included in the minimum block size requirements, which basically meant the block size that was left was not of the required minimum size as set out in the development requirements.

----------


## toooldforthis

> That all sounds easy in reality it's not as simple as that. 
> The biggest hurdle to building a fire resistant home is cost, depending on what BAL rating you are in with FZ being the highest, it can easily add an additional 40% to the build cost. 
> The below article gives an insight to regulations for building in BAL rated areas.  https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magaz...shfire-design/

  interesting article. thanks. 
mentions a few things I have been thinking on.  

> One modest house in the Blue Mountains near Sydney faced a cost for windows and doors that increased from about $60,000 for BAL-40 windows to nearly $300,000 for BAL-FZ. Needless to say, the young couple’s dreams were shattered and they sold the land.

   

> The current standard disallows valuable local knowledge, which may appropriately increase or decrease a BAL rating based on immediate topographic features not recognised in the methodology, or a known historical fire behaviour pattern

      

> It should be noted that many materials with an FZ rating will require complete replacement following direct flame attack. So, it is always best to keep that fire at bay.

  so, what is the point?
as I said previously, it might give you some extra valuable minutes to escape, but the property is very damaged.
and if the fire is that bad, maybe one should have left long before? 
maybe an alternative is a safe bunker built to the highest standards and let the house burn?   

> why is the standard so difficult to interpret to the satisfaction of the various authorities? Experienced consultants with no axe to grind are often *overruled by central authorities*

----------


## toooldforthis

> .. [snip] ... 
> They stated a minimum 10m setback from the back boundary as an exclusion zone and was not to be included in the minimum block size requirements, which basically meant the block size that was left was not of the required minimum size as set out in the development requirements.

  where I am minimum block size is 2000sqm (this is historically due to septic/leach drain requirements since no deep sewer available). 
people have bought 2000sqm blocks (some of which were subdivided off bigger blocks) only to find _their_ BAL rating is affected by neighbouring properties which they have no control over.

----------


## METRIX

> he current standard disallows valuable local knowledge, which may appropriately increase or decrease a BAL rating based on immediate topographic features not recognised in the methodology, or a known historical fire behaviour pattern

  
Yes where I live the RFS basically drew a line down the entire bush line from central coast to past hornsby, said there it's all FZ rated land, the council said fine lets go with that then. 
So no local knowledge or considerations were taken into account, and you can't really change it because the authorities have said so. 
It also means that any existing houses in those areas that miraculously became FZ rated with the swipe of a pen, and have seen their insurance premiums go up accordingly. 
Basically overnight their house became a high risk where it has stood for 50 years as a regular risk, it's more about passing the buck rather then assessing as required. 
The sad thing about these fires is not only the loss of property but the loss of lives, 2 RFS volunteers died last night when their truck hit a tree and the truck rolled off the road. 
Considering many of these fires have been deliberately lit, they have charged a 19 year old RFS member for deliberately lighting fires in the Bega region.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...fires/11741412 
Lets see what happens to these idiots that are charged with starting fires, the sentencing laws were changed, but do the courts enact the changes, funny how nobody ever hears anything about the fire bugs that are charged and what penalties they receive, probably given a slap on the wrist and say naughty boy. 
My Dad use to say the penalty should be to cut their hands off, this will stop them lighting any fires in the future. 
Oh and it's also sad that poor Scott Morrison is cutting his holiday to Hawaii short, as he usually holidays down the South coast but couldn't do that because, umm it's on fire, so he decided to take his girls to Hawaii instead. 
Seriously this guy has no idea what is going on in the real world, this comes after his comments that the RFS members want to be out there fighting fires. 
Excuse me they DON'T want to be out there fighting fires, they are volunteers and are out there doing this due to their own good will and want to help out their community without expecting anything in return. 
I'm quite sure that 99% of them would rather be at home with their family preparing for Christmas. 
This Prime Minister is a Joke and will be the downfall of his party.   *Stronger sentences for starting a bushfire*  Published date: Thursday, 1 November 2018  [PDF 346kb]  Starting a bushfire this summer could land offenders in prison for more than two decades, with the NSW Government to introduce a significantly tougher maximum sentence for the crime.  Premier Gladys Berejiklian, Attorney General Mark Speakman and Minister for Police and Emergency Services Troy Grant today announced the Government will seek to increase the maximum jail sentence for NSW’s targeted bushfire offence from 14 years to 21 years.  “Deliberately starting a bushfire is a selfish and senseless act that can have catastrophic consequences, potentially wiping out land and homes, and causing injury or death to residents and livestock,” said Ms Berejiklian.   The tougher penalty to be introduced into Parliament in November will apply to the specific bushfire offence under section 203E of the Crimes Act of intentionally causing a fire and being reckless about it spreading on public land or someone else’s property.   “Such thoughtless acts place lives, homes, businesses, and entire communities a risk. These new penalties will give courts the power to impose tough sentences in line with community expectations,” Mr Speakman said.  The Attorney General will also ask the Sentencing Council of NSW to:   Consider if the five-year standard non-parole period for the bushfire offence should be increased; andReview the maximum penalties for a range of arson offences, including destroying or damaging properties by means of fire.   “The reforms will provide a strong deterrent to would-be arsonists while more than 99 per cent of the State is gripped by drought. With low rainfall predicted in coming months and large swathes of bushland looking like a tinderbox, we must do all we can to protect the State from another disaster,” Mr Grant said.  NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons welcomed the Government’s reforms and called on the community to be vigilant and report suspicious behaviour to Crime Stoppers.  “Starting bushfires is not only a criminal offence but also has the potential to damage properties and put lives at risk,” Commissioner Fitzsimmons said.  Member for South Coast Shelley Hancock, Member for Kiama Gareth Ward and Member for Bega Andrew Constance welcomed the stronger penalty, which will make would-be firebugs think twice before starting a blaze.   “The South Coast faces devastating bushfires each year. These stronger sentences are in line with how my community expects bushfire bugs to be punished,” Mrs Hancock said.  “The increased sentence better reflects the devastation caused by bushfires,” Mr Ward said.  “Locally we have all seen the devastating effect of bushfires. These stronger laws will punish those selfish individuals who choose to do this, and act as a deterrent for those contemplating it,” Mr Constance said.  To ensure the proposed new sentence comes into effect as soon as possible, the amending legislation will be declared urgent upon introduction into the NSW Parliament on the first sitting day in November.

----------


## toooldforthis

have to agree with all of that.
I have told my local vollies do not risk your life to save my house - let it burn.
In fact I think their priority should be lives and containing the fires, not protecting houses. 
there are a lot of great people in the vollies but at a hazard reduction burn on my place I met a young guy who was really getting off on the fire - so I am sure a few join for the wrong reasons. 
politicians and bureaucrats - the world has gone mad. 
most fires here are lit by arsonists or by human stupidity (cig butts, grinders...)
the arsonists just get a slap on the wrist.
should be regarded as a terrorist act.

----------


## Bros

One of the things i have noticed is that there are not a lot of houses destroyed in proportion to the number and size of the fires. 
Unlike the likes of cyclones where there is mass destruction.

----------


## METRIX

That's because where is been burning is not heavily populated, if it jumps the hawksbury  river it will be a different story.  https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-info.../fires-near-me

----------


## METRIX

Very sad news of two RFS volunteers from the Horsley unit that were killed last night when a tree fell causing their truck to roll over, three others sustained injuries but were able to free themselves from the truck. 
We did work for these guys at their Horsley site, they were all such as nice bunch of guys, were so helpful, and so appreciative of what we did for them. 
This is such a tragedy to hear of two young guys lives taken while they were volunteering to help out others in trouble.  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/tight-kn...attling-blazes

----------


## John2b

A dozen fires were lit by lightning in the space of 20 minutes here on Kangaroo Island mid afternoon. The volunteer CFS guys were already out patrolling on the truck near me looking for ignitions based on the lightning forecast. Fortunately all bar one have been controlled within a couple of hours. I was driving home when the lightning storm struck with bolts landing all around the car. Later a change came through and dropped the temperature at my place from 42 to 28 in 15 minutes. I got a few spots of rain but my neighbour a few kilometres away had a cloudburst that had his gutters overflowing in a couple of minutes. Now I've got wicked 80kph wind gusts that are turning everything not bolted down into missiles. None of this is a scratch on what's happening over in NSW of course.

----------


## METRIX

> A dozen fires were lit by lightning in the space of 20 minutes here on Kangaroo Island mid afternoon. The volunteer CFS guys were already out patrolling on the truck near me looking for ignitions based on the lightning forecast. Fortunately all bar one have been controlled within a couple of hours. I was driving home when the lightning storm struck with bolts landing all around the car. Later a change came through and dropped the temperature at my place from 42 to 28 in 15 minutes. I got a few spots of rain but my neighbour a few kilometres away had a cloudburst that had his gutters overflowing in a couple of minutes. Now I've got wicked 80kph wind gusts that are turning everything not bolted down into missiles. None of this is a scratch on what's happening over in NSW of course.

  Wow would have been good to have videoed the strikes,  the only strike I have seen is when it hit a large gum tree, it split it in two like it was a made from balsa wood, the tree was 3m from the front door and there was splintered wood embedded in the door amazing the power the big guy has up there when he gets angry.

----------


## Bedford

> Something has changed to increase bushfire risk and it has nothing to do with sociopathic behaviour, opinion, doctrine or politics. What is it?

  Increased fuel load.

----------


## John2b

Low fuel moisture content, low relative humidity, low dew point, high ambient temperature, incidence of 'dry' lightning and high wind energy are all exacerbated due to global warming. This has substantially increased the _combustibility_ of vegetation, even in areas of lower fuel load / tons per hectare, for example the catastrophic Pinery bushfire burned from 25 November to 2 December 2015, destroying 86,000 hectares of mostly farm land stubble and light bush.

----------


## Bros

> A dozen fires were lit by lightning in the space of 20 minutes here on Kangaroo Island mid afternoon. .

  Well there you go I never thought you could grow anything on rock.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Increased fuel load.

  You have no idea what you are talking about...

----------


## Bros

> You have no idea what you are talking about...

  And you do???

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And you do???

  The evidence suggests so... 
The conditions we currently have are not ones where fuel is the primary  limitation. In these conditions, any fuel is sufficient. It is now weather driven for the most part. 
Fuel reduction has only been found to actually make a significant difference in a very specific set of landscapes (one of which is the NSW Blue Mountains...) and it's only possible under a very specific set of conditions. Both weather and human related... 
For example, when the RFS and NPWS tried to burn some of these risky areas last winter during a couple of weeks where it was climactic possible...the weather conspired to flood the Sydney Basin with smoke. The Emergency Services Minister shut the burns down. So much for fuel reduction. 
Other regions tried to burn country (mainly because that was in their contract with the government) but, in many cases, it either didn't burn (no fuel, not the right weather) or the areas that were burnt weren't the risky bits. Or they weren't burnt at all because there simply wasn't enough people and gear available to burn them... 
The simple fact of the matter is that bushfires are complicated and subject to many conflicting factors. And fuel reduction is just another hammer when what is really needed are skilled people, the right resources and the knowledge about how to use them. 
But if you want to whack away with your insignificant squeaky hammer shaped toy and pretend you know how to fix it then I'm hardly going to stop you. But I will continue to giggle at your pointlessness.

----------


## DavoSyd

> And you do???

  you could refer to the *Australian Seasonal Bushfire Outlook: December 2019* publication to see if SBD knows more than the bedford? 
here it is:  https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/file/10679...token=2bTk3Q6M

----------


## pharmaboy2

you simply cant backburn the entire wollemi national park - all you can do is keep up small areas near houses to remove the risk of really fast moving fires. 
what seems to have changed however is fear - at the moment all state forests are closed indefinately north of sydney regardless if there is an actual fire.  im sorry, but thats a massive over reaction - fires dont turn into raging km long infernos in 30 minutes from nothing - anyway, im a naughty boy, so im going mountain bike riding in a little way in said areas before it gets hot

----------


## Marc

Whilst the lefties keep on trying to score human induced global warming points, by blaming the events on the "climate change", (and the best one) calling the PM back from holidays, since his benediction is essential to stop the fires obviously ... let's remember that we live in a dry continent that had dry years and flood years since just about ever.  
Then, remember that 80 or 85% (unclear) of bush fires are due to human perversion or stupidity, and that arsonist go free due to more human induced idiotic idea of solidarity. I remember a few years ago we went for a bushwalk in the Royal National Park and uncovered a heap of car tyres piled up in a circle with dry fuel neatly prepared in the center in preparation for a bonfire that would set fire to the park by some demented moron. We called the local fire brigade that cleaned up the place. They should have stalked the place waiting for the arsonist to show up and castrate him.  
Furthermore fighting bushfires is left to volunteers. Isn't this the epitome of stupidity? 
We pay one of the highest levels of tax in the world, the government uses photo opportunities to give away our tax money with gestures of grandeur to moronic and foreign causes without beating an eyelid, yet we rely on an army of very generous volunteers because ... why? We can not afford paid professional and best in the world equipped firefighters? Why not? Volunteering systems are a declaration of incompetence by authorities. We can not pay for this so you better do it yourself, sort of thing. Sure the volunteer person is very generous but shouldn't be. 
As for us personally, we are a stone throw away between the gargantuan Gospers mountain fire and the Three mile fire and for some miracle are still standing. My daughter's recently acquired rural property is at risk in the southern highland and today will probably leave and go the the local RSL for a couple of days. My son in law is in the fire and rescue NSW. Not that it makes a difference really.  
The only real tool available against bushfires is stopping councils allowing developments where there shouldn't be any, stop politicians flooding the country with unheard of numbers of new migrants, allowing farmers to use their experience to clear and back burn, allowing the RFS and others to do backburning whenever possible and gag the greens forever, by deporting them to the island of Eros in Greece.

----------


## DavoSyd

> what seems to have changed however is fear - at the moment all state forests are closed indefinitely north of sydney

  and south, and west and etc....    

> All State forests from north of Sydney to the Queensland borderAll State forests from south of Sydney to the Victorian borderAll State forests on the Northern, Central & Southern TablelandsNullo Mountain and Coricudgy State Forests (Western Region)Belanglo State forest.

----------


## PhilT2

> what seems to have changed however is fear - at the moment all state forests are closed indefinately north of sydney regardless if there is an actual fire.  im sorry, but thats a massive over reaction - fires dont turn into raging km long infernos in 30 minutes from nothing - anyway, im a naughty boy, so im going mountain bike riding in a little way in said areas before it gets hot

  Are they closed because of fire or to prevent people lighting fires?

----------


## Marc

i am with PhilT22 on this one. Copycat and urges are a reality of mental illness. i still think that castration should be a nice deterrent not to mention clean up the gene pool  :Rofl5: 
Would that be "gene cleansing" ?

----------


## Marc

> That all sounds easy in reality it's not as simple as that. 
> The biggest hurdle to building a fire resistant home is cost, depending on what BAL rating you are in with FZ being the highest, it can easily add an additional 40% to the build cost. 
> The below article gives an insight to regulations for building in BAL rated areas.  https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magaz...shfire-design/

  i always thought that if the riverhouse burns down I'll rebuild it underground like in that picture you posted. It is ideal because it is on a slope and already a couple of meters below the street level yet meters above the 100 years flood level.
And the idea to mow the lawn on the roof is something irresistible  :Smilie:

----------


## toooldforthis

> Are they closed because of fire or to prevent people lighting fires?

  over here they close em to stop fires being inadvertently lit - like a spark from something, or a hot exhaust etc.
also a lot of people from outside the area have no idea about fire risk during periods of high fire danger so might think nothing of firing up the barbie.
here it is more to do with the extreme heat and the wind conditions when they close them.
I guess in a big national park with limited escape routes they might be concerned about getting people out if the worst comes to pass.

----------


## toooldforthis

> i always thought that if the riverhouse burns down I'll rebuild it underground like in that picture you posted. It is ideal because it is on a slope and already a couple of meters below the street level yet meters above the 100 years flood level.
> And the idea to mow the lawn on the roof is something irresistible

  I think they are interesting in theory but seem to have all the downsides of living in a basement - damp, ventilation...
seen a few on lifestyle shows - would like the host to go back after 5 years and ask em.

----------


## Marc

Certainly a challenge and not cheap, but ventilation is easy to achieve. 
As for cars in national park during bushfires, that is a no brainer. An overheated catalytic converter ( from using the wrong environmentally challenged fuel) can ignite dry grass when you just pull to the side to check your latest text messages about Myers' Christmas specials. 
We currently have a 'basement' sort of self contained apartment under the house, that is underground on two sides and open under the house and to the east on the other side. It is fresh in summer and warm in winter without any help from heaters or aircon.

----------


## Marc

As for fires, if you are anywhere near them, download the app called 5-0 radio. It's a sort of scanner listening for your mobile phone. I am listening to Hawkesbury RFS right now and Wollondilly RFS to monitor conditions. Amazing. I hope it is not illegal  :Confused:

----------


## toooldforthis

> As for fires, if you are anywhere near them, download the app called 5-0 radio. It's a sort of scanner listening for your mobile phone. I am listening to Hawkesbury RFS right now and Wollondilly RFS to monitor conditions. Amazing. I hope it is not illegal

  nope, everyone around here uses it.

----------


## craka

> similar to the 'weather is not climate' hurdle.  
> so too is the 'but we were allowed to burn off ground fuel in the past' recollection... 
> reality is this:  RFS 
> did and farmers & indigenous peoples really burn off *half a million hectares* annually? 
> really??

  Numerous areas of what are now national parks were once grazed upon. I  also too doubt that half a million hectares were burned of annually,  that is not what I meant by annual burning. Burns would've been done on a  rotating basis. 
I'm not for one minute saying the climate is not  changing however if there is no fuel for a fire to burn it's a pretty  simple equation.  The reason these fires are so intense is the fuel on  ground allows intensity to the fire which enables the fire to get in the  tree canopy.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The reason these fires are so intense is the fuel on  ground allows intensity to the fire which enables the fire to get in the  tree canopy.

  which fire are you talking about? 
i think the experts agree that most of the fires "are so intense" due to dry  conditions - not excessive fuel load. 
here's a December 2019 paper with a fair bit of specifics for you to consider:  https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/file/10679...token=2bTk3Q6M

----------


## Marc

From your link ...  

> RECENT CONDITIONS . Seasonal fire conditions are a function of *fuel amount* and state, and seasonal weather conditions.

  As usual, semantics and doctrinal convictions used to prove that it is the "climate change" and not greenies idiocy to blame. 
No fuel no fire seems too easy logic to follow. 
No, you are not entitled to your opinion https://theconversation.com/no-youre...r-opinion-9978

----------


## Bros

> i am with PhilT22 on this one. Copycat and urges are a reality of mental illness. i still think that castration should be a nice deterrent not to mention clean up the gene pool
> Would that be "gene cleansing" ?

   Simplistic answer but a bit more complicated than that. It has been found that children start a lot of the fires due to fascination with fire that seems to be in all children.  
If posters were honest most would have played with matches when they were children so it is no different now. 
Most people still are fascinated by fire as one of the focal points of camping is the fire no different to the indigenous people of the past.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...fires/11717444

----------


## DavoSyd

i just googled "_why are the NSW fires so intense_"  
there seems to be very little disagreement - the repeated themes are that the fuel is exceptionally dry, it's not that theses an excessive amount of it... 
see Greg Mullins piece (Former Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner):  https://www.smh.com.au/national/this...10-p5395e.html 
he even states that the fuel is _too dry_  to do hazard reduction burning.  
then there's a few scientists:   

> David Bowman, director of the Fire Centre Research Hub at the University of Tasmania, said restrictions on hazard reductions are not entirely to blame. 
> "At the very core, we have a climate signal. There's extreme drought, extreme fire weather conditions - fire weather that you would expect in summer, not in spring,” he told the ABC on Monday. 
> "Yes, there is a role for managing fuels with hazard reduction burning - but would hazard reduction burning programs on their own stem this fire crisis? No, absolutely not."

  and   

> Professor Glenda Wardle, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Sydney, said "Much of NSW is also in drought and trees are dying and fuel loads are very dry, leading to dangerous conditions for fires to burn more intensely and spread fast,” she said.

  https://www.sbs.com.au/news/scientis...nge-here-s-how

----------


## DavoSyd

> No fuel no fire seems too easy logic to follow.

  
quoting an introductory sentence to a 4 page document stating a basic scientific equation and implying it actually supports your premise?

----------


## craka

> quoting an introductory sentence to a 4 page document stating a basic scientific equation and implying it actually supports your premise?

   
Sorry to inform you I wasn't quoting from any document. Pretty sure fuel, oxygen and heat is what is required manifest fire.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Sorry to inform you I wasn't quoting from any document.

  are you Marc? 
* this is my last direct reply to you craka:  https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...ml#post1102234 
with a more generally directed follow up:  https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...ml#post1102239

----------


## UseByDate

> i am with PhilT22 on this one. Copycat and urges are a reality of mental illness. i still think that castration should be a nice deterrent not to mention clean up the gene pool 
> Would that be "gene cleansing" ?

   

> Simplistic answer but a bit more complicated than that. It has been found that children start a lot of the fires due to fascination with fire that seems to be in all children.    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...fires/11717444

  It would be interesting to see what proportion of these children are boys and what proportion are girls. To blame the “fascination with fire” as the motive for stating fires that is in all children it must be assumed that an equal number of boys and girls are involved. In that case castration would only solve halve the problem.   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

No fuel no fire. 
Lots of fuel, lots of fire.
Same amount of fuel ... then dry is worse than wet. 
Just stating the obvious for the resident climate change cheerleader.  
The amount of fuel is directly proportional to the concentration of green morons in the area. More morons, more fuel, more fire. 
Unfortunately the same can not be said for rain, and more greenies does not equate to more rain, since their quest to "do more for climate change' is so inane dimwitted and glaikit that cause and effect do not count ever. Will our efforts translate in more rain? Or lower temperatures? Yes? evidence please! No? Then you are *not* entitled to your opinion, see link above.

----------


## Marc

> It would be interesting to see what proportion of these children are boys and what proportion are girls. To blame the “fascination with fire” as the motive for stating fires that is in all children it must be assumed that an equal number of boys and girls are involved. In that case castration would only solve halve the problem.

   Yes, well noted. however     

> The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male.

  It seems it would solve a large proportion of it. Not that an eunuch arsonist would not be effective, but i think that the punishment would be a good deterrent. 
The above is the first hit i got from the Sydney Morning Herald, (the climate change herald ... pass me the puke bucket please)
Interestingly another study in the UK from a small sample of 200 adults, finds 165 male and 35 female.

----------


## craka

> are you Marc? 
> * this is my last direct reply to you craka:  https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...ml#post1102234 
> with a more generally directed follow up:  https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...ml#post1102239

  Apologies, I now realise that wasn't directed at me, with that being said I'm not sure that personal insults were the best reply.  
In reply to the general post, yes there is a drought ( a bloody horiffic one) and fuel on the ground is drier, no doubt about any of that.  
Yes the drought has contributed to more fuel being on the ground, however the amount of fuel from drought is not the total fuel load, there are years of fuel build up on the ground.   
The increase ambient heat would allow a fire to happen more easily  however it doesn't intensify the fire, only fuel does that.

----------


## Bros

> _The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male._

    

> Yes, well noted. however    
> It seems it would solve a large proportion of it. Not that an eunuch arsonist would not be effective, but i think that the punishment would be a good deterrent.

  We may not be talking about he same thing here as I suspect if you broke those figures down the majority of bushfires would be children with the occasional firefighter thrown in and the rest would be plain criminals lighting fires to cover their deeds or to get revenge or claim insurance. 
One that comes to mind is Offset Alpine Printing

----------


## Marc

Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made  ByPaul Read November 18, 2019 — 12.00am  About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ...  A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent offires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlierthat about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the sameconclusion: 87 per cent are man-made.  The cycles of the seasons are changing beyond that which can be explained by known forces,both ancient and modern.Every lethal wildfire since 1857 has happened at the height of summer. Until now. The size of these fires has never beenseen in Australia's history this side of summer, and certainly not starting as early as September.  Seasonal changes, in part due to climate change on top of natural oscillations causing the drought and westerly winds,have some origins in man-made emissions. More directly, however, the source of ignition is human.  [ Of course the opportunity is ripe to place an ad for so called climate change]  It's not lost on police, emergency services and firefighters at the front line that most of these fires were lit deliberately, or accidentally through recklessness, nor that they are unprecedented in their timing and ferocity. Since September, it has been a constant pattern that a few days after the fires roar through we have the first police reports that arson or recklessness was involved.  The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male.  The psychosexual pyromaniac has long been relegated to dusty tomes from 1904 to the1950s. At least among those caught, the profile emerges of an odd, unintelligent person from a chaotic family, marginalised at the fringes of society and deeply involved in many types of crime, not only fire.  If I had to guess, I'd say about 10,000 arsonists lurk from the top of Queensland to the southern-most tip of Victoria, but not all are active and some light fires during winter. The most dangerous light fires on the hottest days, generally closer to communities and during other blazes, suggesting more malicious motives. Only a tiny minority will gaze with wonder at the destruction they have wrought, deeply fascinated and empowered. Others get caught up with the excitement of chaos and behave like impulsive idiots.  As for children, they are not always malicious. Children and youths follow the age-crime curve where delinquency peaks in their late teens. Fire is just one of many misbehaviours. The great majority grow out of it. Four overlapping subgroups include: accidental fire-play getting out of control; victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect; children with autism and developmental disorders; and conduct disorder from a younger age, which can be genuinely dangerous.  Whereas the first three groups can be helped and stopped, the last is more problematic. These children are more likely to continue lighting fires for a lifetime, emerging as psychopaths in adulthood. This tends to match the finding that only 10 per cent of convicted arsonists will go on to light fires again after prison. They are the recidivists, more fascinated by fire, more prone to giving in to dangerous urges when in crisis, more impulsive, less empathic – the hallmarks of a psychopath.  Some research suggests only a very small percentage of arsonists are ever caught, which has several implications. One is that we have a biased profile of who they really are. Whereas the children and the dopey get caught, the more cunning would be less represented in our samples. More ominous, many more than 10,000 arsonists might be active.  One of the few prospective studies of almost 3000 fire lighters in South Australia alone found as many as 14 per cent of people in a community sample lit fires. This level is much higher than actual convictions would suggest. Further to this, community sampling suggests females represent 20 per cent of those fire lighters, even though convictions of females are only half this figure. If this trend continues into adulthood, it suggests we have a biased view of the typical arsonist to begin with.  Those we haven't caught yet are still hiding, but we know enough to recognise them and, one day, maybe stop them.  In the thick of a deadly crisis, it beggars belief that some people would seek to make it worse. But we should be careful who we demonise. Not all children mean to do harm. Careful handling of them will reduce, not exacerbate, their problems and allow caregivers to refer them before the first match is struck.  Emergency services and communities on the front line will shine a light on the very best of humanity; others will disgrace themselves through idiocy or malice. Amid the chaos of confronting fires, the psychopath forever looms – not only the criminals who light fires in the forests and grasslands but perhaps also, figuratively, the people who profit from planetary destruction and ignore the urgent warnings of 23 emergency commissioners to prepare.  When the flames abate, we can have a sensible national dialogue about the prevention of wildfires, handling arson, and maybe even climate change. [ there he goes again ]   PS Note the term "wildfire" used by mr whatshisname here... this is an americanism we don't need, and those using it only show a personal inferiority complex and pretenses to be more important by using it. 
When the bush is on fire, it is a bush fire, wild or tame does not matter.

----------


## John2b

The fuel load is much the same all year around. Ground moisture, ground temperature, fuel moisture, fuel temperature, atmospheric humidity and atmospheric temperature and wind all have an awfully large influence on the _combustibility_ of the fuel and hence the _severity_ of fires when they occur. As the climate has changed so has the combustibility in the dry season, exactly as was projected by weather research and fire research for decades.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Are they closed because of fire or to prevent people lighting fires?

  They are closed primarily because the  public servants that manage them are away from their normal duties...either fighting fires, managing or working in fire control centres or trying to have time with their families after three months of doing fire fighting etc.

----------


## Marc

*Let's tell the burning truth about bushfires and the ALP-Greens coalition* Miranda Devine, The Sunday Telegraph
January 13, 2013 12:00am  WHENEVER a major bushfire catastrophe occurs in Australia, the victims are essentially told to shut up.
It happened after Victoria's Black Saturday fires in 2009. It happened after the Canberra bushfires, 10 years ago on Friday. And it's happening now in Tasmania.
"Now is not the time for that conversation," says the Tasmanian Minister for Emergency Management, David O'Byrne, avoiding questions about why adequate hazard reduction burns were not done in cooler months to remove fuel from the path of inevitable summer fires.
It's just too early, claims Premier Lara Giddings, presiding over Tasmania's ALP-Greens coalition.
But the residents of Dunalley, whose town was overrun, and the farmers whose properties and livestock have been wiped out, want that conversation right now.   
Now is the time for farmers to complain that they could never get a permit to burn off excessive ground fuel on their properties.
Now, while public attention is focused, and before the truth can be buried for years.
Now is the time to point out, perhaps, that a fire which begins in a national park carrying negligently heavy loads of ground fuel can become an unstoppable inferno which will eventually burst out into the Canberra suburbs and kill four people and consume 500 homes.
Now is the time for people who understand the bush to tell the rest of Australia what fools we are.  "Fuel reduction burns make it possible to fight and control a fire; what happened here was uncontrollable," Dunalley farmer Leigh Arnold told _The Australian_.
Greenies who oppose such burnoffs, "care more about birds and wildlife than they do about people and farms," he said.
"But what's the point of that now when the hills and trees they told me I couldn't burn off, because there were protected eagles and swift parrots there, are now all burned and the fire it created was so hot we had dead swans dropping out of the sky?"
No, the only permissible comment on a bushfire catastrophe is to say it was caused by "climate change" - that convenient get-out-of-jail free card for greenies, governments and the obstructive bureaucracies they jointly create.
But we've heard it all before, and we're not buying it.
"It's really simple," says Brian Williams, captain of the Kurrajong Heights bushfire brigade, a veteran of 44 years of firefighting, in one of the most extreme fire risk areas of Australia, on a ridge surrounded by 0.75 million hectares of overgrown national park between the Blue Mountains and Wollemi.
"Fires run on fuel. Limited fuel means limited fire."
Green tape and heavy-handed bureaucracy has made his job harder today than in 28 years as captain. Rather than needing six people to perform a controlled burn in the cooler months, now 40 are involved, to oversee biodiversity and so on.
Williams managed to conduct just two of the five hazard reduction burns he planned before this fire season.
But don't blame greenies. All week they have been claiming they support hazard reduction. Really?
No matter what legalistic and linguistic ploys are now used to rewrite history, green hostility to proper bushfire management is on the record, from the light-green NIMBYs who object to smoke, to green lobbyists who infiltrate government decision-making, taxpayer-funded green activists who embed themselves in government agencies, the bureaucratic green tape which makes the job of volunteer firefighters so difficult, the green NGOs who strongarm politicians, right up to the political arm of green ideology, The Greens.
It is true The Greens have developed a new set of "aims" including a caveat-studded "effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management".
In practice, on the ground, it amounts to covert opposition. Williams scoffs at the Orwellian sophistry: "They publicly say they support it. The reality of how it pans out is nothing like that. Greens have two faces and underneath they are undermining everything."
While there have been improvements under a new state government, Williams says hazard reduction is still inadequate across NSW, reaching just 1 per cent rather than the 5 per cent minimum recommended by the Victorian bushfire inquiry.
At least in the hard-won patch of Volunteer Fire Fighter Association president Peter Cannon, around Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes, hazard reduction is complete this year and he is confident any fires will be controllable.
He says it is a credit to hard-working firefighters that Tasmania-scale destruction has not occurred in NSW despite extreme fire conditions.
Another bright spot is the latest Rural Fire Service annual report which says more than 80 per cent of planned hazard reduction was achieved, and the area treated should increase by 45 per cent over three years.
It's not enough but it's a welcome change from the dark days of 2003, eight months before the Canberra inferno, when former RFS Commissioner Phil Koperberg told a NSW parliamentary inquiry that widespread hazard reduction was "an exercise in futility".
Fast forward to last month and blame for that fire has finally been laid where it belongs, at the feet of Koperberg's RFS and the green-influenced National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Brinadabella farmer Wayne West, whose property was wiped out in the fires, sued the two agencies. Last month in the ACT Supreme Court, Chief Justice Terrence Higgins found them negligent.
The episode demonstrated how green pressure on decision-makers filters down into a cascade of subtle bureaucratic obstructions which disempower firefighters on the ground and disregard their expertise.
The result in 2003 was that a small fire at McIntyre's Hut in the Brindabella ranges was allowed to rage out of control through the national park to emerge 10 days later, and burn lethally through Canberra's suburbs.
Unfortunately for West and his insurance company, the government agencies are protected by statute and don't have to pay compensation.
But West won a moral victory. We all are in his debt because he fought for the truth and refused to shut up.

----------


## Bros

> victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect;

  Not that hoary old chestnut again, seems to be the defense of every criminal going before the courts

----------


## Marc

*THE GREENS — NOT CLIMATE CHANGE — ARE TO BLAME FOR*  RENDEZVIEW: Their aim is to scare people into buying their climate “emergency” hyperbole, but it is that same green influence on government policy that has fuelled the cataclysmic bushfires, writes Miranda Devine. 
[ must love the glasses and ear inserts to represent the usual nitwits ]

----------


## Marc

> Not that hoary old chestnut again, seems to be the defense of every criminal going before the courts

  Yea well ... what do you expect, the lawyers know it works with the entitled elite, non accountable and doctrinally inclined to social engineering  that rules the courts.

----------


## John2b

The article wasn't making a case for leniency, just identifying the groups from which arsonist tend to belong to. It's correct to say that "_victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect;" _  do tend to be affected negatively by their experience and have difficulty fitting into society as adults.

----------


## Marc

> The article wasn't making a case for leniency, just identifying the groups from which arsonist tend to belong to. It's correct to say that "_victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect;" _  do tend to be affected negatively by their experience and have difficulty fitting into society as adults.

  To be fair you are correct. Leniency is the tool of the courts to show grandeur and superiority. 
Meantime a persistent southerly has saved my daughter's place and with hers a lot of others. 
Thank God for that and may He deliver a particularly vicious virus to those responsible, instigators and those who think they can use other's misery to advance their ill conceived political agenda.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> Thank God for that and may He deliver ...

  Umm yeah, right lol.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Are they closed because of fire or to prevent people lighting fires?

  because a fire could start i think - because i surely doubt that an avid arsonist is going to be scared off by closed state forests, do you? 
now its the end of the day, it was a bit lame weather wise - buggar all wind, got to about 34, seemed a little less than catastrophic to me - quite a pleasant day out and about

----------


## chrisp

I suppose that one good thing that will come out of the present bushfires is that it will probably change the narrative around climate change. I think that there has been too much complacency as the significance of a degree or two of temperature rise probably seemed insignificant to most. Also, vested interests have been pressuring the government to do as little as possible on climate change on the hope that it will all somehow go away. The government’s tactic of using accounting trickery to meet its present climate obligations (“in a canter”) have now come to light and so that this government wasn’t, and isn’t, taking climate change seriously at all. I wonder how many voters were deceived? 
However, the present bushfires - and the fire season has only just begun - do highlight the increased dangers of a hotter climate. It does drive home what the experts have been predicting for many years. 
Interestingly, the PM is ‘rushing’ back to Australia after quietly leaving the country on a holiday. I have no idea why he is coming back early - he hasn’t done anything of significance on climate changes or fire fighting (indeed, he had already refused to meet with some fire experts earlier in the year). I’m sure that his ‘prays and thoughts’ could have been delivered from Hawaii just as effectively as from Australia. 
Its time for a proper climate change plan, and a serious national bushfire fighting plan.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> i just googled "_why are the NSW fires so intense_"  
> there seems to be very little disagreement - the repeated themes are that the fuel is exceptionally dry, it's not that theses an excessive amount of it... 
> see Greg Mullins piece (Former Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner):  https://www.smh.com.au/national/this...10-p5395e.html 
> he even states that the fuel is _too dry_  to do hazard reduction burning.  
> then there's a few scientists:   
> and    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/scientis...nge-here-s-how

  one of things that running round the bush on a mountain bike gives you, is personal experience in the bush - couple of dry creeks today, one of which i dont think ive ever seen dry, and we are right on the coast.  to say its dry is pretty much an understatement - this is the new reality, especially while Trumps deniers are still going strong in america - really windy this year as well (from the west)

----------


## DavoSyd

Yeah, the old timers we do bush regen with are saying the same stuff... Driest in living memory.

----------


## toooldforthis

> They are closed primarily because the  public servants that manage them are away from their normal duties...either fighting fires, managing or working in fire control centres or trying to have time with their families after three months of doing fire fighting etc.

  are you making @@@@e up now?

----------


## PhilT2

> - because i surely doubt that an avid arsonist is going to be scared off by closed state forests, do you?

  You're right there, but prohibiting entry makes the few in the area easier to identify; narrows down the number of suspects. And gets rid of the careless idiots and their teenage kids who do things on impulse.

----------


## craka

> because a fire could start i think - because i surely doubt that an avid arsonist is going to be scared off by closed state forests, do you? 
> now its the end of the day, it was a bit lame weather wise - buggar all wind, got to about 34, seemed a little less than catastrophic to me - quite a pleasant day out and about

  Were you right on the beach? It was 42 on the other side of the lake.

----------


## Bros

> Its time for a proper climate change plan, and a serious national bushfire fighting plan.

  I have to agree with that as we must adapt to it and we dont know if the change is cyclical or permanent so we must prepare for it to continue.

----------


## Bedford

> You have no idea what you are talking about...

  Ok, but I replied to this, referring to the risk,   

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   
>    Something has changed to increase bushfire *risk* and it has nothing to  do with sociopathic behaviour, opinion, doctrine or politics. What is  it?

  Considering heat doesn't burn in itself, it would have to be increased fuel if there was an increase in risk.  https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/lesson-2-...-fire-triangle

----------


## John2b

> Considering heat doesn't burn in itself, it would have to be increased fuel if there was an increase in risk.

  Er... not at all. Put the same amount of fuel on Antarctica and see if it burns. The climatic conditions are vastly more significant in risk and consequences than the fuel load, which _of course_ is a factor. The fuel load is remarkably constant throughout the year (yet bushfires are not), and remarkably constant year on year. In the 1960s bushfires were fought with knapsack sprayers and wet hessian wheat bags. There was not an iota of the resources to control fires that are available now. So do tell, why are bushfires becoming more prevalent and more damaging? Is it because there are no hessian wheat bags to fight them these days?

----------


## Marc

The answer is simple yet you don't want to hear it. Greenies and their pathetic and constant blocking of fuel reduction and clearing. 
Add to that councils and their greed and urge to allow developments in bush areas. 
Government refusal to debate immigration levels that push for more areas to be "developed".  
I like your repeating of the mantra "Fuel load is constant" How can fuel be constant when it builds up from trees shedding bark and leafs and branches. It is constant if you take one point in time, say between the time I type this and the time you read it today. Tomorrow the fuel load will be different, read more, and increasing every day. Constant my foot. Constantly increasing exponentially.  
You have some sort of selective intelligence syndrome? 
Not to mention that if 85% of bush fires are the result of crime or mental illness or idiocy or all of the above. Doesn't the penny drop that it is also directly proportional to the population? More people more fires. Wait for a hot day and start a series of fires. Would we have bush fires if no one was around for miles? Most likely not, may be a few, but not a string of 150 or 200 fires.
We triplicated the population since the 60ties. Therefore we must have triple the bushfires. 
Someone guessed a number of 10,000 arsonist living on the east coast. How many arsonsit did we have in the sixties? Most likely a third or less. 
And there is a constant, sure, the land is constant, the fuel ever increasing (thank you greenies) and the population ever increasing, thank you idiotic government.  
It is not "climate change" but human change. 
But of course it is so tempting to make political milage out of it.

----------


## Bedford

> The fuel load is remarkably constant throughout the year (yet bushfires are not), and remarkably constant year on year.

  BS john,    

> *Fire fact*  
> Fuels in jarrah forests:  accumulate at 1-2 tonnes/ha each yearreach a maximum of about 20 tonnes/ha in 20 years. 
>  Fuels in karri forests:  accumulate at 3-4 tonnes/ha each yearreach a maximum of about 60 tonnes/ha in 20 years.

   

> It only takes between five and eight years for fuel loads in most forest  types to build up to a point where fire intensity is likely to exceed  3000kW/m under summer conditions.

   https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/managemen...fire-intensity   

> So do tell, why are bushfires becoming more prevalent and more damaging?

  See above.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Were you right on the beach? It was 42 on the other side of the lake.

  2kms from the beach approx, even nobbys was predicted to get above 40 and didnt even break 30.  42 is definately hot though - upper hunter definately got there

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> are you making @@@@e up now?

  Wish I was... 
M'lady thanks you for your considered and thoughtful response though.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 2kms from the beach approx, even nobbys was predicted to get above 40 and didnt even break 30.  42 is definately hot though - upper hunter definately got there

  Yeah the easterly held up well this arvo on the Central Coast...which was fortunate.

----------


## toooldforthis

> Wish I was... 
> M'lady thanks you for your considered and thoughtful response though.

  that's all right.
I had already posted why parks are closed here in WA during high fire danger.
never/ever seen the reasons you posted.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ok, but I replied to this, referring to the risk,   
> Considering heat doesn't burn in itself, it would have to be increased fuel if there was an increase in risk.  https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/lesson-2-...-fire-triangle

  Remember that risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence. 
Fuel is just one part of the equation but unless you are dealing with scorched earth or virgin concrete...it will always be there. 
The question you have to ask is...does hazard reduction burning in such and such an area at such and such a frequency or such and such time of year reduce the likelihood and and consequence of a fire? And will that reduction be consistent across all possible prevailing weather parameter? 
There is no question that we do less burning of our native forests and grasslands now than we used to prior to the mid 20th century. The primary reason for that is that we just don't have the people out in the bush like we used to. Agriculture and forestry used to be incredibly labour intensive.  A huge workforce lived out in the Great Beyond doing all this stuff and living their lives...and routine burning was part of that. 
These days, Australia is one of the most urbanised populations in the world. Agriculture can be successfully and profitably delivered with a relatively tiny workforce and dwindling regional towns over the past century are demonstrable of this. There's simply no longer the people out there to provide the same service that was possible back then. 
Most National Parks in NSW and Victoria are based on country that was either mostly or entirely unsuitable for agriculture (so no-one leased it from the Crown) or was too poor for the sort of forestry profitability that could be had from pine plantations or eucalyptus turnarounds less than 30 years...they weren't providing income to government from either direct  revenue or taxes. If it was worth coin...it would have been cleared. 
And if it isn't worth coin then it wasn't worth paying a bloke on a horse to do a bit of burning. 
These days, those big areas of bush are now managed on the sort of budgets that would make a Newstart allowance seem almost generous. Some of the Victorian Malle reserves were allocated a few tens of thousands of dollars to manage each year. And the fire management budget was an annual bid.  
In NSW, some National Parks regions stretch from the Great Divide right out to the Great Beyond.  Within those regions, some areas might have no more than 30 staff spread across all parameters from park management, visitor management, fire management and internal operations. And yet they are managing big and complicated parts of country. And they've got a limited amount of coin to do it with. And there's only so much you can do with limited people and limited coin. 
So you have to pick risk versus reward...bang for buck. We all do it, in all walks of life and in all situations. And that's the way it is done here. 
There's not much chance of increasing hazard reduction burning unless you are prepared to spend more on putting families back out in the bush, making money, living life and riding around on horseback with a box of matches in their pocket...and providing them with all the modern social and economic services that you have come to expect from your normal urbanised life. Neither you nor I could afford that nor would we wish it on anyone...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> that's all right.
> I had already posted why parks are closed here in WA during high fire danger.
> never/ever seen the reasons you posted.

  That's because this has never been a valid reason prior to this season...

----------


## John2b

> BS john,

  As your reference states, fuel loads level out in 20 years in both jarrah and karri forests. Any forrest that has not burned in the last 20 years will have a stable fuel load, both throughout the year and year on year. (Thanks, BTW). 
Mosaic burning discussed in the link is not used to significantly reduce the fuel load of the bush, it is used to create control lines. The problem is firstly that it is increasing difficult to find time windows when control burning can be achieved safely and secondly when fires do occur in catastrophic weather conditions fires readily jump control lines anyway. 
I recall when volunteer firefighters were equiped with wet hessian wheat bags and 5 gallon knapsack sprayers, not arial water bombers and tanker trucks with water canons. Try that on today fires.

----------


## METRIX

If anyone is wondering how serious the current fires are, take a look at the logged fires below as of yesterday, this is only the fires in NSW,let alone the ones in Brisbane and Adelide. 
The graph shows the size of each one and the current status, think about what has been burnt, 1 hectare is 10,000 sqm, so far NSW has burnt or still burning 2.9 Million hectares, then think about the loss this is going to have on the wildlife. 
It was so nice of our lovely Prime Minister to cut his holiday short by one day, he will no doubt be having a well deserved beer on Christmas day congratulating himself for a job well done, meanwhile thousands of families will be without their Mum's / Dad's sons and daughters because they will still be out there on Christmas day doing what they have been trained to do as a volunteer. 
They certainly won't be sitting down to a home cooked meal with their family knocking back a few beers.    Andersons Creek Advice 13km ESE of Ebor Bellingen Being controlled Bush Fire 12087 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:04  Bakers Creek Rd, Bundarra Advice Bakers Creek Rd, Bundarra, NSW 2359 Uralla Under control Bush Fire 808 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:23  Bald Knob 2 Advice North of Bald Knob Tick Gate Road Clarence Valley Under control Bush Fire 2802 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:22  Bangala Creek Advice MorgansTrl, Paddys Flat, NSW 2372 Tenterfield Out of control Bush Fire 57296 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 14:16  Battery Trail Advice Battery Trail, Wild Cattle Creek SF, 9km North West of Lowanna Coffs Harbour Under control Bush Fire 8 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:11  Beaumont Rd Advice beaumont RD , Mt Kuring-gai Hornsby Under control Bush Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 22 Dec 2019 00:01  Belgravia Rd, Mullion Creek Advice 75/Belgravia Rd, Mullion Creek, NSW 2800 Cabonne Under control Grass Fire 1 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:19  Bills Crossing Crowdy Advice Crowdy Bay National Park Mid-Coast Under control Bush Fire 13367 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:53  Black Flat Advice Black Flat Cootamundra-Gundagai Under control Bush Fire 1 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 11:04  Blue Gum Rd Advice Tooloom Tenterfield Under control Bush Fire 4929 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:02  Border Trail, Woodenbong Advice Border Trail, Woodenbong, NSW 2476 Kyogle Being controlled Bush Fire 27871 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 13:41  Burra Creek Advice Washpool Tenterfield Under control Bush Fire 6 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:31  Byrrill Creek Rd, Byrrill Creek Advice Byrrill Creek Rd, Byrrill Creek, NSW 2484 Tweed Under control Bush Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:43  Campbells Creek Advice bebo road Inverell Under control Bush Fire 1887 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:35  Campbells River Rd, Black Springs Advice Campbells River Rd, Black Springs, NSW 2787 Oberon Under control Grass Fire 30 ha Rural Fire Service 20 Dec 2019 08:42  Captain Cook Dr, Willmot Advice Captain Cook Dr, Willmot, NSW 2770 Blacktown Under control Bush Fire 0 ha Fire and Rescue NSW 21 Dec 2019 19:48  Carrai Creek Advice Carrai Creek, Walcha Armidale Being controlled Bush Fire 196442 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 14:42  Carrai East Advice Nulla Nulla,Willawarrin, Bellbrook, Temagog, Hickeys Creek, Taylors Arm, Burrapine, Thumb Creek Kempsey Being controlled Bush Fire 146579 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:22  Carrot Farm Rd, Deepwater Advice Carrot Farm Rd, Deepwater, 2371 Glen Innes Severn Being controlled Bush Fire 8968 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:57  Carters Rd, Stewarts Brook Advice Carters Rd, Stewarts Brook, NSW 2337 Upper Hunter Being controlled Bush Fire 2091 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:43  Comara Rd, Retreat Advice Comara Rd, Retreat, NSW 2355 Tamworth Being controlled Bush Fire 2111 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:28  Coolagolite Rd, Coolagolite Advice 88 Coolagolite Rd, Coolagolite, NSW 2550 Bega Valley Under control Grass Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 09:01  Coombes Gap Complex Advice Oxley Hwy, Long Flat, NSW 2446 Port Macquarie-Hastings Under control Bush Fire 37772 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:37  Crestwood Dr, Port Macquarie Advice 86 Crestwood Dr, Port Macquarie, NSW 2444 Port Macquarie-Hastings Under control Bush Fire 3572 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:31  Crown Mountain Advice Warra NP east of Mount Mitchell Glen Innes Severn Under control Bush Fire 9017 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:26  Crumps Complex Advice Narone Creek Rd, Wollombi, NSW 2325 Cessnock Being controlled Bush Fire 6794 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:17  Currowan Fire Advice Clyde Ridge Rd, Currowan, NSW 2536 Shoalhaven Out of control Bush Fire 144999 ha Rural Fire Service 22 Dec 2019 03:09  Duckhole Creek, Upper Horton Advice 3551 Trevallyn Rd, Upper Horton, NSW 2347 Gwydir Being controlled Bush Fire 472 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 19:14  Elims Advice The Lakes Way, Forster, NSW 2428 Mid-Coast Under control Bush Fire 1 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:18  Fairford Rd, Warialda Advice Fairford Rd, Warialda, NSW 2402 Gwydir Under control Grass Fire 4 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 10:08  Forest Rd, Comberton Advice Forest Rd, Comberton, NSW 2540 Shoalhaven Out of control Bush Fire 249 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 23:00  Henry Parkes Way, Ootha Advice Henry Parkes Way, Ootha, NSW 2875 Forbes Under control Grass Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:28  Hillville Rd Fire, Hillville Advice Hillville Rd, Hillville, NSW 2430 Mid-Coast Under control Bush Fire 31268 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 19:45  Hortons Creek Advice 35km SE of Tenterfield Tenterfield Being controlled Bush Fire 6914 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:20  Jarrah Rd Advice Jarrah Rd, Girvan, NSW 2425 Mid-Coast Under control Bush Fire 1393 ha Rural Fire Service 22 Dec 2019 00:32  Jersey Bull Rd, Upper Orara Advice Jersey Bull Rd, Upper Orara, NSW 2450 Coffs Harbour Being controlled Bush Fire 54 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:04  Johnsons Rd, Yarrowyck Advice 513 Johnsons Rd, Yarrowyck, NSW 2358 Uralla Being controlled Bush Fire 2077 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:27  Kaloe Mountain Trail Advice 50km west of Grafton Clarence Valley Being controlled Bush Fire 120873 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:28  Keppies Rd, Paterson Advice 79 Keppies Rd, Paterson, NSW 2421 Dungog Under control Bush Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:47  Kian Road Advice Buckra Bendinni Nambucca Under control Bush Fire 31545 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:01  Liberation Trail Advice liberation fire trail fire - large fire with large perimeter - Currently near Armidale Rd, Coutts Crossing , Nymbodia, Glenreagh areas Clarence Valley Under control Bush Fire 183653 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:36  Lindfield Park Road Advice Lindfield Park Rd, Port Macquarie, NSW 2444 Port Macquarie-Hastings Under control Bush Fire 910 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:07  Macquarie River, Cresswell Advice Macquarie Marshes NR , Cresswell Warren Under control Bush Fire 59 ha NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 21 Dec 2019 16:55  McPhillips Advice McPhillips Rd, Halfway Creek, NSW 2460 Clarence Valley Being controlled Grass Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:16  Meads Creek West Advice Goulburn River NP 8 km NE of Meads Crossing 150.14 -32.33 Upper Hunter Being controlled Bush Fire 13882 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:22  Melville range Advice Piallaway Rd, Liverpool Plains Being controlled Bush Fire 292 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 20:18  Mount Browne Road, Upper Orara Advice Fridays Creek Rd, Upper Orara, NSW 2450 Coffs Harbour Under control Bush Fire 31 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:07  MT Nardi Np, continuation 2 Advice Newton Dr, Nimbin, NSW, 2480 Lismore Under control Bush Fire 6629 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:00  Mt Royal 1 Advice Dungog Dungog Being controlled Bush Fire 761 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:48  Mt Spirabo Advice Mt Spirabo Tenterfield Being controlled Bush Fire 14999 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:41  Mulgoa Rd, Mulgoa Advice Mulgoa Rd, Mulgoa, NSW 2745 Penrith Under control Grass Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 19:30  Mummel fire Advice Nowendoc Walcha Being controlled Bush Fire 45336 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:15  Mundawah, Bundarra Advice 2018 Bingara Rd, Bundarra, NSW 2359 Gwydir Being controlled Bush Fire 2996 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:30  Myall Creek Rd Advice Myall Creek Rd, Bora Ridge, NSW 2471 Richmond Valley Under control Bush Fire 121324 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 18:34  Nobles Gully Advice Nobles Gully Armidale Under control Bush Fire 3988 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:31  North Black Range, Palerang Advice West of Braidwood Queanbeyan-Palerang Under control Bush Fire 37425 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 23:10  Nundle Rd, Nundle Advice Nundle Rd, Nundle, NSW 2340 Tamworth Out of control Bush Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 23:56  Paddock Run Advice boggy swamp creek Singleton Being controlled Bush Fire 36600 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:58  Pages Creek Rd, Pages Creek Advice 2260 Pages Creek Rd, Pages Creek, NSW 2337 Upper Hunter Being controlled Bush Fire 3115 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 18:00  Pearson Trail Complex, Dungowan Advice Dungowan Tamworth Being controlled Bush Fire 10704 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 23:11  Ridge 400 Advice 151.84 -31.78 Mid-Coast Being controlled Bush Fire 658 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:30  Rifle Range Rd, Broadwater Advice Rifle Range Rd, Broadwater, NSW 2472 Richmond Valley Under control Bush Fire 3 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:44  Rockview Advice 285 Rockview Rd, Thirldene, NSW 2347 Tamworth Under control Bush Fire 1442 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:48  Rocky Creek Road 2 Advice 1100 Rocky Creek Road Yellow Dam Inverell Under control Bush Fire 130 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:33  Ruined Castle Advice Ruined Castle Blue Mountains Being controlled Bush Fire 9527 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:13  Rumba Complex Advice Dingo Tops Rd, Tapin Tops NP Mid-Coast Being controlled Bush Fire 141636 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 19:49  Shark Creek 3 Advice Shark Creek Rd, Shark Creek, NSW 2463 Clarence Valley Being controlled Bush Fire 3 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:35  Spring Creek South Advice Mt Kaputar NP Narrabri Under control Bush Fire 734 ha NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 21 Dec 2019 16:58  Staggs Lane, Inverell Advice 143 Staggs Lane, Inverell, NSW 2360 Inverell Under control Bush Fire 1326 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:15  Stangers Rd, Currabubula Advice 749/Stangers Rd, Currabubula, NSW 2342 Liverpool Plains Being controlled Bush Fire 85 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:40  Stockyard East Advice Mines Rd, Bril Bril, NSW 2441 Port Macquarie-Hastings Under control Bush Fire 86934 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:03  Tantawangalo Lane, Tantawangalo Advice 372 Tantawangalo Lane, Tantawangalo, NSW 2550 Bega Valley Under control Grass Fire 23 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:33  Three Mile Advice 151.006, -33.346 Central Coast Under control Bush Fire 45944 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 20:01  Tianjara Fire, Tianjara Advice Braidwood Rd, Tianjara, NSW 2622 Shoalhaven Out of control Bush Fire 5861 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 23:33  Tom & Jerry Knob Dunbeacon Advice 4929 Karrangandi Road Upper Horton Gwydir Being controlled Bush Fire 3697 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 19:00  Top Gowrie Advice 150.837 -31.402 Tamworth Being controlled Bush Fire 1622 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:27  Towarra Glenelg Advice Towarra Rd, Keera, NSW 2404 Gwydir Under control Bush Fire 5227 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 10:05  Tumut Common Advice Sydney St, Wereboldera, NSW 2720 Snowy Valleys Being controlled Bush Fire 50 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 22:32  Wallabadah South Advice 150.978 -31.635 Liverpool Plains Being controlled Bush Fire 1929 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 17:08  Wants Lane, Glenugie Advice Wants Lane Glenugie, NSW 2462 Clarence Valley Under control Bush Fire 2 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:24  Warm Crossing Advice Warm Crossing Armidale Being controlled Bush Fire 8421 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 14:57  Warrabah Complex Fire Advice Warrabah National Park Tamworth Being controlled Bush Fire 1038 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:19  Washpool State Forest, Coombadjha Advice Red Bank Rd, Coombadjha, NSW 2460 Clarence Valley Being controlled Bush Fire 131908 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:24  Wollombi Rd, Broke Advice 563 Wollombi Rd, Broke, NSW 2330 Singleton Out of control Grass Fire 0 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 21:02  Wooli River, Wooli Advice Wooli Rd, Wooli, NSW 2462 Clarence Valley Under control Bush Fire 20 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 16:24  Yetman Rd, Wallangra Advice 8064 Yetman Rd, Wallangra, NSW 2360 Inverell Being controlled Bush Fire 830 ha Rural Fire Service 21 Dec 2019 15:37

----------


## John2b

From UrbanDictionary.com:  *Scomo*
A person in charge who leaves things to others when a difficult or emergency situation arises. _@@@@ was going really tits up at work this week so I Scomo’d off to a tropical island for some R&R and let someone else sort it out._ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scomo

----------


## Marc

> Remember that risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence. 
> Fuel is just one part of the equation but unless you are dealing with scorched earth or virgin concrete...it will always be there. 
> The question you have to ask is...does hazard reduction burning in such and such an area at such and such a frequency or such and such time of year reduce the likelihood and and consequence of a fire? And will that reduction be consistent across all possible prevailing weather parameter? 
> There is no question that we do less burning of our native forests and grasslands now than we used to prior to the mid 20th century. The primary reason for that is that we just don't have the people out in the bush like we used to. Agriculture and forestry used to be incredibly labour intensive.  A huge workforce lived out in the Great Beyond doing all this stuff and living their lives...and routine burning was part of that. 
> These days, Australia is one of the most urbanised populations in the world. Agriculture can be successfully and profitably delivered with a relatively tiny workforce and dwindling regional towns over the past century are demonstrable of this. There's simply no longer the people out there to provide the same service that was possible back then. 
> Most National Parks in NSW and Victoria are based on country that was either mostly or entirely unsuitable for agriculture (so no-one leased it from the Crown) or was too poor for the sort of forestry profitability that could be had from pine plantations or eucalyptus turnarounds less than 30 years...they weren't providing income to government from either direct  revenue or taxes. If it was worth coin...it would have been cleared. 
> And if it isn't worth coin then it wasn't worth paying a bloke on a horse to do a bit of burning. 
> These days, those big areas of bush are now managed on the sort of budgets that would make a Newstart allowance seem almost generous. Some of the Victorian Malle reserves were allocated a few tens of thousands of dollars to manage each year. And the fire management budget was an annual bid.  
> In NSW, some National Parks regions stretch from the Great Divide right out to the Great Beyond.  Within those regions, some areas might have no more than 30 staff spread across all parameters from park management, visitor management, fire management and internal operations. And yet they are managing big and complicated parts of country. And they've got a limited amount of coin to do it with. And there's only so much you can do with limited people and limited coin. 
> ...

  It is true that the risk of runaway fire depends of fuel on the ground
Fuel on the ground increases every year if it is not burned, despite John hairbrained theory that it is constant. 
The lack of local population is a good consideration for increased risk
,
However ... and considering 85% of fires are started by people, the population numbers in general regardless of where they live, is a new factor no one wants to consider. If we have 10,000 arsonist living among us on the east coast, that factor is the consequence of increased population, not necessarily living where it matters to reduce the risk 
If we triplicated the population in 70 years, an experiment few countries on earth have ever done, we are bound to have triplicated the potential arsonist that exist in the community.  
Arsonist don't come from Mars, they don't come all from Bulgaria, they leave and breath among us. Idiots who cause accidental fires are also among us to stay.
Three times the arsonist, three times the idiots,  three times the bushfires. Easy equation. 
Anyway, if the greens and assorted cheerleaders want to make political milage from the misery of others, I am not surprised. For those, anything is useful to advance hidden agendas. 
The sad reality is that the combination of green policies that prevent back burning and clearing by the RFS and the farmers that know the country inside out, and the population growth with more development in unsuitable locations and the natural increase in the numbers of social misfits, is the combination that makes bushfires multiply by a factor of 100 
To use this to advance the idiotic climate change hypothesis is rather sad. 
PS
Fuel growth increases with rain. More rain more fuel. The vegetation mass grows more when it rains, and becomes fuel when it does not rain and dries out. Our country is a country of floods and droughts and there is nothing we can do to change it, burn coal or solar power, it does not matter and never will. it is what it is and we must adapt to it. The only factor we can control is our numbers. More people more risk. 
Unfortunately politicians thrive on numbers and stopping migration is not on their agenda and never will be. 
That is why I say that humanity problems are mostly if not all born and bred by the political elite.

----------


## Marc

*A politician wet dream. Wave to the crowd with a smile. And send them to die in a senseless war that can not be won.*     
What has that to do with bushfires? If you can't see it I am sorry for you.

----------


## MorganGT

> It is true that the risk of runaway fire depends of fuel on the ground
> Fuel on the ground increases every year if it is not burned, despite John hairbrained theory that it is constant. 
> The lack of local population is a good consideration for increased risk

  Ever heard of decomposition? Accumulations of fallen bark, leaves, old branches rot, are eaten by insects/microbes, and break down to be incorporated into the soil. By your simplistic reasoning the only reason fuel would ever stop accumulating is because the layer of fuel built up so deeply it reached the tops of the trees and there was no room for anything extra to fall.

----------


## PhilT2

> What has that to do with bushfires? If you can't see it I am sorry for you.

  We've got it Marc; Scomo got Tony Abbott to start the bushfires to distract us so he could sneak away for a holiday. It's all a giant conspiracy to ...???? 
Well, whatever it is, the greenies are responsible for all of it'

----------


## toooldforthis

> That's because this has never been a valid reason prior to this season...

  you need to get out more.
already had park closures  twice here in Perth Hills this fire season (2 heat  waves already come thru - you know, the ones that come to Perth before they come to Adelaide?)
and previous 18-19 fire season we had blanket park closures of ones around Perth as well. 
moving on...
are we all feeling better now Smoko is back in town? 
I have only been living in the Perth Hills since 2012.
So, I tried to learn fast about fire danger. Somethings one only really learns tho is by direct exposure. 
One thing I did early on was arrange a fire hazard reduction burn on a piece of land, probably only about 500m2.
It took a long time to arrange and it was done late in the season, Nov 2012 (you can't burn oof in Nov these days, but that's another story)
So, in retrospect, this would be called a hot burn rather than a cold burn. 
Anyway, after the burn all this crap came back.
and after a year or two the undergrowth was a much higher fuel load than before the burn.
From time to time I commented on this to the locals who are all for burning, anytime, anything, anywhere. Met with silence. 
It has only been in the last 6 months or so I have seen 'news' items that match my observation.
That you need the right kind of burn to control the undergrowth fuel loads. 
here is one such article: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-...Gikh_goR0GBt30 
There was a good segment on SBS as part of the Insight show, will have to see if I can find a link. 
I don't want to get into the argument whether the older indigenous did this or not.
To be honest, I don't even care what it takes to get this knowledge a guernsey.

----------


## METRIX

I do hope there is some sort of formal recognition / presentation for all the RFS volunteers who have given up weeks of their lives and put themselves in dangerous situations to fight the fires day after day, once this is all over. 
I'm sure there will be, but I'm more hoping the recognition is directly for the volunteers not some overpaid boffin in Canberra who will try to take credit. 
I know with the SES we received congratulatory medals from the NSW State gov't for the work done during the huge storms we have had over the years, and needed to go out of area to assist other communities. 
Let's hope the politicians don't turn it into a opportunistic tit for tat session.

----------


## Marc

> Ever heard of decomposition? Accumulations of fallen bark, leaves, old branches rot, are eaten by insects/microbes, and break down to be incorporated into the soil. By your simplistic reasoning the only reason fuel would ever stop accumulating is because the layer of fuel built up so deeply it reached the tops of the trees and there was no room for anything extra to fall.

  *Fire fact  
Fuels in jarrah forests:   accumulate at 1-2 tonnes/ha each yearreach a maximum of about 20 tonnes/ha in 20 years. 
Fuels in karri forests:   accumulate at 3-4 tonnes/ha each yearreach a maximum of about 60 tonnes/ha in 20 year 
The only simplistic approach is yours. Decomposition is obviously happening but if you ever went for a bushwalk you would know at what rate. Also decomposition needs water to happen. More water more growth more potential fuel, when it all dries out, no more decomposition yet bark leafs and branches keep on falling. Only someone living in a bubble would think that fuel rate stays the same due to "decomposition". The reality is that fuel accumulates at different rates according to rain and species. 
Of course there are variations. In a tropical rainforest in Borneo this may be different with 2 meters of rain a year and 40C all year around. In Australia with almost exclusive eucalyptus bush, the rate of decomposition is slow at best yet the rate at which bark peels off and leaves fall all year round and branches drop is much higher than any rate of decomposition you can dream of. 
Fuel accumulates at the rate of knots, and the greens scream shrill blue murder if we propose to burn some off. I still think that deportation to the island of Eros in Greece for recidivist green should be a sound proposition. *

----------


## Marc

> I do hope there is some sort of formal recognition / presentation for all the RFS volunteers who have given up weeks of their lives and put themselves in dangerous situations to fight the fires day after day, once this is all over. 
> I'm sure there will be, but I'm more hoping the recognition is directly for the volunteers not some overpaid boffin in Canberra who will try to take credit. 
> I know with the SES we received congratulatory medals from the NSW State gov't for the work done during the huge storms we have had over the years, and needed to go out of area to assist other communities. 
> Let's hope the politicians don't turn it into a opportunistic tit for tat session.

  I just heard what the PM had to say and believe me it was pathetic. We have the best firefighters in the world he said. Piti he failed to mention that we don't pay the RFS members a cent. Why? Why do we squander billions to appease imaginary foes yet don't pay and keep a fully professional and well paid force? No answer. 
Volunteering is commendable for the volunteer but shameful for the country government who declares incompetence by taking advantage of simple men and women who sacrifice time money and their own lives to this cause that should be a priority. Instead we prioritise political causes for self preservation of this buffoons in canberra

----------


## toooldforthis

> I do hope there is some sort of formal recognition / presentation for all the RFS volunteers who have given up weeks of their lives and put themselves in dangerous situations to fight the fires day after day, once this is all over. 
> I'm sure there will be, but I'm more hoping the recognition is directly for the volunteers not some overpaid boffin in Canberra who will try to take credit. 
> I know with the SES we received congratulatory medals from the NSW State gov't for the work done during the huge storms we have had over the years, and needed to go out of area to assist other communities. 
> Let's hope the politicians don't turn it into a opportunistic tit for tat session.

  there will probably be another push to professionalize - you know, more bureaucracy. boffins in offices. unions collecting dues.
because you know, they know better, rather than the locals with local knowledge.

----------


## toooldforthis

here is the snipet from the Insight Show - think it was called Line of Fire https://www.facebook.com/InsightSBS/...4854839461043/ 
what was interesting about the show, and not shown in this snipet, was all the professionals who spoke after him agreed with him and showed him a lot of respect.

----------


## Marc

Buffoons not boffins  :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> there will probably be another push to professionalize - you know, more bureaucracy. boffins in offices. unions collecting dues.
> because you know, they know better, rather than the locals with local knowledge.

  I was reading an article the other day about the American system when it come to bushfires.
The experts had the highest regards for the Australian RFS, and the way we disclose important information to the general public in real time. 
Two big points they said they could learn from our system: 
1: The openness of information provided in real time by the authorities, via websites / facebook twitter etc 
They said in the US they don't issue information like we do to the general public as they are afraid the general public won't understand it and it will cause mass panic. 
And due to many levels of command / counties etc all information must go through many hands, this information is still paper based, so they can't produce on line content like our guys can in real time. 
2: The willingness of our people to evacuate if they are requested to. 
This was a big point and they said the crux of the problem was lack of trust by the general public, they didn't trust that someone wasn't going to come and ransack their property while they were not there to protect from this happening. 
They said Point 1 could be easily implemented but probably won't as it would take an agreement of the many different authorities and moving their antiquated system to a newer online information based system, which they said would be very hard to do due to the old that's way we have always don it mentality. 
Point 2 was the hard one to change as distrust of authorities / general public is something that's entrenched in their society.

----------


## METRIX

> Buffoons not boffins

  Or do you mean baboons ?

----------


## Marc

Even better.  :Rofl5:  
As for our RFS and Fire and rescue, I have the utmost respect for their capacity. I just disagree with the RFS being volunteers.  
It is a declaration of incompetence. 
We already use GPs as quasi volunteers by paying a pittance a consultation and making it free for the public who abuses the privilege and goes to the GP for no reason half of the time. 
We can not agree for the patient to fork out $10, not even $5. Yet we ask hundreds of thousands to risk their lives for free and, don't forget, we ask their usual employers to foot the bill by paying the volunteer his normal salary whilst he is away fighting fires that should be covered with taxpayers money that has gone to the barrier reef or Samoa, or somewhere else. Oh but we stick to the Paris agreement. That is paramount !!

----------


## toooldforthis

> I was reading an article the other day about the American system when it come to bushfires.
> The experts had the highest regards for the Australian RFS, and the way we disclose important information to the general public in real time. 
> Two big points they said they could learn from our system: 
> 1: The openness of information provided in real time by the authorities, via websites / facebook twitter etc 
> [snip] 
> 2: The willingness of our people to evacuate if they are requested to. 
> [snip].

  interesting.
what has happened here in Perth:  the govt websites are good as you say but have a couple of shortcomings. they can be verbose and critical info buried - esp if you are knew to reading their scriptsime they can be 30 minutes slow (this is probably because they still need to vet incoming info before posting) - I can get the info I need sooner via social media. 30 minutes might not seem much but in a life threatening situation it can make a difference (I speak from experience). having said that, social media can have a lot of misleading and panic posts but over the years I have gotten to know who is who and who to trust.  
with regard to evacuation, yes looting is an issue that comes up every year. always discussion about how to signal the firefighters if you have left or not (without telling the looters the same thing). 
education is the key tho - understanding what is defendable(and when) and what/when it is not. With that knowledge deciding when (not if) to evacuate is predetermined.  
social media has been good for education with links to seminars and generally good info (when I say social media, in my area we have dedicated facebook groups - one for general fire chat, and one for actual fires). 
on evacuation - if you live in a bushfire prone area you should already know the triggers for your evacuation. And it *does not include being asked* to evacuate - that might never come (even if it is just because communications are down)

----------


## craka

> I just heard what the PM had to say and believe me it was pathetic. We have the best firefighters in the world he said. Piti he failed to mention that we don't pay the RFS members a cent. Why? Why do we squander billions to appease imaginary foes yet don't pay and keep a fully professional and well paid force? No answer. 
> Volunteering is commendable for the volunteer but shameful for the country government who declares incompetence by taking advantage of simple men and women who sacrifice time money and their own lives to this cause that should be a priority. Instead we prioritise political causes for self preservation of this buffoons in canberra

  Aint that the bloody truth!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

There are plenty of professional, paid bushfire firefighting staff in RFS, NPWS, Forestry etc. Most of them, of course, are engaged in planning and operations though many/most also from strike teams especially for more remote fire fighting and other speciality activities. 
It's just not economically feasible to pay most (if not all) of the current volunteer force. Certainly not on a retainer basis even as a seasonal fire fighter. Primarily because the RFS would have even more workplace compliance costs to deal with... 
My personal preference would be to annually compensate volunteer firefighters (actually all volunteer emergency service personnel). Either by means of a state based tax break or tax exemption (eg land tax or stamp duty) or perhaps discounted or free vehicle registration/s and license fees. Both as an ongoing incentive and as a thankyou on behalf of the state government.

----------


## Marc

> There are plenty of professional, paid bushfire firefighting staff in RFS, NPWS, Forestry etc. Most of them, of course, are engaged in planning and operations though many/most also from strike teams especially for more remote fire fighting and other speciality activities. 
> It's just not economically feasible to pay most (if not all) of the current volunteer force. Certainly not on a retainer basis even as a seasonal fire fighter. Primarily because the RFS would have even more workplace compliance costs to deal with... 
> My personal preference would be to annually compensate volunteer firefighters (actually all volunteer emergency service personnel). Either by means of a state based tax break or tax exemption (eg land tax or stamp duty) or perhaps discounted or free vehicle registration/s and license fees. Both as an ongoing incentive and as a thank you on behalf of the state government.

  Agreed, anything is better than nothing. But I fail to understand why we don't have a fully paid professional RFS like the NSW fire and rescue. My son in law sometimes goes to a fire that is not clear who is responsible and they are told to stand by and sit on their hands whilst the volunteers are there working. Makes no sense. 
In a third world country, struggling to feed their citizen I understand volunteering. Not in Australia. 
Cut foreign aid by the amount we need and form a professional fully paid force. 
Not that anyone asked me for my opinion  :Smilie:

----------


## Bedford

> Remember that risk is a combination of likelihood and consequence.

  Risk,  

> _noun_ Risk is the possibility or chance of loss, danger or injury. An example of risk is a teenage boy on a car insurance policy.An example of risk is a vacation in the Middle East during a war.   _verb_ Risk is defined as to expose someone or something to a dangerous situation.

  https://www.yourdictionary.com/risk    

> *consequence*   a result of an action, process, etc.; outcome or effect, often, specif., an adverse onea logical result or conclusion; inferencethe relation of effect to causeimportance as a cause or influence: a matter of slight _consequence_importance in rank; influence: a person of _consequence_

  https://www.yourdictionary.com/consequence    

> There is no question that we do less burning of our native forests and grasslands now than we used to prior to the mid 20th century.

  
Has this resulted in an increase in fuel load?  
A Yes or No answer will suffice.

----------


## METRIX

> Agreed, anything is better than nothing. But I fail to understand why we don't have a fully paid professional RFS like the NSW fire and rescue. My son in law sometimes goes to a fire that is not clear who is responsible and they are told to stand by and sit on their hands whilst the volunteers are there working. Makes no sense. 
> In a third world country, struggling to feed their citizen I understand volunteering. Not in Australia. 
> Cut foreign aid by the amount we need and form a professional fully paid force. 
> Not that anyone asked me for my opinion

  Marc, What you fail to understand is volunteering be it RFS, SES, helping the sick or needy, environment care or any other volunteer organisation is part of the Australian way and it has been forever, you don't have to be a third world country to justify volunteering, that's one of the most ill-informed statements I have seen. 
It's not about the gov't using these organisations as cheap unprofessional labour as has been mentioned on here, this annoys me to hear people think like that because it's simply not true, these organisations are run very professionally and they don;t put up with any crap from their members. 
It's about the average Joe who has a 9-5 M-F job and want's to give something back to the community / country, but they don't wan't to be a full time member as they already have a chosen career. 
They freely give up their weekends and after hours to help others out whereas they could easily stay at home on their backside and say, "let someone else deal with it", why do they do it, because that's what Australians have always done and always will continue to do. 
I actually can't understand why you wouldn't want to do it in one form or another, that's what life and being part of a community is about. 
They don't do it because we are told you have to do it they do it because they wan't to help out, because they realise we live in a very lucky country and are proud to be part of a network that doesn't expect anything in return for what you do, they do it because they feel honoured to do something for their community / country. 
Don't misconstrued that with what Scumbo said that the RFS WANT to be out there, wanting to be out there and wanting to help are two very different subjects, and nobody "wants" to be out there, they are out there because that's what they were trained to do. 
The guys and girls I have met through the SES / RFS are highly professional in their day to day careers, they also take being in one of these organisations very seriously, because you are the one who shows up to the punters house representing the organisation when a tree has dropped through their roof and rain is pouring in, you are the one who meets the owner at the door when they are crying (females they are always crying  :Tongue: )  and they feel completely hopeless and don't know what to do. 
You are the one who sees their lower floor flooded because of water ingress and will do whatever is required to alleviate the situation, this doesn't matter if it's 5.00pm you get the call or 2.00am (yes there has been many times you need to go out at 12.00 midnight and don't get home until 4.00am). 
Being part of these organisations, the members all have one thing in common, they want to give back to their local community, some people ask WHY ?, simple answer because they can. 
I have met quite a number of Europeans who don't understand this because they feel everything should be paid and professional, and question why would you wan't to do that and not get paid for it, and why would you risk yourself for that, not everything you do in this world you get paid for, and life is about risk. 
If this was the case then you wouldn't have the amount of people necessary to be in these organisations because for one there wouldn't be the amount of people available to do the job as paid professionals because they already have careers in other fields. 
There are certain times every year know as storm season, this is when in places like Sydney you get the big storms, the hail and winds, generally from around late November to Jan - Feb is when these big storms typically come in, so the need for a lot of people in a short period of time to assist is required, for the rest of the year not so much other than the freak one off storms. 
The other thing is availability of funds to pay for these people, the gov't simply won't assign the funds to this unless something seriously changes, which I think you will see some drastic changes happen after these mega fires, be it re introducing regular back burning, allocate more funds to these services, or should I say give back the funds they were taking away, and also allocate more funds not less. 
Saying we should simply cut foreign aid is also not cool, Australia is a rich country who has plenty of resources and it's part of our obligation to assist other places that don't have it a good as we do,  
I'm not saying we should just had out money hand over fist, I'm saying we assist those that need it just like any other 1st world countries do. 
There is a reason why Australia has ranked in the top 10 best countries in the world, we are currently ranked No7.  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...erall-rankings 
Australia wide the RFS has over 72,000 volunteers and 911 full time paid staff, this is the largest volunteer fire service in the world, that's a pretty impressive statement considering our population size compared to other countries, so these organisations must be doing something right to attract that many members. 
The NSW SES has over 9000 volunteers and 324 full time employees, with both these organisations that is a massive amount of people and a massive amount of money does go to them to supply all the equipment, uniforms, vehicles, training and education, and I hate it when the gov't cuts funding for them, but the gov't wastes our tax money on many worthless projects or schemes, you will never stop that because you have a bunch of baboons controlling our authorities at every level. 
Irrespective of which gov't is in power they are both no good, one will give you something small with one hand and screw you over with the other hand. 
The opposition will do exactly the same but reverse the hands, they will both squander our tax dollars on worthless projects, they are both as bad as each other. 
 if Labour gets back in they will be guaranteed to screw you over in other areas that the Libs don't.

----------


## doovalacky

Its all very well blaming the Greens but with the dryer conditions and hotter weather there is only so much time you can safely burn. It was only about a 3 week window this year near me in WA.
It does not help all the extra housing going up in near on in bush area's either making it more difficult. 
If it was not for a fortunate wind change I could have lost my house last weekend. It wasn't arsonists, or fools, it was a late proscribed burn that flared up in wind (after a couple weeks) and jumped containment lines.  
There is something around 1000 permanent fire fighters in WA and 20000 volunteers in the bush brigades. Be glad there is so many willing to protect the community as much as possible in truly difficult conditions. I've done my time, have you?

----------


## toooldforthis

well said Metrix

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Risk,   https://www.yourdictionary.com/risk    https://www.yourdictionary.com/consequence     
> Has this resulted in an increase in fuel load?  
> A Yes or No answer will suffice.

  No.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Agreed, anything is better than nothing. But I fail to understand why we don't have a fully paid professional RFS like the NSW fire and rescue. My son in law sometimes goes to a fire that is not clear who is responsible and they are told to stand by and sit on their hands whilst the volunteers are there working. Makes no sense. 
> In a third world country, struggling to feed their citizen I understand volunteering. Not in Australia. 
> Cut foreign aid by the amount we need and form a professional fully paid force. 
> Not that anyone asked me for my opinion

  Your SiL is experiencing what is happening as a result of using and/or relying on a voluntary workforce. 
If an RFS volunteer fronts up and says I'm available then the planner's go well that's a bonus. But they are so stretched at the moment they can't often take advantage. 
But if the volunteer says they are available for a strike force and can commit to action for 3 or 5 days then the planners CAN know they have something to work with and for how long... 
Imagine running a building site on volunteer labour. So now imagine how our various rural fire fighting services are managing... it's frankly amazing what everyone has been able to achieve. Hats off to all of them...paid or otherwise.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, What you fail to understand is volunteering be it RFS, SES, helping the sick or needy, environment care or any other volunteer organisation is part of the Australian way and it has been forever, you don't have to be a third world country to justify volunteering, that's one of the most ill-informed statements I have seen. 
> It's not about the gov't using these organisations as cheap unprofessional labour as has been mentioned on here, this annoys me to hear people think like that because it's simply not true, these organisations are run very professionally and they don;t put up with any crap from their members. 
> It's about the average Joe who has a 9-5 M-F job and want's to give something back to the community / country, but they don't wan't to be a full time member as they already have a chosen career. 
> They freely give up their weekends and after hours to help others out whereas they could easily stay at home on their backside and say, "let someone else deal with it", why do they do it, because that's what Australians have always done and always will continue to do. 
> I actually can't understand why you wouldn't want to do it in one form or another, that's what life and being part of a community is about. 
> They don't do it because we are told you have to do it they do it because they wan't to help out, because they realise we live in a very lucky country and are proud to be part of a network that doesn't expect anything in return for what you do, they do it because they feel honoured to do something for their community / country. 
> Don't misconstrued that with what Scumbo said that the RFS WANT to be out there, wanting to be out there and wanting to help are two very different subjects, and nobody "wants" to be out there, they are out there because that's what they were trained to do. 
> The guys and girls I have met through the SES / RFS are highly professional in their day to day careers, they also take being in one of these organisations very seriously, because you are the one who shows up to the punters house representing the organisation when a tree has dropped through their roof and rain is pouring in, you are the one who meets the owner at the door when they are crying (females they are always crying )  and they feel completely hopeless and don't know what to do. 
> You are the one who sees their lower floor flooded because of water ingress and will do whatever is required to alleviate the situation, this doesn't matter if it's 5.00pm you get the call or 2.00am (yes there has been many times you need to go out at 12.00 midnight and don't get home until 4.00am). 
> ...

  Metrix ... oh my ... what you say is perfectly clear to me. You are talking about the individual and his motivations to volunteer. 
I am talking about government of all descriptions, and I am the first to say they are all bad,  relying solely on a massive organisation that is run on the basis of volunteering.  
Now this is not your local church soup kitchen, this is the ONLY firefighting force we have for fires outside urban areas. 
The only one. 
How on earth can we rely in this massive way on volunteering? Why? That is what I don't agree with.  
A mixed force that has a large professional basis and that allows occasional volunteers to lend a hand, is perfectly understandable. The FRNSW operates that way in a limited concept. They have volunteers in hospitals and it seems to work ok. Doctors volunteer their services to different causes from their own free will, and that works well too. To have an entire and essential service completely deprived of anything permanent and professional besides fat cats and management, just because we know people will raise their hand and go for free is criminal in my mind.   
If firefighting needs volunteers why don't the fire and rescue have volunteers? They don't. Are they bad? I don't think so, they are proud professionals just like the armed forces. 
What is it with the RFS? Are they second grade? Less important? Sort of a hobby?
FRNSW has started what is called community fire units program and they have 7000 volunteers for specific purposes, bush fire in marginal urban areas by local residents and they train them and support. But they remain a fully professional force. 
Make no mistake, I know a string of people who volunteer in the RFS and that get paid by their employers. The individual is very generous, their employers are very generous, the government is very stupid and malicious in pretending that this is a good permanent solution. It is not. In time of war i have volunteered. Wrong motivation but an understandable concept. In times of extreme crisis, volunteering is expected. Not as a norm, and not having anything in place is wrong.
But hei ... that is my point of view.

----------


## Bedford

> More and more suburban housing is expanding into bushland settings and there is a need to protect these buildings and their inhabitants from bushfires. However, having native vegetation close to houses makes it difficult to protect. CSIRO scientist Dr Cheney said that if your house is 200 metres from the fire edge you have two per cent chance of your house being caught alight and thinks that 100 metres between housing and the bush is a safe margin. This safe distance increases with slope because fire speed doubles with every 10 degrees increase in slope.(48) In talking about the effectiveness of fuel reduction burning he said:  For the first 18 months to two years [after hazard reduction] the fire will stop on a prescribed burn. After two years it will continue to burn through it, but it will burn at a lower and manageable intensity, *and as the years go by the intensity builds up as the fuel builds up*. Prescribed burning is not designed to stop fires. It is designed to reduce their intensity, so the impacts are lower and you have a sporting chance of suppressing it, even under extreme conditions.(49)

  https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ib0203/03Cib08

----------


## METRIX

Marc I understand what you are saying but I feel you are still failing to understand where the RFS came from and why having a large amount of volunteers available at short notice is imperative to how the organisation works. 
Read the below history of the RFS and you might understand how and why this organisation was developed.  https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/about-us/history 
You are comparing a firefighting organisation that has a main priority to put out confined structure fires such as a house or shed, and response times of minutes, this is why you have 24 / 7 manned fire stations. 
Their number one priority is to put out the fir while protecting adjoining properties in built up areas and rescue any occupants in danger. 
This is a completely different skill set to putting out a bushfire, a structure fire might take one crew, if it's a large one it might take 4 or 5 or 10 crews to handle it, at the end of the day it's still a confined structure fire. 
You say FRNSW has started what is called community fire units program and they have 7000 volunteers for specific purposes, bush fire in marginal urban areas by local residents and they train them and support. But they remain a fully professional force. 
How is this any different to the RFS, it's just they have trained volunteers that number into the 70,000 +, why because they cover a lot larger area than the urbanised cities.  
And why are the NSWFB introducing volunteers, is it because they deem those jobs to meaningless for them or it it because they saw an opportunity to exploit free labour, or it is because the public actually want to lend a hand rather then sit back and let someone else do it, that sounds very familiar. 
Your numbers of 7000 volunteers might be a bit off, interesting that the number of volunteers has outweighed the number of full-time fire fighters for years, also note the number of volunteers is dropping at a steady rate since 2015,  
NSWFB Volunteer numbers dropped from 6318 to 4797 from 2015 to 2018 that's 1521 or 24% with the biggest drop fro 2017 to 2018, perhaps the volunteer scheme is not working in the NSWFB for various reasons. 
RFS volunteer numbers dropped from 73,162 to 71,234, that's 1928 or around 3% over the same period

----------


## Marc

Yes, I do understand the difference between the two organisations. I also see that different governments are spending obscene amounts of taxpayers money in aloof projects to prop up the careers of different CEO and politicians and let volunteers burn to death in fires for free. Those are facts.  
The logistics of two divided organisations with two sets of managers is also a consideration. Why not having one united professional force with just one set of parasitic management fat cats? 
The answer is rather obvious the same answer to why do politicians have hundreds of consultants when only a few decades ago they had half a dozen.
The reality is that our tax goes to support hordes of parasites and self serving bastards, whilst the real work is done by underpaid, or like in this case not paid at all, who in some cases die for the privilege.
Not right, wrong, and no amount of reasoning will make it right.   
Meantime the greens are still bleating "global warming"

----------


## Bros

In Queensland they used to have and I believe still do have Auxiliary firefighters who are paid for attending training and fire fighting. Every small town cannot afford to have full time paid firefighters to attend a fire every few months hence the use of Auxiliaries under the direction of a paid station officer. 
There then is the Bush Fire Brigade who are volunteers and distinguished by yellow 4X4 vehicles with small water tanks as opposed to the city brigades with big red trucks and heaps of water. There is now some amalgamation going on to combine the two brigades together with some of the trucks being replaced being red. 
Victoria has intrigued me as I have cousin who was with the CFA and was a chief fire officer in a large suburb in Melbourne. I would have thought the CFA was similar to the Queensland bush fire brigades so I am confused here. They also use Auxiliaries. 
One difference that was told to me by the local officer in charge of our fire station where all staff are paid is that they never put out a grass fire just contain it and burn up the fuel and they can't light fires which is the main tool of the Bush Fire Brigade.

----------


## Marc

Yes, plenty of alternatives to a full volunteer force. The obvious reply to "we can not afford full time paid force" is to pay when they are needed. Sort of obvious me thinks. 
Furthermore, if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander ... why pay the managers and fat cats that show up for photo opportunity and pathetic speeches? Make them all volunteers ... or pay them only when there is a fire, now that will go down well!
How about making politicians volunteers?
Bros ... stop deleting Davo's post, they do add some colour to the site.  :Cool:

----------


## METRIX

> Yes, plenty of alternatives to a full volunteer force. The obvious reply to "we can not afford full time paid force" is to pay when they are needed. Sort of obvious me thinks. 
> Furthermore, if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander ... why pay the managers and fat cats that show up for photo opportunity and pathetic speeches? Make them all volunteers ... or pay them only when there is a fire, now that will go down well!
> How about making politicians volunteers?
> Bros ... stop deleting Davo's post, they do add some colour to the site.

  Marc, Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, I personally know the Managers of my local SES as I trained with them, they are not fat cats, they were actually volunteer members who worked their way up to a point where they wanted to offer more, and applied for a paid position. 
Here is a secret, they actually work long hours, commonly weekends as well, they are extremely dedicated to their positions, very professional and take the responsibility they have been given very seriously. 
These guys are full time because they are doing something every day, be it at the unit having work done taking vehicles out to have them modified or upgraded, engaging in public events, overseeing training be it on weeknights or weekends, meeting with higher departments justifying for more funds etc etc, they are not sitting back in some office smoking cigars and sipping champagne. 
It would be good if you don't make false comments on something you don't know anything about because all you are trying to do is make out there is a small number of people getting paid for doing nothing while the real work is being done by the pawns,. 
I take this very personally as I know from first hand what goes on in these organisations, and it's not what you make it out to be. 
I can guarantee you nothing could be further from the truth, maybe if you were part of one of these organisations you could see for yourself.
Can I ask you how long have you lived in Australia, and have you ever joined any volunteer organisations, if so which ones and for how long, if you haven't joined any, why not ?. 
I know you like to post your political views on here, but this is the not right time to be bagging out organisations you know zero about. 
Especially organisations that are out there putting their members lives on the line (the ops managers take the responsibility of their members very seriously).
All this is being done silently inthe background so the rest of us can sit back and talk about what a wonderful job they are doing and enjoy our Christmas lunch all the time while some poor buggers are desperately trying to save what they can that's left of the bush and peoples properties / livestock / wildlife. 
All you are doing is trying to bait others to think the same way you do, truth is others reading these comments are smarter than that, they can see straight the rubbish that's being blurted out. 
I did see a nice gesture from Woolworths and Coles, donating whatever food and water supplies the local RFS unit's needed to keep the guys fed and hydrated.

----------


## Bros

> Bros ... stop deleting Davo's post, they do add some colour to the site.

   I haven't deleted any posts on this thread and I rarely delete posts just edit out the personal insults nothing more.

----------


## PhilT2

> I haven't deleted any posts on this thread and I rarely delete posts just edit out the personal insults nothing more.

  As Metrix has already noted, Marc and reality are yet to establish a close, loving relationship. Getting to the truth of any issue is hard work.
While we are on the subject of facts v feelings, if anyone has any hard information on how "greenies" have made a significant impact on hazard reduction burns i would be interested to see it. What I am looking for is actual documentation, not anecdotes from your brothers cousins wifes sister or something off the internet but actual official records.

----------


## toooldforthis

> As Metrix has already noted, Marc and reality are yet to establish a close, loving relationship. Getting to the truth of any issue is hard work.
> While we are on the subject of facts v feelings, if anyone has any hard information on how "greenies" have made a significant impact on hazard reduction burns i would be interested to see it. What I am looking for is actual documentation, not anecdotes from your brothers cousins wifes sister or something off the internet but actual official records.

  fwiw I haven't seen any evidence at Federal or State level but I have noted that there can be quite a difference at council/shire level. 
recently I was looking at some posts on a house website and someone was commenting on how that particular Victorian council was difficult to deal with in regards to hazard reduction (removal of trees, undergrowth etc) and as a consequence they wouldn't buy the house because of the fire danger. I was a little surprised given the rules/regs with my local WA shire (bushfire zone) so I tracked down the Victorian shire and had a look their regs - I was very surprised about what you could and couldn't do - basically had to get permission for any tree removal (even dead ones). I will see if I can track it down, might have been Nillumbik?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> While we are on the subject of facts v feelings, if anyone has any hard information on how "greenies" have made a significant impact on hazard reduction burns i would be interested to see it. What I am looking for is actual documentation, not anecdotes from your brothers cousins wifes sister or something off the internet but actual official records.

  There won't be any such documentation. Primarily because it doesn't work that way.  
Politicians and their minions prepare, write and enact legislation. The governing party then provides policy  direction about how that legislation will be implemented annually as part of the funding to do so. 
Public servants take that funding and the policy direction (which can come in many forms) and then work within the legislation to deliver on the expected outcomes. 
It's the legislation that is tripping up. everyone out in the real world...mostly because most people don't seem to understand it. Which is perhaps why 'greenies' get the blame. 
Legislation is incredibly powerful and limiting and frequently works in counterproductive ways especially when dealing with similar legislation (water, land, vegetation, threatened species being one such example) especially across jurisdiction (state/Federal). 
When it does go wrong...it's often easier for ministers and their advisors to blame a bogeyman for policy failures or implementation criticism rather than simply accept and say that we the government at all levels have bollocks it up. 
Greenies are a useful bogeyman. Just like the communists, fascists, unionists and immigrants before them. 
Suffice to say the The Greens have rarely had legislation enacted. Though they may have written a few clauses. And they've never been in a position (except perhaps in Tasmania) to implement legislation and provide the public service with policy direction and funding to interpret legislation and implement policy.  
As a former public servant dealing with natural resource management at a State and regional level...the Greens and their policies and opinions were irrelevant to our work. Legislation and directions from the Minister were the be all and end all.

----------


## UseByDate

> Bros ... stop deleting Davo's post, they do add some colour to the site.

   

> I haven't deleted any posts on this thread and I rarely delete posts just edit out the personal insults nothing more.

  I think I know why there is some confusion. This morning when I was on the “new posts” page it showed the last poster to be “DavoSyd” in the “fighting fires” thread. When I went to the “fighting fires” thread the last poster was Marc. In fact DavoSyd has not posted for a couple of days. This may be related to the software issues that some of us are experiencing as described in the “Logged in not logged in ??” thread.
 For me, this has only happened once and sometimes I doubt my own sanity when I cannot reproduce errors.    :Yes:

----------


## DavoSyd

to avoid being accused of gaslighting by his holiness the dali Marc, i must admit to posting a reply and then deleting it.  
this will not show up anywhere, but Marc knew it happened because he probably saw it live (as he salivates over who the next victim of his troll-baiting program will be... we're now up to Marc's Troll-world, Chapter 145 - trolling volunteer firefighters. Oh my, _what a noble cause!)_

----------


## Bedford

> While we are on the subject of facts v feelings, if anyone has any hard information on how "greenies" have made a significant impact on hazard reduction burns i would be interested to see it. What I am looking for is actual documentation, not anecdotes from your brothers cousins wifes sister or something off the internet but actual official records.

  If you can clarify who/what you refer to as "greenies" I can probably assist, but it depends on what your interpretation of the word means. 
If you don't want it off the internet, I would need your name and address in order to snail mail it to you. 
Some private stuff I have is contract tender documents with maps and specifications that shows how fuel reduction works have been decreased significantly since the mid '80s. 
These I won't share, as I'm saving them for the royal commission in the future.

----------


## Moondog55

> I just heard what the PM had to say and believe me it was pathetic. We have the best firefighters in the world he said. Piti he failed to mention that we don't pay the RFS members a cent. Why? Why do we squander billions to appease imaginary foes yet don't pay and keep a fully professional and well paid force? No answer. 
> Volunteering is commendable for the volunteer but shameful for the country government who declares incompetence by taking advantage of simple men and women who sacrifice time money and their own lives to this cause that should be a priority. Instead we prioritise political causes for self preservation of this buffoons in canberra

  Marc I think you are being too kind and generous to those buffons in parliament [ all of them local state and federal] especially our born again and again Prone Minister who like his brethren are waiting for the Rapture to take them all to heaven.
 We could drought proof this country easily enough for the cost of one of the new and useless submarines but that would take courage and vision and forethought and instead we have SlowMo and his ilk pigging out at our expense

----------


## chrisp

> to avoid being accused of gaslighting by his holiness the dali Marc, i must admit to posting a reply and then deleting it.  
> this will not show up anywhere, but Marc knew it happened because he probably saw it live (as he salivates over who the next victim of his troll-baiting program will be... we're now up to Marc's Troll-world, Chapter 145 - trolling volunteer firefighters. Oh my, _what a noble cause!)_

  He might have had email notifications on as well, so he could have received a copy of your post via email. 
I think that it is Marc versus the world! - its quite an enjoyable comedy to watch play out.  :Smilie:

----------


## Bedford

> to avoid being accused of gaslighting by his holiness the dali Marc, i must admit to posting a reply and then deleting it.  
> this will not show up anywhere,

  Yes it will, if it went live it would have sent email notifications. 
You cannot "Hard Delete" a post only Soft Delete it, meaning Mods and Admins can still see it. 
Unless a Mod or Admin deleted it, it will still be there in the thread.

----------


## DavoSyd

> it’s quite an enjoyable comedy to watch play out.

  enjoyable?!  
would that mean you enjoy hitting your thumb with a hammer occasionally too then??!!  :Tongue:  or more the leather mask stuff? 
i have previously pondered what the Oneflare Pty Ltd team might think of such a strange character populating thier forum with flat-earther bunkem? 
but then I realised that they would likely encourage it because the trolling generates page hits and this = $$$ because that's what they are selling to their advertisers.   _"look we had over 70 website hits per day last week! advertise with us because tradies and DIY guys will be seeing it!"_ 
but most of the site hits are actually a bunch of guys arguing with a troll?  
weird huh?

----------


## PhilT2

> If you can clarify who/what you refer to as "greenies" I can probably assist, but it depends on what your interpretation of the word means. 
> If you don't want it off the internet, I would need your name and address in order to snail mail it to you. 
> Some private stuff I have is contract tender documents with maps and specifications that shows how fuel reduction works have been decreased significantly since the mid '80s. 
> These I won't share, as I'm saving them for the royal commission in the future.

  I'll make the definition of "greenie" as loose as possible to make this as easy as possible. I'll accept membership of any organisation that has environmental issues as its primary goal; so Green Party, Greenpeace, even Getup.  
By "off the internet" I mean blogs or comments. Official document such as the Hansard of state and federal parliaments, minutes of local council meetings or registered organisations, even though they are on the internet, are acceptable. 
But here's the tricky part. Minutes from the local Dopesmokers Assn saying they disprove of burnoffs due to fear of "crop" losses won't cut it. Nor will a collection of the unwashed protesting outside of somewhere. What I am looking for is evidence that an actual planned burnoff, not just one that was on the wish list, was cancelled because of the action of these "greenies" There has to be a clear link that proves that the greenies were the sole or main cause for the cancellation of real planned burnoffs.

----------


## John2b

> Legislation is incredibly powerful and limiting and frequently works in counterproductive ways especially when dealing with similar legislation (water, land, vegetation, threatened species being one such example) especially across jurisdiction (state/Federal).

   Read "Game of Mates" to understand how policy is intentionally ambiguous, confusing and subject to multiple interpretations. It is not by accident, and the winners are (drumroll) ....  the big end of town. Who else can afford the annual $100millions spend on lobbying, certainly not the 'greenies' with their pissant budgets. There's about 10 paid lobbyists (mostly representing various industries) in Canberra for each elected politician. 
Game of Mates: How Favours Bleed the Nation  https://gameofmates.com

----------


## John2b

> As Metrix has already noted...

  ...not even made an acquaintance yet.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, Not everything in this world is a conspiracy, I personally know the Managers of my local SES as I trained with them, they are not fat cats, they were actually volunteer members who worked their way up to a point where they wanted to offer more, and applied for a paid position etc etc ....

  Interesting post Metrix but you are off the mark once more. 
It does not matter what I have done or not done personally, that is not debatable for obvious reasons. Just like I don't challenge you to tell me what you really do or what you have really done. As much as I could probably entertain you with my life story, such is for my family to hear and only the edited version.  All that is possible on a website like this, is to exchange opinions. I say this, you say that. We may agree or disagree and it stays at that. 
You seem to have the concept of volunteering in high esteem, and I can understand why you may think that way, however you fall every time in the same error of looking at the person that does it and his personal motivation. I have said it many times before. The volunteer is commendable the need for volunteering is reprehensible for a rich country like ours. if you don't understand that, i am sorry I can not be clearer.  
All your other personal argumentations are irrelevant to this particular point I am making. The _need_ for volunteers is an indictment of incompetence for the decision makers. There may be a scope for a limited number of residents in an area to be trained in fighting fires to aid those who do it for a living ... yes! To have an entire force that is unpaid, is a bad idea and it is clearly exploiting that Australian spirit you defend. All those comments about ...  "I know such and such hard working etc", is a classic straw man argument. There may even be a case for discussing if a professional force would have less fatalities than a volunteer force.  
As for my comments about fat cats and CEO and politicians who benefit from the status quo and pocket our money and throw the rest to the wind, it only applies to those bastards who _are_ and deserve such epithets. You know a good one? Great! After working for a government department for xx amount of years, the balance is skewed badly. The higher you go the crooked it becomes. 
i have to gracefully decline to reply directly to the chief coryphaeus and his deprecating followers that seem to post without fail after any of my post that contain the word green or solar or climate and now must add the word volunteer to the list. 
It does make fo a good belly laugh guys. 
PS
After my next post, you can add Adam Smith to the list  :Rofl5:

----------


## Marc

*The Practical Case Against Most Volunteer Work*  Specialisation provides much more value to society than unskilled volunteers *Tuesday, June 27, 2017*  Why is it that so many volunteer opportunities put volunteers into positions for which they’re not well-trained? Think about the volunteer work you’ve done in the past. Maybe you’ve helped to build a home for someone alongside a group of volunteers. That group could have included people who were software engineers, chefs, gas station owners, and artists. Very few of them had home building experience.  Isn’t this generally the story with most volunteer work? The soup kitchen which the kind-hearted doctors, fashion designers and writers helped to staff. The language classes taught by auto mechanics, dancers, and marketers. The free car rides and transportation assistance offered by civil engineers, plastics manufacturers, and chemists.  There’s a problem here, and it strikes me as odd that few people mention it. *
Specialisation and Volunteer Work* If the goal of volunteer work is generally to create the largest valuable impact for a given goal, then we have to think like economists about our solutions. We have to think about how to use as few people and resources as possible to eliminate hunger, involuntary poverty, disease, or whatever other social ills our organization is working against. 
One of the first lessons of economics – and one of Adam Smith’s best legacies – is the importance of specialization for creating value. If you were to try to make a modern pencil all by yourself, you’d have to mine the metal, grow and chop and process the wood, process and mold the graphite, provide the paints and chemicals for the final product, and grow and harvest the rubber, among a thousand other processes and resource commitments. You would have to own millions of dollars in capital – the lands, tools, and resources you would need to create that one pencil. 
Fortunately for you, no one tries to make pencils from scratch all by themselves. People specialize.Some people grow the rubber trees, some people process the graphite, some people run the machines which make the pencils. No one tries to do everything. 
More importantly, for understanding the value of specialization is the expertise effect. When people can specialize and trade with each other, they get really good at the things they specialize in.Specialization unleashes productivity in powerful ways when it reaches a certain scale.
 Someone who spends 8 hours a day on graphic design is going to make much better designs than someone who spends an hour on graphic design, an hour on web design, an hour on web development, and several hours on milking the cows.Specialization is part of why we’re so relatively wealthy in the modern world: we have more people doing more specialized tasks than ever before. Specialization unleashes productivity in powerful ways when it reaches a certain scale. Its principles apply as much in for-profit as in not-for-profit organizations. *
Fish Out Of Water and Opportunity Cost* Remember the volunteer home construction example? The language classes or the soup kitchens staffed by doctors, dancers and woodworkers? If these examples of staffing generally hold true in most volunteer work experiences, then I think we can say that volunteer work has ade-specialization problem.  In their legitimate need for more hands and more help, many nonprofits end up removing people from contexts where they’re actually masters. Instead, nonprofits often put volunteers into areas where they’re complete novices. *
What’s the result?* If volunteers only spend a few hours every month doing the volunteer work, it’s doubtful that they’ll ever master the skills the volunteer work requires. Imagine a volunteer home construction project. If you have a country singer and a soccer star trying to build a home, you may eventually get the job done. But how much better and how much faster and how much more cheaply could a home be completed if it was built by a team of skilled construction workers? You guessed it. The construction workers will complete the job days faster, thousands of dollars more cheaply, and with greater quality. 
The soccer star and country singer who tried to build the home may feel good about building a home, and that’s great. If they succeeded in building a home, even better. But we can’t just focus on the obvious positives and forget about the lost opportunity for specialization to have done the job much better. This lost opportunity is another key economic concept at the heart of this problem – what we call opportunity cost.It’s invisible yet important. *
We're Wasting People's Talents* One part of the opportunity cost we’ve already observed is the days, dollars and quality we could have gained if we had used experts to build the home. There’s another side. How might we have used the specialization of the country singer and the soccer star more effectively? Both of them could have raised, donated, or earned hundreds of thousands for the home construction organization in a week’s worth of time, instead of spending a week working on the construction project themselves. But there’s more than money at stake. 
Maybe neither the country singer nor the soccer player should be spending time on home construction at all. Maybe the country singer would make a bigger positive impact on the world by mentoring other young singers, archiving country music history, or reviving the careers of older musicians.  
Maybe the soccer player could make a bigger impact on the world by training the next generation of soccer greats, providing soccer education to underprivileged kids, or challenging corrupt soccer organizations.Specialisation and trade ultimately create value for everyone 
What’s more, we should not immediately assume that people’s “day jobs” – the ones that they benefit from financially – aren’t making the world significantly better for other humans. Specialization and trade ultimately create value for everyone – they inject surplus value into the web of human interactions by making more of the things people value, while costing less of the resources people value. 
If you asked the fans of the country singer or the soccer player, you could find out pretty quickly that their music or sports expertise creates tremendous value for millions of people. The same is true for every job. The doctor who shows up reliably to treat patients, the entrepreneur who builds an app which saves people time, the clerk who does an expert job at helping people shop and check out, and the custodian who keeps a hotel clean and orderly – all of these touch the lives of thousands of people directly, and millions of people indirectly, in the course of a year of work. 
Touching the lives of all of those people in a positive way is tremendously powerful – even if it is “just your job.” If that’s the case, how much more valuable is a job well done than a volunteer project done halfway? *
What I'm Not Trying To Say* I’m not making the case in this post that the volunteer work you do isn’t valuable for helping people out. I’m making a relative economic argument. Unspecialized volunteer work isn’t absolutely valueless. It’s just less valuable than specialized work, if your goal is to help the most people with the smallest cost. 
I’m also not making the case that volunteer work as a category is bad because it doesn’t have a salary attached to it. If you are a cook and spend time doing free chef work for a homeless shelter, your contribution is as valuable as your contribution at your chef station at work. I wouldn’t distinguish between the value of the two. All work can create value where there was no value before if you follow the rules. 
I don’t think improving other people’s welfare is the only reason to do acts of service. Volunteer work is powerful for individual experience, wisdom and self-improvement. And even seemingly “wasteful” uses of peoples’ time can sometimes have value. So the country singer and soccer star may find it valuable to volunteer to build that house anyway.The psychological benefits of that mutual act are intangible but quite real 
Finally, there are intangible benefits to others from volunteer work which this argument doesn’t take into account. While most of its volunteers are probably inexperienced in home building, there’s something transformative about a community working together with the future homeowners to build a house. The psychological benefits of that mutual act are intangible but quite real for the person who ends up living in that house. The house has become a symbol reminding them that people care about them. *
Thinking Differently About Volunteer Work* There is a way forward from how volunteer work works today. The trick is finding a way to funnel talent to where it’s most useful. If you are a cook, volunteer where you can use your knowledge of a kitchen. If you are a doctor, volunteer where you can help solve medical problems. If you are a software engineer, help a nonprofit build an app. If you are a marketer, help a local charity raise money. If you are a truck driver, volunteer to haul resources. If you are a videographer, make a video to highlight a problem. 
You get my drift. Do what you’re good at. Whatever you do, don’t spend your time on work which you just don’t care about or don’t know how to do well. And just do your day job really, really well – like the world depends on it. The world does depend on it. 
Nonprofits in particular and charitable causes in general are leaving so much value on the table. If they can find a way via marketplaces to connect to valuable volunteers – in the same way that Uber connects drivers and riders – then they’ll be able to do things they’ve never done before. They’ll be able to move with new speed because their people will know and care about what they’re doing. If specialization is a part of what unleashes the wealth of nations, it will also be what unleashes the power of charity.    *James Walpole*  James Walpole is a writer, startup marketer, intellectual explorer, and perpetual apprentice. He is an alumnus of Praxis and a FEE Eugene S. Thorpe Fellow. He writes regularly at jameswalpole.com.

----------


## Bedford

> I'll make the definition of "greenie" as loose as possible to make this as easy as possible. I'll accept membership of any organisation that has environmental issues as its primary goal; so Green Party, Greenpeace, even Getup.  
> By "off the internet" I mean blogs or comments. Official document such as the Hansard of state and federal parliaments, minutes of local council meetings or registered organisations, even though they are on the internet, are acceptable. 
> But here's the tricky part. Minutes from the local Dopesmokers Assn saying they disprove of burnoffs due to fear of "crop" losses won't cut it. Nor will a collection of the unwashed protesting outside of somewhere. What I am looking for is evidence that an actual planned burnoff, not just one that was on the wish list, was cancelled because of the action of these "greenies" There has to be a clear link that proves that the greenies were the sole or main cause for the cancellation of real planned burnoffs.

  Ok, sorry I can't help with your request. 
It was a government inquiry and even they aren't stupid enough to refer/name the people you will accept.

----------


## chrisp

> enjoyable?!  
> would that mean you enjoy hitting your thumb with a hammer occasionally too then??!!  or more the leather mask stuff? 
> i have previously pondered what the Oneflare Pty Ltd team might think of such a strange character populating thier forum with flat-earther bunkem? 
> but then I realised that they would likely encourage it because the trolling generates page hits and this = $$$ because that's what they are selling to their advertisers.   _"look we had over 70 website hits per day last week! advertise with us because tradies and DIY guys will be seeing it!"_ 
> but most of the site hits are actually a bunch of guys arguing with a troll?  
> weird huh?

  
I’m definitely not in to pain - neither my own or that inflicted on others. 
I was thinking that Marc’s posts are humorous in a dark way, a bit like the rabid old uncle at a family function that we all politely put up with without upsetting the old dear. It’s all a bit funny in a sad way.

----------


## John2b

> I was thinking that Marc’s posts are humorous in a dark way, a bit like the rabid old uncle at a family function that we all politely put up with without upsetting the old dear.

  In defence of Marc he is expressing what many people believe. Marc's posts are often thought provoking, and often prompt me to learn more about the topic in question  than I might otherwise. My posts are generally not to answer Marc as I don't think I have anymore chance of influencing his beliefs than him mine. I try (maybe fail in the view of some people) to verify or otherwise testable claims when they are made, and if those claims are at odds with reality I'll post. There are many people reading this thread but not contributing who may start to think things are not as simplistic a some people would have.

----------


## toooldforthis

its a bit like Godwin's Law
after 3 pages every thread ends up about Marc ... 
meanwhile

----------


## chrisp

> In defence of Marc he is expressing what many people believe. Marc's posts are often thought provoking, and often prompt me to learn more about the topic in question  than I might otherwise. My posts are generally not to answer Marc as I don't think I have anymore chance of influencing his beliefs than him mine. I try (maybe fail in the view of some people) to verify or otherwise testable claims when they are made, and if those claims are at odds with reality I'll post. There are many people reading this thread but not contributing who may start to think things are not as simplistic a some people would have.

  I do agree - especially your first sentence. The key word is ‘believe’. Marc and many others ‘believe’ their views, feelings, and I dare say, their prejudices and then implement a confirmation bias to support their believes. This is borne out by Marc posting slabs of internet blogs in to this forum as if it was evidence (whereas it’s just someone else’s opinion or view). Evidence and facts seem to have little to do with their views, and are dismissed as some sort of conspiracy as it doesn’t fit their narrative. 
The analogy I used is most appropriate. I don’t think any of us think that we can change the views of the proverbial rabid old relative, rather we know that sometimes it takes generational change before old views and prejudices disappear and the world moves on. 
I do agree with your idea of not letting ‘alternative facts’ (aka misinformation or lies) stand uncontested, and that falsehoods should be challenged. I also agree that replies to Marc’s posts aren’t actually intended to change Marc’s views, but rather to provide the listener with the correct facts. 
It does feel like the world progresses by taking 10 steps forward and 9 steps backwards. I do hold hope that the world will develop a better way of adapting to new technology. Imagine a world that takes 10 steps forward and only one step backwards! 
I do hold hope that the new generation will be more responsive to the challenges and opportunities that the future holds. I’m very impressed and pleased that Greta Thunberg has been able to gain such a strong following and public profile. She certainly puts the old shock-jocks (and some prime ministers) to shame. I’m surprised that the level of vitriol that they direct at a young girl. Obviously she resonates with the younger population, and hits a sore spot with some of the older people. 
Marc is entitled to his views, but not to his own facts. These threads would be more pleasant for all if he actually knew the difference (and stopped posts slabs of alternative-facts and opinions from elsewhere)! 
Keep up the great work John. I very much enjoy your posts. I like your positive attitude and the fact that you living an energy lifestyle that many seem to believe is impossible.

----------


## Marc

> In defence of Marc he is expressing what many people believe. Marc's posts are often thought provoking, and often prompt me to learn more about the topic in question  than I might otherwise. My posts are generally not to answer Marc as I don't think I have anymore chance of influencing his beliefs than him mine. I try (maybe fail in the view of some people) to verify or otherwise testable claims when they are made, and if those claims are at odds with reality I'll post. There are many people reading this thread but not contributing who may start to think things are not as simplistic a some people would have.

  Thank you John, I don't post to change your mind or anyone else's either. Adults in general have made up their mind about the principles that will govern their life around age 10, so not much point.  
However, a recurrent anomaly in debates in this forum, is the total absence of consideration to the points in replies given. i have repeatedly stated that volunteering is wrong for a rich country. I am hearing scores of people on the radio and articles on newspapers stating the same.  
Here, I don't see any logical reasoning I can use to defend volunteering, only emotional outburst and historical mumbo jumbo. What does it matter how we got to this situation? What does it matter that Mr Smith is such a good guy?  
All it matters is that we have scores of people that are unpaid by the government and that are paid by a volunteer employer and that some even go to their death whilst the usual bastards have the usual photo opportunity whilst pocketing hundreds of thousands of our money and traveling in air conditioned helicopters and talking nonsense on the radio. 
I found a very good analysis of volunteering and why it is a bad idea. No one either read it or ventured to find a fault in it's reasoning.  
Give me one good reason to keep everyone off the payroll besides the fact that the employer is, most likely reluctantly, willing to let the person go. And please don't say that we can not employ permanently firefighters for occasional work. Part time and seasonal employment was invented thousands of years ago.  
The FRNSW keeps a permanent force employed for a different type of work sure, but one very important reason to keep a permanent work force is specialization and training. Volunteers as much as they are willing and ready, are amateurs, they have hardly any training and their performance is second best for no fault of their own. They can only do that much when they do it once a year for a few weeks. Try to confront a trained army with volunteer militia and you may experience the difference.  
Eventually this status quo will change and not soon enough. Meantime I hope you consider to review the concept of "fuel is constant" ...  :Smilie:  
PS
Can I ask why '2b' ?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> T
> I found a very good analysis of volunteering and why it is a bad idea. No one either read it or ventured to find a fault in it's reasoning.  
> . And please don't say that we can not employ permanently firefighters for occasional work. Part time and seasonal employment was invented thousands of years ago.  
> The FRNSW keeps a permanent force employed for a different type of work sure, but one very important reason to keep a permanent work force is specialization and training. Volunteers as much as they are willing and ready, are amateurs, they have hardly any training and their performance is second best for no fault of their own. They can only do that much when they do it once a year for a few weeks. Try to confront a trained army with volunteer militia and you may experience the difference.  
> .

  so if training and fulltime are so important, how in heavens name does casual/part time work? 
thats just internally inconsistent - casual partime workers are generally unskilled in australia, except for those few who have spent a career at fulltime and now only need to work a few days a week. 
what is lacking is the historical standpoint.  the govt doesnt need volunteers  -its not the govts deal.  but we have volunteer organisations as a result of the way australia developed.   theres a parallel with clubs in Australia.  In the US, or indeed Europe, golf is an expensive sport of the rich, in Australia, its working class because we have not for profit clubs that didnt have to buy land and relied on members labour for much of the early decades of a clubs existence.  the same goes for bowling clubs. 
now would i swap our club culture in australia for the private culture in the US where "club" actually means private for rich members only?  not a chance.  in the same way we have the extreme luck to have large volunteer organisations, that can be funded and helped by govt to do more effective work with the labour provided - govt enables those organisations, it doesnt exploit them. 
as for Mr walpole, random blogger - perhaps the takeaway in an Australian context, is if you can earn extra money with an extra days pay, then do that and donate it to be used to help.  I know medical professionals who do a few days worth of donation rather than travel to africa to provide expertise for a few weeks, because they can fund many weeks of medical help with that money - the advantage of being in a rich country. 
thankfully, Australia isnt America

----------


## John2b

> Meantime I hope you consider to review the concept of "fuel is constant" ...

   Fuel load is defined by tons per hectare of combustable material. After a fire, the fuel load builds for the first few years, then may decline as the understory is suppressed by the canopy, then and remains relatively constant, as the first graph illustrates:    *Predicting continuous variation in forest fuel load using biophysical models: a case study in south-eastern Australia*  https://www.academia.edu/18918670/Pr...tern_Australia

----------


## Marc

Skilled vs unskilled is the key to the article. if a doctor decides to volunteer in a soup kitchen he is wasting his talent. If he volunteers to see patients in the local hospital to reduce the waiting list for free, that is good use of volunteering.
If someone from the FRNSW or any other professional firefighting organisation volunteers in the RFS that is good use of his talent. If I go to volunteer for the RFS I will most likely be a burden and help very little. 
My analysis is an economic one, emotional and historical analysis are cute but don't help. 
PS
John, thank you for the graph, but it does not help your idea of constant. If I read the graph correctly it seems the fuel load grows for 15 years before going constant and by a good number of tons. Anyone that ventures in the bush will be able to tell the accumulation of fuel along the years and variations in wet or dry years. Clearly not a constant. Eventually as with all things, it reaches a point of equilibrium where the loss equal the increment, but by then it is too late, we have the usual time bomb at our doorstep. By the way how can tons/ha be negative?

----------


## Marc

> so if training and fulltime are so important, how in heavens name does casual/part time work?  *You can be employed on a stand by basis, with the requirement to attend weekly physical training and monthly class training through the year for a small retainer, and get paid full time wages when called. Not rocket science. The key is that you have to be fully trained and a true professional. Airline pilots need to keep their skills up to date if they work or not, if they want to be able to pick up some part time work. I used to work as a lifesaver in another country that required training all year around in order to get work in summer.*  
> thats just internally inconsistent - casual partime workers are generally unskilled in australia, except for those few who have spent a career at fulltime and now only need to work a few days a week. *Irrelevant*
> what is lacking is the historical standpoint.  the govt doesnt need volunteers  -its not the govts deal.  but we have volunteer organisations as a result of the way australia developed.   theres a parallel with clubs in Australia.  In the US, or indeed Europe, golf is an expensive sport of the rich, in Australia, its working class because we have not for profit clubs that didnt have to buy land and relied on members labour for much of the early decades of a clubs existence.  the same goes for bowling clubs. * A club is not an essential service. Rural fire fightin is, and it is the responsibility of governments to provide it with the tax we pay. To offload this responsibility on volunteers is irresponsible bordering on criminal.* 
> now would i swap our club culture in australia for the private culture in the US where "club" actually means private for rich members only?  not a chance.  in the same way we have the extreme luck to have large volunteer organisations, that can be funded and helped by govt to do more effective work with the labour provided - govt enables those organisations, it doesnt exploit them. *Not relevant to the point.* 
> as for Mr walpole, random blogger - perhaps the takeaway in an Australian context, is if you can earn extra money with an extra days pay, then do that and donate it to be used to help.  I know medical professionals who do a few days worth of donation rather than travel to africa to provide expertise for a few weeks, because they can fund many weeks of medical help with that money - the advantage of being in a rich country. 
> thankfully, Australia isnt America *Also not* *pertinent*

  PS
As for our "clubs" in Australia compared to a club in most of the rest of the world, I rather become a member of a club that offers exclusive access to facilities of my choice for a fee, then a local organisation that calls itself a club but is actually a small casino that must reinvest 80 % of its proceedings from gambling back in the club forced by legislation and offers poker machines, mediocre food and poker machines .Did I mention poker machines?
And we do have clubs of the other sort here too ... I drive past the riverside oaks club and hey have a sign outside advertising a special on their annual fees for $2900. Not sure what the normal fees are but certainly not for the average Joe.

----------


## Marc

Bark accumulation in your article shows accumulation for over 30 years before the curve flattens. Bark is the hottest fuel and more flammable.

----------


## John2b

> PS Can I ask why '2b' ?

   You nailed it once before - Hamlet. The decision 2b followed a difficult time with marriage dissolving, my business going into administration and having to tell my staff they had no jobs.

----------


## Marc

I used to make fun of you saying John to be or not to be, but never thought that was the real meaning you intended. It sounds more like the number to your apartment  :Smilie: 
By the way ... the rain just started. Just in time for some cool change. I hope it stays with us for a while.

----------


## METRIX

> Volunteers as much as they are willing and ready, are amateurs, they have hardly any training and their performance is second best for no fault of their own. They can only do that much when they do it once a year for a few weeks. Try to confront a trained army with volunteer militia and you may experience the difference.

  What a load of rubbish, again you are printing misleading information that you "think" is how any volunteering system works without actually investigating how something works. 
Yes for a mother's club volunteer who comes along to sell cakes on the Sunday outing the above may be true, we are not talking about these volunteers here. 
SES and RFS are Registered Training Organisations just the same as the NSWFB, this means they have to prepare and deliver training in a standardised professional manner in line with what Gov't requires, upon completion of the modules most are linked to NRTQ, and that's not "Nanas Really Terrific Quinces", it's Nationally Recognised Training Qualifications. 
The training and assessment provided is covered under the ASQA VET Framework, you can read it here if you like, although you are probably not interested in what actually goes on.  https://www.asqa.gov.au/about/austra...lity-framework 
For example to become a qualified Storm and Flood Volunteer (the entry level qualifications), there is quite a number of modules per you need to complete, with advanced modules offered after qualification in that area such as tree felling if you would like to gain extra qualifications. 
Each one of these modules can take 6 months to complete, on completion of each module you are assessed (by someone outside your own unit). 
If you don't pass you don't get the tick, this could then mean you need to either re-complete the module, or most likely complete further training on the parts that you were not competent in.    https://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/get-invol...it-volunteers/ 
Make sure to put that coffee down as you might choke on this one, YOU are also required to attend training one day EVERY week for the whole year after hours, each unit will have a day be it Wednesday evening, if you don't turn up for training you need to have an valid reason why, and not turning up is frowned upon, as I said this in not a cake stall you are volunteering for, because not turning up means you miss out on part of the training. 
If you are not participating in training on that day maybe because you have completed this module, you are required to assist the trainers to run the course for the members who are attending the training. 
On top of that YOU are scheduled on a roster to be available on call that runs on a rotating weekly basis for the entire year, (main crew and backup crew), this means you are the one who is contacted when a crew or two crews are required for a call out, it's very rare to not be called out at least once during each roster you are on, because in areas like where I am there is always a tree falling down, or some other issue that needs dealing with. 
If there is a major incident such as a huge storm and 20 houses are damaged in your local area, then everyone is considered available for the time the incident takes to be resolved.  *It's disappointing you feel these organisations offer amateurs, that have hardly any training and their performance is second best. * Do you say this from experience in dealing with them, or is it from what your Son-In-Law may say about the RFS because he had to sit and wait while they were dealing with the issue, or is this simply what pops up via the Marc search engine of imaginary information ?. 
Do you seriously think these organisations are going to arm a complete armature with a chainsaw, send them onto a roof and say there you go, do your best, if you damage something, that's ok were not paying for it, off you go. 
So again you don't know anything about how these organisations work, why they were formed, what they do, how they offer training, how they approach an incident, what responsibilities they take, and most of all they offer their services to the public for ZERO cost.  
Trying to twist the truth into you'r fantasy land doesn't work. 
Perhaps you have mixed the blue one up with the red one maybe you need the check this as it may have some detrimental effect on your health, call Neo, he can assist on this subject. 
It would suit you better to do some research on these subjects before coming on here and talking a load of dribble. 
I get the feeling from the various information you put on here you have retired recently ?, If this is true you need to find some full time hobbies to keep you busy. 
Lately your posts on various topics read like some bitter old man who has been hard done by all his life.

----------


## METRIX

> S If I go to volunteer for the RFS I will most likely be a burden and help very little.

  Initially that would be correct, and that would not be because of your initial lack of skills. 
Do you really think you would turn up on the doorstep on Friday saying ok boys I want to help, and they are going to say oh cool another freebie. 
Sign this waiver, what size are you, here's a uniform the boys are going out tomorrow, can you use a fire hose, oh not really never used one, that's ok you will pick it up in no time we are sending you to one of the worst fires we have seen in years, but you will be ok, we haven't lost that many 1st timers. 
Wake up and smell the roses, the burden wouldn't be lack of skills, skills can be learnt, bad attitude don't survive long in organisations like this, if you manage to trick your way in there, it won;t take long before the members see the real person, and you will be asked to leave.

----------


## DavoSyd

> What a load of rubbish, again you are printing misleading information that you "think" is how any volunteering system works without actually investigating how something works.

  Marc has had his guiding principles to life ingrained since he was ten, didn't you know? 
then there's no need to investigate anything further is there?  
/s

----------


## Marc

Metrix is on the turps again. Oh well. Have fun.

----------


## chrisp

The government has announced some extra funding for firefighters in the form of extra paid leave... https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...24-p53mqj.html

----------


## METRIX

> Metrix is on the turps again. Oh well. Have fun.

  Ah yes that seems to be your answer for everything when you have nothing.  
There is only one turps drinker round here and it ain't me, I prefer corona thank you very much.  
As many people in history have said if you can't say something positive then don't say it at all. 
There is no point trying to explain anything to you because you don't want to listen, it would seem to appear the all seeing Marc is never wrong, even when he is. 
Famous quote from a movie, you can't handle the truth

----------


## METRIX



----------


## Jon

I can remember the event and I found a link to it last week but I can't find it now.  A couple of years bag there were hazard reduction burns halted around in Sydney by the Environment minister because too many people were complaining of the smoke coming into Sydney.

----------


## Bedford

He stopped fuel reduction burns in or about the 1980's.

----------


## PhilT2

> I can remember the event and I found a link to it last week but I can't find it now.  A couple of years bag there were hazard reduction burns halted around in Sydney by the Environment minister because too many people were complaining of the smoke coming into Sydney.

  Rumours around here claim that burnoffs in the Gold Coast hinterland were halted as the smoke affected attendance at the theme parks and tourist attractions. But just a rumour.

----------


## chrisp

> Rumours around here claim that burnoffs in the Gold Coast hinterland were halted as the smoke affected attendance at the theme parks and tourist attractions. But just a rumour.

  So, now those bloody greenies are also running our amusement parks!!!   :Smilie:

----------


## METRIX

> I'll make the definition of "greenie" as loose as possible to make this as easy as possible. I'll accept membership of any organisation that has environmental issues as its primary goal; so Green Party, Greenpeace, even Getup.  
> By "off the internet" I mean blogs or comments. Official document such as the Hansard of state and federal parliaments, minutes of local council meetings or registered organisations, even though they are on the internet, are acceptable. 
> But here's the tricky part. Minutes from the local Dopesmokers Assn saying they disprove of burnoffs due to fear of "crop" losses won't cut it. Nor will a collection of the unwashed protesting outside of somewhere. What I am looking for is evidence that an actual planned burnoff, not just one that was on the wish list, was cancelled because of the action of these "greenies" There has to be a clear link that proves that the greenies were the sole or main cause for the cancellation of real planned burnoffs.

  Below is the information from the greens website, throws a bit of a spanner in the gears for the flat conspiracy theorists on here.we could ask Sauron if the below is true, or we could as our resident Sauron, he seems to know everything.    https://greens.org.au/bushfires

----------


## Bros

> Metrix is on the turps again. Oh well. Have fun.

  I think he might be just that as I had to fix up the title of his other thread.

----------


## Bedford

> I'll accept membership of any organisation that has environmental issues as its primary goal; so Green Party, Greenpeace, even Getup.

  Well they're certainly going to fiddle with it, question is though, will it be more or less fuel reduction burning?

----------


## John2b

'Make Fossil Fuel Producers Pay Levy' Australian Financial Review  
"Every tonne of coal mined ends up as more greenhouse gas in the in the atmosphere, fuelling climate change and making catastrophes like these fires worse
"It is staggering that the coal and gas companies that profit from this don't have to pay for any of the costs. Our communities are paying the price for their activities. It's high time they started paying for the damage they are causing."   https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-an...0191218-p53kyi

----------


## Bros

> 'Make Fossil Fuel Producers Pay Levy' Australian Financial Review   https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-an...0191218-p53kyi

  Paywall.

----------


## METRIX

At least New Zealand can't say we never give them anything  :Biggrin:     https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/05/a...ntl/index.html  https://twitter.com/i/status/1193689195232944128

----------


## Bros

> At least New Zealand can't say we never give them anything

   The North Island was getting Australian smoke 6 weeks ago when we were there.

----------


## John2b

> Paywall.

  Random access blocking as I am certainly not a subscriber of the AFR!  A new plan to make companies producing fossil fuels foot the bill for the escalating costs of natural disasters in Australia has been welcomed by NSW mayors who've had to watch ordinary people in their communities pay the price of devastating bushfires.  The Australia Institute on Wednesday released a proposal for a National Climate Disaster Fund, to be raised by imposing a $1 levy per tonne of carbon pollution on fossil fuel production in Australia.   The think tank estimates the fund would raise around $1.5 billion a year, with natural disasters currently costing the nation approximately $13 billion a year.  The institute says these costs will only continue to rise as the frequency and intensity of fires, floods, droughts and heatwaves increases due to climate change.   "Australia urgently needs a dedicated, independently-administered fund to cope with the ever increasing costs of these disasters," principal adviser Mark Ogge said in a statement.  "A $1 per tonne levy would have virtually no effect on energy prices or coal jobs but would be a huge help to everyone being affected by the damage these activities are causing."   Glen Innes Severn Council mayor Carol Spar, whose community was hit by a deadly bushfire that killed two people in November, says the recent fires have shown the enormous costs of climate change for local communities.  "Every tonne of coal mined ends up as more greenhouse gas in the in the atmosphere, fuelling climate change and making catastrophes like these fires worse," she said in a statement.   "It is staggering that the coal and gas companies that profit from this don't have to pay for any of the costs. Our communities are paying the price for their activities, it's high time they started paying for the damage they are causing."  Similarly, Bellingen mayor Dominc King - whose shire has also been ravaged by fires this year - says his area has never seen conditions like those it's now facing and it is impacting the physical and mental health of people as well as affecting local businesses.  "We also understand that this community will continue to have to deal with these horrific conditions all summer and into the future," he said in a statement.  "Fighting fires on this scale will need a lot more resources, and it's not fair that burden keeps falling on ordinary people and our volunteer firefighters."

----------


## chrisp

> Paywall.

  Maybe they want you to pay too!  :Smilie:   
Select and copy a slab of the text you can read (before the paywall ad), paste that text in to Google, then click on the link provided by Google. Voila - the article behind the paywall!

----------


## PhilT2

> The North Island was getting Australian smoke 6 weeks ago when we were there.

  Friends came back from NZ cruise afew weeks ago; they said glaciers were more brown than red, but very noticeable. The smoke is said to have also reached South America but their air quality is so bad from their own fires it wasn't an issue.

----------


## Marc

> Random access blocking as I am certainly not a subscriber of the AFR!  A new plan to make companies producing fossil fuels foot the bill for the escalating costs of natural disasters in Australia has been welcomed by NSW mayors who've had to watch ordinary people in their communities pay the price of devastating bushfires.  And assorted nonsense above ...

  John ... for goodness sake, how can you possibly see this happen? The first thing is to prove cause and effect. "Your honour, we would gladly pay the levy if the plaintiff can show how our coal is causing bushfires." 
Of course the government can impose a tax to show the greens how much they care and that they can be trusted to advance the fraud further.  
The best quote on this topic must be from Barnaby Joyce ... " I believe in "Climate Change" ... but i don't believe the government can change it back' 
Love it and so true. We don't have the thermostat to turn the knob ... actually Obama had it but lost the grip somehow  :Rofl5:  
Global warming myths and legends are the only government initiatives ever to have billions and trillions dollars budget without a plan, and without an answer to ... what are we going to achieve? How much is the climate going to change after we spend the money? 
I actually have the answer to that. we will achieve nothing and the climate is not going to change back, because the cause is elsewhere and completely natural and we contribute like a butterfly fart to it. 
But that is just me, never mind me.
Actually ... no ... there has been historically government initiatives with similar vacuous results. The most famous was the spanish inquisition. Many other initiatives to appease other various gods had similar results.

----------


## John2b

Maybe it would help if world governments just stopped giving $5.2trillion in annual subsidies to fossil energy exploitation industries. That's more than 6% of global GDP.

----------


## Bros

> John ... for goodness sake, how can you possibly see this happen?

  Dont worry about it as it wont happen as taxes are levied by politicians and none of them would want to touch it.

----------


## Marc

There are many more effective and direct ways to help reducing the devastation of bushfires most have been mentioned in this thread before several times.
Another politically motivated green tax is not one of them.

----------


## John2b

No new tax needed - just removing a subsidies for the petroleum and coal industries in Australia would provide $29billion annually to government revenues which could do an awful lot for reducing the devastation of bushfires, present and future.

----------


## toooldforthis

I'm not sure this guy has thought it through.  

> Anthony Aitken has spent the past few years pouring all of his spare time and money into building an adult-sized tree house as a permanent abode.He believes more Australians should be doing the same.

  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-...-home/11815692

----------


## PhilT2

> There are many more effective and direct ways to help reducing the devastation of bushfires most have been mentioned in this thread before several times.
> Another politically motivated green tax is not one of them.

  How many of these "effective and direct ways" are free? Extra monitoring of fuel load and extra burnoffs over wider areas will all cost; how that money is raised is a political decision that will not please everybody.

----------


## Marc

I would start to get the $450,000,000 from the morons who got it from whatshisname without asking for it and that triplicated their staff instantly when the money came in. 
Another free source of money is foreign aid to the scores of moronic countries that stretch their hand out for free money. 
And many more. I agree with you, not everyone will be pleased. Australians will be pleased 99% of them. The others, probably not. 
Too bad.  
The green magic wand does not exist, and the oh so green solutions are in general hopelessly ineffective, counterproductive, or plain pathetic since their agenda is sabotage the capitalist system and not the defence of the environment.
As most people probably know yet dare not utter it  ... because it is, oh so politically incorrect.
Nuff said ... must run now, have a meeting in Darktown with a couple of tradehumans that will do a job for me. 
Tata

----------


## Bedford

So the Greens want, 
 "strategic irrigation lines", curious as to where they're going to get the water from.....Someone should tell them we have a drought happening currently. 
And, "independent, peer-reviewed risk assessment incorporating land use  planning, residential design and community preparedness into risk  reduction strategies,” she said." 
I can't believe the clusterfcuk and delays that that's going to create.   

> “Prescribed burns have their place, but is not appropriate in all situations, nor is it the only way of reducing fuel build-up,” she said.  “The prescribed burning procedures need to consider tree species, rainfall, water tables, location of built assets, rate of biomass decay, and the ability to maintain the prescribed burns, among other issues.”Ms Evers welcomed similar calls by a group of WA university professors, who want a total overhaul of the State’s prescribed burning program, claiming the practice of broad-scale burn-offs was endangering biodiversity and lives.  “They rightly pointed out that there has been no scientifically proven benefit from prescribed burns in controlling the extent of bushfires, and that the loss of at-risk animals and plants was incalculable,” she said. 
> The academics said the Government needed to look at other options such as creating green belts and parklands around key towns and assets, strategic irrigation lines and discrete prescribed burning around assets that needed to be protected, instead of large-scale burns.  Ms Evers said this was completely in line with Greens policy.“Any prescribed burning of forests and woodlands should be done only on ecological principles and independent, peer-reviewed risk assessment incorporating land use planning, residential design and community preparedness into risk reduction strategies,” she said.

    https://greens.org.au/wa/news/media-release/bushfire-mitigation-burning-issue  *Empirical Support for the Use of Prescribed Burning as a Fuel Treatment*  https://link.springer.com/article/10...15-0010-z#Ack1

----------


## phild01

> No new tax needed - just removing a subsidies for the petroleum and coal industries in Australia would provide $29billion annually

  Still wanting to know how the Australian petroleum industry is subsidised!  https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...bsidy_myth.pdf
 "When each claim is looked at critically, it is clear that there is no such thing as ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ in Australia."

----------


## PhilT2

> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40725-015-0010-z

  Does that link work for anybody else or is it just me?

----------


## Bros

Ok here

----------


## DavoSyd

> https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...bsidy_myth.pdf
>  "When each claim is looked at critically, it is clear that there is no such thing as ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ in Australia."

  credible source?  

> The *Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a conservative public policy think tank[2][3][4] based in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. It advocates neoliberal economic policies such as privatisation[5] and deregulation of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalisation and deregulated workplaces, climate change denial,[6] the abolition of the minimum wage,[7] and the repeal of section 18C within the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.[8]*

   

> The IPA rejects climate change science and finances several Australian climate change science deniers.[68]

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...Public_Affairs 
yeah, nah...

----------


## Bedford

> Does that link work for anybody else or is it just me?

  There's something funny with the link as it's taking me to the greens page same as the other link I posted above it. 
If you Google the link it works, for me.

----------


## phild01

> Still wanting to know how the Australian petroleum industry is subsidised!  https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...bsidy_myth.pdf
>  "When each claim is looked at critically, it is clear that there is no such thing as ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ in Australia."

  Still waiting for the explanation how petroleum is subsidised!

----------


## Bros

> There's something funny with the link as it's taking me to the greens page same as the other link I posted above it.

   And I thought it was genuine going green.

----------


## PhilT2

> Ok here

  Both links take me to the same site , the greens page

----------


## Marc

Don't you love it when someone posts a conservative article or link, and someone else thinks that by stating the source is a conservative organisation such automatically denounce their dark nature and evil intentions to conquer the world and enslave the working class into automatons after dutifully vaccinate them for good measure of course.  
Only alternative soyachino drinkers, living with their mother in Tasmania are a credible source.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Still waiting for the explanation how petroleum is subsidised!

  there are plenty of links in the article that you posted that will help with the explanation. 
the IPA has helpfully provided them all for you... 
the IPA then uses "crafty language" to imply that these aren't _technically_ subsidies. 
see:    

> While there is no universally agreed definition of fossil fuel or energy subsidies, the examples ofsubsidies in Australia that are most commonly cited are the fuel tax credits scheme, accelerateddepreciation, the excise on aviation fuel, and the tax deductibility of business car expenses.

   

> ... these can’t reasonably be described as a fossil fuel subsidies.

  lol.

----------


## debunk

All this focus on fossil fuel reduction.  Make Developers pay for microclimate destruction and loss of habitat/vegetation (greatest in last 10 years housing boom) 
My two cents.  State policy change is required to Local Environmental Plan legislation to:
- restrict land clearing/ tree removal for developments - ie protect microclimates, vegetation and SHADE;
- good passive solar design in new developments to restrict/ remove need for air conditioning (yes it can be done) 
Vote for my Anti Air-Conditioning Party in the next elections (only kidding LOL)

----------


## John2b

> lol.

  Let's not forget the gift of maintained 'public' roads, railways, ports, etc, etc many that govmints only build so mines can go ahead, and the gift of unlimited water from rivers or groundwater, even though everywhere is in drought, and tax concessions in startup phases (often ten years or so, and then often extended), and the 50,000 or so disused mines in Australia (not all fossil energy related, but many are) that have been abandoned by mining companies which shifted their assets into another company or offshore before going into administration leaving the public to clean up the mess, and not being accountable for external costs such as the cost to the public health system because of respiratory illnesses caused by the use of fossil fuels. Nah, no taxpayer support at all...

----------


## John2b

> I used to make fun of you saying John to be or not to be...

  No probs Marc. It's my choice to participate here.

----------


## John2b

> Don't you love it when someone posts a conservative article or link, and someone else thinks that by stating the source is a conservative organisation such automatically denounce their dark nature and evil intentions to conquer the world and enslave the working class into automatons after dutifully vaccinate them for good measure of course.

  It isn't that hard, just follow the money. And it cut's both ways. Yes, there are plenty of opportunists wanting to cash out on 'green' initiatives, mostly the same ones already cashing out on fossil fuels, government privatisations, etc, etc.

----------


## Bedford

https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/bushfires-policy   

> 20. Fire agencies should minimise the size of areas burnt in back burns in view of their likely impact on fleeing wildlife.

  What is Hazard Reduction   

> *What is the difference between hazard reduction and backburning?*   Hazard reduction is carried-out out before a bushfire starts in order to protect people and assets. Backburning is used during a bushfire emergency, to help control the fire and protect people and assets.* Hazard reduction burning* is often called controlled or prescribed burning. Highly trained fire personnel determine that the best way to reduce the risk of uncontrollable bushfires impacting on assets is to strategically burn an area to reduce fuel loads. Hazard reduction burning should be conducted in accordance with Bush Fire Risk Management Plans.*  
> Backburning* occurs during a fire emergency when firefighting personnel determine that the best way to inhibit the progression of a bushfire is by burning back towards the oncoming fire. This removes fuel from the path of the fire, which can be an effective method of stopping its spread or reducing its impact on structures. Backburning needs to be carefully coordinated, suitably resourced and must only be used by order of a firefighting agency.

  So, the greens want to *minimise* the process of *stopping* a bushfire because it will impact on fleeing wildlife...... :Doh:

----------


## Marc

> And I thought it was genuine going green.

  Probably a biliary colic or a stone blocking the duct. I hope it will pass.  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> It isn't that hard, just follow the money. And it cut's both ways. Yes, there are plenty of opportunists wanting to cash out on 'green' initiatives, mostly the same ones already cashing out on fossil fuels, government privatisations, etc, etc.

  Yes, heard it many times before and you are not wrong.
There is one problem with such blanket statement however. It implies that there is something evil or illegal or hidden in the way commerce works and markets operate.  
Most folks would know how the corner shop works, who supplies and how it sells and restocks. 
Other markets are no different, only operate at a different scale and the operators are smaller in number and have deeper pockets. Instead of talking on the phone with Joe from the veggie shop down the road or Vincenzo the baker, they talk to some Russian magnate or Indian mogul and whisper in the politicians ear for favours and concessions whilst they spend millions on advertising to convince Joe Blow of how good they are.  
The delusion that modest business, thin profits and scant progress has some virtue and that large profits, risky ventures and massive alliances are wrong is part of the indoctrination the masses suffer from their parents and teachers. 
That is the capitalist system and the western society, and how it operates. The alternative is to turn like in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China etc.  
The good thing about what we have is that you can winge about it and you will not disappear.  
The so called "global warming" fraud is just one example of capitalist system at work. A few get together to fabricate a boogieman to keep the masses scared. The world is going to end in 10 years unless we "do something about it". Pocket a Nobel Prize in the process.  
The doing is limited to paying more for services already existent, and subsidies to markets that would otherwise be non viable. A snake oil merchant at large scale. 
No different from the pillows that cure rheumatism or the orthotics that cure tinnitus ... only more ambitious.  
Denouncing with bombastic statements, the status quo of the capitalist system and the way commerce and markets operate, makes only sense if you want to promote the alternative communist marxist or the latest trend, the stalinist way of life. To go about it the back way pretending to care about the environment is rather pathetic and dishonest.  
Not that there are not scores of deluded yet honest folks who think they are actually genuinely caring for the environment. They are the intellectual victims of this latest gargantuan fraud, and are the pawn that are being used to advance the con at massive scale. 
I just hope some of them would wake up from their delusion sooner rather than later.

----------


## John2b

> Yes, heard it many times before and you are not wrong.
> There is one problem with such blanket statement however. It implies that there is something evil or illegal or hidden in the way commerce works and markets operate.

  That statement implies no such thing, and nor was my post meant to imply otherwise. 
The economy is not black and white with only two possible means of operating. A free market implies no market regulations and even you know how well that would work. No western or non-communist country in recent history has ever had a free market except in name for the purpose of political spin.

----------


## John2b

I heard on the radio today that FINALLY the guvmint is allocating some resources from the armed forces to assist with firefighting. It sounds like they don't have any spare Indians trained in fire fighting (an extraordinary oversight of management if true) so Marisa Payne said on the radio they can only offer a heap of Chiefs. I am sure that's just what the RFS wants - NOT!!!!

----------


## DavoSyd

> I heard on the radio today that [agencies]... don't have any spare Indians trained in fire fighting

  are you sure the the ADF staff are not simply "assisting the firefighters" - instead of actually "fighting fires"? 
here's what they are doing:  https://news.defence.gov.au/national...shfire-support

----------


## Bros

> No probs Marc. It's my choice to participate here.

  An immovable object up against an irresistible force.

----------


## John2b

> are you sure the the ADF staff are not simply "assisting the firefighters" - instead of actually "fighting fires"? 
> here's what they are doing:  https://news.defence.gov.au/national...shfire-support

  Point take Davo, obviously the ADF have been providing support services as the convoluted information in the link shows.  However there's been continual, almost desperate, advice to guvmint that additional firefighters and resources on the ground were needed since almost the beginning of the fires. 
Obviously the guvmint doesn't like the advice fire services have been giving because this is what was announced on the radio today by Minister Payne: "...specialist personnel will provide advice as to additional support the ADF could provide in support of current firefighting operations..." in other words, extra staff to advise the RFS leadership what advice they should be giving.  To whom that advised advice is to be directed is not clear, since no one in guvmint is listening!  Edit: The news item announcement was probably from the current Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, not that changes anything.

----------


## Bedford

Regarding the errant link in post #217 I have edited it to this https://link.springer.com/article/10...15-0010-z#Ack1 which at least works for me today.

----------


## PhilT2

> Regarding the errant link in post #217 I have edited it to this https://link.springer.com/article/10...15-0010-z#Ack1 which at least works for me today.

  Works for me too.

----------


## Bedford

Note the temperatures....

----------


## toooldforthis

> Note the temperatures....

  interesting. thanks.

----------


## John2b

Thanks for posting the video link Bedford. The firefighters were equiped with just hessian bags and rakes, but the fires were no comparison in ferocity to the current season. Look how close the firefighters are standing to the fire! Even with the kind of protective clothing that is standard issue today firefighters could not get within a 50 metres of where they were. It certainly highlights how much seasonal conditions have deteriorated since then! 
The temperatures were similar to today, but that hides a very significant difference. The summer of 1939 was odd being much hotter than prior or subsequent seasons, whereas those temperatures are the normal today. And the heatwave was nowhere near as pervasive either back then, as weather records highlight. The worst of 80 years ago doesn't hold a candle to the averages of today, if you pardon the pun. 
This is the extent of the 1939 heatwave:   
This is the extent of the 2013 heatwave:   
This is the temperature record for SE Australia:  
It is is clear that 1939 was an outlier, the worst fire season of an era long ago, yet not even close to today.

----------


## John2b

> *Empirical Support for the Use of Prescribed Burning as a Fuel Treatment* https://link.springer.com/article/10...15-0010-z#Ack1

  Interesting. Even though it covers a much broader range than just controlling fires once started, when you read the Greens bushfire policy you'd swear they cut and pasted at least some of it from the Prescribed Burning document you posted Bedford.  https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.o...e%20Policy.pdf

----------


## Bros

> Note the temperatures....

  What's the old saying that history has a habit of repeating itself.

----------


## John2b

> What's the old saying that history has a habit of repeating itself.

   Look forward to it cooling off, Bros.

----------


## Marc

> The firefighters were equiped with just hessian bags and rakes, but the fires were no comparison in ferocity to the current season. Look how close the firefighters are standing to the fire! Even with the kind of protective clothing that is standard issue today firefighters could not get within a 50 metres of where they were. It certainly highlights how much seasonal conditions have deteriorated since then!

  What nonsense. Firestorms like the one we witness today happened in the past just the same if humans did not intervene and burned yearly the fuel on the ground. 
Backburning today is done in just the same way they did in the past. It is this opportunistic distortion of reality to make believe that it is all humans ergo CO2's fault, therefore we have to go back to live in caves and eat grass. 
John, that argument is rather tiresome, and distasteful considering what we are going through. Fires are 85% started by mentally ill people or imbeciles and they are possible first and foremost because there is excess fuel on the ground. And there is excess fuel because there is no political will to burn it as often as it is required, thanks to the green left.  
To take advantage of the current horrific situation to score political points is disgraceful.

----------


## Bros

> Look forward to it cooling off, Bros.

  Just get in your electric car and in 1.5k you can have dip in the sea.

----------


## John2b

It just keeps getting hotter, and drier, Marc. This is last week - note the extent:   
Spot the difference to the bushfire period in 1939:

----------


## phild01

> It just keeps getting hotter, and drier, Marc. This is last week (note the extra added tan colour =+2 degrees):   
> Spot the difference to the bushfire period in 1939:

  The comparison would be valid yet how accurate is the 1939 model, or is it more an interpolated representation!

----------


## John2b

> The comparison would be valid yet how accurate is the 1939 model, or is it more an interpolated representation!

  The same 112 weather recording stations are used for both.

----------


## chrisp

> (snip...)
> This is the temperature record for SE Australia:  
> It is is clear that 1939 was an outlier, the worst fire season of an era long ago, yet not even close to today.

  It’s interesting to see that the average temperature difference between a very cold year and a very hot year is about 2 degrees Celsius. 
This also means that a 1 degree rise in average temperature results in what was previously considered to be a hot year now being the norm. 
Imagine what a 3 or 4 degree average temperature rise will bring!

----------


## Marc

*New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago*  Anthony Watts / October 17, 2012 Fig. 1. The geographical locations of all the 91 proxies in Table 1 (top) and of those that correlate significantly with their local temperatures (from HadCRUT3v) in the period beginning in 1880 and lasting to the final year of each individual proxy (bottom). The resolution (annual, annual-to-decadal, decadal) is indicated with the symbols. Proxies that reach back to at least 300AD are indicated in blue. Mike Mann will have a twitfest on Twitter trying to knock this one down. Data from 91 Northern Hemisphere proxies was used to reconstruct temperature. See reconstruction graph (figure 5) below. Via The GWPF: A new paper, looking back at the climate of the past two thousand years, published in the journal “Climate of the Past,” will either cause something of a stir, or provide confirmation of what some regard as having already emerged from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The title of the paper is, “The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability,” by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University. The climate of the past few hundred years is of clear importance because it allows scientists to put today’s warm period into context, and provides some evidence of the influence of the quantity of greenhouse gasses that mankind has injected into the atmosphere. In much literature and during many debates statements to the effect that it is warmer now than it has been for thousands of years are frequently used.  As the authors point out the major problem with reconstructing the climate of the past few thousand years is that the so-called instrumental period – for which we have direct measurements – only stretches back as far as the middle of the 19th century. To overcome this researchers in this paper compile an impressive number of temperature proxies situated in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. There are 91 in total, comprising ice-cores, tree-rings (density and width), lake and sea sediments, historical records, speleotherms, and pollen. All of them go back to 1500 AD and 32 go back as far as 1 AD. The reconstruction of past climate has improved significantly in the past few years due to the availability of more proxies and better statistical analysis. The authors acknowledge this and point out the differences that are emerging from the reconstructions conducted about a decade ago. They mention two such reconstructions performed by Michael Mann that they say, perhaps typically for the period, show little variability. They add they display, “little evidence for previous temperature anomalies comparable to those of the 20th century.” The authors conclude that previous climate reconstructions “seriously underestimate” variability and trends in the climate record of the past two millennia. This new analysis shows that the warming we have seen in the late-20th century is not unprecedented, as can be seen in figure 5 (from the paper). Seen in the reconstruction is a well-defined peak of temperature between 950–1050 AD. They also find that the first millennium is warmer than the second. Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature (C) based on the gray-shaded proxies in Table 1 reaching back to at least 300 AD. Calibration period 1880–1960AD. Only proxies with positive correlations and a p-value less than 0.01 are used. The included proxies are given in the legend. Thin curves are annual values; thick curves are 50-yr smoothed. Red curves show bias and confidence intervals for the 50-yr smoothed values. From ensemble pseudo-proxy studies mimicking the reconstructions, we have calculated the distribution of 50-yr smoothed differences between reconstructions and target. The biases and the upper and lower 2.5% quantiles are calculated from these distributions. In the figure the biases (full red curves) have been added to the real-world reconstructions. Likewise, the upper and lower quantiles have been added to the real-world reconstructions (dashed red curves). The green curve shows the observed extra-tropical (>30 N) annual mean temperature. The yellow curve show the temperature average over grid-cells with accepted proxies. Both curves have been centered to zero in 1880–1960 AD. *The researchers conclude:*“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”Ljungqvist et al. also show that, “on centennial time-scales, the MWP is no less homogeneous than the Little Ice Age if all available proxy evidence, including low-resolution records are taken into consideration in order to give a better spatial data coverage.” In conclusion this impressive piece of research makes a significant contribution to a growing body of evidence that both the global extent of the MWP, and the temperature was similar, or even greater than the Current Warm Period, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentrations today are some 40% greater than they were during the MWP. Some argue that without anthropogenic greenhouse gasses the world would have cooled in the past few decades. That might be the case, but the statement that it is warmer now than it has been for thousands of years is untrue. The rate of warming seen recently is also not unprecedented. In the context of climate sensitivity – the real world climatic reaction to increasing greenhouse gasses – and climate model uncertainty, it is an interesting question to ask: if Nature alone in the past can produce temperatures like those we see today, why can’t she do so again? ==================================================  =========== The link to the journal is here. Abstract below. *The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability* B. Christiansen1 and F. C. Ljungqvist2 1Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Abstract. We present two new multi-proxy reconstructions of the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (30–90° N) mean temperature: a two-millennia long reconstruction reaching back to 1 AD and a 500-yr long reconstruction reaching back to 1500 AD. The reconstructions are based on compilations of 32 and 91 proxies, respectively, of which only little more than half pass a screening procedure and are included in the actual reconstructions. The proxies are of different types and of different resolutions (annual, annual-to-decadal, and decadal) but all have previously been shown to relate to local or regional temperature. We use a reconstruction method, LOCal (LOC), that recently has been shown to confidently reproduce low-frequency variability. Confidence intervals are obtained by an ensemble pseudo-proxy method that both estimates the variance and the bias of the reconstructions. The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period, with a peak warming ca. 950–1050 AD reaching 0.6 °C relative to the reference period 1880–1960 AD. The 500-yr long reconstruction confirms previous results obtained with the LOC method applied to a smaller proxy compilation; in particular it shows the Little Ice Age cumulating in 1580–1720 AD with a temperature minimum of −1.0 °C below the reference period. The reconstructed local temperatures, the magnitude of which are subject to wide confidence intervals, show a rather geographically homogeneous Little Ice Age, while more geographical inhomogeneities are found for the Medieval Warm Period. Reconstructions based on different subsets of proxies show only small differences, suggesting that LOC reconstructs 50-yr smoothed extra-tropical NH mean temperatures well and that low-frequency noise in the proxies is a relatively small problem. The paper is not paywalled and be read in its entirety here. (PDF)  [ And the unanswered question remains ... how many trillions at the altar of the anti CO2 activities are required to change the climate back one degree? Just one, not asking for much for a few trillions thrown up in the air !]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Oh for Huey's sake...none of this is about changing it back. That horse has long bolted. This is about stopping it from warming another couple of degrees on average over the next century...and we've already pretty much built in a 1 degree rise from today's climate over the next half century. 
We are going to be fighting a lot of grass fires in the coming decades as a result...

----------


## Bedford

> Thanks for posting the video link Bedford. The firefighters were equiped with just hessian bags and rakes,

  I doubt very much they were "firefighters" more likely bush workers and Sawmillers that were onsite at the time. 
Obviously you've never heard of dry fire fighting. 
Where was the water and how were they supposed to get it on to the fire?   

> but the fires were no comparison in ferocity to the current season.

  Tell that to the people that died in Rubicon one of which was an uncle who was barely identifiable.   

> Look how close the firefighters are standing to the fire!

  Plenty of ways of stopping a fire with out being as close as you suggest is happening today. 
What's your Bushfire fighting experience John?

----------


## Bedford

> This is about stopping it from warming another couple of degrees on average over the next century.

  Well actually no, it's about Davo's first post in this thread,   

> has anyone ever defended their home or a neighbours against a bushfire? 
> what was it like? is it something you can do without much training? or too crazy to consider? 
> the RFS says that when the fire is approaching:   Go inside but stay alertShelter in a room on the opposite side ofthe house from the approaching fire andone that has a clear exit out of the housePatrol inside the house, including the roofspace looking for sparks and embersProtect yourself from the heat of the fire  
> then once it has passed:   Check your roof spacesGo outside and put out any part of yourhouse which is alightCheck under the house and any decksCheck on your pets and animalsEmbers or sparks can start spot fires formany hours after the fire has passedIf you can, contact your familyand friends and check onyour neighbours  
> it sound a bit simplistic - but presuming my house is not well alight, i could make sure it is not impacted by ember attack? 
> our house is in "bush setting" with about 10 big gumtrees around, but  its a few hundred meters from actual bushland (Berowra Valley Regional  Park). 
> i have a 10L pump sprayer (12m spray range) and three garden hoses (on 30m reels) and will fill the bath too.  
> our neighbours have a pool, but we don't have anyone with a pump on our street...   
> or  
> just get out of there and cross my fingers?

  Where he asked,   

> has anyone ever defended their home or a neighbours against a bushfire? 
> what was it like? is it something you can do without much training? or too crazy to consider?

  He later indicated he was about 200meters from the bush and was concerned about his young family's welfare.  
And I responded to him with real life fire experience, what is yours?

----------


## Bedford

> A training film Fire-fighting in the eucalypt-dominated forests and woodlands in  south-eastern Australia primarily involves 'dry-firefighting'. This film  demonstrates forest fire-fighting techniques using hand-tools. Despite  more recent technological advances, including a greater use of aircraft,  the approach still plays a key role in remote area forest fire  management. Produced by the Department of Agriculture Film Unit for the FCV - 1973

  And before you belittle the film by way of saying it's nothing like today's fires, keep in mind it was also used to create control lines for back burning, in order to stop the main fire. 
A lot of the country had/has no vehicular access close to fires, particularly in the high country, and some fires were stopped this way.

----------


## John2b

> And before you belittle the film by way of saying it's nothing like today's fires, keep in mind it was also used to create control lines for back burning, in order to stop the main fire. 
> A lot of the country had/has no vehicular access close to fires, particularly in the high country, and some fires were stopped this way.

  No one needs to belittle anything to see that the methods used against the worst fires in the past are simply not viable against current bushfire events. Your posts demonstrate that beyond any doubt.

----------


## phild01

> the methods used against the worst fires in the past are simply not viable against current bushfire events.

  Are you suggesting those methods are redundant with today's fire fighting events?

----------


## John2b

> Are you suggesting those methods are redundant with today's fire fighting events?

  No, I'm saying they are not viable against the fires this season. Are you suggesting otherwise?

----------


## John2b

As fire intensity worsens so does the response needed. South Australia has a fleet of FireKing trucks based on an army Bushmaster personnel carrier. Here are some at the Wirrabara Forrest fire that burned for 2 months in 2014.    https://youtu.be/C3J4HNqcD2o

----------


## phild01

> No, I'm saying they are not viable against the fires this season. Are you suggesting otherwise?

  All I am saying is that they still play an important part whereas you say they are not viable.

----------


## John2b

> All I am saying is that they still play an important part whereas you say they are not viable.

  You left out the context of my post - I said they are not viable _against the current bushfires_ where flame fronts are jumping containment lines and sometimes by kilometres.What do you do with a rake here:

----------


## phild01

> You left out the context of my post - I said they are not viable _against the current bushfires_ where flame fronts are jumping containment lines and sometimes by kilometres.What do you do with a rake here:

  Sure we have better options available now but you compared fires of the past with fires now. Fires of the past have been just as ferocious and have been driven by strong winds. Strong winds have always been part of our climatic conditions though they seem to be more so now. Unfortunately drought, dry ground cover, wind, high temperatures and the arsonist have been a terrible combination this time around. 
....and the hoe-rakes are still being used against the current fires.

----------


## Marc

A fire temperature and speed depends of amount of fuel, wind and number of ignition points. None of them depends of ambient temperature. Ambient temperature only facilitates the arsonist job 85% of the time or makes a lighting strike effective in a very small number of occasions. 
  Once the fire is established it's temperature is the same in the tropics or in antarctica, given the same fuel, wind and water content.  
Temperatures have been rising for centuries way before any possible human influence could have had any say in it, and they will go up and most likely down despite any efforts to change it one way or another, or "prevent" anything.

----------


## John2b

"The fire intensity and speed at which a bushfire spreads will depend on ambient temperature, fuel load, fuel moisture, wind speed and slope angle."  *Ambient temperature* The higher the temperature the more likely it is that a fire will start or continue to burn. This is because the fuel is closer to its ignition point at high temperatures and pre-heated fuel loads burn faster.  *Relative humidity* Dry air promotes a greater intensity fire than moist air. Plants become more flammable at a low humidity because they release their moisture more easily.  https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-top...afety/bushfire

----------


## Moondog55

When I did my training it was stressed that when temperatures get warm a degree makes a big difference. I do remember it being stated that for every degree above 40C the risk of fire doubles, so a day of 44C means the fire risk is 32 times greater and as a rule of thumb it is worth remembering if you were thinking of traveling.

----------


## craka

Yes as ambient temperature gets warmer the chance of  a fire occurring is greater as the ignition point of the combustible material becomes lower relatively.  However its fuel and wind forced air that allows fire it's intensity.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ... 
> And I responded to him with real life fire experience, what is yours?

  I think you misunderstood the context and target of the post you quoted... 
As for my real life fire experience...it's limited to three decades of living in various bushland locations, negotiating and paying for effective insurance policies, managing landscape around property and running away when ever necessary. 
I also provide support however possible for M'lady when she returns from her shifts on either firelines or at incident control centres around NSW over the last twenty years.  And this is the primary reason why I have never done volunteer firefighter training...

----------


## Bros

Many yrs ago a bloke I worked with said walking among eucalyptus trees in Victoria you could smell the oil given off on hot days so the pics of ember storms originates for these trees and people build their houses amongst them as they like the bush and the smell.  https://www.livescience.com/40583-au...bushfires.html  https://www.nine.com.au/entertainmen...8-4a9d002fb69b

----------


## Marc

> "The fire intensity and speed at which a bushfire spreads will depend on ambient temperature, fuel load, fuel moisture, wind speed and slope angle."  *Ambient temperature* The higher the temperature the more likely it is that a fire will start or continue to burn. This is because the fuel is closer to its ignition point at high temperatures and pre-heated fuel loads burn faster.  *Relative humidity* Dry air promotes a greater intensity fire than moist air. Plants become more flammable at a low humidity because they release their moisture more easily.  https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-top...afety/bushfire

  You are stating the obvious, something no one is contesting. That is simple physics.
The point is not that the risk is higher when the temperature is higher. Rather that there is nothing we can do about temperatures being higher just like you can not do anything about your height. 
The one thing we can do is reduce the number of arsonists, stop building in the bush, and don't rebuild areas that burned down. 
And stop deluding the usual disenfranchised that somehow joining the chorus of "do something" about "global warming" will somehow bring temperature down becuase it will not. 
If you really believe that the government can "do something" about "global warming" aka "climate change", be it reducing temperature or stopping it from increasing, please quote one study that can relate money spent to temperature reduction. A simple $x = xC  
if such equation does not exist, then stop promoting a charade. 
We all know that when it is hot it is easier to light a fire. So do arsonist. 
i have yet to see a greenies campaign to stop arsonist or to increase penalties. Why? Simple, they thrive when there is a fire because it plays into their mronic narrative despite the fact that they are partly to blame. 
And I wouldn't be surprised if someone goes arsonist to make a global warming point.
The very thought is sickening.

----------


## John2b

Marc, you've told us endless times that a bit of warming is a good thing and so it is for bushfires, but perhaps not so good for the people who are victims of them. 
Along with that warming also comes more dry lightning strikes. On 20 December in the space of a ten minute lighting storm here on Kangaroo Island a dozen fires were started over a 150 kilometre range. Because of the forecast lightning the CFS had strategically placed spotters and crewed trucks ready to go, and only two of those fires got out of hand, both still going.

----------


## Bedford

Report of the Investigation and Inquests into a Wildfire and the Deaths of Five Firefighters at Linton on 2 December 1998   https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws....EXURE_34_1.pdf 
Don't necessarily need very high temps, lower temps, high winds and high fuel loads will  still cause devastation.    

> *5.3 Weather*  
>  5.3.1 In December 1998 the area around Linton had been subject to over two years of drought conditions. Rainfall records for the two nearest towns to Linton where official records are kept, Skipton and Ballarat, showed below average rainfall between October 1996 and December 1998.  
> 5.3.2 The Bureau of Meteorology issued various weather forecasts for the Linton area on 2 December 1998. At 5.00pm on 29 November 1998 the Bureau issued a forecast for Western Victoria which included: ■ North-west winds; ■ South-west change due early afternoon with isolated showers and thunderstorms; ■ High Fire Danger in the south of the State, very high to extreme in the north of the State. 
> 5.3.3 At 5.05pm on 1 December 1998 the Bureau issued a forecast for Western Victoria which included: ■ Maximum temperature around 30°C; ■ Low relative humidity; ■ NNW winds of 40–45 kmh; ■ A south-westerly change, with winds of 25 kmh arriving at Ballarat between 7.00pm and 11.00pm; and ■ A Forest Fire Danger Index of 28 for Ballarat, which translates to a fire danger of Very High.  
> 5.3.4 It was a fairly typical Victorian summer day around Linton on 2 December 1998.6 The weather on that day has been summarised as follows: ■* Temperatures in the fire area reached the low 30’s in mid afternoon, with relative humidity about 20%. ■ Wind speeds were about 45 kph gusting to 70 kph from the north-west during the afternoon but dropped to about 20 kph in the 30 minutes before the wind change.* ■ A wind change was predicted from the south west. The predicted time of the change was amended on a number of occasions by the Bureau. ■ Ground and air observations about the actual progress of the wind change were made. ■ The actual wind change at the fire occurred about 2040 hours, which was earlier than the most recent Bureau prediction. ■ The actual time of the wind change was close to the time predicted at the fire Operations Point (Linton), based on observations from Wickcliffe and Skipton. ■ This south-west wind change gusted up to 60 to 70 kph, but was shortlived and reduced to about 30 kph within five minutes. 
>  5.3.5 When the south-west wind change arrived it turned the east flank of the fire into the head which moved east to Kelly’s Road. The change in direction of the fire caused a wall of flame to engulf two tankers. The crew of one of those tankers – Geelong West died.  *5.5 Fuel Loads  * 5.5.3 The panel of experts assessed the fuel loads at various important sites to this fire. They concluded: 
> ■ At the point of origin : The area was heavily stocked and very dry with no evidence of a previous fire. It represented and extreme fuel load; 19 
> ■ Pittong-Snake Valley Road : Generally high to very high fuel load except for the open paddock area on the south side of the road which did not burn; 20 
> ■ Snake Valley ‘A’ entrapment site : Very high fuel load; 21  
> ...

----------


## chrisp

> Report of the Investigation and Inquests into a Wildfire and the Deaths of Five Firefighters at Linton on 2 December 1998   https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws....EXURE_34_1.pdf 
> Don't necessarily need very high temps, lower temps, high winds and high fuel loads will  still cause devastation.

  I don’t understand your point??? 
It is well known that wet roads and high vehicle speeds are a factor in road fatalities, but that doesn’t equate to those conditions being required for road fatalities. Road accidents and fatalities can happen (albeit less likely) in dry conditions and at low speeds. 
It’s a statistical thing, elevated conditions (such as higher temperatures in the case of bushfires, or wet roads in the case of car accidents) will increase the probability of an adverse outcome.

----------


## craka

> I dont understand your point??? 
> It is well known that wet roads and high vehicle speeds are a factor in road fatalities, but that doesnt equate to those conditions being required for road fatalities. Road accidents and fatalities can happen (albeit less likely) in dry conditions and at low speeds. 
> Its a statistical thing, elevated conditions (such as higher temperatures in the case of bushfires, or wet roads in the case of car accidents) will increase the probability of an adverse outcome.

  It's not a statistical point he is trying to make.  I believe he is like I was making the point that the intensity of fire, not the likely hood of fire occurring, is to do with fuel load and wind.

----------


## John2b

> It’s a statistical thing, elevated conditions (such as higher temperatures in the case of bushfires, or wet roads in the case of car accidents) will increase the probability of an adverse outcome.

  Warmer weather also increases the likelihood of strong winds, which obviously exacerbates fire conditions too. 
Warm dry weather not only increases the flammability of the fuel load but also increases the incidence of dry lightning, which is a significant ignition source for bushfires.

----------


## John2b

Here's the Bureau of Meteorology lightning viewer. In the Layer list select Lightning. It takes quite a while to load, but you can zoom in with good detail.  Satellite Viewer

----------


## toooldforthis

> Well actually no, it's about Davo's first post in this thread,

  yep.
as I recall it asked about defending his home on what was forecast, and turned out to be a fire danger level of catastrophic/code red.
so, you need a plan.  prepare property (lots of tips about how to minimise fire danger to your property)be organised to leave (you need a plan - what will you take? and you should *rehearse* it)know what you will do if you can't get out (you need a plan already prepared) 
I think the consensus is you can't realistically defend a property with less than 2 people and independent water and power supplies.
Also consensus is if the fire danger is catastrophic you should leave regardless of your preps.  
Those are the guidelines. Exceptions abound I am sure.
For me, it doesn't even have to be that bad for me to leave because of where I am located and limited exit routes. 
wasn't there a climate change thread somewhere (that one I ignored) where you can continue to talk over yourselves?

----------


## Bedford

> I dont understand your point???

  That's your problem.....  
For anyone else that's interested,

----------


## John2b

I dunno if his pants would pass firefighting duty (9:10 in):  https://youtu.be/-cgQUrdBoaM

----------


## John2b

> ...offensive...

  That would be the city spending $millions on a fireworks party in Sydney whilst NSW firefighters have to spend their own money on personal protective equipment because the RFS can't afford to properly equip volunteers.

----------


## John2b

I've just woken up. It's 5.30am and it's warmed up 10 degrees overnight. There's a blustery wind that would whip up cream before the cows are even milked, and a dry lightning storm all around. It hasn't rained enough to wet the ground for several months (which would have been quite unusual just a couple of decades ago but normal for summer here now) and the countryside is a tinderbox. The irony is we moved south to be away from summer bushfires, but if a fire starts here now there's no hope of controlling it. It's 30 December and there's four months of the fire season to go.

----------


## John2b

The lightning storm this morning ignited 4 more fires over a 30 kilometre area in western Kangaroo Island. Fortunately (for me) I am at the eastern end. Despite anecdotal reports of rain bucketing down at Kingscote this morning, there is none recorded at the weather station. We had a minute or too of sporadic large drops. In the last catastrophic weather period ten days ago a neighbour had his gutters overflowing one minute, and then it's as though nothing had happened half an hour later. We got about 2 big drops per square metre at that time.

----------


## John2b

> The temperature increase horse has bolted. Now the game is ensuring it doesn't get too far away. The coin required to do that at a world scale is a tiny percentage of the world's annual defence spending...

  Reportedly $220billion life cost for the next generation of submarines. How much for the Joint Strike Fighters? 
How much for face masks for volunteer firefighters?

----------


## Bros

A lot of the posts have been edited or deleted as when we get to the climate change and its causes we end up with the case of the red corner and blue corner. If you want to carry on about the reasons for climate change do so but only by PM's.

----------


## Marc

> That would be the city spending $millions on a fireworks party in Sydney whilst NSW firefighters have to spend their own money on personal protective equipment because the RFS can't afford to properly equip volunteers.

  That is a typical ill informed appeal to emotions, without any substance nor logic. 
Let's see ... why does the city of Sydney have fireworks?
The cost of the Sydney fireworks this year is 6 to 7 millions. "Obscene" right? "offensive" !
Sure ... for a small minded person who probably thinks that earning anything above 100k a year is being rich, that is most likely the emotional outburst and outrage. Good luck to that person, we all have our own shortcomings. 
For the rest who want to understand why spending that much money, the answer is ... because it is big business and much more comes back. You know that alien concept of investment and return? Yes, elusive, but still valid. 
The city spent almost 6 millions last year according to this article, between 6 and 7 millions will be spent this year... and gets back directly and indirectly a much larger sum, well over 100 millions.
Obscene!
The comments that the fireworks should be cancelled and the money used for bush fire alleviation is stupid and ill informed because the money has been paid 6 month ago and cancelling will provide zip, not to mention the massive loss from doing so.
There is always two sides to a story, and the classic appeal to emotions is what is offensive.
Money is not. 
Investing 7 millions for over a hundred millions in return is what I call a good investment.    *Sydney's record-breaking $5.8 million fireworks display welcomes 2019*   
Jan 1, 2019 — 6.50am  Save   
Share 
Tens of thousands of pyrotechnics have brightened Australia's skies as people across the country celebrated the new year. Sydney yet again wowed an estimated one million people around the harbour with a captivating 12-minute display that featured new firework effects, a brighter bridge display and 500kg more explosives than the previous year.
Lime and peach were new additions to the pyrotechnic colour wheel while a new "wave effect" design gave gold palms coloured tips.      Play Video  The city of Sydney has done it again with another amazing pyrotechnics display, ringing in 2019 after a year that many were happy to forget. 
The famous coat hanger was adorned with an extra 1000 lighting effects and lit until 1am while the Opera House had more than 800 fireworks shot from its sails.
The $5.8 million New Year's Eve show is worth an estimated $133 million to the local economy and is seen by an estimated one billion audience across the globe, organisers say.

----------


## John2b

> The $5.8 million New Year's Eve show is worth an estimated $133 million to the local economy and is seen by an estimated one billion audience across the globe, organisers say.

  What happens to the $133 million if it isn't spent as a result of the fireworks - does it evaporate? Of course not! It stays in the economy and is spent anyway, the difference being not whether the money exists but where it ends up.

----------


## DavoSyd

> the difference being not whether the money exists but where it ends up.

  at least all of the $7 glow stick bracelets the blow-in 'investors' are flogging off won't end up in the harbour  :Wink:

----------


## Marc

> What happens to the $133 million if it isn't spent as a result of the fireworks - does it evaporate? Of course not! It stays in the economy and is spent anyway, the difference being not whether the money exists but where it ends up.

  Sorry to say John but you may be good at many things, economics is not one of them  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much for face masks for volunteer firefighters?

  Eighteen month testing and approval process; then six to eight month procurement and another eighteen months of implementation. Plus, of course, a few million bucks. 
Sometimes, doing it yourself and not whinging about it on social media is probably the most productive and efficient solution...which is probably why I've made no effort to do another go to whoa here (or anywhere else) on the latest renovation project...

----------


## Uncle Bob

> I've made no effort to do another go to whoa here

  That's a shame SBD, I love a good GTW thread.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's a shame SBD, I love a good GTW thread.

  I did too...but if your perception of the majority audience is askew to your own then it's an easy choice to make.

----------


## Marc

> What happens to the $133 million if it isn't spent as a result of the fireworks - does it evaporate? Of course not! It stays in the economy and is spent anyway, the difference being not whether the money exists but where it ends up.

  Keynes lives in the hearts of the left. 
Rather then lefty anti money, rich is evil comments to appeal to emotions, why don't we applaud the business acumen of running a world wide spectacle that brings in money? The 6 millions paraded as expenditure, are broken down in about 2 mil for the firework company 4 mil for transport, crowd control and various payments to locals who make the event possible... and condemn the same moronic person that was involved in shutting down the southern forests by the greens, the very forest that are alight. 
It is green policy and soft hand in the judiciary ( lefty inspired ) that makes bushfires possible. 
everything else is anecdotal and irrelevant

----------


## Bros

I seen a lot of fighting fires on TV with helicopters dropping water but where is the tanker? is it broken?  https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/news-and-...rge-air-tanker

----------


## phild01

> I seen a lot of fighting fires on TV with helicopters dropping water but where is the tanker? is it broken?  https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/news-and-...rge-air-tanker

  Think it's awaiting aviation approval.

----------


## johnc

It was sent to WA mid December, maybe it is still there.

----------


## Bros

> Think it's awaiting aviation approval.

  Its been used before up in Queensland.

----------


## Bros

The yanks and Canadian's have plenty of tankers why dont the gov spend a bit on money and get some of them as they would be sitting idle?

----------


## johnc

Its currently working over Batemans Bay

----------


## chrisp

...good moderation Bros. Keep up the good work

----------


## debunk

my cousin David Clare's photo of the plane in Bilpin last week (First Light photography)

----------


## METRIX

Here is some welcome news for the volunteers, I have been an advocate for these organisations being made up of volunteers, but when you have a situation like these fires and volunteers are away from their work, families for weeks or longer then fair is fair. 
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/28/volunteer-firefighters-nsw-compensated-scott-morrison 
In regards to the petition to cancel the fireworks, this is ridiculous, cost of the fireworks is irrelevant, the money is put up by the Sydney City paid for by the community, and brings in far more money for the city that the cost of the fireworks. 
The Sydney fireworks is a world wide event watched by an estimated 1 Billion people worldwide, if it's true that some fire units are not providing basic PPE such as face masks then this is an issue for the local units to raise with the gov't,  
Funding for the four emergency services be it Fire and Rescue NSW, Rural Fire Service, State Emergency Service and the Office of Emergency Management will receive 1.7 Billion dollars as set out in the budget, if some units are not able to purchase basic PPE we need to ask then unit why, because there is plenty of money to drive these organisations, is it being wasted on un necessary stuff ?

----------


## METRIX

> my cousin David Clare's photo of the plane in Bilpin last week (First Light photography)

  What sort of plane is that, it looks like the infamous DC10 which were notorious for crashing

----------


## UseByDate

> What sort of plane is that, it looks like the infamous DC10 which were notorious for crashing

  Yes a DC-10 . Not the Boeing 737.  https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-in-australia/

----------


## John2b

> Its currently working over Batemans Bay

   It was on Kangaroo Island yesterday.

----------


## phild01

The one I referred to is this one but it was awaiting aviation approval to carry passenger firefighters. https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-firefighting/  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...re-season.html

----------


## Bros

> The one I referred to is this one but it was awaiting aviation approval to carry passenger firefighters. https://australianaviation.com.au/20...-firefighting/  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...re-season.html

  Why would they want to transport people as it is limited as to where it can land and other transport is more effective in doing that.
There was a 737 tanker used in Queensland last year 2018 and one of my friends is a RFS member who has seen it in action on a fire he was fighting told me it only carries a flight crew and little fuel so it can carry more fire retardant. 
These things need to be funded by the commonwealth as fires done recognize state borders. 
As I said before there would be heaps parked up in US and Canada surely the commonwealth could pay a standby fee to have them ready if needed. Last time I flew the pacific it took 17 hrs so they could be here quickly.

----------


## Bros

> my cousin David Clare's photo of the plane in Bilpin last week (First Light photography)

  I'm surprised as it would have been newsworthy but I have never seen it on any news on TV they show helicopters but not the big tankers which look impressive, how effective they are I don't know.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> These things need to be funded by the commonwealth as fires done recognize state borders.

  Not going to argue with that but I can guarantee that our politicians at the State and Federal level will. The alternative is that the States do more of what they do now and pool their resources to engage more of these aircraft. 
My only caveat is that these aircraft are not always going to be useful in fighting every fire... especially ones with poor visibility, tricky wind conditions and other complexities such as some of those on the NSW South Coast today.

----------


## phild01

Does anyone know what the red stuff is, is it the same carcinogenic foam the RAAF used at their bases, like at Richmond.

----------


## toooldforthis

> Does anyone know what the red stuff is, is it the same carcinogenic foam the RAAF used at their bases, like at Richmond.

  from a site I frequent...   

> Two different retardant/gels that are used in Australia for those who ask. Both can have the red dye put in them. If it is clear with a tinge of red, that is Gel being used, full red is the Retardant PHOS-CHeK being used. BLAZETAMER380 THE MOST EFFECTIVE & ECONOMICAL SOLUTION IN AERIAL FIREFIGHTING ​ A DIRECT ATTACK SOLUTION Water enhancers like the polymeric elastomer BLAZETAMER380™ represent the future for firefighting. BLAZETAMER380™ is an effective and valuable fire suppressant for direct attack of fires during initial or extended attack operations. It can be used in engines, slingable bags, drop tanks, and can be ground-loaded, mixed in dip tanks for helicopters with buckets or used with on-board injection systems in helicopters, SEATs, water-scooping and land-based, multi-engine airtankers. ​ BLAZETAMER380™ is a non-coloured liquid concentrate water enhancer that is non-toxic, non-corrosive and environmentally safe.  It is proven harmless to humans, animals and vegetation, complies with Work Health Safety Regulations for firefighters, and is approved for use by state and federal agencies.  It is listed on the United States Forest Service Qualified Products List (QPL) and is environmentally safe enough to be aerially applied in Long Term Retardant Exclusion Zones if allowed by land management agency policy. PHOS-CHeK PHOS-CHeK MVP-Fx is an ultra high visibility powder concentrate that mixes readily with water by recirculation, agitation or PHOS-CHeK eductor-mixing systems. MVP-Fx is a highly visible, fugitive color retardant that provides superior visibility in the air and on the ground when applied, but slowly fades during exposure to sunlight. PHOS-CHeK MVP-Fx is a gum-thickened, medium viscosity retardant that provides highly effective and accurate aerial drops from all air tankers. The elastic nature of PHOS-CHeK MVP-Fx solution improves aerial delivery performance by reducing drift, dispersion, and evaporation, and facilitates increased fuel coverage, wrap around and penetration through canopy and ladder fuels to ground vegetation. Recovery can exceed 90%. It is ideal for use in multi-engine air tankers, Very Large Air Tankers (VLATs) and Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATS), and can be accurately dropped at higher drop heights.

----------


## toooldforthis

> … [snip] ... 
> My only caveat is that these aircraft are not always going to be useful in fighting every fire... especially ones with poor visibility, tricky wind conditions and other complexities such as some of those on the NSW South Coast today.

  yes, they said visibility and wind was why they were not is use as much. 
I have read where the aerial support while very useful is not as effective as ground crews - I am not sure what the definition of effective was when they said that.
Obviously they can get to spots where ground crews can't tho
And I have to say that psychologically it is very relieving to see them arrive - a bit like cavalry coming over the hill.

----------


## debunk

> In regards to the petition to cancel the fireworks, this is ridiculous, cost of the fireworks is irrelevant, the money is put up by the Sydney City paid for by the community, and brings in far more money for the city that the cost of the fireworks.

  IMHO the Sydney fireworks should be cancelled out of respect for the gravity of the situation.  "Business as Usual" is exactly the wrong message to be sending right now, drastic changes are required.  The economic argument is exactly the attitude that's got us into this dilemma at the moment (uncontrolled land clearing for development).  Defer the fireworks until we've made some positive changes.

----------


## Uncle Bob

It's looking pretty dire down on the South Coast. I have family that have been evacuated from a Narooma camping ground to the golf club (both are with out power currently).

----------


## Moondog55

> IMHO the Sydney fireworks should be cancelled out of respect for the gravity of the situation.  "Business as Usual" is exactly the wrong message to be sending right now, drastic changes are required.  The economic argument is exactly the attitude that's got us into this dilemma at the moment (uncontrolled land clearing for development).  Defer the fireworks until we've made some positive changes.

  YEP
Total disregard for the situation is typical, a bit like the Roman "Bread and Circuses" perhaps?

----------


## phild01

I have south coast family told to leave a few times now. They couldn't get home on boxing day and had to find accommodation near Nowra. Friends further south needed to evacuate last year from the Bega fires. All in all I do not see sufficient reason to abandon what is a world spectacular.

----------


## John2b

> I'm surprised as it would have been newsworthy but I have never seen it on any news on TV they show helicopters but not the big tankers which look impressive, how effective they are I don't know.

  One woman on Kangaroo Island found her house was surrounded by fire and she posted she desperately needed help. One of the commercial TV stations in Adelaide contacted her immediately and asked if she could take some photos of the water bomber WTF?!!!

----------


## John2b

> All in all I do not see sufficient reason to abandon what is a world spectacular.

  The Sydney NYE fireworks are not Eurovision or the World Cup. Paris, London, New York, Kuwait, Moscow, Los Vegas, Abu Dhabi, Rio de Janeiro, et al all have seriously good NYE fireworks, many of much larger scale and longer duration than Sydney's. How many New Years Eve fireworks do people watch from other countries? The 1 billion audience cited for Sydney can only refer to the total combined population of the countries which will have an 10 second excerpt from Sydney on their nightly TV news, because frankly there isn't enough billions of TV watchers to go around.

----------


## phild01

> The Sydney NYE fireworks are not Eurovision or the World Cup. Paris, London, New York, Kuwait, Moscow, Los Vegas, Abu Dhabi, Rio de Janeiro, et al ....

  I only ever watched the fireworks live long ago, just watch it on TV now. But mostly, the ones you mention, look fairly ordinary in comparison.

----------


## John2b

> I only ever watched the fireworks live long ago, just watch it on TV now. But mostly, the ones you mention, look fairly ordinary in comparison.

   How great is Australia? So great that we're most famous overseas for asking celebrities as they step of the plane: "What do you think of Australia so far?!" Seriously, the fireworks I've seen overseas might lack a coat-hanger background but "fairly ordinary" isn't a word associated with them. Perhaps that's how they come across on TV, as no doubt the Sydney ones do on TV 'over there'.

----------


## PhilT2

> I only ever watched the fireworks live long ago, just watch it on TV now.

  Cheaper that way, I hear its about $40pp to get a spot at the most popular viewing points.

----------


## phild01

> Cheaper that way, I hear its about $40pp to get a spot at the most popular viewing points.

  https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...1e86224549e2b7 "There are dozens of vantage points where you can *view* the *fireworks* around *Sydney* for a range of different *prices*. There are 33 vantage points that are available for access at no cost, and the remainder are ticketed at a range of *prices*, between $5.30 and $2200"  Then there are those who pay tens of thousands and much much more on the luxury boats and high rise hotels. John for certain would not :Wink:

----------


## johnc

Scotty is hosting a party at the big house in Sydney with his best friends, as we all pay for the place perhaps we could drop in and watch from his front lawn. Surely he wouldn't mind after missing out on New Year in Hawaii.  
We have family in Batemans bay last heard sitting on the beach with a large number of others, their fireworks will be very different.

----------


## John2b

I've watched the Sydney fireworks from a balcony in Potts Point, the Hong Kong fireworks from a balcony at the harbour-side Arts Centre, New York's Times Square from the 54th floor of the Marriott on the Square, and no one then had to pay for the privilege. Phil is probably right, I'm not about to start paying now for a deckchair to watch the band play.

----------


## John2b

What a joy to hear the once long haired, but now hairless, boyfriend of Molly reminisce in song of things real, as the wind rustles by outside with the countdown to the new year, although I'm too old to morris dance like I used to. I enjoyed that, graced with the whole thing, not just the radio edit, as it were.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> yes, they said visibility and wind was why they were not is use as much. 
> I have read where the aerial support while very useful is not as effective as ground crews - I am not sure what the definition of effective was when they said that.
> Obviously they can get to spots where ground crews can't tho
> And I have to say that psychologically it is very relieving to see them arrive - a bit like cavalry coming over the hill.

  M'lady has mentioned they have used the LAT at times this year to support ground crews and especially remote crews by dampening down large swathes of ground to potentially retard fire whilst setting about the extended process of getting physical containment lines in place. Basically, the streak of retardant is a way of possibly buying time...

----------


## John2b

"Adelaide's first celebration of the end of 2019 was almost a disaster when the 9pm fireworks display set a section of the River Torrens alight. Thousands of people on the eastern bank of Rymill Park leapt to their feet as a section of grassland on the western bank burst into flame just after 9pm..."

----------


## chrisp

At the risk of posting on a topic that may be censored  
On the topic of whether fire fighters should be paid or not, and the PMs seemingly reluctance to pay the volunteers (https://7news.com.au/politics/scott-...here--c-598843) and now that he has announced some payments, he doesn’t want those payments to ‘set a precedent’ for future payments. 
There is an interesting opinion piece in ‘The Age’ today by Ross Gittins on this topic exploring possible reasons behind the government’s reluctance to pay the firefighters. See https://www.theage.com.au/business/t...31-p53nt1.html 
Ross points out that by paying firefighters, the general public will start questioning why they make donations to the fire services - a question that they should be asking themselves anyway. So why do fire fighters seek donations from the public to run a service mostly staffed by volunteers? Doesn’t the government provide sufficient funding for equipment? And if not, why not? 
Could it be that the government is so concerned about its budget that it doesn’t want to be pressured to find extra funds by changing public opinion or awareness? Or the general public questioning why the firefighters in the country shouldn’t be professionalised like the fire services in the cities? 
In finishing up - and to eliminate possible confusion -  I would like to point out that the thoughts in this posted are prompted by an opinion piece in a newspaper, and that those opinions are not intended as facts or evidence!

----------


## toooldforthis

> …[snip]... 
> On the topic of whether fire fighters should be paid or not, and the PMs seemingly reluctance to pay the volunteers (https://7news.com.au/politics/scott-...here--c-598843) and now that he has announced some payments, he doesn’t want those payments to ‘set a precedent’ for future payments. 
> There is an interesting opinion piece in ‘The Age’ today by Ross Gittins on this topic exploring possible reasons behind the government’s reluctance to pay the firefighters. See https://www.theage.com.au/business/t...31-p53nt1.html 
> Ross points out that by paying firefighters, the general public will start questioning why they make donations to the fire services - a question that they should be asking themselves anyway. …[snip]...

  complex situation I think. lots of areas where this applies. Cancer Research for one - lots of fund raising along with govt support.
fire fighting volunteers are out of pocket, even if it is just their own fuel expenses in the course of volunteering. extended fire fighting by self employed obviously leads to income loss. I think it is appropriate in these circumstances for govt to assist.
as for the govt motivation to do something, and/or limit what it does - I hold our political leaders (of all persuasions) in such poor regard I will refrain from commenting.

----------


## PhilT2

What puzzles me is that Scomo has put a cap on the payments. So does that mean he knows when this crisis will end; that all the volunteers won't be needed shortly? Maybe he could share that date with us.

----------


## chrisp

> At the risk of posting on a topic that may be censored  
> On the topic of whether fire fighters should be paid or not, and the PMs seemingly reluctance to pay the volunteers (https://7news.com.au/politics/scott-...here--c-598843) and now that he has announced some payments, he doesn’t want those payments to ‘set a precedent’ for future payments. 
> There is an interesting opinion piece in ‘The Age’ today by Ross Gittins on this topic exploring possible reasons behind the government’s reluctance to pay the firefighters. See https://www.theage.com.au/business/t...31-p53nt1.html 
> Ross points out that by paying firefighters, the general public will start questioning why they make donations to the fire services - a question that they should be asking themselves anyway. So why do fire fighters seek donations from the public to run a service mostly staffed by volunteers? Doesn’t the government provide sufficient funding for equipment? And if not, why not? 
> Could it be that the government is so concerned about its budget that it doesn’t want to be pressured to find extra funds by changing public opinion or awareness? Or the general public questioning why the firefighters in the country shouldn’t be professionalised like the fire services in the cities? 
> In finishing up - and to eliminate possible confusion -  I would like to point out that the thoughts in this posted are prompted by an opinion piece in a newspaper, and that those opinions are not intended as facts or evidence!

  
Ironically, my post has been censored! 
For others, my original opening line *was*    

> At the risk of posting on a topic that may be censored

  What invisible line did I cross? Are the moderators really that thin skinned and/or secretive about their moderation policies?

----------


## Uncle Bob

> Are the moderators really that thin skinned and/or secretive about their moderation policies?

  Neither! We're just trying to nip any troublesome posts or users before it gets out of hand while keeping the spammers from the portals. We're really just nice blokes trying to do a @@@@@@ job for @@@@@@ pay.

----------


## chrisp

> Neither! We're just trying to nip any troublesome posts or users before it gets out of hand while keeping the spammers from the portals. We're really just nice blokes trying to do a @@@@@@ job for @@@@@@ pay.

  I appreciate that you are trying to do your best under difficult circumstances but could you please explain what is ‘troublesome’ about the ‘post’ or the ‘user’ that the following line required censorship? Which unstated rule did I cross?  _    
			
				 At the risk of posting on a topic that may be censored
			
		  _

----------


## Moondog55

I too hold all of our current crop of politicians in contempt, but to call them "leaders" is so far from the truth that I can't stop laughing.
 It is decades since Australia had any true "Leadership" in our politicians.
Ditto for "Vision and scientific education"

----------


## Uncle Bob

> could you please explain what is ‘troublesome’ about the ‘post’ or the ‘user’ that the following line required censorship? Which unstated rule did I cross?

  No as we don't need too. 
You can appeal your case with the administration team if this bothers you. 
Troublesome posts are where we need to take action, or answer pesky questions, or any other time-wasting interactions when we could be going something else.

----------


## Bros

One thing I did notice from the news reports on TV and it has been a problem in Queensland during cyclones is the total failure of the mobile network. I would also expect that the RFS would have similar communication problems as repeaters and mobile towers are situated on high ground and vulnerable to loss of mains power.

----------


## PhilT2

At one time mobile towers had battery backup, not sure if that is still the case.

----------


## Bros

> At one time mobile towers had battery backup, not sure if that is still the case.

    Still is but they only have about 8 hrs capacity.  https://www.itnews.com.au/news/telco...e-power-472464

----------


## PhilT2

While we have above ground powerlines natural disasters will always disrupt power supply. The best thing to do when this happens is that we all stand around blaming the greenies instead of fixing anything. Finding real solutions to the real problem is just too much hard work.

----------


## Bros

> While we have above ground powerlines natural disasters will always disrupt power supply. The best thing to do when this happens is that we all stand around blaming the greenies instead of fixing anything. Finding real solutions to the real problem is just too much hard work.

  Hang about I am not blaming anyone just stating some facts.

----------


## craka

Also mobile towers may have potentially burnt down in affected areas, they only have a relatively short range.

----------


## PhilT2

> Hang about I am not blaming anyone just stating some facts.

  Apologies, that wasn't directed at you.

----------


## Bros

> Apologies, that wasn't directed at you.

  OK came on the heels of my post and I made an assumption that in hindsight was wrong.

----------


## craka

On another thought regarding defence force involvment, and I understand that they have been involved for sometime as a support role, but I don't understand why some of their pilots and choppers also cannot be involved in fighting the actual fires.  I hear or read the comments made by the government that they are not trained to fight fires, that may well be the case and not suggesting that infantry or others should be involved on the ground. 
However aren't pilots trained in the military specifically trained to drop things on a target?   Why could they not spare some choppers and pilots to use Bambi buckets and do some water dropping?  It may even convince some anti defence spending people to see that there tax dollars are useful.  Or am I being blindly ignorant ?

----------


## Bros

> Also mobile towers may have potentially burnt down in affected areas, they only have a relatively short range.

  There pretty robust and the equipment housing is pretty solid I think they would survive (that's the ones I have seen) but the mains power supply is the weak link.

----------


## phild01

> On another thought regarding defence force involvment, and I understand that they have been involved for sometime as a support role, but I don't understand why some of their pilots and choppers also cannot be involved in fighting the actual fires. I hear or read the comments made by the government that they are not trained to fight fires, that may well be the case and not suggesting that infantry or others should be involved on the ground. 
> However aren't pilots trained in the military specifically trained to drop things on a target? Why could they not spare some choppers and pilots to use Bambi buckets and do some water dropping? It may even convince some anti defence spending people to see that there tax dollars are useful. Or am I being blindly ignorant ?

  I think it is a good idea.

----------


## Bros

> However aren't pilots trained in the military specifically trained to drop things on a target?   Why could they not spare some choppers and pilots to use Bambi buckets and do some water dropping?  It may even convince some anti defence spending people to see that there tax dollars are useful.  Or am I being blindly ignorant ?

  Good thinking.

----------


## craka

> There pretty robust and the equipment housing is pretty solid I think they would survive (that's the ones I have seen) but the mains power supply is the weak link.

  I'm not sure what housing you are referring to? The transmission equipment is usually housed in a demountable type shelter near the tower, certainly more robust than the demountables used back in the day for schools but certainly not something I'd want to be in within a fire on its' own. Even if the shelter survived, I doub't the equipment even if not burnt would be able to operate after the heat of the fire.     They do have a fair amount of battery backup, but I don't know what the up time is for them once mains goes out.

----------


## PhilT2

What if we water bomb the towers? Lots of water/electronic equip; could that be an issue?

----------


## John2b

> Finding real solutions to the real problem is just too much hard work.

  The solutions are generally well known, but there's been a concerted effort for decades to do everything that shouldn't be done, and to not do the bleeding obvious, all driven by the economic system. Of course when there's a buck in it, it doesn't seem like hard work to do things.

----------


## John2b

> I hear or read the comments made by the government that they are not trained to fight fires, that may well be the case and not suggesting that infantry or others should be involved on the ground.

   Of course the ADF does have significant firefighting capabilities, quite possibly greater than those of the RFS/CFS volunteer organisations. For the guvmint to deploy them is a tacit acknowledgement that something serious is happening that is contrary to the current political rhetoric, and the well paid spin merchants are tasked to produce the messages of obfuscation broadcast as reason.

----------


## Bros

> Of course the ADF does have significant firefighting capabilities, quite possibly greater than those of the RFS/CFS volunteer organisations.

  I dont think so as ADF has unlimited water available whereas the RFS has limited water, helicopter buckets, earth moving equipment and fire to contain fires.  
RFS contain fires ADF and Metropolitan brigades put them out with copious amounts of water and they know when to get out.

----------


## Bedford



----------


## John2b

How many of the 400,000 hectares burned now can be attributed to those 370 hectares being control burned or not? And if 370 hectares of understory had been removed, what difference would it have made when the canopy caught fire anyway? That's the burning question as seasonal conditions continue to deteriorate significantly year on year.

----------


## toooldforthis

@bedford
I went looking for the original articles
found them on FB
the commentary is v interesting. https://www.facebook.com/ABCGippslan...149825/?type=3

----------


## John2b

> the commentary is v interesting.

  Silly me, I thought burning witches at the stake ended in the 1600s.  South East Timber Association Mary, Mary, quite contrary, How does a wildfire grow?  With lots of fuel, burning hot as hell, Leaving dead animals all in a row.   Wendy Kneipp Did Mary lose her house like other people did   Robyne Pascoe Wendy Kneipp no, she didn’t she's just another hypocrite   Jacqueline Cooper Alf King Mary is nowhere to be seen unless she is one of the sticky beaks who is driving around gawking at what everyone has lost!   Justin Brown Jodi Smith no doubt Mary is a paid up member of the Greens and the ABC felt obliged to publish her story because it aligns to their charter of free and objective reporting…….   Jodi Smith Let's hope 'mary' never finds herself in a fire situation due to lack of burn offs! @♀️   Robyne Pascoe Let's hope she does....

----------


## Bros

> the commentary is v interesting. https://www.facebook.com/ABCGippslan...149825/?type=3

  Pretty hard reading as there is so much of it but it is interesting to see the comments 10W ago and now.

----------


## John2b

Gus Speth, a Rhodes Scholar who graduated from Yale Law School: "l used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy... and we scientists don't know how to (deal with) that."

----------


## Bros

No idea if he knows what he’s talking about but it is another view and it was via 2GB  https://www.2gb.com/podcast/retired-...-DMV7a700CJoIE

----------


## toooldforthis

> Silly me, I thought burning witches at the stake ended in the 1600s.  snip....

  actually, it was more the comments about reducing fuel load that interested me.
still so much contradictory info/data on that. 
you are on Kangaroo Island? ABC reporting more fires there today - hope you all stay safe.

----------


## PhilT2

Graph shows what we already knew.  
I won't put up the temp graph, that will just start another argument. But we know what it shows.

----------


## Bros

> I won't put up the temp graph, that will just start another argument.

  It sure will but isn't that graph missing something? 
Y axis is precipitation (rain) and the X axis years so the numbers done add up/

----------


## phild01

I'm not getting much meaning out of that graph either.

----------


## PhilT2

> It sure will but isn't that graph missing something? 
> Y axis is precipitation (rain) and the X axis years so the numbers done add up/

  ???? You'll have to explain that a bit. I can't catch your point.
The graph just shows this is our driest year since BOM started keeping national records (over 100 years)

----------


## Bros

> ???? You'll have to explain that a bit. I can't catch your point.

  Well the Y axis is precipitation which is rain and goes up to 60mm I think Birdsville would get that in a year.

----------


## John2b

It's interesting that in the 2GB interview Ralph Barraclough claims the biggest fire ever was in 1851 when the fuel load was supposedly much lower than subsequent to the wholesale changes to the interior bushland effected by European settlement from the late 1800s and early 1900s as the interior was opened up. 
From the book Barraclough mentions in the interview, in review of the 1851, 1939 and 1977 fires: "It should now be obvious that fire control can never be expected to reach a state of such efficiency that some outbreaks will not get out of hand on the wrong day. "This doubt about the possibility of ever reaching a state of preparedness that would guarantee safety for Victoria from bush or grass fires on the worst days of the worst summer was emphasised in a section of the statement which the chairman of the Forests Commission (Dr F. R. Moulds) made to the Board of Inquiry 'At some point in the scale of increasing severity the Commission's fire- protection organisation will be found wanting . . •' he said. 'The community probably could not afford to maintain a fire protection capability sufficient in all circumstances, having regard for the extremes that occur in Victoria."  Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the climate conditions that exacerbate the fire season have been allowed to develop in recent history to be much more serious, as is obvious by comparing the Australian heatwave extents of 1939 and several years in the decade starting 2010. The recent weather was not precedented in 1939 and the extent of the 1939 fire had more to do with the absence of strategic fire management planning and almost entire lack of suitable firefighting equipment and commensurate trained firefighters.  https://www.victoriasforestryheritag...e1939fires.pdf

----------


## John2b

> Graph shows what we already knew.

  An extremely dry fire season at the end of a decade of elevated temperatures. What difference would such tinderbox conditions make?

----------


## PhilT2

Oops. looks like a zero got dropped off somewhere.

----------


## John2b

> you are on Kangaroo Island? ABC reporting more fires there today - hope you all stay safe.

  Thanks for asking, yes on K.I., but fortunately (for us) we are a long way from the fires. It may get a bit scary tonight if the dry lightning predicted hits as a change comes through. A score of fires have already been lit by lightning strikes on K.I. in the past couple of weeks.

----------


## Bros

> Which makes it all the more extraordinary that the climate conditions that exacerbate the fire season have been allowed to develop in recent history to be much more serious, as is obvious by comparing the Australian heatwave extents of 1939 and several years in the decade starting 2010. The recent weather was not precedented in 1939 and the extent of the 1939 fire had more to do with the absence of strategic fire management planning and almost entire lack of suitable firefighting equipment and commensurate trained firefighters.  https://www.victoriasforestryheritag...e1939fires.pdf

  Scary reading as I have only read up to pg 39 as I find it difficult to read a book of a screen but history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
And it makes the story I quoted about being told of eucalyptus gassing real. 
Being rather selfish we like it when Vic gets northerly winds as it is on the back end of the high which gives us cool winds.

----------


## toooldforthis

> Thanks for asking, yes on K.I., but fortunately (for us) we are a long way from the fires. It may get a bit scary tonight if the dry lightning predicted hits as a change comes through. A score of fires have already been lit by lightning strikes on K.I. in the past couple of weeks.

   
looks close enough to me, no matter where you are.

----------


## John2b

We're nearly at the most eastern tip about 70 kilometres from the yellow zone as the crow flies.

----------


## Bedford

Stay safe John. 
From the link you posted above,   

> I am concerned that many people will not learn from the lessons of the past  and  that  they  will  neither protect  themselves  nor  allow  others  to protect  them. 
>   This  must  not  be  allowed  to  happen  because,  if  it  does, future tragedies are inevitable. 
> I  am  grateful  to  Mr  Noble  for  reminding  us  all  of  the  terrible consequences of failing to understand our forests and wildfire 
> .HON. F. J. GRANTER, MLC Minister for Forests

----------


## FrodoOne

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...-the-bushfires https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fires-no...-change-expert  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...ntinuous-fuels  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...zard-reduction  https://www.smh.com.au/national/pres...29-p53f9o.html

----------


## craka

> https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...-the-bushfires https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fires-no...-change-expert  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...ntinuous-fuels  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...zard-reduction  https://www.smh.com.au/national/pres...29-p53f9o.html

  Pretty much re-iterates what a few of us have been stating.

----------


## PhilT2

> Oops. looks like a zero got dropped off somewhere.

  No zero missing, BOM records historical rainfall data as monthly data. Graph shows average monthly rainfall.

----------


## craka

It being interesting to know what the rainfall was going further back than that.

----------


## PhilT2

> It being interesting to know what the rainfall was going further back than that.

  The main problem is that the federal Bureau of Meteorology only came into existence at Federation in 1901. It took a while to get a standard form of measurement in place so anything before 1910 is a bit questionable. This applies to temps as well.

----------


## Jon

> What if we water bomb the towers? Lots of water/electronic equip; could that be an issue?

  Yes, they do bomb the towers with retardant.
Issues include power cuts and not being able to get generators into the towers and also damage to the infrastructure that connects the towers to the rest of the network. 
Fusing

----------


## John2b

Rather than being 75 km away, thanks to dry lightening we're in the warning area now.  :Cry:

----------


## toooldforthis

> Rather than being 75 km away, thanks to dry lightening we're in the warning area now.

  stay safe
watch the wind.
know your plan.
you won't sleep much tonight I suspect.

----------


## phild01

I think we might know many in the warning zones now, I do too.

----------


## John2b

Cheers tooldforthis. That damned yellow blob thing just got bigger! There are currently many, many more tourists on the island than residents which presents a problem, namely where do tourists go when all safe accomodation is already booked out, and the ferry to leave the island is fully booked? And believe it or not, many of the tourists in the Chapman River conservation park campgrounds near us are put out that they can't have a campfire!!

----------


## johnc

> No idea if he knows what he’s talking about but it is another view and it was via 2GB  https://www.2gb.com/podcast/retired-...-DMV7a700CJoIE

   Ralph is a local identity, I worked with him in the 1970's, his views are not always mainstream but always interesting, self taught and like all views should be considered along with those of others.

----------


## Bros

> Yes, they do bomb the towers with retardant.
> Issues include power cuts and not being able to get generators into the towers and also damage to the infrastructure that connects the towers to the rest of the network.

   The towers would be fine as they are all steel, the hardware is in an insulated building which could handle a fast moving fire but the weak point is the cabling from the comms building to the tower as they are just in cable tray.

----------


## John2b

We have a little rain this morning, so the risk is most likely over for us for the time being, thanks everyone. I don't know how things are faring at the western end of K.I.. I understand a lot of damage has occurred to the Flinders Chase Conservation Park and much tourism infrastructure has been burned out. Dozens of my friends have had property damage, a few burned out entirely.

----------


## Bros

Gee doesn't the media forget things. I was listening to the news on the radio this morning and they were saying that the evacuation from Malacoota was the largest in peacetime in Australia. They conveniently for got Darwin when 10's of thousands were evacuated in 1974 mostly by air.

----------


## phild01

> Gee doesn't the media forget things. I was listening to the news on the radio this morning and they were saying that the evacuation from Malacoota was the largest in peacetime in Australia.

  Funnily enough, just as I was reading your post, Channel 7 said exactly the same thing.

----------


## toooldforthis

> Cheers tooldforthis. That damned yellow blob thing just got bigger! There are currently many, many more tourists on the island than residents which presents a problem, namely where do tourists go when all safe accomodation is already booked out, and the ferry to leave the island is fully booked? And believe it or not, many of the tourists in the Chapman River conservation park campgrounds near us are put out that they can't have a campfire!!

  yes. be aware.
media like to show everyone being a hero but in times of crisis there are plenty of stupid people doing stupid selfish things.
one of the things that goes downhill fast is social media (assuming comms still up) that is why I said above you need to know who is who on FB etc and who to trust.
unbelievable about the KI tourists.    

> We have a little rain this morning, so the risk is most likely over for us for the time being, thanks everyone. I don't know how things are faring at the western end of K.I.. I understand a lot of damage has occurred to the Flinders Chase Conservation Park and much tourism infrastructure has been burned out. Dozens of my friends have had property damage, a few burned out entirely.

  stay safe.
reports are 2 killed when their vehicle overrun by fire on KI

----------


## Bros

> Scary reading as I have only read up to pg 39 as I find it difficult to read a book of a screen but history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

  Finally got through it and the SE area of Australia is the most bushfire prone area in the world a sobering thought.  
It seems inevitable with the right conditions bad fires can happen and cannot be stopped as happened through history seems it is just a case of managing the situation but this fire will fade into memory and be forgotten until next time. 
Brisbane floods of the 70's and the previous Townsville floods were forgotten about and housing estates sprung up on flood prone land.

----------


## doovalacky

I have to shake my head at the complacency of people who are now bitching about shops being shut. Seriously how hard is it to have a couple days of portable food/water? Especially with whats been going on last few weeks.
Sure I might not have fresh milk and veg but I could last a month at home without too much trouble on cans and other dried food. More if still had power to freezer. 
 Even if I had too run have a weeks worth of high energy emergency/camping bars and a couple days sealed water I could grab in a few minutes.

----------


## METRIX

> I have to shake my head at the complacency of people who are now bitching about shops being shut. Seriously how hard is it to have a couple days of portable food/water? Especially with whats been going on last few weeks.
> Sure I might not have fresh milk and veg but I could last a month at home without too much trouble on cans and other dried food. More if still had power to freezer. 
>  Even if I had too run have a weeks worth of high energy emergency/camping bars and a couple days sealed water I could grab in a few minutes.

  Some humans are just stupid, probably too busy on their smartphones taking selfies than worrying about getting food from the local shop.

----------


## Moondog55

We are not even in a "Watch" situation here but I have my Nomex and RFL vest by the front door, ditto boots & leather gloves but I simply can't find my bloody hard hat so I'll have to wear the beret if we get an ember attack. It takes an hour or two but this isn't something you leave until the last minute. I don't expect to be close to any big bushfire but ember attack is a totally different scenario and I remember working in Clifton Hill when the fires went though Lara and having burning branches falling from the sky then, I know it can happen and the ground here is so dry a spark alone could take off

----------


## toooldforthis

> We are not even in a "Watch" situation here but I have my Nomex and RFL vest by the front door, ditto boots & leather gloves but I simply can't find my bloody hard hat so I'll have to wear the beret if we get an ember attack. It takes an hour or two but this isn't something you leave until the last minute. I don't expect to be close to any big bushfire but ember attack is a totally different scenario and I remember working in Clifton Hill when the fires went though Lara and having burning branches falling from the sky then, I know it can happen and the ground here is so dry a spark alone could take off

  lol
couldn't fond my hard hat either. looked everywhere several times.
ended up buying a new one - found the old one the next day.
guaranteed methodology.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Gee doesn't the media forget things. I was listening to the news on the radio this morning and they were saying that the evacuation from Malacoota was the largest in peacetime in Australia. They conveniently for got Darwin when 10's of thousands were evacuated in 1974 mostly by air.

  Mallacoota is the largest by sea, and that is what they are stating. As you say, Darwin was mostly by air

----------


## phild01

Fire at my sister's property near Ullahdulla/Milton possibly their house.

----------


## Bros

> Mallacoota is the largest by sea, and that is what they are stating. As you say, Darwin was mostly by air

   I heard several news reports and they left off two words.

----------


## Bros

> Fire at my sister's property near Ullahdulla/Milton possibly their house.

  Fingers crossed.

----------


## phild01

Just had an update and the firies got there and it was the shed that was burning. The neighbour went up and activated their fire sprinklers and called in help. Funnily enough the neighbours sprinklers weren't working but their house was fine. Their road  borders right on the fire map danger area. They are camped up in their van in Milton.

----------


## phild01

Wondering how Cooma is faring!

----------


## toooldforthis

I found this interview answered a few questions I had been having.
its 38 minutes, but I watched it all - probably a first for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvf...ature=youtu.be   

> Australian Bushfire Catastrophe - "Our Leaders Refuse To Listen"
> It was an honour to sit down with Australian fire fighting legend Greg Mullins. He is the former NSW Fire Commissioner with 40+ years fire fighting experience. He is one of many Australia Firemen calling for more action from our government to help stop the worsening fires across not only Australia but the world. We discuss what is causing these extreme weather events, what can be done to prevent them, how to prepare for a fire & mental health associated with fires.

  at 32 minutes he mentions that the new building regs (for fire) aren't cutting it and will need to be upgraded - he mentions the issue of radiation (which I took to mean radiant heat)

----------


## PhilT2

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvf...ature=youtu.be

  Not a member of the Scomo fan club either.

----------


## craka

> Not a member of the Scomo fan club either.

  Not sure that many are after the current events no matter what your political persuasion is, I feel like he has been found wanting.

----------


## phild01

> Not sure that many are after the current events no matter what your political persuasion is, I feel like he has been found wanting.

  I doubt anyone would differ to that view, even parliament members of his own political persuasion!

----------


## PhilT2

The video mentions these "scooper" fire fighting planes; France (a country smaller than NSW) has a dozen of them sitting in a hangar during the northern winter. Available for hire.  https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...take-on-water/

----------


## toooldforthis

> The video mentions these "scooper" fire fighting planes; France (a country smaller than NSW) has a dozen of them sitting in a hangar during the northern winter. Available for hire.  https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...take-on-water/

  I had heard Russia's offer was refused too.
Could only find this previous offer tho. https://www.smh.com.au/national/russ...1020-h6xt.html

----------


## Bros

> The video mentions these "scooper" fire fighting planes; France (a country smaller than NSW) has a dozen of them sitting in a hangar during the northern winter. Available for hire.

   I did mention previously having planes available however some poster said they were ineffective due to the lack of visibility. A lot of these fires are unstoppable until they burn themselves out.

----------


## toooldforthis

> I did mention previously having planes available however some poster said they were ineffective due to the lack of visibility. A lot of these fires are unstoppable until they burn themselves out.

  I did mention that the Fire Services were saying they were having trouble with getting planes up at certain times due to visibility(smoke) and turbulence(fire induced).
That is not to say they can't play a very important role. I know the ones here in WA can't fly at night. 
The fires when they start need to be jumped on asap, as you say once they get to this stage - unstoppable.
Hope they get some rain.

----------


## Bedford

Bushfire Forensics.  https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAustra...8476637192153/

----------


## toooldforthis

> Bushfire Forensics.  https://www.facebook.com/7NewsAustra...8476637192153/

  maybe he misspoke but he didn't get off to a good start misusing the term _back burning_ in his opening remarks.
after that he pretty much said nothing.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The video mentions these "scooper" fire fighting planes; France (a country smaller than NSW) has a dozen of them sitting in a hangar during the northern winter. Available for hire.  https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...take-on-water/

  One of the major issues with those is that you need a large, open and relatively calm waterbody somewhere  in order to reload them safely in their amphibious mode. And they are surprisingly uncommon in this country. 
Most of our dams are relatively long and narrow and have very difficult approaches for large aircraft. They also have an issue at the moment in that many are not very full.  
Using the ocean or a rare large estuary is fraught with other dangers, both on and below water. There's also a strong preference by fire authorities to avoid using salt water except where no other option presents itself.

----------


## Uncle Bob

We probably better off cancelling the purchase of those gimped F35's and buying a fleet of water bombers.

----------


## toooldforthis

> One of the major issues with those is that you need a large, open and relatively calm waterbody somewhere  in order to reload them safely in their amphibious mode. And they are surprisingly uncommon in this country. 
> Most of our dams are relatively long and narrow and have very difficult approaches for large aircraft. They also have an issue at the moment in that many are not very full.  
> Using the ocean or a rare large estuary is fraught with other dangers, both on and below water. There's also a strong preference by fire authorities to avoid using salt water except where no other option presents itself.

  here's the Russian ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egx7YqoMLqk  

> [COLOR=var(--yt-spec-text-primary)]Russian Manufacturer United Aircraft brought one of the more interesting aircraft to this year’s Dubai Airshow, the Be-200ES multipurpose amphibian, and highlighted the twin-engine airplane’s capabilities with water-drop demonstrations. 
> Powered by two Motor Sich D-436TP turbofans, each developing over 16,800 pounds of takeoff thrust, the Be-200ES can land in Sea State 3 conditions and carry up to 3,170 gallons of water. 
> Refilling the jet’s massive tanks is done via water scooping, at a hydroplaning speed of 80 to more than 100 knots.  
> The versatile Beriev is also designed for cargo carrying, search-and-rescue, and air-ambulance missions[/COLOR]

----------


## toooldforthis

I'll just leave this here. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...ter/ar-AAH1PYT   

> Inside 'Shark One': Scott Morrison's new $250MILLION plane is revealed after a commercial Jetstar Airbus A330 is transformed into a 100-seater tanker for the prime minister

----------


## Moondog55

Not much difference between some politicians and tapeworms.

----------


## PhilT2

> Not much difference between some politicians and tapeworms.

  Ever been lied to by a tapeworm? Scomo is caught in a dilemma; the extreme right in his party, the low tax, small govt faction, don't want to spend any money. Getting the budget back into surplus is a priority for them so they want to push the cost of fire fighting onto the states. Others in the party just want to do whatever is necessary to stay in power, whatever the cost. Welcome to politics.

----------


## John2b

> Getting the budget back into surplus is a priority for them so they want to push the cost of fire fighting onto the states.

  I've never understood how the budget can be in-balance when the Federal government's underlying deficit has blown out from ~$250 billion (which took 113 years from Federation until Abbott was elected) to ~$550 billion today - i.e. more than doubled during the current LNC guvmint.  *Coalition government shows stubborn unwillingness to fix debt  In 5½ years, the Coalition has doubled the nation's debt.  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...27-p5183x.html* 
(If this is paywalled I can post the text)

----------


## toooldforthis

> Ever been lied to by a tapeworm? Scomo is caught in a dilemma; the extreme right in his party, the low tax, small govt faction, don't want to spend any money. Getting the budget back into surplus is a priority for them so they want to push the cost of fire fighting onto the states. Others in the party just want to do whatever is necessary to stay in power, whatever the cost. Welcome to politics.

  yup. His plan is probably to just wait it out.
voters forget, and even if they don't, they don't have much of a choice. 
he will try and rewrite history, and the media will assist.
look how he tried to rewrite his encounter with the pregnant mum in Cobargo - at least some of the media are calling him out on it. https://www.theguardian.com/australi...thing-in-fires  

> Speaking to reporters in Bairnsdale, Morrison said he did not turn his back on Zoey but “stood there with the same lady you’re referring to” and talked to her – contradicting both Zoey’s account and what is shown in footage of the interaction.

----------


## phild01

> I've never understood how the budget can be in-balance when the Federal government's underlying deficit has blown out from ~$250 billion (which took 113 years from Federation until Abbott was elected) to ~$550 billion today - i.e. more than doubled during the current LNC guvmint.

  Why does the LNC always become the reason for the higher defecit when it was Labour that set the groundwork for something so difficult to reverse.

----------


## toooldforthis

another article on what I call cool burns.
tho the climate window to be able to do these is getting less and less and obviously labour intensive. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/...5nzjgrco_xkJjE   

> Unlike hazard reduction burning, cultural burns are cooler and slower moving, usually no taller than knee height, leaving tree canopies untouched

----------


## craka

> another article on what I call cool burns.
> tho the climate window to be able to do these is getting less and less and obviously labour intensive. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/...5nzjgrco_xkJjE

  
Whether the climate window to do this is getting shorter, that really hasn't been the hurdle.  It's more about the hoops, approvals and notifications that have to go on before any kind of prescribed burn.

----------


## Marc

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...-Bushfires.mp3

----------


## toooldforthis

> Whether the climate window to do this is getting shorter, that really hasn't been the hurdle.  It's more about the hoops, approvals and notifications that have to go on before any kind of prescribed burn.

  I believe that is the case in Vic and NSW from what I have read but here in WA we are just not getting the opportunity to do the approved/scheduled burns.
tho WA often has to deal with issues you mention, just recently locals complaining about new fire tracks put in in order to do fire hazard reduction next year, and city folk complaining about smoke from prescribed burns when the wind isn't favourable to them.

----------


## Marc

As far as leaders in this country I am confident that everyone be it left right or center, up or down is well aware that we don't have, and never had political leaders.  
What we have are bad employees, that got the position lying in their application, cheating in the interview and pretending with grandiloquence with speeches to perpetuate themselves and their own pathetic personal interest. The country and his citizens are of no consequence.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Whether the climate window to do this is getting shorter, that really hasn't been the hurdle.  It's more about the hoops, approvals and notifications that have to go on before any kind of prescribed burn.

  Actually, it's both. One has to research & prepare the fire plan and then get it through the internal approval process. Given that each burn needs a burn plan...that's a lot of plans. 
Then the burn itself has to be scoped, resourced and given a calendar window...and then all the resources and right weather conditions have to be available during the burn window... 
There's a patch of bushland near our place that has had a burn planned for the last four years. This year they were finally able to get in to clear boundary lines and around the base of some of the bigger trees, took them nearly two weeks...and then the weather window closed...so maybe this year?

----------


## craka

> Actually, it's both. One has to research & prepare the fire plan and then get it through the internal approval process. Given that each burn needs a burn plan...that's a lot of plans. 
> Then the burn itself has to be scoped, resourced and given a calendar window...and then all the resources and right weather conditions have to be available during the burn window... 
> There's a patch of bushland near our place that has had a burn planned for the last four years. This year they were finally able to get in to clear boundary lines and around the base of some of the bigger trees, took them nearly two weeks...and then the weather window closed...so maybe this year?

  
Yep, kind of what I was getting at. Prescribed burns need to get as easy to dish out as getting pulled over for a RBT. Ok maybe not to that degree but you get my drift.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> I've never understood how the budget can be in-balance when the Federal government's underlying deficit has blown out from ~$250 billion (which took 113 years from Federation until Abbott was elected) to ~$550 billion today - i.e. more than doubled during the current LNC guvmint.

  Oh that's easy to answer. The current bunch of crooks have siphoned it all off though their 'vested interests' into their offshore companies.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yep, kind of what I was getting at. Prescribed burns need to get as easy to dish out as getting pulled over for a RBT. Ok maybe not to that degree but you get my drift.

  No argument there...but it won't happen in the State Government agencies and the land they are responsible for. The ministers and their political advisers are too risk averse to abandon the bureaucratic procedural approach...and there's good cause to support that approach from a public and personnel safety perspective given the legacy of history.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh that's easy to answer. The current bunch of crooks have siphoned it all off though their 'vested interests' into their offshore companies.

  Uncle Bob needs to step away from Facebook...or add #sarcasm to his posts more often!

----------


## Uncle Bob

Uncle bob just trying to educate the blinkered masses into how the real world operates.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Uncle bob just trying to educate the blinkered masses into how the real world operates.

  😁🤔  
Is it contagious?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Oh that's easy to answer. The current bunch of crooks have siphoned it all off though their 'vested interests' into their offshore companies.

  Uh, hmm, but, but, wait... oh, never mind

----------


## FrodoOne

> https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...-Bushfires.mp3

  Sorry Marc.
I refereed to this  (and other items on the same site) at post #375. 
I strongly believe that his organization (https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au) knows a thing or two about bushfires and their causes.  
At the cost of $2 billion we are now to have a "National Bushfire Recovery Agency"
Even assuming that it spends that money appropriately and, along with insurance, that this is "enough", what then? 
It may have been written before in these many posts but the fact is that the Australian bush will burn.
Whether you believe that it has been "designed" to burn or has "evolved" to burn makes no difference.
It will burn. 
Yes, this will add Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere.  When the bush regrows - if it is allowed to - a similar amount of Carbon Dioxide will be used in the process. 
If there are many "cool burns" each year, and over many years, the cycle will be repeated and the nett result will be zero increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 
The "National Bushfire Recovery Agency" should become a permanent organization but it should be renamed and become the "National Bushfire Control Agency" (or some similar designation) and funded appropriately to "Burn to Control". 
Governments and everyone should understand and admit the simple fact that "The Australian Bush Will Burn".
This natural burning must be controlled in a way that is not disastrous to plant, animal and human life - and property.  
(With such a regime it is probably inevitable that mistakes will be made, some animal lives may be lost and even some property may be destroyed but, hopefully, it will prevent the further loss of human life and the greater destruction of plant, animal and human life (and property) which is now occurring.) 
The longer any area of bush is not burned the greater will be the conflagration when it does (eventually) burn - as it will. 
The heat of any such conflagration will destroy much more than the many cool burns which will have not taken place - as is now happening.

----------


## Marc

> The longer any area of bush is not burned the greater will be the conflagration when it does (eventually) burn - as it will. The heat of any such conflagration will destroy much more than the many cool burns which will have not taken place - as is now happening.

  Rather obvious to you and me ... however John and Co pontificate that fuel load is "constant" and therefore fuel reduction burns are not necessary. 
The evidence that leaf and branches fuel load accumulates for 15 years before leveling out and that bark accumulates for up to 30years before leveling out, is of course an invention of the conservative oil companies, Alan Jones and me.   
It is sad that so many need to suffer due to the barmy hidden agendas of the few.
Declaring the greens a terrorist organisation would be a good start.  
The fact that we need volunteers to put bushfires out, that we lack basic bushfire equipment and that we have to rely on people's donations, whilst we pay confiscatory levels of tax, is an indictment of the incompetence of the so called leaders. Just as an illustration, the navy that had to go and rescue people from Mallacoota, loaded supplies on the ship that were supposed to go to the philippines, in another empty gesture of grandeur from our fearless Canberra dwellers. . It was just potluck that the supplies had not shipped.  
Each time I see one of those toy helicopters scooping a bucket of water from the river behind my house and dropping it's useless load on the inferno of fire I cringe. 
And no one cares ...  https://www.smh.com.au/national/fire...28-p53naw.html

----------


## toooldforthis

> ... 
> The "National Bushfire Recovery Agency" should become a permanent organization but it should be renamed and become the "National Bushfire Control Agency" (or some similar designation) and funded appropriately to "Burn to Control".
> ...

  there is more GDP and political promotion ad opportunities in _Recovery_ than _Control_

----------


## PhilT2

View of the fires from a japanese weather satellite Dec 2-6  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

----------


## UseByDate

> We probably better off cancelling the purchase of those gimped F35's and buying a fleet of water bombers.

  Most of the money used to purchase military aircraft is spent in design, development and testing. The actual cost of building the equipment is tiny in comparison. Very often the cancellation of a contract results in no saving of any money. Sometimes the cancellation cost is higher than the original contract price. 
 Welcome to the real world.

----------


## Bros

Like all disasters there are experts coming out of the woodwork everywhere espousing this and that and I have read a lot of them and they all speak some sense. The main thread is fuel load and weather conditions well we all know that as no fuel no burn and we cant stop then weather as these fires have been a part of life for a century but do we burn earlier or do we leave it as it is then have a fast response with aircraft to the kill the early stages of the fire before it gets unstoppable. 
If after all of this is forgotten and a proper inquiry is done then we might find out the true cause and the means of dealing with them is exposed as when they get to the size they do they are unstoppable.

----------


## craka

> https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au...-Bushfires.mp3

  I heard a previous interview with him, I think in November.   I wish people that have authority, actually start to listen, and make changes.   But unfortunately, as horrific as this fire season has been, I doubt it as been horrific enough for them to take real notice and make changes.

----------


## Marc

> Like all disasters there are experts coming out of the woodwork everywhere espousing this and that and I have read a lot of them and they all speak some sense. The main thread is fuel load and weather conditions well we all know that as no fuel no burn and we cant stop then weather as these fires have been a part of life for a century but do we burn earlier or do we leave it as it is then have a fast response with aircraft to the kill the early stages of the fire before it gets unstoppable. 
> If after all of this is forgotten and a proper inquiry is done then we might find out the true cause and the means of dealing with them is exposed as when they get to the size they do they are unstoppable.

  I watched the fire at Ten Mile Hollow (strangely re baptised Three Mile on the RFS map) grow from a tiny line on the map to a 50k Ha. A fixed wind scooping aircraft could have done short work of this fire in a few passess from the Hawkesbury to there, just a few minutes fly. The helos with the hanging buckets had no chance, and in fact did not even try.

----------


## PhilT2

> If after all of this is forgotten and a proper inquiry is done then we might find out

  ......why we have ignored the findings of the previous inquiries.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ......why we have ignored the findings of the previous inquiries.

  It was cheaper.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I watched the fire at Ten Mile Hollow (strangely re baptised Three Mile on the RFS map) grow from a tiny line on the map to a 50k Ha. A fixed wind scooping aircraft could have done short work of this fire in a few passess from the Hawkesbury to there, just a few minutes fly. The helos with the hanging buckets had no chance, and in fact did not even try.

  Hope you make a submission to the inquiry then. You might found out what actually happened and why...

----------


## phild01

It would seem to me that first alert is a major problem. Did I see somewhere in the US they have implemented a lot of smart cameras for this purpose. I think we need to use the money being donated from all over the world to implement the same type of infrastructure.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It would seem to me that first alert is a major problem. Did I see somewhere in the US they have implemented a lot of smart cameras for this purpose. I think we need to use the money being donated from all over the world to implement the same type of infrastructure.

  There are already many such cameras in use in NSW national parks and state forests. I know of two in my area...

----------


## Marc

> It would seem to me that first alert is a major problem. Did I see somewhere in the US they have implemented a lot of smart cameras for this purpose. I think we need to use the money being donated from all over the world to implement the same type of infrastructure.

  Possibly. In the case I mention, the fire was on the map, so it did not go unnoticed. It took weeks to grow into a menace, and then it was declared out of control. It was not attacked in time because it was remote, and the priorities were elsewhere. In other words, we did not have enough resources.

----------


## John2b

In the 1960s there was a television campaign to urge people to shelter in their vehicle if caught in a bushfire while on the road. No one would survive one of the current bushfires by sheltering in a car! Past fires do not represent the current and future situation. 
The 2015 Pinery fire which destroyed 91 houses, 388 non-residential structures, 93 farm machines and 98 other vehicles, killed 53,000 poultry and 17,500 head of livestock and destroyed $40 million worth of fodder and unharvested grains was in mostly in cleared land with a low fuel load.  
The concept of fuel load is utterly meaningless without the context of weather conditions. There have been recent instances of fires in areas burnt through only weeks earlier. The fire risk in the first few years after a hazard reduction burn is often greater than the fire risk before the burn. 
What is need is a early warning and rapid response to fires starting, not govmint hindrances based on an ideological position.

----------


## Bedford

> There have been recent instances of fires in areas burnt through only weeks earlier.

  What were the circumstances and do you have a link? ( not the Greg Mullins interview please)    

> The fire risk in the first few years after a hazard reduction burn is often greater than the fire risk before the burn.

  Got a link to this please?

----------


## Marc

> In the 1960s there was a television campaign to urge people to shelter in their vehicle if caught in a bushfire while on the road. No one would survive one of the current bushfires by sheltering in a car! Past fires do not represent the current and future situation. 
> The 2015 Pinery fire which destroyed 91 houses, 388 non-residential structures, 93 farm machines and 98 other vehicles, killed 53,000 poultry and 17,500 head of livestock and destroyed $40 million worth of fodder and unharvested grains was in mostly in cleared land with a low fuel load.  
> The concept of fuel load is utterly meaningless without the context of weather conditions. There have been recent instances of fires in areas burnt through only weeks earlier. The fire risk in the first few years after a hazard reduction burn is often greater than the fire risk before the burn. 
> What is need is a early warning and rapid response to fires starting, not govmint hindrances based on an ideological position.

  John, your post mixes kumquats with bananas, and then talks apples and prunes. (No oranges anywhere) 
And then you agree that ignoramus authorities should stay away. I assume you mean cretin councils, and state and commonwealth? What about those from Albania? And the one from Christmas? ... oh my, that is baaad.  
I think I agree with your last sentence. The stuff you garbled above is ... mm ... whatsthematterwithyou?
You are a champion mate  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

I'll elaborate further ... 
Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the PM perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.  Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that the new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.    :Smilie:   All in favour say aye ...

----------


## Bros

> I'll elaborate further ... 
> Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the PM perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.  Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that the new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.

  Says Donald Rumsfeld

----------


## Marc

Good old Donald? Are you sure it is not Albanese? ... or Rob Oakeshott?

----------


## Jon

my bet is Sir Humphrey Appleby

----------


## John2b

> Got a link to this please?

  Not for the instance of re-burning (I read dozens of papers and articles most days and don't keep and index them), but the second statement is supported by a Parliamentary Briefing of research into fire management: 
"Post burn assessments of the effectiveness of prescribed burns in the Blue Mountains in the period 1990 97 found that 30 per cent of the burns had a negative result, 40 per cent were sub-optimal, and 30 per cent could be rated as effective burns.(31) The negative results occurred when there was more "creation of fuel" than reduction of fuel, with "creation" of fuel being the fire's curing of fuels rather than consumption of them."  https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ib0203/03Cib08 
Lots more on hazard reduction effectiveness here:   https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/t...fuel-reduction

----------


## craka

Just to add some more fuel (pun intended) to this discussion.  https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01...GksCzGIfy6wj8o

----------


## John2b

> Just to add some more fuel (pun intended) to this discussion.

  Not really anything new there - just a zombie load of misinformation and rehashed fakery that has already been shown to be false in this very forum thread for the most part, as well as practically everywhere else outside of neocon media.

----------


## PhilT2

> Just to add some more fuel (pun intended) to this discussion.  https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01...GksCzGIfy6wj8o

  We're not talking about the temperature in Aust. And even if we were (which we're not) a graph by Marohasy showing the temp in only one town but only up until 20 years ago would be fairly useless. A more complete picture could be found here https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/01...ia/#more-11150 if anyone was interested (but we're not) We don't have anything to worry about; Scomo will look after us. If we get into trouble he will send us thoughts and prayers. We can use them to put out the fire.

----------


## John2b

So Morrison ScoMoed over to Hawaii, and then was touched by how much Australians really wanted him to be here with us, so came back to tell us that fires were state responsibility and no, weather isn't a factor in fires. So what's the sudden $2 billion National Fire Recovery fund all about? Is $2 billion enough to win back the Quiet Australians? https://youtu.be/shBwf97O7zk

----------


## FrodoOne

> View of the fires from a japanese weather satellite Dec 2-6  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

   One can view the "live" pictures from that satellite (and a history of those transmissions) on https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

----------


## Marc

FLAT WHITE *Tragic, but unprecedented? Not yet*  Jennifer Marohasy     Jennifer Marohasy 6 January 2020 4:57 PM        The word unprecedented is applied to almost every bad thing that happens at the moment, as though particular events could not have been predicted, and have never happened before at such a scale or intensity. This is creating so much anxiety, because it follows logically that we are living in an uncertain time: that there really is a climate emergency. The historical evidence, however, indicates fires have burnt very large areas before, and it has been hotter. Some of the catastrophe has been compounded by our refusal to prepare appropriately, as is the case with the current bushfire emergency here in Australia. Expert Dr Christine Finlay explains the importance of properly managing the ever-increasing fire loads in an article in The Weekend Australian. While there is an increase in the area of national park with Eucalyptus forests, there has been a reduction in the area of hazard reduction burning. The situation is perhaps also made worse by fiddling with the historical temperature record. This will affect the capacity of those modelling bushfire behaviour to obtain an accurate forecast. We have had a horrific start to the bushfire season, and much is being said about the more than 17 lives lost already, and that smoke has blown as far as New Zealand. Unprecedented has been the claim. But just 10 years ago, on 9 February 2009, 173 lives were lost in the Black Saturday inferno. On January 13, 1939 — Black Friday — two million hectares burnt with ash reportedly falling on New Zealand. That was probably the worst bushfire catastrophe in Australia’s modern recorded history in terms of area burnt and it was 80 years ago next week. According to the Report of the Royal Commission that followed, it was avoidable. In terms of total area burnt: figures of over 5 million hectares are often quoted for 1851. The areas now burnt in New South Wales and Victoria are approaching this. Last summer, and this summer, has been hot in Australia. But the summer of 1938-1939 was probably hotter. In rural Victoria, the summer of 1938-1939 was on average at least two degrees hotter than anything measured with equivalent equipment since, as the table below shows.      The summer of 1938-1939 was probably the hottest ever in recorded history for the states of New South Wales and Victoria. It is difficult to know for sure because the Bureau of Meteorology has since changed how temperatures are measured at many locations and has not provided any indication of how current electronic probes are recording relative to the earlier mercury thermometers. Further, since 2011, the Bureau is not averaging measurements from these probes so the hottest recorded daily temperature is now a one-second spot reading from an electronic device with a sheath of unknown thickness. In the United States, similar equipment is used and the readings are averaged over five minutes and then the measurement recorded. The year before last, I worked with the Indonesian Bureau of Meteorology (BMKG), and understood their difficulty of getting a temperature equivalence between mercury thermometers and readings from electronic probes at their thousands of weather stations. The Indonesian Bureau has a policy of keeping both recording devices in the same shelter and taking measurements from both. They take this issue very seriously and acknowledge the problem. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has a policy of a three year period of overlap, yet the metadata shows that for its supposedly highest quality recording stations (for example Rutherglen), the mercury thermometer is removed the very same day an electronic probe is installed. This is a total contravention of the Bureau’s own policy, and nothing is being done about it. I explained much of this to Australia’s Chief Scientist in a letter some years ago — neither he nor the Bureau, deny that our current method of recording temperatures here in Australia is not covered by any international ISO standard. It is very different from methods currently employed in the United States and also Indonesia, and as recommended by the World Meteorological Organisation. Then there is the issue of the remodelling of temperatures, I explained how this affects trends at Rutherglen in a blog post early last year. The remodelling, that has the technical term of homogenisation, is a two-step process. With respect to the temperature maxima at Rutherglen, the Bureau identified a ‘statistically significant discontinuity’ in 1938–1939. Values were then changed. It is somewhat peculiar that the Bureau did not recognise, in its process of remodelling the historical data for Rutherglen, that the summer of 1938-1939 was exceptionally hot because of drought, compounded by bushfires. Rather David Jones and Blair Trewin at the Bureau used the exceptional hot January of 1939 as an excuse for remodelling the historical temperature record at Rutherglen, with the changed values subsequently incorporated into international data sets. These made-up values are then promoted by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This propaganda is then tweeted by Hollywood superstars like Bette Midler to The Australian Prime Minister. After a recent Sky News Television interview I did with Chris Smith several people have contacted me about the hottest day ever recorded in Australia. They have suggested it is January 16, 1889, when it was 53.1 degrees Celsius at Cloncurry in Queensland. A problem with this claim is that the temperature was not measured from within a Stevenson screen, though it was a recording at an official station. A Stevenson screen (to shelterer the mercury thermometer) was not installed by Queensland meteorologist Clement Ragge at Cloncurry until the next month, until February 1889. The hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia using standard equipment (a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen) at an official recording station is 51.7 degrees Celsius (125 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Bourke Post Office on January 3, 1909. As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinion — not our own facts. _Dr Jennifer Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs._  _PS
I get paid by the oil industry to manufacture the above post. Alan Jones is the middleman. _

----------


## Bedford

> Not for the instance of re-burning (I read dozens of papers and articles most days and don't keep and index them),

  Well, how about you find something that backs up what you said?   

> Originally Posted by *John2b*  There have been recent instances of fires in areas burnt through only weeks earlier.

   

> but the second statement is supported by a Parliamentary Briefing of research into fire management:

  Of which you left this bit out,    

> Fuel reduction burns may not halt bushfires under severe conditions. However, they do have some moderating effect on the fire and allow for control when conditions improve. In order to put fuel reduction in context with fire fighting under extreme conditions, John Fisher of New South Wales State Forests told the New South Wales Bushfires Inquiry that:  The opponents of fuel reduction burning fail to realise the operational difficulty of fighting a wildfire in extreme conditions. The only option or tool that State Forests NSW has available is the manipulation of fuel in the fire triangle (heat/ignition, air, fuel) There is no question that on extreme fire days we would not attempt a direct attack in heavy fuels. Even in a fuel reduced area on extreme days there is no question that fires would burn through those fuels as well, but the moderating effect of that fuel reduction activity is quite profound and is quite useful in the periods of the day when those extreme fire behaviours wane. We use that through the nightshift to effect further fuel reduction burnings or back-burns, as you have seen, and that provides us with a safe and effective means to control fires on our estate.(34)

----------


## PhilT2

> _PS
> I get paid by the oil industry to manufacture the above post. Alan Jones is the middleman. _

  No you don't. The oil industry is very demanding and requires a much higher level of productivity. At least two articles of complete gibberish. containing cherry picked facts and altered graphs per week are the minimum requirements for salaried employees. Those who copy the work of others are employed in the useful idiot department and do not qualify for payment at this time. When your production of original gibberish has reached a satisfactory level you may re-apply for payment.

----------


## Marc

> No you don't. The oil industry is very demanding and requires a much higher level of productivity. At least two articles of complete gibberish. containing cherry picked facts and altered graphs per week are the minimum requirements for salaried employees. Those who copy the work of others are employed in the useful idiot department and do not qualify for payment at this time. When your production of original gibberish has reached a satisfactory level you may re-apply for payment.

  Sorry Phil, I promised I lift my productivity to at least two articles per week. 
Do they need to be "complete gibberish?" i could mix a tad of truth there for good measure? Say for example that global warming is also manufactured crap? That should bring some attention. Perhaps point to the left bent of every single Nobel Prize? 
I notice that you conveniently avoided any criticism of facts published in "my" article. How about the temperature graph? Did I doctor it correctly? Notice the higher temperatures way before the invention of the CO2 boogeyman. That is too bad isn't it. I think I will get in there and chop it down to show how temperatures are "unprecedented", and that the sky is due to fall on us anytime soon unless we "do something about it"

----------


## Marc

To be fair to my friend John2b, I wondered about the after burn situation myself. Not as a deterrent to backburning, that would be rather stupid, but an observation of facts. 
When the RFS backburned across the road from us all the way up the hill, they burned up 2 foot deep of fuel accumulated for who knows how long right to the ground. All you can see now is dirt and rocks. Fair enough, but there was vegetation too. The thinner bushes burned up as well but the small trees and medium trees that populate this rocky hill, seem to have died from the heat or at least will lose the leaves. If they spring back or not rests to be seen. The point is that now we have a hill that is bare like the moon, but is studded with little trees with dry leaves that would probably go up in flames like paper. Most likely short lived flare up but still a fuel of sort.  
Not much you can do about that. Most likely the consequence of not doing regular back burning and doing it only once in 20 years. 
More fuel more heat = kills the trees
This is not an exact science, and it is easy to find faults from the comfort of a cushy chair.

----------


## PhilT2

> Sorry Phil, I promised I lift my productivity to at least two articles per week. 
> Do they need to be "complete gibberish?" i could mix a tad of truth there for good measure?

  I will foward to you the guidelines provided to me by the fossil fuel paymasters office in the hope that they will assist you in getting on the gravy train. Their standards are quite high. 
1 The basic laws of physics may never be used
2 Ignore the work of all major universities and scientific organisations. Only quote experts with no real qualifications in climate science eg Watts, Jonova, your local gynacologist.
3 The work of the fossil fuel industry's own experts eg the Exxon scientists who found that climate change was real, are never to be used.
4 All articles must include at least two conspiracy theories. Agenda 21 is a favourite but anything similar will do but it must mention world domination and socialists.
5 Greenies are to be blamed for absolutely everything. No need to back this up with silly things like facts.
6 If a glacier shrinks by a mile but then grows an inch only mention the inch, never the mile.
7 If a graph has an upward trend in recent years trim that bit off (like the Spectator article)
8 Even if there is only one place in the world that has cooled, write about that place only. Cherry picking is an essential skill
9 If all else fails call climate science a religion. 
It is helpful to remember that hundreds of people have been arrested recently for lighting campfires and throwing cigarettes out car windows in high fire risk areas.

----------


## John2b

> Well, how about you find something that backs up what you said?

  Absence of proof is not proof of absence. BTW if your rule applied to everyone, 9/10s of the posts on this forum would disappear LOL.  

> Of which you left this bit out

  "...the operational difficulty of fighting a wildfire..." refers to a firefighting measure, not a preventative measure, such as hazard reduction burning.

----------


## Marc

Question ... do you think they pay me for posting this graph? It is the result of some dodgy scientist paid by the oil industry after all so they would be happy of me posting it. 
Plus they are morons from Denmark ... never heard of them before. Probably have fake credentials anyway.   The link to the journal is here. 
Abstract below. *The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability* B. Christiansen1 and F. C. Ljungqvist2 1Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden  Abstract. 
We present two new multi-proxy reconstructions of the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (30–90° N) mean temperature: a two-millennia long reconstruction reaching back to 1 AD and a 500-yr long reconstruction reaching back to 1500 AD.  
The reconstructions are based on compilations of 32 and 91 proxies, respectively, of which only little more than half pass a screening procedure and are included in the actual reconstructions. The proxies are of different types and of different resolutions (annual, annual-to-decadal, and decadal) but all have previously been shown to relate to local or regional temperature. 
We use a reconstruction method, LOCal (LOC), that recently has been shown to confidently reproduce low-frequency variability. Confidence intervals are obtained by an ensemble pseudo-proxy method that both estimates the variance and the bias of the reconstructions. 
The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period, with a peak warming ca. 950–1050 AD reaching 0.6 °C relative to the reference period 1880–1960 AD.  
The 500-yr long reconstruction confirms previous results obtained with the LOC method applied to a smaller proxy compilation; in particular it shows the Little Ice Age cumulating in 1580–1720 AD with a temperature minimum of −1.0 °C below the reference period. The reconstructed local temperatures, the magnitude of which are subject to wide confidence intervals, show a rather geographically homogeneous Little Ice Age, while more geographical inhomogeneities are found for the Medieval Warm Period. Reconstructions based on different subsets of proxies show only small differences, suggesting that LOC reconstructs 50-yr smoothed extra-tropical NH mean temperatures well and that low-frequency noise in the proxies is a relatively small problem. The paper is not paywalled and be read in its entirety here. (PDF)

----------


## John2b

"The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere" is not representative of average global conditions, and any conclusions based on the fantasy it is are dubious at best.

----------


## PhilT2

> Question ... do you think they pay me for posting this graph?

  No, no chance. They are real scientists who accept climate science and whose work agrees with the hockey stick. We're supposed to be talking about fires so quickly, go and burn your copy of this report before you're caught with it. Otherwise you'll never get on the payroll. Their later work proves that we are now much warmer than the medieval warm period so be sure to trim the end off any of their newer graphs. 
Another helpful hint; be sure to praise this paper for using the Yamal tree ring data and then criticise Mann for using the same data. This is the level of hypocrisy necessary to get on the payroll. Good luck and be careful not to start a bushfire when you burn the report.

----------


## Bedford

> Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

  So you haven't got anything to back this    

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   
>  Not for the instance of re-burning (I read dozens of papers and articles most days and don't keep and index them),

  up with?    

> "...the operational difficulty of fighting a wildfire..." refers to a firefighting measure, not a preventative measure, such as hazard reduction burning.

   

> Of which you left this bit out,

   

> The opponents of fuel reduction burning fail to realise

  Do you understand what this (in bold) means?  

> Even in a fuel reduced area on extreme days there is no question that fires would burn through those fuels as well,* but the moderating effect of that fuel reduction activity is quite profound and is quite useful in the periods of the day when those extreme fire behaviours wane. We use that through the nightshift to effect further fuel reduction burnings or back-burns, as you have seen, and that provides us with a safe and effective means to control fires on our estate.*

  The whole quote referred to fighting fires, the   

> preventative measure, such as hazard reduction burning.

   is what helps with fighting a fire.

----------


## craka

Pretty decent read. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/...ustralasia.pdf

----------


## John2b

Bedford I am both honoured and touched that you concern yourself so much with critiquing my posts. There are two authors here, the second one quoting the first. Your summary is a fallacy because the title of the second document does not come from the first author and therefore cannot frame that first author's statement. Fisher is clearly talking about controlling an existing fire. Don't take my word for it: re-read the bolded text in your post. 
I am not opposed to hazard reduction burns and I have participated in the local fire management planning process to encourage owners of conservation properties to come on board with the fire management plan. What I am opposed to is the spread of misinformation. The is enough research and analysis to sink a battleship which shows that reducing fuel loads by burning has very little impact on the severity of fires in the type of climatic conditions that the most damaging fires over the past decade or so have occurred during.

----------


## John2b

*Hazard reduction burns are 'not the panacea': RFS boss*  https://www.smh.com.au/national/haza...08-p53poq.html  *Victorian fire chief says calls for more fuel reduction burns are an 'emotional load of rubbish'*  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...chief/11849522

----------


## Bedford

> I am not opposed to hazard reduction burns

  That's good.   

> The is enough research and analysis to sink a battleship which shows that reducing fuel loads by burning has very little impact on the severity of fires in the type of climatic conditions that the most damaging fires over the past decade or so have occurred during.

  Ok, so now you're back to harping on  about reducing fuel loads, rather than fighting fires? 
You still don't understand the bolded bit in my post above.

----------


## Bedford

> *Hazard reduction burns are 'not the panacea': RFS boss*  https://www.smh.com.au/national/haza...08-p53poq.html  *Victorian fire chief says calls for more fuel reduction burns are an 'emotional load of rubbish'*  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...chief/11849522

  They can say all they like but I suggest they should make themselves aware of the CFA act before making themselves look even sillier.

----------


## Bros

John2b did you take to opportunity to talk to him?  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ublic/11852838

----------


## John2b

> John2b did you take to opportunity to talk to him?https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ublic/11852838

  To the best of my knowledge Morrison's visit was not publicised. The first I heard about it was on the news, despite the fact that I belong to a dozen or so local forums that would have all passed on the information like it was free beer at the pub.

----------


## John2b

> You still don't understand the bolded bit in my post above.

  I don't understand your posts and clearly you don't understand mine. I don't think anyone else gives a rats...

----------


## John2b

Morrison's visit to K.I. was alluded to a day or two ago by the Mayor who, in a radio interview said someone of distinction from the upper echelons of public life was coming for a tour, but he could not say who that person was. The local Mayor is deeply embedded in Australia's conservative aristocracy and the visit would have been very carefully curated to avoid the calamity that has marked Morrison's earlier forays into fire affected regions. Anyone likely to cause embarrassment would know they were not welcome, not that it takes much encouragement for most people here to keep away.

----------


## John2b

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ublic/11852838

  Morrison: "Well thankfully we've had no loss of life". Inaudible uttering probably along the lines of "apart from a couple of famous trailblazing Australians Dick Lang, arial tourism pioneer, and his son Clayton, a plastic surgeon specialising in hand reconstructions." Someone: "I was thinking about firefighters..." Mayor: "We might just move along thanks..."

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> They can say all they like but I suggest they should make themselves aware of the CFA act before making themselves look even sillier.

  Might want to get their respective Ministers to look at their respective Acts as well.  
It's pretty hard for a government agency to follow legislation when your Minister has been unable to secure sufficient funding from Treasury to properly implement it...or hasn't recognised that some clauses are hilariously counterproductive. 
In all there are many many pieces of legislation at all levels of government that, quite frankly, no elected politician or their bureaucratic minions pay the slightest piece of attention to despite the fact that their are clauses in the legislation that make it very clear whose responsibility it is to implement it... 
I'm most familiar with the environmental legislation but I'm certain that the same situation exists in other areas... 
Just because it says so in the legislation...it doesn't mean squat.

----------


## Bros

> Anyone likely to cause embarrassment would know they were not welcome, not that it takes much encouragement for most people here to keep away.

  You wouldn't do that would you?

----------


## John2b

> You wouldn't do that would you?

  Not my style, Bros. 
Here's the report from the Adelaide Advertiser:  Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been left red-faced after telling residents on Kangaroo Island it was lucky no-one died in the region's devastating bushfires last week.Two people lost their lives when fires ripped across the island on Friday, destroying more than 150000 hectares of land and the world-famous Southern Ocean Lodge. Bush pilot Dick Lang and his youngest son Clayton, a leading plastic surgeon, died while trying to return to their family property, a statement from their family said. But on his visit to the island with South Australian Premier Steven Marshall today, Mr Morrison was captured on video telling locals “thankfully we’ve had no loss of life”. “Two. We’ve lost two,” one person then replied. “Two. Yes two, that’s quite right. I was thinking about firefighters firstly,” Mr Morrison said. A spokesperson for the Prime Minister told ABC News the group had been discussing “firefighting efforts” at the time.  It's ironic knowing that Dick Lang who does not live on K.I. was only here with son Clayton as firefighters to protect their own and neighbours' properties.

----------


## METRIX

> Morrison: "Well thankfully we've had no loss of life". Inaudible uttering probably along the lines of "apart from a couple of famous trailblazing Australians Dick Lang, arial tourism pioneer, and his son Clayton, a plastic surgeon specialising in hand reconstructions." Someone: "I was thinking about firefighters..." Mayor: "We might just move along thanks..."

  Yes, as much as the firefighters lives are important, their life is no different to anyone else, a life taken is a life taken. 
If one thing is blatantly obvious from this whole disastrous fires, is how completely out of touch our elected SCOMO is with the people and the country, his handling of any "token" outings visiting those affected could only be describe as a joke. 
I'm sure he would much rather be in Hawaii with his girls than scumming it with the peasants on the ground. 
There going to need to do an awful lot to win the next election as the peasants won't forget easily how completely useless this overpaid Mai tai sipping puppet is, maybe it might be in their interest to have a change of leader challenge soon after the dust settles. 
Lucky he just got another $10,000 wage increase on top of his paltry $ 538,460 salary, must be hard to survive on that.

----------


## John2b

> There going to need to do an awful lot to win the next election as the peasants won't forget easily how completely useless this overpaid Mai tai sipping puppet is, maybe it might be in their interest to have a change of leader challenge soon after the dust settles.

   Morrison already dropped $2 billion with no detailed plan, I suspect without consulting the Treasurer or the Cabinet. I'd call that an 'awful lot.' And there doesn't seem to be a credible alternative government. Dutton must be having to change shirts several times a day as he salivates uncontrollably. The thought of a Dutton PM should strike fear into the hearts of everyone not in a comatose state.

----------


## Bedford

> Bedford I am both honoured and touched that you concern yourself so much with critiquing my posts. There are two authors here, the second one quoting the first. Your summary is a fallacy because the title of the second document does not come from the first author and therefore cannot frame that first author's statement. Fisher is clearly talking about controlling an existing fire. Don't take my word for it: re-read the bolded text in your post. 
> I am not opposed to hazard reduction burns and I have participated in the local fire management planning process to encourage owners of conservation properties to come on board with the fire management plan. What I am opposed to is the spread of misinformation. The is enough research and analysis to sink a battleship which shows that reducing fuel loads by burning has very little impact on the severity of fires in the type of climatic conditions that the most damaging fires over the past decade or so have occurred during.

  Re-writing history again John, good on you.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

*Hijacking Australian 2019 Bushfire Tragedies to Fearmonger Climate Change*Guest Blogger / 4 days ago January 4, 2020 _Guest post by Jim Steele, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and author of_ _Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism__._ As is customary now, whenever tragedy strikes, the internet buzzes with articles blaming climate change. Hijacking the tragic Australia’s bushfires was to be expected. For instance, Microsoft’s MSN website just published “Climate deniers are cooking themselves — and everyone else”. They wrote, “Fires get worse when things are hot, dry, and windy, and climate change has provided all of those conditions in abundance. The continent has warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit over 1 degree Celsius) since the 1970s, and in keeping with the predictions of climate models, Australia has experienced steadily worse droughts and heat waves over the _last 30 years_. The current drought may end up being the worst in history — this spring was the driest ever recorded on the continent, and back on December 18 it set a new record for the hottest day ever measured with an average temperature across the entire country of 105.6 degrees.” How truthful is MSN? Indeed, Australia is experiencing hot dry summer weather. The map below (Figure 1) shows that most of Australia experienced temperatures far above average for December 18, 2019. But curiously the east and west coasts, as well as northern Australia were experiencing temperatures several degrees below normal. If global warming was driving the extreme wildfire season, we would expect the worse fires to be located where temperatures were warmest. But as the map of wildfires reveals (Figure 2), the warmest regions had the least wildfires, while the most fires were happening in the cooler regions. Averaging Australia’s temperatures to deceptively blame global warming for the wildfires only obscures the regional temperature effects.  Figure 1 Australia December 18, 2019 temperature anomalies. Figure 2 Locations of Australia’s 2019/2020 bushfires. https://www.newsweek.com/australia-w...-wales-1480207 MSN’s climate fearmongers dishonestly claim “Australia has experienced steadily worse droughts.” Climate fearmongers argue warmer temperatures will evaporate surface moisture more quickly and exacerbate droughts. But they have the tail wagging the dog. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology’s illustration (Figure 3) shows the 1920s and 30s had experienced much worse droughts than recent decades. Furthermore, during periods of low precipitation, drought conditions CAUSE higher temperatures. Without normal soil moisture to evaporate, solar radiation is no longer consumed as latent heat of evaporation, but instead, rapidly raises land temperatures. Figure 3 Australia average annual precipitation from 1900-2018. Australian rainfall deciles since 1900 The greatest 2019/2020 burned area is concentrated along the eastern coast in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. Both areas are known for habitat that is very susceptible to extreme fire danger. But are the recent fires than worse ever? History says NO! In February 1851, the Black Thursday bushfires incinerated about five million hectares (about 1,900 square miles). Around 12 lives, one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost. Temperatures reached record extremes of about 47°C (117°F) in the shade. In contrast, MSN attributes the 2019 December fires to a misleading average temperature across the whole country of 40.6°C (105°F). If temperature and precipitation cannot be attributed to the increasing trend in wildfires, what other factors should be considered? As in California, Australia has experience a tremendous increase in human ignitions. Arson is a huge problem. As government investigations reveal (Figure 4), deliberately set fires account for 66% of all ignitions, while only 11% of all wildfires are due to natural lightning ignitions. Figure 4 Cause of wildfire ignitions. https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab021 Furthermore to the north, tropical and subtropical regions are being invaded by foreign grasses that are easily ignited and provide greater surface fuel continuity allowing fires to spread over greater areas. Likewise, humans must manage forest floor fuel loads. The easiest solution is prescribed burns. However, that solution is often resisted because people do not want to experience the accompanying smoke. But until prescribed burns are allowed to be judiciously applied, the public becomes increasingly vulnerable to larger more severe wildfires as endured in 2019. Bad analyses always promote bad remedies! Blaming rising CO2 concentrations and global warming is only misdirecting real efforts to minimize wildfire destruction. What Australia and the world needs to address is 1) human ignitions, 2) invasive grasses and 3) fire suppression that allows surface fuels to accumulate and enable large intense and destructive fires to wreak havoc like never before!

----------


## John2b

> Re-writing history again John

  Got a link, please? 
Edit: Talking about re-writing history, see the post above LOL!

----------


## John2b

> *Hijacking Australian 2019 Bushfire Tragedies to Fearmonger Climate Change*

  If the blogger really wanted to present an informed discussion, this is the pie chart he would have used (it comes from the same source as the misrepresented one which is not about bushfire ignitions):  Attachment 124885

----------


## John2b

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   _There have been recent instances of fires in areas burnt through only weeks earlier._ What were the circumstances and do you have a link?

  My neighbour just dropped in on his way back from the fire ground at the western end of K.I. where he had been to deliver food and clothing. The owner of the property described to him how after the fire had initially ripped through destroying their house and property, a few days later the fire front came back after a wind change and what appeared to be scorched earth literally burst into flame. They were absolutely terrified.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Fabulous...kicked off this morning after a dry lightning storm yesterday afternoon. Not under real threat today but tomorrow...[sigh]

----------


## johnc

> My neighbour just dropped in on his way back from the fire ground at the western end of K.I. where he had been to deliver food and clothing. The owner of the property described to him how after the fire had initially ripped through destroying their house and property, a few days later the fire front came back after a wind change and what appeared to be scorched earth literally burst into flame. They were absolutely terrified.

  in the 2003 fires in the Benambra area there was a farmer who had taken up a grader to two shearers huts on his property as the fires approached. He cut a few laps around the huts to provide a fire break and as the huts stood in a paddock that was well eaten down figured he was safe and sheltered in one hut as the front hit the paddocks. He had a wall of flame move across the paddock and he swore the gravel appeared to be burning. As his hut exploded in flame he made a dash for the other which also went up before he got there and ended up sheltering behind the front wheel of the grader under a blanket as the fire tore through.  
I have read much on the fires and fuel reduction burns as well as the comments of various key board warriors, Fire management is complex, my experience is limited to a couple of grass fires and a few burn offs best described as gardening with a match, I have zero knowledge. This is a really complex area we need to leave to the experts and will achieve nothing from our keyboard searches. However we have come a long way from 1939 and in a changing climate have much to learn.

----------


## METRIX

Mining Magnate Andrew Forrest and his wife Nicola have pledged $70 Million to the response and recovery of the ongoing bushfire crisis.
What legends,

----------


## FrodoOne

Re post #488, wherein was quoted
"Guest Blogger / 4 days ago January 4, 2020 _Guest post by Jim Steele, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and author of_ _Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism__._ As is customary now, whenever tragedy strikes, the internet buzzes with articles blaming climate change. Hijacking the tragic Australias bushfires was to be expected. For instance, Microsofts MSN website just published Climate deniers are cooking themselves  and everyone else. They wrote, Fires get worse when things are hot, dry, and windy, and climate change has provided all of those conditions in abundance. The continent has warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit over 1 degree Celsius) since the 1970s, and in keeping with the predictions of climate models, Australia has experienced steadily worse droughts and heat waves over the _last 30 years_. The current drought may end up being the worst in history  this spring was the driest ever recorded on the continent, and back on December 18 it set a new record for the hottest day ever measured with an average temperature across the entire country of 105.6 degrees. How truthful is MSN? Indeed, Australia is experiencing hot dry summer weather. The map below (Figure 1) shows that most of Australia experienced temperatures far above average for December 18, 2019. But curiously the east and west coasts, as well as northern Australia were experiencing temperatures several degrees below normal. If global warming was driving the extreme wildfire season, we would expect the worse fires to be located where temperatures were warmest. But as the map of wildfires reveals (Figure 2), the warmest regions had the least wildfires, while the most fires were happening in the cooler regions. Averaging Australias temperatures to deceptively blame global warming for the wildfires only obscures the regional temperature effects.'  Firstly, I find that  anyone who puts forwards their "statistics" and arguments in the first place in anything except SI terms to be *strongly* suspect as to their scientific credentials. (Are they not just pandering to US Citizens, some of whom seem to have a very strange belief system)  It was then stated "But curiously the east and west coasts, as well as northern Australia were experiencing temperatures several degrees below normal. If global warming was driving the extreme wildfire season, we would expect the worse fires to be located where temperatures were warmest. But as the map of wildfires reveals (Figure 2), the warmest regions had the least wildfires, while the most fires were happening in the cooler regions."  While global warming may not be "driving" the extreme wildfire season it is unlikely to be NOT *exacerbating* it.
While the East and West coast regions were (at the time) experiencing "cooler" temperatures, those are the areas which had earlier more rainfall to allow the fuel load to grow and build up.  Any spark could trigger the conflagrations which have occurred and a minuscule temperature difference would not be and has not been of any significance. 
Is it not interesting as to how some persons choose to interpret "statistics"?

----------


## METRIX

> Re post #488, wherein was quoted
> "Guest Blogger / 4 days ago January 4, 2020 _Guest post by Jim Steele, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and author of_ _Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism__._ As is customary now, whenever tragedy strikes, the internet buzzes with articles blaming climate change. Hijacking the tragic Australias bushfires was to be expected. "?

  Agree, as much as I know the stuff humans are spewing into the atmosphere has to be having side effects, the facts are Australia has and always will be a dry country, we have always experienced periods of drought, and flooding. 
The country has always gone through El Niño and La Niña probably before man even stepped foot on the land. 
I also hate they are using the tragic bushfires just to push their political agenda and am getting a bit tired of hearing the words climate change every time someone opens their mouth, not because I don;t believe it's a problem because it is, but because they are praying on peoples emotions to push their views. 
Yes we understand we need to change what we are doing to the planet, but its not like we can turn off every coal powered station tomorrow because there is not enough renewable to deliver whats needed. 
I agree we do need to act on changing the way we globally generate power and dispose of rubbish, and stop generating so much cheap landfill crap, and get into gear with 100% recycling schemes instead of land filing most of it, or burning it like they do in Europe. 
Or worse simply throwing it in the ocean like they do in certain countries, there are 5 countries being China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam who dispose of more plastic into the ocean than the rest of the world combined. 
The current bushfires are a bad combination of extended drought, mis-management of the land, a-holes deliberately lighting fires, to simply say look at whats happening to our country because of climate change is rubbish, there are many factors in this case that have produced the results we are seeing. 
I would like to see them put effort into assisting the people in need rather than going around simply saying see its climate change, we are all doomed. 
The below information is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, extended drought in Australia is quite a regular occurrence, oh what a surprise.  https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@...0Article151988  *MAJOR DROUGHTS IN AUSTRALIA  Foley (1957), on the basis of rainfall analyses, classified major droughts in Australia from the early period of European settlement to 1955. He referred to these droughts, summarised in Table 1, as major, severe and widespread and his broad descriptive material indicates that each affected several States covering about one quarter of Australia or more, for varying periods of one or more years. Some of these droughts could be described as drought periods consisting of a series of dry spells of various lengths, overlapping in time and space, and totalling up to about a decade, as in the case of the 1895-1903 drought.  Subsequent to Foley's work, major droughts in Australia have been assessed from time to time using rainfall decile analyses. Typically they have been described as areas of at least serious rainfall deficiency (below the first decile), collectively encompassing at least one quarter of Australia for periods in excess of 10 months. The drought period of 1958-68 and the drought of 1982-83 met these criteria.   MAJOR DROUGHTS IN AUSTRALIA    Drought period (a)  Description    
1864 - 66 (and l868).  
The little data available indicate that this drought period was rather severe in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.   1880 - 86  Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); New South Wales (mainly northern wheat belt, northern tablelands and south coast); Queensland (1881-86, in south-east with breaks - otherwise mainly in coastal areas, the central highlands and central interior in 1883-86); and South Australia (1884-86, mainly in agricultural areas).   1888  Victoria (northern areas and Gippsland); Tasmania (1887-89 in the south); New South Wales; Queensland (1888-89); South Australia and Western Australia (central agricultural areas).   1895 - 1903  Practically the whole of Australia was affected but most persistently the coast of Queensland, inland areas of New South Wales, South Australia, and central Australia. This was probably Australia's worst drought to date in terms of severity and area. Sheep numbers, which had reached more than 100 million, were reduced by approximately half and cattle numbers by more than 40 per cent. Average wheat yields exceeded 8 bushels per acre in only one year of the nine, and dropped to 2.4 bushels per acre in 1902.   1911 - 16  Victoria (1913-15 in north and west); Tasmania (1913-15); New South Wales, particularly inland areas; Queensland; Northern Territory (mainly in the Tennant Creek-Alexandria Downs area); South Australia (some breaks in agricultural areas); and Western Australia (1910-14).   1918 - 20  Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Northern Territory (Darwin-Daly Waters area and central Australia), Western Australia (Fortescue area), Victoria, and Tasmania.   1939 - 45  New South Wales (severe on the coast), South Australia (persistent in pastoral areas), Queensland and Tasmania; also (more particularly in 1940 and 1944-45) in Western Australia, Victoria, and central Australia; Tennant Creek-Alexandria Downs area in 1943-45.   1958 - 68  This drought was most widespread and probably second to the 1895-1903 drought in severity. For more than a decade from 1957, drought was consistently prominent and frequently made news head-lines from 1964 onwards. This was treated as one major drought period, but could be subdivided into two which overlapped, both in time and space. Central Australia and vast areas of adjacent Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, and northern Australia were affected, with varying intensity, 1957-66; and south eastern Australia experienced a severe drought, 1964 68.   1982 - 83  This extensive drought affected nearly all of eastern Australia, and was particularly severe in south eastern Australia. Lowest ever 11 month rainfall occurred over most of Victoria and much of inland New South Wales and central and southern Queensland; and lowest ever 10 month rainfall occurred in much of South Australia and northern Queensland. Total losses were estimated in excess of S3,000 million.     (a) Major droughts to 1939-45 were classified by Foley (1957). Subsequent droughts were classified by the Drought Watch Criteria (1986).     Australia's most severe drought periods since the beginning of European settlement appear to have been those of 1895-1903 and 1958-68. The 1982-83 drought was possibly the most intense with respect to the area affected by severe rainfall deficiencies. These periods were comparable in their overall impact, but differed appreciably in character.  The 1895-1903 drought period was probably Australia's worst to date, in terms of both its severity and area - affecting practically the whole of Australia at various times but more persistently in parts of eastern and central Australia. Stock and crop losses were apparently the highest in Australian history.  The 1958-68 drought period is described in the article contained in the 1968 Year Book No. 54. That drought period was widespread and probably second only to the 1895-1903 drought period in severity. The areas affected and their duration's of drought were variable and overlapping.  The 1982-83 drought was notably severe also, especially in south-eastern Australia. This drought was monitored closely and is discussed more fully below.  Droughts of a lesser degree of severity categorised by Foley (1957) are given in Table 2. The droughts of 1970-73 and 1976 were analysed by rainfall deficiency methods based on decile analysis and are appropriate for inclusion in this category.   DROUGHTS IN AUSTRALIA OF LESSER SEVERITY    Drought period (a)  Description    1922 - 23 and 1926 - 29  Queensland (severe); New South Wales (intermittent); Western Australia (more particularly Fortescue: 1922-29); South Australia (mainly pastoral areas); central Australia (1924-29); Northern Territory (1926-29); Victoria (1925-27; severe in the north 1925-29) and Tasmania (1925-27, not continuous).   1933 - 38  Western Australia (severe in pastoral and northern agricultural areas); Queensland (breaks on the coast); Victoria (north and Gippsland); New South Wales (not continuous except on the northern tablelands); Northern Territory; South Australia (1935-36 in pastoral areas and 1938 in agricultural areas) and northern Tasmania (1935-37, not continuous).   1946 - 49  Queensland (central coast and highlands and central interior, elsewhere mainly in 1946); Northern Territory and New South Wales (mainly in 1946-47); Western Australia (more particularly in central agricultural areas, 1947-50), and northern Tasmania (1948-49).   1951 - 52  Queensland and Northern Territory; and Western Australia, especially pastoral areas (1951-54).   1970 - 73  Prolonged drought over the north-eastern goldfields of Western Australia and adjacent areas, caused by successive below average rainfall years.   1976  Western New South Wales, most of Victoria and South Australia due to failure of autumn-winter rains; break in September 1976.     (a) The drought to 1951-52 inclusive, were classified by Foley (1957). The subsequent droughts, 1970-73 and 1976, were classified by the Drought Watch Criteria (1986)     Severe droughts in south-eastern Australia  South-eastern Australia is taken to include New South Wales, southern Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and the settled parts of South Australia; it contains about 75 per cent of the nation's population, and major droughts affecting the region have a markedly adverse impact on the economy. Severe droughts in south-eastern Australia are usually caused by a failure of the winter-spring rains and may extend through summer to the following autumn.  A severe drought is defined here in general terms as a drought in which ten or more rainfall districts are substantially affected by rainfall deficiencies for eight or more months. The onset of drought is taken as the month in which rainfall drops below average, and which marks the start of a period with serious rainfall deficiencies (below the first decile) lasting three months or more. A drought is considered broken when rainfall meets the criteria defined previously. * *SEVERE DROUGHTS IN SOUTH-EASTERN AUSTRALIA**     Drought period (a)  Area affected  Average duration and month of break  Descriptive remarks     1888  Southern Queensland, most of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and parts of Tasmania  9-10months toJ anuary 1889  In parts of northern New South Wales, not broken until autumn 1889          1902  New South Wales, Victoria, parts of southern Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania  Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania: 9 months to December 1902 New South Wales and southern Queensland 12 months to 1902  Considerable overlapping of affected areas          1914-15  Victoria, New South Wales west of the tablelands, settled areas of South Australia and most of Tasmania  South Australia 11-12 months to June 1915 Northern Victoria and New South Wales 10-12 months to June/July 1915 Southern Victoria 16 months to May/June 1915  Rainfall during 1913 also below average in parts of south-eastern Australia; and much of Victoria and western New South Wales had some relief in the summer of 1914-15          1940-41  Most of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and eastern Tasmania  South Australia 6 months to January 1941 Tasmania 8-9 months to January 1941 Victoria 11 months to January  Variable durations in New South Wales          1944-45  Most of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia  South Australia and south-western Victoria 4-6 months to summer 1944-45 Southern Victoria 12 months to August 1945 Northern Victoria and southern New South Wales 15-19 months to August 1945 Northern New South Wales 15-17 months to June 1945  Well below average rainfall in parts of South Australia in April-June 1945; and 1943 was also a dry year in parts of south-eastern Australia         1967-68  Victoria, southern New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania  South Australia 12- 13 months to March 1968 Tasmania 15- 16 months to May 1968 Victoria and New South Wales I4 - 15 months to May 1968  Other extensive parts of Australia affected during 1958-67        1972-73  Most of Victoria, western and central New South Wales, South Australia and north eastern Tasmania  9-10 months ending February 1973  Drought broke in February 1973; except in north-eastern Tasmania, where it broke in autumn 1973         I982-83  Victoria, most of New SouthWales, South Australia, southern Queensland and Tasmania  Generally 11 months ending February 1983 Tasmania: 9 months ending February 1983  Drought broke in autumn 1983     (a) The drought periods prior to 1965 inclusive, occurring prior to the operation of the Drought Watch Criteria, have been re-assessed applying those criteria. The specified severe droughts in south eastern Australia are actually encompassed within the major droughts in Australia contained in Table I (except 1972-73).    *

----------


## METRIX



----------


## PhilT2

Prof John Quiggin, an economist at UQ has estimated the cost of the bushfires at $100B. This includes losses to the tourism industry and the long term health effects of smoke inhalation.

----------


## Moondog55

Only $100B?
Honestly thought it would be a lot more than that.
Makes the $55M saved by not leasing water bombers look cheap doesn't it?

----------


## John2b

True, there's been droughts and bad fires before. There's also been a long term trend identified for more severe fire weather and longer bushfire seasons in south eastern Australia for many decades. These are historical trends since the 1960s based on the recorded Forest Fire Danger Index, which is calculated from fuel load, fuel temperature, fuel moisture content, ground moisture, air temperature, air humidity and wind speed. 
The trend in FFDI is accelerating and there is no indication that is about to diminish or reverse anytime soon. The only option is to expect worsening bushfire conditions and prepare accordingly.

----------


## Bros

> The country has always gone through El Niño and La Niña probably before man even stepped foot on the land.

  Don't forget the rest of them Australian Climate Influences    

> I also hate they are using the tragic bushfires just to push their political agenda and am getting a bit tired of hearing the words climate change every time someone opens their mouth, not because I don;t believe it's a problem because it is, but because they are praying on people’s emotions to push their views.

  Me to   

> Yes we understand we need to change what we are doing to the planet, but it’s not like we can turn off every coal powered station tomorrow because there is not enough renewable to deliver what’s needed. 
> I agree we do need to act on changing the way we globally generate power and dispose of rubbish, and stop generating so much cheap landfill crap, and get into gear with 100% recycling schemes instead of land filing most of it, or burning it like they do in Europe.

  Well there is a sensible statement. I personally find it distressing when I go to the dump and find repairable and recyclable thing from our consumer society going to landfill. I read a book many years ago about recycling and the author said people should be allowed to scavenge rubbish dumps for recyclable items.

----------


## Marc

If someone is interested in a view on this topic that is deprived from political garbage, I found it a very easy read and a very sensible approach to what is increasingly a political football used to push obscure political agendas.  https://www.amazon.com.au/Rightful-P.../dp/B00SZ83XMG   

> For years advocates for action on climate change have enlisted disasters as a leading theme of advocacy campaigns, ultimately focused on motivating political action on energy policy. A turn to this strategy has occurred despite broad consensus in the scientific literature that the evidence for an increasing frequency or intensity of disasters resulting from human or natural climate change is incredibly weak, as reflected in the 2012, 2013, and 2014 reports of the IPCC. 
> More specifically , disasters have become both more economically costly and less deadly over the past century. But there is a precious little evidence to suggest that the blame for the increasing tally of disaster costs can be placed on more frequent or extreme weather events attributable to human-caused climate change. 
> This is an important conclusion because it tells us that the disasters that we experience are largely a consequence of decisions that we make - where we locate our communities, how we build them, how we prepare for the future and so on. As Gilbert White, the great geographer and disasters expert, wrote in 1945, "Floods are 'acts of God' but flood losses are largely acts of man".

   From Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr.

----------


## Marc

> I personally find it distressing when I go to the dump and find repairable and recyclable thing from our consumer society going to landfill. I read a book many years ago about recycling and the author said people should be allowed to scavenge rubbish dumps for recyclable items.

   One of the local tips used to encourage people to take firewood. They even had a sing on the road, "Bring your own chainsaw". 
I picked firewood from them for years until one day they asked for visitors to sign a disclaimer of sort and a few years later they banned pick up firewood altogether. It so happen that someone thought it was an amusement park and brought the kids along who of course injured themselves and so he sued.

----------


## phild01

> One of the local tips used to encourage people to take firewood. They even had a sing on the road, "Bring your own chainsaw". 
> I picked firewood from them for years until one day they asked for visitors to sign a disclaimer of sort and a few years later they banned pick up firewood altogether. It so happen that someone thought it was an amusement park and brought the kids along who of course injured themselves and so he sued.

  Not allowed to use tools just about anywhere now Marc.... nanny said so!

----------


## John2b

> If someone is interested in a view on this topic that is deprived from political garbage...
>  From Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr.

   Your author has a Ph.D., not in environmental science but in Political Science from the University of Colorado. Wouldn't that mean his book is likely "pushing a political agenda"?

----------


## Bros

The criteria for establishing an inquiry is to know the result before establishing one, they slipped up with the banks. 
Whats the chance of one and if so the terms of reference?  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...rison/11860954

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Chances are good.  
Terms of reference depends on whom the Government would prefer to lay blame. And deciding that beforehand is actually going to be quite tricky...

----------


## John2b

> The criteria for establishing an inquiry is to know the result before establishing one

  Morrison announced his desired outcome of his proposed enquiry before the terms of reference are discussed, let alone set, when he said the enquiry would look at why not enough hazard reduction burning is done.  https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6121242736001

----------


## Marc

The fixation of the climate change fanatics, cheerleaders and assorted sympathisers with trying to find a link between human produced CO2 and disasters is understandable but counterproductive. Apocalyptic scenarios are like drug addiction. You must up the ante over and over in order to keep the momentum, and so the strategy fails.  
Not to mention that it is blatantly untrue. Several IPCC reports have told us over and over, that there is no discernable human link between disasters and man made CO2. So much so that now the doomsday merchants have abandoned the criteria the IPCC uses and made up their own "more flexible" method (read easier to manipulate) so that we can happily blame you for tornados, floods, fires and baldness.  
The best answer, already used by one of our notable resident advocates for human induced climate change and halitosis, goes like this ... "The fact that we have not found a link does not mean it is not there" or words to that effect. Typical argument at ignorance where the lack of contrary evidence serves as proof. 
Bertrand Russel uses a great analogy ...   Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]  The argument was on the existence of God, but he may as well be talking about the link between man made CO2 and natural disasters. 
 DENIER !!!!! or should I say heretic?

----------


## Marc

> Morrison announced his desired outcome of his proposed enquiry before the terms of reference are discussed, let alone set, when he said the enquiry would look at why not enough hazard reduction burning is done.  https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6121242736001

  Who needs an inquiry? We all know it is the green morons in councils, state and federal government, plus the good citizens, that armed with ropes and pitchforks real or virtual, impede burning in any way possible.

----------


## METRIX

*Fires misinformation being spread through social media*  
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/fires-misinformation-being-spread-through-social-media/11846434

----------


## Marc

Things can not have changed that much in ten years. Piti the website does not work for current information.Bushfire arson bulletin | Australian Institute of Criminology 
Relying on abc or worse ... "the guardian" for this sort of information is a bit out there ... and not in the same dimension as the truth that is also out there, somewhere ... lost ...   :Smilie:  *Spotlight: Arson Offences*  *6.1 Introduction and scope* 
In the year ending 30 September 2016, Victoria Police recorded 4,480 arson offences across the state, an offence rate of 74.0 offences per 100,000 people in Victoria. In five years the number of arson offences has increased by 33.6 per cent, up from 3,354 offences in the year ending 30 September 2012. In the last five years the cost of damage due to arson offences exceeded $119 million, as recorded by Victoria Police members, with more than $19 million of this recorded in the last 12 months.  
Arson in NSW  https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb07.pdf *Deliberately lit vegetation fires in Australia*    Colleen Bryant  
ISSN: 
0817-8542  
Published: 
02/2008  
Subject:  Bushfires Arson Emergency services Crime prevention Crime reduction Urban areas  
Foreword | Bushfire arson is an important issue in Australia, but studies analysing its prevalence and distribution are sparse and have focused on isolated areas or specific data collections. This paper summarises key findings of the Australian Institute of Criminology's extensive analysis of vegetation fires attended by Australian fire agencies, and represents the first attempt to quantify the extent of deliberately lit fires in Australia, focusing on when and where deliberate fires occur, and how their distribution varies as a function of natural and human factors. The study identifies the need for improved collection and integration of key data to inform both policy and practice. Despite the limitations of the empirical data, important implications for the management of fire and the prevention of ignitions are discussed. The paper notes the need to examine management practices along the urban interface including strategies to build community cohesion in rapidly growing population centres in these interfaces. It also highlights the need to develop ongoing resourced arson reduction strategies that effectively target broad sections of the community, while maintaining strategies that target specific offenders.
Toni Makkai
Director
With every Australian fire season, the media carries reports of bushfires that police and fire authorities believe were deliberately lit, but these represent just a fraction of all deliberate fires attended by fire services. While individual fire agencies are aware that deliberately lit fires are a problem in their jurisdiction, the complete picture has been lacking. Anecdotal information and, in some cases, data are shared between services. However, there has been limited collation of data or analysis at a state/territory or national level. Hence, there have been limited opportunities for individuals or organisations to compare the incidence and trends in deliberately lit fires within their area with that observed in other regions, agencies or jurisdictions. The lack of a complete picture is likely to impact on how relevant agencies and government departments assess risk, the priorities that they assign to arson reduction and probably the effectiveness of the strategies that are introduced to mitigate risk.
This paper provides a summary of the key findings and implications from an analysis of approximately 280,000 fire incidents attended by 18 Australian fire services, typically within a five-year period (Bryant 2008). It focuses on the extent of, and potential factors responsible for, the temporal and spatial distribution of deliberately lit fires across Australia, particularly as they compare with non-deliberate fires.
Differences in the way fire causes are attributed - including differences in the number and proportion of fires of unknown cause, the way fires lit by children are classified (accidental versus malicious), as well as genuine differences in the principal causes of fires - may hamper effective integration of information across jurisdictional and interagency boundaries. While detailed knowledge of fire causes is necessary to implement efficient and targeted arson reduction strategies, there is a strong correlation between the increased incidences of deliberate fires and greater densities of fires generally. Even in the absence of rigorous causal information, total incidence data can provide a valuable guide to deliberate fire hot spots. *Number Of Fires* 
Fire services attend between 45,000 and 60,000 vegetation fires in Australia every year. These fires typically account for 40 to 50 percent of all fires attended. Most occur in New South Wales (36%), Queensland (21%), Western Australia (15%) and Victoria (12%; 2002-03 to 2005-06; APC 2007). *Causes Of Fires*  While Australia is particularly fire-prone, natural fires account for only six percent of known causes of vegetation fires attended by fire services. Over 90 percent are the result of people's actions, and more often than not the result of deliberate ignitions; incendiary (maliciously lit fires) and suspicious fires account for one-half of known fire causes in Australia, and are the largest single cause of vegetation fires (Figure 1). However, if we consider in this analysis that accidental fires, which account for 35 percent of all known vegetation fire causes, include those accidentally lit by children and smoking-related fires, the proportion of preventable vegetation fires is much higher. Forty percent of all fires attended across Australia do not have a cause assigned by the responding fire agency. *Figure 1 : 'Known' vegetation fire causes (percent)*  
Source: Combined Australian fire agencies [computer data file] 
Difficulties exist in determining how the numbers of deliberate (incendiary and suspicious) fires have changed over time, due to changes in database collection methods, difficulties in integrating databases, the considerable uncertainty in the causes of many fires and complexities in delineating the specific cause of particular temporal variations. For example, although the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation reports only minor variation in the number of fires from 1999-2000 to 2002-03, this belies the fact that severe weather conditions during 2002-03 trebled the number of natural fires. This alone would have been sufficient to reduce the proportion of deliberate fires, but 2002-03 was also marked by lower numbers of deliberate fires. The latter may reflect the impact of the recent introduction of targeted arson reduction strategies across Western Australia, increased closures of parks due to adverse fire conditions, or increased public awareness and vigilance.
The division of responsibilities between individual agencies varies by jurisdiction. Both the number and principal causes of vegetation fires vary across agencies, depending on that agency's jurisdiction and responsibilities. For example:  Natural fires accounted for between 10 and 35 percent of all fires attended by land management agencies and rural fire services, but just one to five percent of fires attended by metropolitan and urban brigades.Rural fire services and land management agencies attend greater numbers and proportions of fire escapes from burn-offs and other land management activities - non-government burn-offs (not including government prescribed fires) typically comprise 5 to 25 percent, but up to 50 percent of all fires attended - although the incidence of this type of fire varies greatly even in rural areas due to differences in climatic conditions and land use patterns.Urban areas tend to be characterised by high proportions of deliberate and/or accidental fires, and experience less temporal fluctuations due to natural fires.  *Children* 
It is difficult to accurately assess the number and proportion of fires started by children. This reflects both the problems associated with identifying the person responsible for a fire and limitations in the way that fires started by children are recorded in existing database structures. With the exception of some land management agencies, specific data were only available for instances where children had been implicated in accidentally causing the fire. Children were responsible for up to 24 percent of known fire causes by individual agencies, with the highest rates being reported by metropolitan/urban fire services. However, children under 16 years of age are likely to be significant contributors to the incidence of vegetation fires in all jurisdictions. The role of children in lighting fires is shown in the higher than predicted numbers of both deliberate and accidental fires between 3 pm and 6 pm, Monday to Friday. The inability to accurately identify the number and distribution of fires started by children is of concern, as it hinders the ability of fire services to evaluate the need for, and effectiveness of, interventions and education programs for children and adolescents who are likely to light fires. *Smoking* 
Smoking-related activities are a common cause of non-deliberate, but preventable, fires attended by urban fire services (commonly 3 to 14%), but comprise a low proportion of all fires attended by rural fire services and land management agencies (1 to 4%). Markedly higher rates of smoking-related fires exist in metropolitan cities, particularly in inner city areas. For example, 41 percent of all fires attended by the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, an agency whose jurisdiction is restricted to metropolitan Melbourne, were identified as smoking-related. Comparable rates are observed in inner city areas of Perth and Brisbane. Higher rates of smoking-related fires in urban areas coincide with greater population densities, resulting in a greater density of smokers and discarded cigarettes, and a greater prevalence of loose, highly combustible mulch in roadside and other urban landscaping. *Where Fires Occur* 
As most vegetation fires are caused by people, their distribution is linked closely to human populations. Vegetation fires are not a phenomenon that is restricted to vegetated, sparsely populated areas of regional and rural Australia. While many Australians live in fear of the scenario where bushfires emerge out of the bush to threaten homes and lives, most vegetation fires in Australia result from the flow-on effects of human populations into neighbouring natural landscapes. Between one-third and one-half of all vegetation fires attended by fire services in any state or territory occur in and around the capital city, with the greatest concentrations evident in the broad zone along the urban interface - the zone where people and vegetation coexist and interact. Similarly, high numbers of vegetation fires are associated with major regional centres, compared with neighbouring rural areas.
Conservation areas and forestry resources located next to urban areas, areas of population growth and expansion, or otherwise higher densities of people are vulnerable to increased fire-related problems. These include incendiarism and/or careless and reckless behaviour, such as increased instances of vegetation fires arising from torching of abandoned or stolen vehicles. Increased unplanned fire activity up to 10 km from the urban interface has been documented in highly vegetated areas of the Sydney basin (Davidson 2006). These results potentially have significant ecological implications. It may be insufficient to simply allocate a certain portion of land for the protection of specific ecosystems or species. To ensure that environmental values are preserved, additional measures may be required to minimise human impacts; for example, through the establishment of environment buffers, intelligent and innovative environmental design, education, and crime and safety measures. *Hot spots* 
Deliberate fire hot spots are characterised by high rates of fires per person, and commonly account for a high proportion of fires in a region, and potentially in a state or territory. High fire concentrations are evident across all agencies with responsibilities in the vicinity of the hot spot, so a genuine picture of the incendiary activity can only be achieved by combining data from each of the relevant agencies. These hot spots are commonly located on the outer fringes of metropolitan areas, although regional examples also occur, and they generally lie within the broad zone along the urban interface. These communities are commonly characterised by a relatively low median age and/or a high proportion of young persons and, commonly, are socioeconomically disadvantaged (Nicolopoulos et al. 1997). In many instances, these are also areas characterised by a greater concentration of other problematic and antisocial behaviours. *Rapid urban expansion* 
Areas of rapid urban expansion on the margins of metropolitan and regional centres commonly fall under the jurisdiction of rural services until a sufficient population density is reached and fire service provision boundaries are altered. Rapid increases in total fire numbers, commonly as a result of increased numbers of deliberate fires, place great strain on rural fire services, which rely principally on the efforts of volunteers. In many instances, these services may already face personnel shortages as a result of their aging population base, and face difficulties in recruiting and retaining new members at least in part due to the time required. *When Fires Occur* 
The timing of vegetation fires ultimately reflects interactions between nature's cycles - which control vegetation fire risk - and the timetables of humans, who are the principal cause of vegetation fires. Fire risk is linked closely to rainfall distribution, the timing, intensity and predictability of which is governed by spatial and temporal interactions between geography and climate. Although coastal interactions are evident, the timing of bushfire danger season in Australia varies, broadly, latitudinally across Australia - from summer and autumn in the south, to spring and summer across middle latitudes, and to winter and spring months coincident with the dry season in northern Australia.
Most vegetation fires in Australia, irrespective of cause, coincide with the bushfire danger period at that location. A notable exception is fires that result from the escapes of burn-offs. These fires, which are an important contributing factor for many rural fire services and land management agencies, peak just before and just after the bushfire danger season. This contributes to a longer season for accidental fires compared with other causes in rural and regional areas. The highest numbers of natural fires coincide with 'dry' thunderstorms during the peak of the bushfire danger season. During normal seasons, this period is short. However, lower than average winter and spring rainfall in those years associated with an El Nio event contributes to earlier episodes of natural fires, with numerous peaks in natural fires potentially occurring throughout the bushfire season.
The temporal distribution of deliberate fires is consistent with routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson 1979), which states that a crime - in this case arson - takes place within the context of everyday patterns of movement and activity. All that is required is a motivated offender (e.g. bored, idle, tempted, provoked), suitable targets (e.g. targets characterised by ease of access, abundant flammable material, a perceived reward) and the absence of capable guardians (e.g. family, friends, neighbours, authorities, surveillance). *The day* 
Generally, between 20 to 50 percent more deliberate, and 20 to 40 percent more accidental fires occur on Saturday and Sunday compared with weekdays, but locally higher values can be observed. Analysis of accidental fires indicates daily differences in fire attendances throughout the whole week are linked strongly to specific causes (e.g. use of recreational facilities). Similar relationships are likely to exist for deliberate fires, but there is limited capacity to investigate this possibility. *The time* 
The timing of fires varies depending on the cause. Fires started by lightning potentially occur at any time of the day, but most natural fires coincide with the hot conditions conducive to thunderstorm activity, between midday and 6 pm. While impacted by natural forces, the timing of human-caused vegetation fires are related strongly to the timetables of people, whether they are day-to-day activities relating to work, school, shopping, or other personal or social activities. Surprisingly, almost one-quarter of all vegetation fires in Australia are attended between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am.
The timing of accidental and deliberate fires, and the extent of differences between the two, may vary between brigades, agencies and jurisdictions depending on variations in the principal causes of fires, and also on differences in the way specific causes (e.g. fires started by children) are classified.
A higher proportion of all deliberate fires (on average, 48%) occur between 6 pm and 6 am, compared with non-deliberate fires (on average, 30%). During the day, deliberate fires peak between 3 pm and 6 pm, while accidental fires peak slightly earlier, between 1 pm and 4 pm. The window between 3 pm and 6 pm on weekdays reflects the time in which younger persons often travel unaccompanied by an adult through their local environment. On weekends, peak numbers of deliberate fires occur between 1 pm and 4 pm.
Deliberate fires at night - between 6 pm and 6 am - are most evident in urban and semi-urban environments, and primarily occur between Friday night and Saturday morning and Saturday night and Sunday morning in most jurisdictions (20 to 50%). The timing of night fires is highly variable at a local scale, probably due to local variations in social and cultural patterns of human activity, which govern when, where and how people interact with their local environment. The overall timing of fires started by children varies with age, such that by 13 to 16 years the patterns are virtually indistinguishable from general deliberate fire distributions. *Size Of Fires* 
The size of a fire depends on both human and environmental factors, including the weather, dryness of vegetation, location, perceived environmental benefit/hazard of a fire, accessibility, availability of fire suppression resources and potential danger to human life and property, as well as the specific cause. Fortuitously, few fires are very large; most fires, irrespective of cause, are small, with total fire frequencies decreasing with increasing fire size. While this general trend is observed across all fire causes, deliberate fires typically comprise a decreasing proportion of all fire causes as fire size increases, whereas natural fires comprise higher proportions of larger fires. Deliberate fires resulting from illegal burn-offs are on average larger than deliberate fires resulting from vehicle arson or other incendiary activities. For example, on average, illegal burn-offs attended by New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service from 1995-96 to 2003-04 burned 2,157 ha (median=170 ha), whereas the average size of arson/suspicious fires was 226 ha (median=2 ha). Overall, most fires attended by fire services tended to be small (under 1 ha), but rural fire services and land management agencies attend higher proportions of moderate and larger fires, due to the higher number of natural fires and escaped burn-offs, differences in the environment and accessibility, and environmental and fire management considerations.
There is some difficulty in determining the proportion or total area burned by a particular cause due to the partial replication of fires across databases, missing data and the inability to differentiate areas burned by specific causes during campaign fires. While it is important to know the total area burned - this will likely become more important with increased carbon accounting measures - some caution is required when interpreting statistics on total area burned, particularly in using such figures as a representation of severity, damage or potential to cause harm. The total area burned for any one category (for example, year, cause and region) is dominated by the largest fire events. Hence, the greatest total areas in Australia are burned in areas where fire is an intrinsic part of the environment or its management, namely the savannas of northern Australia. However, savanna fires less commonly pose a danger to human life and property, and in many cases no active suppression may be made. Therefore, it is not valid to compare a 100,000 ha fire in the Northern Territory with a 100,000 ha in the Victorian central highlands or Gippsland. A fire less than 5 ha can result in loss of life or property.
Natural causes are responsible for most of the total area burned in Australia. These fires typically occur during comparatively short intervals within adverse bushfire seasons. Nationally, deliberate fires, while most frequent, are responsible for a small proportion of the total area burned. Moreover, a large proportion of the total area burned by deliberate fires results from illegal burn-offs. This statistic belies the dangers associated with deliberate fire ignitions, including:  they are unplanned - posing hazards to the welfare of firefighters, the public and wildlife as adequate contingences to protect life and assets have not been put in placethey commonly occur close to people and infrastructure, so even comparatively small fires can result in lossesthey needlessly waste the resources of fire agencies, increasing requirements for public funding, placing unnecessary burden on volunteer firefighters and their families, and potentially compromising service delivery to other incidentsalthough many Australian ecosystems require fire to remain healthy, too frequent burning results in losses and/or changes in biodiversity, commonly facilitating invasion by weeds. Moreover, fires in fire-sensitive environments contribute to species loss and changes in ecosystem biodiversity.  *The Importance Of Weather* 
The ease with which ignition takes place and how fast a vegetation fire spreads is linked to the weather. Factors like temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and the curing rate of vegetation form the basis of the fire danger index rating used by the Bureau of Meteorology and fire agencies to communicate about fire risk, both with each other and to the community by the 'low to extreme' fire danger rating scale. It is not surprising that the weather can play an important role not only in when fires occur, but also the extent of vegetation burned and damage sustained. Most of the total area burned in Australia (excluding the tropical savannas of northern Australia) and greatest loss of property and life has occurred in a small number of devastating events. In south-eastern Australia (principally NSW, ACT and Victoria), these are often associated with El Nio events. These are natural climatic variations that occur when anomalous warming of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean contributes to offshore movement of rainfall, and dry or even drought conditions in eastern Australia.
El Nio events potentially influence both the frequency and total area burned in a given season, although any effects are most strongly observed for land management and rural fires services records, where natural causes and conditions play a more critical role. However, while the timing of vegetation fires in urban areas is a function of the weather - most fires occur during the bushfire season, and fewer fires occur during wetter seasons or weeks - there is a comparatively poorer relationship with either the frequency of fires or total burned and adverse bushfire seasons for urban fire services. This reflects the fact that total fire numbers in urban areas are influenced strongly by incendiarism and negligent or careless actions (e.g. fires lit accidentally by children, smoking-related fires), which tend to be high irrespective of the season.
The relative proportion of fires that occur in individual (low to extreme) fire weather conditions varies with location - some locations are inherently more bushfire prone than others - and from season to season, due to changes in weather conditions, which affect the number of adverse bushfire danger days in a given year. Most deliberate fires in Australia occur under comparatively mild conditions, because most Australians live along the coastal fringe, where the climate is milder. Only a small number and proportion of all vegetation fires occur under extreme weather conditions, due to the limited number of days on which extreme bushfire weather are experienced. This is true for all fires, irrespective of cause.
Although inconclusive, the available evidence indicates that deliberate causes typically account for a decreasing proportion of all fires as the fire danger increases. That is, if the number of deliberate fires increases under more adverse conditions, the risk does not increase proportionally to the increases in risk of accidental and natural fires. Areas where the risk of deliberate fire ignitions during adverse bushfire weather is greatest are those that record a generally higher incidence of deliberate fires.
Analysis also identifies the need to target preventable fire causes. For example, in one urban area characterised by a high incidence of smoking-related fires, a decrease in the proportion of deliberate ignitions with increasing fire danger is accompanied by a marked increase in the proportion of smoking-related fires (Bryant 2008). This highlights the possibility that many vegetation fires occurring under adverse conditions may arise because people fail to take into account the weather conditions. *Implications* 
This paper has summarised the key results from a systematic analysis of deliberate fires in Australia. While fire data supplied by individual agencies vary in quality and continue to improve, analysis has highlighted limitations in database design that affect the capacity to accurately and unambiguously document factors surrounding the causes of a fire and effectively integrate and analyse data within and across agencies. Also, due to the complexities of the database, some training to assist fire officers in the accurate recording of incidents with the Australian Incident Reporting System database may be required, together with ongoing data quality assessment. Poor data quality hinders the capacity of an organisation to utilise this resource to implement fire reduction strategies.
Broad implications can be drawn from the existing, albeit imperfect, data. These include the need to:  examine management practices along the urban interface. Effective fire prevention and arson reduction, particularly in some areas of rapid population growth or social disadvantage, will require strong coordination between fire and police services, but potentially also social welfare, community service, and environmental management and design agenciesfacilitate community cohesion in rapidly growing population centresimplement measures to reduce the burden of deliberate and other fire causes on volunteer fire services, particularly along the urban interfacedevelop ongoing resourced arson reduction strategies that effectively target broad sections of the community while maintaining strategies that target specific offendersincrease the capacity of fire agencies to identify and develop strategies that target places, times and days based on local hot spot mappingdevelop and evaluate effective intervention and education programs and strategies for children and adolescents who are likely to light firescontinue to improve engagement between landholders, land management agencies and fire services to minimise escape from legal and illegal burn-offsincrease community awareness of, and involvement in, eliminating preventable fires.  *References*   Australian Productivity Commission (APC) 2007. _Australian Productivity Commission: report on government services 2007_ - part D emergency managementBryant C 2008. _Understanding bushfire: trends in deliberate vegetation fires in Australia_. Technical and background paper series no. 27. Canberra: Australian Institute of CriminologyCohen LE & Felson M 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. _American sociological review_ 44: 588-608.Davidson AM 2006. Key determinants of fire frequency in the Sydney basin. Unpublished honours thesis. Canberra: Australian National UniversityNicolopoulos N et al. 1997. _Socio-economic characteristics of communities and fires_. NSW Fire Brigades statistical research paper 4/97  *About The Author* 
Dr Colleen Bryant is a research assistant at the Australian Institute of Criminology

----------


## John2b

> Several IPCC reports have told us over and over, that there is no discernable human link between disasters and man made CO2.

   C'mon Marc, you've told us adnauseum that nothing the IPCC says is believable. The whole idea that there "is no discernable human link between disasters and man made CO2" must be a lefty, anti money, rich is evil, Communist plot for world domination.

----------


## John2b

In Victoria records for arson offences do not include lighting bushfires because there is a seperate offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing a bushfire". 
Victorian Police have charged one person with “recklessly causing a bushfire and drug-related offences” and said “there is currently no intelligence to indicate that the fires in East Gippsland and the North East have been caused by arson or any other suspicious behaviour.”  https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...08-p53pwj.html

----------


## Bros

> C'mon Marc, you've told us adnauseum that nothing the IPCC says is believable. The whole idea that there "is no discernable human link between disasters and man made CO2" must be a lefty, anti money, rich is evil, Communist plot for world domination.

   Read the quote “descernable” it took many many years for the link to be established between smoking and lung cancer so as the link says there is no “dscernable link” so the jury is out.

----------


## Marc

While Australia is particularly fire-prone, natural fires account for only six percent of known causes of vegetation fires attended by fire services. Over 90 percent are the result of people's actions, and more often than not the result of deliberate ignitions; incendiary (maliciously lit fires) and suspicious fires account for one-half of known fire causes in Australia, and are the largest single cause of vegetation fires (Figure 1)

----------


## John2b

Wow, suspicion is a major cause of fires - who wudda thort.  :Shock:  
What "suspicious" really means is that the cause of the fire is in-determinant or indeterminable, but since a natural, accidental, or deliberate (malicious or otherwise) ignition source has not been determined, it _could_ be deliberate _and_ malicious, and if _both_ it could be what's commonly called arson. There's no data on the accuracy of those speculations as they cannot be tested.

----------


## phild01

> What "suspicious" really means is that the cause of the fire is in-determinant or indeterminable, but since a natural, accidental, or deliberate (malicious or otherwise) ignition source has not been determined, it _could_ be deliberate _and_ malicious, and if _both_ it could be what's commonly called arson.

  I would have thought suspicious meant more likely deliberate according to what can be found out, but some other consideration to cause, however unlikely.

----------


## Marc

> Read the quote “discernible” ... so the jury is out.

  Bros ... If you refer to the link between man made CO2 and natural disasters, in order to quantify the events and attempt to find cause and effect, it is important to use statistically significant data. One is welcome to believe that the CO2 from fizzy drinks has caused the storm that toppled the tree that crashed your car, but such wouldn't stand up the most superficial analysis. 
Disastrous weather events, floods, fires, hurricanes, vary in frequency and intensity but so does the exposure and vulnerability of human communities to the risk. In order to be able to compare events that happened 100 years ago to today, the data has to be normalised, that is, to compare apples with apples so to be able to say what would have happened with a fire or a hurricane had it hit today instead of 100 years ago. if the same hurricane hit Darwin today it would do countless more damage but what does that prove? That the damage can be attributed to climate change? Certainly not if the storm is of the same magnitude. 
So the normalisation of data is done in order to see if besides the variation in weather events, there is another factor that makes natural disasters more damaging. Historical loss data is adjusted to account for changes in the local community. 
The conclusion is that no factor besides the increased exposure to risk can be accounted for the increase in the cost of natural disasters. 
This from the IPCC, a body that can not be accused of skepticism or denialism by any stretch of the imagination ... well, perhaps with the exception of my friend John ... oh and may be Chris.  
The problem with such conclusions that are strictly the result of statistical analysis, is that it takes away the wow factor from the headlines. If the purpose is to scare the population into accepting higher electricity cost, it is much better to say that "climate change" has caused the fires, then to say that a triplication of population in 60 years, an increase in the exposure to fires, an increase in the population of arsonist, the absurdity of red tape to make periodical back burning, or no back burning for decades is to blame.   
There is no single cause nor is there a simple explanation, but to say that man made CO2 is the cause of bushfires is offensive and insults the intelligence of those who use their head for more than placing a hat on it.
One can blame climate change for many things that have not been studied yet. Climate change and halitosis perhaps one of them. Unfortunately for the catastrophists, disasters fall in a very well researched area of the economy that competes the insurance industry who is eminently statistics and risk analysis. 
And the conclusion is that there is no link, conclusion by the IPCC no less. 
Of course that will not satisfy the recalcitrant and the idle who love a good story over the truth. By all means, publish burned koalas with flames in the background and cry climate change all you want. It does not make it true. 
And please remember the teapot circling the sun when you try to say that the absence of a link is no disproof. 
PS
Do we need to clarify what is a suspicious fire in police terms for the benefit of John?

----------


## John2b

> Do we need to clarify what is a suspicious fire in police terms for the benefit of John?

  You could start by reading the author's state by state definitions in your cited report.

----------


## John2b

> Disastrous weather events, floods, fires, hurricanes, vary in frequency and intensity but so does the exposure and vulnerability of human communities to the risk. In order to be able to compare events that happened 100 years ago to today, the data has to be normalised...

  Of course that's why records are analysed, and how trends like below are discovered. The number of days in Australia that are in the 1-in-a-100 hottest compared to the average baseline is increasing quite substantially. It could be that super hot days make people want to rush out to remote locations in the bush and set fires, or it _might_ be that exceptionally hot, dry periods with dry lightning storms after extended drought increase the risk of bushfires.

----------


## phild01

> Of course that's why records are analysed, and how trends like below are discovered. The number of days in Australia that are in the 1-in-a-100 hottest compared to the average baseline is increasing quite substantially. It could be that super hot days make people want to rush out to remote locations in the bush and set fires, or it _might_ be that exceptionally hot, dry periods with dry lightning storms after extended drought increase the risk of bushfires.

  What location was this for?

----------


## John2b

> And the conclusion is that there is no link, conclusion by the IPCC no less.

  So you've claimed a couple of times. You must realise by know that instead of doing crosswords, I amuse myself by checking claims that sound surprising. After all, practically everything is on the public record and there's little need to pass on false information. From the IPCC:  Risks under current warming levels are already _moderate_ as *anthropogenic climate change has caused significant increases in fire area* (_high confidence_) due to availability of detection and attribution studies). This has been detected and attributed regionally, notably in the western USA, Indonesia and other regions. Regional increases have been observed despite a global- average declining trend induced by human fire-suppression strategies, especially in savannahs.  So despite better and more fire suppression activity, the IPCC attributes worsening fires to global climate change.     https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo..._Chapter-7.pdf

----------


## phild01

not sure what this means! Are there 100 designated locations or 100 of the hottest areas for the year?
"_1-in-a-100 hottest"_

----------


## John2b

> What location was this for?

   All Australia

----------


## John2b

> not sure what this means! Are there 100 designated locations?
> "_1-in-a-100 hottest"_

   It means temperatures that exceed the 99th percentile of the long term average, in the case of the chart above for the whole of Australia. From BOM: Percentile-based threshold levels are calculated for 5-day windows across the annual cycle using the standard 1961 to 1990 normal period i.e. daily rainfall and temperatures values are compared relative to varying thresholds throughout the year. So it is possible to have warm spells during winter, cold spells during summer, or extreme precipitation recorded at any time of the year. 
The 20th percentile is a value with 20% of the data below it and 80% above it. ... The 90th percentile is a value with 90% of the data below it and 10% above it..

----------


## UseByDate

> Read the quote “descernable” it took many many years for the link to be established between smoking and lung cancer so as the link says there is no “dscernable link” so the jury is out.

  The smoking/lung cancer analogy is useful in understanding the language used and meaning. The statement that “there is no discernible link” does not mean that we have no evidence that one thing causes another to happen.
 Take the smoking/lung cancer example. We have never been able to discern a link that an individual's cancer was caused by them smoking. After all a lot of people who smoke don't get lung cancer and some people who don't smoke do get lung cancer. We believe there is a link because we have proved statistically that there is a higher chance that you will get lung cancer if you smoke. 
 Now; take the global warming/disasters possible link. Let us assume that in the future we establish that there is probably a link to the same degree of certainty as the smoking/lung cancer link. Every time there is a disaster, politicians can proclaim that there is no discernible link between that particular disaster and global warming and it would be true in much the same way as an individual's lung cancer cannot be linked to smoking. It would not change the fact that there is a probable link.

----------


## r3nov8or

Almost time to rename this "the emissions trading" thread so I can gloss over it

----------


## Bros

> Almost time to rename this "the emissions trading" thread so I can gloss over it

  Not quite but there may be a link.

----------


## Bros

> It would not change the fact that there is a probable link.

  Isn't that what I said?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Not quite but there may be a link.

  Maybe "good reading for insomniacs" thread then? Unless it gets back to "fighting fires", of course...

----------


## John2b

> has anyone ever defended their home or a neighbours against a bushfire? 
> what was it like? is it something you can do without much training? or too crazy to consider?

  If you’re considering staying to defend your property in a bushfire, please watch this footage (language warning)  “A bushfire engulfing house on a farm on Kangaroo Island with people inside and the escape. The owner of the house and farm, his brother, and their father stayed to defend his family home and farm from the bushfire. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful and lost everything including the house, farm, over 400 sheep, over 400 beehives and his brother's ute. We got out at the end in two utes that sustained heavy fire damage.”  https://www.facebook.com/OnlyinAustraliaOfficial/videos/3864469920233511/?v=3864469920233511

----------


## Marc

*Climate Disaster Confusion*  Kip Hansen / August 3, 2019  That’s Global Reported Natural Disasters. [ I suspect the “reported” word is important, as there seems to be a *rising amount of reporting* going on from the early 1970s to about 1998.  I have emailed EM-DAT to confirm this. ] We can see clearly a couple of things:  Starting around the turn of the century, all of the different sorts of Natural Disasters have been down-trending — *not* up-trending.There are several types of natural disasters that are not Weather/Climate related in the totals: “Mass Movement (dry)” refers to Rock fall and Landslide (not involving rain–thus ”dry”); Volcanic Activity; Earthquake; and, some unagreed-upon portion of Wildfire.  Regardless of whether these are included in the totals, *the trends are down not up*.  And the most expensive of all losses — human life?  On a century time scale, deaths have been vastly reduced. Why are _Disaster Losses_ UP when disasters are down?  That’s an economic question and most easily answered by referral to Roger Pielke Jr. (2019):_“Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012). While some weather and climate extremes are expected to increase in frequency and/or intensity in the future, to date there is not strong evidence of such increases in tropical cyclones, floods, drought or tornadoes on climate time scales (IPCC, 2018; Pielke, 2018). Of course, any calculation of trends in catastrophe losses is sensitive to choice of start and end date, so caution is urged in their interpretation._ _With such caution noted, the world has over almost thirty years experienced a decrease in disaster losses as a proportion of GDP. However, there is no guarantee that this trend continues into the future. It could reverse for multiple reasons, including a greater frequency or intensity of extreme events, the occurrence of rare major events of the sort which has been seen in the past (such as the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906), or unwise decisions related to development and characteristics of human settlements.”_ [ my bolds  — kh ]In pictures:  So, in terms of Global GDP (gross domestic product), disaster losses have been DOWN and not up.  In dollar amount, they have been up, because of “*growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events”.* One way to think about this, on a personal economic level,  would be if, for macro-economic reasons,  your rent has increased by $100 a month but your salary has gone up by $200 a month — resulting in your budget item – Rent – being now 45% of your salary whereas it had been 50%. Christopher Flavelle, our NY Times journalist knows this, especially about flooding risks.  How do I know?  He wrote about it in a piece titled  “Homes Are Being Built the Fastest in Many Flood-Prone Areas, Study Finds” just three days ago.  He might ought have mentioned it in his current natural disasters piece — but seems to have forgotten. *Bottom Line:* 1.  The economic losses (dollar amount of damage) from natural disasters is up for economic and societal reasons.  We build in harm’s way and things are increasingly expensive.  We even rebuild in harm’s way. 2.  Disaster losses as a percentage of Global GDP have been downtrending. 3.  Globally, the raw numbers of all natural disasters have been downtrending, despite increased reporting ability, since the turn of the century. 4.  Deaths from natural disasters have been reduced — on a century-long comparative global scale — to almost nothing. 5.  The world is getting SAFER not more dangerous — by all scientific measures currently available. # # # # #*Author’s Comment Policy:* Love to read your comments and respond when appropriate (or when I feel like it, I guess….).  Addressing your comment to “Kip…” helps me see that you are talking to me. The NY Times’ _Climate Fwd:_ newsletter is often silly in its suggestions of ways to save the world from climate change — but, hey, silly is apparently in — just look at the number of governments of all kinds pledging to go “fossil fuel free” or “carbon neutral”.   Some of the things _Climate Fwd:_ suggests are Good Ideas even if they are silly when based on climate issues.  Reducing the amount of junk mail arriving at your mailbox is a Good Idea — any way you can.  Sign up of DIGITAL everything — bank statements, utility bills, stock proxy vote notices, whatever you get in the mail box.  My health insurance company alone uses whole forests of trees keeping me informed of things I don’t want to know. Fear is the tool of dictators and sociopaths of all stripes — actively promoted to control others. Teach Your Children — the world is a safer, kinder, better place to grow up in today than at any time in the past.  The future is bright and hopeful. 
..................................................  ..................................................  ......................... 
For the belligerent and the insomniacs: 
What I have posted, quoted and written on the topic of disasters and climate change, has one purpose only. That is to show that *using* other people's misery for your own political and religious agenda is not on. Blaming bushfires or any other disaster on climate change and so trace a large bow to "we must do something", climate action, fire Morrison and other idiotic comments, are not conducive to anything useful, beside confusion and political unrest. Well,  perhaps that is the intention. 
What has escaped most of the climate change cheerleaders and assorted supporters, is the fact that when it is said that there is no link between climate change and disasters, it is necessary by definition to accept that *there is climate change !!!!!* Otherwise what is the point of the discussion? If global warming aka climate change is a fabrication and the biggest con in human history after religion (my personal opinion) then of course there is no link, you can not link something to nothing. 
So my dear recalcitrants, yes, I am quoting the IPCC and other climate change supporters that have the honesty to admit that since the link does not exist, it harms the cause of climate change to push false data and distorted information on the public just to scare them into "believing". 
Not very scientific and akin to religious inquisitors who want to manipulate humanity into a scared mob of sheep.
Bhahaha    

> *Fear is the tool of dictators and sociopaths of all stripes — actively promoted to control others. Teach Your Children — the world is a safer, kinder, better place to grow up in today than at any time in the past. The future is bright and hopeful.*

----------


## DavoSyd

> Yes we understand we need to change what we are doing to the planet, but its not like we can turn off every coal powered station tomorrow because there is not enough renewable to deliver whats needed.

  that's part of the point.  
the need for change was predicted long ago, and the calls for change followed soon after, then people started proposing what to do and then vested interests stonewalled it, and here we are - two or three decades behind where we could have been if action had been taken earlier.  
summed up in this one from the Chaser:

----------


## John2b

> the need for change was predicted long ago...

  ... including in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1953: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...cle%2F18365639

----------


## John2b

Almost immediately after a burn in current climatic conditions leaf litter is falling from the canopy overhead and almost immediately creating another fire threat, which is yet another reason why hazard reduction burning may not be helpful in future conditions. 
This fire near Martinsville, NSW started on October 26 and has reignited four times since this video was filmed. How can the same place burn twice?

----------


## Marc

Yes, John, we got the message. Save the koalas and the birds, let the fuel accumulate and so eventually the people burn. There are too many people in the world already.

----------


## intertd6

The non burn off idiotogolists have successfully incinerated over 2 million hectares of bush & just about all the native animals that lived in it, what a pack of useless idiots, royal commission after royal commission  since mid last century has recommended controlled burning to reduce fuel loads & the understory scrub which facilitates a low fire reaching the heads of trees & becoming crown fires,  NSW used to burn every inch of crown forestry every 5 years , have open & maintained fire trails, have manned fire towers to early detect fires & be able to access them quickly by fire trails to strategically start back burns to halt fire fronts, NPWS have by some stroke of lunacy have suggested burns at 50 year intervals! WTF drugs are they on? aboriginal burn practices were ( and still are in some places) to light the bush at every given opportunity, every day of the year, no sophistication, if it burned, it did, if it didn't it wasn't ready. What has been proved in this latest ecological disaster is if we sit on our hands being dictated to by absolute idiots, a sequence of a few conditions will do it for us.
inter

----------


## METRIX

It was only a matter of time, the Celeste Barber fund raising is now turning into a chit fight over who will get the funds.
Originally Celeste was trying to raise $30,000 for the RFS trust fund, the amount raised is now exceeding $51 Million  
A lot of donors didn't know the money would go directly to the RFS (ahh that's why it was called fund raising for the NSW RFS) now the money is caught up in a Red tape battle, between Paypal not being able to release the funds from 15 to 90 days, to the money is NOT allowed to be distributed to anyone else other than the RFS because of stipulations in the trust deed. 
Celeste has been involved with RFS, Paypal and Facebook to work out how the money can be divided up across many organisations / families etc, let's hope common sense will prevail and this extraordinary amount of money is well used to help the multiple charities and wildlife recovery.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cated/11861146

----------


## Marc

> Almost immediately after a burn in current climatic conditions leaf litter is falling from the canopy overhead and almost immediately creating another fire threat, which is yet another reason why hazard reduction burning may not be helpful in future conditions. 
> This fire near Martinsville, NSW started on October 26 and has reignited four times since this video was filmed. How can the same place burn twice?

  What does that prove John? Answer ... that it had to be burned more often. Not rocket science. 
It is this armchair dogmatic conviction that drives all the eco/green cretinism in the world.

----------


## John2b

> ... NSW used to burn every inch of crown forestry every 5 years , have open & maintained fire trails, have manned fire towers to early detect fires & be able to access them quickly by fire trails to strategically start back burns to halt fire fronts...

  Because of current climatic conditions fire-fronts can and do jump across gaps of several kilometres at a time, putting firefighters involved in back-burning at severe risk.   

> What has been proved in this latest ecological disaster is if we sit on our hands being dictated to by absolute idiots, a sequence of a few conditions will do it for us.

  
Under current climatic conditions areas burnt out this year will be ready to burn again next year, if not earlier.

----------


## intertd6

> Because of current climatic conditions fire-fronts can and do jump across gaps of several kilometres at a time, putting firefighters involved in back-burning at severe risk.  
> Under current climatic conditions areas burnt out this year will be ready to burn again next year, if not earlier.

  The do nothing idiotology doesn't work, the latest fires prove that, the bush will be ready to burn next year or earlier, just like it has always has, but the fuel loads will be minuscule & if properly burned minimises the risk of a catastrophic out of control fire. The bush has to be burned every year like it or not, nothing you do or say can stop it from happening in the end.
inter

----------


## John2b

How about doing something that works? Would that be a good idea?

----------


## Bros

> How about doing something that works? Would that be a good idea?

  What are you going to do to reduce the fire risk where you live as you dodged a bullet this time.

----------


## intertd6

> How about doing something that works? Would that be a good idea?

  Around 50,000 years of history shows it works, you have absolutely no idea but a green idiotology which is a proven failure.

----------


## toooldforthis

it's not simple it's complex. 
in the 70s I spent 18 months traveling and working Oz, usually farm work.
Pollution (air, water, land) and land clearing were the issues that jumped out at me then.
I became ''active" and even helped set up one of the first paper recycle here in Perth.
A few years later I went overseas for a few years and soon found it to be much worse (pollution) and realised that it seemed to be the human condition to let things get worse til a crisis point (bit like the frog in the pan of boiling water). 
So, here we are today with most trying to reduce it to a binary issue. Climate Change or Not.
if climate change then reducing fossil fuel use will fix it.
if not cc then fuel reduction will fix it.
The common denominator there is that it is someone else's problem to fix. 
Whereas the problem belongs with all of us - start with over consumption, over population …
just reducing consumption would reduce fossil fuel usage - how about when products lasted years rather than months, or decades rather than years?
how about we refuse to buy bubble wrapped products? rather than feeling good enough about using reusable bags at the check out? (did you know when SA first introduced no plastic bags at checkout the sale of plastic bin liners went up 80%?) 
I could go on. 
I'll just finish with: when we vote how about thinking of the issues rather than our hip pocket?

----------


## Marc

> Around 50,000 years of history shows it works, you have absolutely no idea but a green idiotology which is a proven failure.

  If you look through the "green" answers, you will find a common denominator ... the reason backburning worked in the past and does not work today is because global warming has altered the climate so much that nothing can be done anymore. It is the end of the world and we are all doomed unless ... Morrison agrees to build more windmills and solar panels and closes down all coal fired power stations. Then and only then all will be good again, rain will come back, temperatures will cool about 10 degrees or more and we will all be a happy family once more.

----------


## Marc

> it's not simple it's complex. 
> in the 70s I spent 18 months traveling and working Oz, usually farm work.
> Pollution (air, water, land) and land clearing were the issues that jumped out at me then.
> I became ''active" and even helped set up one of the first paper recycle here in Perth.
> A few years later I went overseas for a few years and soon found it to be much worse (pollution) and realised that it seemed to be the human condition to let things get worse til a crisis point (bit like the frog in the pan of boiling water). 
> So, here we are today with most trying to reduce it to a binary issue. Climate Change or Not.
> if climate change then reducing fossil fuel use will fix it.
> if not cc then fuel reduction will fix it.
> The common denominator there is that it is someone else's problem to fix. 
> ...

  Tooold ... it is not simple I agree, and there is a lot individually can be done, agreed. However you must be able to see that the debate (not here but worldwide) has to do with politics and power and nothing to do with the environment or climate. 
The "green" movement has been hijacked by marxists, and it is but an excuse to push an agenda aimed at destroying the capitalist system (evil) and install a marxist dictatorship because they know better what is good for us. And they are supposed to be the good, well informed, and compassionate people, who will gladly burn you and your family to prove a (fale) point.

----------


## Bros

> Whereas the problem belongs with all of us - start with over consumption, over population …
> just reducing consumption would reduce fossil fuel usage - how about when products lasted years rather than months, or decades rather than years?
> how about we refuse to buy bubble wrapped products? rather than feeling good enough about using reusable bags at the check out? (did you know when SA first introduced no plastic bags at checkout the sale of plastic bin liners went up 80%?)

  I said similar a while back. As for refusing to buy bubble wrap it is a case of no choice as if you want it you have to buy it as the decision has been taken out of your hands. 
When we go to the shop my wife always puts fruit and vegetables in plastic bags provided but she would use paper bags if they were provided as we do that with mushrooms as paper bags are provided there. 
As for something that lasts longer it is the society we have now as we are being pushed that way eg cars that are cheaper to dump than repair, computers mobile phones, electrical goods  and the list goes on and on.   

> I personally find it distressing when I go to the dump and find repairable and recyclable thing from our consumer society going to landfill. I read a book many years ago about recycling and the author said people should be allowed to scavenge rubbish dumps for recyclable items.

----------


## PhilT2

> and it is but an excuse to push an agenda aimed at destroying the capitalist system (evil) and install a marxist dictatorship.

  Marc has finally got to the truth of the matter. The bushfires started themselves because they are part of the global conspiracy to install a one world socialist govt led by the UN and the lizard men. We should be grateful for his insight.

----------


## MorganGT

> When we go to the shop my wife always puts fruit and vegetables in plastic bags provided but she would use paper bags if they were provided as we do that with mushrooms as paper bags are provided there.

  An option for avoiding plastic bags for fruit and veg are reusable net bags made from recycled plastic bottles like these https://www.onyalife.com/product/reu...uce-bag-8pack/ that we use.

----------


## Marc

The saga of the plastic bags is a perfect example of dogmatism and stupidity topped by opportunism.
Considering that the bags that are now sold as opposed to give away are about 10 times heavier than the free ones, and sell for a pittance of 10 or 15 c, the amount of plastic going out in landfill is more or less the same. 
Why not paper bags? Paper is biodegradable and boosting the paper industry will boost the soft wood market and increase the plantation forest. I cringe when I get those signatures in the emails that say ... "Save a tree, don't print this email" 
I say, print as much as possible to increase the wood market size and so increase the forest size. Paper industry pollutes? Then it is a regulation problem, government responsibility, moron in charge nees to be fired and replaced by an efficient one. Nothing to do with "save a tree"

----------


## PhilT2

There's an old expression in motorsport "speed costs money... how fast can you afford to go? Let's adapt this to the fire issue  safety costs money...how safe can you afford to be? I'm not an expert on prescribed burnoffs but I presume that they have a cost. It's not a matter of throwing a match in the bush and seeing what happens. I presume there would be costs involved in letting residents know, having controls in place for roads that may be obscured by smoke and units on standby if the fire gets out of control (around 10% do) If we want to burn much more land much more often then it's going to cost much more. 
There will be a need for more inspectors to monitor the amount of fuel buildup in the usual areas and private property with absentee owners will need to be checked also with legislation to allow the local authority to burn it if it has become a hazard and the owner can't be found or won' tco-operate. Of cousre the owner will be billed for this even if he disagrees with the assessment so the courts will have to settle that. All at a cost.  
I can hear the "low taxes, small govt, it's all a conspiracy" crowd starting to scream already.

----------


## METRIX

> The saga of the plastic bags is a perfect example of dogmatism and stupidity topped by opportunism.
> Considering that the bags that are now sold as opposed to give away are about 10 times heavier than the free ones, and sell for a pittance of 10 or 15 c, the amount of plastic going out in landfill is more or less the same. 
> Why not paper bags? Paper is biodegradable and boosting the paper industry will boost the soft wood market and increase the plantation forest. I cringe when I get those signatures in the emails that say ... "Save a tree, don't print this email" 
> I say, print as much as possible to increase the wood market size and so increase the forest size. Paper industry pollutes? Then it is a regulation problem, government responsibility, moron in charge nees to be fired and replaced by an efficient one. Nothing to do with "save a tree"

  Disagree, the amount of plastic from bags has significantly dropped, haven't bought any plastic bags since the change as there is no need to, the thicker ones last a long time or better still bring your own long lasting ones.  
I remember how the world was going to fall apart when they announced no more single use bags well what do you know we are still here, thsy should have banned them 10 years ago no need for single use bags, 
Was similar to Incandescent ban, surprisingly also the world didn't end now someone needs to tell those backwards trump Americans

----------


## UseByDate

> I remember how the world was going to fall apart when they announced no more single use bags well what do you know we are still here, thsy should have banned them 10 years ago no need for single use bags,

  We did.
 4 May 2009 in SA.

----------


## r3nov8or

> ...
> I remember how the world was going to fall apart when they announced no more *single use bags* well what do you know we are still here, thsy should have banned them 10 years ago no need for *single use bags*,
> ...

  "Single use bags" was a huge falicy! I know no-one who just through them out straight after unloading the shopping! Handy for all sorts of things over and over, they should have been called multi-use bags. Now we just *buy* more plastic

----------


## John2b

I have several friends who have lost their houses in the Kangaroo Island fires, and yes I do feel like we dodged a bullet. Did you see the video I linked of an acquaintance's attempt to defend their house here?: #532 
Even houses built to the most stringent fire ratings are likely to be burnt down in the type of fires we've seen recently. Of course we take all the normal precautions of keeping the house surrounds cleared of flammable materials. We don't have much fuel on the ground around our house, but I was not stupid enough to think we can defend the house in the recent conditions. If a fire had approached, we'd have left. 
The only thing that would have helped the recent Kangaroo Island and Cuddly Creek fires in SA would have been a decent amount of water bombing before the fires went ballistic, but the feds deemed those resources were not necessary and hadn't leased any planes. The only large water bomber available was circulating between WA, SA, NSW and Vic! 
For the significant area of conservation property we co-own, we are working with the local CFS, NVC and Parks SA and neighbouring property owners to plan appropriate burns when possible. I don't think for a moment that those burns will make one iota of difference under the recent the climatic conditions that caused fires on Kangaroo Island like in the video above, but they may be beneficial in minor fires (mostly accidental or deliberately lit fires) and for other reasons such as biodiversity.

----------


## John2b

> Around 50,000 years of history shows it works, you have absolutely no idea but a green idiotology which is a proven failure.

  Lots of agencies and people (including me) have a vested interest in how well fuel reduction works. Have a read: 
Fuel reduction is the manipulation, including combustion, or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control.  https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/t...fuel-reduction  Date Item Type  Key Topics  17 Oct 2019 Fire Spread Across Fuel Types Resource save(3.21 MB) fire weather, fuel reduction  27 Aug 2019 How do Tall Wet Eucalypt Forests Burn? Modelling fuels and fire behaviour in one of the world’s most complicated forests Resource save(879.46 KB) fuel reduction, modelling  27 Aug 2019 Modelling carbon emissions from prescribed burning using FullCAM Resource save(556.79 KB) fuel reduction, planning  23 Nov 2018 Optimisation of prescribed burning regimes for fuel reduction, carbon, water and vegetation Resource save(1.34 MB) fuel reduction, prescribed burning  23 Nov 2018 Fire spread prediction across fuel types by physics-based modelling Resource save(2.02 MB) fire, fire impacts, fuel reduction  19 Sep 2018 Resilient or suicidal giants: what types of fires do the world’s tallest flowering forests support? Resource save(1.8 MB) fire, fuel reduction, mitigation  19 Sep 2018 Understanding carbon pools to improve emission estimates from fires Resource save(2.21 MB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  18 Sep 2018 Simulations of the effect of canopy density profile on sub-canopy wind speed profiles Resource save(1.08 MB) fire, fuel reduction  16 Jul 2018 Twenty years of northern fire talks News  fire, fuel reduction, Northern Australia  31 Oct 2017 Prescribed burning cluster Resource save(129.41 KB) fuel reduction, mitigation, prescribed burning  07 Sep 2017 Mapping the efficacy of an Australian fuel reduction burn using Fuels3D point clouds  Resource save(1.6 MB) fuel reduction, modelling, prescribed burning  07 Sep 2017 An assessment of the viability of prescribed burning under a changing climate Resource save(1.37 MB) fire weather, fuel reduction, optimisation  07 Sep 2017 Modelling feedback between fuel reduction burning and forest carbon and water balance in eucalypt forests Resource save(2.39 MB) environments, fuel reduction, prescribed burning  31 Aug 2017 The great escapes News  fuel reduction, prescribed burning, risk management  30 Jun 2017 Assessing the impact of fire using soil and pyrolisis-GC-MS Resource save(1.11 MB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  29 Jun 2017 The Savanna Monitoring & Evaluation Reporting Framework (SMERF) Resource save(743.58 KB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  03 Apr 2017 Fire mapping with satellites and smart phones News  fire, fuel reduction, modelling  07 Nov 2016 A great opportunity to network with colleagues Blog  fire, fuel reduction  24 Oct 2016 Forest fuel structural measurement and fuel load estimation using LiDAR data Resource save(660.29 KB) fire, fuel reduction, modelling

----------


## John2b

> The saga of the plastic bags...

   No saga for us, we just don't use plastic bags. We've been using the same cloth bags since the ban was introduced here 10 years ago. We buy our fresh food at markets because it is actually fresh(!) and not packaged. The fact that food from producers tastes better and costs less without packaging is just a bonus.

----------


## phild01

> "Single use bags" was a huge falicy! I know no-one who just through them out straight after unloading the shopping! Handy for all sorts of things over and over, they should have been called multi-use bags. Now we just *buy* more plastic

  My shopping bags are now almost fully depleted, anyone know where I can buy similar, the Woolies ones were bigger than the Coles ones and fit my bin perfectly.

----------


## John2b

> Now we just *buy* more plastic

  You have always 'bought' the plastic bags and packaging, just not been charged separately for them.

----------


## UseByDate

> "Single use bags" was a huge falicy! I know no-one who just through them out straight after unloading the shopping! Handy for all sorts of things over and over, they should have been called multi-use bags. Now we just *buy* more plastic

  https://www.youtube.com/embed/36Yfy0...art=95&end=130

----------


## r3nov8or

> You have always 'bought' the plastic bags and packaging, just not been charged separately for them.

  You were also paying for them, even when you weren't using them, and to my reckoning no price has come down since their removal!

----------


## John2b

> You were also paying for them, even when you weren't using them

  Apologies, I meant you in the third person, not specifically you r3nov8or. Yes, I would have been paying for plastic bags if (or when) I bought from shops that used them. But for me that is beside the point. More than half the plastic that exists today has been made in the last 20 years, and if someone doesn't think that's a problem they should be checked for a pulse.

----------


## Bros

> More than half the plastic that exists today has been made in the last 20 years, and if someone doesn't think that's a problem they should be checked for a pulse.

  Wasn't Coles making a big thing some time back about biodegradable plastic bags?

----------


## Bros

> We buy our fresh food at markets because it is actually fresh(!) and not packaged. The fact that food from producers tastes better and costs less without packaging is just a bonus.

  We are not all that lucky and I have some doubts at times with farmers markets with residual pesticides.

----------


## UseByDate

> Around 50,000 years of history shows it works, you have absolutely no idea but a green idiotology which is a proven failure.

  Isn't there a theory that the first humans living in Australia burnt the rain forests and caused the ecological disaster that we are now experiencing?    100,000 years ago, Australia was convered in rainforest. Could it be covered again?

----------


## Moondog55

It was but it was a lot longer then 100k years ago. Firestick farming does however seem to have altereded the landscape and vegetation quite a bit although I have no links to the articles talking about this hypothesis.

----------


## John2b

> We are not all that lucky and I have some doubts at times with farmers markets with residual pesticides.

  It is the cartel buying behaviour of the supermarket chains that encourages producers to use dodgy chemicals, underpay employees (who may become disgruntled and do untold things in the supply chain) and also cut corners on withholding periods, etc. Residual pesticides is just one reason we don't buy from supermarkets, but try to buy from a grower, or supplier who deals with the grower. If you are a regular customer, you get to know your vendors quite well and buy from ones who's food integrity is trustworthy. 
With large areas of production affected in south eastern Australia, the fires are likely to put pressure on the food chain both in prices and supply. A fair proportion of the commercial bee hive populations in southern Australia have now been wiped out. It is not as simple as breeding up the bees again, it will be years before the flowering trees recover enough for the bee population to increase. Already last year there was a major scandal over the dilution of supermarket honey with sugar syrup. Pasture for milking cows has also been severely impacted. The dairy industry has already been decimated in recent years by the supermarkets' extortion of supply, and now this happens. Sheep and cattle numbers have also been severely impacted.

----------


## Marc

Besides Saint John2b, for the ordinary folks down here in the pits of the sinful life we live, I say the real solution to plastic is
A) supermarkets and retailers of all descriptions to be mandated to use *paper* bags.
B) Councils to be mandated to recycle plastics through a machine that turns plastic into diesel.  
Plastic problem becomes nonexistent. Machines pay for themselves. 
Perhaps that is the problem. Too cheap! 
I am sick of listening to assorted morons who blame me from their lounge, for their pathetic dream falling short. 
I am the customer, I pay for the shops existence and their employees livelihood. I pay for the politicians lavish salary, and for their extravagant "gifts" to alien interest. When it comes to common Australian interest, I expect those who I pay, to take charge and act in my favour.

----------


## Bros

> Residual pesticides is just one reason we don't buy from supermarkets, but try to buy from a grower, or supplier who deals with the grower. If you are a regular customer, you get to know your vendors quite well and buy from ones who's food integrity is trustworthy.

   You wouldn't have a clue as to what you are getting from a grower supplying small markets where as the big growers are regularly audited and they must keep very detailed records.  
I have friends who are large scale pineapple and pumpkin growers and they are spraying regularly for this or that pest and their property is divided into dozens of plots and they have to record what is sprayed and when so they cant send fruit to market in the withholding period where a small grower can use what he likes and is not bound by these rules.

----------


## Marc

> My shopping bags are now almost fully depleted, anyone know where I can buy similar, the Woolies ones were bigger than the Coles ones and fit my bin perfectly.

   You can buy any size plastic bags in a roll at any supermarket. 
We used to use the so called "single use" bags for several purposes and for lining the kitchen garbage bin. 
Now we buy large rolls of black bags for the bin and when I need to bag food for the esky, I have another roll that is white. Oh yea! Save the planet! Ban _"single use"_ ​plastic bags. Aleluya! 
As for the puritans and those dressed in white living in SA, Tasmania and Nepal, I am sure they line their garbage bin with the local newspaper and poop in a hole in the backyard.

----------


## phild01

> You can buy any size plastic bags in a roll at any supermarket.

  Yeah but they are usually too big for what I need. If I could buy those Woolies grey bags I'd buy a heap.

----------


## Marc

$60 FOR 2000? ... 0r $15 for 200 
Save the planet  :Smilie:  https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/200-Pcs-...MdcNoWWE9-7waQ

----------


## r3nov8or

These will probably be gone soon too, but save them up for covering food for the fridge and freezer instead of cling wrap  
Anyway, I for one shouldn't be dragging this thread sideways  :Blush7:

----------


## Marc

Do you mean to pick up a roll from the veggie section?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Do you mean to pick up a roll from the veggie section?

   :Biggrin:  
No, just take a roll gradually, one or three bags per visit  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> You wouldn't have a clue as to what you are getting from a grower supplying small markets where as the big growers are regularly audited and they must keep very detailed records.

  Not true at all, at least in my case, I have much more than a clue. I know the growers I buy from and some also supply the big chains so I know how that works as well. 
My fruit supplier formed a co-op with four others to be big enough to contract to supply to one of the big supermarkets. They had to spend several hundred thousand on an apple sorting machine because a single "bad" apple meant a whole consignment being rejected. The apples had to be perfectly round, no blemishes, and between 72 and 75 mm in diameter, which is large for an apple. Taste or ripeness (sugar content) didn't matter. 
Why the big apples? Profit, of course. People buy, say, 1 apple per day for each child, but the Supermarket sells by weight. Five big apples weigh more than 5 small ones. We bought the smaller, non-perfect but tasty hand selected ones from the producer direct. 
Industry auditing often means diddly squat. There has been a roaring trade in aged care equipment hire thanks to audits. Aged carers were advised in advance of audits and had enough time to hire all of the missing mandatory equipment for the audit. It doesn't take a Royal Commission to know this when everyone is in on the game, Royal Commissions are for cover-ups. 
Auditing didn't stop disgruntled employees urinating into the fruit juice vats at one national producer. That went on for more than a year before becoming public. Nor does auditing stop people putting needles into strawberries. These things are the sign of a broken system, not a triumph of market economics.

----------


## craka

> Because of current climatic conditions fire-fronts can and do jump across gaps of several kilometres at a time, putting firefighters involved in back-burning at severe risk.  
> Under current climatic conditions areas burnt out this year will be ready to burn again next year, if not earlier.

  
If a vast area of bush was burnt regularly no. Even if the small amount of litter was there and a fire started it would not end up being a canopy fire, canopy fires are when fire fronts move several kilometres.  Larger ie mass area burns are required on a regular basis, even if fire were to spread it won't spread the distance and if it did it wouldn't have the intensity behind it.  This is what use to happen but hasn't done for 30 plus years as interd alluded to.

----------


## craka

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_rp069.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> Lots of agencies and people (including me) have a vested interest in how well fuel reduction works. Have a read: 
> Fuel reduction is the manipulation, including combustion, or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control.  https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/t...fuel-reduction  Date Item Type  Key Topics  17 Oct 2019 Fire Spread Across Fuel Types Resource save(3.21 MB) fire weather, fuel reduction  27 Aug 2019 How do Tall Wet Eucalypt Forests Burn? Modelling fuels and fire behaviour in one of the worlds most complicated forests Resource save(879.46 KB) fuel reduction, modelling  27 Aug 2019 Modelling carbon emissions from prescribed burning using FullCAM Resource save(556.79 KB) fuel reduction, planning  23 Nov 2018 Optimisation of prescribed burning regimes for fuel reduction, carbon, water and vegetation Resource save(1.34 MB) fuel reduction, prescribed burning  23 Nov 2018 Fire spread prediction across fuel types by physics-based modelling Resource save(2.02 MB) fire, fire impacts, fuel reduction  19 Sep 2018 Resilient or suicidal giants: what types of fires do the worlds tallest flowering forests support? Resource save(1.8 MB) fire, fuel reduction, mitigation  19 Sep 2018 Understanding carbon pools to improve emission estimates from fires Resource save(2.21 MB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  18 Sep 2018 Simulations of the effect of canopy density profile on sub-canopy wind speed profiles Resource save(1.08 MB) fire, fuel reduction  16 Jul 2018 Twenty years of northern fire talks News  fire, fuel reduction, Northern Australia  31 Oct 2017 Prescribed burning cluster Resource save(129.41 KB) fuel reduction, mitigation, prescribed burning  07 Sep 2017 Mapping the efficacy of an Australian fuel reduction burn using Fuels3D point clouds  Resource save(1.6 MB) fuel reduction, modelling, prescribed burning  07 Sep 2017 An assessment of the viability of prescribed burning under a changing climate Resource save(1.37 MB) fire weather, fuel reduction, optimisation  07 Sep 2017 Modelling feedback between fuel reduction burning and forest carbon and water balance in eucalypt forests Resource save(2.39 MB) environments, fuel reduction, prescribed burning  31 Aug 2017 The great escapes News  fuel reduction, prescribed burning, risk management  30 Jun 2017 Assessing the impact of fire using soil and pyrolisis-GC-MS Resource save(1.11 MB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  29 Jun 2017 The Savanna Monitoring & Evaluation Reporting Framework (SMERF) Resource save(743.58 KB) fuel reduction, planning, prescribed burning  03 Apr 2017 Fire mapping with satellites and smart phones News  fire, fuel reduction, modelling  07 Nov 2016 A great opportunity to network with colleagues Blog  fire, fuel reduction  24 Oct 2016 Forest fuel structural measurement and fuel load estimation using LiDAR data Resource save(660.29 KB) fire, fuel reduction, modelling

  only a career pontificating bureaucrat could dredge up that much useless information & if if the whole nation didn't notice , isn't working, the whole sorry situation can be boiled down to green tape restrictions , hurdles & general bureaucratic malaise & buck passing, by not acting in sync with the environment , every excuse under the sun will be used to avoid burning , and if the it isn't burnt , it will eventually burn all on its own, catastrophically causing more ecological damage , property loss, deaths of people & animals. So what the green idiotology actual does damages the environment even more, people have to wake up to these fools & not give them a platform or respect anymore , they are toxic to the nation.
I was brought up in the bush & farming, we & every other farmers used to burn off native vegetation every year, lessons that were learned from not enough burning, everyone on the ground is repeating the same story & have been predicting these catastrophes & now the @@@@ has hit the fan like never seen before.
inter

----------


## Marc

> Only a career pontificating bureaucrat could dredge up that much useless information & if if the whole nation didn't notice , isn't working, the whole sorry situation can be boiled down to green tape restrictions , hurdles & general bureaucratic malaise & buck passing, by not acting in sync with the environment , every excuse under the sun will be used to avoid burning , and if the it isn't burnt , it will eventually burn all on its own, catastrophically causing more ecological damage , property loss, deaths of people & animals. So what the green idiotology actual does damages the environment even more, people have to wake up to these fools & not give them a platform or respect anymore , they are toxic to the nation.
> I was brought up in the bush & farming, we & every other farmers used to burn off native vegetation every year, lessons that were learned from not enough burning, everyone on the ground is repeating the same story & have been predicting these catastrophes & now the @@@@ has hit the fan like never seen before.
> inter

  Well said. 
Greens never cared for the environment, their doctrine is detrimental to what they pretend to stand for. Their strategy is being contrarian, oppositionist, intolerant, belligerent, act like 13 year old spoiled brat, and we feed them and house them. It is a pathetic state of affairs.   
The greens are terrorist.

----------


## METRIX

> "Single use bags" was a huge falicy! I know no-one who just through them out straight after unloading the shopping! Handy for all sorts of things over and over, they should have been called multi-use bags. Now we just *buy* more plastic

  Everyone I knew used to hoard them up in the cupboards, they were never reused at the supermarket because you got another set for free, they tended to be used for one off un-necessary things like picking up dog poo when they were out, or putting garbage scraps in which was then thrown in the bin. 
I think the comment we now *BUY* more plastic is not true, nobody I know BUYS more plastic because they don't get free supermarket bags. 
Initially people bought the stronger reusable bags and realised these were not going to last forever, so they have bought more sustainable cloth / hessian bags which will last for years of use if used properly. 
Good ridden to them I say, they were an un-necessary 1st world convenience that was not required, we have survived without them by using other sustainable means and changing our wasteful habits. 
In the first three months of dropping the bags, they estimate there were 1.5 Billion fewer plastic bags put into circulation, with most of these ending up in landfill one way or another. 
The scaremongers said banning them was destroying the Australian economy because people were buying fewer goods at the supermarket as they couldn't carry the stuff back to the car, what a load of fake news. 
Do these people even live in the real world, here are some fact's for these clowns, there are these things called trolleys, you get one for FREE at the supermarket, you load whatever you want in it, take it to a young kid, they take your stuff and put them into the bags you give them you put these bags full of stuff back in the trolley. 
Then, wait for it, you push that trolley to your car and unload that trolley full of goods packed in the bags by the young kids, then push the trolly to the trolley bay. 
Woolworth has seen a increase in supermarket profits so that fake news belongs in the bin.

----------


## pharmaboy2

i know how plastic bags have changed my behaviour  - i went shopping the other day for a BBQ  - i bought what i could carry only. 
we throw out heaps of those big thick plastic bags as well, when it used to be the thin variety that were biodegradeable.  when the wife does shopping, it tends to be planned so she still uses the hessian bags that weve used for 20 years.  overall, it has probably made us worse polluters. 
next is recyclable cans / bottles etc - another stupid idea whose time was 30 years ago, and certainly not with the automated systems they use - a friend of mine was talking about the 2 and a half hour trip he took with his daughter to push many hundreds of bottles and cans through the recylcing machine - whoever thoight that up should be shot

----------


## phild01

> - whoever thoight that up should be shot

  Mine now go to landfill, lost faith in the recycling drive.

----------


## Bedford

*Global warming a fear campaign by scientists hooked on government grants, Greenpeace founder says            *    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gl...e-founder-says

----------


## PhilT2

> Mine now go to landfill, lost faith in the recycling drive.

  This is just my perception but it seems to me any environmental efforts get judged by a much tougher standard than anything else. take the coal mining industry for example. It has killed thousands and continues to do so. Eleven miners died in central Qld in 1994. Over 100 children died in the wales town of Aberfan in 1966. Black lung disease is back. But if wind turbines kill a few birds ( and it is only a few compared to other causes) then the right scream like cut cats.
 Recycling schemes are expected to work well right from the very start. Can anyone name any govt scheme that did?  How well is the plan to control bushfires working out? So why should recycling be held to an impossible standard that nothing else meets.

----------


## John2b

> *... ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants ...'*

  That interview is a very funny spoof, Bedford. The scientific community had correctly projected the temperature rise that would be recorded back in 1953 when Patrick Moore was only 6 years old, as The Age published:  
World Becoming A Hothouse, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 May 1953  https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...cle%2F18365639

----------


## PhilT2

> *Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants,’ Greenpeace founder says            *    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gl...e-founder-says

  The concept that climate science is motivated by govt funding doesn't hold true for those who established the basic principles of global warming over 100 years ago. Then there was the Exxon scientists who confirmed the reality of the science despite being paid by an oil company which then went on to conceal their findings from the shareholders.

----------


## UseByDate

> *Global warming a fear campaign by scientists hooked on government grants, Greenpeace founder says            *    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gl...e-founder-says

  Patrick Moore does tend to change his mind fairly quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw...ature=youtu.be

----------


## phild01

> This is just my perception but it seems to me any environmental efforts get judged by a much tougher standard than anything else.

  I am all for recycling if it worked. If you believe it works then look at all the recycle stockpile Sydney has. Such is the problem that Dial a Dump/Cleanaway would like to build a garbage incinerator in the guise of power generation from general waste. I don't think the government cares much about the outcome as they know recycling is not working well at all.

----------


## r3nov8or

> I think the comment we now BUY more plastic is not true, nobody I know BUYS more plastic because they don't get free supermarket bags

  Did you notice that while they were removing free plastic bags, the vast increase in prepackaged fresh produce, in plastic trays wrapped in plastic? Pre peeled, cut and prepackaged pumpkin is a must these days. That is the plastic the masses are paying for now.

----------


## UseByDate

> *Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants,’ Greenpeace founder says            *    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gl...e-founder-says

  This is what Greenpeace has to say about Patrick Moore's claim to be a “Greenpeace founder”  *“Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace*
 Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF).” https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/...ent-on-patric/

----------


## PhilT2

> I am all for recycling if it worked. If you believe it works then look at all the recycle stockpile Sydney has. Such is the problem that Dial a Dump/Cleanaway would like to build a garbage incinerator in the guise of power generation from general waste. I don't think the government cares much about the outcome as they know recycling is not working well at all.

  As far as I know aluminium, steel, glass and paper are still working reasonably well, condemning all recycling because some parts don't work well yet is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Tyres and plastics are an issue but as least we are no longer sending our rubbish to China where they used to sort it out and throw the non recyclable material into the river.

----------


## PhilT2

> Did you notice that while they were removing free plastic bags, the vast increase in prepackaged fresh produce, in plastic trays wrapped in plastic? Pre peeled, cut and prepackaged pumpkin is a must these days. That is the plastic the masses are paying for now.

  The pre-packaged produce is intended to deal with a problem caused by the new automatic checkouts. People were filling a bag with, for example, apples@ $5/kg  but putting them through the checkout as potatoes@ $1/kg. Prepackaged and barcoded stopped this.

----------


## r3nov8or

> The pre-packaged produce is intended to deal with a problem caused by the new automatic checkouts. People were filling a bag with, for example, apples@ $5/kg  but putting them through the checkout as potatoes@ $1/kg. Prepackaged and barcoded stopped this.

  There are still loose options for almost everything, measured by weight, but I wonder for how long

----------


## PhilT2

> next is recyclable cans / bottles etc - another stupid idea whose time was 30 years ago, and certainly not with the automated systems they use - a friend of mine was talking about the 2 and a half hour trip he took with his daughter to push many hundreds of bottles and cans through the recylcing machine - whoever thoight that up should be shot

  Our local centre has a bag it, tag it and drop it scheme, don't understand why anyone does it the slow way.

----------


## Bedford

> That interview is a very funny spoof, Bedford. The scientific community had correctly projected the temperature rise that would be recorded back in 1953 when Patrick Moore was only 6 years old, as The Age published:  
> World Becoming A Hothouse, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 May 1953  https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a...cle%2F18365639

  Well that may be so.  
Is what  Patrick Moore saying true? 
Has he lied,  and if so, do you have something that says so?

----------


## phild01

> As far as I know aluminium, steel, glass and paper are still working reasonably well, condemning all recycling because some parts don't work well yet is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  No, the recycling that was being clearly responded to was about bottles, mine go in the red bin. Copper and metals still go to my local metals recycler.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> There are still loose options for almost everything, measured by weight, but I wonder for how long

  It's possible in the not too distance future that every item will be RF tagged and you're just billed as you push your trolley thru an exit gate.

----------


## PhilT2

> Well that may be so.  
> Is what  Patrick Moore saying true? 
> Has he lied,  and if so, do you have something that says so?

  Most of his statements are so vague they're meaningless. Pick a couple and we'll see how easy they are to disprove.
It's almost impossible to prove whether he is deliberately lying or genuinely believes what he is saying, even though it's wrong.

----------


## John2b

> Is what  Patrick Moore saying true?

   No, what Patrick Moore said is emphatically not true. Many hundreds of people have 'successfully' used glyphosate to commit suicide. Patrick Moore either knows this and denies it for ideological reasons, or he is an buffoon for making an emphatic claim about something he does not know about. Nearly one in ten people who attempt suicide by swallowing glyphosate die. Here's one of may studies:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875113/

----------


## John2b

> Mine now go to landfill, lost faith in the recycling drive.

   Recycling is in any case a last resort - refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, repair, and only then recycle. In the 1960s almost everything was reused in Australia and waste was minimal. Back then councils generally accepted only one 45 litre container of refuse per week, and where I lived most households didn't fill that! But since then manufacturing rubbish has been a huge growth industry. More often than not there is more energy, resources and cost expended on packaging than the actual content of purchases.

----------


## Bedford

> Most of his statements are so vague they're meaningless. Pick a couple and we'll see how easy they are to disprove.
> It's almost impossible to prove whether he is deliberately lying or genuinely believes what he is saying, even though it's wrong.

  Ok, so even though its wrong, could you show us which bits are wrong?

----------


## Bedford

> No, what Patrick Moore said is emphatically not true. Many hundreds of people have 'successfully' used glyphosate to commit suicide. Patrick Moore either knows this and denies it for ideological reasons, or he is an buffoon for making an emphatic claim about something he does not know about. Nearly one in ten people who attempt suicide by swallowing glyphosate die. Here's one of may studies:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875113/

  Where in the link I posted does it mention swallowing glyphosate?

----------


## phild01

> Recycling is in any case a last resort - refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, repair, and only then recycle. In the 1960s almost everything was reused in Australia and waste was minimal. Back then councils generally accepted only one 45 litre container of refuse per week, and where I lived most households didn't fill that! But since then manufacturing rubbish has been a huge growth industry. More often than not there is more energy, resources and cost expended on packaging than the actual content of purchases.

  Also back then there were housewives that looked after the chores of food gathering, refrigerators were small and supermarkets hardly established. That system of gathering is now tailored towards ease of food storage and convenience now that most people are wage earners and we have refrigeration to suit our needs. That has brought about the need for plastics packaging.
But then the explosion of soft drink consumption doesn't help much either
   ....and I guess none of this has a lot to do with fighting fires either :Wink 1:

----------


## John2b

Just heard on the news that one of four water bombers arrived in Australia today. The other three will arrive next week. The aircraft were delayed by a few days by adverse weather, and by a few months by the implementation of adverse guvmint ideology. Acording to the news the aircraft have been leased for 50 days, which is about ½ of the remaining fire season. Both the late arrival and the early departure has surely helped save the govmint's imaginary surplus. No doubt everyone who has lost their livelihood and homes will be thrilled about the savings.

----------


## John2b

> Where in the link I posted does it mention swallowing glyphosate?

   I'd put money on "self-poisoning" by people who "ingested" glyphosate means they swallowed it, unless you know of another way of intentionally ingesting that isn't swallowing. As I said in my post there are plenty of reports of people swallowing glyphosate with the intention of suicide resulting in death, in-fact so many records that no-one could seriously suggest that glyphosate is safe to drink unless the purpose of their statement was to deceive. 
Edit: I am obviously got my wires crossed and referring to a different post, Bedford. People can make their own assessment of Patrick Moore based on his own behaviour.

----------


## John2b

> Also back then there were housewives that looked after the chores of food gathering, refrigerators were small and supermarkets hardly established. That system of gathering is now tailored towards ease of food storage and convenience now that most people are wage earners and we have refrigeration to suit our needs. That has brought about the need for plastics packaging.
> But then the explosion of soft drink consumption doesn't help much either
>    ....and I guess none of this has a lot to do with fighting fires either

  It is just ridiculous to suggest that the convenience of modern lives depends on the prodigious production of waste. In fact, the more money and energy that is expended in throw away materials, the less money and energy that is available to produce lasting material wealth. Quite frankly, the same lazy thinking has a lot to do with how fire risks are currently managed, which everyone here seems to concur is not adequate.

----------


## Bedford

> I'd put money on "self-poisoning" by people who "ingested" glyphosate means they swallowed it, unless you know of another way of intentionally ingesting that isn't swallowing. As I said in my post there are plenty of reports of people swallowing glyphosate with the intention of suicide resulting in death, in-fact so many records that no-one could seriously suggest that glyphosate is safe to drink unless the purpose of their statement was to deceive.

  I'll try again.   

> Where in the link I posted does it mention swallowing glyphosate?

----------


## phild01

> It is just ridiculous to suggest that the convenience of modern lives depends on the prodigious production of waste.

   Seems to be a fact to me. And it has a lot to do with efficient transport needs too.

----------


## Bedford

> I'd put money on "self-poisoning" by people who "ingested" glyphosate means they swallowed it, unless you know of another way of intentionally ingesting that isn't swallowing. As I said in my post there are plenty of reports of people swallowing glyphosate with the intention of suicide resulting in death, in-fact so many records that no-one could seriously suggest that glyphosate is safe to drink unless the purpose of their statement was to deceive. 
> Edit: I am obviously got my wires crossed and referring to a different post, Bedford.

   

> Edit: I am obviously got my wires crossed and answered a question that you didn't ask, Bedford.

  You seem a little confused John.......

----------


## John2b

> You seem a little confused John.......

  As you have correctly noted Bedford I'm often confused, which is one reason why I defer to the factual information  recorded by others. Regardless of how personally inadequate I am, or how wrong I may be at times, I am consoled by the fact that "the truth will out".

----------


## METRIX

> Did you notice that while they were removing free plastic bags, the vast increase in prepackaged fresh produce, in plastic trays wrapped in plastic? Pre peeled, cut and prepackaged pumpkin is a must these days. That is the plastic the masses are paying for now.

  That pre packaged stuff was around way before the bags were banned. 
It;s just another "time saving" thing people are being told they must have, quite ridiculous, food starts to lose it's nutritional; value (if there is any nutritional value left in modern food) as soon as it's cut, this is why it's important to snap freeze them. 
So those pre peeled carrots, and other pre cut foods would have no nutritional value after sitting on the shelf for a few days, so you are paying more money for less quality food.

----------


## johnc

> Ok, so even though its wrong, could you show us which bits are wrong?

   Moore is just rehashing old conspiracy theories and general denial trivia that in some cases has probably been circulating for a couple of decades. This is a bit like arguing with a toddler, no matter how much you try you will get nowhere trying to apply reason. Moore for whatever reason is applying a toddlers logic it is up to you whether you wish to believe Moore, nobody is going to try to change your mind.

----------


## PhilT2

> You seem a little confused John.......

  Here's the link again, posted by Usebydate #590 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw...ature=youtu.be 
It's not possible to tell whether Moore is lying or very uninformed about toxins.

----------


## Bros

> As you have correctly noted Bedford I'm often confused, which is one reason why I defer to the factual information  recorded by others. Regardless of how personally inadequate I am, or how wrong I may be at times,

  Well that is a statement of humility, you should know what group you are posting to not backwards and forwards between different groups.

----------


## John2b

> Well that is a statement of humility, you should know what group you are posting to not backwards and forwards between different groups.

   What groups would they be Bros?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

By Huey, the mods have lost control of this thread. Amusingly, they are a large proportion of the numpties posting in it... 
Renovate Forum...it never gets old.

----------


## Bros

> By Huey, the mods have lost control of this thread. Amusingly, they are a large proportion of the numpties posting in it... 
> Renovate Forum...it never gets old.

   Aren’t we allowed to post?

----------


## Bros

> What groups would they be Bros?

   By your own admission Facebook.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Arent we allowed to post?

  Sure. Just keep it on topic.

----------


## John2b

> By your own admission Facebook.

  Please explain what you mean by that

----------


## Bros

> Please explain what you mean by that

   Well if not FB then 478

----------


## Bros

> Sure. Just keep it on topic.

  If you had noticed this thread in under the category "end of the day" where a lot of subjects can be discussed and on other forums a thread this long strays from the initial title. 
 If the mods thing that from some of the replies it would be reasonable to establish another thread but at this stage that is not the way we see this thread. 
The more specific categories should stay on topic as much as possible so as far as this this is concerned we should be able to post.

----------


## John2b

> Well if not FB then 478

   I misread Bedford's post. That mistake hasn't a connection with any other forum I might or might not be participating in, it is a consequence of me being human.

----------


## John2b

> If you had noticed this thread in under the category "end of the day" where a lot of subjects can be discussed and on other forums a thread this long strays from the initial title. 
>  If the mods thing that from some of the replies it would be reasonable to establish another thread but at this stage that is not the way we see this thread. 
> The more specific categories should stay on topic as much as possible so as far as this this is concerned we should be able to post.

  Thank you for the clarification Bros. I think most people are happy with that. We the members should be (and in my case, am) grateful for the opportunity to participate. Everyone has a right to express their opinion however it would not be detrimental if some, or more, of the posts that are predominantly vengeance were reviewed.

----------


## Marc

> It is just ridiculous to suggest that the convenience of modern lives depends on the prodigious production of waste. In fact, the more money and energy that is expended in throw away materials, the less money and energy that is available to produce lasting material wealth. Quite frankly, the same lazy thinking has a lot to do with how fire risks are currently managed, which everyone here seems to concur is not adequate.

  John, this post of yours, like many others seem to show a complete disconnect from reality. The food industry, like any other industry, uses packaging as a result of their needs and convenience. This sometimes coincides and other times does not, with the convenience of the customer. Industry makes things for profit, not to annoy you. Everything has a reason to be and a purpose since it all costs money. 
Sometimes they get it wrong, other times they get it right. It is a fact of life and the way industry, marketing and commerce interact. Your views seem to be a cross between naivety, gullibility and ignorance.

----------


## John2b

> Your views seem to be a cross between naivety, gullibility and ignorance.

  Naivety, gullibility and ignorance is the essence of the human condition. No one with a heart beat is immune.

----------


## toooldforthis

at the risk of getting back on topic, sort of  :Smilie:  
fire bunkers? https://www.wildfiresafetybunkers.com.au/bunkers.html
tho can't see why one can't be built into a house design for a lot less. 
am going to ask my local council why/if BAL building regs can't/can be ignored if house has a fire bunker built to standards.
for a while now my gut feel has been homes built to the new BAL regs won't lessen the risk of the building damaged beyond repair - instead of a pile of ash a twisted mass of metal and masonry.

----------


## Bros

> Everyone has a right to express their opinion however it would not be detrimental if some, or more, of the posts that are predominantly vengeance were reviewed.

    Agree but you may or may not be aware that some parts of posts are edited out as from our view could be personal however the mods are human as well and do not sit on the forum 24/7 and some posts can be missed or the reply could be viewed differently so we also rely on reporting posts.

----------


## Bros

> fire bunkers

   Interesting link.  
From what I have seen on the news is even though the fires have been devastating to the environment the houses lost has been low. I compare it to a cyclone that drops in on a large city wher devastation is severe. 
Another thing I noted from TV interviews that could have been selective is the number of people who are not insured. Something that is for most is the biggest investment they have are not insured.

----------


## John2b

> fire bunkers?

   Souther Ocean Lodge on Kangaroo Island had a concrete bunker under the building. The consequence was that staff either were encouraged or chose to stay and defend the building. Based on what I have heard through friends more connected than myself, those people are very, very lucky to have survived, and are likely to take years to get over the experience. In this case it seems that the existence of the fire bunker actually put many peoples' lives in extreme danger.

----------


## UseByDate

> Here's the link again, posted by Usebydate #590 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw...ature=youtu.be 
> It's not possible to tell whether Moore is lying or very uninformed about toxins.

  He does have a B.Sc in Forest Biology and a Ph.D.
So I doubt that your second option is true. 
Thesis
 Administration of Pollution Control in British Columbia: A Focus on the Mining Industry - The Faculty of Forestry.

----------


## John2b

There is an interesting narrative on the Kangaroo Island fires on National Geographic's website well worth a read here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...Uj3Ajf3A03-ZVg

----------


## Bros

> In this case it seems that the existence of the fire bunker actually put many peoples' lives in extreme danger.

   Why I thought the opposite would be the case?

----------


## John2b

> Something that is for most is the biggest investment they have are not insured.

  Insurance companies have already flagged that rebuilt properties will likely have prohibitive insurance premiums, which will likely result in less people being fully insured in the future. Insurance companies don't have the luxury of ignoring the worsening climatic conditions which were and will continue to be a precursor to the scale of devastation of recent.

----------


## John2b

> Why I thought the opposite would be the case?

  That was my initial reaction too. But staying to fight the fire actually put their lives at risk. They would not have stayed but for the existence of the bunker. As it was the bunker almost failed. If the conditions had been slightly worse, or persisted for a few more minutes, they would have all perished - or so I have been told.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Souther Ocean Lodge on Kangaroo Island had a concrete bunker under the building. The consequence was that staff either were encouraged or chose to stay and defend the building. Based on what I have heard through friends more connected than myself, those people are very, very lucky to have survived, and are likely to take years to get over the experience. In this case it seems that the existence of the fire bunker actually put many peoples' lives in extreme danger.

  everyone who lives in bushfire rated areas should be forced to read the royal commision victim facts and then tested on it.  i read it the other day, and a couple of things really resonated with me.
1.  a fire bunker needs to be airtight  -  a family died in one from carbon monoxide poisoning - no fire damage
2. you must retreat to the bunker early - there were people burnt to death only 10m from bunker entrances, because they could not cross the 10m due to radiated heat from the front
3.  radiated heat from the front can be fatal from over 100m away 
on building regs - the firezone ones need some more sensible guidlines i think - ive stayed in fire proof accomadation on a ridge line designed by an architect  2o odd years ago.  it wasnt expensive to build compared to current FZ stds, just some relatively simple principles

----------


## Bros

> Insurance companies have already flagged that rebuilt properties will likely have prohibitive insurance premiums, which will likely result in less people being fully insured in the future. Insurance companies don't have the luxury of ignoring the worsening climatic conditions which were and will continue to be a precursor to the scale of devastation of recent.

   I can understand that after you make a claim as making money is their main Buisness but the ones I saw interviewed had none beforehand and will want the handouts to rebuild for them. 
For those insured the premiums will proberbly go up across all household insurance. Happened here after the floods as very few had flood insurance so now it is part of all insurance which annoys me as I live on a hill.

----------


## toooldforthis

> everyone who lives in bushfire rated areas should be forced to read the royal commision victim facts and then tested on it.  i read it the other day, and a couple of things really resonated with me.
> 1.  a fire bunker needs to be airtight  -  a family died in one from carbon monoxide poisoning - no fire damage
> 2. you must retreat to the bunker early - there were people burnt to death only 10m from bunker entrances, because they could not cross the 10m due to radiated heat from the front
> 3.  radiated heat from the front can be fatal from over 100m away 
> on building regs - the firezone ones need some more sensible guidlines i think - ive stayed in fire proof accomadation on a ridge line designed by an architect  2o odd years ago.  it wasnt expensive to build compared to current FZ stds, just some relatively simple principles

  good points. thanks. 
as for the regs.
bureaucracy.... breeds bureaucracy
you will never get simpler sensible regs.
I was thinking/hoping some shires might allow an either or - build to new regs (so they can retain their bureaucracy) or have a bunker.

----------


## Marc

> ...  staying to fight the fire actually put their lives at risk. They would not have stayed but for the existence of the bunker. As it was the bunker almost failed. If the conditions had been slightly worse, or persisted for a few more minutes, they would have all perished - or so I have been told.

  What a load of nonsense. A fire bunker has the purpose to give shelter in case of a fire. If the bunker "almost failed" (sic) that means it was inadequate. Well if it failed then it was inadequate, since it did not fail then it was OK. 
The decision to stay or leave has no relation to the bunker but with those making the decision. If your reasoning made any sense than we should ban seatbelts in cars since it give the driver a false sense of security. 
Firebunker are rated according to how many people can survive in them and for how long. i rather have one that not. By the way, should we also ban fire pumps because it induces people to stay and defend the property? https://www.wildfiresafetybunkers.com.au/faq.html 
The extent of the doctrine-induced idiocy is incommensurable.

----------


## John2b

The advice from the CFA of Victoria is: "Using a private shelter is not without risk; there is no guarantee it will save your life. It is not an alternative to leaving early and it should never be a stand-alone solution. It needs to form part of an overall bushfire plan."  https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/plan-prep...ers-or-bunkers 
The Southern Ocean Lodge's fire protections were designed to Australian Standards and built by a specialist bushfire protection and engineering company. Profile - Cribb Bushfire Protection Systems & Engineering | Uraidla Adelaide SA 
This was a significant and much awarded project by a world renowned architect. I seriously doubt they would have skimped on the design and construction of the bunker. Southern Ocean Lodge  Max Pritchard Gunner Architects 
A bunker is like a submarine. Once sealed it is designed to support a certain number of people, for a certain amount of time, under a prescribed set of conditions. If any one of those design parameters is exceeded, or if one of the bunker's systems fails to perform to specification, the bunker may fail to protect life. Nor is it generally possible to test the performance of a bunker in real life conditions. No one who entered that bunker knew what the thermal intensity of the fire would be, or whether the bunker would withstand them. It almost didn't, quite possibly because these fires were fiercer than any perviously encountered or imagined for the location.

----------


## r3nov8or

> good points. thanks. 
> as for the regs.
> bureaucracy.... breeds bureaucracy
> you will never get simpler sensible regs.
> I was thinking/hoping some shires might allow an either or - build to new regs (so they can retain their bureaucracy) or have a bunker.

  If you didn't build your primary home to the regs relevant to the location, your insurance may turn out to be 10%+ p.a. of rebuild cost, or potentially uninsurable

----------


## r3nov8or

After the Brisbane flood disaster, I know of people whose house insurance went from say $1500 p.a. to $8000 on next renewal. Apparently these rorts, err, increases, were short lived (ended due to market pressure and shopping around), but they can be that way for only so long if these disasters continue

----------


## johnc

Bunkers have come a long way, in the '39 fires they had dugouts, these did protect from fire to a certain extent. Even then they were aware there needed to be a tunnel and door or hessian flap to prevent the fire sucking the oxygen out before it had passed through. I did know a bloke that sheltered in a dugout in those fires with his brother and others. After the fire the brother came out of the tunnel to see if it was safe to leave only to be hit and killed by a boulder running down the hillside that had free as the follage around it dissappeared. What a lousy run of luck, survive the fire only to die in a freak event. After that fire of course timber mills and towns came out of the bush where it would be safer, now we are building in at risk areas again.

----------


## johnc

> After the Brisbane flood disaster, I know of people whose house insurance went from say $1500 p.a. to $8000 on next renewal. Apparently these rorts, err, increases, were short lived (ended due to market pressure and shopping around), but they can be that way for only so long if these disasters continue

  For those that don't know insurance is arranged in pools, risk is then applied across the pool and a premium set. If the pool is small they either will not insure or you get a very large premium, it is just numbers, actuarial calculations, based on known risk. Sudden spikes occur in premium when the risk is hard to define. Of course insurance companies can be difficult to deal with, some do go broke, others can be unreasonable in settling claims but generally a lot of work goes into setting premiums.

----------


## Bedford

> The consequence was that staff either were encouraged or chose to stay and defend the building. Based on what I have heard through friends more connected than myself, those people are very, very lucky to have survived, and are likely to take years to get over the experience.

   https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=775905449543076 
Well what did they think was going to happen with the amount of scrub surrounding it?    https://www.mapworld.com.au/blogs/ne...angaroo-island 
Seems to me there was a failure in compliance with the* Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, https://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/services/fire*   

> Kangaroo Island Council is again asking property holders to be proactive  with their bushﬁre compliance activities as required under the *Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005* to prevent ﬁre from spreading from their property.  A copy of the Fire and Emergency Services Act can be found here.

----------


## Moondog55

They had 2 million litres of dedicated fire fighting water and a Heavy Duty sprinkler system and that wasn't enough, I would have thought that they were compliant given the environmental constraints on clearing the bush, in a normal fire 3 metres should have worked. We have already acknowledged that these fires were abnormal

----------


## phild01

> in a normal fire 3 metres should have worked.

  That's what our council allows but is far from safe with the trees in my area. I briefly had a 10m fire zone leeway until that was taken away because greenie councils don't care much about property and life. Three metres is nothing where you are surrounded by shrub and trees.

----------


## Moondog55

Hard to get good clearance when the trees are 70mTall but the recommendation is tree height * 1.5

----------


## John2b

> I briefly had a 10m fire zone leeway until that was taken away because greenie councils don't care much about property and life.

  Big fires create their own wind and weather. I heard reports of people evacuating in cars being overtaken by the fire-front as they drove here on Kangaroo Island. If they were doing 60 kph, the fire-front must have been doing more than 17m per second. And there are reports of embers lighting fires up to 3 kilometres ahead of the front. Unless someone is there with serious hoses what would a 10 m break do? Even then 10m is not wide enough to stop people being killed by the radiant heat in the kind of fires we had here.

----------


## phild01

> Big fires create their own wind and weather. I heard reports of people evacuating in cars being overtaken by the fire-front as they drove here on Kangaroo Island. If they were doing 60 kph, the fire-front must have been doing more than 17m per second. And there are reports of embers lighting fires up to 3 kilometres ahead of the front. Unless someone is there with serious hoses what would a 10 m break do? Even then it is not wide enough to stop people being killed by the radiant heat in the kind of fires we had here.

  You keep assuming a scenario of high wind fire. Do you really think fire clearances are a waste of time!

----------


## John2b

> You keep assuming a scenario of high wind fire. Do you really think fire clearances are a waste of time!

  Where did I say that fire clearances are a waste of time? And if as you claim I believe they are a waste of time why have I cleared around my own place as I posted here: #557 
My posts are about the _recent_ fires on K.I. as I keep stipulating. 
It quite apparent that cleared space around a property makes it more defensible in typical fires. These fires are atypical and rule of thumb advice is meaningless under the circumstances.

----------


## John2b

> Hard to get good clearance when the trees are 70mTall but the recommendation is tree height * 1.5

  There were no trees in the bush around the Southern Ocean Lodge, only heath typically less than 1 metre high. Shrubs to 2 metres high start about 100 metres back behind the lodge.

----------


## PhilT2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA 
A bit long but a touch more informative than a Patrick Moore interview

----------


## toooldforthis

> That's what our council allows but is far from safe with the trees in my area. I briefly had a 10m fire zone leeway until that was taken away because greenie councils don't care much about property and life. Three metres is nothing where you are surrounded by shrub and trees.

  sry, where does the 3m come from - are you talking about fire breaks on your boundary? 
APZ for KI according to the doc posted above is 20m.
as is my shire posted bacl on page 1 of this thread https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...6/#post1100600

----------


## phild01

> Where did I say that fire clearances are a waste of time?

  Seems a fairly dismissive statement!   

> Unless someone is there with serious hoses what would a 10 m break do?

   I took that as a response to the comment I made that greenie councils took my 10m clearance away.

----------


## phild01

> sry, where does the 3m come from - are you talking about fire breaks on your boundary? 
> APZ for KI according to the doc posted above is 20m.
> as is my shire posted bacl on page 1 of this thread https://www.renovateforum.com/f188/f...6/#post1100600

  Mine is a suburban block that adjoins a fire rated zone. For a while, councils were overruled by the NSW Rural Fire Service for tree removal and I was allowed to remove trees within 10m of my house. Councils came back at that and I am back to the 3m tree removal rule.

----------


## Marc

> Mine is a suburban block that adjoins a fire rated zone. For a while, councils were overruled by the NSW Rural Fire Service for tree removal and I was allowed to remove trees within 10m of my house. Councils came back at that and I am back to the 3m tree removal rule.

  Don't worry Phil ... the greenies will push Morrison to increase the number of windmills and pedal driven generators and then by magic, the (bad) CO2 will drop to the basement and in a matter of days  we will have summers of 18C average and never a bushfire again, so we can let the fuel accumulate for the worms and the snake to thrive.  
Green coloured glasses are such a beautiful thing!

----------


## John2b

> Seems a fairly dismissive statement!

  I try to qualify my posts and apologies if I don't always get that right, but yes there has been a few dismissive statements in the thread. Here's a sampling of the last couple of days (with no claim the selection is unbiased, complete or representative, I've just picked some obvious ones):  "Single use bags" was a huge falicy!  I am sick of listening to assorted morons who blame me from their lounge, for their pathetic dream falling short.  As for the puritans and those dressed in white living in SA, Tasmania and Nepal, I am sure they line their garbage bin with the local newspaper and poop in a hole in the backyard.  only a career pontificating bureaucrat could dredge up that much useless information & if if the whole nation didn't notice , isn't working  The greens are terrorist.  Most of his statements are so vague they're meaningless.  You seem a little confused John…….  The extent of the doctrine-induced idiocy is incommensurable.  Well what did they think was going to happen with the amount of scrub surrounding it? 
Edit: I inadvertently left this one out - Unless someone is there with serious hoses what would a 10 m break do?

----------


## Bros

Will we learn anything from this? I doubt it if the past is anything to go by. 
I will quote a few things from Queensland  
In 1974 there was a major flood in Brisbane the likes of which hadn't been experience for over 70 yrs but over time it was forgotten as everyone put faith in the building of the Wivenhoe dam and building resumed in flood prone areas. 2010 came along and sure enough there was major floods again which was then blamed on the Wivenhoe dam operation which could have been partly true but they had two major rivers flooded together which no one expected. 
I had a friend who used to tell me how good Bundaberg was and I said to him that when I was young I used to read about floods in Bundaberg and he said no way that could happen again with the number of dams on the rivers. Come 2010 it happened again. 
So will the same story we have heard here be told in 20 or 30 yrs time, I think so

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So will the same story we have heard here be told in 20 or 30 yrs time, I think so

  Sooner than that... mainly because I remember the knuckle@@@@ery out of Black Saturday

----------


## PhilT2

> 2010 came along and sure enough there was major floods again which was then blamed on the Wivenhoe dam operation which could have been partly true but they had two major rivers flooded together which no one expected.

  Brisbane residents won their class action against the dam operators.

----------


## Bros

> Brisbane residents won their class action against the dam operators.

  Have to wait for the appeal yet.

----------


## PhilT2

> Have to wait for the appeal yet.

  Govt not appealing (in more ways than one) https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...12-p53jio.html

----------


## John2b

> Will we learn anything from this? I doubt it if the past is anything to go by.
> So will the same story we have heard here be told in 20 or 30 yrs time, I think so

  I think next year, but hopefully we will learn to ignore the shouters who criticise the 'assorted morons' who said the rivers would run dry (which they have) and claim that desalination plants are white elephants (of which more are desperately needed), etc, etc.

----------


## Bros

> Govt not appealing (in more ways than one) https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...12-p53jio.html

   I thought SEQ water was considering appealing.

----------


## John2b

> You keep assuming a scenario of high wind fire.

   I am not assuming anything. Fires create their own weather.  *Fire clouds: The phenomenon in which fires effectively create their own weather* https://7news.com.au/weather/fire-cl...ther--c-648731

----------


## r3nov8or

> I try to qualify my posts and apologies if I don't always get that right, but yes there has been a few dismissive statements in the thread. Here's a sampling of the last couple of days (with no claim the selection is unbiased, complete or representative, I've just picked some obvious ones):  "Single use bags" was a huge falicy!  I am sick of listening to assorted morons who blame me from their lounge, for their pathetic dream falling short.  As for the puritans and those dressed in white living in SA, Tasmania and Nepal, I am sure they line their garbage bin with the local newspaper and poop in a hole in the backyard.  only a career pontificating bureaucrat could dredge up that much useless information & if if the whole nation didn't notice , isn't working  The greens are terrorist.  Most of his statements are so vague they're meaningless.  You seem a little confused John…….  The extent of the doctrine-induced idiocy is incommensurable.  Well what did they think was going to happen with the amount of scrub surrounding it? 
> Edit: I inadvertently left this one out - Unless someone is there with serious hoses what would a 10 m break do?

  Yay, I made the list

----------


## phild01

> I am not assuming anything. Fires create their own weather.  *Fire clouds: The phenomenon in which fires effectively create their own weather*

  Okay then, I will now assume every fire will create it's own disastrous weather conditions. 
 You seem to reference the most catastrophic event through this thread. The thread is about fires of any descript and for me, the best way to deal with them is early. Clearly our early warning systems are inadequate, can this be improved with better and more widespread visual and thermal monitoring!

----------


## PhilT2

> I thought SEQ water was considering appealing.

  This is an election year, they'll be told not to. Just my opinion.

----------


## John2b

> The thread is about fires of any descript

  Did you read the initiating post? #1 It reads very much in the here and now of the current fires. I am referencing the current catastrophic event, and I think I have made that clear in my posts. 
There seems to be a narrative that: if only people had cleared their blocks; if only the guvmint had allowed a few million hectares of 'hazard reduction'; if only people hadn't built houses in 'the bush'; then these fires would have been trivial. 
In fact if only there hadn't been a drought, if only the the ground wasn't bone dry, if only the fuel wasn't hot and tinder dry, if only there wasn't dry lightening, if only the air humidity was normal or the temperature was wasn't extreme, then the fires would have been manageable, at least to the extent they were in past decades.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Clearly our early warning systems are inadequate, can this be improved with better and more widespread visual and thermal monitoring!

  Not necessarily. In our area...we often get a rough idea of where the fires are quite early one. The biggest issue is being able to muster a crew of the right skills and experience and the right resources to get them where they need to be as soon as is possible. 
And here's the rub. Does the average Joe & Josephine in Big Smoke, Australia want to contribute sufficient taxation dollars each year to pay for skilled people to sit there on the public purse waiting for the odd year when those skills might be called for? History in my experience says nuck fo. People want less tax and smaller government and seem blissfully unaware of the things that desision trades away... 
Go back thirty years...we sacked all the foresters because pine was cheaper and native hardwood was too slow to grow and on the nose with the public. Forestry didn't want the unviable land on their books so it was transfered to national parks to deal with... except the management budget didn't get transferred. That went to efficiency dividends and budget surpluses and the like. No money. No skills. No time. 
We reap what we sow....it's an oversimplification for sure. However, no-one is going to want to wear the actual costs of managing public lands in accordance with actual public expectations (as random as they actually are)...the political costs would be just suicidal. 
It's not dissimilar to the idea of charging people in our cities and towns for the true cost of water delivery, treatment and disposal services.... 
In the end, monitoring costs money. A lot of money. And then there's all the things that hang off that. In the end...ask yourself...how badly do you need to know and what is your actual capacity to do something meaningful about it when you find out? We actually do pretty well at the moment but are sometimes rather stretched in the response... certainly so this year...but will that be every year? And can you afford it if it isn't?

----------


## phild01

> And here's the rub. Does the average Joe & Josephine in Big Smoke, Australia want to contribute sufficient taxation dollars each year to pay for skilled people to sit there on the public purse waiting for the odd year when those skills might be called for?

  Maybe I am being naive but surely surveillance  technology solutions are available that can alert a single alert centre to deploy an airborne bucket of water.

----------


## phild01

> Did you read the initiating post? #1 It reads very much in the here and now of the current fires. I am referencing the current catastrophic event, and I think I have made that clear in my posts.

   Yes I did, and as I recollect that post preceded the massive out of control bushfire event we have just experienced.

----------


## craka

> I am not assuming anything. Fires create their own weather.  *Fire clouds: The phenomenon in which fires effectively create their own weather*   https://7news.com.au/weather/fire-cl...ther--c-648731

  
True happens in high intensity fires.     Had the scrub had a burn in recent times, the intensity wouldn't have had been what it was.   That's why doing only doing very small infrequent burns do not work, and to fire breaks etc are limited in the effectiveness in a high intensity fire where embers and fireballs become airborne and move a large distance.

----------


## Marc

Craka, you missed the main message ... mate!
The solution to bushfires is in increasing renewable energy in Australia. When Australia scraps all coal fired stations and drives only electric cars, if all become vegetarians, then and only then, the weather will change, bushfires will become as mild as a summer day and passing gas will be with no odor. 
Come on mate, get up to speed!

----------


## r3nov8or

> Yes I did, and as I recollect that post preceded the massive out of control bushfire event we have just experienced.

  Yeah, it wasn't 'big' then, just a few spot fires, what could go wrong, and ScoMo had just confirmed his holiday plans  :Smilie:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> True happens in high intensity fires.     Had the scrub had a burn in recent times, the intensity wouldn't have had been what it was.   That's why doing only doing very small infrequent burns do not work, and to fire breaks etc are limited in the effectiveness in a high intensity fire where embers and fireballs become airborne and move a large distance.

  in the case of these fires, many have been burning for many weeks - presumably the idea of containments etc is so you can gain control on the days that the weather conditions favour the firefighters and potentially extinguish the blaze completely. 
the catastrophic days this year i personally feel have been over done , and id prefer that NSW take on Victorias coding system.  Using an adjective as a noun has done nothing but create confusion and expectation instead of planning and action.  Second the couple of terrible vents we have had in the past were not on days like we have labelled as catastrophic this year.  my area got that label on a number of days, and really only one of them had very high winds. 
the fires that create their own weather are very much extreme and rare - the canberra fires are the only ones i remember that had that real peculiarity  - ash wednsaday, and black saturday were born of extremly windy days.

----------


## John2b

Wind is only one criteria that determines if weather is likely to bring catastrophic risk of bushfire; others are soil moisture content, fuel moisture content and temperature, air moisture content and temperature, etc. 
The fire risk determination takes all of these into consideration. Falling annual rainfall and rising annual temperature profiles of southeastern Australia are conflating to increase the number of catastrophic fire risk days each fire season - this is not speculation but revealed by fire risk index data records. Whether catastrophic risk days end up in a catastrophic fires is a matter for fate, but as the dice is rolled more frequently so the number 6 comes up more frequently. More fires can be expected to be catastrophic and to make matters worse even create their own fire enhancing weather. From BOM: 
"... there has recently been a number of devastating fire events in Australia associated with extreme pyroconvection (including thunderstorm development in a fire plume), with recent research indicating a long-term trend towards increased risk factors associated with pyroconvection in southeast Australia. Bushfire weather conditions in future years are projected to increase in severity for many regions of Australasia, including due to more extreme heat events, with the rate and magnitude of change increasing ..."

----------


## toooldforthis

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...zones/11851884   

> "Over 90 per cent of our building stock is not built to bushfire building standards," she said.

   

> "After the royal commission, the Victorian Building Authority accredited some private *bunkers*  so we know that they're tested, they're safe [and] they're relatively inexpensive  they work out to be $2,500 per person, so that could be a good option," she said.

   

> While the Great Southern Lodge was built in 2009, before the lessons of Black Saturday, it was designed to withstand a fire. The building had a *sprinkler* system around the perimeter of each building with jets under the window eaves.The system meant the lodge had hundreds of thousands of litres of water dedicated to bushfire prevention. On the day the building was severely damaged by fire, that system was activated.

   

> Mr Georgiev said watching the force of the fire, both on the building and the natural environment, galvanised his view that the building codes have been *misguided*.

----------


## Bros

In 2018 when I was in Dunedin I was talking to a bloke selling flowers and he said his son lived in Christchurch during the earthquake and his wife said I can't stand living here now so they moved to Queensland.  
This is a bit like the person in this media story. 
Never knew about the buyback as we don't get that sort of info in Queensland as it doesn't affect us to any great degree but it makes sense that some properties cannot be made fire proof.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...zones/11851884

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Maybe I am being naive but surely surveillance  technology solutions are available that can alert a single alert centre to deploy an airborne bucket of water.

  Yeah there are...that's not the issue. The issue is the processes required to get that flying bucket of water along with the practical and resource constraints that conspire against the process. 
Besides... aerial bombardment of even a small fire rarely puts it completely out. In virtually every circumstance, a crew has to be mustered to go in and do that job. 
NSW NPWS lost a fire in a remote part of Mt. Kaputar near Narrabri late last year largely because of this issue. They knew where the fire was but they didn't have the available resources to get crews to the fireground safely and quickly nor did they have immediate access to aerial support...in the hours it took to organise all that...it got away.

----------


## John2b

When the fire has become pyroclastic water bombers can't fly over it, which prevented a retardant drop on Southern Ocean Lodge. There's a write up in the local weekend mag.

----------


## intertd6

Here's a blast from the past, check out the lame reasons to not burn off the bush off regularly  https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/b...t-burn-118187/
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There were no trees in the bush around the Southern Ocean Lodge, only heath typically less than 1 metre high. Shrubs to 2 metres high start about 100 metres back behind the lodge.

  there should have been no heath or vegetation for 30 meters around that building, I'd wager the designers used every loop hole there was to get the vegetation as close as they could to the building. 
Inter

----------


## Bros

> Here's a blast from the past, check out the lame reasons to not burn off the bush off regularly  https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/b...t-burn-118187/
> inter

   Let it stay in the past.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Let it stay in the past.

  RIP ringtail - he was a great contributor to this site.

----------


## intertd6

> Let it stay in the past.

  Its a bit hard to sweep 18.5 million hectares of fire devastation under the carpet, shining a light on the culprits where ever possible may get some change for the better happening .
inter

----------


## DavoSyd

> Its a bit hard to sweep 18.5 million hectares of fire devastation under the carpet, shining a light on the culprits where ever possible may get some change for the better happening .
> inter

  We must reject the perennial prophets of doom. 
This is not a time for pessimism. This is a time for optimism

----------


## Marc

> We must reject the perennial prophets of doom. 
> This is not a time for pessimism. This is a time for optimism

  What an empty and irresponsible comment.
This is on the same line as dismissing the massive percentage of fires started by human hands, that later get a slap on the wrist by the judiciary who also is full of sh ... I mean optimism. 
Regular burning and clearing, and stiff sentences to arsonist would go a long way to prevent the severity of fires. Furthermore the link between climate change and disasters does not exist, and pushing that line is pathetic even when expected from the climate change cheerleaders. You guys would find a link between climate change and constipation, baldness and ear wax.

----------


## Bedford



----------


## pharmaboy2

went for a ride in the bush last night - came to a spot that in the past is a bit like rainforest - cant see where the trail goes - almost like a tunnel.  Last night i could see right through, maybe 100m or so.  in20 years of riding that spot that has never occurred - almost like someone had sprayed  weedkiller through there.   all of that scrub was now a foot deep of dry litter on the ground - quite sureal. 
pretty easy to see how dry things are when trees are just dropping branches and leaves everywhere.

----------


## DavoSyd

> What an empty and irresponsible comment.

  You choose to respond to a Donald Trump quote but ignore one about ringtail - a former Renovate Forum quality contributor that left this site due to the dominant far-right cabal?  
Just shows how culpable you are for this site's demise.

----------


## Marc

So you plagiarised Donald Trump? Should have said so rather than posting as your own wise words. 
Donald Trump last time I checked does not live in NSW nor is he talking much about our bush fires. 
That post, for all intents and purposes is your saying. THe same sentence in DT context is perfectly valid with all the rabid lefties that prefer to sink the country in chaos as long as they can get him. Mm ... not much difference here, isn't it. Perhaps I should have said that? 
"_The dominant far right cabal"_ Considering that 99% of threads have no political content, that fanatsy of yours even if it were true makes no difference.
As for this site dwindling members, you give me too much credit. 
Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps the recalcitrant lefty greeny members and their brain dead post have something to do with it?
Or perhaps it is global warming ... yes I think that people are leaving in drows due to global warming and sheltering in caves with no internet connection. 
It only takes me to make a comment on anything related to what pricks you guys, to get the usual suspects to post right after me and check in for the next month or so with rabid left wing harangues. No other topics in relation to renovations can be seen for those usual suspects.  
As for ringtail and his post? Didn't see any posts from ringtail or quotes for that matter. He left of his own volition like many do for personal issues. May be his coffee got stale.
A shame really. I used to enjoy his post because besides the very occasional political rant, he had good content for renovations and building, unlike the usual suspects, who pontificate on what they don't know with borrowed sentences.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps the recalcitrant lefty greeny members and their brain dead post have something to do with it?

  sounds like a personal attack on other forum members - I wonder if you will ever cop a ban for it? 
I doubt it...

----------


## Marc



----------


## DavoSyd

> 

  So accurate.

----------


## Bros

> You choose to respond to a Donald Trump quote

  Just wouldn't it have been great if you gave a reference to this quote.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Just wouldn't it have been great if you gave a reference to this quote.

  Maybe you could add such a requirement to the forum rules?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Just wouldn't it have been great if you gave a reference to this quote.

  And wouldn't it also be great if Marc's abusive anti-left veiws could be kept in check?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Maybe you could add such a requirement to the forum rules?

  Who ever read the rules  :Smilie: 
And shouldn't that be a "personal" rule, to acknowledge the words of others?   

> You

  can   

> put

  anything   

> in

  quotes   

> all

  by   

> yourself

----------


## Bros

> Just wouldn't it have been great if you gave a reference to this quote.

  It was meant for both of you.

----------


## Bros

> And wouldn't it also be great if Marc's abusive anti-left veiws could be kept in check?

  How do you know he is anti left, I have no idea he could be posting to stir the "lefties" up and he succeeded, so if you want to get in his sandpit so be it. 
Abusive posts are edited from all comers and as I said before we cannot watch every post all the time.

----------


## John2b

> How do you know he is anti left

   Have you read his posts?

----------


## Bros

> Have you read his posts?

  All the time.

----------


## John2b

> All the time.

   Seriously? How could you not be conscious of the animosity expressed to any view left of far right conservatism, which include centre-right and centre views?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Seriously? How could you not be conscious of the animosity expressed to any view left of far right conservatism, which include centre-right and centre views?

  You are punching at nothing, old mate. It's not a fight you can win nor does it have an audience that gives a toss. Let it go....

----------


## Bros

> Seriously? How could you not be conscious of the animosity expressed to any view left of far right conservatism, which include centre-right and centre views?

  I read what he says and your left view and I will not be joining either of your churches.

----------


## r3nov8or

> I read what he says and your left view and I will not be joining either of your churches.

  Somehow, between the lines, that's independent moderation at its finest  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> We must reject the perennial prophets of doom. 
> This is not a time for pessimism. This is a time for optimism

  and there you go trying to sweep it under the carpet with meaningless empty words, we need action not deflection from the truth of 50,000 years of human fire starting to make the bush more habitable & less prone to catastrophic fires from climatic influences, if you think these climatic conditions are a rarity you're kidding yourself , the bush that can burn needs to be burnt when ever possible & that's a minimum of once a year, when captain Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770 he noted that there was fires & smoke everywhere along the coastline, are you getting the picture yet?

----------


## Marc

The funniest part is that the left, who usually fights tooth and nail when it comes to welfare and aboriginal culture, when it is about milking more of our money (not theirs of course), throws them instantly under the bus because in their abysmal ignorance, the left thinks such practice conflicts with their inner city cafe late culture and alien ideological concepts of greenery. I think the greens should be re-baptised the browns.

----------


## Marc

To be fair to Davo and his borrowed quote from Donald Trump ... I completely agree with DT sentiment in that quote. 
On the opposite site, every dictator or aspiring totalitarian moron uses the same strategy. 
Fear. 
Just look at what the left is doing with our children scaring them stiff in primary school with stories of doom and end of the world scenarios with imaginary boogieman and assorted lies and fallacies.
The reality is very different. The fact is that we live in the best times in human history to be alive.  
Today is by far much better than yesterday and even more compared to the day before yesterday. What the media is doing with this bushfires is despicable, milking every sad story to the nth degree and showing misery and despair multiplied by a million as if that was the norm, and the only solution is suicide.
 There will always be sad stories, but the happy stories are way more abundant.  https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...me-to-be-alive

----------


## Bros

Not good if it is correct. I remember seeing a video of a C130 fire fighting and when it pulled up the wings fell off.  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...hfire/11893554

----------


## toooldforthis

> An independent analysis of the same data showed hazard reduction burning within national park boundaries increased 2.3 times — *more than double* — in the decade to 2018-19 compared with the preceding 10 years.The analysis also showed a *larger* area of national parkland was burned over the course of the decade than *in any preceding decade*

  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ction/11878316   

> Further, the numbers showed all prescribed burning covered by the NPWS data, including burns outside national park boundaries, also increased 1.9 times when comparing the two most recent 10-year periods.

----------


## PhilT2

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ction/11878316

  That makes the "greenies stopped the burnoffs" argument look a bit stupid, doesn't it.

----------


## r3nov8or

> That makes the "greenies stopped the burnoffs" argument look a bit stupid, doesn't it.

  Depends where they stopped it, doesn't it?

----------


## Bedford

> An independent analysis of the same data showed hazard reduction burning within national park boundaries increased 2.3 times  *more than double*  in the decade to 2018-19 compared with the preceding 10 years.The analysis also showed a *larger* area of national parkland was burned over the course of the decade than *in any preceding decade*

   

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...ction/11878316

  Question is though, how much of the  2018-19 "hazard reduction burning" area was burnt in this years fires, and what was the ferocity and impact compared with country that had been fuel reduced earlier, or not at all?

----------


## Marc

*
Green ideology, not climate change, makes bushfires worse*     Text to SpeechTwitter  LinkedIn Email  Share  Miranda Devine 
March 5, 2019
Melissa Price, the new federal Environment Minister, has done untold political damage to a government already divided over climate action by spouting idiotic green propaganda about Victoria’s bushfires.
On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.
The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes. Jinks Creek Winery was destroyed after a bushfire engulfed the Bunyip state forest. Picture: Stuart McEvoy / The AustralianThe ongoing poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria and green obstruction of fire mitigation strategies has led to dangerously high fuel loads over the past decade.
That means that when fires do inevitably break out they are so intense that they are devilishly difficult for firefighters to contain. As a federal parliamentary inquiry heard in 2003, if you quadruple the ground fuel, you get a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.
Locals know the truth. Andrew Clarke, owner of Jinks Creek Winery, which has been destroyed by a fire which raged out of the Bunyip State Forest, “begged” for fuel reduction burns to protect his property.
“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he told the ABC’s Country Hour.
Clarke said a planned burn-off was called off because of concerns about nesting birds.
So how did that work out for the birds? Hundreds of emergency workers have worked across Victoria throughout the week to bring fires under control. Picture: AAP / David CroslingJust three weeks ago, Victoria’s former chief fire officer Ewan Waller warned that state forest fuel loads were reaching deadly, Black Saturday levels. No one paid any attention.
But you can bet Premier Daniel Andrews will hide behind the climate change furphy.
Parroting green lies suits politicians because then they can avoid blame for their own culpability.
The Black Saturday Bushfire Royal Commission criticised the Victorian government for its failure to reduce fuel loads in state forests. It recommended more than doubling the amount of hazard reduction burns.
Instead, in the last three years, alone, the Andrews government has slashed the amount of public land being hazard reduced by almost two thirds.
It’s a crime.
The wonder is that the Morrison government is helping him with his alibi.   *Related Posts*   Don't blame fire crews or climate, it's FUEL The recent fires in Victoria were driven by big fuel loads, not by the weather. The fire danger index was a surprising low 16-20, but the high fuel loads resulted in predicted rates of spread of 0.5 kph and flame… Winery owner who 'begged' for fuel reduction burns loses everything in Bunyip fire The owner of a Tonimbuk winery destroyed by bushfire said his property might have been spared if only the Victorian Government had pursued a more active fuel reduction policy.﻿ Millions of tonnes of fuel ready to explode Firestick Estate sent a letter to the Prime Minister Mr Morrison on the 22nd February 2019. This is what they said: Upside Down Country I've heard Indigenous Australians talk about upside down country, with loads of foliage on the forest floor and not enough in the crown. The VFFA has been accused of being too political, but it may just take some political clout… Risk Management - Bushfire Context Risk management strategies are widely used by all people in the modern world and the hierarchy of controls has become standard practice. As fires are becoming larger, the risks associated with firefighting operations are also increasing. Aviation is being used… Adding FUEL to the Climate Change Debate They say that a picture is worth 1,000 words.Here are 3 pictures and a little more than 1,000 words that add some fuel to the climate change debate as published by the Sydney Morning Herald. Flashback, 1939: Sydney’s hottest day80… Regular Burning This video shows some country that is burned almost every year. Flame heights are low and the country looks great. If you let the scrub get up, the flame heights damage the environment. This is a simple formula for healthy… Sorry Mr Mullins - what about FUEL? It was disappointing to read the article by Greg Mullins that was published in the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday 20th Jan 2019. Mr Mullins is a well respected and long serving Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW. That respect was… Ex-FRNSW Fire Chief Joins Climate Crazies Greg Mullins’ dad told him about 1939 when “the sky seemed to be on fire every night”. John Mulligan lived through the Black Friday fires that burnt two million hectares of Victoria and killed 71 people. There were hundreds of… Land Management and Cool Burning In this video, the VFFA President and Shooters Fishers and Farmers candidate for Monaro, Mick Holton talks to Barry Aitchison about land management. Mick says that the NSW Government has failed to provide appropriate land management. The costs of this… Hot or Cool Burns (you choose) You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that hot fires must be avoided. We have to return to cool burning and other land management practices (including selected agricultural clearing and grazing) if we are going to…

----------


## Marc

*6.1 Introduction and scope*In the year ending 30 September 2016, Victoria Police recorded 4,480 arson offences across the state, an offence rate of 74.0 offences per 100,000 people in Victoria. In five years the number of arson offences has increased by 33.6 per cent, up from 3,354 offences in the year ending 30 September 2012. In the last five years the cost of damage due to arson offences exceeded $119 million, as recorded by Victoria Police members, with more than $19 million of this recorded in the last 12 months. Data for this spotlight has been extracted from the Victoria Police Law Enforcement Assistance Program on 18 October 2016 and reflects criminal offences and alleged offender incidents based on crime recorded by Victoria Police. The data covers a five year period from October 2011 to September 2016. Arson offences are defined as any offence recorded in LEAP that has been coded to the CSA offence classification category “B10 Arson”, and includes the following offence groups:  B11 Cause damage by fireB12 Cause a bushfireB19 Other fire related offences *6.2 Prevalence of arson offences*  *Oct 2013 – Sept 2014* *Oct 2014 – Sept 2015* *Oct 2015 – Sept 2016* *% change 2015 - 2016*  Number of arson offences 3,544 3,396 4,480 31.9%  Offence rate per 100,000 population 60.7 57.2 74.0 29.4%  Alleged offender incidents 1,065 1,068 1,397 30.8%  Offender incident rate per 100,000 population 18.2 18.0 23.1 28.3%     In the year ending 30 September 2016, there were 4,480 arson offences recorded. Cause damage by fire comprised 76.3 per cent of all arson offences, with Other fire related offences and Cause a bushfire offences making up 18.7 and 5.1 per cent respectively. *While Cause a bushfire offences only made up 5.1 per cent of all arson offences in the last 12 months, the number of these offences more than doubled compared to the same time last year, up 129.3 per cent from 99 to 227.* There were 1,397 alleged offender incidents with a principal offence of arson, an increase of 30.8 per cent (n=329). The offender incident rate per 100,000 people is 23.1, a 28.3 per cent increase compared to the same period last year.

----------


## Marc

SUBSCRIBE0items in Shortlis *Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made*   *Paul Read*  Contributor   There are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year. Only a very small number strike far from populated areas and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13 per cent. Not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and NSW. There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September. Although there have been since, these fires – joining up to create a new form of mega-fire – are almost all man-made.   About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ... The Hillville fire that destroyed homes last week. CREDIT:NICK MOIR A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-made. The cycles of the seasons are changing beyond that which can be explained by known forces, both ancient and modern. Every lethal wildfire since 1857 has happened at the height of summer. Until now. The size of these fires has never been seen in Australia's history this side of summer, and certainly not starting as early as September. Seasonal changes, in part due to climate change on top of natural oscillations causing the drought and westerly winds, have some origins in man-made emissions. More directly, however, the source of ignition is human.  Advertisement   It's not lost on police, emergency services and firefighters at the front line that most of these fires were lit deliberately, or accidentally through recklessness, nor that they are unprecedented in their timing and ferocity. Since September, it has been a constant pattern that a few days after the fires roar through we have the first police reports that arson or recklessness was involved. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *BUSHFIRES*   *Police say firebugs will be 'put before a court'*  Add to shortlist   The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male. The psychosexual pyromaniac has long been relegated to dusty tomes from 1904 to the1950s. At least among those caught, the profile emerges of an odd, unintelligent person from a chaotic family, marginalised at the fringes of society and deeply involved in many types of crime, not only fire. If I had to guess, I'd say about 10,000 arsonists lurk from the top of Queensland to the southern-most tip of Victoria, but not all are active and some light fires during winter. The most dangerous light fires on the hottest days, generally closer to communities and during other blazes, suggesting more malicious motives. Only a tiny minority will gaze with wonder at the destruction they have wrought, deeply fascinated and empowered. Others get caught up with the excitement of chaos and behave like impulsive idiots.   As for children, they are not always malicious. Children and youths follow the age-crime curve where delinquency peaks in their late teens. Fire is just one of many misbehaviours. The great majority grow out of it. Four overlapping subgroups include: accidental fire-play getting out of control; victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect; children with autism and developmental disorders; and conduct disorder from a younger age, which can be genuinely dangerous. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *CRIME*   *Police hospitalised after catching accused arsonist in the act*  Add to shortlist   Whereas the first three groups can be helped and stopped, the last is more problematic. These children are more likely to continue lighting fires for a lifetime, emerging as psychopaths in adulthood. This tends to match the finding that only 10 per cent of convicted arsonists will go on to light fires again after prison. They are the recidivists, more fascinated by fire, more prone to giving in to dangerous urges when in crisis, more impulsive, less empathic – the hallmarks of a psychopath. Some research suggests only a very small percentage of arsonists are ever caught, which has several implications.
One is that we have a biased profile of who they really are. Whereas the children and the dopey get caught, the more cunning would be less represented in our samples. More ominous, many more than 10,000 arsonists might be active. One of the few prospective studies of almost 3000 fire lighters in South Australia alone found as many as 14 per cent of people in a community sample lit fires. This level is much higher than actual convictions would suggest. Further to this, community sampling suggests females represent 20 per cent of those fire lighters, even though convictions of females are only half this figure. If this trend continues into adulthood, it suggests we have a biased view of the typical arsonist to begin with.   Those we haven't caught yet are still hiding, but we know enough to recognise them and, one day, maybe stop them. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *BUSHFIRES*   *In the path of disaster: The big causes of bushfires that most of us are missing*  Add to shortlist   In the thick of a deadly crisis, it beggars belief that some people would seek to make it worse. But we should be careful who we demonise. Not all children mean to do harm. Careful handling of them will reduce, not exacerbate, their problems and allow caregivers to refer them before the first match is struck. Emergency services and communities on the front line will shine a light on the very best of humanity; others will disgrace themselves through idiocy or malice. Amid the chaos of confronting fires, the psychopath forever looms – not only the criminals who light fires in the forests and grasslands but perhaps also, figuratively, the people who profit from planetary destruction and ignore the urgent warnings of 23 emergency commissioners to prepare. When the flames abate, we can have a sensible national dialogue about the prevention of wildfires, handling arson, and maybe even climate change.   Paul Read is an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Question is though, how much of the  2018-19 "hazard reduction burning" area was burnt in this years fires, and what was the ferocity and impact compared with country that had been fuel reduced earlier, or not at all?

  On the northern tablelands...it made sixth fifths of sod all difference. 
The problem with the NSW data is that the hazard reduction burning is not risk based...it's area based.  
Though must burn however many hectares for this much coin because that's what is in the contract. The masters don't care where or why...just how much. 
So what often gets burned is what can be burned when the opportunity arises not necessarily what actually needs to be burned but can't be because it's too dangerous or there's insufficient resources  or not a long enough weather window or some poor city dipstick is going to die of smoke inhalation etcetera etcetera.. 
The contract is purely about hectares... perhaps someone should read the contract?

----------


## intertd6

> That makes the "greenies stopped the burnoffs" argument look a bit stupid, doesn't it.

  Burning 3/5ths of SFA every decade doesn't amount to anything, but they sure know how to spin it so the witless think it's great.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> SUBSCRIBE0items in Shortlis *Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made*   *Paul Read*  Contributor   There are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year. Only a very small number strike far from populated areas and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13 per cent. Not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and NSW. There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September. Although there have been since, these fires – joining up to create a new form of mega-fire – are almost all man-made.   About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ... The Hillville fire that destroyed homes last week. CREDIT:NICK MOIR A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-made. The cycles of the seasons are changing beyond that which can be explained by known forces, both ancient and modern. Every lethal wildfire since 1857 has happened at the height of summer. Until now. The size of these fires has never been seen in Australia's history this side of summer, and certainly not starting as early as September. Seasonal changes, in part due to climate change on top of natural oscillations causing the drought and westerly winds, have some origins in man-made emissions. More directly, however, the source of ignition is human.  Advertisement   It's not lost on police, emergency services and firefighters at the front line that most of these fires were lit deliberately, or accidentally through recklessness, nor that they are unprecedented in their timing and ferocity. Since September, it has been a constant pattern that a few days after the fires roar through we have the first police reports that arson or recklessness was involved. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *BUSHFIRES*   *Police say firebugs will be 'put before a court'*  Add to shortlist   The mix of people lighting fires always follow the same age and gender profiles: whether accidental or deliberate, half are children, a minority elderly, and the most dangerous are those aged between 30 and 60. Ninety per cent are male. The psychosexual pyromaniac has long been relegated to dusty tomes from 1904 to the1950s. At least among those caught, the profile emerges of an odd, unintelligent person from a chaotic family, marginalised at the fringes of society and deeply involved in many types of crime, not only fire. If I had to guess, I'd say about 10,000 arsonists lurk from the top of Queensland to the southern-most tip of Victoria, but not all are active and some light fires during winter. The most dangerous light fires on the hottest days, generally closer to communities and during other blazes, suggesting more malicious motives. Only a tiny minority will gaze with wonder at the destruction they have wrought, deeply fascinated and empowered. Others get caught up with the excitement of chaos and behave like impulsive idiots.   As for children, they are not always malicious. Children and youths follow the age-crime curve where delinquency peaks in their late teens. Fire is just one of many misbehaviours. The great majority grow out of it. Four overlapping subgroups include: accidental fire-play getting out of control; victims of child abuse – including sexual abuse – and neglect; children with autism and developmental disorders; and conduct disorder from a younger age, which can be genuinely dangerous. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *CRIME*   *Police hospitalised after catching accused arsonist in the act*  Add to shortlist   Whereas the first three groups can be helped and stopped, the last is more problematic. These children are more likely to continue lighting fires for a lifetime, emerging as psychopaths in adulthood. This tends to match the finding that only 10 per cent of convicted arsonists will go on to light fires again after prison. They are the recidivists, more fascinated by fire, more prone to giving in to dangerous urges when in crisis, more impulsive, less empathic – the hallmarks of a psychopath. Some research suggests only a very small percentage of arsonists are ever caught, which has several implications.
> One is that we have a biased profile of who they really are. Whereas the children and the dopey get caught, the more cunning would be less represented in our samples. More ominous, many more than 10,000 arsonists might be active. One of the few prospective studies of almost 3000 fire lighters in South Australia alone found as many as 14 per cent of people in a community sample lit fires. This level is much higher than actual convictions would suggest. Further to this, community sampling suggests females represent 20 per cent of those fire lighters, even though convictions of females are only half this figure. If this trend continues into adulthood, it suggests we have a biased view of the typical arsonist to begin with.   Those we haven't caught yet are still hiding, but we know enough to recognise them and, one day, maybe stop them. *RELATED ARTICLE*    *BUSHFIRES*   *In the path of disaster: The big causes of bushfires that most of us are missing*  Add to shortlist   In the thick of a deadly crisis, it beggars belief that some people would seek to make it worse. But we should be careful who we demonise. Not all children mean to do harm. Careful handling of them will reduce, not exacerbate, their problems and allow caregivers to refer them before the first match is struck. Emergency services and communities on the front line will shine a light on the very best of humanity; others will disgrace themselves through idiocy or malice. Amid the chaos of confronting fires, the psychopath forever looms – not only the criminals who light fires in the forests and grasslands but perhaps also, figuratively, the people who profit from planetary destruction and ignore the urgent warnings of 23 emergency commissioners to prepare. When the flames abate, we can have a sensible national dialogue about the prevention of wildfires, handling arson, and maybe even climate change.   Paul Read is an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University.

  All but one of the major fires here that burned out over a million hectares were all started by lightning strikes.
inter

----------


## pharmaboy2

> All but one of the major fires here that burned out over a million hectares were all started by lightning strikes.
> inter

  and if you look at numbers of fires versus total  - in QLD the only state with good stats that are uptodate - its a bit over 10% of fires by volume - they dont often get too big because they tend to be started very close to suburbia

----------


## Marc

The RFS and FRNSW members and the crime statistics say arson is the major cause of bushfires.
The armchair internet experts say it is not. 
In depth studies trying to find a link between so called climate change and bushfires, filed to find it, this from academics who "believe" in climate change. 
On the other hand, the army of politically motivated_ (deleted)_ who see an opportunity to advance their political agenda, run around in circles with the arms pointing at the sky, screaming "we must do something, we must do something", in front of their favourite coffee shop ... (super glue bottle securely tucked in their pants, _ (deleted)_) 
But I do agree with the agitators that we must do something. We must expose criminals of all descriptions, and spreading misinformation for alien political reasons is a crime.

----------


## Bros

I have seen a number of reports referring to the fact that in the past the indigenous people regularly burnt the land and for access to food but as this has been passed down we know the old party trick about passing messages and how it can be changed in the telling. 
We don’t know if this is correct or were they ancient arsonists who like lighting fires. Fires are mesmerising to a lot of people just see what happens camping the first thing is to light a fire and sit around it. 
So we have no idea weather their burning was good or bad for the environment.

----------


## Marc

It is not a question of good or bad for the environment. 
It is a question of what do we do, to make life for humans possible in this land. We can not revert history, we can not all go back to england on a sailing ship.  
We are here to stay and we must find a way to do so safely. Following what others have found to work seems the logical way. The aborigines knew it and we know it.  
Staying out of harm way by limiting "development" in the bush, done purely to prop up income for councils seems sensible.
Limiting our numbers growth with a moratorium on immigration seems like a logical position. 
So it is a matter of priorities. Do we burn regularly every year or twice a year to be able to coexist with the lizards and the birds? 
Or do we give priority to the lizards and vacate the land?
We can't have it both ways 
And don't even get me started on the circus of the donations and the pathetic fight over the millions, the "administrative charges" and the rest of the disturbing saga. And why do we need donations anyway? After paying over 40% tax it is still necessary to donate? Don't people have insurance?

----------


## phild01

> And don't even get me started on the circus of the donations and the pathetic fight over the millions, the "administrative charges" and the rest of the disturbing saga. And why do we need donations anyway? After paying over 40% tax it is still necessary to donate?

  Yep we do but I guess we can't trust anyone to get the money where it is needed. I am tired of the parasitic companies that take the money for their own benefit and call it administration and future disaster relief funding. For me I think priority is for lost business and animal rehabilitation.
All the time the charitable organisations want you to believe the money you give goes to the cause they present as in need.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The RFS and FRNSW members and the crime statistics say arson is the major cause of bushfires.
> .

  notice that there is never any supporting data for the claim - funny that.   https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab059 
13% again - remarkably consistent that 10% number for percentage of fires deliberately lit  - note i dont take the ABC's view that they should be quoting hectares burnt in this specific year - which underplays it.  Accidental is THE major cause if we were to be actually truthful

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Yep we do but I guess we can't trust anyone to get the money where it is needed. I am tired of the parasitic companies that take the money for their own benefit and call it administration and future disaster relief funding. For me I think priority is for lost business and animal rehabilitation.
> All the time the charitable organisations want you to believe the money you give goes to the cause they present as in need.

  the red cross got a bollicking the other day, and they are actually one of the better ones at 10% through to 20% depending on ditribution - i always ask for percentage delivered and dont give to someone who cant answer the question or say 100%. 
the real crime is the $70m given to the RFS who cannot do anything with it except by new shiny trucks - a world of stupid people who dont ask enough questions before they raise millions

----------


## toooldforthis

> notice that there is never any supporting data for the claim - funny that.   https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab059 
> 13% again - remarkably consistent that 10% number for percentage of fires deliberately lit  - note i dont take the ABC's view that they should be quoting hectares burnt in this specific year - which underplays it.  Accidental is THE major cause if we were to be actually truthful

  report says 13% arson and 37% suspicious = 50% in my book. 
stats I have seen here on WA are 20% arson, 20% suspicious, 40% accidental, 20% nature.

----------


## phild01

> - i always ask for percentage delivered and dont give to someone who cant answer the question or say 100%.

  No use asking that question at all. If they say 100% you will find that is not true. For example when I inquired about Apple Marketing who act on behalf of charities, the collector will say 100%, but the organisation being collected for will not disclose the payment agreement they have with Apple outside the collection process. The collector gets paid and the organisation slides Apple an arranged amount likely worded around collected amount.

----------


## Marc

The street collector keep 50% as a typical figure. Less than that it would not be worth his while. 
 The organisation they collect for, keeps from 10 to 70 % for administration. Some organisations typically churches, state that the administration costs are covered by the church and therefore 100% goes to the cause. I know that to be the case with the Baptist Union. 
Not for profit and charities are an industry that flies under the radar most of the time and we trust them to do the right thing. Sometimes, when a struggling unknown entity suddenly receives hundreds of millions unsolicited, obviously there will be big problems. 
As for the RFS not knowing what to do with the money that is an unladylike, ill conceived and dotish statement.

----------


## Bedford

> On the northern tablelands...it made sixth fifths of sod all difference.

  Why was that?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why was that?

  From what I'm told...it either ran straight through because there was still enough fuel. Or it simply spotted over. Actually, the area around Drake burnt the previous year during a bush fire...and a lot of that ground burnt this year which is no mean feat in a drought. 
There were times there where fire leapt entire valleys or more because they'd hit the ridge, crown and embers would sail over the valley onto the next downslope. 
I'm told that it created no end of grief in the incident control room...not to mention on the ground. 
In the end...it's bloody hard to do hazard reduction on a million hectares of bushland each and every year. It's no wonder it doesn't happen....

----------


## intertd6

> and if you look at numbers of fires versus total  - in QLD the only state with good stats that are uptodate - its a bit over 10% of fires by volume - they dont often get too big because they tend to be started very close to suburbia

  3 separate fires were started by lightning strikes within 5km of where I live, luckily enough they were controlled by water bombing from the air.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I have seen a number of reports referring to the fact that in the past the indigenous people regularly burnt the land and for access to food but as this has been passed down we know the old party trick about passing messages and how it can be changed in the telling. 
> We don’t know if this is correct or were they ancient arsonists who like lighting fires. Fires are mesmerising to a lot of people just see what happens camping the first thing is to light a fire and sit around it. 
> So we have no idea weather their burning was good or bad for the environment.

  The practice has been confirmed and dated by archeologists all over this country, lighting fires is an easy way to get a quick feed, if you have ever burned off you would know what runs crawls & slithers out of the grass, when I lived in a remote aboriginal community & gone out in the bush with them, it wouldn't be 10 minutes from stopping before they had lit the bush up, they'd say " dat dere bush needs burning" 
inter

----------


## UseByDate

> 

  “Humour is a patriarchal construct” - Titania McGrath   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5N8ibiR9o0

----------


## Marc

That was hilarious  :Rofl5:

----------


## Marc

*
As California fire disasters worsen, insurers are pulling out and stranding homeowners.   https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...830-story.html*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *
> As California fire disasters worsen, insurers are pulling out and stranding homeowners.   https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...830-story.html*

  That will, for sure and certain, be a situation that is replicated here. And it will be interesting to see how the repercussions play out... 
In our own situation though, this house has been here over 30 years and directly faced two fire events in that time. And despite no help from the builder (in terms of design and construction) nor the previous owners (in terms of landscape management) it actually managed to survive them unscathed. However, I'm not sure how that translates into actuarial risk...

----------


## Bros

> However, I'm not sure how that translates into actuarial risk...

  Be interesting to know how they do it as with flood insurance it was an across the board increase and everyone had to pay. When you apply for insurance the information they require is small and that with the postcode determines the premium.

----------


## toooldforthis

> Be interesting to know how they do it as with flood insurance it was an across the board increase and everyone had to pay. When you apply for insurance the information they require is small and that with the postcode determines the premium.

  think it is just postcode here in WA as well. 
tho, looking at the mapping provided by my local council, they use IntraMaps (think they used to use NearMaps?), anyway they now have Fire Hazard Level overlay so you can see a rating for each block/house. In my area they only have Extreme and Moderate ratings - the boundaries of which seem to be more topographical than actual block boundaries. The levels assigned are pretty wrong imho - knowing some of the properties and their BAL assessments as well as their location I would be swapping the Extreme and Moderate for a lot of the houses. 
Can't see why the insurers won't insist on owners supplying a BAL assessment for the block and an assessment of what BAL standard the house is built to.
Might even start with provision at change of ownership, a bit like the way they introduced RCD and Smoke alarm regs?

----------


## John2b

> In the end...it's bloody hard to do hazard reduction on a million hectares of bushland each and every year. It's no wonder it doesn't happen....

  Such short memories from the burners. Only a couple of months ago Sydney-siders were inundated with smoke and pollution from the hazard reduction burns of a tiny, tiny % of the area that would need to be burned every year to make even a slight difference to future bushfire risk.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Be interesting to know how they do it as with flood insurance it was an across the board increase and everyone had to pay. When you apply for insurance the information they require is small and that with the postcode determines the premium.

  The issue with actuarial risk is that its pretty much based on the lifetime of the policy. So, in that case, what is the likelihood and consequence of a bush fire impacting on the insured property during a given calendar year? 
When push comes to shove... Australia is one of the most urbanised populations on the planet. So the actual proportion of the population living at the interface between bushland and housing is quite small.  
The current season is something of a tell of that...massive areas burnt...but 'only' a couple of thousand houses damaged or destroyed. No matter how dreadful this number is...as a proportion of the housing stock of this country...it's nothing.  
More importantly, from an insurance perspective,  it's not that expensive in terms of housing stock... 
However, if premiums go up ridiculously or the opportunity to take out insurance in the first place is rescinded...then what? Especially in regional areas?

----------


## John2b

> However, if premiums go up ridiculously or the opportunity to take out insurance in the first place is rescinded...then what? Especially in regional areas?

  The answer to that is already well known. People will continue to take the risks they are willing to take, to live where they want to live. Ironically, the very people who pontificate about whether others should be allowed to live in risk areas or not, are the first to call out the nanny state for telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

----------


## UseByDate

> That was hilarious

  I am sure others had a secret titter at Titania as well. I nearly peed myself. :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The answer to that is already well known. People will continue to take the risks they are willing to take, to live where they want to live. Ironically, the very people who pontificate about whether others should be allowed to live in risk areas or not, are the first to call out the nanny state for telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

  Oh sure...but what happens if they get burnt out?  
It's not like individual landholders in Outer Bumtrucknowhere are like big business and therefore 'too big to fail'.  
And if enough of them go then where does that leave the regional communities. And if they do go then where will they go and who will support them in that transition. 
In our own case...if we were uninsurable AND we got burn out... no-one is going to lend us the half million dollars it would probably cost to replace all the infrastructure on this place. Not when the property is only worth 300 grand, we are one income and we are right around the 50 mark.

----------


## Marc

> The answer to that is already well known. People will continue to take the risks they are willing to take, to live where they want to live. Ironically, the very people who pontificate about whether others should be allowed to live in risk areas or not, are the first to call out the nanny state for telling them what they should or shouldn't do.

  The left bent councils and state government, are hell bent (to the left) to force people to do all sort of futile, empty, pointless and vane little things under duress, to show how powerful they are when they stand on their heels, yet when it comes to enforce a rule that would be meaningful, that is not to develop remote and hazardous bushy and steep areas, they go for the hip pocket and allow it so they can cash in.  
Turning the tables on the individual and say that "People will continue to take the risk etc" is moronic. There are rules for how to build a house and no rules for developments?  
There are some few essential areas where government needs to apply rules and a million where they are supposed to stay back and do nothing. The problem is that they DO A LOT where it is a hindrance, and do nothing where it is required. 
Pretending not to see this is a choice. 
THe logical conclusion, since we can not force them to do the right thing, is that we would be way better off without any of the 3 level of government, outsource services like the council. have a minimal police and judiciary authority, and exile the rest of the politicians to an island in Greece. Possibly one that has a fence around it. 
If we pay for the island and pay them a salary to stay there we would still be miles ahead.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The left bent councils and state government, are hell bent (to the left) to force people to do all sort of futile, empty, pointless and vane little things under duress, to show how powerful they are when they stand on their heels, yet when it comes to enforce a rule that would be meaningful, that is not to develop remote and hazardous bushy and steep areas, they go for the hip pocket and allow it so they can cash in.  
> Turning the tables on the individual and say that "People will continue to take the risk etc" is moronic. There are rules for how to build a house and no rules for developments?  
> There are some few essential areas where government needs to apply rules and a million where they are supposed to stay back and do nothing. The problem is that they DO A LOT where it is a hindrance, and do nothing where it is required. 
> Pretending not to see this is a choice. 
> THe logical conclusion, since we can not force them to do the right thing, is that we would be way better off without any of the 3 level of government, outsource services like the council. have a minimal police and judiciary authority, and exile the rest of the politicians to an island in Greece. Possibly one that has a fence around it. 
> If we pay for the island and pay them a salary to stay there we would still be miles ahead.

  That's an awful lot of pontificating without an actual option of a solution. 
Suffice to say though, your place on the Hawkesbury would be under the very firing line we are talking about...if you applied your apparent interpretation of 'the rules' then living there would be banned.

----------


## Marc

That's OK. They will have to buy me out and drag the moron that approved the subdivision in front of a magistrate. 
Emotions take you nowhere. We don't owe anything to those we put in charge. It is them who owe us and the first obligation is to do a good job. They are doing an awful job and have been doing so for decades, and they get away with it because people think that it is OK.
It is not, and crawling because of false allegiancies does not help either.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's OK. They will have to buy me out and drag the moron that approved the subdivision in front of a magistrate.

  Yeah but 'they' won't (who are 'they' anyway?). Nor will they sue the moron. Mainly because if we as a society decided that retrospective planning regulations were a thing then we'd all be in a world of hurt. 
In the end, you chose to live there. Now if your insurance company says they won't insure your house and its contents because the risk of bushfire is too great to be viable for them...what would you actually do?

----------


## toooldforthis

Can't work out how to count this one.
Is it arson or human fault.
Maybe just +1 to them all.

----------


## Bedford

> Yeah but 'they' won't (who are 'they' anyway?).

  The Government does, at least in Victoria.   

> Nor will they sue the moron. Mainly because if we as a society decided that retrospective planning regulations were a thing then we'd all be in a world of hurt. 
> In the end, you chose to live there. Now if your insurance company says they won't insure your house and its contents because the risk of bushfire is too great to be viable for them...what would you actually do?

   Well         considering Marc is on the Hawkesbury, he'd probably get         something like this, and connect it to a couple of         sprinklers...... 
That's what I'd do.    https://www.graysonline.com/lot/0035-9007597/transport-trucks-and-trailers/water-pump-powered-by-detroit-diesel-engine

----------


## PhilT2

> Can't work out how to count this one.
> Is it arson or human fault.
> Maybe just +1 to them all.

  Don't understand the confusion here. When thieves set fire to a stolen car, how can it be anything but arson?

----------


## Bros

> In the end, you chose to live there. Now if your insurance company says they won't insure your house and its contents because the risk of bushfire is too great to be viable for them...what would you actually do?

   Insurance companies will insure almost anything but they will impose crippling premiums which is their way of denying insurance.

----------


## Marc

> The Government does, at least in Victoria.     Well         considering Marc is on the Hawkesbury, he'd probably get         something like this, and connect it to a couple of         sprinklers...... 
> That's what I'd do.    https://www.graysonline.com/lot/0035-9007597/transport-trucks-and-trailers/water-pump-powered-by-detroit-diesel-engine

  Nice, not very practical to move around though. I have an Aussie Pump Fire Chief with lots of meters of hose. Never had to use it in anger. 
First time I'll use the pump will be next month when i will be jetting two pilings one on each side of the ramp.

----------


## Marc

> In the end, you chose to live there. Now if your insurance company says they won't insure your house and its contents because the risk of bushfire is too great to be viable for them...what would you actually do?

  Are you asking for my advise?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Are you asking for my advise?

  No... I'm merely curious what you think your options are.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Insurance companies will insure almost anything but they will impose crippling premiums which is their way of denying insurance.

  There will come a time where the Re's that back our insurance companies will not cover our companies for policys that are subject to certain types of risk.  
It is already happening and is reflected in the current market... notably with respect to flooding.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The Government does, at least in Victoria.

  I was of the understanding that that was only an available option after your house had already been incinerated by bushfire and only in very specific locations...

----------


## Bedford

> I was of the understanding that that was only an available option after your house had already been incinerated by bushfire and only in very specific locations...

  Maybe now, but in the past they have bought private properties (I was involved in demolishing and removing them) after some clown threw a handful of darts at a map to increase the size of a national park.

----------


## Bros

> It is already happening and is reflected in the current market... notably with respect to flooding.

  I'm not sure that is the case in QLD. When we have had flooding there has been a cry to have flooding on the policy so the insurance companies decided to add that to all policies even mine. 
 I tried to get it off my policy to reduce the premiums as I live on a hill but no such luck so I had to pay the extra. 
It has to be said that house construction is under the control of the local councils and they set the terms of development so weather it is bushfire, flood earthquake or other disaster and the house is approved for building it should be insurable but insurance companies but for how much is the question. 
Bushfires would be to only one I could think of that the owner can change the environment from non bushfire to possible bushfire place by planting excessive vegetation.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Start with cutting down every eucalyptus that grows around human habitat. That is a sensible option

  Sensible. Really. Okay...go for it. Knock yourself out. 
Bear in mind though that current planning legislation on a new build requires you to clear all vegetation from around your house for a distance of 30 to 50 m and all trees (regardless of genus) out to the best part of 100 metres in order to not get a BAL rating of 29 or greater.  How much further would you like to go?

----------


## Bros

This was in the paper I get but I had trouble getting a link to it as it was behind a News Corp paywall on many sites but I found one link that has it that is not behind a paywall. I am not getting the article contents but just one section of it and how it links to the current fires. 
They refer to the current case of Coronavirus and how the infection has spread faster than the virus use to social media and other media. Now where I find it relevant is we were constantly bombarded with news on the severity of the fires and there is no taking that away but with the big fires of Ash Wednesday which from history seem to be bigger when there was no internet and no social media not reporters chasing fire engines. 
My question is, is the media over reporting to the extent of causing a crisis resulting in panic or is the reporting legitimate in this world of instant news?  https://www.archyworldys.com/coronav...-than-the-flu/

----------


## Marc

The specter of "panic" is a fabrication of media too. What is panic? Have you ever experienced mass panic? 
The talking heads on TV blabbing on about "we must avoid panic" are patronising and implying every member of the public is a gullible imbecile that needs protecting from himself. 
Misrepresenting and underplaying what is the politician responsibility and overstating and exaggerating what damages the opposing side is just another strategy. 
The coronavirus comes from fruit bats that are eaten in China and Indonesia. Yumm. 
We protect them. Their low immune system makes them a carrier for every dangerous bacteria and virus under the sun.
We protect them.  
Eucalyptus have evolved genetically to generate fuel in order to facilitate fires that allow them to eliminate competition and germinate seeds. They are called the gasoline tree.
Casuarinas use a similar strategy. 
And we plant them and protect them and fine whoever dares to cut them down. 
Whilst the climate change apologist jump up and down about "carbon". How dare you! and bleat and bleat. 
If you have a gumtree in your backyard, consider it to be equivalent to having a 200 L drum full of petrol standing there.  
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I am not too sure about the universe." _Albert Einstein  _

----------


## toooldforthis

> [snip] ... 
> My question is, is the media over reporting to the extent of causing a crisis resulting in panic or is the reporting legitimate in this world of instant news?  https://www.archyworldys.com/coronav...-than-the-flu/

  good link, thanks. 
yeah, media has always been a problem. politicians used to be able to keep it under control. Still do, but now we have the social side to it and a few good freelancers getting blogs going.
I rarely watch commercial TV except for maybe some live sport so can't comment on their fire coverage.
I often have ABC 24 going these days (long story) and while I suspect they are not as bad as others their fire coverage is prone to hyperbole. eg: using file footage as tho it is live. reporting catastrophic fire conditions in unpopulated (both people and vegetation) areas of WA.
It certainly feels like all the xtra hype adds to nervousness here in a bushfire zone. Best antidote is to get out and smell the breeze, literally. Mentioned it above, know your neighbours, know who to trust on FB etc. As to an antidote to the coronavirus media coverage? Spread the (balanced) word as you have done with that link. Finding that (written/reported) balance is the tricky bit  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My question is, is the media over reporting to the extent of causing a crisis resulting in panic or is the reporting legitimate in this world of instant news?

  The reporting is legitimate BUT the style of language being used (which incidentally is not that different from that used a century ago in newspaper reporting...just check out Trove for plenty of examples) is targeted to get you to read the article...both in terms of the headline and the copy. 
All media and journalism is driven by sales and traffic. The language used reflects this and it always has. What has changed is the constant need to refresh, update, add or create new information to prevent content becoming 'stale'. This has impacted on the  capacity to put properly researched and considered content into the public domain. 
This is important when you realise that journalists know very little. It is their job to report what other people know and what they themselves have experienced - and many of them are very good at this. The issue is that they often have very little time to find the people who know stuff nor do enough background research to inform their line of questioning. You can sometimes see it at press conferences when you get the same inane questions repeated ad nauseum... 
In the end, in this case, we are often bombarded with rubbish information to which we apply our own misguided evaluation of both likelihood and consequence in order to determine what risks we face...it's no wonder we get stuff wrong or (at best) conflated. 
Ash Wednesday was only worst in terms of direct human impact (lives and structures) during the actual event. In terms of scale though it is dwarfed by this current fire season and the potential long term impacts that will only come to pass with time.  The comparatively small direct human impacts are actually something of a positive reflection on how our adaptive capacity has improved since those days. Or its perhaps down to simple demographics.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The specter of "panic" is a fabrication of media too. What is panic? Have you ever experienced mass panic? 
> The talking heads on TV blabbing on about "we must avoid panic" are patronising and implying every member of the public is a gullible imbecile that needs protecting from himself. 
> Misrepresenting and underplaying what is the politician responsibility and overstating and exaggerating what damages the opposing side is just another strategy. 
> The coronavirus comes from fruit bats that are eaten in China and Indonesia. Yumm. 
> We protect them. Their low immune system makes them a carrier for every dangerous bacteria and virus under the sun.
> We protect them.  
> Eucalyptus have evolved genetically to generate fuel in order to facilitate fires that allow them to eliminate competition and germinate seeds. They are called the gasoline tree.
> Casuarinas use a similar strategy. 
> And we plant them and protect them and fine whoever dares to cut them down. 
> ...

  Have you ever directly experienced a grass or spinifex fire, Marc? 
Perhaps you'd feel safer living in a 5th Wheeler camper permanently parked in a shopping centre carpark somewhere?

----------


## r3nov8or

> Have you ever directly experienced a grass or spinifex fire, Marc? 
> Perhaps you'd feel safer living in a 5th Wheeler camper permanently parked in a shopping centre carpark somewhere?

  Example https://www.blacksaturdaymuseum.com/LaraFire.htm

----------


## Marc

Interesting conclusion. So the fact that there exist other forms of fire like grass fires means ... what exactly?
 Does it mean that eucalyptus and their genetically adaptation to create fires does not exist? I made it up?  
There are only a few facts in relation to bushfires.
A) They have no link to "climate change", how unfortunate for the "how dare you " of this times.
B) They need FUEL, provided generously by the inaction and the religiously motivated usual suspects.
C) The maximus damage is assured by the proximity of houses to eucalyptus trees.  
You can bleat all you want, but this are and remain facts, you can delete articles that illustrate and explain this fact, but they are and will remain facts.
The innuendos about me personally are noted but dismissed, because they come from someone who illustrates himself as a farting ass. Unfortunate but also a fact.   *Australia's Wildfires: Are Eucalyptus Trees to Blame?*  By Marc Lallanilla October 21, 2013  https://www.livescience.com/40583-au...bushfires.html

----------


## PhilT2

Anyone who has their feelings hurt on the internet must file the form provided so that their hurt can be appropriately addressed.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Interesting conclusion. So the fact that there exist other forms of fire like grass fires means ... what exactly?

  It means that that there is always plenty of stuff still to burn. Unless you live in an empty carpark...there is always something to burn. 
We live in a landscape dominated by both white and black cypress. In our situation, these trees are very hard to ignite and are also very hard to conduct hazard reduction burns into... because they won't burn. 
However, if you get a hot fire actually going in these trees then it is one for the ages. They will not go out and they will explode like candles in a sea of lit farts. The word our local RFS people use for these trees is 'problematic'. 
And the fact is that most fires in the environment are actually problematic...and if you can't manage that concept then perhaps you should consider getting out of the environment?

----------


## Marc

> And the fact is that most fires in the environment are actually problematic...and if you can't manage that concept then perhaps you should consider getting out of the environment?

  I think you are missing the point once more. 
In your eagerness to pontificate your point, that is rather obscure and shifting every post, you fail to address the point I made all along.  
Bushfires and other disasters are NOT linked to climate change as stated by scientist who researched this and who are themselves vigorous apologist for climate change.
The reason for this authors to point out that there is no link, is to keep their interpretation of "climate change" on a serious note (in their view), and not obscured by opportunistic sensationalism as done by the green and left media all over the world. Personally you know I consider all reference to anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change a fraud.  
The reasons for our bushfires are those I pointed out. You are welcome to deny the obvious, and to include personal innuendos that are rather lame and ludicrous. Air is free after all. 
So in your area you have a different type of hazard. What does that prove? Diversity of hazard? Mate, you need a hobby. 
As far as "the environment" I hope I will see once more unbiased weather reports where the reporter does not sensationalized every day that is over 30 in summer and calls it a heat wave, or that quotes the temperature in Penrith as if Sydney equates to Penrith. My Sydney house registers regularly 10C lower every "heat wave". Yes in Mt Isa it can get to 50, and has done so for centuries. Climate change my foot.  
Just got one of those infomercial facebook post that shows how in Senegal they are planting more Mangrove. Good for them.
The initial title is Senegal is defending itself against "climate change" ... then in the post they admit sheepishly that the damage is due to deforestation that lead to drought. May be deforestation is also due to Climate change, like the bushfires? Perhaps the greens need to print a lot of fliers for propaganda, and the increase in the demand for paper leads people to cut down forest to make paper to advertise of the "dangers" of manmade climate change?
Plausible. 
Still waiting for anyone in the know that can contradict the fact that eucalyptus are fuel bombs genetically designed to set fires in order to dominate, and that should be systematically cut down and replaced by safer species that can coexist with humans.

----------


## woodbe

> Still waiting for anyone in the know that can contradict the fact that eucalyptus are fuel bombs genetically designed to set fires in order to dominate, and that should be systematically cut down and replaced by safer species that can coexist with humans.

  The eucalyptus is after smaller trees. In Tassie, we have seen some areas the eucalyptus replied with better trees, (they are _Eucalyptus regnans_). When the better trees are burn or taken down they start again with small trees and take time to reply with the better trees. 
Now, Marc. You think we can destroy the eucalyptus trees and reply them with better trees. What trees would be better?   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...f-ash/11018840

----------


## r3nov8or

> replied ... reply ... reply ...

   Damn you autocorrect!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Bushfires and other disasters are NOT linked to climate change as stated by scientist who researched this and who are themselves vigorous apologist for climate change. 
> Still waiting for anyone in the know that can contradict the fact that eucalyptus are fuel bombs genetically designed to set fires in order to dominate, and that should be systematically cut down and replaced by safer species that can coexist with humans.

  True. Bushfires are not linked to climate change. The only relationship that bushfires and climate change do have is the ever increasing number of days in a year where the Forest Fire Danger Index (the collection of risk factors for forest fire) is 'high' or above. That's it...how you choose to interpret that information is on you. 
Eucalyptus can not spontaneously combust. They can't set fires. Yet there is no doubt that many Eucalypt, Corymbia and Angophora species have evolved strategies for surviving fire and using fire to gain an ecological advantage over their competition.

----------


## Marc

> Now, Marc. You think we can destroy the eucalyptus trees and reply them with better trees. What trees would be better?

  We should only protect the eucalyptus trees that are around your house. For the rest of the "ignorant masses", the sensible thing is to not plant them and cut down the one that are too close to human habitat. Obviously we can not undo thousands of years of monoculture. 
Yet if we want to keep on building in the bush, then it should be regulation that we clear a few hundred meters around properties as a minimum. 
Of course there is another solution to preserve the eucalyptus, and that is stop immigration and stop building near bushland. Rather simple really.  
If we want to plant trees, the choice of species is for those who deprived from political bias have the intelligence to come to the right conclusion. Your attempt at making this personal is noted yet ignored. It is not what "I" say but what is best for the country and eucalyptus is not one of them. 
How about apples? 
As for that article, I did not expect anything different from the ABC. They live for their name. And thinking we throw a billion a year to this mob.
So a 200 or 300 years old tree perished after surviving most likely 100 bushfires. At the end of it's life, did not have the amount of sap required to survive the heat. 
What does that prove? That trees are not eternal? That the bad white australians with all their petrol cars have changed the climate to an extent that the tree has died? Sure that is the implication, Reality is most likely a far way away from all that emotional clap trap.

----------


## Marc

> True. Bushfires are not linked to climate change. The only relationship that bushfires and climate change do have is the ever increasing number of days in a year where the Forest Fire Danger Index (the collection of risk factors for forest fire) is 'high' or above. That's it...how you choose to interpret that information is on you. 
> Eucalyptus can not spontaneously combust. They can't set fires. Yet there is no doubt that many Eucalypt, Corymbia and Angophora species have evolved strategies for surviving fire and using fire to gain an ecological advantage over their competition.

  Well we are in agreement then.
As for eucalyptus can not spontaneously combust ... a bit academic really. Store a few drums of petrol in your garage and tell the insurance company that petrol can not spontaneously combust and see what they say.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Store a few drums of petrol in your garage and tell the insurance company that petrol can not spontaneously combust and see what they say.

  I do. My insurance company was more interested in the question of their safe storage rather than their capacity or otherwise to spontaneously combust.
They aren't stupid, after all. 
In the end, it's not what you have, it's how you manage what you have...

----------


## woodbe

> It is not what "I" say but what is best for the country and eucalyptus is not one of them.

  Again: Now, Marc. You think we can destroy the eucalyptus trees and reply them with better trees. What trees would be better?

----------


## toooldforthis

https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/documents...b-460012aa166e  A guide to retroﬁt your home for better protection from a bushﬁre.  Introduction 3
Is Retroﬁtting Mandatory? 4
Bushﬁre Risk 5
Bushﬁre Attack Level (BAL) 6
Cost & Implementation Guide 8
Retroﬁt provisions relating  10 to ember attack 
Retroﬁt provisions for radiant heat 16 exposure corresponding to BAL-LOW 
Retroﬁt provisions for radiant heat 16 exposure corresponding to BAL-12.5
Retroﬁt provisions for radiant heat 18 exposure corresponding to BAL-19
Retroﬁt provisions for radiant heat 20 exposure corresponding to BAL-29
Retroﬁt provisions for radiant heat 25 exposure corresponding to  BAL-40 & direct ﬂame BAL-FZ
Sprinkler systems  26
Private Bushﬁre Shelters   27 (Bushﬁre bunkers)

----------


## r3nov8or

> Again: ... reply ...

  Again: really?

----------


## woodbe

> Again: really?

  Yep. Would like to know which trees would be replied away from Eucalyptus. Marc, thinks it can be changed and would like to know if it can be changed with better tree away from Eucalyptus, what different trees would be better in Australia. 
The list of Eucalyptus is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus  
What would be able to change something other than Eucalyptus giving better trees in dry and heat.

----------


## Marc

> Again: Now, Marc. You think we can destroy the eucalyptus trees and reply them with better trees. What trees would be better?

  Against ... Nova ...  Do I tinker that we can depart the Eucalyptus and repousse with a bitter tre? What tre wood be a souped up version?  
Like i scribed in the past, what I tinker or repuusee or astonish, does not mattress royally.
However I will enlighten you with my pensiero. i believe that around people homes, saltbush and acacias would be a more saltier choice. 
Do you agree? 
Tinkyou

----------


## r3nov8or

https://www.domain.com.au/news/austr...s-away-924640/

----------


## toooldforthis

> https://www.domain.com.au/news/austr...s-away-924640/

   

> Of its 200,000 litre-plus capacity, the Hermans used more than 150,000 litres to fight the fires, mostly through the sprinklers.

  interesting read. thanks.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> https://www.domain.com.au/news/austr...s-away-924640/

  Likewise... 
Up until very recently I had access to about 10,000 litres of water...now I bathe in the riches of nearly 30,000 litres. 
It wasn't even worth buying a fire fighter pump for this season.

----------


## Marc

Kurrajong tree. Another good candidate together with acacias, to replace eucalyptus

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Kurrajong tree. Another good candidate together with acacias, to replace eucalyptus

  True... funnily enough though, they and the other Brachychiton species establish faster, reproduce more readily and grow much better as an understorey tree in eucalypt woodlands and forests.

----------


## Marc

https://www.theland.com.au/story/648...rn-too-easily/  Stop with the eucalypts, Les Murray reckons they are vertical explosives. JOHN CARTER 11 Nov 2019, 1:34 p.m.  After the latest tragedies in the Eastern Australia fires with deaths and hundreds of homes lost, we need to address our tree planting policy.  Composer, Bob Brown's "Give me a home among the gum trees" is dangerous thinking.   We have an urban population that seems infatuated by the Australian Aborigines and their lifestyle.  The First Peoples used fire for centuries to hunt.  The practise altered the species of tree on the Australian landscape - Antarctic beech, gingko, pine etc were destroyed as bushfires hurried the spread of eucalyptustrees and the degradation of Australia's soil.  The First People saw an estimated top population of 750,000 people yet we are being persuaded to recreate their environment.

----------


## John2b

So Les Murray is now the go-to authority on fire risk? What next - The Wiggles for financial opinions? Well, they've made a lot of money, so why not? At least science denier Liberal Senator Jim Molan admits he didn't rely on evidence to form his climate change cause denying opinions. Will others from the older, white, conservative male science denying cohort follow? https://www.sbs.com.au/news/liberal-...hange-comments

----------


## Marc

Poplars, Plane trees, and oaks, as well as native figs, are fire resistant.  Oaks are great hydraulic lifters. They bring water up from deep below and survive drought far better than shallow rooted eucalypts, which have a short lifespan on the tablelands.  Oaks provide wonderful shade for livestock and in autumn stock feed on their leaves and acorns.  They are long term, sustainable investments.  It is time for insurance companies and the RFS to tell the Landcare fanatics and gardeners to revise their lethal "Indigenous species" religion.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is time for insurance companies and the RFS to tell the Landcare fanatics and gardeners to revise their lethal "Indigenous species" religion.[/FONT][/COLOR]

  Imagine where we'd be if we told everyone quite sternly to do something (or even everything) that they don't want to do. 
The fact is that yes there are many plant species that are not quite as flammable as many eucalyptus are. We have a whole list of them on our chalkboard, waiting for the drought to break. Let's face it... nothing much grows without water...and pretty much anything can burn when it is dry.  
We regard these species as a potential way to have something of a garden closer to the house...rather than just a grassy understorey and a scattered canopy of dryland eucalypts for a hundred metres in every direction.  
However, under the weather conditions we've recently experienced, if there were a fire...none of these species would prevent the loss of our infrastructure to bushfire. 
Only good design, good preparation, a little bit of luck and the absence of anything flammable for a hundred metres around would likely get you that far. And who in their right mind wants to live in a carpark whilst at the same time not living in suburbia?

----------


## johnc

I find it fascinating that we have someone in our midst that bangs on endlessly about others telling him what to do now wants to act in a dictatorial manner and ride roughshod over the general public. Anyone got some self awareness pills.

----------


## John2b

> I find it fascinating that we have someone in our midst that bangs on endlessly about others telling him what to do now wants to act in a dictatorial manner and ride roughshod over the general public. Anyone got some self awareness pills.

  It is ironic that the worst fire historically in SA in terms of property loss, infrastructure damage and fatalities, occurred in cleared farmland but a few years ago.

----------


## Bros

> scattered canopy of dryland eucalypts for a hundred metres in every direction.

  I think you have hit the nail on the head as eucalyptus in its many forms is the only plant that will grow in our rather harsh landscape. I have a number of eucalyptus growing behind me in a ravine that was left by the developer as a "park" and I have a love hate relationship with them. I like them as them as they are the only thing that grows in the poor excuse for soil and I hate them for their leaves in my gutter. 
Acacia trees are short lived trees and end up making more fuel when they die. 
I have traveled a lot in the outback and the predominant trees are eucalyptus with a scattering of Acacia and where the soil is sandy the bush Grevillea  and other species that are less common. 
A couple of years back the rainforest in the Eungella National Park burnt after a succession of hot days and no rain and there would be very few eucalyptus trees there. 
Now I have no idea of the country where the eucalyptus trees were in the bushfires and the type of soil but we cannot go back and replant more fire friendly trees (if there is such a thing) so we have to accept that we will always have eucalyptus forest and we need to manage them as they may be the only tree that can grow.

----------


## John2b

Good post, Bros. The only tall tree that grows easily around us in the low rainfall ironstone / limestone soil is the endemic Kangaroo Island Narrow Leaf Malley. Take the tall trees away and we'd be blown off the planet. I've used (and am happy with) DIY Fielders Watergate to solve the leaf in the gutters problem, for both water and bushfire resilience. https://fielders.com.au/products/rai...r-accessories/

----------


## Marc

Sure we can not reverse the results of burning everything to find food for a handful of people, that lead to eucalyptus adaptation to such treatment and subsequent dominance. 
In our short window of existence, it is paramount to understand history and attempt to change what can be changed, and manage what can not. 
Clearly planting more eucalyptus with fanaticism because it happens to be the only surviving species after thousands of years of human mismanagement is not very clever. Changing species in our immediate habitat is one thing we can do. Repeat the mistakes of the past by backburning, seems to be the only possible management at this point in history of the rest of the bush that can obviously not be changed. 
Hanging the councillors by their balls when they stop farmers to clear to defend their life is another potential solution.

----------


## John2b

> Clearly planting more eucalyptus with fanaticism because it happens to be the only surviving species after thousands of years of human mismanagement is not very clever.

  Over the last couple of years I've been reading the accounts of the early Australian explorers who attempted, and finally succeeded, in crossing the continent from north to south and east to west. There is little to support the modern myths of historical bushfire control in Australia, or Australian Aboriginal history in general. The version of pre-colonial Australian history we were taught at school in the 1960s was pure mythological whitewash. 
A fully referenced condensed version of observations made by our European explorers is in Bruce Pascoes's book 'Dark Emu'. When I read it recently I experienced a sense of Deja Vu, because I had read it all before in the explorers' journals and diaries. 
A vegetation map of Australia published in 1930 partially drew from the explorer's observations, and the vegetation across Australia today is clearly different to the pre-1900s. Anyone who has travelled extensively through Australia will have difficulty reconciling their own observations with this vegetation record.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Over the last couple of years I've been reading the accounts of the early Australian explorers who attempted, and finally succeeded, in crossing the continent from north to south and east to west. There is little to support the modern myths of historical bushfire control in Australia, or Australian Aboriginal history in general. The version of pre-colonial Australian history we were taught at school in the 1960s was pure mythological whitewash. 
> A fully referenced condensed version of observations made by our European explorers is in Bruce Pascoes's book 'Dark Emu'. When I read it recently I experienced a sense of Deja Vu, because I had read it all before in the explorers' journals and diaries. 
> A vegetation map of Australia published in 1930 partially drew from the explorer's observations, and the vegetation across Australia today is clearly different to the pre-1900s. Anyone who has travelled extensively through Australia will have difficulty reconciling their own observations with this vegetation record.

  The basic components of that (admittedly very simplified) map are still there if you know how to look...it certainly matches my understanding and experience of our landscape. But then I also used to read land systems maps for a living...

----------


## John2b

> The basic components of that (admittedly very simplified) map are still there if you know how to look...

  I concur your view to some extent, especially looking through contemporary eyes. It's different if you look at the map in conjunction with the accounts of the explorers and what they saw through their eyes. 
Compare the previous map with a more recent one to see what's changed during the years of colonisation:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I concur your view to some extent, especially looking through contemporary eyes. It's different if you look at the map in conjunction with the accounts of the explorers and what they saw through their eyes. 
> Compare the previous map with a more recent one to see what's changed during the years of colonisation:

  Desertification is a thing and the widespread loss of the Mulga woodlands since settlement is to be lamented.  
Otherwise, the differentiation between forest, woodland and savannah is mostly about semantics and I do favour the semantics used by the more modern map.

----------


## John2b

I don't understand how some people can claim that pre colonisation there were more fires set by Aborigines that kept fuel loads down, or that the current bushfires are exacerbated by years of being allowed to build up fuel load. Since colonisation there have been huge reductions in native vegetation in eastern, south-eastern and south-western Australia. More than 50% of native vegetation has been lost in six regions, and one-third or more in two other regions.  *Percentage of Australian native vegetation remaining*

----------


## Marc

> I don't understand how some people can claim that pre colonisation there were more fires set by Aborigines that kept fuel loads down, or that the current bushfires are exacerbated by years of being allowed to build up fuel load. Since colonisation there have been huge reductions in native vegetation in eastern, south-eastern and south-western Australia. More than 50% of native vegetation has been lost in six regions, and one-third or more in two other regions.

  Clearly there shouldn't be any bushfires then.
Or may be it is all a fabrication of Donald Trump, Alan Jones and the rest of the evil white male paid by the oil industry.

----------


## Bros

> I don't understand how some people can claim that pre colonisation there were more fires set by Aborigines that kept fuel loads down

  Unless it is you doing a link to where this comes from would be handy so we can see if it is selective quoting

----------


## Marc

> ....... Will others from the older, white, conservative male science denying cohort follow?

  I wonder what would happen if I referred to black radical young women in the same pejorative connotation as you do.

----------


## John2b

> Unless it is you doing a link to where this comes from would be handy so we can see if it is selective quoting

  The words are mine in response to a view being expressed around social media and in the papers, of which this quote fits the pattern: " ... happens to be the only surviving species after thousands of years of human mismanagement ... ". #801 It can only mean mismanagement by the pre-colonial inhabitants of Australia and implies that they burned everything, leaving only eucalypts as viable vegetation. 
We are constantly being told about the "fire stick" farming in pre-colonial days by the Aboriginal population. Certainly Aborigines used fire to help secure food, and certainly sometimes those fires would have gotten out of control. The suggestion that "fire stick" farming of the past kept fuel loads lower than today is just a modern myth, a fact which is known in absolute detail from the records of the early Australian colonial explorers.

----------


## John2b

> Unless it is you doing a link to where this comes from would be handy so we can see if it is selective quoting

  Sorry Bros, I guess you meant a link to where the map comes from: https://soe.environment.gov.au or more specifically here: https://soe.environment.gov.au/sites...f?v=1492063205

----------


## John2b

> I wonder what would happen if I referred to black radical young women in the same pejorative connotation as you do.

  ?? I don't refer to "black radical young women" in a "pejorative connotation". What happened last time someone did?

----------


## Marc

Oh come on John ... you can not possibly be that slow.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I don't understand how some people can claim that pre colonisation there were more fires set by Aborigines that kept fuel loads down, or that the current bushfires are exacerbated by years of being allowed to build up fuel load. Since colonisation there have been huge reductions in native vegetation in eastern, south-eastern and south-western Australia. More than 50% of native vegetation has been lost in six regions, and one-third or more in two other regions.

  Native vegetation loss since colonisation is absolutely a thing. But even that doesn't change much with respect to fuel load. The vegetation has merely changed... one of the most dangerous fire times in the cropping zone is the end of summer in good years. Harvest time... 
Aboriginal people did, without a doubt, cultural burning but no-one should pretend that it is anything like what we can do today. They had far more bodies on the ground doing their thing than we are willing to pay for these days.

----------


## John2b

> Oh come on John ... you can not possibly be that slow.

   Are you sure, Marc? Don't overlook that I am stupid enough to buy an electric car _and_ think it is actually very good for the purpose for which it was purchased.

----------


## John2b

> Aboriginal people did, without a doubt, cultural burning but no-one should pretend that it is anything like what we can do today. They had far more bodies on the ground doing their thing than we are willing to pay for these days.

  In the entire history of Australia there has never been as readily available physical access to fire fronts, as well resourced fire fighting crews, or as much knowledge about fire behaviour and weather than we currently have. I remember fighting a serious fire in the Adelaide hills (it may have been Ash Wednesday Feb 1980, or an earlier fire in the 1970s) where the local CFS volunteers (including myself) travelled on the open tray of a CFS salvaged WW2 'blitz wagon' which had no adaptations for fire fighting, and we had no personal protective equipment, no radios or phones, no water on board, and no water bombers whatsoever.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In the entire history of Australia there has never been as readily available physical access to fire fronts, as well resourced fire fighting crews, or as much knowledge about fire behaviour and weather than we currently have. I remember in the seventies fighting a serious fire in the Adelaide hills where the CFS volunteers (including myself) travelled on the open tray of a CFS salvaged WW2 'blitz wagon' which had no adaptations for fire fighting, and we had no personal protective equipment, no radios or phones, no water on board, and no water bombers whatsoever.

  Bush fires and cultural burns are two very different things. Hazard reduction burning is somewhere in between. Either way...no bugger shows up for hazard reduction...

----------


## John2b

> ...no bugger shows up for hazard reduction...

  I haven't been involved with the CFS since the early 1980s, however my wife belonged to the Greenhill CFS until she left the area in ~2005. The fun of doing "hazard reduction" burns was one reason for many 'lads' to join the CFS, at least there. If I am to believe her accounts, burns were often ill prepared and ill thought out, and some burns got out of control causing serious property damage.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I haven't been involved with the CFS since the early 1980s, however my wife belonged to the Greenhill CFS until she left the area in ~2005. The fun of doing "hazard reduction" burns was one reason for many 'lads' to join the CFS, at least there. If I am to believe her accounts, burns were often ill prepared and ill thought out, and some burns got out of control causing serious property damage.

  Yep...not much useful hazard reduction burning gets done by our volunteer crews. They only turn up because they need the experience or because they enjoy the experience. But their turn up can't be guaranteed. Unlike the mob who's job it actually is...and that's a lamentably small mob.

----------


## intertd6

> I don't understand how some people can claim that pre colonisation there were more fires set by Aborigines that kept fuel loads down, or that the current bushfires are exacerbated by years of being allowed to build up fuel load. Since colonisation there have been huge reductions in native vegetation in eastern, south-eastern and south-western Australia. More than 50% of native vegetation has been lost in six regions, and one-third or more in two other regions.  *Percentage of Australian native vegetation remaining*

  it isn't hard to understand at all, all you have to do is take your green blinders off, by the time the interior of the continent was explored disease had decimated the indigenous population , the early accounts, paintings & sketches done by the first to arrive show & tell of a landscape sparsely treed & park like, all because of constant burning, in the wet sub & tropical areas burning wasn't possible & native grasses were non existent , protein was hard to come by so in some places the tribes used to raid each other when the word got around about a funeral & steal their dead for a feed.
inter

----------


## John2b

> it isn't hard to understand at all, all you have to do is take your green blinders off,

  I never had green blinders on. The observations of the environment were recorded by people who lived long before I was born. Land where once "burning wasn't possible" has not been spared from ferocious bushfires in recent history.

----------


## UseByDate

Just in case you read that Australian bush fire fighters are prone to originating domestic violence, the following video, presented by a Canadian, shows the evidence used to come to that conclusion.
 It is 19 minutes long but quite informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGTckCmCaY

----------


## Bros

> Just in case you read that Australian bush fire fighters are prone to originating domestic violence

  That right wing rag wouldn't use it to wrap up the prawn shells. 
Yes I did listen to the whole video.

----------


## Bedford

> Just in case you read that Australian bush fire fighters are prone to originating domestic violence, the following video, presented by a Canadian, shows the evidence used to come to that conclusion.
>  It is 19 minutes long but quite informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGTckCmCaY

  Just another product of Monash University. :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> Just in case you read that Australian bush fire fighters are prone to originating domestic violence, the following video, presented by a Canadian, shows the evidence used to come to that conclusion.
>  It is 19 minutes long but quite informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGTckCmCaY

  It should come as no surprise that people exposed to stress can hit out, these reports should not be seen as a reflection on the character of those who fight fires. However rather than negative reactions over these reports it should be seen as an issue that needs to be managed in the same way it applies to police, military etc. Government should make it easier for individuals to recognise the signs and easy access to affordable treatments. Often all we get is blame and confected outrage.

----------


## Marc

> Just in case you read that Australian bush fire fighters are prone to originating domestic violence, the following video, presented by a Canadian, shows the evidence used to come to that conclusion.

  The link between bushfires and domestic violence is a fabrication as the link between disasters and climate change ... mind you ... if I had a face like Moodey I would most likely attract a volley of slaps and kicks ... for sure.

----------


## intertd6

> I never had green blinders on. The observations of the environment were recorded by people who lived long before I was born. Land where once "burning wasn't possible" has not been spared from ferocious bushfires in recent history.

  I picture tells a thousand words, that was early 1800's, notice the bush (lack of) & notice the smoke from the fires. There was a forester that claimed that late last century there were more trees in forests then than there were when Cook landed in 1770.
inter

----------


## johnc

There is actually a strong link in both Australian (of which there is not a lot) and overseas studies. It applies to all caught up in natural disasters. It is a health issue let's not turn this into belittling someone's appearance or some form of partisan debate as that prevents sinsible policy decisions and confuses the issue.

----------


## PhilT2

> .. mind you ... if I had a face like Moodey I would most likely attract a volley of slaps and kicks ... for sure.

  Remarks like this don't do a lot towards making the female members of the forum feel welcome.

----------


## Bros

> There is actually a strong link in both Australian (of which there is not a lot) and overseas studies. It applies to all caught up in natural disasters.

  How about giving us bit more information on this. And to separate it out studies between those who are directly affected and those who are there responding to the disaster.

----------


## PhilT2

> How about giving us bit more information on this. And to separate it out studies between those who are directly affected and those who are there responding to the disaster.

  In some cases, not all, would there be a difference? Who is likely to be more affected, a person who barely manages to escape the fire but loses everything or the person who has to retrieve the bodies from a burnt out house or car after the danger has passed?

----------


## intertd6

A little more more for the blind who cannot see because of their green blinders.  
"Banks, Solander and their assistants made specimens of 132 plant species in six days at Botany Bay, the first scientific collection of Australian flora. Parkinson made drawings of some 84. Considering the time of year, with little in flower, it was remarkably comprehensive – so much so that it is possible to reconstruct the scene as they would have found it. Their observations on the openness of the vegetation are part of the huge corpus of literature and illustrations that make a compelling case for the very heavy fire management and ecological modification of eastern Australia by Indigenous people." 
Inter

----------


## Marc

> Remarks like this don't do a lot towards making the female members of the forum feel welcome.

  Using media to vomit the kind of disgraceful dementia this people discharge, does not do a lot for normal ordinary people who are interested in going about their business.
Can you picture yourself standing on a podium and reversing the roles, talking about women the way this moron talks about men? You would be lynched for sure. 
Take your blinds off, and think for yourself. Not everything is an opportunity to advance an agenda, there are limits and decency expected.
The left and the climate change apologist are experts in hiring the idle and the resentful, the hateful and the one with no morals in search of a cause and release them on anything they loathe. We are in the era of hate and hidden agendas that poison everyday life. They don't need your help PhilT2, they are doing just fine by themselves.

----------


## UseByDate

> That right wing rag wouldn't use it to wrap up the prawn shells. 
> Yes I did listen to the whole video.

  When I viewed the video I don't think that the first comment was either posted or pinned to the top of the comments list. It shows a letter of criticism of the thesis criticised in the video that was sent to  Radio NZ on the 14/11/19. It basically comes to the same conclusion as the video but with some additional information including that the women were paid for their testimony.
 I don't know the politics of the letter writer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XGTckCmCaY

----------


## UseByDate

> Just another product of Monash University.

  Sadly it seems to be contagious. It seems most, if not all, western universities are on the same course.

----------


## John2b

Woo hoo Australia made the news in the USA: 
"Christmas neared, the fires worsened, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who once flourished a lump of coal during a parliamentary session, relaxed at a beach bar in Hawaii. He explained his absence in the weakest terms: I dont hold a hose, mate, he said. Less than two weeks later, he hosted a New Years Eve party at his mansion, watching the fireworks cascade into an ash-filled Sydney Harbor."  https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&client=safari

----------


## r3nov8or

> Woo hoo Australia made the news in the USA: 
> "Christmas neared, the fires worsened, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who once flourished a lump of coal during a parliamentary session, relaxed at a beach bar in Hawaii. He explained his absence in the weakest terms: “I don’t hold a hose, mate,” he said. Less than two weeks later, he hosted a New Year’s Eve party at his mansion, watching the fireworks cascade into an ash-filled Sydney Harbor."  https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&client=safari

  Why cite just this one, I wonder? Our fires have been all their media - I had a son there for 4 weeks during their peak

----------


## John2b

> Why cite just this one, I wonder? Our fires have been all their media ...

  Yes, there's been an awful lot of extremely negative coverage of Australian fires and politics in the international media, brought to my attention by dozens of OS friends worried about our safety. When this story popped up in my news feed it made me chuckle, so I thought I would share it.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Yes, there's been an awful lot of ... coverage of Australian fires and politics in the international media, brought to my attention by dozens of OS friends worried about our safety. When this story popped up in my news feed it made me chuckle, so I thought I would share it.

  Fixed it

----------


## John2b

> Fixed it

  Well done!...at least in your mind, though dozens of my acquaintances overseas have drawn my attention to a different view. And the cited article _did_ make me chuckle, as does your response.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Well done!...at least in your mind, though dozens of my acquaintances overseas have drawn my attention to a different view....

   :Smilie:  
You and your friends must have a fine time at parties, looking into your half-empty glasses

----------


## John2b

*Furious protesters take to the streets around the world to criticise Australian Scott Morrison over the country's devastating bushfire crisis*  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bushfires.html  *Bushfires crisis: world rallies to demand climate action as Australia burns – in pictures*   https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ns-in-pictures

----------


## Bedford

> *Furious protesters take to the streets around the world to criticise Australian Scott Morrison over the country's devastating bushfire crisis*  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bushfires.html  *Bushfires crisis: world rallies to demand climate action as Australia burns  in pictures*   https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ns-in-pictures

  
Psssst, Koalas ain't Bears........ :Rolleyes:    *A protester dressed as a koala bear in front of the Australian embassy in Berlin, Germany.*

----------


## John2b

Koalas are not bears, but are closely related to the dangerous Australian drop bear  https://youtu.be/EwmoiUrC02g

----------


## Marc

Climate protesters are not bears but they are closely related to "Humanoid moronicus Inc"

----------


## pharmaboy2

> *Furious protesters take to the streets around the world to criticise Australian Scott Morrison over the country's devastating bushfire crisis*  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bushfires.html  *Bushfires crisis: world rallies to demand climate action as Australia burns – in pictures*   https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ns-in-pictures

  Man those people need someone from marketing...   a whole heap of signs without a connected message, to maximize annoyance to a majority of the population (given humans tend to remember best the things that cause a an emotional reaction).  this is where the unions win hands down for street parades (usually) because they get their @@@@ together.

----------


## r3nov8or

> *Furious protesters take to the streets around the world to criticise Australian Scott Morrison over the country's devastating bushfire crisis*  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bushfires.html  *Bushfires crisis: world rallies to demand climate action as Australia burns – in pictures*   https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ns-in-pictures

  Great to see you can Rent-A-Crowd anywhere

----------


## toooldforthis

The first 12 minutes or so of the latest episode (episode 2) of ABCs Landline is worth a watch. 
Compares current forest density with before European settlement.  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

----------


## Bros

> The first 12 minutes or so of the latest episode (episode 2) of ABCs Landline is worth a watch.

   We never got it as the golf went well over time.

----------


## toooldforthis

> [/LEFT]
>  We never got it as the golf went well over time.

  yeah, I know  :Smilie: 
the link is to iview  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

----------


## Bros

> yeah, I know 
> the link is to iview  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

  I'll catch up with it tomorrow night

----------


## John2b

> Compares current forest density with before European settlement.  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

   There's certainly a lot of truth in the change of environment and large areas that were once burned have been allowed to become dense and change in ecological structure. I've already mentioned Bruce Pascoe's book Dark Emu which references the land that European explorers discovered, and it is from the same sources that Bill Gammage is drawing. However the changes Gammage points to are not universal. The are vastly greater areas that have been denuded of vegetation since colonisation. 
The change in density of vegetation and fuel load does not fully explain why recent fires are becoming more catastrophic. For example on Kangaroo Island there has been no Aboriginal occupation for thousands of years, and the vegetation has not been subjected to fire stick farming. Yet the scale and ferocity of the recent bushfires on Kangaroo Island is unprecedented. Certainly there have been bushfires on the island from time to time including before human settlements, but it is known that there have not been fires like this last one in the prehistory of occupation of Kangaroo Island because the tell-tail signs of the damage caused by such intense heat just aren't there. 
The intensity and damage a fire causes is a factor of the fuel load, amplified by climatic conditions at the time of the fire. No amount of fire stick farming is going to return Australia to the environmental conditions of 200 years ago. The most damaging fire to infrastructure and lives in SA was the 2015 Pinery fire which burned for just one week and occurred in an area of low fuel load and easy accessibility for fire appliances, namely cleared farming land. Why? Because of the climatic conditions at the time. Changing climatic conditions is what will determine the severity and the frequency of future bushfires. This is what governments have been repeated warned for the past 40 years or so, so it should be no surprise to anyone. 
And no, I am NOT advocating no fuel reduction burns, I am advocating a wholistic approach to manage fire risk, not just blind adherence to an  anecdotal, if persuasive, point of view.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Climate protesters are not bears but they are closely related to "Humanoid moronicus Inc"

  You are clumping them in with the anthropogenic climate change denialists? Interesting...but I'll allow it.

----------


## UseByDate

> Remarks like this don't do a lot towards making the female members of the forum feel welcome.

  It is not the 1950s. :Smilie:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pESjtw6GA

----------


## PhilT2

> It is not the 1950s.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pESjtw6GA

  You'll have to explain that to me, I don't see a connection between mansplaining and what Marc said, which I interpreted as implying that women who were judged as unattractive were likely to get beaten up.

----------


## intertd6

> There's certainly a lot of truth in the change of environment and large areas that were once burned have been allowed to become dense and change in ecological structure. I've already mentioned *Bruce Pascoe's book Dark Emu which references the land that European explorers discovered,* and it is from the same sources that Bill Gammage is drawing. However the changes Gammage points to are not universal. The are vastly greater areas that have been denuded of vegetation since colonisation. 
> The change in density of vegetation and fuel load does not fully explain why recent fires are becoming more catastrophic. For example on Kangaroo Island there has been no Aboriginal occupation for thousands of years, and the vegetation has not been subjected to fire stick farming. Yet the scale and ferocity of the recent bushfires on Kangaroo Island is unprecedented. Certainly there have been bushfires on the island from time to time including before human settlements, *but it is known that there have not been fires like this last one in the prehistory of occupation of Kangaroo Island because the tell-tail signs of the damage caused by such intense heat just aren't there.* 
> The intensity and damage a fire causes is a factor of the fuel load, amplified by climatic conditions at the time of the fire. No amount of fire stick farming is going to return Australia to the environmental conditions of 200 years ago. The most damaging fire to infrastructure and lives in SA was the 2015 Pinery fire which burned for just one week and occurred in an area of low fuel load and easy accessibility for fire appliances, namely cleared farming land. Why? Because of the climatic conditions at the time. Changing climatic conditions is what will determine the severity and the frequency of future bushfires. This is what governments have been repeated warned for the past 40 years or so, so it should be no surprise to anyone. 
> And no, I am NOT advocating no fuel reduction burns, I am advocating a wholistic approach to manage fire risk, not just blind adherence to an  anecdotal, if persuasive, point of view.

  From some reports Dark Emu is almost a fictional book written by a fictional writer & been lapped by the gullible. 
where is your proof KI hasn't burnt like this before? 
Inter

----------


## John2b

> From some reports Dark Emu is almost a fictional book written by a fictional writer & been lapped by the gullible. 
> where is your proof KI hasn't burnt like this before? 
> Inter

  Dark Emu references the actual records of the early explorers from their journals and diaries, so if it is a fiction, it is the fiction of the Gilles, Stuarts, Eyres, Flinders, Leichhardts, Sturts, Mitchells, et al, not a fiction of Bruce Pascoe. These are the people who recorded the Australia they saw before it was transformed by white settlement. I have previously read many of the early explorers' records, so when I read Dark Emu recently it was a case of Deja Vu. Pascoe didn't need to make anything up to write his book. 
There are two independent sources of evidence for the unprecedented ground heat under the recent fires on Kangaroo Island. Firstly there is evidence from observed breaking down and melting of the components of soil and subsoil, that has not occurred in the past, which would have been observed even from fires thousands of years ago if it had occurred. Secondly, people in Kangaroo Island agricultural and ecological industries and Parks, Natural Resources Management have told that the store of seeds and soil biota in the ground that normally initiates vegetation recovery after a fire has been destroyed to extent not observed in previous fires.

----------


## intertd6

> Dark Emu references the actual records of the early explorers from their journals and diaries, so if it is a fiction, it is the fiction of the Gilles, Stuarts, Eyres, Flinders, Leichhardts, Sturts, Mitchells, et al, not a fiction of Bruce Pascoe. These are the people who recorded the Australia they saw before it was transformed by white settlement. I have previously read many of the early explorers' records, so when I read Dark Emu recently it was a case of Deja Vu. Pascoe didn't need to make anything up to write his book. 
> There are two independent sources of evidence for the unprecedented ground heat under the recent fires on Kangaroo Island. Firstly there is evidence from observed breaking down and melting of the components of soil and subsoil, that has not occurred in the past, which would have been observed even from fires thousands of years ago if it had occurred. Secondly, people in Kangaroo Island agricultural and ecological industries and Parks, Natural Resources Management have told that the store of seeds and soil biota in the ground that normally initiates vegetation recovery after a fire has been destroyed to extent not observed in previous fires.

  It has been shown Dark Emu distorted & fabricated parts of the early explorers journals & diaries, you will find no drawings or sketches of the any such thing to back up the fictional claims. 
you need to cite some peer reviewed study of your claims of the recent fires on KI, otherwise you're parroting anecdotal evidence. Seeing studies like that would take a couple of years your claims are invalid & are typical scaremongering.
inter

----------


## toooldforthis

> It has been shown Dark Emu distorted & fabricated parts of the early explorers journals & diaries, you will find no drawings or sketches of the any such thing to back up the fictional claims. 
> ...

  yes, I read a review which disputed Dark Emu as well. Thought I had bookmarked it but can't find it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> yes, I read a review which disputed Dark Emu as well. Thought I had bookmarked it but can't find it.

  Bolt (?) had a shot but it turned out he didn't read the actual book...he just relied on Pascoe's lectures as part of the promotion. Having heard Bruce Pascoe give a lecture before (hint: he's not great) then I suspect any review based on them could be doomed...even if the reviewer didn't already have an axe to grind. 
You all should try reading Eric Roll's 'A Million Wild Acres'...it was published way back in the 70s and the stories it tells of the Pilliga and the ecological impact of European colonisation of land between the Hunter River and the Namoi River in NSW are pretty wild. Given old mate was a farmer in Baradine at the time...it's quite a read...also can be quite a plod too at times so consider yourselves warned...

----------


## toooldforthis

> Bolt (?) ...

  no lol
it was by someone who went and (had) read the original accounts Pascoe was quoting from.
Showed Pascoe to be selective quoting to suit own agenda. Even as bad as quoting half a sentence and thereby distorted the original meaning.
The reviewer actually quoted the full texts Pasco part quoted - I didn't check the reviewer's quotes tho; where would it end  :Smilie: 
fact check the fact checkers.

----------


## intertd6

> yes, I read a review which disputed Dark Emu as well. Thought I had bookmarked it but can't find it.

  The authors claims to being indigenous are also highly in dispute, just lately Tasmanian aboriginals have flatly denied he has any Tasmanian indigenous heritage to which he claims.
Bolt & any of those shock jocks don't read to much of anything, they have researchers do that leg work, they just read what's between the quotation marks that's given to them.
inter

----------


## PhilT2

Bolt has a bit of history with people he considers to be "not black enough". The judge in that case labelled him "misleading and deceptive". Basic fact checking was not done in that matter.  https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=253894 
Dark Emu has turned into one of those issues where, once you know their politics, you know their opinion on it. Time for a Dark Emu thread? 
'

----------


## Marc

> ...  which I interpreted as implying that ...

----------


## Marc

And in case you didn't get and need an explanation, here is a bit more explaining  https://youtu.be/Vaz3z7vOU6I

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...where would it end 
> fact check the fact checkers.

  I find it easier these days to assume there are no longer any facts...

----------


## PhilT2

> And in case you didn't get and need an explanation, here is a bit more explaining  https://youtu.be/Vaz3z7vOU6I

  Yes, you'll have to try again. This does not explain why you think unattractive women should expect to be assaulted.

----------


## Marc

https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/

----------


## John2b

> Bolt (?) had a shot but it turned out he didn't read the actual book...

  Not reading the book or researching the topic seems to be something that Dark Emu detractors have in common.   

> You all should try reading Eric Roll's 'A Million Wild Acres'...

  Thanks for the tip, I've ordered a copy from the library.

----------


## John2b

> it was by someone who went and (had) read the original accounts Pascoe was quoting from.
> Showed Pascoe to be selective quoting to suit own agenda. Even as bad as quoting half a sentence and thereby distorted the original meaning.
> The reviewer actually quoted the full texts Pasco part quoted - I didn't check the reviewer's quotes tho; where would it end 
> fact check the fact checkers.

  As I have said, I have also read a lot of the original texts from which Pascoe cited. Although I have not gone back and re-read the original texts I do not agree that he quoted selectively, because nothing I read in Dark Emu was new or an alternative interpretation as far as I could recall. The power of the book is seeing all collated together in one text. 
As far as presenting information in a way that supports an argument or promotes a particular understanding (AKA their own agenda), well EVERYONE does that, and there are no exceptions in this forum. Death is the only thing that stops human beings from making observations from a particular viewpoint.

----------


## John2b

> It has been shown Dark Emu distorted & fabricated parts of the early explorers journals & diaries, you will find no drawings or sketches of the any such thing to back up the fictional claims.

  Who's shown that? You need to cite some peer reviewed study of your claims of the fabrications, otherwise you're parroting anecdotal evidence. Without studies like that your claims are invalid & are typical muckraking.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> you need to cite some peer reviewed study of your claims of the recent fires on KI, otherwise you're parroting anecdotal evidence. Seeing studies like that would take a couple of years your claims are invalid & are typical scaremongering.

  Although the scope of the current fire season is unprecedented, super hot fires are not. The effects of hot fires on the ground's seed bank and biota are not speculation.

----------


## toooldforthis

found this article.  

> It seemed to me that _Dark Emu_ was worth a closer look. Little did I know what I was starting. The result of my research was a book, _Bitter Harvest: The Illusion of Aboriginal Agriculture in Bruce Pascoes Dark Emu._  In it, I attempt to determine whether _Dark Emu_ validates Pascoes claims.

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...-bruce-pascoe/ 
ps: don't shoot the messenger

----------


## PhilT2

> ps: don't shoot the messenger

  But that's what we have always done in the past; too late to change now. If someone is not smart enough to understand their own words, what chance have they got with those of others?
I'll find a link to the debunking of the debunking; grab the popcorn, this could go on for a while.  https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...15750324009163

----------


## Marc

Dark Emu is 80% fabrication 20% guesswork

----------


## John2b

> Dark Emu is 80% fabrication 20% guesswork

  You have read it?

----------


## Marc

After reading Bitter Harvest it seems rather pointless. i have also not read the red book of Mao, Mein Kampf and many other works of dementia and delusion. I do what I can. I leave the enjoyments of dark emu to you.

----------


## John2b

> After reading Bitter Harvest it seems rather pointless.

  Pointless, if you have already made you mind up. I've just read Peter O'Brien's Quadrant article, which was the genesis of Bitter Harvest. I am not here to defend Pascoe, but I can tell you that Peter O'Brien makes incorrect assertions about the attributions of claims in his book. Why?

----------


## toooldforthis

> But that's what we have always done in the past; too late to change now. If someone is not smart enough to understand their own words, what chance have they got with those of others?
> I'll find a link to the debunking of the debunking; grab the popcorn, this could go on for a while.  https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...15750324009163

  link locked, thank dog. 
I might get on my bike, with my messenger bag...

----------


## Marc

> Pointless, if you have already made you mind up. I've just read Peter O'Brien's Quadrant article, which was the genesis of Bitter Harvest. I am not here to defend Pascoe, but I can tell you that Peter O'Brien makes incorrect assertions about the attributions of claims in his book. Why?

  There is a litany of false and fraudulent claims by someone who presumes aboriginality from 3 clans that all refute him and that is apparently not even aboriginal at all. If you want to read works of fiction, why not read Jules Verne?

----------


## intertd6

> Although the scope of the current fire season is unprecedented, super hot fires are not. The effects of hot fires on the ground's seed bank and biota are not speculation.

  quite frankly I don’t believe one iota of your biota claims, you need to cite some studies to back up your claims
inter

----------


## toooldforthis

> The first 12 minutes or so of the latest episode (episode 2) of ABCs Landline is worth a watch. 
> Compares current forest density with before European settlement.  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

  lol
I should pay more attention in school
Apparently that segment on Landline was archive footage from 2013. 
so, we have enquiries, write reports, and move on.
fvken doomed I tell ya.

----------


## intertd6

> Who's shown that? You need to cite some peer reviewed study of your claims of the fabrications, otherwise you're parroting anecdotal evidence. Without studies like that your claims are invalid & are typical muckraking.

  You're barking up the wrong tree  "But throughout _Dark Emu_, Pascoe regularly exaggerates and embellishes. One example: he quotes Thomas Mitchell’s description of large, circular, chimneyed huts Mitchell observed near Mount Arapiles, in western Victoria, on July 26, 1836, but leaves out the words “which were of a very different construction from those of the aborigines in general”. Pascoe adds his own commentary: Mitchell “recorded his astonishment at the size of the villages”; he “counts the houses, and estimates a population of over one thousand”; and “the evidence is everywhere that they have used the place for a very long time”. But in his own journal, Mitchell doesn’t express astonishment, he doesn’t count and he doesn’t estimate a population size. Nor does he present any evidence that would support a conclusion about longevity of residence. Granville Stapylton, Mitchell’s second-in-command, recorded seeing one hut “capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction” on July 26. Pascoe includes this, but not the rest of Stapylton’s sentence: “and appearantly the work of A White Man it is A known fact that A runaway Convict has been for years amongst these tribes.” That could be a reference to the well-known escapee William Buckley (who was found by John Batman the previous July), or it could be a racist myth. The point is that Pascoe simply left it out. By themselves, examples like these split hairs. But they’re all the way through _Dark Emu_. Together, such selective quoting creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material. In speeches and interviews Pascoe is known to reach even further. And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows." 
so what you have is pascoe of disputed indigenous heritage with no historian qualifications claiming things that have never been claimed before by any qualified historians that have studied the diaries & journals previously .  inter

----------


## DavoSyd

> You're barking up the wrong tree  "But throughout _Dark Emu_, Pascoe regularly exaggerates and embellishes. One example: he quotes Thomas Mitchells description of large, circular, chimneyed huts Mitchell observed near Mount Arapiles, in western Victoria, on July 26, 1836, but leaves out the words which were of a very different construction from those of the aborigines in general. Pascoe adds his own commentary: Mitchell recorded his astonishment at the size of the villages; he counts the houses, and estimates a population of over one thousand; and the evidence is everywhere that they have used the place for a very long time. But in his own journal, Mitchell doesnt express astonishment, he doesnt count and he doesnt estimate a population size. Nor does he present any evidence that would support a conclusion about longevity of residence. Granville Stapylton, Mitchells second-in-command, recorded seeing one hut capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction on July 26. Pascoe includes this, but not the rest of Stapyltons sentence: and appearantly the work of A White Man it is A known fact that A runaway Convict has been for years amongst these tribes. That could be a reference to the well-known escapee William Buckley (who was found by John Batman the previous July), or it could be a racist myth. The point is that Pascoe simply left it out. By themselves, examples like these split hairs. But theyre all the way through _Dark Emu_. Together, such selective quoting creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication thats not supported by the source material. In speeches and interviews Pascoe is known to reach even further. And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows." 
> so what you have is pascoe of disputed indigenous heritage with no historian qualifications claiming things that have never been claimed before by any qualified historians that have studied the diaries & journals previously .  inter

  it might be derived that this is where you did your copy/paste from:  https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/r...-over-dark-emu 
fascinating read, thanks inter  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

The "noble" liar ...   
https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/ancient-australians-the-worlds-first-j3ljz-yyplg-wap23-rjymy  
In our opinion, the programs, articles and news reports emanating from the biased ABC, frequently repeat the slogans of the Progressive Left such as, *Sovereignty has never been ceded*and,  *Always was, always will be Aboriginal land* and *here*. The ABC appears to be fully supportive of the Progressive Lefts and Aboriginal Activists desire  to re-write history  so as to support this illegally stolen land narrative, when in fact what actually happened in 1770-1778, is well described on page 6 of a *1996 pape*r by David Ritter, the associate to French J, President of the National Native Title Tribunal : _When Australia was originally colonised by the Crown, neither_ terra nullius _or any other legal doctrine was used to deny the recognition of traditional Aboriginal rights to land under the common law. Such a doctrinal denial would not have appeared necessary to the colonists, because the indigenous inhabitants of the colony were seen and defined by the colonists as intrinsically barbarous and without any interest in land. Thus the colonists required no legal doctrine to explain why Aboriginal people's land rights were not to be recognized under law because no doctrine was required for what was axiomatic._ That is, to the British (and hence the International legal community) the Australian Aborigines were patently a nomadic hunter gatherer society with no civilized form of government, no formal leadership with whom to negotiate, no settled agriculture, with cultivated land and domesticated animals, villages or towns.  The British at the time were quite capable of recognizing native peoples in other parts of the world who were settled agriculturalists and who therefore had an interest in their land and a recognized sovereignty that required the British, as colonisers, to deal with them formerly as sovereign states via treaties. That is why the very same British made treaties with the local natives when they colonized New Zealand, North America, Canada, India, and many other countries. Australia was a legally justifiable exception and no amount of noble lies from the ABC will overturn 250 years of International Law. But good-luck with trying to get the ABC to stop being the Noble Liar, and instead revert to their charter of being a fair and balanced reporter in the service of ALL Australians.

----------


## John2b

> You're barking up the wrong tree

  The importance and truth of the book is expressed in the beginning of the article which from which you have selectively quoted. LOL
"_Dark Emu_ rests on a foundational truth: that the European explorers saw things (and, from within their own worldview, wrote them down) that the first settlers (and the institutions that supported them) didn’t want known (because they were busy expanding the colonial frontier, which necessarily meant acting illegally), and that subsequent settlers couldn’t see (because those things were no longer in evidence)."  As I have said more than once, when I read Dark Emu, I read verbatim quotes from the original explorer's texts. That is the point I have been making all along.

----------


## Marc

John, come on, think about it. What is the point of reading a book whose author has been exposed for falsifying, exaggerating or misquoting his sources, fabricating in part or in full his ancestry for a political agenda? For me reading the book would make no sense since I personally can not distinguish the truth from falsehood as much as I try. I leave that to experts who have access to far more resources and time than i do. You can ask me to read a book from Edgar Allan Poe and ask me if I liked it or not. For that I can use my own judgement.  
If you asked me to read _A Memoire of the Holocaust Years_ by Misha Defonseca, it would be pointless since I have no way to know if such is true or false. I can not go and dig out her birth certificate to find out she was in fact catholic and attended school in Brussels whilst she was supposedly on her journey to find her parents.   There are hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent claims made in books because the cause seems noble to the author and the lies seem justified. Reading such book, with the intention to verify if it is true or not, without a barrage of knowledge and information and dedication to research is rather pointless. The only thing I could do if I read it, is to say I like or dislike the style used, and if it is entertaining, interesting or not. Rather a lame excuse to spend a few hours reading a (to me)  uninteresting topic.

----------


## John2b

> ..._ the indigenous inhabitants of the colony were seen and defined by the colonists as intrinsically barbarous and without any interest in land..._

  That may be a true representation of the perception of some, but by no means all, early colonists. However the following is not a logical progression:  
"_Thus the colonists required no legal doctrine to explain why Aboriginal people's land rights were not to be recognized under law..."_ 
The following statement in quotes above is blatantly untrue, and it defies comprehension of how it could be made by a so called intelligent being.

----------


## UseByDate

Too soon? :Shock:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bmb...ature=youtu.be

----------


## John2b

> John, come on, think about it. What is the point of reading a book whose author has been exposed for falsifying, exaggerating or misquoting his sources...

  There is some comfort in your position. We can all die happily with our person beliefs because without critical thought, we'll will never know whether we were right or wrong. But if you did read Pascoe's book you just might find out if the deriders of the book have been falsely representing, misquoting, and exaggerating Pascoe's overreach (if and where it occurs). In my interpretation they have, very seriously, and often maliciously.

----------


## UseByDate

If the Australian Aboriginals were as advanced as those described in Dark Emu, where is the evidence that they launched a scientific expedition to map the coastline of a small island in the north Atlantic 250 years ago?

----------


## PhilT2

> What is the point of reading a book whose author has been exposed for falsifying, exaggerating or misquoting his sources, fabricating in part or in full his ancestry for a political agenda?

  People read WUWT all the time; some poor fools even quote it as a reliable source despite it having been proven to be deceptive and misleading many times.

----------


## Marc

> ...  But if you did read Pascoe's book you just might find out if the deriders of the book have been falsely representing, misquoting, and exaggerating Pascoe's overreach (if and where it occurs). In my interpretation they have, very seriously, and often maliciously.

  My point is that I have no practical way to do that. I can sympathise with one side or the other based on an array of additional information, and based on that outside information the claims made against the author appear to be right. If they are or they are not, my reading the book will not change my perception of either position because I have no way of verifying what is written there nor distinguish reality from fabrication.

----------


## PhilT2

> My point is that I have no practical way to do that.

  This is not rocket science. Pascoe makes certain claims based on comments made in the journals written by early explorers. Sometimes their observations are confirmed by the findings of other explorers. Many of these journals are available online so it's easy to verify if Pascoe is quoting them accurately. This is basic stuff that high school students do.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> it might be derived that this is where you did your copy/paste from:  https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/r...-over-dark-emu 
> fascinating read, thanks inter

  yeah good arcticle that tries to keep to facts and let the reader bring their own intelligence to the question. 
FWIW, i did a bias check, to see where the monthly et al sits which is around left centre bias,  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=the+australian   Its interesting that the only 2 sources for australia that come out as factual with no bias is The conversation and The Fin review, the rest are pretty much where I'd expect them to be-  interesting to check whether your views are broadly accurate of bias

----------


## intertd6

> The importance and truth of the book is expressed in the beginning of the article which from which you have selectively quoted. LOL
> "_Dark Emu_ rests on a foundational truth: that the European explorers saw things (and, from within their own worldview, wrote them down) that the first settlers (and the institutions that supported them) didn’t want known (because they were busy expanding the colonial frontier, which necessarily meant acting illegally), and that subsequent settlers couldn’t see (because those things were no longer in evidence)."  As I have said more than once, when I read Dark Emu, I read verbatim quotes from the original explorer's texts. That is the point I have been making all along.

  you’re floundering, the book is pure fiction on what you are trying to convince others of your almost non existent burn regime, which has decimated & destroyed the Bush beyond comprehension, your tree hugging ideology has far worse consequences, it’s backfired in your faces, for your lot it doesn’t matter because you lack the understanding to accept anything other than a green dogma.
Also I asked for your academic study on the proof of the heat intensity of the fires which you claim are hotter than any other ever before, where is it? I’m calling your claim to be another bogus green lie

----------


## johnc

Oh for goodness sake this is descending into insult and ignorance. Pascoe' book has some good stuff and some over reach. However it is just another book on a subject that is difficult to validate. We know that there are stone structures built by aboriginals, there is little substance but plenty of views. We know that stone wall huts existed as well as some stone structures are probably wind breaks. The historical record is little more than European observations, there is simply not enough to be definitive. JohnB has some valid points as do others but really this is just getting a bit silly. We simply do not know what agricultural and forest management existed. All we know is the population did some burning and followed food availability. We do not not how they managed the food resource or how they managed burning beyond observations of explorers and pasturealists, in time we might, who knows. 
You blokes need need to move on, plus some of you need to be less sensitive and more willing to accept there are areas for which there are no current answers and it is ok to have different views.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh for goodness sake this is descending into insult and ignorance. Pascoe' book has some good stuff and some over reach. However it is just another book on a subject that is difficult to validate. We know that there are stone structures built by aboriginals, there is little substance but plenty of views. We know that stone wall huts existed as well as some stone structures are probably wind breaks. The historical record is little more than European observations, there is simply not enough to be definitive. JohnB has some valid points as do others but really this is just getting a bit silly. We simply do not know what agricultural and forest management existed. All we know is the population did some burning and followed food availability. We do not not how they managed the food resource or how they managed burning beyond observations of explorers and pasturealists, in time we might, who knows. 
> You blokes need need to move on, plus some of you need to be less sensitive and more willing to accept there are areas for which there are no current answers and it is ok to have different views.

  Yes but...this is the internet. It's another country... 
Have to say though...south west Victoria and south east South Australia is pretty amazing when it comes to prehistoric Aboriginal cultural ruins and the sheer capacity of the landscape to support a sedentary hunter/gatherer lifestyle. That much is apparent even in a modern context...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Too soon?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bmb...ature=youtu.be

  Nope.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh for goodness sake this is descending into insult and ignorance. Pascoe' book has some good stuff and some over reach. However it is just another book on a subject that is difficult to validate. We know that there are stone structures built by aboriginals, there is little substance but plenty of views. We know that stone wall huts existed as well as some stone structures are probably wind breaks. The historical record is little more than European observations, there is simply not enough to be definitive. JohnB has some valid points as do others but really this is just getting a bit silly. We simply do not know what agricultural and forest management existed. All we know is the population did some burning and followed food availability. We do not not how they managed the food resource or how they managed burning beyond observations of explorers and pasturealists, in time we might, who knows. 
> You blokes need need to move on, plus some of you need to be less sensitive and more willing to accept there are areas for which there are no current answers and it is ok to have different views.

  the bottom line is the aboriginals burned this country from one end to the other as often as they could, to call it sophisticated land management is laughable, it's simply what worked over thousands & thousands of years, it was a easy, it was instinctive to them, if they didn't burn the living daylights out of the bush they would starve or get incinerated eventually from wild fires.
inter

----------


## craka

> the bottom line is the aboriginals burned this country from one end to the other as often as they could, to call it sophisticated land management is laughable, it's simply what worked over thousands & thousands of years, it was a easy, it was instinctive to them, if they didn't burn the living daylights out of the bush they would starve or get incinerated eventually from wild fires.
> inter

  It seems some are in denial about this, but I agree with you.

----------


## johnc

> Yes but...this is the internet. It's another country... 
> Have to say though...south west Victoria and south east South Australia is pretty amazing when it comes to prehistoric Aboriginal cultural ruins and the sheer capacity of the landscape to support a sedentary hunter/gatherer lifestyle. That much is apparent even in a modern context...

   Tassie as well, the cooler climate probably leant itself to huts that provided greater protection from the environment. It would seem they had summer grounds and winter grounds however the extent of destruction of many of these tribes after white colonisation means we will probably never really know. The eel and fish traps seem very extensive in some areas. However although they certainly used fire to manage the landscape I don't see how it could have been coordinated on a large scale, it seems more likely it was tribe by tribe. Same with cropping, as with other cultures humans tend to manage food supply if they can. However if they had gardens these may not have been immediately recognisable to the new settlers as they would be foods not in Western diets and not in laid out paddocks, it could well have been ensuring enough was left behind and competing plants managed to provide a food crop the following year.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> the bottom line is the aboriginals burned this country from one end to the other as often as they could, to call it sophisticated land management is laughable, it's simply what worked over thousands & thousands of years, it was a easy, it was instinctive to them, if they didn't burn the living daylights out of the bush they would starve or get incinerated eventually from wild fires.
> inter

  even if you took the idea that there was a level of attempted control - the reality is a good percentage of fires would have been interrupted by a sudden wind change that gave an uncontrolled huge fire with zero attempts at stopping or gaining control. 
So what we have in australia is a landscape and ecology that is man made - unless the dominance of the current fire resistant set of species goes back hundreds of thousands of years.  Its therefore probably the case than humanity has irrevocably changed the landscape from its natural form (including megafauna loss) by discovering fire and burning the place to the ground pretty regularly. 
Then we had the second manmade age of the colonialists that made another effort at clearing it and destroying the remaining natural environment.  Both were equally ignorant of the effects of their actions long term - neither deserve some romantic place in history. 
Lets face it, humanity looks at the environment and changes it to suit them with the singular goal of doing whats best for them at that time, and within their lifetimes. 
Its quite possible that the first colonizers of this continent changed that natural habitat just as much as the second wave did - and its not good just because it suits the vibe

----------


## UseByDate

> even if you took the idea that there was a level of attempted control - the reality is a good percentage of fires would have been interrupted by a sudden wind change that gave an uncontrolled huge fire with zero attempts at stopping or gaining control. 
> So what we have in australia is a landscape and ecology that is man made - unless the dominance of the current fire resistant set of species goes back hundreds of thousands of years.  Its therefore probably the case than humanity has irrevocably changed the landscape from its natural form (including megafauna loss) by discovering fire and burning the place to the ground pretty regularly. 
> Then we had the second manmade age of the colonialists that made another effort at clearing it and destroying the remaining natural environment.  Both were equally ignorant of the effects of their actions long term - neither deserve some romantic place in history. 
> Lets face it, humanity looks at the environment and changes it to suit them with the singular goal of doing whats best for them at that time, and within their lifetimes. 
> Its quite possible that the first colonizers of this continent changed that natural habitat just as much as the second wave did - and its not good just because it suits the vibe

   :What he said:

----------


## Bros

> The first 12 minutes or so of the latest episode (episode 2) of ABCs Landline is worth a watch. 
> Compares current forest density with before European settlement.  https://iview.abc.net.au/show/landli.../RF1904Q002S00

  Finally got around to looking at it and it is pretty interesting the vegetation before white settlement and now.

----------


## craka

> even if you took the idea that there was a level of attempted control - the reality is a good percentage of fires would have been interrupted by a sudden wind change that gave an uncontrolled huge fire with zero attempts at stopping or gaining control. 
> So what we have in australia is a landscape and ecology that is man made - unless the dominance of the current fire resistant set of species goes back hundreds of thousands of years.  Its therefore probably the case than humanity has irrevocably changed the landscape from its natural form (including megafauna loss) by discovering fire and burning the place to the ground pretty regularly. 
> Then we had the second manmade age of the colonialists that made another effort at clearing it and destroying the remaining natural environment.  Both were equally ignorant of the effects of their actions long term - neither deserve some romantic place in history. 
> Lets face it, humanity looks at the environment and changes it to suit them with the singular goal of doing whats best for them at that time, and within their lifetimes. 
> Its quite possible that the first colonizers of this continent changed that natural habitat just as much as the second wave did - and its not good just because it suits the vibe

  The action was never to burn the place to the ground, nor was it for uncontrolled fires.

----------


## intertd6

> The action was never to burn the place to the ground, nor was it for uncontrolled fires.

  They modified the the Bush so much with constant burning it couldnt burn like it has now , although it cant be discounted with a natural disaster like drought or famine that could have decimated a generation the population in a particular area & the bush came back quicker than the population.
inter

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The action was never to burn the place to the ground, nor was it for uncontrolled fires.

  in 10 thousand years, it seems unlikely it all went to plan and not in extreme droughts like now.  So how did they control the fires 100% of the time?

----------


## Moondog55

10kA from the end of the last Ice-Age but 55kA before that too, plenty of time to change the landscape.

----------


## craka

> in 10 thousand years, it seems unlikely it all went to plan and not in extreme droughts like now.  So how did they control the fires 100% of the time?

  Sorry, I never stated it did. I simply said that was not the aim.  The aim was to burn with slow burns and often.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It's easy to forget that it doesn't matter anymore what the Aboriginal nations did with respect to fire....it's what they left us. Which was a fire evolved landscape. 
Then we have to add onto that what two hundred and a few years of European colonisation left us of that. 
Then there's what the industrial revolution and its feedback brings to the table as well. 
Honestly...arguing about going back to a relatively balanced fire management system developed over tens of thousands of years that was basically destroyed two hundred years ago is... laughable. 
We can use elements of it. Absolutely. But these days we are trying to preserve what's left of that balanced system in a particularly unbalanced world...and there's not much left. And the reasoning behind that preservation is many and varied and competing - conservation, forestry, lifestyle,   water catchment, farming etc. 
We can use cultural burning...but we can't burn everything. And we can't burn everything all the time. And we have to decide and agree what it is we want to do with the bugger all that is left...is it really bugger all? Or is it more important than that? 
I already know what the Great Unwashed think... it's only important if it's on the television...

----------


## John2b

Silent, it is obvious that burning everything all of the time is the preferred, if not the only, solution. There is just too much green tape ffs

----------


## Marc

> It's easy to forget that it doesn't matter anymore what the Aboriginal nations did with respect to fire....it's what they left us. Which was a fire evolved landscape. 
> Then we have to add onto that what two hundred and a few years of European colonisation left us of that. 
> Then there's what the industrial revolution and its feedback brings to the table as well. 
> Honestly...arguing about going back to a relatively balanced fire management system developed over tens of thousands of years that was basically destroyed two hundred years ago is... laughable. 
> We can use elements of it. Absolutely. But these days we are trying to preserve what's left of that balanced system in a particularly unbalanced world...and there's not much left. And the reasoning behind that preservation is many and varied and competing - conservation, forestry, lifestyle,   water catchment, farming etc. 
> We can use cultural burning...but we can't burn everything. And we can't burn everything all the time. And we have to decide and agree what it is we want to do with the bugger all that is left...is it really bugger all? Or is it more important than that? 
> I already know what the Great Unwashed think... it's only important if it's on the television...

  You are stating the obvious, that is what we have. But you forgot to add that we also have a very loud minority that thinks humans are a weed to be exterminated and that anything that is outside people's houses must be left alone and not interfered with.
Very hard to reconcile that with a politically motivated world record exponential increase in population, a hamstrung infrastructure development that needs to kneel to gaia's altar to pass wind, and a myriad of little hitler councils who believe it is their gaia given right to prosecute farmers and land owners for doing what needs to be done to coexist with the land. 
And in your expose, you are not giving any solution. What do you propose? Should we all move to NZ? 
What needs to be done is rather obvious. Allow way more bush clearing, or buy back all the new developments in the bush and relocate people in towns. We cannot keep on allowing the councils to make money with developments in dangerous areas and stop this new areas from being made safer by clearing a kilometer around them and keep it clean. 
We can not have it both ways. National parks that thumb their noses to anything that is demanded from farmers next door.  "Humanitarian" immigration policy with zero infrastructure projects, and I can go on for an hour.  
Sure we are stuck with whatever we have today. Fact. 
What do we do from now onwards? 
Just to name one issue that is close to home. The Warragamba dam wall needs to be lifted, to avoid future floods and increase storage capacity. 
The greens and labor stop this by saying that it would flood (fancy word today is "inundate" what morons) so called pristine wilderness. I know that so called pristine wilderness. it is all but pristine, it was a wild mass of weeds and crap and is now burned to the ground. 
The wall needs to be lifted, the bridge at windsor should have been finished 20 years ago, Lake Conjola channel to the sea open permanently by dredging it open and set fire to the local council that wants the lake to turn into wetlands ... etc etc etc

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Sorry, I never stated it did. I simply said that was not the aim.  The aim was to burn with slow burns and often.

  maybe the word "intended" was needed then.   The guy who chucks the cigarette out the window on the Hume, doesnt intend to start a wildfire , let alone the burnoffs that go horribly wrong - so I suppose Im suggesting that regardless of intent what really matters is what was the outcome. 
Sorry, ive been exposed to a plethora of promotion about cultural burning being some sort of answer to our current/recent crisis, as if there is some mystical knowledge available to an an indigenous person that is beyond the understanding of the computer modelling, records, aerial photography that we can draw on today.......  it all seems a little irish fairies in the garden to me... 
Here's hoping that in a centuries time, man can control the weather (well at least the rain bit)

----------


## Bedford



----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And in your expose, you are not giving any solution. What do you propose?

  Nothing.  
Primarily because no-one can collectively articulate what they want from their future and what they'd like their environment to be like. Certainly with respect to fire in the landscape. 
Therefore, I advocate for more of the same. And let luck, risk and consequence sort it out. Unless we have a plan for where we want to take our fire management and for what social, environmental and economic purpose then there's not much point doing much that's different. Who knows? We might even be doing the right thing! 
As for Warragamba and the clamour to raise the wall again...the bigger the dam, the bigger the flood. Flooding will be even rarer than it is now (especially the tiddlers that clean out the river channel and keep the distance between the banks broad) but, eventually, when it does flood...it'll be a ripper - and it will tear the Hawkesbury a new one. Like I said before though...luck, risk and consequence will sort it out.

----------


## intertd6

> maybe the word "intended" was needed then.   The guy who chucks the cigarette out the window on the Hume, doesnt intend to start a wildfire , let alone the burnoffs that go horribly wrong - so I suppose Im suggesting that regardless of intent what really matters is what was the outcome. 
> Sorry, ive been exposed to a plethora of promotion about cultural burning being some sort of answer to our current/recent crisis, as if there is some mystical knowledge available to an an indigenous person that is beyond the understanding of the computer modelling, records, aerial photography that we can draw on today.......  it all seems a little irish fairies in the garden to me... 
> Here's hoping that in a centuries time, man can control the weather (well at least the rain bit)

  you are completely missing the point, the bush needs to be burned at least once a year, just like the aboriginals did, by doing that we can revert the bush back to a clearer understory where low energy lower fires have less chance of getting into the heads of the trees & becoming a uncontrollable canopy fire from an uncontrollable forest floor fire. It is the only solution, everone is avoiding the simple reality of it. Untill then the computer modelling will show high fire danger every time we have high temperatures & high forest floor fuel loads.
inter

----------


## Bros

Well which of the two posts above do you want to keep one has an extra sentence?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well which of the two posts above do you want to keep one has an extra sentence?

  Burn the one with the most fuel...

----------


## Marc

> Nothing. *  I figured that one.*  
> Primarily because no-one can collectively articulate what they want from their future and what they'd like their environment to be like. Certainly with respect to fire in the landscape. _From the screams, the pulling of hairs, the superglue, the chains, the intellectually challenged giving international speeches, it seems there are plenty who believe to know what they want._ 
> Therefore, I advocate for more of the same. And let luck, risk and consequence sort it out. Unless we have a plan for where we want to take our fire management and for what social, environmental and economic purpose then there's not much point doing much that's different. Who knows? We might even be doing the right thing! *Unfortunately those who decide, do so for purposes that are far removed from anything to do with rational and everything to do with personal gain, their own that is.* 
> As for Warragamba and the clamour to raise the wall again...the bigger the dam, the bigger the flood. Flooding will be even rarer than it is now (especially the tiddlers that clean out the river channel and keep the distance between the banks broad) but, eventually, when it does flood...it'll be a ripper - and it will tear the Hawkesbury a new one. Like I said before though...luck, risk and consequence will sort it out. *The proposed rising of the wall by 14 meters is to have a buffer between 100% full and spillover. A higher wall will contain excess water above current 100% that will be released in a controlled way overtime when rain stops. It is not to fill to 100% including the new hight. In any case a flood is caused by rainwater that is not contained, and it's magnitude has nothing to do with the size of the dam, unless the dam fails, or the morons open the floodgates.*

   ..

----------


## pharmaboy2

> you are completely missing the point, the bush needs to be burned at least once a year, just like the aboriginals did, by doing that we can revert the bush back to a clearer understory where low energy lower fires have less chance of getting into the heads of the trees & becoming a uncontrollable canopy fire from an uncontrollable forest floor fire. It is the only solution, everone is avoiding the simple reality of it. Untill then the computer modelling will show high fire danger every time we have high temperatures & high forest floor fuel loads.
> inter

  LOL - I havent missed the point - i just dont accept yours - it doesnt mean i cant comprehend it. 
You cant possibly burn all forest every year  - just think about the size of what you are suggesting, let alone at what cost

----------


## John2b

> just think about the size of what you are suggesting, let alone at what cost

  I would have thought that ought to be rather obvious. I suspect that a lot of the current notion of "fire-stick" farming has been amplified for ideological purposes. There's plenty of evidence that such wide-scale burning across Australia simply could not have occurred, nor does the devastation that would have resulted feature in the records of the early explorers. There is plenty of published research to the contrary as well.  "The 'fire stick farming model, which suggests that Aborigines changed the frequency and nature of fires in order to manipulate animal and plant resources, is now widely accepted in Australian phehistory. A re-examination of the biological evidence suggests that Aboriginal use of fire had little impact on the environment and that the patterns of distribution of plants and animals which obtained 200 years ago would have been essentially the same whether or not Aborigines had previously been living here. It is further suggested that 'fire stick farming, had it been attempted, would in fact have been counter productive economically because of the adverse effects it would have had upon small species of animals. Aborigines observed and made use of an existing natural fire regime in Australia, they did not attempt to develop a new one." https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ian_Ecosystems

----------


## intertd6

> You cant possibly burn all forest every year  - just think about the size of what you are suggesting, let alone at what cost

  Why not? It used to be & possibly more often, we can't afford not to do it.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I would have thought that ought to be rather obvious. I suspect that a lot of the current notion of "fire-stick" farming has been amplified for ideological purposes. There's plenty of evidence that such wide-scale burning across Australia simply could not have occurred, nor does the devastation that would have resulted feature in the records of the early explorers. There is plenty of published research to the contrary as well. "The 'fire stick farming model, which suggests that Aborigines changed the frequency and nature of fires in order to manipulate animal and plant resources, is now widely accepted in Australian phehistory. A re-examination of the biological evidence suggests that Aboriginal use of fire had little impact on the environment and that the patterns of distribution of plants and animals which obtained 200 years ago would have been essentially the same whether or not Aborigines had previously been living here. It is further suggested that 'fire stick farming’, had it been attempted, would in fact have been counter productive economically because of the adverse effects it would have had upon small species of animals. Aborigines observed and made use of an existing natural fire regime in Australia, they did not attempt to develop a new one." https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ian_Ecosystems

  There is no ideology, it is fact, if the aboriginals didn't burn & change the bush they would have perished in the fires that would have engulfed them, you are switching off to the hard facts of the paintings , sketches & accounts of the first settlers, instead you are clutching at & believing unfounded theories, the burning that they did, thinned the forests, when their numbers were decimated by disease & other factors the bush flourished with growth & burned uncontrollably just like it has just done now, fires were so intense in the mid 1800's ships that set to sea to escape the fires were being covered in embers 20 kilometres or so from the coast.
you are wilfully switching off your brain to the facts.
inter

----------


## r3nov8or

> Why not? It used to be & possibly more often, we can't afford not to do it.
> inter

  Unlike the aborigines, we have chosen to build and live permanently in the bush. Regardless of how well one thinks slow burning can be controlled, no one there wants an almost-permanently charred bush setting, and so we are where we are today... we have evolved into a selfish race that puts itself in harms way and puts its hand out for recompense when it loses out to the obvious risks it places itself in

----------


## intertd6

> Unlike the aborigines, we have chosen to build and live permanently in the bush. Regardless of how well one thinks slow burning can be controlled, no one there wants an almost-permanently charred bush setting, and so we are where we are today... we have evolved into a selfish race that puts itself in harms way and puts its hand out for recompense when it loses out to the obvious risks it places itself in

  Millions of hectares of wilderness has been burned & all the endangered animals & flora that lived in it have been decimated & possibly made extinct in some cases, the non burn green ideology has caused this, the urban areas & damage is tiny & what caused it came from the wilderness areas which have been insanely locked up with pathetic burn regimes which are decades apart.
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Millions of hectares of wilderness has been burned & all the endangered animals & flora that lived in it have been decimated & possibly made extinct in some cases, the non burn green ideology has caused this, the urban areas & damage is tiny & what caused it came from the wilderness areas which have been insanely locked up with pathetic burn regimes which are decades apart.
> inter

  Actually, the free market ideology of our governments mean that they aren't prepared to invest sufficient tens (hundreds?) of millions to adequately fund the fire management of said 'wilderness' (hint: they aren't really) areas in a way that you and many others would prefer.  
The burn plans as they stand are more a reflection of the available resources (money/people/skills) and the available on-ground data than anything else. There's no point being ambitious in your annual incineration area if the available coin basically says that's impossible. Add to that the fact that the opportunity to burn (and burn safely) is diminishing each and every year due to both CC and NIMBYism. 
Regardless, absolutely no-one wants to spend more money (aka be taxed more) on managing 'useless' bushland (if it wasn't useless it'd be either grazing land or forestry land...that's why it's still bushland.)

----------


## intertd6

> Actually, the free market ideology of our governments mean that they aren't prepared to invest sufficient tens (hundreds?) of millions to adequately fund the fire management of said 'wilderness' (hint: they aren't really) areas in a way that you and many others would prefer.  
> The burn plans as they stand are more a reflection of the available resources (money/people/skills) and the available on-ground data than anything else. There's no point being ambitious in your annual incineration area if the available coin basically says that's impossible. Add to that the fact that the opportunity to burn (and burn safely) is diminishing each and every year due to both CC and NIMBYism. 
> Regardless, absolutely no-one wants to spend more money (aka be taxed more) on managing 'useless' bushland (if it wasn't useless it'd be either grazing land or forestry land...that's why it's still bushland.)

  You are missing the point, it is unacceptable that we are in this position, we can't afford not to burn adequately, you are making up excuses for a system that doesn't work & never will & seem quite happy with the outcomes of the destruction, plus the immense costs of fighting & fixing it up after the horse has bolted The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result. 
Inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are missing the point, it is unacceptable that we are in this position, we can't afford not to burn adequately, you are making up excuses for a system that doesn't work & never will & seem quite happy with the outcomes of the destruction, plus the immense costs of fighting & fixing it up after the horse has bolted The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result. 
> Inter

  I'm not missing the point... I'm simply pointing out the point was missed. And that most people don't really care...

----------


## r3nov8or

> Millions of hectares of wilderness has been burned...

  You say that used to happen every year. Gotta start somewhere I guess. But there's SO much more to burn yet! Off you go!

----------


## DavoSyd

> You say that used to happen every year.

  did he really say that?  
that would mean the *all* of the bushland in NSW would be *completely* burnt every 10 years or so?

----------


## John2b

> that would mean the *all* of the bushland in NSW would be *completely* burnt every 10 years or so?

  Which, based on decades of studies of rates of fuel load recovery, would still not prevent bushfires like we had recently.

----------


## Bedford

> Which, based on decades of studies of rates of fuel load recovery, would still not prevent bushfires like we had recently.

  So what would prevent bushfires like we had recently, other than rain?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Had a really interesting discussion with a fire ecology person last night about cultural burning and it's legacy.  
She made the comment that it can be a useful tool but pointed out it was probably only rarely (if ever) used in many of the areas (on the Great Divide anyway) that are now part of the National Estate and have burned this summer 
Mainly because the areas that could support a rich population of Aboriginal people were the same parts of the landscape that subsequently interested the European colonists for agriculture. They were places with fertile soils, access to water and they weren't too steep. And these were the places that were regularly burned... 
The steep hilly country or the rocky escarpments weren't going to support lots of people so they were rarely visited unless there were pathways through these areas (like the Blue Mountains for instance) so they were burned far less often...if ever. And wild fires would have been common. 
This steep, hilly country and the rocky escarpments are all that European colonisation and development have left behind in terms of the native landscape. They weren't developed because they were agriculturally worthless. And these same areas were less productive for the Aboriginal nations too...

----------


## r3nov8or

> did he really say that? 
> ...

  Yes, here -

----------


## DavoSyd

> Yes, here -

  eeek! 
yet he is asserting that other people:     

> are wilfully switching off your brain to the facts.

  _awkward..._

----------


## DavoSyd

RC details:   

> *Commonwealth powers, climate change at heart of bushfire royal commission* 
> Scott Morrison has announced the royal commission into this summers bushfires will focus on Commonwealth powers in responding to national emergencies and the practical implications of climate change. 
> It appears the review will not explicitly examine the role of climate change and emissions reduction policy in preventing future fires, with the terms of reference set to look at improving natural disaster managements across all levels of government and improving Australias preparedness to natural disasters, in addition to the role of the Commonwealth. 
> The Prime Minister wants the inquiry to begin as soon as possible, with the final report due back by August 31. 
> The inquiry acknowledges climate change, the broader impact of our summers getting longer, drier and hotter and is focused on practical action that has a direct link to making Australians safer, the Prime Minister said on releasing the terms of reference to the inquiry. 
> Thats why we need to look at what actions should be taken to enhance our preparedness, resilience and recovery through the actions of all levels of government and the community, for the environment we are living in.
> Mark Binskin, the air chief marshal previously announced to lead the royal commission, will be joined by Annabelle Bennett, a former Federal Court Judge, and ANU Professor Andrew Macintosh, a specialist in climate risk and impact management. 
> Mr Morrison, who refers to the past fire season as the Black Summer bushfires, said the country needs to consider the need to establish new powers for the federal government to declare a national state of emergency to trigger direct federal government responses to national disasters, including the direct deployment of the Australian Defence Force. 
> Currently, there are no such powers and federal responses are supposed to only be undertaken in response to state requests and authorisations, Mr Morrison said. 
> The overwhelming majority of the actions to protect Australians from bushfires are undertaken at a state level. Everything from resourcing our fire services and hazard reduction, to land clearing and planning laws. Even the declaration of emergencies, the areas that are designated to receive payments and in most cases the assessment and delivery of those payments, even when they are funded by the federal government, are all undertaken by the states.

  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...94694939f05c69

----------


## intertd6

> did he really say that?  
> that would mean the *all* of the bushland in NSW would be *completely* burnt every 10 years or so?

  what was meant was that the bush was burned yearly or more often by the aboriginals, every thing that could burn was burned as they went, they constantly moved about their defined tribal areas in search of food, once they had cleaned an area out of easily assessable food they moved on, in our area they went from the ocean to the mountains with the seasonal cycles, the amount of available food dictated their population.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> eeek! 
> yet he is asserting that other people:      _awkward..._

  You have gone off half cocked & haven't been following what I've said at all.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> RC details:    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...94694939f05c69

  And another very expensive talkfest will occur & nothing concerning the stopping of destructive fires will change, we as a nation can't change the climate & never will, so that pie in the sky preventative measure is unobtainable, what we can do is reduce forest fire fuel loads & thin the bush with very regular burning.
inter

----------


## Bedford

> RC details:  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...94694939f05c69

   

> The Prime Minister wants the inquiry to begin as soon as possible, with the final report due back by August 31.

  Well that will certainly give them time to reduce the fuel before this years fires. :Rolleyes:

----------


## John2b

> So what would prevent bushfires like we had recently, other than rain?

  Fires will always light, whether by accident, intention or lightning strike - the solution is first strike capability, which almost non-existent this year. The only large water-bomber in Australia at the time was rotating between WA, SA, Vic and NSW. It probably spent more time flying between fires than fighting fires. 
When a fire starts in an inaccessible area it cannot be fought from the ground, at least until it burns to an area accessible to ground firefighters. If the wind direction changes before then, it's all over. And that's what happened at Cuddly Creek in the Adelaide Hills and Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island. By the time that the fire in Flinders Chase burnt to roads and/or the bulldozers got to the fire-front, the fire was creating its own pyrocumulus weather with fire-spouts, ember storms, and dry lightning strikes, which were advancing the fire-front in jumps of several kilometres. Fire breaks and containment lines become totally useless except around fixed assets where there are resources to defend against the fire. 
No land, whether totally cleared or not, is safe from burning when the weather is hot and dry enough, as the Pinery fire in SA in 2015 demonstrated. And as summer fire seasons get longer, hotter and dryer, more of the same, or worse, must be expected. To draw a logical extension from Intertd6's earlier comment #928, it would be insane to do more of the same, under dramatically different climate conditions, and expect the outcome previously achieved.

----------


## John2b

> Well that will certainly give them time to reduce the fuel before this years fires.

  No problem - the terms of reference set by Scott Morrison have largely predetermined its conclusions.

----------


## Bedford

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   
>  Which, based on decades of studies of rates of fuel load recovery, would still not prevent bushfires like we had recently.

    

> Originally Posted by *Bedford*   
>  So what would *prevent* bushfires like we had recently, other than rain?

    

> Fires will always light, whether by accident, intention or lightning strike - the solution is first strike capability, which almost non-existent this year. The only large water-bomber in Australia at the time was rotating between WA, SA, Vic and NSW. It probably spent more time flying between fires than fighting fires. 
> When a fire starts in an inaccessible area it cannot be fought from the ground, at least until it burns to an area accessible to ground firefighters. If the wind direction changes before then, it's all over. And that's what happened at Cuddly Creek in the Adelaide Hills and Flinders Chase National Park on Kangaroo Island. By the time that the fire in Flinders Chase burnt to roads and/or the bulldozers got to the fire-front, the fire was creating its own pyrocumulus weather with fire-spouts, ember storms, and dry lightning strikes, which were advancing the fire-front in jumps of several kilometres. Fire breaks and containment lines become totally useless except around fixed assets where there are resources to defend against the fire. 
> No land, whether totally cleared or not, is safe from burning when the weather is hot and dry enough, as the Pinery fire in SA in 2015 demonstrated. And as summer fire seasons get longer, hotter and dryer, more of the same, or worse, must be expected. To draw a logical extension from Intertd6's earlier comment #928, it would be insane to do more of the same, under dramatically different climate conditions, and expect the outcome previously achieved.

  Nice story John but what you're saying is after a fire starts.      

> *prevent*  /prɪˈvɛnt/ _verb_  
> 1.keep (something) from                                       happening.

----------


## Marc

The problem with preventing anything, be it fires, illness, crime etc, is that it is cheap, does not produce fear, and provides no photo opportunity. Excuses for spending, scaring the population into wanting a saviour, and the ubiquitous photo opportunity are the essential tools of popularity politics and anything that deprives the moron in charge of said tools, will always be relegated to the 'forget it' basket.

----------


## r3nov8or

> No problem - the terms of reference set by Scott Morrison have largely predetermined its conclusions.

  Do you think he wrote them, or just read them?

----------


## DavoSyd

> what was meant was that* the bush was burned yearly or more often by the aboriginals,* *every thing that could burn was burned as they went*, they constantly moved about their defined tribal areas in search of food, once they had cleaned an area out of easily assessable food they moved on, in our area they went from the ocean to the mountains with the seasonal cycles, the amount of available food dictated their population.
> inter

  i would be interested in your source for the two highlighted statements above?

----------


## John2b

> Do you think he wrote them, or just read them?

  Who knows how many of the 57 formal public inquiries into bushfires since 1938 that Morrison has or hasnt read. Clearly the following is news to ScoMo from Marketing: 
In 2010 a Parliamentary inquiry The incidence and severity of bushfires across Australia reviewed 18 previous major bushfire inquiries in Australia, including state and federal parliamentary committee inquiries, COAG reports, coronial inquiries and Royal Commissions. Amongst other things contained in the Senate Inquiry:  The AGD (Attorney-General's Department) has responsibility for whole of government coordination of emergency management activities and crisis management on behalf of the Commonwealth. This includes direct responsibility for the provision of a range of mitigation, crisis management and recovery activities in support of the States and Territories in managing bushfires. 
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth co-ordinate a national approach to the pooling of ground fire fighting resources across agencies and jurisdictions to maximise the efficiency of their use.  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...res/report/c02

----------


## intertd6

> i would be interested in your source for the two highlighted statements above?

  i posted a painting of some of the proof a few pages back, & an excerpt from cooks log, plus my own personal experience of living in a community with full blooded initiated aboriginals for a good part of a year. There is no shortage of more of the same from the early settlers.
inter

----------


## DavoSyd

> i posted a painting of some of the proof a few pages back, & an excerpt from cooks log, plus my own personal experience of living in a community with full blooded initiated aboriginals for a good part of a year. There is no shortage of more of the same from the early settlers.
> inter

  ah, okay, now I see, yes, thank you for clarifying inter.

----------


## intertd6

> Who knows how many of the 57 formal public inquiries into bushfires since 1938 that Morrison has or hasnt read. Clearly the following is news to ScoMo from Marketing: 
> In 2010 a Parliamentary inquiry The incidence and severity of bushfires across Australia reviewed 18 previous major bushfire inquiries in Australia, including state and federal parliamentary committee inquiries, COAG reports, coronial inquiries and Royal Commissions. Amongst other things contained in the Senate Inquiry: The AGD (Attorney-General's Department) has responsibility for whole of government coordination of emergency management activities and crisis management on behalf of the Commonwealth. This includes direct responsibility for the provision of a range of mitigation, crisis management and recovery activities in support of the States and Territories in managing bushfires. 
> The committee recommends that the Commonwealth co-ordinate a national approach to the pooling of ground fire fighting resources across agencies and jurisdictions to maximise the efficiency of their use.  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...res/report/c02

  That is trying to fight a problem after it begins, the idea is to eliminate the problem before it becomes a problem, which is reducing fuel loads which in turn reduces the scrub in the forests which will & does burn uncontrollably , it is impossible to fight fires of this magnitude, it is vertually a complete waste of time, you can save a few structures but the ecological damage to the animals & such is immeasurable.
inter

----------


## Marc

The obtuse fixation with "doing nothing to preserve the environment" reminds me of the equally obtuse morons who reintroduced bears in switzerland and northern Italy, without consulting those living there. 
After 100 years of being free of bears, locals find themselves with 50 bears that kill their livestock and attack bushwalkers. I wonder what will come next? Reintroduce lions in Spain? Elephants in Greece? 
The extent of the brain numbing effect of doctrine is astonishing.  
The bush we have today is not what it was before aborigines used fire to find food. It has been changed irreversibly with 50,000 years of burning it, and is now a depending environment that depends from humans to keep on burning it in order to preserve it. It is not self supporting. 
So "doing nothing" is harming the environment. 
Humans are part of the environment. If the activist and their supporters don't believe that to be the case, there is always New Zealand, Morocco or a certain island of Greece to go and 'activate'.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The bush we have today is not what it was before aborigines used fire to find food.

  Here's the thing... it's not even what it was just 200 years ago. The bits that most Aboriginal nations used to find food in (and burn accordingly) are gone. European settlement used them because they were the best bits. The Cumberland Plain that died under the weight of Sydney is an excellent example. So are the NSW Central Tablelands. And Victoria's Yarra Valley and Western Grasslands... there's plenty others. 
There's no question that what's left is fire adapted...but it's also (arguably) 'waste ground'. It's useless for agriculture and pretty much useless for forestry and largely valueless for anyone who doesn't value it for anything other than its intrinsic nature or even beauty. Few these days appears to attach a significant economic value to it... certainly not directly 
So...why spend the significant coin required to actually burn it? What is the economic value in incinerating vast areas of bushland every other year? There's certainly not much environmental point in doing it (especially since it tends to simplify biota)...there might be a perceived social point in doing it in the short term but actually? Dunno...

----------


## craka

> Here's the thing... it's not even what it was just 200 years ago. The bits that most Aboriginal nations used to find food in (and burn accordingly) are gone. European settlement used them because they were the best bits. The Cumberland Plain that died under the weight of Sydney is an excellent example. So are the NSW Central Tablelands. And Victoria's Yarra Valley and Western Grasslands... there's plenty others. 
> There's no question that what's left is fire adapted...but it's also (arguably) 'waste ground'. It's useless for agriculture and pretty much useless for forestry and largely valueless for anyone who doesn't value it for anything other than its intrinsic nature or even beauty. Few these days appears to attach a significant economic value to it... certainly not directly 
> So...why spend the significant coin required to actually burn it? What is the economic value in incinerating vast areas of bushland every other year? There's certainly not much environmental point in doing it (especially since it tends to simplify biota)...there might be a perceived social point in doing it in the short term but actually? Dunno...

  
Maybe if you weighted the argument against the economic losses of not doing it, one could see the economic benefit of doing it?   Have a look at the estimated economic losses to affected towns over this summer.

----------


## Marc

> So...why spend the significant coin required to actually burn it? What is the economic value in incinerating vast areas of bushland every other year? There's certainly not much environmental point in doing it (especially since it tends to simplify biota)...there might be a perceived social point in doing it in the short term but actually? Dunno...

  There is no value in doing it every other year. There would be if it is done twice a year ... as for the value ... it is the only way to prevent large fires that kill and destroy. If you believe humans have no value and it is better for them to burn, I understand. i think in the same way about criminals, pedofiles rapist and murderes, why do we keep them? Fortunately I have no longer any power and am satisfied in contemplate. It gives me plenty of giggles.

----------


## intertd6

> Here's the thing... it's not even what it was just 200 years ago. The bits that most Aboriginal nations used to find food in (and burn accordingly) are gone. European settlement used them because they were the best bits. The Cumberland Plain that died under the weight of Sydney is an excellent example. So are the NSW Central Tablelands. And Victoria's Yarra Valley and Western Grasslands... there's plenty others. 
> There's no question that what's left is fire adapted...but it's also (arguably) 'waste ground'. It's useless for agriculture and pretty much useless for forestry and largely valueless for anyone who doesn't value it for anything other than its intrinsic nature or even beauty. Few these days appears to attach a significant economic value to it... certainly not directly 
> So...why spend the significant coin required to actually burn it? What is the economic value in incinerating vast areas of bushland every other year? There's certainly not much environmental point in doing it (especially since it tends to simplify biota)...there might be a perceived social point in doing it in the short term but actually? Dunno...

  where did you get the absurd idea that aboriginals only found food in the good parts of the country you mentioned?
that hands down is the most ignorant statement I've heard in a long time. The inaccessible & rough parts of the country had an abundance of food like fish, ducks, eels, flying foxes, parrots, pigeons, wallabies, bogon moths, thrip, rainforest tree blossom , nuts & a thousand other things. 
The economic value of frequent burns is everything isn't incinerated, let go of those trees,  they need burning very regularly.
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Maybe if you weighted the argument against the economic losses of not doing it, one could see the economic benefit of doing it?   Have a look at the estimated economic losses to affected towns over this summer.

  That may be the only way... however, the economic loss of not doing it seems to be solely associated with the loss of human infrastructure, services and lives. And these losses in any given area may only happen once every quarter century or even longer.  
The direct and indirect costs (and therefore losses) associated with burning the daylights out of the bush (or even just cool burns) every year everywhere...spread over 25 years may not exactly be cheap either. 
Hazard reduction burning is just a tool...not a solution.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> where did you get the absurd idea that aboriginals only found food in the good parts of the country you mentioned?
> that hands down is the most ignorant statement I've heard in a long time. The inaccessible & rough parts of the country had an abundance of food like fish, ducks, eels, flying foxes, parrots, pigeons, wallabies, bogon moths, thrip, rainforest tree blossom , nuts & a thousand other things. 
> The economic value of frequent burns is everything isn't incinerated, let go of those trees,  they need burning very regularly.
> inter

  The word I prefaced that comment with was 'most' plus all my examples were southern.  
There's little doubt that Aboriginal people in the temperate parts of Oz congregated in the parts of the country where the water and nutrients were. Sure they traversed the rougher and poorer quality country and even gathered resources there (burning as they went) but nowhere near as frequently especially away from trading routes. 
A fine example of this is the remnant Victorian Mallee. There's pretty good evidence that, whilst there were a few trading routes through it, it wasn't heavily used or broadly burned prior to European settlement. Old growth Mallee was common in the current remnant areas with some trunks exceeding 400 years of age...that can't happen with frequent burning.  
Most of that better Mallee country has long since disappeared under the plough leaving only the poorer, less fertile and distinctly water poor areas remaining...and we still argue to this day about how to burn it properly...

----------


## Bedford

> however, the economic loss of not doing it seems to be solely associated with the loss of human infrastructure, services and lives.

    

> Hazard reduction burning is just a tool...not a solution.

  So what's your solution to the problem?

----------


## craka

> That may be the only way... however, the economic loss of not doing it seems to be solely associated with the loss of human infrastructure, services and lives. And these losses in any given area may only happen once every quarter century or even longer.  
> The direct and indirect costs (and therefore losses) associated with burning the daylights out of the bush (or even just cool burns) every year everywhere...spread over 25 years may not exactly be cheap either. 
> Hazard reduction burning is just a tool...not a solution.

  A tool that is quite under utilised.

----------


## Marc

It is pathetic to read the arguments for the sake of arguing of the pontificators and the eristic, who cling to archaic notions of pseudo virtue, in defence of the indefensible, plinking at windmills pretending to know better ... and never ever risk one single solitary proposal of a vestige of a solution. 
Hang your head in shame.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So what's your solution to the problem?

  In the first instance? Define the nature of the problem much more clearly, rationally and methodically.... 
Otherwise we are just going round and round arguing about the burning bush.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A tool that is quite under utilised.

  Perhaps. However, the currently available resources and budget in NSW for hazard reduction burning is not increasing...and what gets done costs a few million already.  Are you prepared to pay more? Are you prepared to pay more even though it may not make any difference to your risk of being impacted by a fire? 
Like I said...HRB are a tool for fire management. Sometimes though, it's a bench plane when you really need a hammer.

----------


## John2b

> Like I said...HRB are a tool for fire management. Sometimes though, it's a bench plane when you really need a hammer.

   Who's forgotten the weeks of smoke and pollution that suburban Sydney suffered just months before the current fire season? Yet that was nowhere near enough HRB, not by a factor of 100, to prevent the ensuing fires that occurred.

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps. However, the currently available resources and budget in NSW for hazard reduction burning is not increasing...and what gets done costs a few million already.  Are you prepared to pay more? Are you prepared to pay more even though it may not make any difference to your risk of being impacted by a fire? 
> Like I said...HRB are a tool for fire management. Sometimes though, it's a bench plane when you really need a hammer.

  As shown lack forest burns no matter how confounded  by green & red tape , will be overruled by nature, I envisage aboriginal land councils taking on the task of burning the forests, what ever the cost , we can't not burn as often as necessary.
inter

----------


## Bedford



----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  Perhaps the original finding is no longer true? Though surely it could never be 'that' simple...   https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Env...ires-explainer

----------


## Bedford

> Perhaps the original finding is no longer true? Though surely it could never be 'that' simple...   https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Env...ires-explainer

  That article is just a burst of BS to try to justify and fund their existence.   

> Our national science effort remains focussed on providing the information necessary to improve our overall bushfire understanding and preparation. Australian researchers produce some of the worlds best climate, weather, fire and disaster research; and work closely with operational agencies, governments and communities to better prepare for, respond and recover from these events.To help Australia navigate through the challenges bushfires present, CSIRO and the science community draw on a wide range of expertise, including: fire prediction; fire behaviour; fire monitoring; fire suppression; fire testing; bushfire modelling tools; understanding the link between bushfires and greenhouse gas emissions; air quality; fire impacts and recovery planning; post fire-season review and field work that informs building codes; disaster management; Indigenous fire knowledge; risk and  resilience science; environmental rehabilitation; and climate research.

  
 What a fantastic resource the above is, pity it's all after the event, and no mention of Fuel Reduction either, fancy that.    

> CSIRO will also provide recommendations to Australian Governments on how we can better prepare for and manage bushfires when they occur, including new tools driven by science and technology.

   
Still no mention of Fire Prevention...... 
Here's a bit of history on how the CSIRO works.

----------


## John2b

> That article is just a burst of BS to try to justify and fund their existence.
>  What a fantastic resource the above is, pity it's all after the event, and no mention of Fuel Reduction either, fancy that.

  No mention of fuel reduction, except this bit:  "Vegetation including trees, grasses, bushes and leaves act as fuel for a bushfire. The more abundant and drier the fuel, the more intense the fire will burn. Nationally-averaged rainfall was 40 per cent below average for the year, making 2019 Australia's driest year since records began in 1900. Many parts of southern and eastern Australia are in drought and have been for multiple years which can impact both the rate of vegetation growth and its dryness. _Fuel management including hazard reduction burns can reduce likelihood of ignition and initial rates of spread in high risk areas_ if carried out in an appropriately targeted manner."  https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Env...ires-explainer

----------


## Bedford

> No mention of fuel reduction, except this bit:"Vegetation including trees, grasses, bushes and leaves act as fuel for a bushfire. The more abundant and drier the fuel, the more intense the fire will burn. Nationally-averaged rainfall was 40 per cent below average for the year, making 2019 Australia's driest year since records began in 1900. Many parts of southern and eastern Australia are in drought and have been for multiple years which can impact both the rate of vegetation growth and its dryness. _Fuel management including hazard reduction burns can reduce likelihood of ignition and initial rates of spread in high risk areas_ if carried out in an appropriately targeted manner."  https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Env...ires-explainer

  True, but it's not mentioned in what I quoted of them saying everything that they would do,   

> *To help  Australia navigate* through the challenges bushfires present, CSIRO and  the science community draw on a wide range of expertise, including:* fire  prediction; fire behaviour; fire monitoring; fire suppression; fire  testing; bushfire  
> modelling tools; understanding the link between  bushfires and greenhouse gas emissions; air quality; fire impacts and  recovery planning; post fire-season review and field work that informs  building codes; disaster management; Indigenous fire  
> knowledge; risk and   resilience science; environmental rehabilitation; and climate  research.*
> ,

  Why would they not use their "Expertise" to include fuel reduction and fire prevention?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why would they not use their "Expertise" to include fuel reduction and fire prevention?

  Who says they haven't?  
Just because you don't agree with their PR doesn't mean their heart and their brains aren't in the right place.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That article is just a burst of BS to try to justify and fund their existence.  
>  What a fantastic resource the above is, pity it's all after the event, and no mention of Fuel Reduction either, fancy that.    
> Still no mention of Fire Prevention...... 
> Here's a bit of history on how the CSIRO works.

  Are you suggesting that we should end CSIRO? Go for it. 
While you're at it...make Sky News the national broadcaster...right down to regional radio... 
Ignorance deserves a circus.

----------


## John2b

> True, but it's not mentioned in what I quoted of them saying everything that they would do...

  I think "bushfire modelling" encompasses fuels loads and hazard reduction as well as other things, and so do "Indigenous fire knowledge" and "_risk_ and resilience".

----------


## John2b

It's ironic that Dr Art Raich is an example of what he claims the CSIRO (and more broadly the science world globally) prohibit, namely a dissenting scientist. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, because he was clearly a dissenting scientist when he worked at the CSIRO despite claiming that isn't possible. Looking at the work that Raich did gives no inkling he would have any profound knowledge about CO2 and/or climate, a point which he himself imputes at the beginning of the video presentation.  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...t+Raiche&btnG=

----------


## Bedford

*It's hell': Bunyip bushfire victims have a warning for those trying to rebuild after the summer fires*  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-...-hell/12057650   

> *Anger at 'tax on trees'* 
> The family moved into a rented home, the costs of which were covered by their insurance company for one year.
> That insurance cover has now expired and they are many months from having their own home to live in. 
> Plans  for any new house on their devastated property will have to meet tough  State Government bushfire regulations, introduced in the wake of Black  Saturday. 
>  For most of the people rebuilding around Bunyip, those regulations  mean clearing native vegetation to leave a defendable area around their  new homes. 
> Ms Shift is among a group of residents frustrated to  learn they would have to pay thousands of dollars in native vegetation  offsets to cover the cost of replanting vegetation elsewhere. 
>  "It doesn't make sense to me that we've got to pay an offset fee, which is essentially a tax on trees," she said. 
>  "It came from their forest, ate our house and everything inside it." 
>  Ms Shift estimated she would have to pay close to $10,000 in native vegetation offsets. 
>  "It's a lot of money and it all comes out of your settlement money, your build, or whatever you're going to do," she said.

----------


## Bedford



----------


## Bedford



----------


## Uncle Bob

Gee, it looks like Sky News is waging war against the Vic government. I guess they don't report on anything positive unless it suits their agenda.

----------


## johnc

Perhaps the Victorians need to give them cash handouts to match the LNP's rather generous donations to Murdoch.

----------


## Bedford

> Gee, it looks like Sky News is waging war against the Vic government. I guess they don't report on anything positive unless it suits their agenda.

  Don't shoot the messenger...... 
This is what it's about, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Rescue_Victoria   

> No tankers have been allocated to FRV and their fleet will only compose of 2wd appliances. Any incidents requiring 4wd tankers will be paged to the nearest CFA brigades for support.

----------


## Bedford

*One year on from South Australia's bushfire crisis, is the state any more prepared?*    

> Despite multiple investigations  including a royal commission and an independent South Australian review  some locals fear not enough has been done to reduce the fuel load. 
> "This  is a devastating thing to happen to anybody but to not learn some  lessons and do something better, that's sacrilege," Kangaroo Island  farmer John Symons said.
> The wool producer is currently rebuilding his home, farm and shearing shed and remembers the night disaster struck.
> "When  this place started to burn I still hadn't seen a glow of fire at that  point, it was as black as the ace of spades," he said   
> "Nothing  had happened to native vegetation for 30 years so it just walloped  through the plantations and the native vegetation and it was just  totally uncontrollable."It was a recipe for disaster and disaster came."The  park needs to be cut up into manageable areas so that in the instance  of a lightning strike, which happens quite regularly in the park, you  can take out a section and backburn it out and try and contain it in  that area."  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-...fires/12996894

----------

