• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arson in Australia

I don't know what exactly is increasing fuel loads. I suspect that the reluctance by many conservatives to spend the money necessary to do the job has a lot to do with it. But I haven't seen anything to make me believe it is the greens who did it. Or that there is suddenly an increase in arson either.

- Management Practices such as no grazing, full suppression with goal to keep fires as small as possible, no timber harvesting could lead to increased fuel loads (more vegetation/acre) over time.
- Average to above average moisture may lead to increased fine fuel growth, thereby increasing fuel loads.

Can't speak for the Australia, but in the US the NEPA and planning process is slow and burdensome process. Environmental groups have slowed or put the end to many forest/range restoration projects. I suspect Australia is not much different.
 
I think he understands the difference well.

And he disseminates propaganda.

That would explain why he never even tries to debate anything and just replies with nothing but one-liner responses and more propaganda.
 
What that looks like to me is you really don't own land in Australia. Here in the
United States, a lot of places allow you to do what you want if you own the property.
That used to be true in Chicago Mr. T's House is for sale...

What does this have to do with greens causing a build up of fuel?

Steve Case said:
By the way, did you
take a look at what this guy had to say about the AU government on that Paul
Joseph Watson You Tube Time Mark 2:58 Colorful language is always fun (-:

Yes... I saw it. That is why I called them lying A-holes.

Steve Case said:
Neither have I, Paul Joseph Watson is over the top, but then so are a lot of
the darlings on the left.

What "darlings on the left" are anything like that? Even Greta isn't that bad.

Steve Case said:
I don't know what the motive for the arsons are. What I do know is that if arsons
have been a problem over the years, our wonderful so-called main stream media
hasn't reported it up until now.

The media isn't reporting it because it is a fact of life and is nothing new that needs to be reported on. Now if there was a provable increase in arson that was somehow causing the massive fires happening now, then it would be news.

Steve Case said:
On this nice snowy Saturday afternoon I don't feel like looking through your
previous posts other than to note that name-calling i.e., "denialist" looks like
pushing "The Climate Crisis" to me. Well that's just my opinion again (-:

Oh Please... and you keep pointing out that disgusting rant in that video. What does that say about you then?

Steve Case said:
Well average temperature is up about a degree since the 19th century.
Considering that most of that increase is in winter, at night and in the
higher latitudes, my opinion again, is that it doesn't have much of
anything to do with the last few months of weather in New South Wales.

As some here have said and I am going to repeat... Your opinion is noted and rejected.

And unless I missed something you still haven't provided any evidence that arsonists or greens are in any way responsible for the massive increase in fires this year.
 
Citation needed.

Really? What rock do you live under? :mrgreen:

Just do your homework regarding fire and resource management practices. Search is your friend.

Citation: 30 years of working in resource management / fire. How about you?:lamo
 
Really? What rock do you live under?

I don't live under a rock. Especially when it comes to environmental concerns. Not only do I spend huge amounts of time researching and learning about climate change I also have several interests and hobbies that mostly center around nature. Like camping, fishing, hiking, rock collecting and geology, and nature photography. And I do plenty of reading about those topics as well. And in all my years of doing and learning about these things, I can't remember even one instance of environmentalists slowing or putting an end to forest/range restoration projects. Maybe you have a different definition of "restoration" than I do.

mike2810 said:
Just do your homework regarding fire and resource management practices. Search is your friend.

You're the one who made the claim so it is your homework.

mike2810 said:
Citation: 30 years of working in resource management / fire. How about you?

Your work experience is not a citation.
 
I don't live under a rock. Especially when it comes to environmental concerns. Not only do I spend huge amounts of time researching and learning about climate change I also have several interests and hobbies that mostly center around nature. Like camping, fishing, hiking, rock collecting and geology, and nature photography. And I do plenty of reading about those topics as well. And in all my years of doing and learning about these things, I can't remember even one instance of environmentalists slowing or putting an end to forest/range restoration projects. Maybe you have a different definition of "restoration" than I do.



You're the one who made the claim so it is your homework.



Your work experience is not a citation.

Your opinion is noted and rejected.

Tree-cutting ban in Southwest forests hurts heating needs - The Salt Lake Tribune
2019

"The U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it has suspended timber sales, thinning projects, prescribed burns and the sale of firewood permits as a result of a recent court order in a 2013 case in which environmentalists accused the agency of failing to track the population of Mexican spotted owls."
2003
"For five years, the supervisor of the Black Mesa Ranger District in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests had pushed a plan to thin out the overgrown stands of trees on the western side of the forest in hopes of curtailing the threat of a wildfire." "But after two years of planning and public hearings, the project was blocked, first by an appeal and then a lawsuit brought by a Tucson environmental group."





Lawsuits stall forest thinning | News | eastvalleytribune.com
 
I don't live under a rock. Especially when it comes to environmental concerns. Not only do I spend huge amounts of time researching and learning about climate change I also have several interests and hobbies that mostly center around nature. Like camping, fishing, hiking, rock collecting and geology, and nature photography. And I do plenty of reading about those topics as well. And in all my years of doing and learning about these things, I can't remember even one instance of environmentalists slowing or putting an end to forest/range restoration projects. Maybe you have a different definition of "restoration" than I do.



You're the one who made the claim so it is your homework.



Your work experience is not a citation.

Somehow I don't believe you that you have spent a "huge amounts of time researching and learning about climate change " In your outdoor type "hobbies", have you ever been on a team to write an Environmental Impact Statement, researched fire behavior, written and implemented prescribed burn plans, or worked on a wildfire?

Has your research ever took you to the spotted or Mexican owl issues that some environmental groups have. If you did you would know that despite having EIS/EA's done the USFS and other agencies have been taken to court over thinning project. The court filing slowed or stopped a project. Thank goodness many times after years in the courts the project was cleared to proceed.

I know work experience is not a "citation". Seems you have no sense of humor.
 
Your opinion is noted and rejected.

Tree-cutting ban in Southwest forests hurts heating needs - The Salt Lake Tribune
2019

"The U.S. Forest Service said Thursday it has suspended timber sales, thinning projects, prescribed burns and the sale of firewood permits as a result of a recent court order in a 2013 case in which environmentalists accused the agency of failing to track the population of Mexican spotted owls."
2003
"For five years, the supervisor of the Black Mesa Ranger District in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests had pushed a plan to thin out the overgrown stands of trees on the western side of the forest in hopes of curtailing the threat of a wildfire." "But after two years of planning and public hearings, the project was blocked, first by an appeal and then a lawsuit brought by a Tucson environmental group."

Lawsuits stall forest thinning | News | eastvalleytribune.com

Ah... I see the problem here. You think that thinning of the forests to prevent forest fires is "restoration". Well... it isn't.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need to do things like this. But to attack environmentalists and their concerns about fire suppression tactics as if they are stopping the restoration of forests is just dishonest nonsense.
 
Ah... I see the problem here. You think that thinning of the forests to prevent forest fires is "restoration". Well... it isn't.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need to do things like this. But to attack environmentalists and their concerns about fire suppression tactics as if they are stopping the restoration of forests is just dishonest nonsense.

No. you are misguided and showing your ignorance.
Thinning and removal of debris reduces fuel load. Thinning to proper stocking levels improves forest health. Do you know how reduced fuel loads affects fire behavior? Where did I say thinning prevents forest fires?

You did not believe that environmental groups have stopped or hindered forest health projects. The links showed you were wrong. Fess up.

The only nonsense being posted is yours. None of my comments towards environmental groups addressed suppression tactics.
One can not have a rational discussion with someone who has not a clue or willing to educate themselves on the subject. You are out of your league on this subject.
My education in Forest Management and wildfire along with 30 years working in fire pretty much trumps your "hobby".:mrgreen:
 
Somehow I don't believe you that you have spent a "huge amounts of time researching and learning about climate change "

Yeah... well, I don't really care if you believe me or not. But if you want to really find out if I am full of BS or not then do a search of my posts. There are only a little over 1000 of them and you will see that I regularly discuss topics that most people have no clue about. And not only that but I have on some occasions debunked denialist misinformation from people who say they are scientists or climate experts. And I have no formal education in the subject of climate change. It is all self-taught. And I swear... it has taken me literally thousands of hours of research and reading to learn.

mike2810 said:
In your outdoor type "hobbies", have you ever been on a team to write an Environmental Impact Statement, researched fire behavior, written and implemented prescribed burn plans, or worked on a wildfire?

Of course not! Who would do these kinds of things for these kinds of hobbies? Nobody. But I have on occasion read about these subjects in my research on global warming.

So... tell me. Have you ever researched equilibrium climate sensitivity(ECS) or transient climate response(TCR) in your training for your profession? What about studying the planetary energy budget of Earth to understand why the planet is warming? Or maybe learned exactly how CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are trapping energy and warming us up? Do you know anything specific about how numerous scientific organizations have recorded, adjusted and assessed the warming of the planet?

mike2810 said:
Has your research ever took you to the spotted or Mexican owl issues that some environmental groups have. If you did you would know that despite having EIS/EA's done the USFS and other agencies have been taken to court over thinning project. The court filing slowed or stopped a project. Thank goodness many times after years in the courts the project was cleared to proceed.

Again... I do not think that thinning projects are "restoration". But this doesn't mean I think thinning projects are necessarily bad. I am aware of the fact that modern forest fire suppression has caused a build-up of fuel in our forests. But I also believe that the need to remove these build-ups of fuel need to take into consideration other issues. Like the concern for spotted/Mexican owls.

mike2810 said:
I know work experience is not a "citation". Seems you have no sense of humor.

:roll:
 
No. you are misguided and showing your ignorance.

Now you are just getting insulting.

mike2810 said:
Thinning and removal of debris reduces fuel load.

No **** Sherlock.

mike2810 said:
Thinning to proper stocking levels improves forest health.

Proper stocking levels? We are talking about forests, not livestock.

mike2810 said:
Do you know how reduced fuel loads affects fire behavior?

Of course, I do.

mike2810 said:
Where did I say thinning prevents forest fires??

You inferred it when you cited thinning projects that were stopped by environmentalists to support your statement that they have slowed or put an end to restoration projects. That was after you said that you suspected that environmentalists have done the same thing in Australia.

mike2810 said:
You did not believe that environmental groups have stopped or hindered forest health projects. The links showed you were wrong. Fess up.

You didn't say anything about forest health projects. You said restoration projects. There is a difference.

mike2810 said:
The only nonsense being posted is yours. None of my comments towards environmental groups addressed suppression tactics.

Except when you showed that environmentalist groups have stopped forest thinning projects... which is a fire suppression tactic.

mike2810 said:
One can not have a rational discussion with someone who has not a clue or willing to educate themselves on the subject.

Yeah... just like one can not have a rational discussion with someone who resorts to dishonest and insulting debate tactics like you have.

mike2810 said:
You are out of your league on this subject.

Why is that? You haven't actually proven me wrong on anything. All you have done is act like a know-it-all.

mike2810 said:
My education in Forest Management and wildfire along with 30 years working in fire pretty much trumps your "hobby".

Well... Mr. "I know more than you", tell me why you got into this argument if you can't support the denialist claim that greens caused the Australian fires.
 
He is a retired bush fire specialist. And I found a video interview of him where he cites his source for his belief that greens are partly responsible(it is about 5 minutes into it). And he quotes Roger Underwood who is a denialist that posts on the denialist Jennifer Marohasy's website. And all Roger said is that the greens profit by all the fires because they can blame it on global warming. So... that quote is not proof that the greens are responsible for the build-up of fuel.

Sorry, Jack. You haven't proven anything except your inability to tell the difference between fact and propaganda.

Your durable denialism is noted. There is no doubt that green opposition significantly inhibited the controlled burning that would have prevented much recent devastation. As for Marohasy, she's an extraordinarily valuable source of information.

[h=2]After the Tragic Wildfires: History is Rewritten or Forgotten[/h]January 13, 2020 By jennifer 29 Comments
[FONT=&quot]The infernos of January 2020 will be remembered for destroying so much of southeastern Australia. I weep for the burns’ victims. So many people and so much wildlife in so much pain. In terms of area of land burnt, these last few weeks may be … [Read more...]
[/FONT]
 
Except when you showed that environmentalist groups have stopped forest thinning projects... which is a fire suppression tactic.

Provide citations that thinning is a fire suppression tactic. The key word is "suppression".
Thinning can be used to help restore forest health. It also can be used to help modify fire behavior if a fire burns into a thinned area. Less intense fire allows for more direct suppression methods.

I got into this thread to correct your post errors regarding fires and resource management.

Have a good one.

One site you may enjoy.
Wildfire Today - News and opinion about wildland fire
 
Climate change is the excuse to hide an Inferno of Incompetence — heads must roll for the billion dollar bushfire mistakes


Whose fault was it and will they get away with it (like all the other times)?

Twenty seven people died, a billion animals, 2,000 homes, tourism wrecked and a plume of smoke stretched from here to South America. Unless heads roll, this cycle repeats every 10 – 20 years. Imagine if the media was demanding to know how State Premiers had allowed this catastrophe, or if the opposition was accusing the government of listening to the Ivory Tower instead of the firies? The problem is, they’re all complicit. Both sides of politics are guilty, and the media didn’t see this coming either.
We can recognise those avoiding responsibility by the way they fob off hard questions:
1. Let’s blame “climate change” (because these fires are “normal” now, get used to it. Plus luckily no one ever says — “you mean it’s China’s fault?”)
2. Let’s say “now’s not the time to play the blame game” and,
3. Coming soon: “let’s wait for the Royal Commission, or Almighty Investigation, or 28th Fire Report” — or whichever comes last. (Who wants to preempt a report even if we already know what it will say. )
But we already know three State governments have not followed the advice from most past reports. They’ve ignored the fire and forestry scientists who warned them a disaster was coming and fuel loads were too high. They’ve ignored history. Bushfires in Australia are one of the most obvious dangers to live and health and yet few state leaders have bothered to understand them.
An Inferno of Incompetence and Obfuscation

by Roger Underwood on Quadrant
Roger Underwood AOM spent years in bushfire management, and was General Manager of CALM in WA (Conservation and Land Management). He is often asked “who’s to blame” and he points at the State Premiers, Minister and Public Servants who listened to university fools and not the bushfire scientists who said “a disaster was imminent” and who told them to clear the fuel.
At the top of the list are the premiers and ministers responsible for land management, such as it is, and bushfire policy, and the public servants in their departments with jurisdiction over forests and national parks. State governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have palpably failed to do the most important job they were elected to do: protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens and the health of their environment. And their public servants have failed to do the job they are being paid to do: serve the public.
All Big-Government roads lead to death and destruction:
Yet despite the science, the evidence presented by bushmen, the dramatic history of this contininent’s relationship with fire, and the findings of numerous inquiries, successive governments in Qld, NSW and Victoria over the last 25 years have consistently failed to prepare potential firegrounds in the expectation of the inevitable. Not only this, they seem to have actually go out of their way to make things worse: the cut-backs to fuel reduction burning, the closure of access roads and trails in national parks, the decimation of professional forestry and fire management expertise, the turning of the blind eye to the creation of residential subdivisions incapable of being defended, the funding of “research” in the universities that is aimed at making the job of the firefighter more difficult, and the erection of a complex bureaucratic edifices that hinder sensible bushfire preparedness and make fuel-reduction burning almost impossible. . . . .

Keep reading →




 
Your durable denialism is noted. There is no doubt that green opposition significantly inhibited the controlled burning that would have prevented much recent devastation. As for Marohasy, she's an extraordinarily valuable source of information.

[h=2]After the Tragic Wildfires: History is Rewritten or Forgotten[/h]January 13, 2020 By jennifer 29 Comments
[FONT=&quot]The infernos of January 2020 will be remembered for destroying so much of southeastern Australia. I weep for the burns’ victims. So many people and so much wildlife in so much pain. In terms of area of land burnt, these last few weeks may be … [Read more...]
[/FONT]

Look, Jack... I told you I am not wasting my time reading your stupid links anymore. If this one contains evidence that greens are responsible for preventing the removal of fuel then you are going to have to provide the exact quote that shows this. Otherwise, I am going to assume you still can't prove ****!
 
Provide citations that thinning is a fire suppression tactic. The key word is "suppression".
Thinning can be used to help restore forest health. It also can be used to help modify fire behavior if a fire burns into a thinned area. Less intense fire allows for more direct suppression methods.

Now you are just nit-picking the definition of "suppression" in an effort to avoid having to admit you are wrong. You are just like all the other people here who want to blame environmentalists for the build-up of fuel but you can't actually provide any evidence that they did this. And I am referring to Australia only. I am well aware that things are different over here.

mike2810 said:
I got into this thread to correct your post errors regarding fires and resource management.

What errors?
 
Look, Jack... I told you I am not wasting my time reading your stupid links anymore. If this one contains evidence that greens are responsible for preventing the removal of fuel then you are going to have to provide the exact quote that shows this. Otherwise, I am going to assume you still can't prove ****!

I have already proven, and you've already denied.
 
Now you are just nit-picking the definition of "suppression" in an effort to avoid having to admit you are wrong. You are just like all the other people here who want to blame environmentalists for the build-up of fuel but you can't actually provide any evidence that they did this. And I am referring to Australia only. I am well aware that things are different over here.



What errors?

Sorry, I am correct and you are wrong in the use of the term "suppression". Where have I blamed the mess totally on "environmentalist"? Politicians play a role in forcing poor resource management policies on resource managers.

What errors? If you cannot figure out from my posts. your helpless.
 
Climate 'Religion' Is Fueling Australia's Wildfires
Rupert Darwall, The Hill

". . . More than three months ago there were warnings of an unusually strong Indian Ocean Dipole, with warm water off Africa contributing to rain there and cold water off Western Australia leading to severe drought there. Strong winds and updrafts created conditions for hundreds of lightning strikes. Together with the build-up of fuel – five years ago, bushfire expert David Packham warned that forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous in thousands of years – this led to Australia experiencing its worst fires in 100 years. The hellish conditions saw a fire tornado flip a fire truck, killing a volunteer firefighter. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Far from campaigning for aggressive land-management policies to minimize the buildup of fuel through controlled burns, or to insist on firebreaks and other measures to contain fire’s spread, some environmental organizations campaign against them. Writing about the California fires, Myron Ebell and Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute criticized the culture of vegetation worship that “militates against purposefully burning things down. In California, these ‘prescribed’ fires are now largely prohibited (because burning releases dreaded carbon dioxide), ensuring that disaster is always just around the corner.” So Greens would prefer that carbon remain on the ground as fuel for larger, deadlier conflagrations that release bigger plumes of carbon dioxide? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Australia, Packham notes that forest fuel levels have worsened over 30 years because of “misguided green ideology” and condemned the left-leaning state of Victoria for its “failed fire management policy,” which, he says, represents an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment. . . . "[/FONT]
 
Sorry, I am correct and you are wrong in the use of the term "suppression".

You are the one who brought up "full suppression with goal to keep fires as small as possible"(I assumed you meant to say "fuel"). And now you are claiming I am wrong for saying that thinning of forests is fire suppression? Are you serious?

mike2810 said:
Where have I blamed the mess totally on "environmentalist"?

I never claimed that you blamed them totally. But you did cite environmentalists stopping forest thinning projects in Arizona as if it proved that they did the same thing in Australia.

mike2810 said:
Politicians play a role in forcing poor resource management policies on resource managers.

Didn't I pretty much say something similar when you first jumped into this debate?

mike2810 said:
What errors? If you cannot figure out from my posts. your helpless.

Yeah... What errors? You said you got into this debate because of my errors. But the only errors I see you claiming I made are the ones you have imagined after you joined this debate.

Well... I would say that if you can't ever admit you are wrong then you are helpless.
 
Back
Top Bottom