I'm sure forests could be managed better, but I'm not so sure that climatic factors can be totally excluded as something that contributes to the "hyper fire" problem.

I seem to remember (and I apologise if I've got it wrong) that there has been a fairly severe drought across much of Australia over the last decade or so, and also that average summer temperatures have been rising over the same period. Surely hotter and drier conditions could be at least partly responsible?

That's not to say that it's all the fault of global warming,either (assuming it exists, which I am not entirely convinced about). Having excess fuel in the forests seems like a pretty obvious contributor too.

Cheers!

Rhys.

An astute article. The Canberra press gallery tend to follow the media pack leaders and if you accept the total package of global warming (and who doesn't?), then one also must accept the fact that there will be more mega fires.

What the author has highlighted here is something well known in science and that is that hyper fires may have a number of sources and/or that their enormity is compounded by a number of factors which the Greens certainly don't want put on the political agenda - undergrowth clearing.

One other point (and this was certainly a key factor in Greece recently) is that people had built their houses right next to forests which had not been well maintained. The ground litter acted like a blow torch.

Perseus, you are a bloody genius. You summed up the process very succinctly.

One other factor that has been left out of the equation, is the contribution that can be made to the reduction of fuel by the cattle which have been excluded from the high country. Not only are they reducing the available fuel, but they are also adding to our food supply which is currently in danger of severe depletion.

Our Green friends have a lot to answer for.

David

This article starts with a strawman. Isn't that obvious?

"There can be little doubt that, in metropolitan areas around Australia, there is a great deal of support for the Greens. Rural folk are not so easily hoodwinked."

http://enrol.com.au/mumblestuff/images/federal/polls/nielsenoct08.gif
7% of the 2004 Election vote to Greens was from City areas.
9%..yes NINE PERCENT... of the vote was from RURAL areas.

I read the profile of this Cribbes and he is a complete joke.

"a retired, 68 year old public service accountant"
The guy is a bitter, old dinosaur who has archaic views on just about anything.

Just die off already and spare the rest of the population your pain Cribbes.

Steel, I liked the first part of your post but take exception to the second.

The author's age has no bearing on whether or not his argument is sound.

Cheers,

Rhys.

Ok but let me urge you to consider the reality for one second. It is not altogether untrue that old people are more conservative and let old views die hard. They are the single age group that is allowing the Liberal party to keep it's firm choking grip on the neck of Australia to progress and become a better nation (to confirm this check that link i posted before that splits the groups by age).

Now I would be the first to recognise that a large proportion of older people are opposite to the stereotype and contribute to society in many constructive ways, but they don't eliminate the trend or general rule shown by the electoral data. If any old person is an exception to this rule then they should recognise that they are not included. I think I should have perhaps made that point in my original comment.