world

Australian 'megablaze' finally brought under control

32 Comments
By Andrew BEATTY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


32 Comments
Login to comment

That's good to know. Hope for a speedy recovery.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The climate change-fuelled fires have prompted an international outpouring and donations from around the world to help communities and animal populations.

Climate change has nothing to do with these fires, success state governments failed to burn of the recommended amounts of forests to reduce the fuel build up, add on the drought drying larger areas that increases the amount of fuel available to burn, add on the changes in law that have banned land owners clearing vegetation allowing even bigger risks to humans, then top it off by the high number of arsonists that have been arrested.

The Newspoll survey showed 59 percent of Australian voters are dissatisfied with the conservative leader's performance overall, and only 37 percent were satisfied, an abrupt reversal since his shock election win last May.

Wouldn't read to much into this poll, its the same polling group that said Scott Morrison had no chance in winning the election and yet he blitzed the win. We have to remember that the bulk of issues that have caused the fires and the after affects are state issues - the military cannot be called up for use unless the State Government request it first, so the delay in action there can be only blamed on the relevant state governments.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Climate change caused by man as the majority is farce. The Earth like the human body is alive and undergoing changes just a the human body. Things change as is the natural selection of life such too climate will change whether man is here or not. If only environmentalists would stay out of the lanes, and let nature do its job as well as the indigenous peoples this wouldn't be an issue today. California learned that the hard way too.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

If only environmentalists would stay out of the lanes, and let nature do its job as well as the indigenous peoples this wouldn't be an issue today.

If environmentalists stayed "out of the lanes" there wouldn't be any Nature left to do its job. National parks would be landscaped parklands, safe and boring, the bush would be full of golf courses and resorts and residential developments and even more animal and plant species would have been made extinct than already have been in Australia's sorry post-European history of land clearing and mismanagement.

The Indigenous people in Australia never had to worry about bushfires impacting towns and villages, and neither did they have to worry about the land being made sterile and bereft of food sources by rapacious developers. What's a "farce" is the way some people just refuse to listen to the science and keep on promulgating the same old misinformation about burnoffs, arsonists and alleged Green interference beyond any powers or influence they've ever actually possessed.

These fires were caused by three major factors - extreme heat, extreme drought, and an ongoing insidious change in the climate in which just about every professional scientist who knows what they're talking about has said is driven by what human beings do on, and to, the planet.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Climate change has nothing to do with these fires,.........add on the drought drying larger areas that increases the amount of fuel available to burn,

And the drought was caused by.....?

The Earth like the human body is alive 

No, it isn’t. It’s a finely-balanced system that relies on all the individual parts remaining stable to maintain overall stability. Things do change gradually in the natural course of things, yes; but natural change is measured in hundreds or thousands of years, if not longer, and is a different creature to the drastic changes we are seeing today, measured in mere decades.

I’m glad there finally appears to be some good news for Australia. Too many lives lost and homes destroyed. The effect on wildlife has been devastating: the animals that escaped being burned to death now face starvation because all their food has turned to ash and cinders.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

cleo:

No, it isn’t. It’s a finely-balanced system that relies on all the individual parts remaining stable to maintain overall stability. Things do change gradually in the natural course of things,

It us a pretty resilient system too, that has withstood many catastropic events, some of them not gradual at all.

It is absolute hubris to claim to be able to precisely gather all the millions of factors acting in the system (many of them completely unpredictable) into a model and then claim to know exactly how, i.e. a 10 ppm change in one particular component in the supposedly rules everything.

I have said many times that the best lithmus test for credibility is to be able to make correct predictions. Now, ALL of the climate predictions that I have seen up til now have turned out to be wrong. What does that say about the credibility of the climate activists?

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

The cost to the people of Australia, Billions of dollars

The cost to the environment, and the animals, priceless.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Its been alleged that arsonists have started some of the fire, well I hope they catch them, and they deserve a stiff jail sentence for their reckless actions.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Things change as is the natural selection of life such too climate will change whether man is here or not. If only environmentalists would stay out of the lanes, and let nature do its job as well as the indigenous peoples this wouldn't be an issue today.

You make two contradictory points, and both of them are false.

Your first claims that the rapid climate change we are experiencing is 'natural', whereas scientific evidence points to be it being mostly influenced by human activities. It's like saying death is natural so murder is too. Scientific research has also shown us that historical climate changes have had causes and resaons. The earth's climate doesn't change 'naturally' in the same way the temperature of your bathwater doesn't. Both are subject to the same laws of physics. There are only two questions that you need to ask yourself; 1) Is the climate changing? and 2) if it is, what's causing it?

Your second claims that environmentalists are somehow preventing nature 'doing its job', whereas that is exactly what environmentalsits are trying to do.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

According to the Australian expert on BBC Radio's science programme the arson claims do not make sense. They would literally have had to have travelled to the middle of nowhere to start the fires. And the arson stories are a useful excuse for governments who have failed to curb climate change.

These wildfires were likely caused by lightning strikes on dry forest.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Clippety

Post of the year.

(It’s January 13th, but still....)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Its been alleged that arsonists have started some of the fire,

"Alleged"? They caught dozes of arsonists. Not to say that is the sole reason, but certainly a part of it. Nothing alleged about it.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

CLippetylclop:

Your second claims that environmentalists are somehow preventing nature 'doing its job',

In regard to the prevention of natural brush burning, which was mentioned here, that is exactly what they are doing.

whereas that is exactly what environmentalsits are trying to do.

Don´t know which environmentalists are doing that, but claiming that Western politicians are able to regulate the planets climate is insanity. Which is why Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, has left the global warmist movement. Ah yes, he must be an evil coal producer, LOL

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

@TigersTokyoDome - You say the wildfires were 'likely' caused by lightning strikes but the Australian volunteer firefighters assn say that the fires have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with fuel loads.

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/scientist-david-packham-on-whats-really-causing-the-bushfires

While the NSW Police Force has taken legal action against more than 180 people for bushfire-related offences since late last year. And that's only one state.

Police take legal action against more than 180 people so far during 2019/2020 bushfire season

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

In regard to the prevention of natural brush burning, which was mentioned here, that is exactly what they are doing.

So "Natural brush burning" is done by humans, yet "natural climate change" is not? You're all over the place. Greenpeace (amongst others) supports controlled burning, as well as impoved land management. Controlled burning is much harder to do in prolonged drought conditions, it has to be done in cooler, damper conditions, which is why it was not done as extensively. But that's irrelevant anyway, as this is done by the Fire Service and not environmantalists.

but claiming that Western politicians are able to regulate the planets climate is insanity.

It is, which is why nobody is claiming that. Scientists are claiming that the activities of 7.5 billion people are, and that politicians are responsible for the policies that largely control the lives of them.

I thought the climate scientists had figured it all out in their models, and we should believe them. What happened?

Figured out what? The precise date that billions of tons of ice will have melted? Do you know the link you posted? Under the title there is some other stuff written in smaller letters:

“When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: The glaciers in the park are shrinking.” Annual average temperatures in the park have been rising close to 3-degrees Fahrenheit since 1950, impacting not only the park’s glaciers but also its foliage. Species like the whitebark pine are now more vulnerable to an increase in blister rust infections, beetle infestations and wildfire.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Climate change has nothing to do with these fires,

So say the modern day equivalent of the flat earthers.

However, scientists stress that while many sources may ignite fires — including arson — climate change is a major reason why recent the blazes in Australia have been so destructive. “There are now disingenuous efforts to downplay the clear role of climate change in worsening the intensity and severity of the Australian fires, or to blame ‘arson’ as a way to distract from the growing threat of climate change. These efforts should be called out for what they are: gross climate denial,” Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and co-founder of Pacific Institute in California.

https://time.com/5759964/australian-bushfires-climate-change/

5 ( +6 / -1 )

ClippetyClop - What's a "farce" is the way some people just refuse to listen to the science

I'd be willing to bet that most of the so called AGQ skeptics here have looked at the science - it's hard to avoid when it's in our faces every day. But many of us have also listened to opposing views, the data and the corruption that's gone with it, and many have come to a different conclusion. I've certainly looked at the science on both sides.

and keep on promulgating the same old misinformation about burnoffs, arsonists and alleged Green interference beyond any powers or influence they've ever actually possessed.

From harbingersdaily.com

In large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property — despite the obvious risk this ban creates to homeowners living in potential bush-fire zones. Trees have been designated a ‘carbon sink’, which supposedly offset Australia’s CO2 emissions.

What do you make of the following stories then? If the fines that were imposed on these men were not brought about by extreme environmentalism laws (ie; Green interference) then what was it? Where's the misinformation?

Qld landholder hit with record $1m penalty for making fire breaks too wide

Mr Marland has previously indicated that before Mr Baker commenced the clearing in question, he contacted 32 different Government employees seeking advice on the acceptable width of fire breaks.

https://www.beefcentral.com/news/qld-landholder-hit-with-record-1m-penalty-for-making-fire-breaks-too-wide/

'Illegally' clearing his property cost him $100k in fines. But when the Black Saturday fires killed 173, his family and home survived while his neighbours died

A Black Saturday survivor whose home was the only one standing after the bushfires raged because he illegally cleared his land, says property owners should be allowed to take matters into their own hands if authorities don't act.

Liam Sheahan cleared trees and shrubs within 100 metres of his home in the hills at Strath Creek, central Victoria, in 2002 to create a firebreak in case bushfires ever hit.

While Mr Sheahan thought that was a 'common sense' decision, the local council did not, taking him to court where fines and legal costs left him $100,000 out of pocket.

However his decision to clear the land was vindicated on February 9, 2009, when his property was still standing after Black Saturday bushfires devastated the tiny town. - https://www.dailymail.co.uk

With fines like the above would you risk clearing your land if you were a farmer?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Climate change has nothing to do with these fires,

First this, then on to talk about a drought. Hilarious!

success state governments failed to burn of the recommended amounts of forests to reduce the fuel build up, add on the drought drying larger areas that increases the amount of fuel available to burn, add on the changes in law that have banned land owners clearing vegetation allowing even bigger risks to humans, then top it off by the high number of arsonists that have been arrested.

Anything but admitting what the experts have determined. Too funny.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

*...most of the AGW skeptics

Would be good if there was an edit button on JT

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

First this, then on to talk about a drought. Hilarious!

Deniers not known for their consistency or intelligence.

But they are known for linking to conspiracy theorists...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

In large parts of Australia, it remains illegal to remove trees from your land even in order to create fire breaks and protect your property

No it isn't. There are clear laws in at least New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland which allow it, and probably in other States as well. You probably mean it's illegal, where no clear fire risk is identified, to remove trees from your land without permission. If you knew anything about the sorry history of illegal land clearing in this country, you'd know why permission is necessary.

Mr Marland has previously indicated that before Mr Baker commenced the clearing in question, he contacted 32 different Government employees seeking advice on the acceptable width of fire breaks.

According to what I read, he was told in 2011 he couldn't do what he wanted to do. Obviously he didn't like the advice. Queensland farmers have a long history of taking the law into their own hands and illegally clearing land for farming. He cleared 350 hectares of land over 3 years without permission. Quite a "firebreak".

Liam Sheahan cleared trees and shrubs within 100 metres of his home in the hills at Strath Creek, central Victoria, in 2002 to create a firebreak in case bushfires ever hit.

I've seen the pictures of his house. Top of a hill, grass all around it. The forest way off in the distance. I'm sorry for the other people in Strath Creek who lost their houses, but if everyone had followed this guy's example, there'd be no forest, not even in the distance. Sometimes there has to be a trade-off between landowner rights and the environment. Unless you want to live in a park, in which case you might want to reconsider moving out to the bush.

If the fines that were imposed on these men were not brought about by extreme environmentalism laws (ie; Green interference) then what was it?

Green interference? The Greens can't even get into Government anywhere in Australia apart from a coalition in Tasmania in 1989, and now they're responsible for determining the sentences that courts hand out?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Police take legal action against more than 180 people so far during 2019/2020 bushfire season

The Murdoch paper that first reported that number has since amended its coverage to the true picture, which is 183 people charged for fire offences (not necessarily arson) for the whole of 2019, and was the total in every state, not just New South Wales. Not that I expect Donald Trump or any of his acolytes to tweet or post the amended version.

Quotes from the (reliable) media as far as the current bushfire season is concerned:

"There is currently no intelligence to indicate that the fires in East Gippsland and the North East have been caused by arson or any other suspicious behaviour,” a Victoria police spokeswoman said.

NSW police statistics show 24 individuals have been arrested for deliberately lighting bushfires during the current fire season. But a Rural Fire Service spokesman told Sky News on Wednesday that the majority of the larger fires in the state were caused by lightning, and that arson was a relatively small source of ignition.

The reported figure of 183 also includes 101 individuals from Queensland who were “picked up for setting fires in the bush”. But a Queensland police spokeswoman said the figure included a broader range of offences than arson, including the breaching of total fire bans, and was not a total of arrests, but a total of “police enforcement actions”.. which include cautioning."

The vast majority of fires in the current bushfire season were caused by dry lightning strikes, according to the people who have to fight them. You'd have to have an agenda or something to deny it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I have said many times that the best lithmus test for credibility is to be able to make correct predictions. Now, ALL of the climate predictions that I have seen up til now have turned out to be wrong. What does that say about the credibility of the climate activists?

It says nothing about the credibility of those warning of the dangers of man made global warming, and reams about your own mindset.

Do you demand ‘correct predictions’ for everything?

Let’s say your doctor diagnoses you to have a potentially life-changing or even fatal disease, and suggests a course of treatment likely to slow or halt the progress of the disease, allowing you to lead a reasonably normal life.

You get a second opinion, and the second doctor diagnoses the same disease but offers a slightly more pessimistic prognosis and a rather more invasive treatment.

Getting a bit desperate now and unable to reconcile the different ‘predictions’ you’ve been given, you consult a faith healer who tells you not to worry, any symptoms you have we’re planted in your mind by nefarious pharma companies hoping to make money off you: just stay cheerful, ignore the discomfort, chant ‘alleluia’ five times a day and all will be well.

How comforting.

And gullible.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

cleo:

Do you demand ‘correct predictions’ for everything?

For computer models that claim to accurately reflect reality, yes. If the computer models are consistently wrong, they clearly do NOT reflect reality.

Interesting you bring up faith healing.... the religious belief that Western governments can influence the world climate by legislation, and bringing up faulty computer models as an argument is pretty close to faith healing, would you not say?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The climate change-fuelled fires 

It's interesting how this thread has turned into a climate change debate. There is no denying climate change is real. However, these fires were caused by a series of events and coincidences. To blame these fires solely on climate change is malarkey. Accurate weather records for Australia have only been kept since the mid-1800's (less than 200 years). During that period there have many incidents of comparable severe drought and extreme temperatures. However, it's only the last 30-40 years that technology has increased enough to make even more accurate comparisons within that period with satellites. A major contributor to these fires id the actions of the Green movement who stopped controlled burning and the cutting of fire breaks and access roads. Many of the houses lost were because the Greens would not allow them to sufficiently clear their properties. Many people do not know that you need council and Greens permission to cut down a tree in Australia. Gaining said permission can be very expensive if you need to cut down many trees.

I'm not denying climate change 'contributed' to the severity of the fires, but there are many more severe contributing factors that caused these fires.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'm not denying climate change 'contributed' to the severity of the fires, but there are many more severe contributing factors that caused these fires.

Well, I think you are denying it. In the past decade Australia has recorded its hottest years since records began, and just today scientists announced that the world's oceans have also hit record temperatures. What could be contributing more severely than that?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates

A major contributor to these fires id the actions of the Green movement who stopped controlled burning and the cutting of fire breaks and access roads.

The Greens have never had the power to stop controlled burning, assuming they'd even want to do that if they had the power. Controlled burning and all the other fire hazard reduction measures have continued, some states reached their targets and some didn't. Where they didn't meet their targets, it was mainly because of the reduced window of opportunity for conducting controlled burns safely, a consequence of our changing climate. That's according to the fire chiefs. But hey, what do the fire chiefs know compared to some people with more important political agendas?

Many people do not know that you need council and Greens permission to cut down a tree in Australia. Gaining said permission can be very expensive if you need to cut down many trees.

Greens permission to cut down a tree. A single tree. Really? How can you keep posting this bunk, when it's so easy to disprove?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Greens permission to cut down a tree. A single tree. Really? How can you keep posting this bunk, when it's so easy to disprove?

Climate change deniers and Trumpophiles don't care whether something is easy to disprove, they only care about pushing their agendas. Haven’t you learned this by now?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Haven’t you learned this by now?

Yeah, I know, Chip, but what else can you do? You have to keep plugging on with fax'n'info, rebut the BS when you see it, and hope some of it gets through - not so much to the person you're arguing with, as to anyone who might be reading and is still undecided on the issue.

Like you do with all those Trumpers about US domestic politics, for example.:)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chip Star:

Climate change deniers

I have asked this before, but who exactly is a "climate change denier"? I have never met anyone who claims that the climate never changes, neither on this list or off this list.

Now if you mean "non-believers in the climate computer models", yes, I am definitely one of them, as is anybody who remembers the never-ending string of wrong predictions. Actually, can you point us to a climate prediction that has turned out to be true?

....Crickets?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you demand ‘correct predictions’ for everything?

For computer models that claim to accurately reflect reality, yes.

Computer models can only be as accurate as the info fed into them, and when trying to predict something as complex as what happens when sudden huge changes are made to the environment (like the rapid rise in CO2) there is a lot of guesswork and inevitably quite wide ranges of uncertainty.

Those who pooh-hoo the predictions seem to be people who latch on to one particular value, usually at the top or bottom extreme of the uncertainty range, and when there isn't an exact match, tell themselves that 'proves' all the models are nothing but a pack of lies.

A bit like your doctor giving you a prognosis of 'no more than a year or two' unless you get a kidney transplant and you deciding, when you're still alive 366 days later, that the doc is a quack and you don't need any medication let alone a transplant.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication, particularly when accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric CO2 and other climate drivers. This research should help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts, and increases our confidence that models are accurately projecting global warming.

Invalid CSRF

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo:

Computer models can only be as accurate as the info fed into them, and when trying to predict something as complex as what happens when sudden huge changes are made to the environment (like the rapid rise in CO2) there is a lot of guesswork and inevitably quite wide ranges of uncertainty.

So you agree that this whole field includes a lot of guesswork and is not "settled science". Well thank you! Why are we arguing, then?

Those who pooh-hoo the predictions seem to be people who latch on to one particular value

Observing that the predictions are wrong and thus the computer models are not reliable is not "poo-hoo"ing, it is simply stating a fact.

A bit like your doctor giving you a prognosis

The medical profession would be the first to admit that a diagnosis can be wrong and there is a lot of uncertainty. I don´t they usually claim that it is all "settled science" and if you disagree with a diagnosis you are a "denier". So I don´t know why you keep bringing medicine into this.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So you agree that this whole field includes a lot of guesswork and is not "settled science"

That human activity is affecting the climate is neither guesswork nor 'unsettled science'. It's happening.

The guesswork, or rather range of uncertainty, which is not the same thing, lies in the detail, eg the exact speed of change, the exact number of centimetres sea level will rise by exactly when, the exact day the next super typhoon will hit, and the exact spot at which it will hit. We cannot predict these things with accuracy years in advance.

Rather like tipping over a basketful of marbles; there is no guesswork in predicting that you're going to have a floor covered in marbles. Predicting where exactly each and every marble is going to come to rest is another matter. Because you cannot predict accurately where the red marble is going to end up, are you going to deny that the basket got tipped up in the first place?

Observing that the predictions are wrong and thus the computer models are not reliable is not "poo-hoo"ing, it is simply stating a fact.

No, it's showing that you didn't understand the prediction.

It's a fact that the global temperature is rising and that that is leading to more extreme weather around the world; storms, flooding, drought, melting glaciers, record heatwaves.

I don´t know why you keep bringing medicine into this.

The claim higher up the thread that The Earth like the human body is alive and undergoing changes just a the human body.

Invalid CSRF

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites