Comments on: The Australian’s fuel reduction obsession http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/the-australians-fuel-reduction-obsession/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tom McLoughlin http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/the-australians-fuel-reduction-obsession/#comment-14175 Tom McLoughlin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14175 This is the same modus operandi as the allies of the logging industry in Jan 1994 led by Colin Dorber then of the NSW Forest Products Association attacking a submission by The Wilderness Society authored by my colleague Rod Knight. That's a fact of political history. It was picked up by all the commercial tv channels. I was left to carry the can. It was also proven WRONG over the weeks and months of inquiries and politics to follow. My guess it will again. Devine also.<br /><br />Here is a eye witness comment from 10 Feb 2009 http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/09/could-inferno-be-prevented#comment9779<br /><br />"David Packham may be right that fuel levels contributed to ferocity of the fires on Saturday, but he is wrong in claiming it was the main factor. I know Kinglake West well. Kinglake West is (or was) a mix of small farms and open bushland, most of which had recently been burned off. We will have to wait for the Royal Commission to report but I can tell you now that fuel load was not an issue with the destruction of Kinglake West. What killed people was the speed of the firestorm. We’ve had terrible fires before, but nothing like this. Fires in the past were deadly because people were ill-prepared or there was no infrastructure to fight them. This time people were prepared but were overwhelmed by the speed and size of this fire. This really was something new.<br /><br />I have to say that David’s article (published in The Australian) attacking the fire service and blaming the fire on ‘academics’ is sickening, but what truly shocked me were the comments posted to his article. They are ghastly. There is no acknowledgment that climate change was a factor and an almost frantic, desperate desire to blame the Greenies. " This is the same modus operandi as the allies of the logging industry in Jan 1994 led by Colin Dorber then of the NSW Forest Products Association attacking a submission by The Wilderness Society authored by my colleague Rod Knight. That’s a fact of political history. It was picked up by all the commercial tv channels. I was left to carry the can. It was also proven WRONG over the weeks and months of inquiries and politics to follow. My guess it will again. Devine also.

Here is a eye witness comment from 10 Feb 2009 http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/09/could-inferno-be-prevented#comment9779

“David Packham may be right that fuel levels contributed to ferocity of the fires on Saturday, but he is wrong in claiming it was the main factor. I know Kinglake West well. Kinglake West is (or was) a mix of small farms and open bushland, most of which had recently been burned off. We will have to wait for the Royal Commission to report but I can tell you now that fuel load was not an issue with the destruction of Kinglake West. What killed people was the speed of the firestorm. We’ve had terrible fires before, but nothing like this. Fires in the past were deadly because people were ill-prepared or there was no infrastructure to fight them. This time people were prepared but were overwhelmed by the speed and size of this fire. This really was something new.

I have to say that David’s article (published in The Australian) attacking the fire service and blaming the fire on ‘academics’ is sickening, but what truly shocked me were the comments posted to his article. They are ghastly. There is no acknowledgment that climate change was a factor and an almost frantic, desperate desire to blame the Greenies. “

]]> By: Allan http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/the-australians-fuel-reduction-obsession/#comment-14176 Allan Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14176 As a non-specialist in the dynamics of bushfires, what I wonder when I read the debate on fuel reduction burning is what the empirical evidence says. Neither side of the debate seems to provide any! For example, is there a forest management regime elsewhere in the world that conforms with the prescriptions of David Packham, and if so how successful has it been in reducing the frequency extent or severity of fires? As a non-specialist in the dynamics of bushfires, what I wonder when I read the debate on fuel reduction burning is what the empirical evidence says. Neither side of the debate seems to provide any! For example, is there a forest management regime elsewhere in the world that conforms with the prescriptions of David Packham, and if so how successful has it been in reducing the frequency extent or severity of fires?

]]> By: Dave Liberts http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/the-australians-fuel-reduction-obsession/#comment-14177 Dave Liberts Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14177 Rundle, you're not paying attention. Facts have no place in this particular debate. Rundle, you’re not paying attention. Facts have no place in this particular debate.

]]> By: cheyne http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/12/the-australians-fuel-reduction-obsession/#comment-14178 cheyne Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-14178 And again today in the SMH....<br /><br />http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html<br /><br />How sad to see so many comments in agreement, though what else are they to do while sipping their lattes.<br /><br /> And again today in the SMH….

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html

How sad to see so many comments in agreement, though what else are they to do while sipping their lattes.

]]>