Printable View
Yes, I read that too. The Denialists are trying to spread the ideas that Greens have prevented hazard reduction and that fires have been started by arsonists because they don't want to admit that the bushfires are unnaturally bad and caused by climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Yeah Friends of Science well known manipulators of facts we have the far majority of professional scientists telling us the facts but some like to cling to a alternative, so in come the charlatans
The figures that seem to have escaped the analysts' attention are the very large increase in the total area of National Parks in NSW over the period concerned. What effect this has had on the total areas burnt, or the proportion of NP area that has been burnt, I have no idea.
Also repeated redundancies by the NSW Government in NSW NPWS have meant they have lost most of their experienced fire fighting officers, I am told.
Well I couldn't find any detailed maps showing just where hazard reduction burns were done in the last few years.
It was hard to tell on the tiny maps,but It looks to me that little has been done in Wollomi and Dharug National parks in the last few or even 10 years.
Seeing that the Wollomi and Dharug Nation Park fires are about 50% of the NSW burnt area.
So If someone has some data on burns in the Wollomi and Dharug National Parks I would be anxious to hear it.
It doesn't matter if the burns take place if they are in the wrong place.
Regards PhilipA
Sorry bud! .. but this is the biggest load of .. misleading info! .. perpetuated so far in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
The implications you've made are that they did do many controlled burns, which didn't mitigate the magnitude of this seasons fires!
You obviously didn't read the article very well.
All this is showing is that this is parks land that was affected, now entirety of NSW bush!
Two rather massively different areas of concern here.
So your quest here appears for all intents and purposes, to counter the myths of climate change deniers, whilst at the same time spreading misleading info on behalf of the climate change command centre! [bighmmm]
And whilst on the topic of prescribed burning .. this article seems to back the fact that the enviro/green groups are to blame for the recent fires. If you read the info in your link carefully, it supports most peoples chat that there was the reduction in previous years fuel load reductions are to blame for these fires.
look at the graph of fuel load reduction to see the real data .. 1970-1990 sees a lot of land being prescribed burned, and then the a gradual decrease in the amount of fuel load reduction in the two decades 1990-2000 and 2000-2010.
No doubt due to the collectivisation of many greenie tribes making much fuss about it.
So to say that the decade 2010-2020 then getting 2x the amount of fuel load reduction is not only misleading but more to the point .. total BS.
Last decades prescribed burning is at the same levels of the 1970-2000 per decade levels.
If you do the math, 1 decade of 2x the fuel load reduction doesn't equal 2 decades of 0.5x fuel load reduction.
In summary, this information that they 'doubled' the fuel load reduction effort would best be output in a more accurate manner.
For twenty odd years, they reduced about 600K hectares/decade. Then for the next twenty years, they halved this.
Basically for 20 years they dropped the ball, and a price was paid.
If you correlate the graph presented in your link to the info provided on NSW bushfires, it tracks in a manner that they seem to do all the larger fuel load reductions AFTER a bushfire season has occurred.
when I was just flicking through I saw the word charlatans , I thought I saw christians. The brain can work very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrb505
Now why did we already know you would say that [bighmmm].Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
I will ignore the gratuitous insults in your post and concentrate on just one point.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
My intention,which would have been clear to anyone who actually read my post, was to point out that like most people, I would have assumed that during the last decade, NPWS would have burnt less than in the previous decade. I believe that many people would be surprised to discover that. Do you dispute the figures for those two decades?
Attachment 157531
This graph appears to support the claim in the headline.
I assumed that anyone who read the article carefully would see the important point about controlled burns being much harder to organise close to houses where they are most effective. However I already knew that and would assume that most people could work that out for themselves. I was admitting my own misunderstanding about how much burning was done and expected that some other people would have the same misunderstanding.
I made no comment about the 1970s.
An old sales manager boss of mine back in the sixties used to say that if a customer described themselves as honest and/or Christian then keep the solicitors handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramblingboy42
