Do we have policies or just guardian articles?
The rumors are sprouting from somewhere.
The rumors are sprouting from somewhere.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
This from the person who suggested controlled burns during non existent floods ?
Or hazard reduction burns during the same flash flooding ?
Two types of fires.
All have basically similar basic properties but ... totally dissimilar.
Climate conditions .... Fuel load .... topography
Normal fire ... all three relevant.
Not so normal,
Extreme or catastrophic conditions. Ones I did raise, but well ... ignored here.
Fuel load at ground level and fire breaks ... pretty irrelevant. Look at the picture and CSRIO study along with RFS and others.
Leaps from tree top to tree top. Both Vic fire chief and NSW one have time and time again discussed this.
Extreme and catastrophic conditions are .. extreme heat ... low humidity and wind even worse.
So being pop pooed for pointing out 36 month total rainfall lows ... 150 year lows.
then all time 150 year temperature highs ..
then 150 year low humidity ...
all discarded .. for some gibberish about averages and if only there had been controlled burns or Greenies.
Silly thing is ... in a fire storm ... in extreme or catastrophic conditions ultra low humidity, ultra dry .. and high heat with WIND ... it really is totally irrelevant fuel loads on the ground.
Fires leap 5 km 10km ... tree top to tree top .... which is yep dry ... hence the Tathra incident of 2018 where I lived. How Eden fire actually did 40 km in a very short time and now 60 km.
Not a debate ... past that. Fire breaks in those conditions ... sadly an aside.
This is the brave new world where denial of anything unusual going on as climactic observations hit 150 lows, ones predicted and predicted to get worse are still denied.
I cannot change what is actual conditions. Not about to debate someone such as some even denying this irrefutable evidence of 150 year high temps and low humidity and low rainfall.
In their universe floods appear to be relevant even when 2,581 km away of a flash flood 450 kms away from current fires was a missed opportunity to do a hazard reduction burn.
Fires do actually burn better in hot dry conditions and to have it suggested that a controlled burn was an option after a flash flood is someone who has never ... tried to light a campfire in the rain.
There is to be blunt ... NO solution to extreme of catastrophic climate changes. NONE. None in relation to fighting fires.
If you wish as many do that climate issues are not real, of this was a one off event, so be it. Funny the same event where Tundra covering permafrost and frozen bones for 35,000 years on the top layers and 1 million year old vegetation have caught alight and raged the last 2 years across the Arctic and Canadian and Siberian regions of it.
IPCC models actually do not contain any change for the Permafrost melting because the USA and Canada with Saudi Arabia had it removed along with the help of our Government. A release of frozen and captured CO2 that contains more CO2 than we humans have emitted ... in 200 years .. was not expected after fudging by USA lobby in the IPCC to happen till post 2100.
Its sadly occurring 80 years early.
We already hit the 1.5 degree target rise ... for 2100 globally in 2018 ... let alone 2019. Response was with the USA coal Barrons wife at the UN is that this pre industrial starting point moved from 1750 to 1810 so we were and are only 1.1 C higher. The amount sadly of CO2 and CH4 methane to be released which is 40 times if not 80 times worse as the atmosphere cannot deal with the breaking down of it and the time just to break CH4 into CO2 and H2O has doubled in 15 years.
An at best estimate on the actual 2100 realistic target is even of Kyoto were to be met a rise of 2.5 degrees ignoring Artic CO2 melt and CH4 issues that USA presidents, and out own, and not just Trump ... Obama was shocking Bush Junior was funded by Enron. The best estimate from the very best IPCC guys from Cambridge and Oxford in the UK along with several others is a rise of not 1 C or 2C which the latter is diabolical which defies description, the recent Madrid conference had the panel with the most respected brains ranging from 4-6 C gains by 2100.
I know alarmist or whatever.
Howling at the moon but one does try ... even for what little worth and abuse it receives.
Australia I would agree if it went to zero emissions would not matter a lot. The cost would strangely be ZERO or close to it, it would of course mean losses for coal and others but ... who cares.
Burn baby burn as they say.
Trying to stop a petrol fire with the garden hose does not work.
Trying to stop this type of fire ... with Climactic and water content and heat and wind at extremes ..
Good luck.
It is possible with a metal piped sprinkler system when the front approaches to cover your house and anything flammable in a fine water mist and emerge when the front passes to put out any spot stuff.
Standing on the roof with your hose in the face of a firestorm ?
Good luck ... again.
Climate denial and non acceptance of even current relevant temperature and humidity levels is absurd.
Suggesting even that its possible to control burn in extreme or severe conditions as seem even in winter is doubly absurd.
Then again in these types of fires, or firestorms, the fuel load at ground level ... GROUND level is not relevant.
I thank you for your input ... but in the study ... it conceded Fuel load is totally irrelevant in extreme and catastrophic conditions.
FFDI; when you exceed an FFDI of about 50, you switch from fuel-dominated to a weather-dominated fire."At this point, while fuel has a small effect, it is overwhelmed by the weather.
What was the fire rating ? Up in the 90 region ....
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,667
- Reactions
- 7,518
WTF? How about reading and responding to the analysis.
Or is your only response is to say "It came from The Guardian "
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,988
- Reactions
- 13,309
= Red flag... Propaganda... Disregard.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,667
- Reactions
- 7,518
Waynes Law - When in doubt - Deny .
Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?
Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction has been rejected by bushfire experts
Graham Readfearn
@readfearn
Sun 5 Jan 2020 15.18 AEDT Last modified on Sun 5 Jan 2020 16.14 AEDT
Shares
377
The National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW says bushfire hazard reduction occurred across more than 139,000 hectares in 2018 and 2019. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images
Australia’s bushfire crisis started much earlier than normal in August 2019, with thousands of fires in Queensland and New South Wales.
Despite the evidence a claim persists that a major contributing factor of Australia’s devastating fire season – and the deaths, loss of homes and environmental devastation they have caused – is not climate change but a conspiracy by environmentalists to “lock up” national parks and prevent hazard reduction activities such as prescribed burning and clearing of the forest floor.
On Saturday the prime minister, Scott Morrison, said after visiting fire grounds: “The most constant issue that has been raised with me has been the issue of managing fuel loads in national parks.”
He claimed that people “who say they are seeking those actions on climate change” could also be the same people who “don’t share the same urgency of dealing with hazard reduction”.
Prof David Bowman, the director of the fire centre research hub at the University of Tasmania, said: “It’s ridiculous. To frame this as an issue of hazard reduction in national parks is just lazy political rhetoric.”
On Sunday Morrison said he wanted to know “what the contribution of issues” around hazard reduction were, but repeated that it had been an issue raised often with him.
He also said “without the planning, without the preparations” of state agencies, “I fear what has really been a terrible tragedy would have been far worse.”
Are greenies stopping hazard reduction?
Hazard reduction is the management of fuel and can be carried out through prescribed burning, also known as controlled burning, and removing trees and vegetation, both dead and alive.
Hazard reduction is carried out by fire authorities, national park staff and individual property owners who can apply for permits to clear areas around their buildings. Coordination of activities happens through local bushfire management committees. There are 120 committees in NSW.
The claim of a conspiracy by environmentalists to block hazard reduction activities has been roundly rejected by bushfire experts, and experts say it is betrayed by hard data on actual hazard reduction activities in national parks.
Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, has previously told Guardian Australia: “These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires. They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.”
Former fire chiefs who have been calling strongly for action on climate change, and who have been trying to meet Morrison for months, have also been calling for increased funding for hazard reduction.
The Australian Greens say they want “an effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers”.
A federal government factsheet on bushfire management outlines how state agencies and people can carry out a range of hazard reduction activities that have been exempted from national environmental law, even if they “have the potential to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters”.
How much hazard reduction has happened?
In the last full fire season of 2018 and 2019, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW told Guardian Australia it carried out hazard reduction activities across more than 139,000 hectares, slightly above its target.
There are two major restricting factors for carrying out prescribed burning. One is the availability of funds and personnel, and the second is the availability of weather windows.
The 2018-19 annual report of the NSW Rural Fire Service says: “The ability of the NSW RFS and partner agencies to complete hazard reduction activities is highly weather dependent, with limited windows of opportunity. Prolonged drought conditions in 2018-19 adversely affected the ability of agencies to complete hazard reduction works.”
The RFS said 113,130 properties had been subject to hazard reduction activities, which was 76% of its target. The 199,248ha covered was 106% of its target.
Is climate change affecting hazard reduction?
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
But as well as climate change narrowing the window to carry out prescribed burning, Mullins said some fires have become so intense they have burned through areas that had been subject to hazard reduction.
Mullins has been fighting fires in NSW for months. Speaking to the ABC on Friday, he said he witnessed a fire in Grafton in an area that had burned only two weeks previously, but “the burnt leaves were burning again”.
He said: “There has been lots of hazard reductions done over the years – more by national parks than previous years – but the fires have burned through those hazard reduction areas.”
Mullins dismissed suggestions that the bushfires were down to “greenies” preventing hazard reduction activities.“This is the blame game. We’ll blame arsonists, we’ll blame greenies,” he said.
“When will the penny drop with this government?”
The National Parks Association of NSW’s president, Anne Dickson, has also responded to the attacks on environmentalists.
Facebook Twitter
Prof David Bowman says hazard reduction burning doesn’t stop bushfires, but the aim is ‘to try and change its behaviour’. Photograph: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images
In November 2019, she said: “The increasing intensity and frequency of fire is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and natural landscapes. It may be politically expedient to pretend that conservationists exercise some mythical power over fire legislation and bushfire management committees, but it is not so.
“Such wild and simplistic claims avoid the very real and complex challenges of protecting our communities and the healthy environments that support our quality of life.”
Bowman said that separate to the “lazy political rhetoric” of blaming environmentalists, there should be an examination of the benefits and limitations of hazard reduction.
But he said there was also a reality to consider: “A lot of people are thinking that hazard reduction burning stops fire. It doesn’t, but what it does do is to try and change its behaviour.
“But let’s say you embarked on the biggest fire reduction program the world has ever seen. What’s the budget for that? Who will pay for it. Of course there is a place for hazard reduction but if you have massive increases, where does the money come from? The reality is that you can’t treat everything.”
What is climate change doing to bushfire weather?
The 2019-20 bushfire crisis coincided with Australia’s hottest year on record. On a state level, NSW easily experienced its hottest year, with temperatures 1.95C above the long-term average, beating the previous record year, 2018, by 0.27C.
What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
Read more
Climate experts have said not all of that heat came from climate change, as two climate systems were also working to push up temperatures and fire danger.
Fire authorities are guided on a daily basis on the risk of fires through the Forest Fire Danger Index, a combined measure of temperature, humidity, wind speed and the availability of dry fuel. Spring 2019 had been the worst year on a record going back to 1950 for bushfire risk.
A 2017 study of 67 years of FFDI data found a “clear trend toward more dangerous conditions during spring and summer in southern Australia, including increased frequency and magnitude of extremes, as well as indicating an earlier start to the fire season”.
A study of Queensland’s historic 2018 bushfire season found the extreme temperatures that coincided with the fires were four time more likely because of human-caused climate.
On Sunday Morrison claimed the government had “always made this connection” between climate change and impacts on Australia’s weather.
Advice shared with authorities around the country earlier this year from the National Environmental Science Program said: “These trends are very likely to increase into the future, with climate models showing more dangerous weather conditions for bushfires throughout Australia due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”
There are also fears that large pulses of carbon dioxide emissions from Australia’s bushfires may not be reabsorbed through regrowth of forests as they have in the past.
The fire season has seen several reports of bushfire-generated thunderstorms. Guardian Australia has reported that 2019 would likely be a “stand-out” year for storms known as “pyroCBs” that generate their own lightning and influence the atmosphere at heights of up to 15km.
A study in 2019 published in the journal Scientific Reports found that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would create more dangerous conditions favourable to pyroCB events in the future, particularly for the southern parts of Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires
WTF? How about reading and responding to the analysis.
Or is your only response is to say "It came from The Guardian "
Where are the rumors originating from. I know the was a QLD state policy that has caused some issue. What are the actually policies are causing the problem or which department. I know plenty of stories, but there must be a specific policy causing angst.
I skimmed the article before. Saw the title and didn't bother again.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,988
- Reactions
- 13,309
Waynes Law - When in doubt - Deny .
Explainer: how effective is bushfire hazard reduction on Australia's fires?
Claims of a Greens conspiracy to block hazard reduction has been rejected by bushfire experts
Graham Readfearn
@readfearn
Sun 5 Jan 2020 15.18 AEDT Last modified on Sun 5 Jan 2020 16.14 AEDT
Shares
377
The National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW says bushfire hazard reduction occurred across more than 139,000 hectares in 2018 and 2019. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images
Australia’s bushfire crisis started much earlier than normal in August 2019, with thousands of fires in Queensland and New South Wales.
Despite the evidence a claim persists that a major contributing factor of Australia’s devastating fire season – and the deaths, loss of homes and environmental devastation they have caused – is not climate change but a conspiracy by environmentalists to “lock up” national parks and prevent hazard reduction activities such as prescribed burning and clearing of the forest floor.
On Saturday the prime minister, Scott Morrison, said after visiting fire grounds: “The most constant issue that has been raised with me has been the issue of managing fuel loads in national parks.”
He claimed that people “who say they are seeking those actions on climate change” could also be the same people who “don’t share the same urgency of dealing with hazard reduction”.
Prof David Bowman, the director of the fire centre research hub at the University of Tasmania, said: “It’s ridiculous. To frame this as an issue of hazard reduction in national parks is just lazy political rhetoric.”
On Sunday Morrison said he wanted to know “what the contribution of issues” around hazard reduction were, but repeated that it had been an issue raised often with him.
He also said “without the planning, without the preparations” of state agencies, “I fear what has really been a terrible tragedy would have been far worse.”
Are greenies stopping hazard reduction?
Hazard reduction is the management of fuel and can be carried out through prescribed burning, also known as controlled burning, and removing trees and vegetation, both dead and alive.
Hazard reduction is carried out by fire authorities, national park staff and individual property owners who can apply for permits to clear areas around their buildings. Coordination of activities happens through local bushfire management committees. There are 120 committees in NSW.
The claim of a conspiracy by environmentalists to block hazard reduction activities has been roundly rejected by bushfire experts, and experts say it is betrayed by hard data on actual hazard reduction activities in national parks.
Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, has previously told Guardian Australia: “These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires. They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.”
Former fire chiefs who have been calling strongly for action on climate change, and who have been trying to meet Morrison for months, have also been calling for increased funding for hazard reduction.
The Australian Greens say they want “an effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers”.
A federal government factsheet on bushfire management outlines how state agencies and people can carry out a range of hazard reduction activities that have been exempted from national environmental law, even if they “have the potential to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters”.
How much hazard reduction has happened?
In the last full fire season of 2018 and 2019, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW told Guardian Australia it carried out hazard reduction activities across more than 139,000 hectares, slightly above its target.
There are two major restricting factors for carrying out prescribed burning. One is the availability of funds and personnel, and the second is the availability of weather windows.
The 2018-19 annual report of the NSW Rural Fire Service says: “The ability of the NSW RFS and partner agencies to complete hazard reduction activities is highly weather dependent, with limited windows of opportunity. Prolonged drought conditions in 2018-19 adversely affected the ability of agencies to complete hazard reduction works.”
The RFS said 113,130 properties had been subject to hazard reduction activities, which was 76% of its target. The 199,248ha covered was 106% of its target.
Is climate change affecting hazard reduction?
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
But as well as climate change narrowing the window to carry out prescribed burning, Mullins said some fires have become so intense they have burned through areas that had been subject to hazard reduction.
Mullins has been fighting fires in NSW for months. Speaking to the ABC on Friday, he said he witnessed a fire in Grafton in an area that had burned only two weeks previously, but “the burnt leaves were burning again”.
He said: “There has been lots of hazard reductions done over the years – more by national parks than previous years – but the fires have burned through those hazard reduction areas.”
Mullins dismissed suggestions that the bushfires were down to “greenies” preventing hazard reduction activities.“This is the blame game. We’ll blame arsonists, we’ll blame greenies,” he said.
“When will the penny drop with this government?”
The National Parks Association of NSW’s president, Anne Dickson, has also responded to the attacks on environmentalists.
Facebook Twitter
Prof David Bowman says hazard reduction burning doesn’t stop bushfires, but the aim is ‘to try and change its behaviour’. Photograph: Darrian Traynor/Getty Images
In November 2019, she said: “The increasing intensity and frequency of fire is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and natural landscapes. It may be politically expedient to pretend that conservationists exercise some mythical power over fire legislation and bushfire management committees, but it is not so.
“Such wild and simplistic claims avoid the very real and complex challenges of protecting our communities and the healthy environments that support our quality of life.”
Bowman said that separate to the “lazy political rhetoric” of blaming environmentalists, there should be an examination of the benefits and limitations of hazard reduction.
But he said there was also a reality to consider: “A lot of people are thinking that hazard reduction burning stops fire. It doesn’t, but what it does do is to try and change its behaviour.
“But let’s say you embarked on the biggest fire reduction program the world has ever seen. What’s the budget for that? Who will pay for it. Of course there is a place for hazard reduction but if you have massive increases, where does the money come from? The reality is that you can’t treat everything.”
What is climate change doing to bushfire weather?
The 2019-20 bushfire crisis coincided with Australia’s hottest year on record. On a state level, NSW easily experienced its hottest year, with temperatures 1.95C above the long-term average, beating the previous record year, 2018, by 0.27C.
What are the links between climate change and bushfires? – explainer
Read more
Climate experts have said not all of that heat came from climate change, as two climate systems were also working to push up temperatures and fire danger.
Fire authorities are guided on a daily basis on the risk of fires through the Forest Fire Danger Index, a combined measure of temperature, humidity, wind speed and the availability of dry fuel. Spring 2019 had been the worst year on a record going back to 1950 for bushfire risk.
A 2017 study of 67 years of FFDI data found a “clear trend toward more dangerous conditions during spring and summer in southern Australia, including increased frequency and magnitude of extremes, as well as indicating an earlier start to the fire season”.
A study of Queensland’s historic 2018 bushfire season found the extreme temperatures that coincided with the fires were four time more likely because of human-caused climate.
On Sunday Morrison claimed the government had “always made this connection” between climate change and impacts on Australia’s weather.
Advice shared with authorities around the country earlier this year from the National Environmental Science Program said: “These trends are very likely to increase into the future, with climate models showing more dangerous weather conditions for bushfires throughout Australia due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”
There are also fears that large pulses of carbon dioxide emissions from Australia’s bushfires may not be reabsorbed through regrowth of forests as they have in the past.
The fire season has seen several reports of bushfire-generated thunderstorms. Guardian Australia has reported that 2019 would likely be a “stand-out” year for storms known as “pyroCBs” that generate their own lightning and influence the atmosphere at heights of up to 15km.
A study in 2019 published in the journal Scientific Reports found that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would create more dangerous conditions favourable to pyroCB events in the future, particularly for the southern parts of Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires
What have I denied Komrade basilov?
And once again if an area has been burned before it is easy to control when conditions improve. It's not to stop it at extremes, you can't. All the things you said are true. It basically sucks up everything when the conditions are at their worst. But it is a lot more manageable if there's been a previous burn and conditions improve. If it hasn't then it's still a bonfire.
You can't realistically hazard burn enough forest to make a difference and it's costly and a pain round built up areas. But enough wasn't done. If you read the 2003 report I'm betting the libs failed in their planning. Fed state and local. There will be carbon copy problems repeated from last time.
The only thing we probably do agree on is that the climate is stuffed.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
the paper from 2003 and parliamentary inquiry at the time ...
If you had read or known your source and his conclusions it may have helped.
It is however 2020 and 25 odd studies and some very serious post fire inquiries have occurred along with rapidly changing climactic conditions on the unseen for 150 year scale.
To seriously have been called an idiot by you is amusing.
Oh please you're still trying to get your head around what hazard burns are for.
I'm talking recent policies. I don't have time to dig all day.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
I would agree ... with a fire rating of 80 even 90 and close to the 100 ... its a different fire.
Irrelevant in a fire with even a mid rating. Clearly and openly known even on 2003.
Since I read it prior to these recent events and can and DID raise the relevant issues ...
Only to be ignored, on Weather or climactic conditions such as temperature ... Humidity ... rainfall ... Its quite clear YOU did not read even this somewhat dated study.
Whilst some of his conclusions are of course valid ... in the report .. presented to the inquiry before parliament ... even on 2003 there were quite serious issues and questions about the controlled burning issue and if it was in many cases actually counterproductive. The tree tops .... after a mid range heat hazard reduction burn in extreme conditions were dead and whilst maybe the ground level fuel load was reduced ... the tree tops were atomic bombs of dry leaves in a very hot dry day with low humidity as was discussed at lenght back in 2003.
Let alone 2019 ... all time 150 year low temps ... low rainfall and humidity and moisture contents married with higher and extreme wind we saw late last night 4/1/2020 .... and a fire .. turned into a fire storm ... something sadly we have seen a bit of this year a firestorm where the fire itself creates its own weather conditions as heat and pressure at times create wind up to 250 km an hour.
This with respect and gratitude for the firies who had their 10 ton ton flipped ... and some lost their lives, I would agree with the futility of some current fire policies, Not suggesting no more control burns .... but if climate and temps are not right, they at times do more harm than good. No fuel on the forest floor but the tinder dry leaves provide in the worst conditions of heat and dry and wind the perfect thing seen in the picture I provided.
I have no answer ...
I have no agenda ... other than a wish and belief climate issues are real irrespective of 2019/20 fires.
- Joined
- 18 June 2004
- Posts
- 1,045
- Reactions
- 638
Strange ... that I raised all of this prior to you sharing you limited ... intellect again along with capacity for abuse.
To be called an idiot when raising the 150 year low rainfall ... humidity and high temperatures springs to mind.
If you read the 2003 paper ... or a few more modern ones or the Tathra 2018 fire investigation which most locals like me followed .. well .. you may learn.
I live in hope
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,819
- Reactions
- 24,826
Shocking fires you people over East are having, hope it all settles down and rain comes soon.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,819
- Reactions
- 24,826
It's a shame headlines don't reflect reality. The headline said What would Tony Abbott have done during this bushfire crisis?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ing-the-bushfires-crisis-20200103-p53oj5.html
Well as history shows, Tony Abbott would have done what he has always done and fought the fire, also as history shows he would have been ridiculed for doing so as he was at the time.
Guess there isn't any way you do the right thing in Australia.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ing-the-bushfires-crisis-20200103-p53oj5.html
Well as history shows, Tony Abbott would have done what he has always done and fought the fire, also as history shows he would have been ridiculed for doing so as he was at the time.
Guess there isn't any way you do the right thing in Australia.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,374
- Reactions
- 17,753
Here's what those who actually know something have to say and it seems rather familiar:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...urns-needed-experts-warn-20200103-p53om0.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...urns-needed-experts-warn-20200103-p53om0.html
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,819
- Reactions
- 24,826
Well you will cop some crap for posting that!!
It doesn't fit the rhetoric, that Scomo caused it, or if he was here it wouldn't have been as bad, or why didn't he suit up like Tony used to.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,687
- Reactions
- 4,784
Well you will cop some crap for posting that!!
It doesn't fit the rhetoric, that Scomo caused it, or if he was here it wouldn't have been as bad, or why didn't he suit up like Tony used to.
No one has said that but plenty have pointed out his self promotion and his complete lack of leadership.
Now he throwing ever thing at the issue, strangely finding time to make Liberal party ads but failing to tell the states whats going on.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,687
- Reactions
- 4,784
I dont even know which party started it but luckily there was no politics around water and they started to build desal plants.
Some time ago the manager for the Water Corp (woman) said that no one working with water in WA had any doubt about climate change.
Fortunately the WA Liberals listened and ignored the Fed Liberals.
Strangely Abbott just recently told Israel radio that climate change was a cult.
Unlike the train line to Mandurah which the Liberals (Court) went all out to stop is now the busiest.
Having said that the last Liberal Premier (Barnett) I thought was pretty good.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,819
- Reactions
- 24,826
Well I guess the media has to find something to make a song and dance about, they usually do.
It is a shame they don't spend as much time, trying to organise some media based aid programmes, rather than just trying to find as many headlines as possible in the shortest possible time.
IMO the Australian media is absolutely Fing useless and a complete waste of time.
Just my opinion
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,374
- Reactions
- 17,753
The most factual, to the point and non-political summary of the situation I've seen thus far:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043
Needless to say it's from an overseas source not a local one hence the lack of politics.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043
Needless to say it's from an overseas source not a local one hence the lack of politics.
