• 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

Buzz said:
No. The claim I have a problem with was in your post #176:



And you can't back it up because it is not true.
Click to expand...

www.kqed.org › science › california-lagging-way-behind-southeast-in...

[h=3]California Lagging Way Behind Southeast in Prescribed Burns ...[/h]
Af0yBh1hbou3AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC







May 29, 2019 - Federal agencies are not performing enough prescribed burns in California and other Western states to curb the risk of wildfire, even as the ...
 
Jack Hays said:
www.motherjones.com › environment › 2019/11 › californias-wildfir...

[h=3]California's Wildfire Policy Totally Backfired. Native Communities[/h]
ruI5 1nS m5AvNkbtOQQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==



Nov 11, 2019 - When it came time to set fire to the hillside, Kitty Lynch paused. A 70 year-old retired waitress, Lynch's job during the controlled burn of a 2,200 ...
Click to expand...

Now you have just provided 3 articles that talk specifically about prescribed burns. Am I missing something or are you reversing your position?
 
Last edited:
Buzz said:
Now you have just provided 3 articles that talk specifically about prescribed burns. Am I missing something or are you reversing your position?
Click to expand...

The articles are about the insufficiency of controlled burns, and those who are trying to correct that.
 
Jack Hays said:
The articles are about the insufficiency of controlled burns, and those who are trying to correct that.
Click to expand...

O.K... does this mean you are admitting that the article you posted that claimed that prescribed burns are largely prohibited was wrong?

Or are you too much a denialist to do something like that?
 
Buzz said:
O.K... does this mean you are admitting that the article you posted that claimed that prescribed burns are largely prohibited was wrong?

Or are you too much a denialist to do something like that?
Click to expand...

Hardly. The recent three articles are right in line with the first one. They confirm it.
 
Buzz said:
I know what my position is. I am asking you what you think it is. You just claimed you were going to take my position and turn it on me. So far you are failing to do so.



Yes... I know this. Do you have an intelligent point to make? Or are you just determined to come up with a justification for not admitting you have lost this debate?
Click to expand...

OK, if you think so and if it will make you feel better, you win.:mrgreen:

It is clear you have no understanding of the science behind fire.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hardly. The recent three articles are right in line with the first one. They confirm it.
Click to expand...

So 3 articles that talk about current prescribed burning not being enough supports another article that claims they are largely prohibited?

:cuckoo:
 
Buzz said:
So 3 articles that talk about current prescribed burning not being enough supports another article that claims they are largely prohibited?

:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

The three articles are about remedial measures to rectify the wrong-headed restrictions that contributed so much to the wildfires. I think you know this, so I'm disappointed to see you resorting to dishonesty.
 
Jack Hays said:
The three articles are about remedial measures to rectify the wrong-headed restrictions that contributed so much to the wildfires. I think you know this, so I'm disappointed to see you resorting to dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Links to information that disagrees with his views is rejected or labeled as false science. imo, he posts to get a reaction. Pretty one sided in demanding evidence from others but he actually provides little himself.

I am done with him. (on this thread).
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Fight fires with facts – not fake science[/h][FONT=&quot]Eliminate fuel, prevent ignition, stop arson, end irresponsible land management policies By Paul Driessen & Duggan Flanakin, “We are all born ignorant,” Benjamin Franklin once said, “but one must work very hard to remain stupid.” Greens are incensed over suggestions that anything but fossil fuels and climate change might be turning green California and Australian…
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/19/fight-fires-with-facts-not-fake-science/"]
CSIRO-Australian-Bushfire-Expriment.jpg
[/URL]Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Fight fires with facts – not fake science[/h][FONT="]Eliminate fuel, prevent ignition, stop arson, end irresponsible land management policies By Paul Driessen & Duggan Flanakin, “We are all born ignorant,” Benjamin Franklin once said, “but one must work very hard to remain stupid.” Greens are incensed over suggestions that anything but fossil fuels and climate change might be turning green California and Australian…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Lets see if Buzz and others continue to distort or lie about Arsonists reports. They fight hard against the numerous reports from many sources of media, even the BBC News has reported on many arson fires too.

It is pathetic that most warmists are truly ignorant about forest management, they seem to think high fuel loads are not an important factor in catastrophic fires.
 
mike2810 said:
Links to information that disagrees with his views is rejected or labeled as false science. imo, he posts to get a reaction. Pretty one sided in demanding evidence from others but he actually provides little himself.

I am done with him. (on this thread).
Click to expand...

Great! Just what we need around here... Another "expert" who likes to troll and make intellectually dishonest arguments.

:roll:
 
Sunsettommy said:
Lets see if Buzz and others continue to distort or lie about Arsonists reports. They fight hard against the numerous reports from many sources of media, even the BBC News has reported on many arson fires too.
Click to expand...

The only ones distorting or lying about arson are the denialists like you. None of you can show a dramatic increase in arson over previous years that can explain the massive increase in fires. The only things that have increased enough to explain this fire season in Austalia are record drought and heat.

Sunsettommy said:
It is pathetic that most warmists are truly ignorant about forest management, they seem to think high fuel loads are not an important factor in catastrophic fires.
Click to expand...

A now you are just lying about me. Nothing out of the ordinary there.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/19/fight-fires-with-facts-not-fake-science/"]
CSIRO-Australian-Bushfire-Expriment.jpg
[/URL]Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Fight fires with facts – not fake science[/h][FONT="]Eliminate fuel, prevent ignition, stop arson, end irresponsible land management policies By Paul Driessen & Duggan Flanakin, “We are all born ignorant,” Benjamin Franklin once said, “but one must work very hard to remain stupid.” Greens are incensed over suggestions that anything but fossil fuels and climate change might be turning green California and Australian…
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Good article. Some others should read and learn.
 
Buzz said:
The only ones distorting or lying about arson are the denialists like you. None of you can show a dramatic increase in arson over previous years that can explain the massive increase in fires. The only things that have increased enough to explain this fire season in Austalia are record drought and heat.



A now you are just lying about me. Nothing out of the ordinary there.
Click to expand...

I notice that Buzz has a big habit calling many people here liars, but rarely try to support that claim.

The true reality is that you have like so many warmists deliberately ignore the fact that it was WEATHER, regional short term drought, CO2 greening effect and suppressed fuel load management, that made the already numerous fire season worse than usual. You ignored the well supported fact that Australia as a nation had a significant INCREASE in rainfall over the last 50 years, it used to be a much dryer place before 1960. You ignored historical reports of high Arson behavior in Australia, You ignored a lot more than this too, because you are stuck in the apology mode as a brainwashed warmist trope you are.

Notice you didn't bother to read what the leftist BBC had to say about those numerous ARSON fires...., that I mentioned in passing.


:2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
Tsk tsk. So quick to charge dishonesty when the evidence doesn't go your way. We taught our children to be better than that.
"The rate of deliberately lit fires escalates rapidly during the school holiday period . . . "
Click to expand...

He likes to call people liars, but rarely back it up, notice his dishonest run around with you about whether there was an increase in arson fires or not, he keeps overlooking your multiple answers to his question, he goes on and on without a true counterpoint.

He is too deeply committed to defend the indefensible as he is a confirmed brainwashed warmist, he does a lot of run around replies to people here and elsewhere, it is his typical M.O.
 
ecofarm said:
:lol:

Pure ignorance.
Click to expand...

Pure stupidity since Trump doesn't live in Australia or have effected climate policy in Australia......

You really have a science degree?

:lol:
 
Buzz said:
Really Steve? Do you actually think that the amount of reporting is affecting the number and size of fires? That makes no sense.

I would say the combination of extreme drought and unusually high temperatures are the main causes. Whether those factors are caused by AGW or not is obviously still fiercely debated. I think they are.

And it is possible that bad management practices are helping to fuel the fires as well. I just haven't looked into that subject yet to have an informed opinion. But I doubt that that problem is something that just happened to suddenly increase this year either.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha,

it is NORMALLY hot and dry enough in Australian summers for fires to occur, this has been known for a long time by people who are rooted in reality, unlike warmists who continually pursue a delusion world that only climate change causes fires, it is a common theme that warmists push, it is a running joke and shown to be pure stupidity.

The worst Australian fire season was in 1974, right in the middle of Global COOLING time.
 
More "unprecedented" weather.

[h=2]Unprecedented hail, phenomal damage in Canberra: 1871, 1877, 1897, 1919, 1936, 1956, 1963[/h]
[h=3]Yesterday hail the size of golf balls fell on Canberra:[/h]Windows, cars, gardens smashed. Already there have between 15,000 insurance claims made and it’s been declared a catastrophe. (Tough few weeks for insurers in Australia).
Hail destroying the trees at Parliament House.. poor gardeners pic.twitter.com/bHEES1yhHy
— Tamsin Rose (@tamsinroses) January 20, 2020
​
[h=4]Not to good for solar panels:[/h]Canberra aims to be 100% renewables (but they aren’t cutting the line to the coal power). Will we ever find out how much the bill for the solar panel damage was?

[h=3][/h][h=3][/h][h=3]One hundred and thirty three years ago:[/h]h/t John in Oz.
… (Click to enlarge)
​

Queanbeyan is Canberra’s twin city, 15 minutes from Parliament House but in the next state. Long before Canberra was even founded, there were shocking hail storms. At a glance, terrible hail storms appear more common in summer.
January 7, 1871: Queanbeyan Hail of “large jagged shapes”,“bigger than pigeon’s eggs” shattered “hundreds of glass windows”, “cut ripe paddocks of wheat to pieces”, was “ruinous on fruit” crops, vine and trees. Many buildings were damaged. Hail lay in “deep drifts on the ground”.
Dec 29th, 1877: Extraordinary Hailstorm in Queanbeyan – large as “oranges” and “cricket balls”, cut through corrugated tin, killed “40 lambs”, knocked down foals, felled a horse. Left a trail of “terrible” destruction.
Sept 7th, 1897: Phenomenal Hailstorm: “the hailstones so large that two of them filled a pint pot”.
Dec 15th, 1910: Hail as “large as hens eggs” hit Weetangera. The crops were “a woeful sight”. Two and a halff inches of rain fell in Burra. 30 sheep drowned in Mt Campbell. At Woden Creek wire fences were washed away.
Dec 2nd, 1919: Destructive hailstorm: “on roofs with the noise of musketry, while others came with such force upon the ground as to bury themselves deep in loose soil, or to rebound from harder lodgements, especially the roads and streets, like tennis balls, two or three feet high…”
Dec 28th, 1936: Hailstorm in Canberra: Hailstones the size of hazelnuts battered … Canberra. … Hail pierced the hood of a sedan car.
Jan 24, 1951: Hailstorm causes Severe Damage in Queanbeyan: “Hailstones almost as large as hen eggs and golf balls weie reported from several parts of the town.” “Police described the storm as the worst they could remember”.
Feb 16th, 1956: Hailstorm Canberra’s Longest: …lasted 29 minutes. Some of the largest hail ever seen… “4.8 inches” fell on Yarralumla in 12 minutes. The hail caused “up to 100% losses in stone fruit”… “the most disastrous storm for many years”. 182 points of rain fell on the suburb of Griffith.

1877 Hail storm part b. (Click to enlarge)
​













Rating: 10.0/10 (11 votes cast)


 
mike2810 said:
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
Click to expand...

He frequently calls the cited sources as "denialist" sources, never tries a true counterpoint to them, he is here to promote a lie that climate change is the dominant cause, and his CO2 bogeyman tripe.

He doesn't show understanding on what is really going on, he has been shown numerous articles, and even a few science reports, I posted a an actual published science paper, he ignored it....., he is so busy trying to plug the leaky warmist bullcrap dam to notice the true reality behind it.

He ignores several posts that I made:

Posts 10, 22, 23, he ignored post 48 where I exposed his hilarious mistake.

He is the true blustering apologist for the AGW delusion.

He is the true denialist......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom