𝐑𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐢 Country-Inner-Leftie 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐭 (@RonniSalt) November 09, 2019
Hazard reduction burns, ecological burns, and back burns, are all different things. Don’t talk about back burns when you mean hazard reduction burn
🔥 Explainer: back burning and fuel reduction (2014-Aug-08) [The Conversation]
❝ The recent surge of bushfire disasters has introduced fire-fighting tactics to everyday language.
Two important approaches that use fire to fight fire are “back burning” and “fuel-reduction burning”. Unfortunately these two fundamentally different approaches are often confused. ❞
David Pope (@davpope) November 11, 2019
🔥 Are we backburning less than in the past? (2019-Nov-12) [ABC | The World Today]
❝ The notion that there is some sort of conspiracy to stop hazard reduction is a piece of fiction. …
Hazard reduction will only put a dent in risk. It will not eliminate risk, because the amount of hazard reduction you would have to do to eliminate risk is beyond the financial resources of the state. ❞
— Ross Bradstock, senior professor, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong
These are the letters sent by former NSW Fires Chief Greg Mullins and 22 other former emergency chiefs to the Prime… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Zoe Daniel (@zdaniel) November 09, 2019
New South Wales - “ we’ve never had the number of fires burning at emergency levels - 17 at one stage.” NSW Fire Ch… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Paul Bongiorno (@PaulBongiorno) November 08, 2019
🔥 This is not normal: what’s different about the NSW mega fires (2019-Nov-11) [SMH]
❝ If anyone tells you, “This is part of a normal cycle” or “We’ve had fires like this before”, smile politely and walk away, because they don’t know what they’re talking about. ❞
🔥 We’ve been in bushfire hell in Glen Innes – and the scientists knew it was coming (2019-Nov-11) [The Guardian]
❝ Already there are armchair experts ready with free advice about meeting with disaster. Let it be made perfectly clear that all the area that burned has already been a fire ground for two months. There were hazard reduction and backburns under state authority last month and last year. The properties were all well-prepared and extensively defended. People who have lived with fire risk for decades knew exactly what to do, and they did it. The full expertise and advice of fire controllers has been heeded at every turn.
I’ll put my 20-year Rural Fire Service medal up against your free advice any day of the week. ❞
–Carol Sparks, mayor of Glen Innes Severn council
Climate Council (@climatecouncil) November 12, 2019
Shelley Lloyd (@shelleymlloyd) November 09, 2019
Pyrocumulus clouds are terrifying. This is a fire generating it’s own weather system. https://t.co/gXOzHb1TK3—
Flangela (@Flansq) November 09, 2019
🔥 When bushfires make their own weather (2018-Jan-08) [Bureau of Meteorology]
❝ It’s well known that weather conditions can increase the risk of bushfires and make them harder to fight. But the relationship between fire and weather goes further—bushfires can create their own weather, generating ‘pyrocumulonimbus’ clouds and storms. ❞
The Cathy Wilcox (@cathywilcox1) November 11, 2019
🔥 Factcheck: Is there really a green conspiracy to stop bushfire hazard reduction? (2019-Nov-12) [The Guardian]
❝ “These are very tired and very old conspiracy theories that get a run after most major fires,” says Prof Ross Bradstock, the director of the centre for environmental risk management of bushfires at the University of Wollongong, who has been researching bushfires for 40 years.
“They’ve been extensively dealt with in many inquiries.” ❞
david rowe (@roweafr) November 10, 2019
🔥 Bushfires ignite the wrong debate (2019-Nov-12) [AFR]
❝ Apart from the United States, it is hard to think of any other educated country where this argument would be raging, let alone one as dumb and nasty as this one.
The rest of the world long ago accepted climate change was a reality and grapples with how to combat it.
Here, powerful people in media and politics with no qualifications or expertise whatsoever, continue to ridicule those women and men who have devoted their professional lives to science and fact with no ideological axe to grind. ❞
🔥 Burn-offs have almost no effect on bushfire risks, Tasmania study finds (2017-Dec-15) [The Guardian]
❝ Burn-offs are a routine part of preparations for bushfire season, but modelling suggests fire authorities need to target unrealistic amounts of land to have any meaningful effect on taming future wildfires. ❞
🔥 We thought we had protected these living relics forever (2019-Nov-13) [SMH]
❝ With fires in the World Heritage-listed rainforests of Lamington, Mount Hyland and now Terania Creek, this season has proven that in this changing climate rainforest is no longer immune from burning.As temperatures rise and spring becomes drier the moist refugia are evaporating. This will force a total rethink of fire management as wet gullies and rainforest can no longer be relied upon to act as natural firebreaks. ❞
🔥 Scientists aren’t stupid, and science deniers are arrogant (2017-Apr-03) [The Logic of Science]
❝ … I have found that not only do people with no formal training in science think that they know more than the entire scientific community, but in almost every case, they think that there is a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially all scientists have either missed or are willfully ignoring. If you think about this for a minute, it’s rather incredible. It’s amazingly arrogant to think that you can, via a few minutes of Googling, find a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially every scientist everywhere in the world missed, despite their years of training and experience. Nevertheless, that is exactly what most anti-scientists think (though they wouldn’t usually put it in those terms). ❞