Austrailia on Fire!

girlfisher

Active Member

After watching 60 minutes I was reminded how selfishly occupied I am with what amounts to trivial pursuits in comparison. The staggering loss of Wild Life to the point of near extinction and the unbelievable $cost that must somehow be endured by Austrailia's citizens are unimaginable!

There were two points made on the 60 minute interviews that struck home for me: 1. The lady scientist who spoke of climatic changes that were not to be expected until mid century were already here. 2. The former conservative leader who was ousted because he mentioned the C-word and his very real comment that stated "climate deniers are dangerous to our future"!

I chose the Wikipedia approach to try and avoid another CC debate and am just paraphrasing comments from 60 minutes for those of us who are in the "Sky is Falling" conspiracy group.
 

Chromer J

Active Member
Historical evidence doesn't support these fires being the result of recent change in climate trends. Prop up a climate prediction of your choice with someone granted the dubious label of a scientist all you want, but it's still a modeled prediction or forecast and most of these have failed badly over the last 20 years no matter how mesmerizing the supporting color-animated videos might be. After working a lot with a variety of sophisticated scientific models, I've learned they're only as good as what goes into them. They can be readily manipulated to agree with a desired result, and in the end, most are rubbish. However we can rely on historical facts pretty strongly.

What's that? Science denier you say? Nah, I'm a huge believer in science and have dozens of university texts on my shelf to show for it. I'm just a pseudo-science denier and am insulted by junk science when I see it.
______________ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

The gradual drying of the Australian continent over the last 15 million years has produced an ecology and environment prone to fire, which has resulted in many specialised adaptations amongst flora and fauna.

According to Tim Flannery (The Future Eaters), fire is one of the most important forces at work in the Australian environment. Some plants have evolved a variety of mechanisms to survive. Abel Janszoon Tasman's expedition saw smoke drifting over the coast of Tasmania in 1642 and noted blackened trunks and baked earth in the forests. While charting the east coast in 1770, Captain Cook's crew saw autumn fires in the bush burning on most days of the voyage.

Flannery writes that "The use of fire by Aboriginal people was so widespread and constant that virtually every early explorer in Australia makes mention of it. It was Aboriginal fire that prompted James Cook to call Australia 'This continent of smoke'." However, he goes on to say: "When control was wrested from the Aborigines and placed in the hands of Europeans, disaster resulted."[11] Fire suppression became the dominant paradigm in fire management leading to a significant shift away from traditional burning practices. A 2001 study found that the disruption of traditional burning practices and the introduction of unrestrained logging meant that many areas of Australia were now prone to extensive wildfires especially in the dry season.
____________

That last paragraph should sound eerily familiar to those informed on our own fires here in north America. It appears that several decades of Australia's aggresive policies towards fire suppression played a large hand, just as it has for our fires. 100 years ago, who would have known the unintended consequences of employing policies of aggressive wildfire suppression combined with minimal or no use of controlled burns? Controlled burns (and unrestricted wildfires), present in both north America and Australia prior to being settled by Europeans, helped to mitigate the size of a given fire by eliminating undergrowth and creating a checkerboard of flora at various life stages , and therefore various stages of wildfire susceptibility. A century of aggressive wildfire suppression policy, and the resultant wide-scale accumulation of undergrowth, has created the perfect scenario to fuel larger more severe fires. We now are understanding this better and in the process of reversing a century of bad policy. These fires, and associated loss of wildlife, are sad and tragic. With a truthful understanding how this circumstance came about, smaller controlled burns can be practised in the future to minimize loss of wildlife, eliminate accumulations of undergrowth, and maintain a healthy checkerboard of flora at different life stages across fire-vulnerable regions.

I think it's pitiful, shameful, and telling that the scale of these fires be attributed to a change in climate by anyone as it subtracts from getting a truthful, actionable message to the public about the need for policy change on fire suppression and embracing use of systematic controlled burns. One would have to deny historical record to take a different position.

The scale of these fires wasn't a surprise for many.
From an Australian bushfire scientist's concerns voiced 5 years ago: " ....unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

"Other nations adopted the American fire suppression model, with equally devastating results. Now the folly of fighting backcountry fires is widely accepted and the role of fire in maintaining forest health is understood. The impact of the campaign is the most important legacy of the 1910 Fires and the Big Blowup—and it is a legacy that we are still coping with today."
 
Last edited:

girlfisher

Active Member
Mr. Chromer J: Thank you for your insightful rebuttal. Although I feel confident that your stance resides with the minority, I did not feel I have the expertise to adequately address your remarks. I took the liberty of sending your remarks to Dr. Joelle Gergis who's credentials appear at the bottom of her answer. Dr Gergis was the scientist I was referring to in my original post. My post was not intended to spark a 20-page debate that has been hashed out several times on this forum. Yet, I feel you deserve to hear from someone who lives in Austrailia and has devoted much of her life working on this specific topic.

Thanks for your kind words.

The material you copied below is utter rubbish. Responding is pointless and too time consuming for people on the front line of this.

We have ample evidence for a range of sources that demonstrate that climate change is influencing natural climate variability in Australia.

I suggest looking at IPCC, CSIRO and BoM reports for all the details.

It is the height of arrogance for non-experts to claim authority on our field of expertise.

Hope this helps!
Joelle
--
Dr Joelle Gergis
Senior Lecturer in Climate Science,
Fenner School of Environment & Society
Associate Investigator,
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 2061, Australia.
+61 2 612 52623
[email protected]
 

Chromer J

Active Member
Mr. Chromer J: Thank you for your insightful rebuttal. Although I feel confident that your stance resides with the minority, I did not feel I have the expertise to adequately address your remarks. I took the liberty of sending your remarks to Dr. Joelle Gergis who's credentials appear at the bottom of her answer. Dr Gergis was the scientist I was referring to in my original post. My post was not intended to spark a 20-page debate that has been hashed out several times on this forum. Yet, I feel you deserve to hear from someone who lives in Austrailia and has devoted much of her life working on this specific topic.

Thanks for your kind words.

The material you copied below is utter rubbish. Responding is pointless and too time consuming for people on the front line of this.

We have ample evidence for a range of sources that demonstrate that climate change is influencing natural climate variability in Australia.

I suggest looking at IPCC, CSIRO and BoM reports for all the details.

It is the height of arrogance for non-experts to claim authority on our field of expertise.

Hope this helps!
Joelle
--
Dr Joelle Gergis
Senior Lecturer in Climate Science,
Fenner School of Environment & Society
Associate Investigator,
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 2061, Australia.
+61 2 612 52623
[email protected]
My original rebuttal stands and needs no further defense at this time. It's not important that my stance reside with a majority, or a minority, but it's important that it stands with truth.

I enjoyed her closing comment and found it comically ironic: "It is the height of arrogance for non-experts to claim authority on our field of expertise."
Since we're talking Australian bushfires here, does this apply to her as well? Perhaps she should defer to the Australian bushfire expert David Packham.
 
Last edited:

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
It is the height of arrogance for non-experts to claim authority on our field of expertise.
I don't think it was a claim of authority on Chromer J's part, but an observation based on the history of bushfires in Australia. The only arrogance is the reply from a "cherry picked" expert.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
I understand emotions are running high about the Aussie fires, and I have friends downunda that are living it. It used to be that such events were explained away as "God's will", now that that explanation is no longer viable, climate change gets the blame. Seems like when it runs contrary to the climate change narrative, it explained away as weather, but if it fits the narrative, "see it's climate change!".
I'm all for reducing co2 emmisions, and feel personally like I do. But it seems the individuals that are preaching to the masses are the worst offenders, and they buy there way out of it with the Ponzi scheme known as "carbon offsets"
Rant over!
 

girlfisher

Active Member
I don't think it was a claim of authority on Chromer J's part, but an observation based on the history of bushfires in Australia. The only arrogance is the reply from a "cherry picked" expert.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana
Cherry Picked? A native who has spent her life studying the effects of CC on her own country. I would beg to differ and feel that 60 minutes did a great job interviewing the right people to highlight their message. I sincerely believe your cliche would also apply to climate change deniers!
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Cherry Picked? A native who has spent her life studying the effects of CC on her own country. I would beg to differ and feel that 60 minutes did a great job interviewing the right people to highlight their message. I sincerely believe your cliche would also apply to climate change deniers!
Exactly!
 

FinLuver

Kicked
Let’s hope the “expert” lady didn’t buy Al Gore’s book for source material...
the arrogance was all hers.

Weren’t the majority, if not all, the fires man made and not caused by anything that Mother Nature did?;)
 

Chromer J

Active Member
tenor (6).gif

Wonder if Australia's chief science minister was in that 60 minutes interview? I'll likely never know.
 
Last edited:

Chromer J

Active Member
Look, fishergirl, your heart is in the right place and clearly very strong. I hope your heart's strength powers you to the truth. You may encounter some cognitive dissonance, but "The truth is out there," and unfortunately it doesn't necessarily reside with the IPCC or a scientist on 60 seconds. Trust no one, and no entity. Fully educate yourself, then form your own conclusions. It's unfortunately that sad of world.

Be well,
Chromer J
Screenshot_20200218-213054_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:

rawalker

Active Member
"Throw in some locusts "
Didn't I just see a report on-line about giant groups of locust somewhere in Africa???
And what do you call a giant bunch of locusts, anyway?
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top