Drought?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25010056-5013122,00.html

I guess global warming was happening in the 1800s to

What a load of old cobblers this article is, trying to pin the bush fires on climate change.

Without being hoodwinked into some silly debate about the existence or otherwise of climate change it is easily demonstrated that there are cycles of rain and dry. This results in abundant growth then a drying out, when bush fire risk is extreme.

The simple fact is that both sides of government have caved in to lobbying by the Greens and other meddlesome and ill-informed keyboard environmentalists and stopped or reduced forest management practices that were successful for hundreds of years. The outcome is a crushing tragedy of enormous proportions. The cold weather burns have been few and far between with the result that fuel built up. There has been little bulldozing of firebreaks and small lot owners, unwise to the ways of fires, have padlocked gates.

When you add to this the politically correct fashion of planting gum trees and other natives, often in groves, close to houses, it was a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Most people are ignorant of fire reduction strategies and they have been ill served by government and other lobby groups through being encouraged to choose the wrong plantings for their yards and to landscape with large amounts of flammable mulches - all 'green', 'water-saving' and 'environmental' of course, but a high fire risk. Free trees and shrubs from councils were invariably highly flammable natives and the entitlement encouraged homeowners to over plant and to put in large gum trees. 'Green changers' built in scrub and added more.

I am ashamed of this author for trying to make political mileage out of this tragedy, which is far from over yet. He has considerable gall to try to sheet the blame back to climate change without any evidence at all, while credible experts like fire firefighters and forestry managers are saying otherwise.

Bob Brown of the Greens also raced in to score some miserable political points. Instead, he ended up with both feet in his mouth. Australians are quick to see through such cynicism, as will the world eventually.

I think that before people become completely hot and cross under the collar about what they perceive to be political point scoring on behalf of the environmental lobby, they might want to do a news google on Greens (or even Greenies!) and see what pops up.

Some people with an axe to grind (or who has used their axe inappropriately in the laws eyes) has come out of the wood-work and are pointing the finger firmly in the direction of the Environmentalists. Some are shocked and grief stricken and looking for causes which is quite understandable. Others I suspect have have a broader agenda and are doing politics.

Given this I don't think that it is inappropriate for the an article which looks to the future to be posted. Part of living in this great country is that we have extremes and that seems likely to increase if things continue the way they do.

The causes of the tragic bushfires down in Victoria are going to be myriad, and hopefully what will come out of it is a improved response to such emergencies in the future.

I do know that many people who have chosen to live in these areas will be supportive of what the author said. I personally know someone who is likely to be on the frontline at the moment who would cheer at the authors opinions if they weren't otherwise engaged and who would be pleased that these views have been aired.

This debate is usually too robust for my blood and I don't care for being abused. This is also one of the reasons a number of scientists stay out - it becomes too personal and nasty and most people don't want that in their lives. But it is hard to stay silent when there is so much misinformation about. I have worked with scientists for more than 20 years and have seen the accumulation of evidence about climate change first hand. No scientist is in this field for the money and scientists are by inclination, culture and training conservative and careful. If anything, they are understating the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, out of natural caution. We are in serious trouble. While there is no argument that natural cycles have always occured, they operate on geological time scales. What we are seeing now is much faster than those time scales. It is unprecedented. Most life on Earth cannot adapt fast enough to cope. In a short space of time, drastic changes have been taking place on, for example, the Great Barrier Reef. This is not some mad scientist's fantasy but well documented fact. Strident scepticism is confusing the wider public and delaying effective action.

Proof that the terrible and heart rendering events in Victoria is due to anthropogenic global warming is entirely lacking. Further the belief that any limitation of CO2 emission will have on effect on climate is entirely speculative. There is no hard evidence that human activity has any effect on global climate either in the direction of warming or cooling.

I draw your attention to remarks by Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".
She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims

For my part I would far sooner be labelled a climate “denier” or “sceptic” etc then be categorised among the credulous and gullible followers of GreenPeace.

I have noticed several media reports that point out the culpability of Green Groups. Their opposition to “controlled burns” is in the belief that they are in some mysterious manner preserving biodiversity etc.

The aim of a controlled burn is clear, namely to reduce the build up of fuel. Excess forest fuel is an important factor in causing devastating fires. The consequence of a severe fire is to destroy all life. Frankly I can not understand green ethics which awards a higher value on some rare plant or animal species at the expense of human life and the destruction of human property.

Miranda Suzanne

You sound sincere and convinced unlike many others. As a Scientist could you please comment on the volume of emissions released by these fires into the atmosphere. I suspect that would make our entire countries emissions for the last 12 months like miniscule. Given that we produce less than 1% of the world's emissions I would suggest Australia;s action or inaction really means little even assuming you are right. Surely a bit of sensible burning could at least of saved some life. The devastation caused by these fires far exceed Green ideology. Our people, land and atmosphere is a lot worse off because we bowed to the Green 'experts'.