Expert takes heat off Abbott and back on Greens

David Packham is an expert on Australian Bush Fires. He appeared as an expert before the Royal Commission in to the 2011 Bush Fires. His Cv for the Royal Commission can be found HERE.

After those fires, Packham wrote an op-ed for the Australian:

Victoria bushfires stoked by green vote

I have been a bushfire scientist for more than 50 years, dealing with all aspects of bushfires, from prescribed burning to flame chemistry, and serving as supervisor of fire weather services for Australia. We need to understand what has happened so that we can accept or prevent future fire disasters. (bold added)
What causes a large bush fire?
The science is simple. A fire disaster of this nature requires a combination of hot, dry, windy weather in drought conditions. It also requires a source of ignition. In the past, this purpose has been served by lightning. In this disaster, lightning has not played a big part, and for this Victorians should be grateful. But other sources of ignition are ever-present. When the temperature and wind increase to extreme levels, small events -- perhaps the scrape of metal across a rock, a transformer overheating or sparks from a diesel engine -- are capable of starting a fire that can in minutes become unstoppable if the fuel is present. 
The third and only controllable factor in this deadly triangle is fuel: the dead leaves, pieces of bark and grass that become the gas that feeds the 50m high flames that roar through the bush with the sound of jet engines.  (bold added)
So, we should do control burns to reduce/eliminate the fuels. Why aren't we?
The decision to ignore the threat has been encouraged by some shocking pseudo-science from a few academics who use arguments that may have a place in political discourse but should have no place in managing our environment and protecting it and us from the bushfire threat.
The conclusion of these academics is that high intensity fires are good for the environment and that the resulting mudslides after rains are merely localised and serve to redistribute nutrients. The purpose of this failed policy is to secure uninformed city votes.  (bold added)

So, to recap, to prevent future fire disasters we need to control fuel. However, to secure uninformed city votes (ie Green votes) that advice was ignored.

It appears that, to the loony left, votes are more important that people OR property.

David Packham, a voice crying in the wilderness but unheard in the city
where a stingy Ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the houses tall,  
And the foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty city  
Through the open window floating, spreads its foulness over all
still is making his warning cry.
Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is "an absolute nonsense" and reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is urgently needed, a leading scientist says.l 
Retired Monash University researcher David Packham says global warming is a gradual process which doesn't explain major bushfires 
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt has been accused of playing politics by linking the NSW bushfires to the new federal government's climate change policies. 
But Mr Packham says there is no link. 
"It's an absolute nonsense," he told AAP. 
When will they ever learn?  When will they ever learn?


  1. If the Greens position is that Climate Change is causing more and worse bushfires, then surely they should support fuel reduction strategies, not block them. To block fuel reduction at the same time as saying that the Climate is causing worse bush fires is nothing short of criminal.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!