|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 10, 2009 6:00:54 GMT
(Australian Bush Fires:) There has been a deliberate policy to make bush dangerous to human habitation - pushed by academic greens - the same folk who come out and say it is all because of Global warming. An obscenity, but I don't expect an apology: by David Packham OAM is an honorary senior research fellow at Monash University's school of geography and environmental science. Victoria bushfires stoked by green votewww.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html and a sensible reply to the article: Interestingly, I have biochar in my garden soil. I hesitate to call it soil! though I have been able to coax things to grow in it. The last fires to burn over my property would have been very long ago.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 10, 2009 6:22:32 GMT
(Australian Bush Fires:) There has been a deliberate policy to make bush dangerous to human habitation - pushed by academic greens - the same folk who come out and say it is all because of Global warming. An obscenity, but I don't expect an apology: by David Packham OAM is an honorary senior research fellow at Monash University's school of geography and environmental science. Victoria bushfires stoked by green votewww.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html and a sensible reply to the article: Interestingly, I have biochar in my garden soil. I hesitate to call it soil! though I have been able to coax things to grow in it. The last fires to burn over my property would have been very long ago. I saw a brief bit of news this morning and Wilson "iron bar" Tucky is looking for an apology, by the look on his face i suggest the greens give him one.
|
|
|
Post by bob9000 on Feb 10, 2009 6:34:33 GMT
Tonight on the NZ news I saw the single worst piece of science i have ever seen. This was bad even for the news. They said that global warming contributed to the fires because all the extra CO2 in the air led to increased bush growth which led to more fuel for the fires.
I wish I was kidding. I just sat there with my mouth open.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 10, 2009 6:36:14 GMT
So many have been warning of this for so many years now and the government has ignored them. Whats the Governments strategy now - find a scapegoat! History of bushfire management in Victoria 2009 "The Victorian disaster had its origins about a decade or so ago when so-called 'environmentalism','sustainability' and fire protection became mixed. Enormous areas were set aside as national parks, but the necessary yearly fuel reduction programs (reductions of undergrowth etc) in these and other forests were not undertaken because some 'environmentalists' wanted to preserve the beauty and no one liked the smoke. Gradually, year on year, the amount of undergrowth and fuel built up to the point in some areas that it was like a bomb waiting to go off." www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/bushfires2008 Bushfire Conference in Adelaide - Quantifying the effectiveness of fuel management in modifying wildfire behaviour "the lack of fuel management decreases the probability of first attack success under increasing fire weather conditions" knowledgeweb.afac.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/19444/McCaw_L_Abs-53.pdf2007 Project Vesta Dpt of Environment & Sustainability Project Vesta demonstrated that hazard reduction by prescribed burning will reduce the rate of spread, flame height and intensity of a fire and reduce the potential for spotting. These effects may persist for a considerable time (up to 20 years) in forests containing rough-barked trees and shrubby understoreys home.vicnet.net.au/~frstfire/docs/ProjectVestaBrochure.pdf2006 Auditor Generals report "There is an auditor-general's report which clearly states that fuel reduction burning targets are consistently not met, so this is a function of a failure on the part of those responsible to ensure there is this outcome that targets are met," he said. www.abc.net.au/news/australia/vic/bendigo/200602/s1564272.htm2003 "Wildfire hazard abatement is one of the major reasons to use prescribed burning. Computer simulation, case studies, and analysis of the fire regime in the presence of active prescribed burning programs in forest and shrubland generally indicate that this fuel management tool facilitates fire suppression efforts by reducing the intensity, size and damage of wildfires" www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF02042.htmOver the ten years prior to 1994 there has been: * reduction in funding to government land management agencies (LMA) for fire management; * decline in manpower in government LMA (all States); * sharp decline in expertise in fire management, particularly at line and sector level (all States); * decline in the area prescribed burnt for fuel or habitat management; * shift away from LMA-directed fire suppression towards suppression by Rural Fire Services in Qld, ACT, Tas and NSW; * increased reliance on volunteers to undertake suppression on government lands; and, * increased funding to emergency management agencies. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/series/paper8/paper1.html
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 10, 2009 6:43:56 GMT
Tonight on the NZ news I saw the single worst piece of science i have ever seen. This was bad even for the news. They said that global warming contributed to the fires because all the extra CO2 in the air led to increased bush growth which led to more fuel for the fires. I wish I was kidding. I just sat there with my mouth open. Write to your paper and tell them to pull the story We had one in the SMH today (online) I complained saying it was against Press Council guidelines in that it was an opinion piece that was portrayed as facts. It was pulled from the web front page but is here. www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/scientists-warned-us-this-was-going-to-happen-20090209-82bx.html
|
|
|
Post by bob9000 on Feb 10, 2009 7:06:25 GMT
twawki - it was on TV. I could write and complain I guess. I don't know if it would do anything. But then TV news is generally scientifically tragic anyway.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 10, 2009 7:35:03 GMT
twawki - it was on TV. I could write and complain I guess. I don't know if it would do anything. But then TV news is generally scientifically tragic anyway. Yeah here we can still complain - not meaning to tell you what to do but like you get annoyed with the trash they get away with. As I understand it you guys in NZ are starting to ditch the whole AGW debacle whilst we have a government 3/4 full of sympathisers
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 10, 2009 7:39:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 10, 2009 7:43:03 GMT
Bushfires affected by climate change: Greenpeace
February 10, 2009 Article from: Australian Associated Press
AUSTRALIA will face more terrifying bushfires as climate change takes hold, Greenpeace is warning.
Senior climate campaigner Trish Harrup said some leading climate scientists had said the Victorian bushfire disaster had been affected by climate change.
Ms Harrup said a global climate deal was needed and Australia's promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions by as little as five per cent by 2020 was a failure.
"The scale of this catastrophe, coupled with severe floods in Queensland, should be a clarion call to politicians for the need to begin treating climate change as a national emergency,'' she said.
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Feb 10, 2009 22:55:57 GMT
Tonight on the NZ news I saw the single worst piece of science i have ever seen. This was bad even for the news. They said that global warming contributed to the fires because all the extra CO2 in the air led to increased bush growth which led to more fuel for the fires. I wish I was kidding. I just sat there with my mouth open. yep,just repeated on uk SKY main news.......well could it be true? , as an undergraduate in the early 1970 i worked part time at Rothampstead Argricultural reseach station in Hertfordshire UK on Co2 take up but plant roots....plants did show extra growth in high density Co2 environments but we are talking ratio of four times Co2 to 02 to show any measurable effect and then only just above error margins just been up into the loft..searched and found old papers ..1000-500 ppm to get substanable effects unless nitrogren fixators bacteria present ( ie runner beans) Higher growth if roots only in 550* sealed environment with air at 250ppm......plant dies at 175ppm even with roots at 1000ppm
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 11, 2009 0:37:12 GMT
Tonight on the NZ news I saw the single worst piece of science i have ever seen. This was bad even for the news. They said that global warming contributed to the fires because all the extra CO2 in the air led to increased bush growth which led to more fuel for the fires. I wish I was kidding. I just sat there with my mouth open. You know i was thinking (using the same logic as MSM), with all that extra C02 in the air the fires should have gone out, or is my fire extinguisher with the word C02 on it now redundant?
|
|
|
Post by SDJ on Feb 11, 2009 2:24:07 GMT
You know i was thinking (using the same logic as MSM), with all that extra C02 in the air the fires should have gone out, or is my fire extinguisher with the word C02 on it now redundant? Heh!! Infidel!!
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Feb 11, 2009 4:35:30 GMT
You greens seem to be all for Freely Speaking
Till it goes against you then its a CAMPAIGN OF GETTING THE ARTICLE CANCELED
Hypocrites
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 12, 2009 11:07:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2009 11:29:28 GMT
Tonight on the NZ news I saw the single worst piece of science i have ever seen. This was bad even for the news. They said that global warming contributed to the fires because all the extra CO2 in the air led to increased bush growth which led to more fuel for the fires. I wish I was kidding. I just sat there with my mouth open. yep,just repeated on uk SKY main news.......well could it be true? , as an undergraduate in the early 1970 i worked part time at Rothampstead Argricultural reseach station in Hertfordshire UK on Co2 take up but plant roots....plants did show extra growth in high density Co2 environments but we are talking ratio of four times Co2 to 02 to show any measurable effect and then only just above error margins just been up into the loft..searched and found old papers ..1000-500 ppm to get substanable effects unless nitrogren fixators bacteria present ( ie runner beans) Higher growth if roots only in 550* sealed environment with air at 250ppm......plant dies at 175ppm even with roots at 1000ppm Glass house gardeners have known for some time that high concentrations of CO 2 in the air around plants increases their growth and that low concentrations result in plants ceasing to grow or dying. They routinely operate their glass houses with concentrations of CO 2 in the air of over 1000ppm. These aren't researchers, they are people that lose their livelihoods if plants don't grow well. So why was your research looking at uptake only through the roots?
|
|