Discussion Random Discussion

[Kildonan]

Please take the time to hear from this very intelligent, expierenced and well qualified man (an OAM) on the issue:

Scientist David Packham on what’s really causing the bushfires – Volunteer Fire Fighters Association

volunteerfirefighters.org.au

Plus this guy warned us several times in the past. Thanks to the green lunacy, they never listened or got the job done in time. Just one article from 5 years ago:

Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns

Forest fuel levels have climbed over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

www.google.com

TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN AND READ. IT MIGHT PUT THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA SURROUNDING THE BUSHFIRES TO BED FOR SOME...BUT I DOUBT IT.

He's an 80 yo right wing mouthpiece.

He has a chemistry degree and has forged a great career for himself, including being in positions of considerable responsibility and has attained a great level of competence in his various roles. That doesn't change the fact that he is one of a very few who are suitably qualified yet hold a view that contradicts with the consensus on the scientists on the global climate change issue. He attributes the current situation to loads of combustible material that have built up. No-one disputes that. What do you think is burning? Why do you think it has been able to build up to the conditions that made this such a climate emergency situation? The ex-fire chiefs would agree with the premises, so would the hundreds of thousands of scientists who hold the consensus view that climate change has contributed to the severity of this situation. That dry conditions in a vast region of Australia has made the decision to burn off dangerous. The goverment doesn't want to pay for the manpower required to burn off and regulations are necessary to prevent idiot activists going in and trying to burn it themselves.

This is typical of the right wing - they don't believe the science unless someone comes along and agrees with their own view. This process shows a complete disregard for science and the scientific process. (See confirmation bias)

Science is not a list of facts or tables. It is a process which is used in order to try and find the truth.

When a scientific principle is established there are often disagreements. The scientists establish a mechanism of how their area of interest works, they make predictions and then test them, they collect evidence to support their model. As the evidence builds, the confidence increases that the model is accurate. Disconfirming evidence contradicts the model and so if found, that model has to be discarded, or reworked given the new data.

The climate change model has been established for a long time. The scientists (climatologists) who are specialised in the area of modelling climate have a strong evidence base and a strong statistical base for their confidence. Predictions made by climate scientist have so far under-estimated the severity of the consequence of CO2 levels, not exaggerated it.

There are still outliers. Scientists who for some reason disagree with the consensus still exist. They are relatively rare. Some are shills for petrol / gas companies others believe they know something that the 97% of scientists they disagree with don't. These outliers are paraded out by right wing media like 2GB, Murdoch press, Sky news and other outlets.

These outliers are often brought in under the aegis of balanced reporting. The interview will have one right wing mouthpiece outlier and one scientist expressing the truth as best as the scientific community can say. It seems like a fair representation until you realise that the outlier guy only represents 2 other similar opinions and the scientist represents 96 others with similar opinions. Even if you had 100 scientists being interviewed, 3 on one side and 97 on the other side, this would still not represent the argument correctly. The 97 scientists represent a consensus. If the 3 outlier scientists have a minority view but they may still be right. It is extremely rare these days but it can happen. The claim by the three scientists that the 97 scientists are wrong is an extraordinary claim and for them to prove their view to be correct would require extraordinary evidence.

Can you claim that any of the outlier scientist you choose to believe over the consensus view of all scientists have EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, if no then you are arguing politically rather than scientifically.

 

[gringo2011]

He's an 80 yo right wing mouthpiece.

He has a chemistry degree and has forged a great career for himself, including being in positions of considerable responsibility and has attained a great level of competence in his various roles. That doesn't change the fact that he is one of a very few who are suitably qualified yet hold a view that contradicts with the consensus on the scientists on the global climate change issue. He attributes the current situation to loads of combustible material that have built up. No-one disputes that. What do you think is burning? Why do you think it has been able to build up to the conditions that made this such a climate emergency situation? The ex-fire chiefs would agree with the premises, so would the hundreds of thousands of scientists who hold the consensus view that climate change has contributed to the severity of this situation. That dry conditions in a vast region of Australia has made the decision to burn off dangerous. The goverment doesn't want to pay for the manpower required to burn off and regulations are necessary to prevent idiot activists going in and trying to burn it themselves.

This is typical of the right wing - they don't believe the science unless someone comes along and agrees with their own view. This process shows a complete disregard for science and the scientific process. (See confirmation bias)

Science is not a list of facts or tables. It is a process which is used in order to try and find the truth.

When a scientific principle is established there are often disagreements. The scientists establish a mechanism of how their area of interest works, they make predictions and then test them, they collect evidence to support their model. As the evidence builds, the confidence increases that the model is accurate. Disconfirming evidence contradicts the model and so if found, that model has to be discarded, or reworked given the new data.

The climate change model has been established for a long time. The scientists (climatologists) who are specialised in the area of modelling climate have a strong evidence base and a strong statistical base for their confidence. Predictions made by climate scientist have so far under-estimated the severity of the consequence of CO2 levels, not exaggerated it.

There are still outliers. Scientists who for some reason disagree with the consensus still exist. They are relatively rare. Some are shills for petrol / gas companies others believe they know something that the 97% of scientists they disagree with don't. These outliers are paraded out by right wing media like 2GB, Murdoch press, Sky news and other outlets.

These outliers are often brought in under the aegis of balanced reporting. The interview will have one right wing mouthpiece outlier and one scientist expressing the truth as best as the scientific community can say. It seems like a fair representation until you realise that the outlier guy only represents 2 other similar opinions and the scientist represents 96 others with similar opinions. Even if you had 100 scientists being interviewed, 3 on one side and 97 on the other side, this would still not represent the argument correctly. The 97 scientists represent a consensus. If the 3 outlier scientists have a minority view but they may still be right. It is extremely rare these days but it can happen. The claim by the three scientists that the 97 scientists are wrong is an extraordinary claim and for them to prove their view to be correct would require extraordinary evidence.

Can you claim that any of the outlier scientist you choose to believe over the consensus view of all scientists have EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, if no then you are arguing politically rather than scientifically.

What did science ever do for anybody? Probably want to tell us how to think so they can make money off shit.

Anyway this quote always makes me laugh.


@ScottWesterfeld

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

 

[Mowman]

Gee the Kiwis play cricket with great sportsmanship, they set a great standard of how cricket should be played

 

[Joffaboy]

I know human life is more important and thousands have lost everything, so don't think I am being the bleeding heart with this post, however as an animal lover who has an emotional investment in the Roo sanctuary, the screenshot below is good news and maybe may make this thread a little happier amidst the horror we are enduring.

This guy was orphaned and was one of the first released in 2016.

Mow the alpha male of the released mob.

A leader and survivor

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Me from my echo chamber: Everything that disagrees with my world view is propaganda!

Will never understand how people can get so caught up in the primitive tribalism of us vs them they can ignore blatant facts. Some things aren't determined by politics.

Welcome to modern politics.

 

[gringo2011]

Gee the Kiwis play cricket with great sportsmanship, they set a great standard of how cricket should be played

Apparently Ardern quietly sent 150 firefighters over in October and has them on rotation still. She's just sent 22 more. Good folks the Kiwis.

 

[Mowman]

Apparently Ardern quietly sent 150 firefighters over in October and has them on rotation still. She's just sent 22 more. Good folks the Kiwis.

I did read that

 

[MUFKilda]

I've just seen the report on our early morning news that two more people were killed in the fires yesterday. Horrific.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

So a bushfire expert in his 70's that has lived and breathed bushfires for a career, is a former uni professor, worked at the CSIRO and an OAM recipient is irrelevant and not worth listening to....f'ing spare me please.

Does no one even listen to what these firies are saying about getting rid of the fuel loads too?!

We should obviously get our trusted info off Tim Flannery or the Guardian newspaper or Greta Thurnberger or Adam Bandt. Even Kim Kardashian has weighed in said the fires were caused by climate change! FFS. Give me a break!

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

He's an 80 yo right wing mouthpiece.

He has a chemistry degree and has forged a great career for himself, including being in positions of considerable responsibility and has attained a great level of competence in his various roles. That doesn't change the fact that he is one of a very few who are suitably qualified yet hold a view that contradicts with the consensus on the scientists on the global climate change issue. He attributes the current situation to loads of combustible material that have built up. No-one disputes that. What do you think is burning? Why do you think it has been able to build up to the conditions that made this such a climate emergency situation? The ex-fire chiefs would agree with the premises, so would the hundreds of thousands of scientists who hold the consensus view that climate change has contributed to the severity of this situation. That dry conditions in a vast region of Australia has made the decision to burn off dangerous. The goverment doesn't want to pay for the manpower required to burn off and regulations are necessary to prevent idiot activists going in and trying to burn it themselves.

This is typical of the right wing - they don't believe the science unless someone comes along and agrees with their own view. This process shows a complete disregard for science and the scientific process. (See confirmation bias)

Science is not a list of facts or tables. It is a process which is used in order to try and find the truth.

When a scientific principle is established there are often disagreements. The scientists establish a mechanism of how their area of interest works, they make predictions and then test them, they collect evidence to support their model. As the evidence builds, the confidence increases that the model is accurate. Disconfirming evidence contradicts the model and so if found, that model has to be discarded, or reworked given the new data.

The climate change model has been established for a long time. The scientists (climatologists) who are specialised in the area of modelling climate have a strong evidence base and a strong statistical base for their confidence. Predictions made by climate scientist have so far under-estimated the severity of the consequence of CO2 levels, not exaggerated it.

There are still outliers. Scientists who for some reason disagree with the consensus still exist. They are relatively rare. Some are shills for petrol / gas companies others believe they know something that the 97% of scientists they disagree with don't. These outliers are paraded out by right wing media like 2GB, Murdoch press, Sky news and other outlets.

These outliers are often brought in under the aegis of balanced reporting. The interview will have one right wing mouthpiece outlier and one scientist expressing the truth as best as the scientific community can say. It seems like a fair representation until you realise that the outlier guy only represents 2 other similar opinions and the scientist represents 96 others with similar opinions. Even if you had 100 scientists being interviewed, 3 on one side and 97 on the other side, this would still not represent the argument correctly. The 97 scientists represent a consensus. If the 3 outlier scientists have a minority view but they may still be right. It is extremely rare these days but it can happen. The claim by the three scientists that the 97 scientists are wrong is an extraordinary claim and for them to prove their view to be correct would require extraordinary evidence.

Can you claim that any of the outlier scientist you choose to believe over the consensus view of all scientists have EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, if no then you are arguing politically rather than scientifically.

What absolute BS.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Keep telling yourself that! Its amazing when people only want to see and hear what they want to listen to.

The fact you are dismissing one of Australia's best scientists on bushfires in its history is simply hilarious and mind boggling. Just shows your true bias and narritive regarding climate change and its links to the current bushfires.

Do some more reading:

Prescribed burning ‘key to controlling fires’ – Volunteer Fire Fighters Association

volunteerfirefighters.org.au

No one is disagreeing that hazard reduction wasn't adequately completed you absolute spoon. We're just saying it's not the fault of a party with 1 federal mp and 8 eastern state mps. We're also saying that climate change has worsened the situation. But that's ok you keep being a hypocrite and ignoring what everyone else says cos it doesn't suit your anti-science narrative mate.

 

[MUFKilda]

So a bushfire expert in his 70's that has lived and breathed bushfires for a career, is a former uni professor, worked at the CSIRO and an OAM recipient is irrelevant and not worth listening to....f'ing spare me please.

Does no one even listen to what these firies are saying about getting rid of the fuel loads too?!

We should obviously get our trusted info off Tim Flannery or the Guardian newspaper or Greta Thurnberger or Adam Bandt. Even Kim Kardashian has weighed in said the fires were caused by climate change! FFS. Give me a break!

But what of the thousands of climatologists working across the world who are in overwhelming agreement that man made climate change is a real phenomenon? Why discount the word of so many experts and instead believe the word of the fossil fuel industry? Their findings are no more credible than those of the 'scientists' the tobacco industry used to pay to deny the link between smoking and cancer.

Earlier you descibed The Guardian as 'pro climate change' which struck me as an odd phrase. It isn't a matter of being pro or anti climate change any more than being pro or anti gravity.

 

[Crusty Undies]

What absolute BS.

Hahahahahaha. That's literally all you've got to respondto that? Seriously? Which part is BS? Why? What counter evidence do you have? No one's going to take you anymore seriously than when you "bookmark" outlandish calls if you don't back up what you say with supporting evidence. And no. One right wing shill peddling a pseudoargument based on actual climate scientist doesn't count.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Yep, keep telling yourself you are right in your comfortable surrounds in this little forum.

Meanwhile, those out in the scrub actually have to face this shit front on and deal with the effects of greenish lunacy that make the bushfires worse than they have to be.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Keep telling yourself that! Its amazing when people only want to see and hear what they want to listen to.

The fact you are dismissing one of Australia's best scientists on bushfires in its history is simply hilarious and mind boggling. Just shows your true bias and narritive regarding climate change and its links to the current bushfires.

Do some more reading:

Prescribed burning ‘key to controlling fires’ – Volunteer Fire Fighters Association

volunteerfirefighters.org.au

Johhnyray - a question - have you ever tried to start a fire?

If Packham is correct (that fuel loads are the sole problem) then theoretically you should be able to stack your wood up in the fireplace and sit there in your deckchair with your stubbie in your hand and magically it will start and keep you warm.

Have you thought about why that doesn't happen or do you sit around the campfire hoping like hell that it will start?

Have you thought about why camp fires burn more ferociously when its hot?

How you thought about why camp fire's burn more ferociously when its windy?

Sorry to disappoint you again but things are always more complex than a simple black or white or a yes or no.

Will be interested in your responses.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Yep, keep telling yourself you are right in your comfortable surrounds in this little forum.

Meanwhile, those out in the scrub actually have to face this shit front on and deal with the effects of greenish lunacy that make the bushfires worse than they have to be.

You don't seem to understand that people having to deal with bushfires due to poor hazard reduction doesn't invalidate anything else that's been said.

So let me clarify for you. You're trying to divert from the actual argument by pointing to the bushfires and saying "see what they have to deal with? You should feel bad for talking about what caused that." Nice red herring. Still not a counter argument.

 

[Hubnester]

So a bushfire expert in his 70's that has lived and breathed bushfires for a career, is a former uni professor, worked at the CSIRO and an OAM recipient is irrelevant and not worth listening to....f'ing spare me please.

Does no one even listen to what these firies are saying about getting rid of the fuel loads too?!

We should obviously get our trusted info off Tim Flannery or the Guardian newspaper or Greta Thurnberger or Adam Bandt. Even Kim Kardashian has weighed in said the fires were caused by climate change! FFS. Give me a break!

What absolute BS.

You are clearly not looking at the issue rationally.

Stop looking at whether the people saying things are people you like, or who share your world view or political alignment, and start looking at what they're saying. Ask why. You don't like Greta, therefore she must be wrong. I wonder what your opinion of her would be if she shared your worldview.

You're giving a lot of weight to this one 'bushfire expert' because you already agree with what he's saying. Consider that his particular experiences might not be very useful in describing the unique situation today. Consider the many, many other experts who have different viewpoints.

This is a type of cognitive bias, which already tells me that my post will be 100% pointless because this means you're not ever going to consider an alternative opinion, or to seek information and come to your own conclusions - the only research you will listen to will be that which will support your world view.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

 

[CursingFijian]

Apparently Ardern quietly sent 150 firefighters over in October and has them on rotation still. She's just sent 22 more. Good folks the Kiwis.

Like Greg Mullins said in that ABC interview ScoMo could have requested all the ultra-big airborne water carriers from Canada and Europe which have been literally put on ice for their winter.

The type that they have been imploring the government to acquire more of for years.

That’s the problem with effective fire prevention and management though. When it’s working it looks like there really isn’t a problem.

It’s like when you don’t service your car continuously. Everything looks good for a while, but underneath the hood the machine is on the verge of catastrophic failure.

 

[gringo2011]

Like Greg Mullins said in that ABC interview ScoMo could have requested all the ultra-big airborne water carriers from Canada and Europe which have been literally put on ice for their winter.

The type that they have been imploring the government to acquire more of for years.

That’s the problem with effective fire prevention and management though. When it’s working it looks like there really isn’t a problem.

It’s like when you don’t service your car continuously. Everything looks good for a while, but underneath the hood the machine is on the verge of catastrophic failure.

Na, watch this, it's all under control.


We have ads to fix the world.

 

[CursingFijian]

Johhnyray - a question - have you ever tried to start a fire?

If Packham is correct (that fuel loads are the sole problem) then theoretically you should be able to stack your wood up in the fireplace and sit there in your deckchair with your stubbie in your hand and magically it will start and keep you warm.

Have you thought about why that doesn't happen or do you sit around the campfire hoping like hell that it will start?

Have you thought about why camp fires burn more ferociously when its hot?

How you thought about why camp fire's burn more ferociously when its windy?

Sorry to disappoint you again but things are always more complex than a simple black or white or a yes or no.

Will be interested in your responses.

Packham does talk about other necessary prerequisites to an intense bushfire including a dry environment, wind, and ignition. To be fair he does sound very capable of predicting Bush fire behaviour and what is required to extinguish one.

I think he is a big advocate of prescribed burns and even developed the tech to ignite burns via aviation as far back as the 60’s.

But he is ignoring the causative factors for severe fuel build up, and the impact of global warming in that.

 

[Saints43]

You do know politicians don’t even take it as seriously as you. My wife’s husband is a state labor politician. He hated Shorten but hangs with Liberals in his spare time. They don’t give a shit about sides.

Spot on. A bloke I know socially is a new liberal state mp. He's a chancer and would nominate for liberal, labour, pol pot, whichever have him he best chance at getting minted.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Packham does talk about other necessary prerequisites to an intense bushfire including a dry environment, wind, and ignition. To be fair he does sound very capable of predicting Bush fire behaviour and what is required to extinguish one.

I think he is a big advocate of prescribed burns and even developed the tech to ignite burns via aviation as far back as the 60’s.

But he is ignoring the causative factors for severe fuel build up, and the impact of global warming in that.

All fair enough but Packham has either allowed himself or decided to portray fuel loads as a sole driver of increased fire activity and intensity. That is simply not the case.

I asked him directly a few years ago how he might actually go about achieving this reduction in fuel loads given the changes in weather conditions which even 10 years was beginning to impact the capacity to carry out "controlled" burns. He didn't have an answer then and doesn't have one now.

In the late 1990's the informal arrangements were that it was OK to let forest fires burn for a while to reduce fuel loads. That was the case for a while and worked well until one got so big it was unstoppable and almost destroyed a number of communities. There went that strategy!!!

Same thing applies when "controlled" burns were carried out around assets in less than ideal circumstances. Some escape - assets get burned and then that strategy gets s***canned.

The fires that are currently ripping through the area's around Hotham, Dinner Plain are burning areas that were completely torched in the 2003 fires. Does anyone seriously think that we should have had a band of people out pruning 100,000's of hectares of regrowth to manage fuel loads. Its just fanciful stuff.

 

[Drake Huggins]

It’s all so murky and shady it makes me despair about the world some times. I read that Suleimani worked closely with America immediately after 9/11 and probably because Iran has a strong anti Saudi agenda. The chief negotiators with the UN at the time say he was on the precipice of signalling that Iran wanted to redefine its relationship with the US to be a friendlier one, then Bush used the words ‘axis of evil’ and it all flipped.

Anyway mate, we don’t always agree but you’re at our frontlines right now and I wish I was close enough to stand with you and lend a hand.

Stay safe.

It's grim. I was a young copper when the Ash Wednesday fires hit. That was horrific. This is 100 times worse. I've never seen anything like it. Exhausted fire fighters, grieving and frightened people. Exhaustion, physical and mental is the norm.

The sense of uncertainty is palpable. Nobody really knows exactly what's going on. As I've said before, I've only got a holiday shack to lose. Some have lost everything. Heartbreaking. At least there is a spirit of camaraderie that only disasters seem to bring out in us.

God I hope the forecast of rain hurries up and comes true. I see the Sikhs have gone to Wang to feed people. They are a wonderful mob.

 

[gringo2011]

All fair enough but Packham has either allowed himself or decided to portray fuel loads as a sole driver of increased fire activity and intensity. That is simply not the case.

I asked him directly a few years ago how he might actually go about achieving this reduction in fuel loads given the changes in weather conditions which even 10 years was beginning to impact the capacity to carry out "controlled" burns. He didn't have an answer then and doesn't have one now.

In the late 1990's the informal arrangements were that it was OK to let forest fires burn for a while to reduce fuel loads. That was the case for a while and worked well until one got so big it was unstoppable and almost destroyed a number of communities. There went that strategy!!!

Same thing applies when "controlled" burns were carried out around assets in less than ideal circumstances. Some escape - assets get burned and then that strategy gets s***canned.

The fires that are currently ripping through the area's around Hotham, Dinner Plain are burning areas that were completely torched in the 2003 fires. Does anyone seriously think that we should have had a band of people out pruning 100,000's of hectares of regrowth to manage fuel loads. Its just fanciful stuff.

Yeah, where we were burned out last time, it's regenerated 10 times thicker and has a lot more kindling to me. I'm no expert but the black wattle has proliferated and a good percentage get insects in them and die young. They are really hard to cut when they dry and burn super quick and hot on a camp fire. They pour nitrogen into the ground which makes the undergrowth so much thicker. When you get strong wind coming down the hills it sounds like a low flying 747 is close by. If it got lit up it would be like instant flame. Before there was dry logs that were fallen trees but we tended to cut that up and used them as fire wood so I don't see how burn off works. But as I said I'm not a fire expert.

 

[Drake Huggins]

This is a classic case of "Coroners' Court Syndrome". Someone has to die before the appropriate action is taken. I thought we'd learned from Black Saturday.

We've been caught out again. Perhaps the conditions were too extreme for the levels of preparation and planning. FIIK. Once again, mother nature and political inaction have combined to pull our collective pants down. There are a lot of angry people here right now.

I know some of you think blaming the Greens is simplistic, but for safety's sake, it might be better if they stayed west of Warragul for a time. Politicians needn't bother either. I'm told there's a long way to go and there may be worse to come. Good grief!