3 ms·

That’s a strange article. On The one hand they’re saying people who say lack of hazard management (controlled burning) is making the fires worse are literally “

That’s a strange article. On The one hand they’re saying people who say lack of hazard management (controlled burning) is making the fires worse are literally “conspiracy theorist” and then the very next paragraph this line: > Former fire chiefs who have been calling strongly for action on climate change, and who have been trying to meet Morrison for months, have also been calling for increased funding for hazard reduction.

woggy 7y ago
The "conspiracy" is that hazard reduction burning has been blocked by the Australian Greens (and other environmental bodies). More hazard reduction may be required, but this is orthogonal to the above. I have seen no evidence of the Greens blocking hazard reduction burns requested by the RFS. As the article states, fire chiefs have been trying to meet with the Australian prime minster for months, but have been ignored. this suggests that any blame for poor preparation leading up to this bush fire season should be attributed directly to the party in power. To me the motivation behind this spread of disinformation is very clear.
glangdale 7y ago
I think it's only a 'strange article' if you only skim read it. It's saying that the claim that somehow the Greens prevented hazard management is a conspiracy theory. The Murdoch media has decided to run with the idiotic idea that there was an 'easy' opportunity to reduce fuel loads and it was prevented by unspecified environmentalists at unspecified locations (the claims are always super-non-specific, for obvious reasons). In fact, as the fire chiefs point out, the limitations on hazard reduction burns have largely been due to weather (too wet or too dry). Needless to say, the actual statement from the fire chiefs is extremely nuanced and well thought out. It's almost like they know something about fighting bushfires, unlike all the amateur hour geniuses that have emerged from the woodwork to sit in their pajamas theorizing on every major venue 24/7 including public holidays.

woggy 7y ago

The "conspiracy" is that hazard reduction burning has been blocked by the Australian Greens (and other environmental bodies). More hazard reduction may be required, but this is orthogonal to the above. I have seen no evidence of the Greens blocking hazard reduction burns requested by the RFS. As the article states, fire chiefs have been trying to meet with the Australian prime minster for months, but have been ignored. this suggests that any blame for poor preparation leading up to this bush fire season should be attributed directly to the party in power. To me the motivation behind this spread of disinformation is very clear.

glangdale 7y ago

I think it's only a 'strange article' if you only skim read it. It's saying that the claim that somehow the Greens prevented hazard management is a conspiracy theory. The Murdoch media has decided to run with the idiotic idea that there was an 'easy' opportunity to reduce fuel loads and it was prevented by unspecified environmentalists at unspecified locations (the claims are always super-non-specific, for obvious reasons). In fact, as the fire chiefs point out, the limitations on hazard reduction burns have largely been due to weather (too wet or too dry). Needless to say, the actual statement from the fire chiefs is extremely nuanced and well thought out. It's almost like they know something about fighting bushfires, unlike all the amateur hour geniuses that have emerged from the woodwork to sit in their pajamas theorizing on every major venue 24/7 including public holidays.