the lowest of all politicians

[Ken Gargett]

first, may i suggest that no one from either side of politics mention anything to do with american politics (unless of course you are keen for a holiday from the forum).

as most are aware, australia is in the grip of horrendous bushfires - californians will be only too aware of what hell that is. we have lost many thousands of square kilometres of farms and forests. a number of people are dead. a couple of hundred homes destroyed. and we are nowhere near in sight of the end as yet. 

one would think a time for the nation's politicians to do everything they can to bring us together. to respond to the emergency. 

fat chance.

barnaby joyce. a former leader of the nationals (for those offshorre, used to be the country party, the junior partner in the coalition with the Liberal Party which currently holds power). the man who used to campaign on family values. indeed continued to campaign on family values even after his wife tossed him out because he'd been caught bonking a staffer and even giving her the gift of a child. so a prince of a human. 

he has come out in the middle of this tragedy and said, well those who were burnt to death would have likely been Greens voters.

i am not making that up.

he has no evidence - they could have been nazis for all we know. and even if he had evidence, so what? 

now our Greens here are not a mob for which i have any great respect. most of them are dumber than soup. they carry on like the fairies at the bottom of the garden and senator sarah scumbag is a truly stupid, awful person who really should not represent bacteria. but still... 

to come out with a statement like that. the families must be just so impressed. this bloke is utter vermin and deserves to be ground into the dust. what a piece of crap.

normally, i would never wish any harm on another human but if there has to be another life lost in this disaster, i vote for him. and i'd happily be the one to toss him in.

if a nation gets the politicians they deserve then it is hard to imagine just what awful people we must have been. 

[Fuzz AI]

Saw that on the news today. Totally agree with your assessment of Barnaby (and the Greens as well). The guy is a conniving, sanctimonious, hypocritical grub. And that's putting it lightly.

 

[IanMcLean68]

Saw the same and agree with your assessment also. What an insensitive scumbag. How anyone stupid enough to make an unwarranted unsubstantiated blanket statement like that can be elected as a politician is beyond me.
I certainly have no love for the Greens. If we burn to death up here in the Blue Mountains this year, its likely some of the blame for that will rest with them. The rural fire service are forever complaining that they are being constantly cock-blocked by the Greenies from performing much needed back-burning. Its seems the only time they get the opportunity these days is in the face of imminent danger, which prevents them being pro-active.
However, having said that, I wouldn't wish for anyone nor suggest anyone "had it coming" when it comes to burning to death in a bush fire. How horrendous.

[99call]

This in the same week Jacob Rees Mogg suggested the victims on Grenfell lacked common sense in remaining in a burning building, when they had been explicitly told to do so by attending firefighters.  Utterly devoid of empathy, humanity.   He said "sorry" though! So apparantly it's all fine.    An absolute disgrace. A sub human monster

[Corylax18]

Everytime I see something like this it makes me a bit depressed. As horrible as this guy, and countless politicians from around the world are, there are people who continue to vote for them. I think those people are even worse. It speaks volumes towards who actually makes up the majority of our "societies" that guys like this continue to get elected, around the world. I think we're all getting exactly what we deserve. 

[JamesKPolkEsq]

It's well past time to start taking catastrophic climate change seriously. I’d argue this is the more egregious offense by Australian politicians :

https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/8xwjmx/australias-climate-change-response-one-of-worst-in-g20-according-to-new-report

We will continue to see more and more of these "once in a generation" climatic events as total atmospheric kinetic energy increases. 

Continuing to keep our collective heads in the sand is our greatest modern tragedy.

[Mikeltee]

Of course we will see more of these "once in a generation catastrophic events" as we live through at least 3 generations. Feel free to send all "climate change" donations to me. I assure you it will all go to my cigar fund. At least you will be doing something productive with that donation. I wish I could find some "the onion" research to back up my claim. Unfortunately they dont write fairytales

 

My thoughts and prayers to all involved in these tragic fires. Hopefully your forest management team will properly manage to control this soon without further loss of life. These fires are an everyday way of life here in the states. Some say it's good for the forests to some degree, but you could never convince someone effected by it that that is the case.

[Ken Gargett]

5 hours ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

It's well past time to start taking catastrophic climate change seriously. I’d argue this is the more egregious offense by Australian politicians :

https://www.vice.com/en_asia/article/8xwjmx/australias-climate-change-response-one-of-worst-in-g20-according-to-new-report

We will continue to see more and more of these "once in a generation" climatic events as total atmospheric kinetic energy increases. 

Continuing to keep our collective heads in the sand is our greatest modern tragedy.

whenever i hear one of these idiots questioning it, it reminds me of the times when people insisted the world was flat (not that i am that old). mind you, if a politician today thought that there was a vote in it, they'd probably claim it was. 

[Corylax18]

23 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

whenever i hear one of these idiots questioning it, it reminds me of the times when people insisted the world was flat

Do you mean today? Flat earthers are definitely still a thing. I agree though, both groups are on the same intellectual (or lack thereof) plane.

[Ken Gargett]

4 minutes ago, Corylax18 said:

Do you mean today? Flat earthers are definitely still a thing. I agree though, both groups are on the same intellectual (or lack thereof) plane.

really? i honestly had not realised that. although does anything surprise anymore? 

[Fuzz AI]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

really? i honestly had not realised that. although does anything surprise anymore? 

The Flat Earth Society has a Facebook page and Twitter account that constantly get trolled. Mind you, they do make some very stupid remarks.

 

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

24 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

The Flat Earth Society has a Facebook page and Twitter account that constantly get trolled. Mind you, they do make some very stupid remarks.

 

 

 

no way is that serious. surely? it can't possibly be. it has to be tossers who are taking the piss. 

but then i would have said the same thing about climate change deniers. 

[Fuzz AI]

Ken, you and I both know that you should never, ever doubt how stupid some members of the human race can be. Just think of a bell curve. Flat Earthers are on the left side of the curve.

 

[wineguy]

https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-Society-Members-Around/dp/B07FCWM8DN

 

[IanMcLean68]

Believe me Ken, the flat Earth nonsense is for real, not a piss take. There really are people that stupid. If you need evidence look up a delightfully delusional chap called Mark K. Sargent (not the Rugby player).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn

[Ken Gargett]

5 minutes ago, wineguy said:

https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-Society-Members-Around/dp/B07FCWM8DN

 

brillaint.

and even on wikipedia, this from the flat earth page - "Through the use of social media, flat Earth theories have been increasingly espoused by individuals unaffiliated with larger groups, many of which have members from around the globe.^[". 

[Kitchen]

From a historical point of view, how intense were you in Oz from stopping forest fires in decades past? 

I ask because the recent intense forest fires over the past few years in CA have very little to do with climate change and a lot to do with the "Smokey Bear Effect," an unintended consequence of preventing and stopping forest fires.  Forests burn naturally and usually every 20 to 25 years, which is healthy for the forest, especially in dry climates.  The burns up dead leaves and branches that have fallen and kills small shrubs, keeping the forest from getting over grown.  Also, fires that happen this frequently rarely get large enough to be a crown fire, that being one so intense it kills the crowns of the old growth trees, thus killing the trees.  

The problem though is that since we were so good at stopping forest fires for 100 years or so, the fuel built up on the forest floor to the point where when a fire starts, today, it grows too fast to mitigate it.  It also gets so intense, it becomes a crown fire, killing the forest.  This is also made worse by a significant decrease in logging and mismanagement of the snow melt off, most of which is diverted for drinking water and not into the forest where it would naturally flow.  

Of course allowing fires to burn every 25 years would be politically untenable.  So there has to be another way to decreasing the fuel build up.  Logging seems to be the natural suggestion with regulations to clean the forest floor, but many just dont seem to want to embrace it.  

[Ken Gargett]

fires have been part of the australian landscape forever. a number of our trees won't propagate unless they have experienced a fire. the aboriginals in many areas used to deliberately start them for hunting and you can bet that they had no real way of stopping them. 

vast areas of our forests were cut down for farming and plenty for logging. whether that increases or decreases the risk would, i suspect, depend on who you asked. but it does mean that there is a not unreasonable argument to attempt to save what remains where possible. 

but we have a long history of really bad fires. 

i doubt anyone truly believes that we are copping fires now only because of climate change. seems fairly strong evidence that it is contributing but the extent will be argued. 

i know that the authorities are certainly cognisant of the dangers and the advantages of burning off etc. but they have proved less competent in actually carrying out this, and have started a few fairly serious fires. but overall, they do a magnificent job, along with all the volunteers. 

there are always some that want nothing at all done but in general, most aussies know some action is needed. just not sure we have the best balance as yet. not easy. 

[wineguy]

18 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

From a historical point of view, how intense were you in Oz from stopping forest fires in decades past? 

I ask because the recent intense forest fires over the past few years in CA have very little to do with climate change and a lot to do with the "Smokey Bear Effect," an unintended consequence of preventing and stopping forest fires.  Forests burn naturally and usually every 20 to 25 years, which is healthy for the forest, especially in dry climates.  The burns up dead leaves and branches that have fallen and kills small shrubs, keeping the forest from getting over grown.  Also, fires that happen this frequently rarely get large enough to be a crown fire, that being one so intense it kills the crowns of the old growth trees, thus killing the trees.  

The problem though is that since we were so good at stopping forest fires for 100 years or so, the fuel built up on the forest floor to the point where when a fire starts, today, it grows too fast to mitigate it.  It also gets so intense, it becomes a crown fire, killing the forest.  This is also made worse by a significant decrease in logging and mismanagement of the snow melt off, most of which is diverted for drinking water and not into the forest where it would naturally flow.  

Of course allowing fires to burn every 25 years would be politically untenable.  So there has to be another way to decreasing the fuel build up.  Logging seems to be the natural suggestion with regulations to clean the forest floor, but many just dont seem to want to embrace it.  

Agree.... this may get close to US politics so I will be careful but much of the effort to stop clearing dead brush and other flammable items has caused a big increase in fuel for the fires.  I think I avoided the politics but feel free to edit...

[CaptainQuintero]

17 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

fires have been part of the australian landscape forever. a number of our trees won't propagate unless they have experienced a fire. the aboriginals in many areas used to deliberately start them for hunting and you can bet that they had no real way of stopping them. 

vast areas of our forests were cut down for farming and plenty for logging. whether that increases or decreases the risk would, i suspect, depend on who you asked. but it does mean that there is a not unreasonable argument to attempt to save what remains where possible. 

but we have a long history of really bad fires. 

i doubt anyone truly believes that we are copping fires now only because of climate change. seems fairly strong evidence that it is contributing but the extent will be argued. 

i know that the authorities are certainly cognisant of the dangers and the advantages of burning off etc. but they have proved less competent in actually carrying out this, and have started a few fairly serious fires. but overall, they do a magnificent job, along with all the volunteers. 

there are always some that want nothing at all done but in general, most aussies know some action is needed. just not sure we have the best balance as yet. not easy. 

  It was on the BBC today saying that 20,000 volunteers had signed up and were ready to get stuck in, an amazing number in the era of putting a new filter on your Facebook profile picture to express support.

[Ken Gargett]

18 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  It was on the BBC today saying that 20,000 volunteers had signed up and were ready to get stuck in, an amazing number in the era of putting a new filter on your Facebook profile picture to express support.

a great many of these are the ordinary folk who live in the country. my former dentist and fishing buddy moved to the country (still fishes) to a small farm for retirement. talking to him about the local volunteer fire services a month or so ago. it was just assumed he'd join when he arrived. everyone does. bit of a social thing but also for times like this. he ended up local volunteer chief within two years but he is a bit of a control freak. i'm surprised only 20,000 - would have guessed more. 

[Fuzz AI]

Climate has had a big effect, with the drought creating a very bad situation, but it isn't the only reason. Not enough backburning, adverse weather conditions during backburning season, our own ADF (thanks for causing the Blue Mountains fire in 2013, and possibly again this month in QLD). However, our own landscape, ecosystem and environment are the main factors. In our bushland, we have a lot of steep slopes. For every 10 degrees of slope, the speed of a fire front will double, so a fire on a 20 degree slope will move four times faster than on flat ground. And while our flora has adapted to fires, some are highly combustible (eg Eucalyptus tree, which range from the south in Victoria all the way up the east coast to the Top End).

Australia has constantly improved our ability to combat bushfires.Without water bombing aircraft and fire retardants, the situation would be beyond catastrophic. We also have a very active and dedicated volunteer service. However, the government needs to invest a lot more money.

And to be honest, people also have to cop some of the blame. In a bushfire prone country, you cannot expect there is no risk when you build your house right in the middle of bushland. Hell, even living in an urban city, I still expect there to be some risk of bushfire. Australians have carved out their towns and cities amongst the bush. We cannot escape the risk.

[LordAnubis]

What I don’t understand is why larger fire breaks aren’t allowed around properties. In the hills in Perth for example home owners want to clear vegetation but are not allowed to. Then when I fire comes through all the trees they weren’t allowed to clear next to the house now burn the house down. 
 

We were just in the Dandenong ranges over the weekend and damn that place will go off like a cracker in ass cheeks when a fire starts. So much scrub and trees between all the houses. Kinda scary. 

[Fuzz AI]

1 hour ago, LordAnubis said:

What I don’t understand is why larger fire breaks aren’t allowed around properties. In the hills in Perth for example home owners want to clear vegetation but are not allowed to. Then when I fire comes through all the trees they weren’t allowed to clear next to the house now burn the house down. 
 

We were just in the Dandenong ranges over the weekend and damn that place will go off like a cracker in ass cheeks when a fire starts. So much scrub and trees between all the houses. Kinda scary. 

It is to prevent people from clearing land with a disregard to the environment. NSW have the 10/50 rule, meaning that you are allowed to clear trees within 10m of your home without approval, and shrubs/underlying vegetation within 50m without approval. This is only if you are in an area that falls under the 10/50 rule. If not, you need permission from council. However, the state law doesn't override the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Imagine someone has a 10ha property in a known bushfire prone region. He wants to clear his entire property of vegetation as a firebreak between his home in the middle. Should he be allowed to do so? What if the landowners on adjoining properties see this and decide they will do the same thing? Soon you will have destroyed an entire forest.

You wanna live in the bush, you gotta accept the risk.