Arson in Australia

[Buzz]

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]

Oh boy... more denialist BS! Like the lie that California has mostly prohibited prescribed fires. This is just not true. And still, no evidence that "greens" have caused fuel build-up in Australia.

 

[mike2810]

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?



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.



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



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.

Buzz: You and I are not communicating. The problem is I use terms correctly in dealing with wildfire. You at times do not. Thinning IS NOT a suppression tactic.

My link to groups stopping a thinning project was in response of you saying you are not aware of it ever happening.

example of your error. Using the term "suppression" incorrectly.

 

[Buzz]

The problem is I use terms correctly in dealing with wildfire. You at times do not. Thinning IS NOT a suppression tactic.

O.K. Thinning is not technically fire suppression. But you stated that fuel suppression helps keep fires smaller. I think you are just nit-picking here.

My link to groups stopping a thinning project was in response of you saying you are not aware of it ever happening.

Yes, not aware of it happening in Australia. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the greens have done this in Australia. And I do have to concede that you did just say you suspected that environmentalists do the same over there as they have done here.

example of your error. Using the term "suppression" incorrectly.

Which is an "error" I made after you joined this debate. So you were wrong when you claimed you joined because of my errors.

 

[Jack Hays]

Denial of what?

Oh boy... more denialist BS! Like the lie that California has mostly prohibited prescribed fires. This is just not true. And still, no evidence that "greens" have caused fuel build-up in Australia.

Denial continues.

 

[mike2810]

O.K. Thinning is not technically fire suppression. But you stated that fuel suppression helps keep fires smaller. I think you are just nit-picking here.



Yes, not aware of it happening in Australia. And I still haven't seen any evidence that the greens have done this in Australia. And I do have to concede that you did just say you suspected that environmentalists do the same over there as they have done here.



Which is an "error" I made after you joined this debate. So you were wrong when you claimed you joined because of my errors.

my typo meant full suppression. Good catch.

Funny, you can claim why I joined in. Can you read my mind.:mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh boy... more denialist BS! Like the lie that California has mostly prohibited prescribed fires. This is just not true. And still, no evidence that "greens" have caused fuel build-up in Australia.

Wildfires Caused By Bad Environmental Policy Are Causing California Forests To Be Net CO2 Emitters

Guest essay by Chuck DeVore In the past two years, wildfires scorched 2.9 million acres in California, including five of the state’s 20 deadliest fires killing 131 people. Former California Gov. Jerry Brown grimly warned that because of man-made climate change, these destructive wildfires are the “new abnormal” that threaten “our whole way of life.” Newly elected…

February 25, 2019 in Wildfires.

 

[Buzz]

Denial continues.

Oh, God... Do me a favor, Jack. For once in your life go and actually fact check something you posted. Go and see if California has actually prohibited prescribed fires.

Let see if you are even capable of doing something like that and then admitting your source is wrong.

 

[Buzz]

Funny, you can claim why I joined in. Can you read my mind.

:roll:

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

 

[mike2810]

:roll:

It was an example of an error. Did I say it was one of your firsts.

Lets get to the bottom of this.
Buzz, tell us how climate change causes wildfires? Not how they burn once started, but how does climate change start fires?

 

[Buzz]

It was an example of an error. Did I say it was one of your firsts.

What are you talking about? Now you are just not making sense.

Lets get to the bottom of this.
Buzz, tell us how climate change causes wildfires? Not how they burn once started, but how does climate change start fires?

And now you want to change the subject.

Nobody is saying that climate change starts fires. And if there are some who say this, they are wrong. Climate change is making conditions worse and that helps them to burn hotter and faster. As a firefighter, you should know this.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, God... Do me a favor, Jack. For once in your life go and actually fact check something you posted. Go and see if California has actually prohibited prescribed fires.

Let see if you are even capable of doing something like that and then admitting your source is wrong.

Please see #181. Prescribed burns need not be explicitly prohibited to be put largely out of reach.

 

[mike2810]

What are you talking about? Now you are just not making sense.



And now you want to change the subject.

Nobody is saying that climate change starts fires. And if there are some who say this, they are wrong. Climate change is making conditions worse and that helps them to burn hotter and faster. As a firefighter, you should know this.

From your post 94, please tell us what the main cause of the fires in Australia is for this year.

I am going to take your position and turn it on you. The number of fires started by an arson has nothing to do with the severity of the fire season and the impact on the environment. Do you agree?

Nature doesn't care the source of ignition the fire has. Nature cares about long term weather conditions, short term weather conditions, amount of fuel, fuel moisture conditions, wind, topography involved, temperature, etc.

You could have a year with 100% lightning caused fires that did extreme damage by human standards to the environment. You could have a year of 100% human caused fires that actual improved the environment by human standards. The point, is under extreme fire conditions the fire generally causes damage to the land.

 

[Buzz]

Please see #181. Prescribed burns need not be explicitly prohibited to be put largely out of reach.

Sorry... not reading your denialist BS anymore. Remember? If you want me to see what you talking about then quote the pertinent part.

And I guess this means you are completely incapable of independently fact-checking your sources. And by independently... I mean not using other denialist sources.

 

[Buzz]

From your post 94, please tell us what the main cause of the fires in Australia is for this year.

You went back 9 days to find something to take issue with?

:lamo

And do you realize I was talking about the causes of the increase in fire for this year?

I am going to take your position and turn it on you.

Oh really? What position is that?

The number of fires started by an arson has nothing to do with the severity of the fire season and the impact on the environment. Do you agree?

Nature doesn't care the source of ignition the fire has. Nature cares about long term weather conditions, short term weather conditions, amount of fuel, fuel moisture conditions, wind, topography involved, temperature, etc.

You could have a year with 100% lightning caused fires that did extreme damage by human standards to the environment. You could have a year of 100% human caused fires that actual improved the environment by human standards. The point, is under extreme fire conditions the fire generally causes damage to the land.

There is nothing majorly wrong with any of this. I could nit-pick a point or two but essentially you are right. Some of it is pretty much what I have been saying. So, what exactly is your point?

 

[mike2810]

You went back 9 days to find something to take issue with?

:lamo

And do you realize I was talking about the causes of the increase in fire for this year?



Oh really? What position is that?



There is nothing majorly wrong with any of this. I could nit-pick a point or two but essentially you are right. Some of it is pretty much what I have been saying. So, what exactly is your point?

If you don't know your position I can't help you. :lamo

The cause and number of fires does not matter to the land. It is how the fire burns (fire behavior) that matters.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry... not reading your denialist BS anymore. Remember? If you want me to see what you talking about then quote the pertinent part.

And I guess this means you are completely incapable of independently fact-checking your sources. And by independently... I mean not using other denialist sources.

As you wish. Your prejudice is your prison.

From #181:

[FONT=&quot]. . . Unlike much of the American South and East, California has a distinct wet season, with Pacific storms rolling in by November or December and wrapping up by March. In even the wettest years (2016-17 was the wettest in 122 years) much of California is bone-dry by late fall. Thus, it isn’t climate change that sets the conditions for fires—it’s California’s natural weather pattern. Comparing acres burned in wildfires to weather and tree harvest data, there appears to be little link to climate—but a big connection to the growing forest fuel load, especially on government land.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Which brings us back to policy. If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the meantime, the timber harvest infrastructure is less than one-third of what it was 30 years ago, meaning that even if politicians were sincere in wanting to manage the public forests, there few people remaining to manage them.[/FONT]

 

[Buzz]

If you don't know your position I can't help you.

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.

The cause and number of fires does not matter to the land. It is how the fire burns (fire behavior) that matters.

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?

 

[Buzz]

As you wish. Your prejudice is your prison.

Your the one who lives in a prison of your own making by getting all of your facts from only sources you agree with.

[FONT=&quot]. . . Unlike much of the American South and East, California has a distinct wet season, with Pacific storms rolling in by November or December and wrapping up by March. In even the wettest years (2016-17 was the wettest in 122 years) much of California is bone-dry by late fall. Thus, it isn’t climate change that sets the conditions for fires—it’s California’s natural weather pattern. Comparing acres burned in wildfires to weather and tree harvest data, there appears to be little link to climate—but a big connection to the growing forest fuel load, especially on government land.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=&quot]Which brings us back to policy. If federal and state environmental policies continue to make it difficult and costly to harvest timber and manage the fuel load, then the wildfires will continue and they will be bigger and deadlier. This will, in due course, cause some politicians to blame the fires on climate change.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the meantime, the timber harvest infrastructure is less than one-third of what it was 30 years ago, meaning that even if politicians were sincere in wanting to manage the public forests, there few people remaining to manage them.[/FONT]

Nothing about California not doing prescribed burns anymore. No surprise there.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your the one who lives in a prison of your own making by getting all of your facts from only sources you agree with.



Nothing about California not doing prescribed burns anymore. No surprise there.

The claim was that burns are "largely" prohibited. More from #181:

[FONT=&quot]. . . This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush. . . .[/FONT]

 

[Buzz]

Now you're just lying.

No, you are.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, you are.

Please see #194.

 

[Buzz]

The claim was that burns are "largely" prohibited. More from #181:

[FONT=&quot]. . . This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush. . . .[/FONT]

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

In California, these ‘prescribed’ fires are now largely prohibited

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

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

That's exactly the one I was quoting: "largely" prohibited. That claim was not in #181.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

www.motherjones.com › environment › 2019/11 › californias-wildfir...

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

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 ...

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

www.sacbee.com › news › california › fires › article230481684

[h=3]CA neglecting prescribed burns to fight fire risk, experts say ...[/h]

May 29, 2019
California should conduct more prescribed burns to reduce major wildfire risks, experts say. Research by ...