Col Rouge: << if you are pro-green an support the unilateral action of self appointed environmental activist / vandals...

you are supporting killers,

I see no difference between these activists and arsonists who light fires... they are equally to blame for the consequences of their actions. >>

That's pretty rabid, even for Col. I've noticed that the redneck/denialist lobby has taken the opportunity to try and put the boot into the "green" movement, probably to deflect attention from the likelihood that this disastrous conflagration will be seen retrospectively as the moment when climate change began to cost actual lives in Australia.

For the record. the Greens aren't opposed to vegetation management using fire:

<< The Australian Greens want:

[...]

effective habitat management, including ecologically appropriate use of fire. >>

http://greens.org.au/policies/detailed/biological_diversity

Of course, the business-as-usual denialist crew are shrieking hysterically, pointing the finger everywhere but where it belongs. I expect that we will experience severe climatically caused events like wildfires and flood increasingly in the years to come.

Expect much shrieking from the denialists, until they either capitulate in the face of reason and evidence, or simply die out.

Bring on that epitaph, Col Rouge.

Examinator is one of the few sensible voices. Yabby made some thought provokind contributions, as did rstuart.

ColR goes off the deep end again: 'if you are pro-green an support the unilateral action .....you are supporting killers, I see no difference between these activists and arsonists who light fires... they are equally to blame for the consequences of their actions.'

Greenies and arsonists are to blame, nobody else need to take any responsibility. Call off any kind of enquiry, ColR got it figured out.

Could it just be possible that after such a long drought and the fact that there are so many more people living on the fringes of our cities contributed to the very heavy toll?

Absolutely we need to have an enquiry. People will continue to live out in the bush. This kind of thing is bound to happen again sooner or later.

Would back burning/controlled burning really have made all the difference? Once going Australia's bush burns real well. Ever seen a Eucalypt burning? Forget about forrest litter. I've lived in the bush. A bush fire is a scary thing.

Yes anansi Gums often explode if the burn is hot enough, as in crown (tree top) fires. I would have said terrifying.
(Thanks for your comment)
To me it is beholden on the individual to make it his business to understand their environment. Would you walk the dark back streets of lesser suburbs alone at night, leave doors open when you go out? Of course not it’s too risky to take safety/security for granted.
The bush is not different like wild animals it will bite the foolish, the ignorant or the unwary.

Let’s be clear I love the bush/jungle they’re fascinating places a set of worlds (habitats) each reacting with the other and their inhabitants.
Even a rudimentary understanding of these will tell you of pending problems. The signs are always there.
e.g. Koalas rarely drink water if they do it usually means the gums, are stressed and have turned on their defences making oil. Much the same reason a koala can’t stay in the same trees for long and has to move.
Absence of birds (and their calls), insects even ants going down into the earth conversely ants going higher can give you warning that the conditions are set for a big fire or big rain respectively. At these times you need to prepare, be on your guard.

It amazes me that people think that living near or in bush is safe and all caution or prudent behaviour is a city thing, an inconvenience an interruption to their busy lives.

Even today I keep memories important papers so that a moments notice can be thrown into the car and away. Likewise I have a cupboard with survival necessities…see earlier posts for list. We have exit routes (multiple) planed and even a bolt hole if it is too late. Looking for top to toe coverings for everyone when a fire is coming is simply too late.
Paranoid? Nah just prepared
I've seen too many fires/floods too close up to be cavalier about living near or in the bush.

Anansi maybe you too are part of the problem, sorry but just maybe.
You say I have lived in the bush, have you then seen a winter burn off creep slowly unattended for days ?
Have you any idea how fire fighters are now confronted with leaf litter so deep the Forrest floor burns enough to kill some trees forever?
I C J Morgan did not target the group known as greens but the idiots who must be ignored , we can never silence them.
I have no doubts, we can never change the bush to suit us, should not try, but look at the people tucked right into the bush, here in NSW even the dead trees lineing twisting bumpy tracks in and out of those homes.
Did people see that survivor last night? the one who hide in his bunker?
That his home survived, that he had clear ground around his home but suffered from heat and hot air?
Fire storms need fuel, once they have it they can not be stopped until fuel runs out.
Removing that fuel has to be our first defense, not to kill people Forrest, and wild life, humans must change the bush will not.

PALEIF I am returning from past OLO .

Ground cover makes the burn too hot and damages the trees ask any sawyer . In most cases elimination of ground fuel will stop the heads igniting , however the ambient Temp this year in particular has been unexceptionally high coupled with very low rainfall .
Fire is the friend of the forest , gum seeds , wattle seeds etc will not germanate without fire . Claims are being made that back burnt forests still catch on fire , however somewhere something must have elevated the temperature of the heads to evaporate / release the oil from the leaves to enable the oil to ignite . Hot air from ground fire can't elevate fast in dense forests hence the extraordinary damage to the trees seen on TV .
Ask any experienced Bushman , he will tell you , first the ground fire heats the head , then you will see a thin grey cloud shimmering immediately above the tree , then an ember will ignite the cloud , woof you can feel the radiant heat on your face ! That is the sequence management has to brake by back burning .
The rapid accent of the burning eucy gas draws up embers with it , embers the frame of the leaf are very light , still glowing making landfall a quarter mile downwind they set alight the forest litter this is the dynamic of a gum forrest fire Maelstrom .

CJ Moron... my words were based on reading the article I referenced and reports from TV

Those "Activists" who deliberately try to reverse and frustrate the efforts of those who construct fires breaks are as

as guilty and culpable for the deaths of innocent men, women and children as those who go around deliberately lighting fires.

My regret is the activists could not have given their lives instead of some poor family trapped by the infernos of the activists making.

the Epitaph for CJMoron is...

here lies a rover,

a dog which in posts pasts has been observed licking himself...

I am sure a few folk can still remember you in that context.

Anansi - are you defending them - if I had my way I would see all the self appointed activists stuck on a barren island in the middle of BAss straits and left to fend for themselves....

And I can think of several thousand people who died, have lost loved ones and property in this disaster which could have been less but for the actions of environmental vandals who would agree with me.

Like Belly suggested.... if you are here to critise aspects of the solution... Maybe you are just part of the problem.

anyway criticism from the corners of the resident moron and Anansi come as nothing new... in fact I might question the sense of my own posts if they posted different,

Just paddle in the shallow end of the gene pool CJM and Anansi and dont go into the woods to play.