By Jeremy
Andrew Bolt sees anyone who’d dare describe climate extremes such as those experienced in Victoria last weekend, just as predicted by global warming theory, as evidence in favour of that theory (not “proof”, Andy, “evidence” – there’s a difference) as an “opportunist” (and stupidly or dishonestly or both tries to counter their argument with evidence of a cold weather extreme in Maine*), and then spends an entire post today using the bushfire disaster to bash “greenies”.
It’s New Ltd’s big line on the fires. Turns out that arsonists had nothing to do with the most devastating ones, so it can’t run a Laura Norder campaign. Next target: Greens. Only problem, there’s not actually an evidence of the Greens opposing any policy that actually would’ve helped on Saturday. Andy has to cobble together policies which sound sort of like something a “greenie” might say, thereby define the person who’s said it as a “greenie”, and thus condemn the entire environmental movement for something it had nothing to do with. (And note: his quotes at the start of this piece don’t have working links.)
So if a council concerned with land values stops residents clearing trees, or if there are rules against untrained residents backburning in fire season in order to stop them STARTING bushfires, or if councils don’t have enough money to burn enough forest fuel to make a difference – well, we’ll blame all that on “greenies” and jump straight over the fact that the Greens and other environmental organisations (a) had nothing to do with it and (b) are in favour of forest management strategies designed to reduce bushfire.
(Hell, The Australian has given that ghoulish arsehole David Packham a free forum this week to claim even more – that “greenies” LOVE BUSHFIRES AND WANT YOUR FAMILY TO BURN DOWN AS PART OF THEIR “JIHAD”. And yet The Australian considers itself a serious paper. Bizarre.)
And of course it’s also open to question whether any previous forest management strategies would’ve prevented the disaster on the weekend, in those unprecedented conditions, anyway.
Andy’s smear is both contemptible and illogical – the connection he’s trying nastily to make doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny – and it is a sad indictment on the man that he can feign respect for the victims and horror at people he disagrees with mentioning the clear link between the disaster and what they’ve specifically been predicting is likely to happen, and then promptly go off and try to exaggerate the most feeble links imaginable to blame the deaths on his opponents.
High moral ground? You’re a guttersnipe, Andrew.
*He does understand that “global warming” refers to an increase in average global temperatures, and that part of what’s predicted as a result of that is localised extremes – including extreme cold weather – doesn’t he? If he hasn’t grasped that by this point, then he’s a fricking idiot. If he has, then his constant misrepresentations just reveal him to be a dishonest hack. One or the other.
UPDATE: Oh, that’s good news for News Ltd! The police do think some arsonists might have been responsible for the Churchill fire. Whether that pans out or not, it’s enough of an opening for a Laura Norder bash. If they can let the Greenie one go for a few moments. Anyway, back to the subject of the post, which is Bolt’s loathsome artic
183 Comments
12 February, 2009 at 9:13 am
I like his article which was ostensibly about how great the average person is when faced with a tragedy of such magnitude, which is true. But when you look at the article, it’s really about how wonderful Andrew Bolt is. We find out that he has tried to donate food, tried to do a whole lot other good works, and was able to donate money. I mean, what a great bloke! It’s not as if he’s a racist moron who Ive heard not a single peep out of about the over 300 children murdered recently in Gaza.
12 February, 2009 at 9:20 am
It’s New Ltd’s big line on the fires. Turns out that arsonists had nothing to do with the most devastating ones, so it can’t run a Laura Norder campaign
Christine Nixon has stated that they belief that arsonists are responsible for the Churchill and Marysville fires so I don’t know where you are getting your news from or who told you this;
Turns out that arsonists had nothing to do with the most devastating ones
The Marysville fire destroyed the entire town and killed dozens. That is rather devastating.
12 February, 2009 at 9:22 am
This is what nixon said about the fires;
“What we believe is the Churchill fire, we believe it was deliberately lit and we’ve got a very strong investigation that has now been in place for some time on that and our taskforce Phoenix is now picking that up as part of the investigation,” Ms Nixon told ABC TV last night.
“There are a number of the other fires that fire investigators and the CFA and others believe have been suspicious because of the way the fire behaved and so even as late as today, there’s the suggestion that perhaps the Marysville fire was deliberately lit.
“As we’ve gone to Marysville to investigate we’ve, along with fire experts, become suspicious about how the fire actually came into Marysville, the direction it came from, the pace it came with, all of those things are part of the way we investigate a fire.”
12 February, 2009 at 9:28 am
here:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/arson-unlikely-in-most-of-the-fires-say-police-20090211-84sz.html
12 February, 2009 at 9:29 am
here:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/arson-unlikely-in-most-of-the-fires-say-police-20090211-84sz.html
12 February, 2009 at 9:34 am
Here;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25043464-601,00.html
12 February, 2009 at 9:35 am
Arnold the problem with the article you have linked to is that it is out of date. It was published yesterday before Nixon’s press conference. The article I have linked to was after the Police commissioner’s press conference.
12 February, 2009 at 9:41 am
Which makes me very suspicious though. Seems there’s a concerted campaign from various quarters to put the blame firmly on “arsonists”. ie, the govt, AGW, scum like Bolt, etc etc, had nothing to do with it, it was all due to “arsonists”. Even if it was due to arsonists, which it wasnt, they cant do much unless the conditions are right.
12 February, 2009 at 9:45 am
Even if it was due to arsonists, which it wasnt, they cant do much unless the conditions are right
So you are now more of an expert than the Police commissioner Christine Nixon?
Which makes me very suspicious though. Seems there’s a concerted campaign from various quarters to put the blame firmly on “arsonists”
The big wingnutt conspiracy theory?! Are you implying Arnold that Christine Nixon is making it up as part of some big conspiracy?
12 February, 2009 at 9:51 am
you dont think the govt spins issues? You dont think the govt has skimped on spending for fire defence recently? you should read more!
12 February, 2009 at 9:59 am
you dont think the govt spins issues? You dont think the govt has skimped on spending for fire defence recently? you should read m
I am not talking about the government, I am talking about the police commissioner. Are you saying that the police commisioner is part of some government conspiracy when she claims that?; ……… There are a number of the other fires that fire investigators and the CFA and others believe have been suspicious because of the way the fire behaved and so even as late as today, there’s the suggestion that perhaps the Marysville fire was deliberately lit
12 February, 2009 at 10:02 am
Arnold,
Do you really believe what you’re saying? You seem a very angry person and suspicious of everything. Lighten up man…name calling ( that goes for you too Jeremy) and conspiracies just make you seem irrational.
Arsonists aren’t being blamed for all the fires, nobody is saying that. But if an arsonist has started even 1 fire that’s caused injury and death, that’s truly deplorable and should be fully investigated.
All causes of these fires need to be investigated. Whether it’s climate change, bad Green fire management practices or just a one off extreme event, all avenues should be explored and will hopefully come out in the royal commission
12 February, 2009 at 10:05 am
News Ltd has to HAVE SOMEONE TO BLAME.
if it isn’t the arsonists, it is the greens, if it isnt them it is the councils, if it isnt them it is the people who lived there.
Jeremy had a great post about that on his blog the other day.
My issue with Bolt is that he has a crack at anyone who suggests that there is a link between climate change (it isnt all global warming as climate involes rain too) and the fires. And yet he and others lay blame at the bogey man.
12 February, 2009 at 10:07 am
the police com is appointed by the govt ie she works for them. “suggestions” “others believe” all very vague and really more spin than anything else. Really, i thought as head of a commission she would remain neutral till all the facts were in. But apparently, its important to spread the word that it was arsonists. Who benefits from this? the usual suspects.
12 February, 2009 at 10:09 am
It’s also crazy for Jeremy to be making statements like I have highlighted below when the police investigation is still ongoing and the police commissioner admits that to date the investigation is finding evidence that suggests that some of the fires were deliberately lit.
Turns out that arsonists had nothing to do with the most devastating ones
12 February, 2009 at 10:12 am
Really, i thought as head of a commission she would remain neutral till all the facts were in
Arnold she is remaining neutral. Nixon was giving an update on the police investigation.
12 February, 2009 at 10:16 am
Bolt is right: Tim Flannery damages the global warming cause with his exaggerations. He and others need to rein it in.
12 February, 2009 at 10:55 am
FURIOUS DENIAL
That’s the psychological process by which someone whose belief system is under assault by empirical evidence (and today’s extreme weather events don’t prove climate change, but they hardly discredit it) feels like a cornered dog and comes out snarling and snapping, clamping onto some side issue, flinging shit everywhere, frantically trying to get past the problem without acknowledging the reality or admit doubt or failure.
12 February, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Bolt is right: Tim Flannery damages the global warming cause with his exaggerations. He and others need to rein it in.”
No he’s not. I would agree that it is possible that Flannery does exxgerate things, but Bolt doesnt care if this damages the “global warming cause”.
Due to ideological patronidge and an anti-environmentalist religion Bolt is firmly on the side of refuting the existence of climate change or doing anything about it if it does exist
12 February, 2009 at 10:56 am
Nice work, Mighty Ripper. Thread very effectively derailed.
Anyway, back to the subject of the post, which was Bolt’s misrepresentation of what “green” groups actually argued, and his utter failure to back up his smear by linking any particular policy with the destruction, and then showing that it was actually opposed by the “environmental movement”.
12 February, 2009 at 11:11 am
I am sure Bolt would ask for “proof” of climate change to show that fires were made worse by changes in climatic conditions.
Of course there is evidence to show that the weather patterns over the last decade made things worse.
Bolt does not need to link to the green policy Jeremy because his readers just need someone to blame.
12 February, 2009 at 11:15 am
Of course there is evidence to show that the weather patterns over the last decade made things worse
Just like the weather conditions of the decade before Black Friday in 1939 and the weather conditions of the decade before the most devastating Bushfire in 1851.
Add to this the conditions before the 1909, 1919, 1926 and the 1973 ash Wednesday fires.
12 February, 2009 at 11:16 am
BTW that should read 1983 not 1973
12 February, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Hello Jeremy,
I’ve just posted this on your site, but thought it probably belongs on this post too…
I think the problem of fuel load build up has been caused not by any particular official Green policy, but rather by a few, (one in particular), individual councils that have taken the idea of tree conservation and natural environment a bit too far, through not allowing residents to clear land of debris and allowing trees to be planted too close to houses, they have caused an unsafe environment to evolve.
It is those councils that need to be held accountable, at least in part, for the extent of the tragedy that is occurring now.
For the record, I don’t think we can blame AGW for the ferocity of these fires, as Rad correctly points out, those in previous decades were just as fierce as these, it is just a fact that the combination of fuel build up, hot weather and high winds created the perfect conditions for a firestorm.
12 February, 2009 at 1:43 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html
There is no greater proof that fuel management has been the key to the severity of the disaster than this story and the fact that this one house stands where his neighbours houses are nothing but ashes.
12 February, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Speaking of loathsome, Catch the Fire Ministry claims the whole thing is Divine Retribution for Victoria’s lax abortion laws. Now there’s something that would make a nifty column for Professor Outrage … except that Bolt has done much in the past to defend Catch the Fire, at least when they attack Muslims (forgive me if he’s attacked them on his blog, which I don’t read).
12 February, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The Boltsta has really outdone itself this time.
@ Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 03:45pm.
Read the entire article for a clear example of the Boltsta’s attempts to spread irrational fear, in this case Islamophobia, far and wide.
My response..
Richard 1 @ Wed 11 Feb 09 (10:43pm)
What a hypocrite this fellow is.. How can he live within his own skin??
12 February, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Iain, can you clarify that article for us? First it says that the state gumint is to blame cos it has been swapping green-promoted anti-backburning laws for preferences, then it says that the problem was council regulations, not state laws. What have I missed?
(Apologies for off-topic. I think this is important, but can take the discussion elsewhere if preferred.)
12 February, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Hang on, that ain’t off-topic. As you were.
12 February, 2009 at 2:52 pm
so, andy’s still preaching over the ashes, despite yesterday stating now was not the time to start apportioning blame. i’m not surprised – it’s not the first time bolt has lied.
and so he has brought the same principles to the bushfires that he uses for every other issue. why wait for evidence (from the royal commission) when you can just come right out and announce lock, stock, barrell what has caused the fires? the man is a fraud.
and for more rightwing extremism, miranda devine in her column today:
“it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.”
total fuckwittery.
12 February, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I’m still waiting for just one example from you RadPips where “climate change evangelists salivate” over the dead. Try even for a single quote that backs up what you claimed.
12 February, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.”
Stands to reason tho dont it? If we didn’t pander to green sensibilities and let our corporate “citizens” have their way, there’d be no bush, ipso facto no bush fires.
Just in case; Removes tongue from cheek.
12 February, 2009 at 4:07 pm
re the smh/age article ‘proof’. If you look at the photo, the cleared area around the house is dotted with hundreds of plastic tubes protecting newly planted trees. So where will the firebreak be when these trees mature?
And I hope Bolt will lead by example and flatten his precious garden to show us all how it is done. That’ll stick it to the Greens.
12 February, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Great post! I haven’t bothered wasting my time reading Professor (of Flat Earth Studies) Bolt’s opportunistic pieces in the Hun as I knew they’d be all too predictable, so, nice to know that the good Professor didn’t let me down! How charming – while the smoke’s still rising from the charred ruins, and the number of dead continue to rise, Bolt’s already laying the blame at us wicked environmentalists’ door. Like so many conservative pundits, you’re never one to let a disaster get in the way of flogging an ideological hobby-horse are you Andy? Strange though, I woulda thought that as the majority of climatologists’ predictions continue to be borne out re: global warming, us ‘evil greenies’ would have the high moral ground and would be justified in rushing ‘told you so’ pieces to print!
12 February, 2009 at 4:34 pm
In fairness Jimmy, those plastic bottles or protective screens are at the tree line, they don’t appear to be within the 100 metres that the property owner cleared around his home.
12 February, 2009 at 4:35 pm
….”it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but despicable, right-wing News Ltd ideologues”.
12 February, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Oh, and by the way Andy – if you’re reading, a correspondent to the ‘Boston Globe’ suggested that it was in fact Muslim jihadists who’ve started these devastating fires! Thought this angle may be something you could explore in your next column -it’s certainly more plausible than climate change, huh?? Please let Miranda, Janet, Alan Jones et al know…but hang on, even better!….Greenies in league with Muslim terrorists – has a nice banner headline quality, doesn’t it??
12 February, 2009 at 6:38 pm
The ‘Iron’ Duke of Wellington said of his own troops, “I don’t know their effect on the enemy but they scare the tripe out me”.
Rusty Bolt ought to be afraid; very, very afraid of his supporters.
If he keeps winding up the ignorant & inadequate in his shameless way the day will surely come when he will regret it.
Assuming he has any integrity whatsoever. A stretch I acknowledge.
12 February, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Oh fuck off J. As if cutting down trees and back burning wouldn’t have helped and as iff the PC attitudes of greens doesn’t compromise that. Ash Wednesday was 26 years ago next Monday and we, and in particular you, have learned nothing. A man who saved his house by cutting down trees was fined $50,000. Get real mate.
12 February, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Good one Razorsharp! Just ‘cos ONE family who illegally cleared trees was apparently ’spared’ doesn’t prove that their actions saved them. It would be really nice if you and your enviro-hating mates could wait until a full analysis of the disaster is carried out before laboring us with your predictable, emotional, biased and unproven criticisms. I can only imagine your reaction if I was crass enough to point the finger at climate-change as being the sole cause of this tragedy, (even though climate scientists have long warned us of this scenario), while bushfires are still raging and many of the dead are yet to be identified.
Love the way that you conservatives have no qualms about manipulating a tragedy to ‘prove’ a spurious point…yet you accuse greenies of being disrespectful, illogical, and unscientific. You really are pathetic!
12 February, 2009 at 10:38 pm
razorsharp clearly believes bushfires only occur in forested areas.
12 February, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Just posted this at Grods, but is equally appropriate here.
Are the people who support land clearing as a way of reducing fire risk giving any thought to the damage to homes, roads and farmland caused by the soil erosion and flooding that will surely follow major land clearing? (Not to mention the risk of rising water tables and salinity for those further down the catchment)
2006 in the Phillipines, an entire village slid off a hillside and was buried in a mudslide, killing 1800 people. This was a direct result of land clearing.
The Thredbo disater, which killed 18 people, was also attributed to unwise land clearing. Cut down too many trees and you create a whole new set of problems.
12 February, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“…and as iff the PC attitudes of greens doesn’t compromise that.”
Where is the evidence that this is the case? You dont just get to assert that ‘the greenies PC attitudes’ have compromised the back burning effort without any evidence.
You want to believe the greenies are to blame, that much is obvious. But can you actually provide any links or evidence that green groups in the effected areas have opposed or interfered with backburning?
13 February, 2009 at 4:46 am
Watching Q&A last night, Flannery claimed that he and the Greens agree with controlled burning. They understand that fire is a natural part of the Australian ecology.
As for clearing your land, if everybody did that there wouldn’t be much bush. People make their choices, those who build in the bush must be aware of the risks. As far as I’m concerned the real issue with this current disaster is the ferocity and the speed that the fires moved, was there enough time, could the Authorities have done a better job warning people. Is an early warning system feasible, will fire bunkers be mandatory.
Face it those frothing at the mouth, looking for someone to blame, thus picking on the Greens because there’s bugger all you can blame the Muslims or Aboriginals for (cos many of you are rednecks, the type who need to blame! The type who then demand revenge rather than justice) People are not going to be given carte blanche to cut down trees all over the bush!
13 February, 2009 at 5:53 am
I didn’t see Flannery but his book “The future eaters” talks at some length about the need for cool forest fires.
As for that guy who is making a big deal of having been fined for clearing his block, have a look at the picture. It’s like something from the Somme. There’s barely a blade of grass there. Destroying every form of plant life between Melbourne and Sydney might stop bushfires but it isn’t really an option. And once again, read Graeme Hughes’ article about how the fireball came up over his cleared paddock. It was the speed of the fire that made the fire deadly. And finally (it’s starting to feel like whack-a-mole) the forest around Kinglake West was recently burned.
Of course backburning has to be part of it and in this area of Victoria it is. But what is so irritating is the way Bolt, Devine, The Australian etc have latched onto this as being the only issue and are using it, quite ruthlessly, to attack the greenies and deflect blame for climate change. It’s sickening.
13 February, 2009 at 8:06 am
Q&A was really good last night, no bickering politicians or rightwing extremists pushing their ideological barrows. just logical, sensible people, and i thought the couples who went through the bushfires was touching – some people have such inner strenght.
13 February, 2009 at 8:25 am
poor andy. after spending all week casting about for someone to blame we finally learn that a bushfire early alert system could of been implemented 2 years ago, but the howard government “bickered with the states over the cost.” andy’s response?
“Given the size of the catastrophe, this now seems mad”
no foaming rants about how this cost lives, no blaming the former government in the way greens have been blamed. fucking hypacrite!
13 February, 2009 at 8:38 am
“nd i thought the couples who went through the bushfires was touching – some people have such inner strenght.”
Yeah, that lady from the Marysville Historical Society had me captivated with her story.
13 February, 2009 at 8:53 am
PB,
Did you read the full article or only look at the picture…the guy said that his house was ‘lit up’ 8 times as the fire front went through, the point being there were no overhanging trees for it to latch onto and drop onto the roof of the house, thus making it easier for he and his family to put those fires out.
I’m not condoning the mass deforestation of our state, but in this particular case, there seems little doubt that the clearing of the 250 trees that were apparently overhanging his house certainly went a long way towards saving it.
I agree it’s way too simplistic to try and lay the blame for what has happened at the feet of any one group or person, so many factors combined to create what really did amount to perfect conditions for a firestorm.
Having said that, it would seem that the Nilimbuk (spelling?), shire did contribute to the severity of the fire in Kinglake through their extreme Green policies, but I think that was more the beliefs of one particular council than any sort of sensible interpretation of official Greens policy.
13 February, 2009 at 8:56 am
It’s interesting how many Boltoids now praise ancient Aboriginal bush burning techniques. It seems like only a few weeks ago they were wailing about how Aboriginals destroyed the country and megafauna with such methods. Now they’re wise, they knew what they were doing and why the bloody hell wont the Green-Nazi-Commos listen them?
Quite trippy.
And how yah going RadPips with that direct quote you were going to produce about how “climate change evangelists salivate” over the dead of these fires? I’ve been looking, but I can’t find any. Surely something will turn up in, at the very least, the letters of The Age, right?
13 February, 2009 at 9:00 am
“extreme Green policies,”
As Flannery pointed out, controlled burn offs are something that he and the Australian Greens both advocate.
I guess we need to know whether it was Australian or Victorian Green party councilors that prevented controlled burning? But like you said, it would be a contributing factor.
“I agree it’s way too simplistic to try and lay the blame for what has happened at the feet of any one group or person, so many factors combined to create what really did amount to perfect conditions for a firestorm.”
Though you single out ‘extreme Green policies’
13 February, 2009 at 9:33 am
“It seems like only a few weeks ago they were wailing about how Aboriginals destroyed the country and megafauna with such methods. Now they’re wise, they knew what they were doing and why the bloody hell wont the Green-Nazi-Commos listen them?”
LOL!!! well spotted. andy must be cranking up for the sorry anniversary, that’ll get the sheep bleating.
13 February, 2009 at 10:19 am
Rob,
I’ve singled out extreme Green policies in one area, not the whole state, the mayor of that particular council has acknowledged this, and stated they will change…
http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-survivors-blame-council-green-policy-20090211-83p0.html?page=-1
Please read what I wrote, I clearly stated that I didn’t believe that official Greens policy could be blamed, I said the green policies of one council in one area…A statement that is supported in the article above.
Out of curiosity, have you ever been to Kinglake ? I only ask because if you had, you would have seen the policies of this council at work…Trees way too close to homes, no roadside clearing, etc…
13 February, 2009 at 10:21 am
I should emphasise, that I don’t think even that particular council’s policies were the sole contributor to the disaster in Kinglake, but they were without a doubt a contributing factor..
13 February, 2009 at 10:41 am
“I’ve singled out extreme Green policies in one area,”
Exactly, you singled them out, no-one else just these unnamed councilors, even though you preceded that statement with:
“I agree it’s way too simplistic to try and lay the blame for what has happened at the feet of any one group or person,”
From the Age article:
“”We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,”
They might well be dickheads, currently though the claims are unsubstantiated words about nameless people. Time, as always will tell, then we’ll be able to point the finger at specific people or groups, you know when there’s been a proper investigation.
I personally wouldn’t live on a block in the bush if I were not allowed to cut down trees. I’m picking in most cases the trees were there before the houses. Cutting down trees and controlled burning are two totally different things, controlled burning assists trees, cutting them down does not. If people were allowed to cut down trees carte blanche then we’d really solve the problem of bushfires only to open up a whole new can of worms, eg soil errosion, loss of habitat for natives.
Yeah I realise people are far more important than animals but people for the best part DO have a choice as to where they live.
13 February, 2009 at 10:47 am
“Out of curiosity, have you ever been to Kinglake ? ”
Yeah, and Marysville, a few times. Like I say I wouldn’t live there. Whether or not I’ve been there changes nothing, it’s irrelevant.
13 February, 2009 at 11:39 am
Gavin, I think we were looking at different photos. The one in the hard copy of The Age gives a different perspective to the one online, which I didn’t look at before my comment. The Age photo shows much of the grassed area between the tree line and the bare ground in front of the house to have been replanted. It’s hard to judge distances but I would guess the firebreak would be halved so I see the article/photo as somewhat misrepresentative. And we need to compare apples with apples. As you mention the home still caught fire, but was defended by four experienced people. Were the homes lost also defended? And we also need to know the fuel load at each site before we can reach an informed conclusion.
I did see the council defending itself/buckpassing last night by saying they were just following state planning laws ( did some research and clearing laws appear to have started back in 1989 with the Cain govt).
13 February, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Rob,
The mayor is named, read the article again.
And they aren’t unsubstantiated words, unless you are inferring that people living in a community don’t know what their council’s policies are.
It’s irrelevant that the trees were there before the houses, people can live in bush settings and still have a reasonable distance between trees and homes, not saying they will be completely fire-safe, especially in conditions experienced last week, but less fuel immediately adjacent to the house can’t hurt. I don’t think anyone is wanting to clear-fell our bushland, just do the tidy up work that can at least help to reduce fire damage.
The shire where Kinglake is located isn’t exactly the bush any way, it is very much an outer suburb of Melbourne.
You seem to be determined to pick a fight with me over this…I’ve no idea why, I’m actually agreeing with you…I’ve already said (3 times now), that Official Green policy isn’t to blame here, it does seem however that an over-zealous council contributed (Note, again I use the word contributed, i.e. not solely to blame), to what transpired in Kinglake.
Hello Jimmy,
You’re right, of course about needing to know the circumstances of the other homes, I was really only saying that this guy cutting down 250 trees out of about 40000 on his property isn’t really an act of environmental vandalism and it does appear to have contributed to saving his home.
13 February, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“It’s irrelevant that the trees were there before the houses, people can live in bush settings and still have a reasonable distance between trees and homes,”
Evidently this isn’t the case for a lot of houses.
“You seem to be determined to pick a fight with me over this…”
Nor really, you said yourself that if we were all agreeing then the debate is pointless. I’m pointing out that on the one hand you agree that there are many contributing factors (I agree) but you only bothered to mention one, ‘extreme Green policies’ again you write: ‘(Note, again I use the word contributed, i.e. not solely to blame),’ But it’s the only factor you seem to care to mention (over and over)
“The shire where Kinglake is located isn’t exactly the bush any way,”
Yeah, places cease to be bush when trees are felled, land is cleared (The CBD was once bush, OK maybe it was a wetland but it hasn’t always been the CBD) and houses are built, I realise there is a need for housing but at doesn’t have to be at any cost.
“I was really only saying that this guy cutting down 250 trees out of about 40000 on his property isn’t really an act of environmental vandalism and it does appear to have contributed to saving his home.”
And if everybody does this? That 40 000 will soon diminish, we’re experts at felling forests.
I could just as easily make the argument that it doesn’t matter if I waste water because I couldn’t possibly make much of a dent in our supplies, however if everybody thinks the same way?
As for the Mayor being named, I’ve been trying to Google him to see if he belongs to an ‘extreme Green’ political party, I can’t find anything.
13 February, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“unless you are inferring that people living in a community don’t know what their council’s policies are.”
I understand that there are a lot of distressed people in the shire, so yeah, I’ll stick with the unsubstantiated for the time being, I’m happy to wait until the outcome of the Royal commission before I cast blame on anyone or any group.
13 February, 2009 at 1:15 pm
From The Age; “Australian authorities ‘arsonists’: Germaine Greer.”
This is going to put Bolta between a rock and a hard place.
13 February, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Rob…
“Nor really, you said yourself that if we were all agreeing then the debate is pointless.”
Touche.. ;)
OK, if it makes you feel better I’ll name the other obvious contributing factors, to the best of my limited knowledge, and not in any order of importance:
1. Excessive build up of fuel load on the ground.
2. Extremely hot weather.
3. Extremely strong, hot winds.
4. Breakdown of communications/early warning systems…probably not really substantiated as yet, but given the extreme conditions, not too surprising.
5. Tinder dry fuel, due to prolonged period without substantial rainfall.
6. Extreme speed at which the fires travelled, up to 120kmh in places according to reports.
7. Questionable fire strategies…stay and fight or leave early…I reckon this one is a difficult one, not sure what other options there are.
Undoubtedly there are others but these are the ones I can come up with at short notice…
The reason I didn’t mention them is that the topic of this blog is Bolt using the fires to bash greenies, I got into enough trouble for digressing on the other thread, so I thought I’d stick rigidly to the topic.
“Yeah, places cease to be bush when trees are felled, land is cleared ”
Brilliant observation, what are you suggesting…that we live in caves instead of cities ?
“And if everybody does this? That 40 000 will soon diminish, we’re experts at felling forests.”
He cut down 250 trees out of 40000 on his own land…He didn’t go out willy nilly chopping trees in state forests. I dare say that if we all cut down 250 out of 40000 trees on our own land we’d each have 39750 left.
“As for the Mayor being named, I’ve been trying to Google him to see if he belongs to an ‘extreme Green’ political party, I can’t find anything”
Please show me where I said the Mayor is a member of a Green party or organisation, I said “extreme Green policies” of the council, A statement that the mayor has supported through his admission that they will be looking at changing those policies and through the statements of the residents as quoted in the article.
I also stressed that I didn’t believe they were following any official policy of the Greens Party…
“I understand that there are a lot of distressed people in the shire, …”
So you think that because people are distressed, they don’t know that the council prevented them from removing trees that were too close to homes and didn’t clear them from roadsides, or clear underbrush, or even mow grass ?
13 February, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Please show me where I said the Mayor is a member of a Green party ”
I will, if you can show me where I made such a claim. ie I never said anything of the sort. you’re reading betwe……ah fuck it, why bother!
“A statement that the mayor has supported through his admission that they will be looking at changing those policies and through the statements of the residents as quoted in the article.”
Seems like your reading between the lines and jumping to conclus……. Ah fuck it I can’t be bothered! My point remains, you singled out ‘extreme Green policies’ even though you acknowledged it as a contributing factor.
13 February, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“So you think that because people are distressed, they don’t know that the council prevented them from removing trees that were too close to homes and didn’t clear them from roadsides, or clear underbrush, or even mow grass ?”
I suppose unlike you I’m prepared to wait for the results of a Royal Commission, you on the other hand appear to have already drawn some conclusions. Bully for you!
13 February, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“Ah fuck it I can’t be bothered! My point remains, you singled out ‘extreme Green policies’ even though you acknowledged it as a contributing factor..”
Your point certainly remains, but what does it prove ? That I mentioned one of a number of factors, because that was the factor that is the topic of this thread ?
At no point did I try to claim that it was the only factor, so I really don’t see what you’re objecting to, other than just a rather pedantic attempt at scoring some sort of debating point..
I’m interested to know why you think this council ignored requests to clear potential fire hazards from near homes and roads…
Here’s another example of a shire council not taking sensible precautions
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25042644-5018722,00.html
Start with the 6th paragraph down….
“Among councils to resist controlled burning was the Yarra Ranges Shire, which was hit heavily by the Black Saturday bushfire disaster……”
I’m more than happy to wait for the results of the Commission Rob, the only conclusions I’ve drawn are those that I would have thought are pretty obvious, some councils have failed in their duty of care to their residents in terms of performing basic fire prevention maintenance, and have therefore contributed to what has unfolded over the last week…
I think its pretty obvious that those failures were as a result of undoubtedly well-meaning, but unfortuneately not well founded, over zealous green ideas being implemented by individual councils — but not, I say again, as a result of any overall policy or directive of the Greens party.
13 February, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“Your point certainly remains, but what does it prove ?”
It proves that your happy to blame ‘extreme Green policies’ but not AGW, it proves that although you acknowledge that there are other factors you had to single out that one (we’re going around in circles – yes yes, I see you’ve listed others after the fact)
“For the record, I don’t think we can blame AGW for the ferocity of these fires,”
I’m glad you can be so sure that it has nothing to do with AGW. Before I get labeled an AGWer I’ll state that I don’t know whether or not AGW is a contributing factor I’m happy to wait for the results of a Royal Commission rather than preempt them
Call off the Royal Commission Mr Brumby, Gavin already knows what are and what aren’t contributing factors to this disaster.
“because that was the factor that is the topic of this thread ?”
The topic of the thread is the bigoted hypocrite Bolt using a tragedy to stick the boot into ‘Greenies’ , something that you appear to be quite comfortable doing yourself. Apart form the Mayor (who’s political affiliation we don’t know) I can’t see any names it’s just ‘Greenies’. Ah well it’s a break from ‘Muslims’ or ‘Aboriginals’ or ’single mothers’ or any other group the rightard likes to sterotype.
13 February, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“I’ve drawn are those that I would have thought are pretty obvious, some councils have failed in their duty of care to their residents in terms of performing basic fire prevention maintenance,”
I’m glad you’re not an a jury, nothing is obvious apart from the fact that 100’s have died and thousands are homeless.
13 February, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Can someone tell me the political make-up of the councils in question. “Green policies” suggest Green councillors to me. My understanding is that some of these councils consisted of zero Green councillors. Is that correct?
13 February, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I’d like to draw GavinM’s attention to today’s Age in which a Kinglake firefighter attested to the blithely cavalier attitudes of some residents (ie, stopping on the road to take photos of the approaching fire with their phone-cameras), and their obstinate refusal to be removed from the oncoming danger despite being obviously ill-prepared to defend their properties. Also, senior journo Geoff Strong attests to the ‘disengagement’ of some potential fire-zone residents when it came to actively preparing their properties for the bushfire season; in his article, he quotes Brian Gist from the CFA (on noting a large number of people in their local hall last Friday): “Look, we run a fire preparation meeting here every year and we only get 4 or 5 people. Now we have trouble and you are not prepared”.
Now, unlike you and your fellow critics who are quick to point the blame at your favourite green bogeyman before all the facts of this tragedy are analysed, I wouldn’t dare claim that the unprecedented death toll can be solely attributed to residents’ lack of fire preparation and their apparent disconnect with the reality of what’s happening. However, I would suggest that personal responsibility for being fully fire-prepared and a recognition that living in the bush carries very real risks (as well as rewards) should also be examined along with the myriad other factors in the Royal Commission.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that while the right-wing finger-pointers continually roll out the usual professional suspects to vindicate their green-bashing (David Packham anyone???), there are just as many experts who dispute their pathetically simplistic blame-games (see the Letters section and page 3 article in today’s Age re: burn-offs). And, just so you know, GavinM, the Vic govt burned more than 150,000 hectares in planned burns last year – the most since 1993-94 and according to Gavin Jennings, “There HAS NOT been a backlash from the green movement in Victoria about that program”. (article, the Age pg. 3.)
13 February, 2009 at 3:31 pm
And you accuse me of reading between the lines…Please show me where I claim to be sure of the cause..Read what I wrote, Christ, you even quoted me , I said “….for the record, I don’t think AGW is the cause” — you see, I’m giving an opinion, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do on a blog such as this ?
Here’s a basic English lesson for you “I don’t think AGW is the cause” (Opinion)
“AGW is not the cause” (Assertion of fact).
Can you see the difference ?
I gave reasons why I don’t believe AGW is the cause, which I note you conveniently omitted to mention, I may well be wrong and AGW might be the cause…Who knows ? By your own admission you don’t, so why mention it ?
The topic is Bolt is an aresehole for blaming Greenies for the fires…OK, agreed Bolt’s an arsehole for blaming the Greens for the fires, now what do we talk about ?
I don’t see the point of your fixation with names…who’s names do you want or need, the Mayor is the head of the council, and like the head of any organisation, the responsibility for the policies of that organisation rests with him…It doesn’t matter what political affiliations anyone on the council has, what matters is their actions and policies, as you say, the Commission will hopefully examine all of those things…
The fact that does still remain is that the Mayor has acknowledged that some of his council’s policies will be changed, this should indicate to anyone with any thought process that those policies have failed.
Once again your point is, well — pointless.
As an aside and appropo to the thread piece where Jeremy says arsonists don’t appear to be responsible for the worst fires, police are now saying that there is evidence that the Marysville fire was deliberately lit…Have to wait and see on that one too though.
13 February, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Hello Lee,
You see what happens when someone gets misrepresented on a thread…Now I’m anti-Greens. For your information Lee, I don’t have a “favourite green bogey-man”, nor do I have a favourite Left or Right wing one, do you ?
I gave a list of the contributing factors that I believed — opinion only remember — were responsible for the severity of these fires, and I qualified it by saying that there were undoubtedly more, I also said that the list was from my limited knowledge, i.e. I realise I’m no expert, but I don’t think it takes a genius to come up with the list I made.
I have stated from the very beginning that I didn’t believe that these fires were caused because of any official policy of the Greens party, please don’t make me have to type it all again…You’ll find I’ve said it numerous times here already.
13 February, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Well actually Gavin M, I did read the article. I really don’t understand what point you are making. I know I am appalled at the way the rightards have frantically, desperately, tried to blame the greens and green policies for the disaster. How many times does it have to be spelt out? What made this fire so deadly was its speed. I am sick of saying that Kinglake West, which I know well, was recently burnt. I am sick of saying it was a mix of paddocks and bush. And I am sick of saying that people like you should read Graeme Hughes’ article and take note of how the fire came over his cleared paddock. But mostly I’m sick of people like you treating this like some sort of high school debating competition. I can’t be bothered anymore. Go and burn in hell.
13 February, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Gavin: why are you willing to wait until a fuller and more conclusive inquiry/evidence before casting ‘blame’ in relation to Gaza war, yet are so certain you know what the causes are with the bushfires that you can pronounce responsibility ahead of the royal commission findings?
FWIW, the recent fires were at the extreme end of the scale. i’ve been through bushfire and know that the footage i’ve seen on TV this week is nothing like the normal bushfires that current policy settings are geared to, settings in which the go and go early, or stay and defend advice are reasonable for lay people. also, to simply declare that someone who removes all vegetation from their property is entirely what saved it is to overlook the number of bushfires that occur in de-forested areas, and spread rapidly in paddocks. there is a reason why many councils impose harvest and slashing bans at this time of the year
the other thing that struck me about some of the personal stories emerging from those who stayed is one of general household preparedness. on Q&A last night one couple video’d the fire outside their home. the woman commentated into the camera, at one point saying “power’s gone, pump no longer working” meaning no more water. the interview didn’t explore that but i was left wondering whether they had a petrol/diesel pump, as in a bushfire the electricity companies will disconnect mains power as a safety precaution. the husband said the plastic pipes that carry water melted at their home, but if the pipes have flowing water in them, they don’t tend to melt. this would suggest no petrol backup pump. what about roof-top sprinklers? what about fire-fighting hoses at each end of the home, all connected to a petrol pump that could be operated independt of electricity, and off a dam or swimming pool if needed? where was their escape route if things got bad, and where was their alternative escape route if the first one was fucked. did they have a chainsaw on hand if they needed it in order to escape? did they fill baths, spas, sinks with water before the power went and soak every fucking towel or sheet in the home to use to fling at spotfires and embers? it seemd from their interview they had none of these things, yet ironically had thoughtfully considered ahead wrt siting the home away from where they thought the fire would come from, and the materials used to build.
these are all things that you have to consider when building in or moving to the bush, as well as practice a fire emergency plan every month. it’s not just as simple as saying “clear all trees from around your house and you’ll be fine”. that is highly irresponsible and lazy thinking that is likely to get you killed. and finally, given what people need to know about fire preparedness when moving to the bush, what advice were local councils and emergency services providing to new homes and new residents moving into these areas? were people advised to get all the things i’ve mentioned, were people advised about surrounding vegetation and planting around their homes, or were they just left to their own devices?
the fires seen were extreme, and a household who was super, super ready probably wouldn’t of been able to tackle it even if they were equipped to their eyeballs. if it was me i would of gone and probably perished. but it does beg the question whether residents were left wholly unprepared with no facilities or equipment simply because they had no advice about what they should have and what they should be doing. the royal commission findings will be very very interesting. BUT, the trees vs no trees argument is just over-simplifying the debate into irrelevence.
13 February, 2009 at 8:54 pm
GavinM,
You’re right and I’m sorry! But just like your Herald-Sun and Australian right-wing buddies, I reserve the right to vilify right-wing nutters/red-neck ideologues who have no idea about the issues that are pertinent to this disaster. Unlike armchair critics like Bolt, Devine, Albrechtsen and Jones, I wouldn’t have the arrogance to apportion blame purely based on political bias and ideology without being fully cognisant of the facts of that hellish day. Ironic then, that the biggest right-wing cheer-leaders don’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that their despicable slander of environmentalists has no basis in proven evidence.
Finally GavinM, if you want to paint me as the typical inner-city latte lover, let me assure you that I spent 10 years of my childhood in St. Andrews and therefore am very familiar with the conditions of that area. Me and my family were personally aquainted with Rae Carter (the Goat Woman) who’s now deceased; she in fact sold my mother our goats and they were very good friends. So for city arseholes like Bolt, Devine et al who seemingly have no experience of urb/rural living to have the temerity to blame environmentalists for this disaster – their criticisms are the most sickening, opportunistic disgusting political point-scoring. W
13 February, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Fair enough, Gavin, my last post may have been unfairly harsh towards you, but you can’t blame me being particularly sensitive -I’m SO SICK of disgusting right-wingers getting so much oxygen for their disgusting UNSCIENTIFIC, UNPROVEN proclamations that ‘greenies and environmentalists’ are somehow to blame for these devastating fires. Absolutely unbelievable! So much for Bolt and his ilk laughably pretending that their nut-job assertions are based on science. Check out any reputable scientific data-base and you’ll find that climate-cahange is absolutely supported by long-range statistics. I love that Prof. Flat Earth Sciences will proclaim that a one-off incident proves his point (re: denuding bush properties of vegetation to protect them from devastating fire will save them ), yet still maintains that the huge majority of scientific evidence that points to man-made climate change is not enough to convince him and his psycho ideologues that man-made climate is a real threat to our species. These right-wing fucker ideologues are WAY more dangerous than the evil greenies they’d like you 2 believe are a threat – these people are dinosaurs! It wouldn’t matter if their nutter ideas
were limited to their own community, but unfortunately, their mentalness impacts on everyone else. I also have to point out that quite apart from the human toll of this disaster, experts predict that at least 1,000,000 native animals have persished and god knows how many are injured and unable to receive care. Then, of course, there are native animals who’ve survived the fires but now have no food nor shelter. And what about the livestock who’ve been killed/injured/left food-less by these fires? And last but not least, what about the poor companion animals – cats, dogs, birds, rabbits, guinea-pigs, mice, lizards, fish etc, etc who through no fault of their own have felt the most horrific experience? No doubt, Bolt and his psycho-Christian ilk will maintain that my concern for species other than humans proves that I’m some evil sacreligious freak.!
13 February, 2009 at 9:58 pm
just a concern that you guys have no ability to deal with the difference between deforestation and fuel management. Nobody is suggesting we cut down all the trees, but why not let people remove fallen branches and trees? Madness. Green madness!!
13 February, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Oh really, you reckon it’s greens/enviros who can’t distinguish between deforestation and fuel management? Already, pro-deforestation State Govt minister Gavin Jennings has the good grace to acknowledge that green groups have approved the most radical burn-off last year since 1992-3. So, fuck you no-proof ideologues if you’re trying to blame environmentalists for these fires!
Seriously, you right-wing ideologues are shameless – I just imagine the disparaging hilarity if left-wingers were just as pathetically caught out as you wankers were!
13 February, 2009 at 10:49 pm
“just a concern that you guys have no ability to deal with the difference between deforestation and fuel management. ”
lol!! from the person who doesn’t understand that bushfires can take off and spread with lightning speed in paddocks, ie no trees.
13 February, 2009 at 10:50 pm
2003 report to the premier by the Emergency Services Commissioner: “The number and area of burns for fuel reduction has declined more markedly through the 1990s than has that for regeneration burns.”
Department of Sustainability and Environment’s fire manager of the very region which contains the now annihilated towns of Kinglake and Marysville
“It is hard to put a finger on, to say in this urban interface environment how you can increase that level of prescribed burning – double it, to get up to our target – without having a huge influx of resources.”
Sunny side up on face?
13 February, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“the fires seen were extreme, and a household who was super, super ready probably wouldn’t of been able to tackle it even if they were equipped to their eyeballs.”
Exactly right. I know we must eventually look at how we must avoid this sort of tragedy. But to read people like Bolt say that now is not the time for finger pointing and then point the finger saddens me.
To then watch a decidedly off his game jeremy try to bring down Bolt so ineffectually on an issue of such sensitivity saddens me even more.
Confessions knows it’s rare that I agree with her. But to read this post leaves me almost sickened. The fires continue to rage. People are still grieving. Funerals are to be had.
Get some perspective.
13 February, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Yeah, i agree. Well said confessions.
Razor, you are an arsehole.
14 February, 2009 at 12:48 am
Hey Gavin,
W
14 February, 2009 at 1:26 am
Daics…
Hey, no offense but I dunno what you’re talkin’ about!
14 February, 2009 at 7:23 am
I don’t have a fixation with names GavinM, I’m merely pointing out that you’re highlighting ‘extreme Green policies’ with no proof, you don’t even know the names of these ‘extreme Green policy’ makers, (hence your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims) you know the name of the Mayor, yet you don’t know his political affiliations. But you had to get your dig in!
Yes, I know you later listed other contributing factors, though you’ve dismissed AGW, (yes I realise it’s only your opinion, but so’s the rest of what you’ve written on this subject)
It must be good to be you, to have the answers.
“Here’s a basic English lesson for you “I don’t think AGW is the cause” (Opinion)
“AGW is not the cause” (Assertion of fact).”
LOL of course it’s your opinion. So’s the ‘extreme Green policies’ bit, until we have a Royal Commission!
15 February, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Sorry guys – I know I deserve a big slap on the wrist for going extremely off-topic; (wasn’t quite sure where to post this seeing as my comments on Bolt’s bushfire ‘analysis’ are my first experience of TB/BWP), but I just wanted to say I love this site! Soooo good to find a place to vent about Prof. Flat Earth and co. with a few like-minded souls. Maybe now that I’m able to release some of my fury at the complete hypocricy and lunacy of these right-wing nutters via this blog, I will avoid developing cancer! Jeremy, confessions, RobJ, PB, DbD etc – you are all champions (and potential life-savers!)
15 February, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Andy’s effort today in “Don’t mention the (non) burns”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_mention_the_non_burns/
It is a common – but fallacious – conceit that our greens represent a kinder, more tolerant ethos. Let sweetness rule?
Oh, yes? See how swiftly such people resort to the foulest abuse and most vitriolic personal attack when someone on the ABC – Barrie Cassidy, in this case – dares note that green opposition to fuel reduction burns and fire breaks may have contributed to the deaths of so many people in these fires.
scrolling down to see the kind of “foulest abuse” and “vitriolic personal attack” listed by andy and all you get are reasonable criticisms of the program. click on the link to the comments however and you get this:
“The greens have blood on their hands.”
“The greenies have a lot to answer for with these fires. They should hold their heads in shame.”
“The so called Green people and Local Government value trees more than they value human life.”
and that’s just a few.
ummm, what were you saying andy about foul abuse and vitriol?
only a shameless partisan idealogue would ever try to blame the vic bushfires on a section of australia’s population.
15 February, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Confesssions, I stupidly wasted about 20 mins attempting to post comments re: Prof. Flat Earth’s “Don’t mention the (non) burns”…obviously, I was being too vitriolic for the moderator ‘cos despite 2 attempts, neither of my comments appeared – or maybe the good Prof. just can’t handle the truth! However, certainly seemed (as you said,) that vitriol towards those with view-points opposing Andy and his groupies is more than welcomed on that site.
15 February, 2009 at 11:07 pm
wasted time is probably right, you’ll never get a gig there if you put up reasonable opposition to bolt and his tards. best leave the groupthink contained there, on the 1 site.
but, my observation is that andy has misrepresented the ABC comments thread in his post. he says it’s full of foul abuse and vitriol from greenies, when in fact it’s the opposite – the foul abuse and vitriol is directed towards greenies, presumable from people who agree with bolt view of bushfire blame. somehow andy pre-judges ‘greenies’ (whoever they are) as being hateful towards people, when the very link he uses demonstrates the complete opposite!
15 February, 2009 at 11:11 pm
when I say leave the groupthink there, i mean leave the sheep to have their own love-in. if you oppose bolt and post there, your just adding to his comment count and adding subsequently to his revenue. best to comment here where alternative views are tolerated, and comments don’t have to go through moderation before publication, which stifles debate.
16 February, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Hello Confessions and all,
This will be my last post on this subject, it seems many of you have decided that I’m anti-Greens party and pro clear-felling of trees despite everything I’ve written to the contrary, so it seems pointless to continue arguing…
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not claiming to know anything beyond doubt about these fires, I’m offering an opinion as is everyone else here…And I’m actually agreeing with the post, I have no idea how you all have decided that I’m blaming the Greens, I’ll say it yet again and hope it gets through this time….Many contributing factors created the conditions for a firestorm, including in one particular shire, the green policies of one individual council — (Please Note Again: not following official Greens party policy), which although were undoubtedly well meaning, were in effect disastrous.
And yes, I’m very aware that bushfires don’t require trees to take-off, however, they usually move more quickly through the tree canopy, particularly gum trees, due to the air currents up higher and the highly flammable nature of the eucalyptus oil.
For anyone with any sense of reason, my supporting one person who cleared 250 trees out of 40000 on his own land, doesn’t equate to me calling for deforestation or bulldozing the bush.
If you read my very first post, you will see that I didn’t say anything about the cause of the fires…I said a contributing factor to their ferocity.
You ask me why I’m willing to wait for a Commission/Inquiry on Israel, but not on the fires, perhaps I could direct the same question to yourself and Rob, you both had no hesitation in condemning the IDF for war-crimes before any investigation of evidence was in, so why do you now criticise me for doing exactly what you both did ?
As I said somewhere in a post above, the only reason I ’singled out’ green policies, is because Greenies are mentioned in the topic of the thread…I specifically said “extreme green policies of individual councils” and then emphasised that I didn’t believe they were following the official policies of the Greens party. Please look at my posts on feb 12 at 12.19pm and at 8.53am on the 13th to see what I actually said.
Had the topic been “Bolt contemptibly bashes hot weather for causing bushfires”, I would have said that I thought the hot weather was a contributing factor but not the only one…I would have thought it perfectly acceptable for me to comment on the content of the thread subject.
Lee,
I don’t even know where to begin with you…You’re rants are almost incoherent to me….So I won’t even bother, except to say I have never denied global warming, I question how much of it is influenced by man, but that’s another argument, I’m also no supporter of Bolt, nor a right-winger and I don’t have any buddies at The Sun or The Australian, if you can find evidence to the contrary, please show it.
PB,
Thank you for your kind thoughts…But given that it wasn’t me that started this “high-school level debate”, perhaps you could direct them elsewhere.
Rob,
Once again and for the last time, the Mayor has acknowledged that the policies of his council surrounding native vegetation will be changed, I’m sorry if you don’t seem to understand this, but that acknowledgement supports what I have been saying about that particular council’s policies. The political affiliations of the Mayor and the individual councillors are irrelevant, I’ve never tried to claim they are members of the Greens party, so why do you keep trying to infer that I have.
“It must be good to be you, to have the answers”
Stop being dishonest Rob, I’ve repeatedly said and you know I have, that I don’t claim to know the answers..That’s why I’ve said its only my opinion.
16 February, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“dares note that green opposition to fuel reduction burns and fire breaks may have contributed to the deaths of so many people in these fires.”
Yes, why is it those Greenies are so touchy about being blamed for (contributing to) the deaths of people?
Of course, Bolt would happily accept that “his side” of politics has to admit they have also contributed to the deaths through:
- Being a proponent of the idea that individuals have the right to live where they want and take responsibility for their own fire management planning;
- Allowing freemarket ecotourism and tourism generally to dictate that parks and reserves are kept in a state that’s conducive to these ventures;
- Championing the ideology of small governments and budget surpluses which prevent governments from properly managing parks and financing emergency servies.
To name a few.
Blood is on your hands too, Bolt!
16 February, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’ll bet too, that Bolt is just itching to get into Rudd about his appearances in relation to Black Sat. After all, none of it could possibly be sincere or anything other than posturing in the interests of the furthering of his political aspirations, could it?
16 February, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“that I don’t claim to know the answers..”
You claim to that AGW is not a contributing factor. I may be many things, I may occasionally be pedantic or facetious but I’m not dishonest, I may be wrong but I’m not dishonest. I call it how I see it!
Yeah, I know that AGW not being the cause is just your opinion but so’s the rest of what you’ve written.
16 February, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“I’m offering an opinion as is everyone else here…”
I’m not – not about the causes of the fire anyway.
16 February, 2009 at 1:46 pm
yep confessions, Bolt’s little “Don’t mention the non burns” column is a prime example of the absurdly ludicrous hypocrisy of Bolt and his idiots, and the deceitful and cowardly behaviour of his moderation monkeys.
None of comments from the ABC that Bolt displayed could be described by a reasonable person as displaying “the foulest abuse and most vitriolic personal attack” or even any sort of foul abuse or vitriolic attack. Just angry criticisms of that particular Insiders program.
None were even in the same ball park as the foul abuse and vitriol attack spewed daily by the Bolt pack, or in the comments section of that particular column.
When I simply posted that the comments were not vitriolic or abusive, and were easily surpassed by many of the comment on his site, my comment was of course moderated. Yet those moderating clowns were happy to let through all sort of vitriol and inane comments attacking so called greenies. They also let through some sort of crazy comment from a so-called greeny describing Bolt as the Great Satan. That’s what those clowns do, they moderate sensible rebuttal of Bolt position but allow crazy posts criticising him, all to make “the left” look maniacal and stupid I guess. Juvenile Imbeciles.
16 February, 2009 at 3:18 pm
OK Rob, I can’t resist,
““I’m offering an opinion as is everyone else here…”
I’m not – not about the causes of the fire anyway.”
It’s time for you to put up or shut up, please show a quote from me where I have claimed to know the cause of the fires….
“You claim to that AGW is not a contributing factor”
Once again your confusing an opinion with an assertion of fact.
“Yeah, I know that AGW not being the cause is just your opinion but so’s the rest of what you’ve written”..
Which is exactly what I’ve been telling you for the whole thread for God’s sake…So what’s the issue ?
16 February, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Give it up Rob you are being a troll. Gavin is right.
16 February, 2009 at 7:39 pm
GavinM,
You’re no doubt right that my posts in reply to yours have been (possibly unfairly,) incandescent with rage. However, though you may be an unwitting fall-guy (person?), the huge anger I’m feeling is absolutely justified considering the vile things that have been levelled at “greenies”/environmentalists and almost all left-wingers’ doors by the tabloid and right-leaning press since the deadly aftermath of these tragic bushfires was revealed. I’m sorry that you’ve unfairly and unwittingly become a lightning-rod for my anger, but seeing as I can’t get any of my objections to Bolt’s poisonous fallacies printed on his blog-site (for example) nor published in the Hun, you surely can’t blame me for lashing out at the 1 or 2 people who post here who do seem to try and rationalise the despicable accusations of said right-wing nutters. And if you do think my ranting is unfair – and you really believe that your arguments are reasoned, logical and not informed by political allegiance?… how about also taking to task the revolting, biased and unsubstantiated accusations of some of Australia’s most prominent right-wing commentators (who have the privilege of seeing their bullshit printed unchallenged in newspapers with some of the largest circulation in the country); while you’re criticising the people who post here!
16 February, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“I have no idea how you all have decided that I’m blaming the Greens”
all i’ve done is point to the the difference in your wanting to wait until more fuller evidence is available in relation to gaza war, and your confident pronouncements of blame/causation in relation to bushfires. I don’t think i’ve ever accused you of blaming greenies, but somehow I’m now one of those for whom your words “not getting through”. I could in fact accuse you of the same thing in relation to my posts…..
16 February, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Oh, and btw, GavinM, when you single out my ‘incoherent rants’ as almost not worthy of a response, I feel I should apologise for my lack of the intellectual rigor you obviously believe is necessary for any opponent who would be lucky enough to encounter your wonderous debating skills in a verbal joust. Unfortunately, after completing my HSC in 1986 (yes, I’m THAT old!); I’ve only had crap manual labour jobs or entry-level white-collar work interspersed with long periods of unemployment until I began a tertiary level course in horticulture last year. So, sorry for being such a lamearse and relying on passion rather than education – if you and I continue to post here, I promise I’ll try very hard not to let you down with my idiotic, unintelligible blather again!
17 February, 2009 at 4:58 am
“Once again your confusing an opinion with an assertion of fact.”
Errr No I’m not, I realise it’s your Opinion that AGW has nothing to do with the recent disaster. I realise that you SINGLED out ‘extreme Green policies’ as a contributing factor. I’m highlighting your tendency to BLAME ‘extreme Green policies’ but DISMISS AGW! Obviously you’re the one who’s confused Gavin, confused because your bias against things green has been exposed. We all understand the difference between opinion and fact, in your opinion AGW has bugger all to do with it, happy?
“““I’m offering an opinion as is everyone else here…”
I’m not – not about the causes of the fire anyway.”
It’s time for you to put up or shut up, please show a quote from me where I have claimed to know the cause of the fires….”
Put up and shut up that you were incorrect with your statement that EVERYONE is offering an opinion when in fact I’m not? LOL
17 February, 2009 at 7:27 am
How’s this for some classic Bolt:
“As I’ve said before, the trouble with demanding animals be treated like humans is that you then tend to treat humans like animals.”
What chapter of Bolt’s Logic does that gem come from?
The trouble with being a dickhead, and Bolt is the Lord of them All, is that you don’t possess the ability to question whether what you say or write is actually rational and reasonable.
Bolt’s logical corollary will be something akin to: “Anyone that cares for animals is capable of the mass murder of humans.”
17 February, 2009 at 7:46 am
We all understand the difference between opinion and fact, in your opinion AGW has bugger all to do with it, happy?
There is ZERO evidence that supports the theory that AGW had any influence in the bushfires. For starters it is still extremely debatable that AGW impact climate change. Secondly, this current bushfire was no different to all the other countless bushfires south eastern Australia has experienced. Black Thursday in 1851, the savage bushfires of 1909, 1919, 1926. Black Friday of 1939 and Ash Wednesday of 1983.
It’s just sad that climate change evangelists feel the need to use the tragic events of Black Saturday as a reason to further their cause. The likes of Flannery and other’s should hang their heads in shame.
I’m highlighting your tendency to BLAME ‘extreme Green policies’ but DISMISS AGW!
The problem for you rob is that this argument is not coming from right wingers, it is coming from the victims themselves who have had to endure years of battling with their local councils to clear fire breaks on their land and have enough back burning completed.
17 February, 2009 at 8:03 am
I’ll bet too, that Bolt is just itching to get into Rudd about his appearances in relation to Black Sat. After all, none of it could possibly be sincere or anything other than posturing in the interests of the furthering of his political aspirations, could it
You would have to be a fool to believe that Rudd’s appearances in relation to Black Saturday are sincere. It’s oh so convenient that Rudd has his travelling pack of media with him, ready to take the perfect photo op of him hugging a victim.
The fact that Rudd had the audacity to try & link federal money for the bushfires to his $42 Billion stimulus package is proof that Rudd is more about wedge politics, what’s in it for him politically than a sincere open hearted show of support.
17 February, 2009 at 8:35 am
“You would have to be a fool to believe that Rudd’s appearances in relation to Black Saturday are sincere.”
Statements like this leave us in no doubt as to who the fool is. What would you know of Rudd’s mind, RadP?
Lying twit.
17 February, 2009 at 8:41 am
Rad’s a fucking troll and a liar, seriously DeanL he goes away when ignored. I see the name Rad and just scroll past, don’t even read the posts.
17 February, 2009 at 8:42 am
Statements like this leave us in no doubt as to who the fool is. What would you know of Rudd’s mind, RadP
Rudd’s attempt to link the federal money for the bushfires with the approval of his $42 Billion stimulus package is a window into Rudd’s mind and motives.
This shows that Rudd was more interested in political point scoring that helping those most effected by the bushfires.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25051446-7583,00.html
KEVIN Rudd has attempted one of the most shameful examples of wedge politics in recent Australian political history. On Tuesday this week he stood up in parliament and linked his controversial and contested $42 billion stimulus package with aid for victims of the Victorian bushfires.
17 February, 2009 at 10:17 am
RadP, go and get yourself some nuts…fool! And while you’re at it, forage for a brain and some objectivity to go with it.
17 February, 2009 at 10:47 am
I notice that Bolt is having a go at Mick Dodson (again), for being a less than honest witness.
Ironically, a characteristic that was applied (by the Judge) to Bolt himself, in a past court case.
17 February, 2009 at 12:09 pm
No Rob, try again
Please show a quote in which I, (as you have stated I’ve done), offer an opinion on the cause of the fires.
Your continual references to and emphasis on my ’singling out’ green policies, (which I didn’t actually do, I singled out the policies of one council and stressed my belief that they weren’t following official Green party policies), despite my repeatedly giving you the reason why I mentioned them doesn’t make you right, it’s a sure sign that you are out of ideas and are desperately grasping at straws…Here it is yet again for you:
Had the article been titled “Bolt Contemptibly uses bushfire deaths to bash Hot Weather”, I would have said that I don’t think the hot weather was the sole contributing factor for the severity of the fires…You see ? Addressing the topic of the thread — I wouldn’t have thought that was unreasonable.
Likewise your continual reference to my mention of AGW is also a sign of you grasping at straws, the only reason I mentioned it was because it is also referred to in Jeremy’s piece and is mentioned in numerous posts by other people before mine.
I’ll ignore any further trolling from you and just wait for you to provide that quote now…Thanks in advance.
Lee,
I think you’ll find that in one of my posts above I called Bolt an arsehole for blaming greenies for these fires…I reckon that’s a fairly strong, if uncouth criticism of him.
As to your education, I don’t recall criticising you for that, I only did HSC myself, the reason I dismissed your posts was because of the paranoid Lefty-speak that they were peppered with — I’m afraid as soon as I see terms like Leftard or Rightard, wingnut etc…my eyes tend to glaze over and I skip the rest — and your unfounded attacks on me, which you have now repeated, without your having any knowledge of my personal or political beliefs.
In regards to my criticising other posters on this thread, I think you will find that I didn’t criticise anyone until I was myself somewhat unfairly attacked.
Confessions,
“all i’ve done is point to the the difference in your wanting to wait until more fuller evidence is available in relation to gaza war, and your confident pronouncements of blame/causation in relation to bushfires I don’t think i’ve ever accused you of blaming greenies, but somehow I’m now one of those for whom your words “not getting through”.
Your statement above is evidence that my posts haven’t got through to you…
I haven’t confidently pronounced anything, I have offered an opinion and have stated that I’m no expert and may well be wrong, (isn’t that what sites like this are for ?), on what I believe to be the reasons for the severity of these fires, reasons that I have seen being given in just about every paper and tv report that I’ve seen, nothing ground breaking or controversial…I haven’t offered any thoughts on the cause of the fires, which is why I have asked Rob to provide evidence for his assertion that I have…I offer the same invitation to you.
I haven’t pre-empted any inquiry by stating that the severity of these fires was caused by any one particular factor, offering an opinion on the possible reasons for something is very different to making a statement as fact, however, you were very adamant that the IDF had committed war-crimes in Gaza before any evidence had been assessed, so I will ask you the question again…Why are you prepared to wait for evidence to be assessed now but you weren’t back then ? What has happened to change your attitude towards independent inquiries ?
17 February, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Personally I think any person or group of people who use the death of others as a weapon to beat their political opponents with, is a disgusting human being and I turn off, whatever their message, whether in relation to the Victorian bushfires or other events.
The blame game of greenies are to blame, AGW is to blame, or whatever other arguments are raised does nothing to help those who have died or suffered as a result of the fires, nor do they offer any solution to prevent a similar tragedy from unfolding in future.
Bolt, Devine, and much of the commercial media are vultures picking over corpses in order to sell their own interests and push anti-green sentiment, as they do at every election.
There was a guy on the 7.30 report last night saying the fires where the fault of greenies from North Fitzroy, obviously he does not understand how the democratic process works in Australia as people from North Fitzroy do not vote in council elections in Kinglake, he, like many others where blaming the fires on bad council policy. I’m quite sure that Yarra council have no influence or power in Kinglake area.
There are many uniformed voices singing loudly about the bushfires, most will be wrong and it goes without saying that Andrew Bolt is an vicious ignoramus and knows nothing about bushfires. I know little or nothing bushfire behaviour and causes, thus I will wait to hear from the fire ecologists and other experts at the royal commission.
The saying ‘better to stay silent and people think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt’, sums up Bolt and his tribe perfectly.
17 February, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“which I didn’t actually do, I singled out the policies of one council and stressed my belief that they weren’t following official Green party policies)”
Yeah, we know – then you dismissed AGW (also your OPINION) Whereas I haven’t offered an opinion on the cause of the fires.
“which I didn’t actually do”
I quoted you verbatim; “extreme Green policies”
“despite my repeatedly giving you the reason why I mentioned them doesn’t make you right”
Errr I’ve not stated what I believe caused the fires. I’m not making any claims to being ‘right’ in fact a few posts back I even said I could be wrong!
“it’s a sure sign that you are out of ideas and are desperately grasping at straws…”
Out of which ideas? Like I say I’m not the one giving my opinion (or ideas) as to what were the contributing factors, anyway if you insist the contributing factors are Heat, Air & Fuel, same as for all fires always.
I’m not grasping at straws Gavin, I’m highlighting your tendency to blame ‘extreme Green policies’ but dismiss AGW as a contributing factor.
17 February, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Rob,
Still waiting for that quote…
Taking partial quotes from me and misrepresenting what I’ve written doesn’t help your case.
17 February, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“Taking partial quotes from me and misrepresenting what I’ve written doesn’t help your case.”
Get fucked Gavin, if your full posts weren’t there for everybody to read you’d have a point.
“misrepresenting”
like this:
““Please show me where I said the Mayor is a member of a Green party ””
Even though I never even inferred that you said such a thing!
or this:
““it’s a sure sign that you are out of ideas and are desperately grasping at straws…””
Like I say it doesn’t matter, everything is written above in B&W readers can formulate their own opinions, I’m gonna concentrate on what I’m paid to do. Catch you all later.
17 February, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“I haven’t confidently pronounced anything,”
*snort*
except for this:
through not allowing residents to clear land of debris
and this:
Having said that, it would seem that the Nilimbuk (spelling?), shire did contribute to the severity of the fire in Kinglake through their extreme Green policies,
you only started backtracking and prevaricating when RobJ took issue with your statements. go back and re-read your earlier posts: very confident statements about what/who is to blame.
17 February, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Dean L; Old Lefty and Ron have now been added to my Hall of Blog-Heroes (along with past initiates RobJ, confessions and co.). GavinM is right – I do tend to rely on overly emotive descriptions for my right-wing targets. However, I think they’re indeed fair game considering the disgusting accusations that they’ve levelled (without any proof and in the mainstream press no less;) at the door of ‘greenies’. You claim, Gavin, to be too even-handed to deserve my opprobrium, but the arsehole political side you strive to excuse on this blog has no qualms about indiscrimately attacking their opponents in the most repugnant ways. So, apologies for any personal attacks, but I’m not gonna back away from my criticisms of the right-wing hacks (and their buddies,) that this blog is dedicated to. Give me an example of a right-winger who has distanced his/herself from the virulent attacks on environmentalists et al in the last two weeks of the bushfire tragedy, and I’ll gladly acknowledge it!
17 February, 2009 at 7:21 pm
You gotta love Bolt’s recent column where gets stuck into Australian of the Year Mick Dodson because he was supposedly branded as being dishonest by a supreme Court Judge. Miraculously poster “Rob” manages to have his comment passed through moderation, whereby he points out the obvious ironies of Bolt labelling others as dishonest, given his own defamation convictions.
When Rob points this out, Bolt makes the typically pathetic resort to conspiracy theory that he usually does when anybody points out his lies, distortion and inaccuracies
“The court was wrong, and I note you fail to show in what way I was dishonest – a charge I utterly reject. I’d say more, but that case proved to me that there are grave risks in criticising a member of the judicial fraternity. Now, back to this matter”
Yep Andy you’re just a poor little victimised conservative, bravely battling against the evil leftist bias of the MSM and the Judicial system. A hero many might say.
Utterly pathetic, Bolt is a pathological liar, as well as being atrociously sloppy, and could easily have had far more defamation charges levelled at him, if people had decided to go down that path.
17 February, 2009 at 7:38 pm
what the commenter probably doesn’t realise is you don’t have to rely on court outcomes to show andy is a liar. he’s been shown as an outright liar at least 3 times on this site by Dam Buster, DeanL and Tobiaz Zieglier as well as on other forum by scientists (QIMR scientist), statisticians (possum) and political scientists (Manne). he must have some kind of personality disorder because only the mentally unstable continue their lies and falsehoods even when they’ve been shown to be untrue.
17 February, 2009 at 8:29 pm
…” he must have some kind of personality disorder because only the mentally unstable continue their lies and falsehoods even when they’ve been shown to be untrue.”
Love it, confessions…your observation is bang-on!!!
And, chris of Brisbane, you made me laugh in between my episodes of ‘incoherent’ left-wing bile-spewing!!!
17 February, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Meanwhile timmy wets himself over Rush Limbaugh linking to his blog.
“EXCELLENCE IN BROADCASTING” squeals timmy as he welcomes all of (currently) 6 limbaugh listerners to his site.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/excellence_in_broadcasting/
let’s put this in perspective. Rush Limbaugh is fawned over by the republicans in the US who are seriously on the outer wrt public opinion. he has stated plainly and very publicly that he hopes Obama fails and his stimulus package fails. In other words limbaugh is cheersquadding for ordinary americans to lose their jobs and for the recession in the US to worsen. oh yeah, and limbaugh reportedly has a $40M dollar contract with his broadcasting company and flies around in a private jet, presumably flies over the very homes foreclosing on the ordinary americans he claims to represent. and limbaugh is monstrously fat, but seemingly not as fat as Al Gore that it’s worth dismissing his views or mentioning his weight.
nice one timmy, talk about blindly hitching your wagon to some fucked up american retard who wouldn’t recognise struggle street if his private jet crash landed into it. limbaugh has recently had this prediliction of using the words “bend over and grab your ankles” to describe how he perceives republicans are behaving with Obama. funny, but that’s exactly the sentiments EXCELLENCE IN BROADCASTING evokes of timmy…..
18 February, 2009 at 5:55 am
Andrew Bolt is a dick (he has proven it in todays HUN ) He’s accusing the greens of using bush fires to ” prove global warming ” while doing exactly the same to bash the greens. ( using the deaths in the terrible fires ) Doing it on his blog is one thing but doing it in his column is another. I can just assume it’s been OK’ed by the editor of the HUN. This bloke has no shame.
18 February, 2009 at 7:15 am
Bolt is 100% right in his column today about the climate change evangelists using the bushfires to further their cause. Bob Brown, Tim flannery & the rest are just parasitic vultures salivating over the bushfire deaths to further their AGW religion. It’s disgusting & shameful.
18 February, 2009 at 8:19 am
“This bloke has no shame.”
you are absolutely right Geoff. it was only hours after the first bodies were recovered that andy started crowing about greenies being to blame for the bushfires, and using the dead as sticks to beat what he says are ‘green policies’. and he’s been crowing ever since. he’s so convinced he knows the causes of the fires, i’m surprised he hasn’t rubbished brumby’s royal commission.
i wonder if he sees the irony in that column? probably not.
18 February, 2009 at 8:43 am
you are absolutely right Geoff. it was only hours after the first bodies were recovered that andy started crowing about greenies being to blame for the bushfires, and using the dead as sticks to beat what he says are ‘green policies’.
Confessions it was the victims of the bushfires that were complaining to the media about their frustration with green policies of local councils. All Bolt has done is comment on what the victims were saying. In effect he was giving them a voice in the media.
The problem for you confessions is that by blaming the media for criticism of councils green policies which have contributed to the bushfires, you are in effect trying to silence the voices of the very victims that have suffered the most.
What it comes down to is the climate change movement trying to push their cause and greenies trying to cover their own arses by silencing the victims.
18 February, 2009 at 8:58 am
Green policies allow for controlled burning, extreme policies don’t, some wingnuts like to slip a ‘green’ in beteween the words ‘extreme’ and ‘policies’, why? becauuse they’re full of shit, trying to blame the ‘greens’ for the policies of non-greens, they are dishonest debaters, you could just as easily slip the word ‘liberal’ between ‘extreme’ and ‘policies’, you’d be just as wrong as the Boltards and other assorted fuckwits, but it wouuld be fun to see the rednecks get their knickers in a twist.
A contributing factor of the recent disaster could be ‘extreme council’ policies, I realise some like to slip the word green in! why?
18 February, 2009 at 9:04 am
Pipper you are a grade A fuckwit and hypocrit.
Bolt is doing exactly what he accuses others of (which by the way they aren’t), and you are either dishonest or have such a crush on him because you refuse to acknowledge as much.
18 February, 2009 at 9:08 am
“Pipper you are a grade A fuckwit and hypocrit.”
You’re spot on shane, but please don’t encourage the lying Boltard, when ignored he goes away.
18 February, 2009 at 9:10 am
Bolt is doing exactly what he accuses others of (which by the way they aren’t), and you are either dishonest or have such a crush on him because you refuse to acknowledge as much
Shane you are wrong. All Bolt has done is criticise the despicable actions of Climate change evangelists like Flannery & Bob Brown and comment on what the victims are saying. It is the victims of the bush fires that are venting their anger and frustrations at the green policies of their local councils that they believe have contributed to the ferocity of the bushfires.
Like confessions, you are silencing the voices of the victims by claiming that it is the media that are generating this.
18 February, 2009 at 9:45 am
Lee,
I haven’t seen an example of a Right-winger who has distanced themselves from the accusations you’ve mentioned…I haven’t looked for one and don’t see any reason to since I’m not a Right-winger, don’t agree with those who have blamed greenies and therefore see no reason to defend them.
This is the third time you’ve accused me of defending right-wing opinion…I’ve done no such thing — please show me a quote where I have.
Also show me a quote where I have blamed either the Greens Party or Greenies as a collective group.
Confessions, (and Lee),
Once again, those quotes you showed from me were an opinion not a “confident pronouncement”, hence the term “it seems…” had I been categorically stating they were to blame I would have said exactly that. In any case, the comments from the residents of the area and the fact that the Mayor of the council I was referring to has acknowledged, and had already done so at the time of my post, that their policies regarding native vegetation would be changed, would tend to support what I was saying about the policies of that specific council. (Please Note, I stressed at the time that I was referring only to that 1 council).
Rob,
I’m still waiting for the example from you of me stating a cause of the fires….
You have spent this entire thread taking small, out of context exerpts of what I have said and using them to misrepresent what I was actually saying…A tactic that I have noted you use on almost every thread in which you “debate” people.
I won’t be responding to you further — its pointless.
18 February, 2009 at 10:04 am
“I won’t be responding to you further — its pointless.”
You said it ;o)
Extreme ‘Green’ policies, when in fact the policies are NOT green!
19 February, 2009 at 8:04 am
Extreme ‘Green’ policies, when in fact the policies are NOT green!
Oh yes they are Rob. It’s just a disgrace how climate change evangelists and the green movement are trying so desperately to cover their own arses, especially after so many have died.
A DECISION to cancel almost half the burn-offs planned for NSW bushfire zones has put thousands of lives and properties in danger.
Frustrated volunteer firefighters yesterday lashed out at bureaucrats and greenies for preventing them from protecting communities. In one outrageous case, a woman was told by the State Government her fire escape route would remain an overgrown mess because it was a corridor for native flora and fauna.
More than 2100 hazard reduction operations planned by the Rural Fire Service were abandoned last year, the organisation’s annual report reveals.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25075004-5001021,00.html
19 February, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Where’s your evidence that ‘climate change evangelists’ and the ‘green movement’ are trying to cover their arses? I’ve not seen ANY reports/policy statements/pronouncements from your favourite scapegoats – ‘greens’ – that have solely sheeted the blame for these tragic fires to climate change; nor have they tried to pre-empt the findings of the Royal Commission (without ANY evidence) to one particular cause…quite unlike your right-wing buddies, who seem to have no compunction about opportunisticly exploiting this tragedy to further their political agenda…and you right-wingers have the NERVE to accuse ‘greenies’ of placing ideology before humans!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!! Who has reprehensibly raced to damn their political enemies in opinion pieces in Australia’s major newspapers while the dead are still being counted and charred homes/forests are still smoking??? It certainly AINT been the ‘greens’ or ‘lefties’. You people are disgusting!
19 February, 2009 at 5:54 pm
GavinM,
Yeah, I’m probably unreasonably (and without foundation) attacking you – certainly compared with some other right-wing posters, you don’t deserve it. However, considering the hysterical/unfounded and libellous slant of Bolt’s op pieces on the bushfires, I think I have every right to resort to incendiary language to point out Bolt’s hypocrisy; (he certainly has no qualms about using hyperbole to attack his political ‘foes’.) And anyway, isn’t that what this thread has ultimately been all about?… a debate about Bolt despicably blaming his political enemies in the most repellent way (with no basis in fact) just to provoke reaction and score ideological points?
19 February, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Oh, and by the way, Rad Pipper, if you still don’t understand the point I’m attempting to make re: the facile (and unproven) blame you sheet towards us ‘evil greenies’ for the bushfires – try this…you quote ONE report from the Daily Telegraph (hardly an unbiased source,) that supposedly proves your contention that ‘green’ policies have cost lives. However, I can cite quotes from Kinglake CFA volunteers who remarked on the lack of fire-preparedness of a large number of residents in the township. So who’s right? Unlike you, I wouldn’t be crass nor stupid enough to confidently lay the blame at the door of one group or group of individuals nor apportion responsibility for the fires to particular policies (or lack of policies,) before having all the evidence to hand. I have to wonder too, what you and shit-birds like Bolt would think of the fire-victims who were described as passionate environmentalists (check out last week’s Age profiles of some of the St Andrews victims); According to your twisted logic, they deserved to die – and, hey, while you’re at it, let’s blame these greenie murderers for the deaths of their neighbours too!!!
20 February, 2009 at 8:54 am
Lee,
Yes the thread is about Bolt bashing greenies, a point I thought I’d addressed and shown that I didn’t agree with when I said he was an arsehole for doing so somewhere near the top of the thread..
You still seem to be stuck on the idea that I’m a Right-winger, once again, I’m not…and I would again ask you to show some evidence that supports your claim that I am.
Rob has been trying to say that Nillimbuk Council’s policies are not green policies, he’s wrong, they aren’t the official policies of the Greens Party, a point that I stressed at the very beginning of this thread, however, they are that particular council’s green policies, please see the article below and take particular note of the comments from Rod Incoll:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25038717-5018722,00.html
I also will add once again that I have never said that these policies were the only factor involved, I’ve actually never given any opinion on the cause of the fires, only on the factors that I thought contributed to their severity, all of which have also been suggested in various tv and newspaper reports…Hence my request to Rob to show me a quote from me stating an opinion on the cause, you’ll note he hasn’t addressed that request, but has continued to claim that I have given such an opinion.
20 February, 2009 at 9:13 am
“Rob has been trying to say that Nillimbuk Council’s policies are not green policies, he’s wrong, they aren’t the official policies of the Greens Party”
They aren’t green policies, they aren’t endorsed by Greens who actually support controlled burn offs. they are stupid policies, just because you chose to add the word green doesn’t make it true!
“, but has continued to claim that I have given such an opinion.”
It’s in print on this Blog, we;ve all read it.
You personally made up the phrase ‘extreme Green policies’, maybe you nicked the stupidn statement from Bolt, either way you are wrong.
It’s OK I’m not expecting a response, you’ll probably choose to ignore this as you have with my point about Hamas accepting Israel within ‘67 borders and your falure to respond to my request for you to condemne Israel for it’s imminenet expansion of illegal settlements in the west Bank.
“I also will add once again that I have never said that these policies were the only factor involved”
We know that, you just erroneously labled them as Green and then dismissed AGW as a contributing factor!
20 February, 2009 at 9:31 am
They aren’t green policies, they aren’t endorsed by Greens who actually support controlled burn offs. they are stupid policies, just because you chose to add the word green doesn’t make it true!
How typically dishonest of rob to state this. Since when has Green Policy in general been 100% owned by the Australian Greens party?. The problem for you rob is that you are trying to argue that for it to be classified as “Green Policy”, it has to be a policy of the “Australian Greens Party”.
This is so typical of you Rob to distort the fact is a dishonest way. Shame on you, Shame.
20 February, 2009 at 11:03 am
““, but has continued to claim that I have given such an opinion.”
It’s in print on this Blog, we;ve all read it.”
Really ? — so, once again, show the quote from me giving an opinion, as you have claimed I have done, on the CAUSE of the FIRES.
“They aren’t green policies, they aren’t endorsed by Greens who actually support controlled burn offs.”
How do you know what the green groups involved endorsed ? Are you a member of one or all of those groups who petitioned this Council ?
These policies have been implemented by this council at the urging of green groups — that makes them green policies. Your continued attempts to split hairs and deny that fact are ridiculous.
As to AGW, since for some reason you keep clinging to my “dismissal” of it as a factor — I said I didn’t think it was a factor because the same weather patterns and conditions occurred in our major fires previous to this, you also may care to note that I said I could well be wrong in my not thinking it a factor…So once again, you have no point here.
Tell me, since you seem to believe that it’s such an important point, do you think AGW is a contributing factor ?
As to Israel, I don”t recall your question to me about their proposed expansion in the West Bank, I do recall answering your one about them withdrawing to the pre-67 borders, I believe I said something along the lines that they should, but given the political and strategic situation over there I think that it is unlikely to happen in the near future, they certainly shouldn’t be increasing the settlements in the West Bank though, thats news to me, I haven’t actually heard reports that they were.
20 February, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“…they certainly shouldn’t be increasing the settlements in the West Bank though, thats news to me, I haven’t actually heard reports that they were…”
I’m not having a go at you, Gavin, but I’m just letting you know that RobJ is absolutely correct – it was reported in the Age this week (17/2,) that the Israeli Civil Administration has declared 170 hectares in the West Bank as “state land”; this allows for the contruction of a further 2,500 illegal houses on the land north of the Israeli settlement of Efrat.
20 February, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Hello Lee,
No worries, I just haven’t seen those reports…As I said above, I certainly don’t support them doing so, for what its worth, I have said on other threads that you probably haven’t seen, that I reckon they should withdraw from the West Bank…
Too many hawks on both sides over there I fear…
20 February, 2009 at 1:26 pm
‘..they certainly shouldn’t be increasing the settlements in the West Bank though, thats news to me, I haven’t actually heard reports that they were…’
Hey Gavin,
I’m not having a go at you but RobM is right. It was reported in the Age (17/2), that the Israeli Civil Administration has declared an extra 170 hectares as in the West Bank as “state land”. This now allows for the construction of 2,500 more illegal houses on occupied land north of the illegal Israeli settlement of Efrat.
20 February, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Whoops, sorry Gavin!
According to my stupid computer (not to mention my techno-illiteracy), my first post re: the West Bank and the report of increased settlement expansion didn’t go through…sorry for doubling up!
Btw the way, I appreciated your reply in regards to my first post about this issue…I think – unlikely as it may have originally seemed to me – we share some common ground!
20 February, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Hello again Lee,
I’ve come across similar troubles with double postings at times too…damn pc’s have minds of their own I reckon.
And yes, I do believe we share at least some common ground — who knows, we might be surprised just how much other stuff we agree on too :)
I don’t want to start the debate up again because I reckon I’ve said all I’ve got to say, but I would like to stress again to you that I never attempted to lay any blame on either the Greens Party or Greenies as a collective group.
I’m really not a Right-winger, I think I’m more of a Centrist (is that a word ?), on some issues I tend to lean to the Left’s way of thinking, others I lean to the Right’s….
20 February, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hey Gavin,
Me being the techno-tard I am, I’m not sure if TB/BWP is gonna be permanently discontinued in favour of the ‘Poison Pen’ site in the near future…Regardless, I’ve now registered myself under the moniker ‘Mudhoney’ on P.P. and am looking forward to continuing our battles there (and, who knows, maybe occasionally reaching consensus!)
20 February, 2009 at 3:17 pm
…hey, I told you I was a retard, I can’t even get the name of the damn site correct…’Pure Poison’, NOT ‘Poison Pen’ (she repeats while smacking her forehead repeatedly…!!!)
20 February, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Lol…Dare I say…I reckon you’d be no more technically challenged than I am…I’m registered there too, still GavinM — what can I say, no imagination.
Mudhoney — That wouldn’t be referencing the band would it by any chance ? I used to like a lot of their stuff.
20 February, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Gavin,
Wow! Hail fellow traveller re: Mudhoney…Yeah, ABSOLUTELY I’m referring to the band! Sooo cool to meet someone who even knows they are. Unfortunately, I s’pose we should stop this conversational thread (much as I’d like to continue it,) due to its off-topicness, but being a newbie, I’m not sure of the protocol here and I imagine I might be deserving of a verbal slap if I continue talking ’bout non-Bolt/Blair issues…or am I unfairly assuming a doctrinaire attitude on behalf of Jeremy and co??
20 February, 2009 at 4:13 pm
They aren’t too tyrannical…And I reckon there’s probably not too much more to be said on the topic that hasn’t been already, so I reckon they’d forgive us for digressing, (looking over shoulder, ready to duck)…
I think most have moved to the new site now, so not too many people will probably come back to this thread — Stands to be corrected ;)
I’ve got a couple of Mudhoney CD’s somewhere at home…Haven’t been aired for a while, my kids won’t let me near the stereo…Its been so long since they were taken out of the rack that I’m having trouble remembering what their names are….I think one’s called Every Good Kid Deserves Fudge — something like that anyway…I’ll have to hunt them out over the weekend.
20 February, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Please do! (and by the way, you’re nearly right – the album is called ‘Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge’.) I think we established in earlier correspondence that we’re about the same age, so I have to tell you, it freaks me out that you mention your kids – not because you’re abnormal, but because it reminds me of what a specimen of arrested development I happen to be! I know that EVERYONE says that they don’t feel older than 15, but in my case it’s true. I reckon my partner and I are doing well to responsibly care for our cat (and, less, successfully, ourselves!), but when posts such as yours acknowledge that most people our age have teenage kids, well, Jeez, that’s SUCH a spin-out! I think my retarded Peter-Pan attitude is a huge contributor to my highly emotional, passionate, hyperbolic, possibly irrational and all-guns-blazing style of ‘debating’ when it comes to contentious topics…that doesn’t excuse my weak arguments, Gavin, but maybe it provides you with some sort of understanding re: my outbursts.
Anyway, would love to hear if you manage to find your Mudhoney CDs on the weekend
ps – If you don’t mind telling me, can I ask how old your kids are? (Totally understand if you don’t wanna reveal that info tho.)
20 February, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Don’t ever grow up Lee, I sure don’t intend to…I’m enjoying my second childhood ;)
My wife and I have 3 kids, 2 boys – 18 and 13 (eldest is actually my stepson), and my daughter is 9 — she’s the real boss of the house. (I’m 46, but thats a secret between you and me, don’t tell anyone else ok….;)…
And don’t worry about having outbursts, we all have those…I reckon it just shows you are passionate about the topic. I know I was a little harsh on you in that first exchange — I apologise for that, I think you caught me at a bad moment, I promise I’ll do my best not to let it happen again.
Speaking of my daughter, she wants the pc now so I’m being kicked off — I was at work before, so could do what I wanted — I better go, with any luck I’ll be able to get back on later tonight at some stage…
20 February, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Thanx for the cool reply, Gavin! Am looking forward to hearing from u again; (but totally understand if Gen Y/Z offspring might make that proposition a little difficult!)
xL
21 February, 2009 at 7:54 am
Hello Lee,
Quick note to let you know I’ll come back here on Monday to say hello…
The good news is that I found those 2 CD’s Piece of Cake is the one I couldn’t remember the name of. Now, to get rid of the kids and the wife for an hour or 2 so I can play them….
Hopefully I’ll hear from you on Monday :)
23 February, 2009 at 7:03 am
Well gee lets go thru this step by step.
Have socialist environmental activists been influential in having hazard reduction and fire burnoffs reduced at least across the east coast?
Answer: yes
Have land management policy makers advised government to reduce hazard reduction and fire burnoffs across the east coast?
Answer: yes
Do socialist environmental activists give a damn about regional australians?
Answer: Nope!
Whilst people were dying and property and livlihood were being destroyed did activists and global warming alarmists blame man made global warming for the fires, yet fail to give a figure of precisely how man made global warming did this?
Answer: Yes
Are socialist environmental activists dishonest, bigotted and aggressive, and on par with the dregs of society eg drug dealers and pedophiles?
Answer: yes to all.
If socialist environmental activists actually had a conscious and actually cared for society then they would have apologised to the community for their contributions to Black Saturday.
The fact remains they haven’t and they won’t. They are too angry, and loathe themselves and society too much.
Cheers
23 February, 2009 at 10:33 am
Hello Lee if you see this…
I haven’t made any comments on the new site yet — just a couple of questions in one of the earlier posts there about how wide they are going to cast the net as it were, in regards to finding nutty Left or Right wing commentators..
At the moment it just seems to be a bit of a bash-fest there between rival bloggers — I’m not really interested in that sort of stuff..
I hope you had a great weekend, they’re never long enough I don’t reckon…Did you get up to anything interesting ?
23 February, 2009 at 11:53 am
“.. he must have some kind of personality disorder because only the mentally unstable continue their lies and falsehoods even when they’ve been shown to be untrue.”
Yep.
The guy has a textbook book case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or NPD.
Permit me to demonstrate…
“A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
-has a grandiose sense of self-importance
-is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
-believes that he or she is “special” and unique
-requires excessive admiration
-has a sense of entitlement
-is interpersonally exploitative
-lacks empathy
-is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
-shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
I have urged Bolt to get help on more than one occasion, but to this day he denies that he has a problem.
Truly sad.
23 February, 2009 at 7:26 pm
DbD please come to the new blog!
23 February, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Ravensclaw, nice to see that you’re still pushing the disgusting line that left-wingers/environmentalists (the ususual scape-goats for you right-wing nut-jobs), should be blamed for the environmental woes of this country generally, and the bushfires specifically. How many times does it need to be pointed out that us so called ‘greens’ are more concerned about the land and the liveliehood of you who live upon it than the free-markerteers you seem to so insanely embrace? You can’t, can you?? You have the temerity to blame environmentalists for not providing evidence for their predictions that these sort of ferocious super-fires were in our furture (and, in fact have the repulsive crassness to blame us for the fires – always charging ‘Greens’ for preventing fuel-reduction burns etc etc). However, for every environmental disaster that the scientists who have alerted us to man-made climate change comes true (and, unfortunately a lot faster than their models predicted;) your beloved head-in-the sand conservatives would have us believe that in fact, climate change is good for the world and that we’re only gonna benefit from the huge increase of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It’s just a shame that the theories of right-wing nutters and their cheer-squad (obviously including people like you), aren’t being proven by the science. And no doubt, you’re gonna kick and scream like a baby and say that the science isn’t conclusive, but I have to wonder if even ONE THIRD of the science that supports the theory of man-made climate change was used instead to support some pet right-wing theory instead, would you be so quick to dismiss it? I BET NOT!!
23 February, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Hey Gavin,
After setting up my new moniker, have to say I haven’t been back to the Pure Poison site as yet. Felt obliged to respond to ‘Ravenclaw’s’ offensive post tonight (no doubt making a fool of myself/revealing my uneducated ignorance YET AGAIN); but apart from that, haven’t done anything of any note.
Love talking to you about things that aren’t strictly within the purview of these sites – but totally understand that these aren’t social-networking sites and people might start getting pissed if we continue ‘abusing’ ‘em as message boards (or am I being a bit paranoid??). Being the techno-retard I am, I don’t really know what to suggest as an alternative. Any suggestions? Btw, hope you had a good weekend too – did you get to play the Mudhoney discs???
23 February, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Dbd,
Loved your spot-on assessment of one A. Bolt…no doubt he’ll dispute it, but we know that many of the most delusional of patients refuse to recognise that there’s anything wrong with them – very like those poor unfortunate and intractable but evil souls who are designated as suffering anti-social personality disorder; (also known as psychopaths or sociopaths.) Unfortunately, these people shouldn’t be released into society – if they are, they tend to gravitate towards the criminal-classes (mainly hitmen for hire or serial killers); the right faction of the Liberal Party (whatever state) or find succour as op-piece hacks for News Corp.
24 February, 2009 at 7:15 am
However, for every environmental disaster that the scientists who have alerted us to man-made climate change comes true (and, unfortunately a lot faster than their models predicted;) your beloved head-in-the sand conservatives would have us believe that in fact, climate change is good for the world and that we’re only gonna benefit from the huge increase of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere
Les you are a perfect example of a Climate change evangelist salivating over the deaths in the bushfires to further your AGW cause.
The problem with your argument Les is that these bushfires are in our PAST. 1851, 1909, 1919, 1926, 1939, 1983, 2009. In FACT the 1851 black Thursday fires were the most ferocious fires in our history.
The lengths greenies will go to to cover their own arses is astonishing. Shame on you SHAME.
24 February, 2009 at 9:25 am
Hi Lee,
I’m sure if the moderators aren’t happy with us talking about off topic stuff on this particular thread, they’ll let us know … As these threads get older, people tend to stop visting them anyway.
I’m severely techno-challenged too, so I’m not sure what other options there are to converse with you either, I’ve heard of this facebook thing, but I’ve got no idea how it works. I don’t reckon people will get too annoyed if we chat. I didn’t get a chance to play the CD’s…But I will eventually.
As to education, hey — I think you and I are on a par there, but there’s always the school of life…I’m probably old-fashioned but I reckon book learning is no substitute for actual experience. Theory is all well and good but practical experience is the real test.
Back briefly to the posts above, I think Ravensclaw went more than a bit over the top with his/her post…Your reply seemed mostly pretty reasonable to me, the only thing I would say is that I’m sceptical of the influence of climate change being a factor in these fires, only because, as Rad says above, there has been similar weather patterns leading up to many of our major fires in the past….I guess time will tell on that one though.
I probably should declare to you now that although I won’t deny that climate change is occurring, I question how much is man-made and how much is due to natural cycles and events — I guess from that perspective I’m what you’d call an AGW sceptic…While I’m waiting for conclusive proof of man’s responsibility, I reckon it can only be to our own benefit to reduce pollution anyway, provided its done in a sensible manner without bankrupting the country.
24 February, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Gavin,
I know we have different views on the whole climate-change thing, but I’d have hoped that a person who seems to have a grasp on climate-change theory would support my assessment (if only ‘cos evidence shows that the worst-case scenarios predicted by the C/C experts are already being met.) I just don’t understand what deniers think they’re gonna benefit from their mad denial! According to the most respected climate-change evidence, we aint gonna be living on this planet comfortably after 2020…Why deny this? Is it all about pathetic political allegiance/big business $$$?. As I said, I don’t have a clue why right-wingers wanna use the potential death of our planet – as we know it- to stymie the (admittedly inadequate) response of K. Rudd. Sadly, on reflection, I do understand, that it’s all ’bout making $$$ and genuflecting to the God Mammon. God, we’ve already experienced in the most horrific way what happens after a massive and unprecedented drought and record-breaking summer temps and lack of rainfall…I think it’s disgusting to blame the usual scape-goat (the Greens) by a pathetic right-wing bias without any hard evidence – Jeez, Green supporting scientists are the only group who’ve had their predictions borne out by hard evidence (unlike the right-wing arseholes who’ve had the lack of class to allow them to blame everyone else.) Seriously, what are the Coalition expecting that their followers do after they’ve fucked this planet up so much as to make it uninhabitable? – Are they gonna take off in their spaceships to Mars? (‘cos, being the ruling party, they’ll have of course, secured the rights to a satellite planet – HEY, FUCK EVERYONE ELSE!!!
24 February, 2009 at 9:09 pm
‘I probably should declare to you now that although I won’t deny that climate change is occurring, I question how much is man-made and how much is due to natural cycles and events — I guess from that perspective I’m what you’d call an AGW sceptic…While I’m waiting for conclusive proof of man’s responsibility, I reckon it can only be to our own benefit to reduce pollution anyway, provided its done in a sensible manner without bankrupting the country.’
And that’s why I love u, Gavin! You’re very confident about your stance on ‘climate change;’ (though I personally think you’re so wrong!) Yet you don’t indulge in the disgusting, smart-arse, offensive comments of some other contributors to this site. And even if you and I don’t agree on the cause/extent of man-made climate change, you are cool, humble and integrity-filled enough to recognise that it can’t hurt to acknowledge the principles of us climate-change true-believers!
24 February, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Hi Lee,
Hope you’ve had a good day today…Mine flew, I sat down at my desk and suddenly it was lunch time, then I looked up and it was time to go home — wish every working day would go like that.
You lost me a little with that 8.47 post, I’m not sure who you mean by the Coalition ? I’ve heard that the biggest polluters — (unsure of the order) — are USA, USSR, China and India, with Brazil a significant contributor as well, once again though, I’m not sure how much even of their emissions really contribute to the changing weather patterns.
I think its only in the detail that we disagree on climate change, as I said, there seems to be plenty of evidence that it’s happening, it’s only the degree of man’s culpability that I wonder about. Remembering that AGW and Global Warming per se are two different things…AGW is the theory of man-made warming, that’s where I’m sceptical.
To be honest, I don’t have the science nouse to really get deeply involved in discussions about it, so I’m happy to leave it to people who are far more knowledgeable than I am, (not hard), to work out the major cause…Once all the science is agreed I’ll go with it, whichever way the cards fall.
In any event, less pollution equals me breathing easier, so that has to be a good thing :)
24 February, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Hey Gavin,
If we can find another site to freely correspond ’bout something other than political issues; (as I said, I realise our socialising on this site is prob. not kosher), would really ‘preciate if you can let me know.
xL
ps – Am listening to The Drones on my MP3 while texting you…do you know ‘em???? If you don’t, let me tell you, they are the most amazing indie Aus act – 2 songs of theirs are partic. amazing….Ist: “Jezebel”; but, even more mind-blowing is “16 Straws”….
Seriously…NO band can/will ever be able to compare to the raw emotion of “16 Straws”.
Pls listen 2 it Gavin (and anyone else who’s accessed this site – no matter their political allegiance!)
24 February, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Rad Piper,
I dunno why I’m bothering wasting my time responding to such an obvious wing-nut who has no legitimate interest in unbiasedly examining all the factors that have contributed to to the horrible destruction of ‘Black Saturday’. A dickhead like you obviously has his/her mind already made up, without considering ANY evidence that doesn’t fit within his/her political purview. So long as you can bang on about the evils of left-wingers, you’ll be happy won’t you, Rad???
FUCKING PATHETIC!
Btw, you’ve accused me of a ridiculous, ideological approval of any left-winger – however, I have to assume that, given the wanky, mental parameters in your arguments, George D’ubya and Li’l Johnny are two of your greatest heroes; (actually, considering the shit you’ve spun, my sarcastic references are probably not irony at all according to you, but examples of a proud, glorious truth!!!)
25 February, 2009 at 7:25 am
Lee, If you have a read through old posts you will quickly come to realise Rad’s mission is to bait people, much like his idol(bolt) does, then once he provokes an angry response he can sit back smug and superior and think he has won the argument. Rad does not seek to engage in or add anything meaningful to the debate, and is largely ignored by most posters here.
Years ago I used to think that Andrew Bolt must have a mental illness, due to the clear illogical insanity of most of the rubbish he writes, although I must admit occasionally he writes something surprisingly perceptive, perhaps someone else helps him with those articles. The one flaw in the argument that Bolt is mentally ill is that mental illness requires a brain. Bolt’s head is filled with fairy floss, he thinks with what he sits on, perhaps that’s why he’s such an arse-hole.
25 February, 2009 at 10:28 am
Hi Lee,
My son uses a sametime online communication thing with his friends, they log on and the message they type in pops up on the screen…I’ll ask him what it is and how to go about installing / setting it up.
I haven’t heard of the Drones, guess I’m a bit older than you after all :) I’ll check them out.
PS: Sorry if a similar reply pops up, I tried posting one earlier which doesn’t seem to have worked…
25 February, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Hi Ron.
I don’t know about a mental illness. I’ve come to realise that he will say anything to get published. It’s no good being one of many people contributing sound analysis in competitive journalism. I have to admit, his style works. He just argues against the prevailing philosophy, (no bad thing except when he does it automatically and predictably), thereby ensuring that he promotes maximum reaction. This equals greater newspaper circulation and blog hits.
If you look at his writing, it’s pretty lazy stuff. He chants a few hackneyed cliches about the left and greenies. Because a few right wingers read it in the newspaper, and because they’ve made up their mind beforehand anyway ,that is enough to prove the argument. Bolt said it and he says it again, and again, blah, blah, therefore it must be true.
The man must have some macro or template on his desktop which he can adapt to any issue. He just has to hit “print”. I must admit, when I was reading his crowing over the bushfires, trying to score points in a time of terrible suffering, I did think that he had shamed himself badly.
However, he has done this repeatedly before, (remember the poor infant found in the “Green” bag?) and he does not seem to mind.
It’s all about income I think. Let’s face it, he does not mind if he is contributing to damaging the world by ridiculing those he is soooo jealous of, (people like Flannery), knowing that his writings will unfortunately influence some people to try to scupper the “dreaded greenies” in any way they can.
The reason he does not mind is that he is wealthy. Wealthy people will be better placed to avoid the effects of climate change. It’s a bit like making your money from tobacco or gambling. Most likely you won’t have to be exposed to the effects, so why have any principles?
25 February, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Thanks for the heads-up Ron!
I have to admit, I’m occassionally (obviously?) in the grip of a few coldies when replying (in my very florid terms) to responses I think are particularly offensive/mental on this site. While I will never back away from the gist of any of the statements I’ve posted on this site, I do admit to cringing at my phrasing when I’ve re-read said comments sober!
Hey, I’m happy to admit that the way I couch my arguments may be embarrassing, yet, I still reckon that my posts are heaps better (and 100% more accurate), than the entirely false/spurious/obviously politically-blinkered shit that Boltards continue to spew (and get mainstream publication for in Daddy Murdoch’s press!)
However, as I said Ron, I really do appreciate your kind and instructional comments re: navigating this site and dealing with some of the more colourful right-wing ‘characters’!
Thanks heaps – you (and Gavin,) have made me feel a lot better about continuing to post here…will try to do so with a few less ‘brews’ on board in future!
xL
25 February, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Rob W,
Just read your post – soooo damn true, it makes me wanna cry! I mean really!…If these wealthy mother-fuckers don’t believe that our planet is on the verge of collapse, that’s one thing…however (despite what Boltard and the rest of those tabloid hacks proclaim), I reckon these pricks KNOW that earth is on it’s last legs. But, sadly – as you said Rob , these evil, capitalist scum (and their News Corp. cheer-leaders,) are intent on raping every last cent they can from Earth before we destroy it ‘cos they’re confident that scientists will have colonised another planet for us humans to ruin (which, of course, will only have places saved for the highest bidders… ie them – the original evil, rich destroyers!!!)
26 February, 2009 at 8:44 am
, I reckon these pricks KNOW that earth is on it’s last legs. But, sadly – as you said Rob , these evil, capitalist scum (and their News Corp. cheer-leaders,) are intent on raping every last cent they can from Earth before we destroy it ‘cos they’re confident that scientists will have colonised another planet for us humans to ruin (which, of course, will only have places saved for the highest bidders… ie them – the original evil, rich destroyers!!!)
OMG – said like a true climate change evangelist who has become uncontrollably hysterical. Lee the sky is not falling and you need to have a good hard look in the mirror to realise that you have become, chicken little.
When a person starts using phrases like this;
that earth is on it’s last legs ….
capitalist scum ….
raping every last cent they can from Earth before we destroy it …..
You know that they have TOTALLY LOST THE PLOT.
I know feel concerned for your mental state Lee.
26 February, 2009 at 11:06 am
BTW Chicken little Lee, you need to read this;
http://www.theage.com.au/national/anatomy-of-a-firestorm-20090225-8hvi.html?page=-1
It is fashionable to promote climate change as being a contributor to changing fire frequency and intensity. The pattern of rainfall over the past century does not point to a trend of reduction in rainfall. Nor has any link been offered between global temperature trends and the meteorology of Victorian heatwaves. Extreme bushfire events are rare events and must be analysed according to the statistics relating to rare events; the breaking of a previous temperature record established 70 years earlier does not establish an underlying trend.
So the sky isn’t falling after all?!
26 February, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What a surprise that you’re quoting William Kininmonth, Rad, to “prove” your point! This was the guy that was shown up for being the truth manipulating denial-dinosaur he is by Prof. David Karoly in a climate-change debate last year at Kew Town Hall. Hey, Bill might never have had any of his Luddite denial pieces printed in peer-reviewed journals, but he’s a regular contributor to Quadrant, so he obviously knows what he’s talking about!
Evidently, he’s an old boy of the same Climate Sciences School that Dr. Boltenstein graduated from.
26 February, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Oh, and btw, Rad…guilty as charged re: going overboard with some of my comments, and while I don’t shy away from the sentiments at all, I do (on re-reading ‘em,) wish I hadn’t resorted to such ‘colourful’ hyperbole on occasion.
But if you’re gonna have a go about my ‘hysterical’ posts, how about you have a look at your main-man Bolt…This is the guy who accused ‘Finding Nemo’ of a ‘greenie’ agenda in a Herald-Sun piece after the film was released. This is also the man who just recently blogged something along the lines of “Greenies hate you and are happy that you’ve lost your job!” This insane assertion from Dr. Bolt was made in response to a comment from Ross Garnaut (you know, the noted environmental warrior!!!), who simply stated that the global economic crisis might provide us with a little more breathing room of 2-3 years in which to actively develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Bolt’s sooo right – this is obviously the comment of an evil man who will be rejoicing every time he sees the unemployment figures go up. No doubt he was skolling the Moet last night after hearing of the loss of nearly 2000 jobs at Pacific Brands!
26 February, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Finally Rad, …I find it laughable that you criticise the stuff I post as emotive, hysterical and without any real basis in fact. But unlike your hero (eg Boltenstein), at least I’m not shameless enough to call myself a “journalist” who will, without conscience, happily keep raking in the big $$$ for spewing my boring old biases while accusing others of doing the same! And, even worse, pretend that I’m on the side of the “worker”, when all the while, everyone knows that I pity/hate/fear those “bogans” and have no qualms about writing pieces that knowingly and constantly subverts their best interests just to feather my own nest!
27 February, 2009 at 7:33 am
What a surprise that you’re quoting William Kininmonth, Rad, to “prove” your point! This was the guy that was shown up for being the truth manipulating denial-dinosaur he is by Prof. David Karoly in a climate-change debate last year at Kew Town Hall.
*YAWN* Oh so predictable. Attack the man not the science. How about dealing with the climate science that was put forward instead of trying to smear the messenger. That’s the biggest problem with climate change evangelists, they know that when it comes to a serious debate about the science, they will loose, so they attack the person and try & smear them.
Well at least the world is finally waking up from this climate change evangelist rubbish and governments around the world are starting to distance themselves from climate change policy.
27 February, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hey Rad, how about re-reading your own words and getting back to me re ‘the science’ of climate change. It’s you deniers who continue to hold fast to your increasingly laughable and untenable position, despite the huge majority of reputable, credible scientists who are coming up with ever-more solid evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of man-made climate change…yet you’re accusing me of ignoring the science???
Seriously – and I’m really not being facetious here; I do wanna understand – what is it that you deniers find so – I dunno – almost offensive about admitting that man-made climate change is happening?? Is it the $$$ aspect and the fear that us humans will have to radically change and re-think our profligate, consumerist ways to try and prevent catastrophe or is it some sorta weird Christian thing – ie, the Bible talks about humans having ‘dominion’ over the natural world, so therefore, if we start recognising and placing importance upon the environment, you deniers consider it akin to evil, Satan-worshipping paganism???
ps – I thought my criticism of William Kininmonth WAS about attacking his science and not the man – I don’t remember making any personal criticisms of him in my post.
pps – Where is the ‘evidence’ that governments around the world are ’starting to distance themselves from climate change policy’? I would’ve thought that with the election of Rudd and Obama, the reverse is true – granted, I’m not claiming that they are/will do enough to prevent us reaching dangerous tipping-points, but, unlike those denial dinosuars Howard and Dubya, at least they recognise it’s REAL! Even the Coalition here are desperately trying to paint themselves as much more serious about climate-change than Rudd! Oh, and btw, the largest emitters in the developing world don’t deny that man-made climate-change is real either, so, I don’t really know who you’re referring to. If you mean that some governments are questioning the METHODS by which we tackle man-made climate-change, that’s entirely different.
27 February, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Sorry, but re-reading the previous posts, I can’t resist but having a go at the mental climate-change deniers I’m gonna have to put up with! Seriously, these people are mental!!!
27 February, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Hey…They really are mad!!!!
28 February, 2009 at 8:45 am
Sorry, but re-reading the previous posts, I can’t resist but having a go at the mental climate-change deniers I’m gonna have to put up with! Seriously, these people are mental!!!
Dude your post sounds like the rantings of a religious nut. Rad has a point, debate the science. All you have done is try and smear the scientist Rad quoted and rant like a religious nut.
28 February, 2009 at 7:13 pm
“That’s the biggest problem with climate change evangelists, they know that when it comes to a serious debate about the science, they will loose, so they attack the person and try & smear them.”
The only true thing Rad has ever said on this site…
Problem is, he doesn’t realise just who the “climate change evangelists” really are!
BTW Lee, i dont think his site is going to have any new threads added. Might as well shift the debate over to Pure Poison. The fact Rad doesnt post there is only one of its advantages!
28 February, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Thanks DBD,
Will do!
And, Ron Blogger, considering that this site has always been about exposing the hysterical/unfounded/ideologically-driven/ ‘play the man/woman rather than the science’ opinion pieces of Bolt and Blair, I reckon it’s mind-boggling that you’re whingeing about me ‘allegedly’ doing the same. If that tactic’s good enough for your beloved conservative hacks to constantly utilise (and you’re obviously happy enough with said tactics to defend them on this site), then why shouldn’t I – or anyone else on this site – use the same tactics to attack them? Not that I’m admitting I’ve ‘attacked the man’ at all…could you and Rad please point out where it is exactly in my post critical of Kininmonth that I’ve had a go at him personally rather than his dubious science??
Comments are closed.