Interesting stuff

"all is not written literally on the internet. both alp and lnp have constructed policies for decades that they don't really believe in to appease the noisy greens *who only ever called for fire management*

Fixed that for you mate. Seriously though, if you really believe what you wrote in that paragraph, and you really believe the greens are therefore to blame for the alp and lnp policies to defund the fire services, then I ain't the naive one between us.

As for the ABC thing. If all the evidence for the greens fault is two hippies holding up a sign about the timing of a burn and disrupting it, well that's pretty flimsy. Believe what you want but, the greens didn't call for or enact the funding cuts to the fire services. If those policies were made because of the greenies then that's on the manor parties.

Also just quietly, if the green lobby has so much influence as to control policy I'm surprised we don't have an emissions trading scheme and so forth. After all, there's majority support for climate action. Or maybe it's just a crock of shit that they've influenced anything at all.

I wholeheatedly believe what I wrote in that paragraph. it's a fact, the greens influence is way beyond their number of seats, otherwise we wouldn't be talkng about them.

I said nothing about the greens being to "....blame for the alp and lnp policies to defund the fire services..."

absolutely nothing at all! ...ya gettin a bit words in mouthy there...

there's much more to the abc thing than two old hippies holding a sign. they put that post up to support the position of the hippies against burning ...when the (ignorant person) zietghiest was leaning that way. then they purposely took it down anticipating a change in mood with the fires

that's all fine, it's their little abc, they should serve their local ccmmunity as they see fit, but to me, it's a bad bad look trying to edit history

mate, sorry and half your luck if you are too youthful to remember, but australia pretty much did have an emissions trading scheme many moons ago, but it failed to get up , because the greens were drunk with power, and the ets model wasn't pure enough for them, ...and so they voted it down!

yes voted against it

so mate, I don't blame the greens for any of that other stuff, I just said they have an influence well beyond their numbers. I stand by that statement

however, I flat out blame them for voting down the emissions trading scheme - it's one of the biggest fuck ups in australia's political history - right up there with smoco's handling of this situation

look it up

Few weeks ago you were saying the Murdoch papers have no influence.

Just a feelz you have.

Now, another feelz, it's the Greens who despite all available evidence to the contrary - including their own policies - have influence beyond their designated power.

I never said murdoch has no influence, I said his influence is exaggerated and obsessed over. and it is.

the man has huge influence, but generally it's only RW nutters that buy his bullshit anyway, so preaching to the converted

do you really think the greens only have the influence of the pissy number of seats that they have dwindled down to?

Yes.

People might have green - small 'g' - ideas on some matters, yet also vote Labor or LNP or whatever, but you simply cant hold the Greens - big 'G' - accountable for reduction burns when their policy at both state and federal level says nothing of the sort.

It's lazy and unjust thinking.

EDIT: And just so I don't get undercut, no I'm not a Green voter and have my own reasons for shunning them, but this constant lie, and now your unproven assertion about influence, is bollocks. 

I have never blamed the party directly

I said it's greenies, the greens, and the thinking that has developed around the influence of these groups over the las few decades

it's bigger than the party

"I have never blamed the party directly

I said it's greenies, the greens, and the thinking that has developed around the influence of these groups over the las few decades

it's bigger than the party"

100% people just keep ignoring this, ive stopped using the word greens and use green ideologies instead.

Like we have said its not all on them, but the mindset is a factor especially at more local levels.

So, just to get it straight, despite openly having policy about hazard reduction burns, and despite no evidence of ever having blocked hazard reduction burns, the party can still be fingered because you can link some people's thinking to them?

Considering that awfully distant and tenuous case of causality, how do you square away Smoko saying he accepts climate science while SOMEONE ON HIS OWN FRONT BENCH just thirty minutes ago said they flatly deny climate change?

See what I mean about unjust?

sypkan not having a go here but youve got the history of the ETS completely wrong there mate.

When Rudd was trying to get the ETS up, he needed all 7 cross-bench votes in the senate if he was going to get past the coalition. The greens had 5. If he'd given them what they wanted, the one Family First senator would have voted against it for sure, and even if he got Xenaphon's vote, it would have been 38-38 in the senate. There was no way the ALP could have got 7 votes from greens, Xenaphon and FF. It's just too wide a spectrum. So they negotiated something with Turnbull and the LNP to make sure they got it through. But then Turnbull got rolled and Abbott killed the whole thing. The greens didn't vote it down, even if they'd voted for it, the LNP + Family First would have killed it.

Look at the senate numbers here and see if you can figure out a way Rudd could have worked with the greens to get it through:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2008%E2%...

Once the greens did have some power, after the 2010 election, lo and behold they worked with Gillard and we got an ETS! But Abbott killed that again as soon as he was elected in 2013.

Here's the numbers after the 2010 election when Gillard created the ETS with Bob Brown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2011%E2%...

Honestly to blame the greens for not having an ETS is rubbish, especially since we got one thanks to them and Gillard as soon as they had any real power. Abbott killed it both times.

Sorry you thought I was putting words in your mouth about the alp and lnp but those are the policies that have led to this fuckup so I figured thats what you meant when you said the greens were responsible.

And if the ABC took down a post supporting the hippies, that's only correct it shouldn't have been up in the first place since they aren't allowed to have editorial positions on that sort of stuff. And a regional ABC facebook page is hardly representative of the entire organisation.

Chart the confusion and delusion.

Seppo:

"Yeh I get that stunet and facto. And I fully acknowledge that murdoch with his power, actually frames the debates.

But at the end of the day murdoch is just talkng about what 'the common man' is talking about in the street.

Whereas the likes of the guardian or the abc don't want to show the wide open gate in the cyclone fence - just out of shot of a carefully cropped photo - because it doesn't suit their agenda. I would argue that omission of facts can be just as damaging ro public debate as much as any massaging of facts.

So if murdoch press writes a story that appears to tell more truth to the story, then thay are going to win that battle. Carefully scripting the narrative just doesn't work in an internet age, yet the left are vehemently holding on to these archaic practices

This doesn't even consider the fact people love scandals, gratuitious gossip and gotchas. Taking the high road doesn't make something go away. While something may not seem important, or worthy of light to some abc or guardian writer, it may mean the world to some poor soul literally competing for a toilet cleaning position."

As the 89 World Champ would say "wow"!

"But at the end of the day murdoch is just talkng about what 'the common man' is talking about in the street."

Murdoch's prescriptive insidiousness and its resulting subsequent manufactured "zietghiest"*, anyone?

As for the poor old toilet cleaner, he just wants news infotainment! Chuck in some Masked Singer and some McDonalds, and he's good to go, hey?

Patronising much?

(Does Indo clean bogs?)

A worthy look into the archives:

https://www.swellnet.com/comment/615121

School girls included.

*zeitgeist, Sepp.

Facto....just this time, just this thread, can you drop the personal attacks?

EDIT: Actually, it'd be good in other threads too.

I don't get your point facto, we are almost in agreeance, its just the influence murdoch has over the non partisans we are quibbling over

bigger than the party stunet

not blaming policy or the greens directly. just saying our green thinking has contributed, and it has

I also said the fact fires don't get the chance to burn out naturally anymore is a bigger contributer

"...100% people just keep ignoring this, ive stopped using the word greens and use green ideologies instead."

nice try, but I reckon that won't win you any friends (ideology is a dirty word)

"...Like we have said its not all on them, but the mindset is a factor especially at more local levels."

Yep

And yes, VB, you beat me to it re: what happened during the "great moral challenge of our generation."

It could even be argued that Rudd then squibbed out calling a DD election to force the issue. But then again, look how they turn out in the main.

A perspective of the times:

https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2019/15/2019/157378771...

"And if there was one person who broke climate politics in Australia, it’s Tony Abbott, who spied a personal political opportunity in 2009, sold the truth down the river and, in 2014 in an act of pre-Trumpism, became the world’s first national leader to abolish a carbon price. He inspired the backlash against the National Energy Guarantee last year that knocked Turnbull off a second time, and is now bathing in some kind of glory after the May election result, as we saw last week at a Liberal Party celebration of his 25 years in politics. Abbott put the country back a decade and counting, and his influence lives on in the Morrison government. That’s Australia’s problem on climate right there."

no disrespect vasectomy I'd like to split hairs over your senate seat trail, but I can't be fucked

many articles out there see it as I described it, and there not all nutty right wing ones

And allied to that and corporate media manufacturing the zeitgeist, remember this?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/whats-the-point-of-australian-pol...

Not sure where you'd find those articles but theyre factually wrong. undeniably so.

"I don't get your point facto, we are almost in agreeance,"

Er, no we are not. Slow down and read. If you can be arsed, that is.

Or not.

I'll go with 'not'.

Off for a surf. Bubble on.

murdoch frames the narrative, yeh yeh fair enough...

as does the guardian...

but then it comes down to where 'the people' fall on the spectrum of those narratives

the fact murdoch appeals to the common man (swingers) just shows the narrative of the lefty elitists is out of touch

the fact they give him so much materiall to work with just shows a distinct lack of self awareness frankly

Yeh, abbott the wrecking ball fucked everything up. but just like now with smoco, most people still believed in action on climate change, and a just society, yet they voted abbott and smoco

lots to think about there

@ Sypkan

Yep Green ideologies isn't perfect either, it still gets you a link to the guardian article on greens fire control measures.

So the point is normal lost, but got to start somewhere.

Greens and green ideologies aren't all bad the intent is general good, but like most things often go way too far, i really wish people would at least admit that it's a factor especially on a local level, its all about balance really between conservation and other things in this case safety and fire risk.

Just across the road from my house the house's back onto a reserve only low lying coastal scrub but the fire break isn't very wide, in the past if people wanted this to be much wider there would have been lots of opposition even from some of the households that back onto it, but I've got a feeling after these events it will have to be widened to something more sensible IMHO we will now start to see a return of balance at least on local levels.

Im sure people will also use this return of balance for their own agendas though like all the houses that use to have water views but have been grown out, in recent years no matter how close the scrub was that blocked their views they couldn't touch it and if they did huge fines, id expect now these people will have much more chance of getting a view again with some of these areas needing to be managed or control burned etc otherwise if they go up in a blaze perhaps councils could be legally held responsible in some way.

Craig Kelly, proof positive the Liberal Party preselection process is broken beyond repair. SmoKo needs to hide him in that ever increasingly bigger back room of idiots.

https://www.theage.com.au/world/europe/you-are-a-climate-denier-craig-ke...

Its going to be interesting if there is any change in approach to fire management in Australia.

Like wouldn't it make sense to have huge fire breaks that run for hundreds of kilometres up to 5 to 10km's wide that virtually divide areas of forrest?

Made up of farmland with huge access roads.

At least that way you could contain fires easier, even if you had embers travel that far at least it would be easier to put them out.

Or even large fire breaks that surround towns etc.

It's always done my head in when you see firebreaks and they are 50 metres wide or less or even just a few hundred metres wide, surely they need to be kilometres wide to really be efficient?

No, Australia needs to see more of Craig Kelly, especially when Smoko begins his marketing spin about believing climate science.

If the Greens can be linked to patently false assertions about forest management, Smoko should also be linked to his party's continual denial of climate science.

Can anyone point me to a link where Scomo denies climate change?

I know Abbott did but ive never heard Scomo do so.

Seems strange that he would spend billions on the issue but deny climate science?

Why does the government have a page outlining ways they are tackling issues with programs incentives spending etc?
https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change

Surely if Scomo was a denier he would just shut the page down and all the program and all the spending and then join Trump and get out of the Paris agreement etc he could then spend all the money elsewhere.

Hey let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

BTW. Has there every been a political party in history where individuals all agree 100% on everything?..

You have to spend billions in the current political and physical climate or you are a fruit loop

and that's fair enough from my perspective

Smoco isn't spending billions because he believes, he's spending billions so he doesn't appear to be a fruit loop

the marketing man is good at what he does

You don't know that, there is nothing to say that is true, Scomo has the job of managing a balancing act of keeping the economy ticking along and having growth and also reducing emissions and giving attention to the issue.

As he has pointed out our 1% emissions don't make a difference to the issue either way, what we do we do in good faith hoping all the other 1% or less do the same.

It's a balancing act that any future politician will also have to deal with.

Like it or not in politics the economy always has to come first to not do so would be political suicide.

"Seems strange that he would spend billions on the issue but deny climate science? ...

Surely if Scomo was a denier he would just shut the page down and all the program and all the spending and then join Trump and get out of the Paris agreement etc he could then spend all the money elsewhere."

But remember what sypkan said, "lnp have constructed policies for decades that they don't really believe in to appease the noisy greens"

And also what sypkan said, "all is not written literally on the internet."

So you know, while he may not have said it directly (maybe he did I don't know), bringing a lump of coal into parliament and telling everyone that we shouldn't be afraid of it, kind of sends the message. Not literally but in the same way that you and sypkan aren't blaming the greens for the fires, just their ideology...I think it's fair to say scomo is on board with his mate Craig Kelly - an outright denier who Scotty tried to save from a preselection battle.

Actions do speak louder than words, don't they? Or are we only accepting literal and absolute quotes/text on this one?

"Don’t be afraid. Don’t be scared. It won’t hurt you. It’s coal.”

"...Like wouldn't it make sense to have huge fire breaks that run for hundreds of kilometres up to 5 to 10km's wide that virtually divide areas of forrest?"

careful what you wish for indo, some rogue farmers would be all over that kind of thinking

while I might appear to be bagging this green thinking, often localised and obsessive, it has done a lot of good. many rural places are much nicer and dare I say sustainable than they used to be, and thank fuck for obsessive locals when the developers come to town, but to flat out deny that the stuff we've changed over the last 30 years has had no effect is just that, denial.

More fallout (literally) from the bushfires.

From Inside Story- couldn't get link to work but worth a read.

"NATIONAL AFFAIRS
Slow burn
JOHN QUIGGIN

1 JANUARY 2020

Hundreds more deaths will result from the particulates created by Australia’s current crop of bushfires

Rural Fire Service firefighters protecting property near Sussex Inlet, on the NSW south coast, yesterday. Sam Mooy/Getty Images

SHARE

At least eighteen people have already been killed by this season’s bushfires — and, with most of January and all of February still to come, that number is sure to rise. But these dramatic deaths are far outweighed by the hundreds, perhaps thousands, that will ultimately result from the toxic smoke blanketing Australian cities.

The most dangerous component of bushfire smoke are tiny particulates, no more than 2.5 micrometres in diameter, known as PM2.5. Over the past twenty years, studies have shown that high levels of PM2.5 have contributed to millions of premature deaths in highly polluted cities like Beijing and Delhi. Sydney, Canberra and other Australian cities have recently joined this list. In 2016 alone, exposure to PM2.5 contributed to an estimated 4.1 million deaths worldwide from heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, chronic lung disease and respiratory infections.

Even before the current cataclysm, air pollution was a major health hazard. While Sydney’s prevailing average of 6 micrograms per cubic metre (6 μg/m3) is within international health standards, it is above the levels observed in most European and American cities. A study led by the Sydney Public Health Observatory’s Richard Broome estimated that particulates and associated forms of pollution already account for between 310 and 540 premature deaths annually.

As far as can be determined, the mortality and health risks of PM2.5 are a linear function of the level of exposure. Being exposed to 6 μg/m3 every day for a year, for example, amounts to 2190 “microgram days.” Broome and his colleagues’ work implies that each microgram day is associated with between 0.14 and 0.25 premature deaths. This figure is consistent with a range of international studies they cite.

The overall mortality effects are also a linear function of the number of people exposed. That’s why a city like Delhi, with thirty million people and an average PM2.5 of 150 μg/m3, suffers tens of thousands of premature deaths every year.

Since the start of the bushfire emergency, particulate levels have been far above the historical average, reaching an extreme of 250 μg/m3 in Oakdale, ninety kilometres from central Sydney, on 10 December. According to recording stations in Sydney, the average for November and December was 27 μg/m3, more than four times the usual level. That implies somewhere between 160 and 300 additional premature deaths.

But the fires began earlier than November, and Sydney is not the only city they have affected. Many millions of Australians have experienced the impact of the fires, and there is no reason to expect the emergency to end any time soon. It’s quite likely that the total number of premature deaths will be more than a thousand, and possibly more than the 1300 deaths expected on our roads (some of these, tragically, caused by the fires).

Climatic oscillations such as the Indian Ocean Dipole, which have contributed to the severity of the current disaster, are expected to abate over time, so it’s probable that we won’t see a similar disaster next year, and perhaps for a few years to come. But the underlying trend of global heating that made this season so catastrophic isn’t going away. Next time the oscillations are unfavourable, further heating will make things even worse.

Our current approach to dealing with climatic disasters, developed during the twentieth century, doesn’t deal adequately with steadily deteriorating climatic conditions. At a minimum, we need a standing national body, with substantial resources, ready to respond to such disasters as they occur. This would almost certainly wipe out the Morrison government’s treasured surplus, which is why the resistance to any kind of action has been so vigorous.

Even worse than budget fetishism has been the cultural commitment of the government to climate denialism and do-nothingism. The right’s commentariat peddles anti-science nonsense on a par with anti-vaxxerism and flat-earth cosmology, eagerly lapped up by the mostly elderly readership of the conservative press. The government can’t endorse this nonsense officially, so it takes refuge in the idea that Australia accounts for only a small proportion of total emissions (on their dubious accounting, 1 per cent).

But even 1 per cent of the current catastrophe is still a disaster. And just as emissions in other countries contribute to disasters here, our 1 per cent plays its part in fires, floods and other climate-related disasters around the world. No matter how you do your accounting, Australian climate denialism is already costing hundreds of lives, with much worse to come.

We might hope that the scenes we have witnessed would shock our political class out of its torpor. So far, there is little sign of that happening. •"

Exactly action speaks louder than words, refer to my post art 11:32 and then the one just above.

Hence why it's just all assumptions that you think Scomo is a closet climate denier.

“Like wouldn't it make sense to have huge fire breaks that run for hundreds of kilometres up to 5 to 10km's wide that virtually divide areas of forrest?“

So facts are important here.

My mate who is a strike force commander in the CFA says fires will spot for over 40 kms ahead of the fire front.

We have a fire break behind our property backing onto the NP, it’s about 80 or so metres wide, my mate laughs and says that’s just there to make us feel good.

ya gotta google his religion indo, it has a certain unique view of the world

I was open to scotty when he got voted in because... well ...labor were so abysmal. my record on here shows I'll defend people's right to be christian, but when you take office you need to be able to put that aside and govern for all the people

scotty has fundamentally failed at this

a pattern of behaviour is what gives people up eventually, and he's shown it

Right, so sypkan's kind of right that the major parties only maintain bad fire management policies to appease the noisy green lobby.

But when it comes to climate change action, that's not the case with scomo. Saving climate deniers from being booted from parliament and bringing in coal to mock the greenies don't mean anything. In this case, he truly believes in the policy and the need for action.

OK mate. I'll leave you to it.

Woah, woah, woah....

Back the fucken horse up, Indo.

You've spent two weeks floating all sorts of nutty theories about fuel loads, what the Greens did or didn't do, how Extinction Rebellion people could light the fires.

Etc etc etc.

And not one of them has a shread of evidence. In fact, some of them have been refuted multiple times, yet you still keep spouting them.

But now you think it's not cool to link Scotty from Marketing with climate denial despite being propped up the virulent far right of the Liberal Party, living in the same electorate and being good friends with Kelly, taking a lump of coal to parliament, rousing on schoolkids who protest for climate change, threaten to write laws penalising secondary boycotts against coal companies.

None of this is giving off a certain whiff to you..?

Punk rock means many things, but only in your world does it mean cupping the balls of the hard right conservatives.

Also before I do go...it's predictable As. Fuck. That the response from the right to all this is going to be "clear the forests!" because never let a tragedy get in the way of an agenda. But just a reminder, not having forests doesn't stop this shit.

Clip starts with the firies driving through farmland, not exactly a massive fuel load compared to blowin's forests. Then the blue flames appear on the horizon and soon after the 2 minute mark, all hell breaks loose. But yeah, we just need big wide fire breaks and less forest to fix this...

@Stunet

Johnny Ramone says hello :P

Yeah sure punk started quite anti conservative but there was many right wing punk bands or figure heads.

Johnny Ramone was a self described conservative.

@vascectomy-blot..

Ha ha only took half an hour for green ideology and opposition to be voiced in opposition to the logical suggestion of realistic width fire breaks as PART of the solution to fire management.

You only prove our points me a Sykan we were talking about earlier today.

Figures, Ramones were a bubble gum cartoon band.

You must be the first person to ever use them as a political lightpost.

Things are getting worse for Craig Kelly.

The "ignorant pommy weather girl" Laura Tobin, replies to Kelly.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/01/07/craig-kelly-laura-to...

Kelly really is the complete fuckwit.

Punk is kind of hard and debatable to categorise to what it really is for me its more an attitude, i don't like the idea that its all about politics personally i found the most obvious political bands like the UK stiff especially the Sex pistols kind of tacky I'm much more a fan of that Ramones, MC5, Stooges type road (not saying those bands are conservative or right wing or not even political, but you get what i mean less political or less left wing in ways)

And then you obviously have hardcore which is much more left wing, but there is obviously examples of right wing and conservative views i think Agonstic front?....Skin heads were obviously often extremely right wing..not my style of right-wing though.

I mean if its all about politics then Midnight oil are a punk band, i love the oils, but i do kind of cringe when i realise what im singing along with in the car sometimes.

Anyway my point is you obviously didnt like my use of the word punk in the other thread, because it didn't align with your views :D

Good post Blowin totally agree.

"Anyway my point is you obviously didnt like my use of the word punk in the other thread, because it didn't align with your views."

No, it's more that you're parroting the views of the Establishment.

So are you just the other side of the establishment.

Anyway im just stating what makes sense.

Things that you really cant argue with, like basic fact that any government in power needs to find balance between reducing emissions and keeping the economy ticking over, any government in power will have to deal with this and always get critiqued that they aren't doing enough.

I guess thats just part of politics.

bullshit blowin if we had a carbon tax none of this would have happened. thats all we need to do.

"bullshit blowin if we had a carbon tax none of this would have happened. thats all we need to do."

Tell me you are not taking the piss or being sarcastic, based on your previous post, im guessing you are being serious???

WTF?...honestly speechless..can your elaborate on how, a carbon tax would prevent these fires?

Just being the caricature greenie you seem to think exists out there.

Of course Blowin's post was spot on.

ok