×
See Comments down arrow

How much wood would an alarmist chuck?

01 Dec 2021 | OP ED Watch

The tendency to get all cosmic about saving the entire planet and neglecting to guard against floods also applies to wildfires. As environmental ministries obsess on the climate game, they lose sight of practical disaster-prevention measures. Indeed they have a rather ugly vested interest in doing so since the worse the catastrophe, the more evidence they can claim to have of the climate crisis from which only they can save us. Thus Eric Worrall observes that in Australia, “Reducing available fuel seems an obvious strategy for fire risk management. But according to the CSIRO [CSIRO being the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation], the real culprit is climate change.” Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? And then not do anything about it.

The press are totally on board as usual. The Sydney Morning Herald blared “CSIRO study proves climate change driving Australia’s 800% boom in bushfires”. See it was peer-reviewed so abracadabra. And never mind all that silly forest management. The lead author told the newspaper “This is happening regardless of anything that we might or might not do to try to stop the fires.” Other than making China stop burning coal, presumably.

In any case piling up tinder is just not relevant. “When the first half of the study period, from 1988 to 2001, is compared to the period between 2002 and 2018, the average annual forest burned area in Australia increased 350 per cent. That figured ramps up to 800 per cent when the fires of 2019-20, which burnt more than 24 million hectares of land, are included.” Now this rather raises the perennial question when they think climate change kicked in for real. Was it 2011? 2019? Will Australia be a blackened hulk in 2025? Or will the fires go back down and something else become the cause du jour? Where, indeed, are the Amazon fires of yesteryear, with the lungs of the planet ablaze or some such metaphor?

As Worrall points out, a fire services report in Australia in 2015 reached quite a different conclusion, calling for more controlled burns to limit serious blazes. Advice that was not followed between then and 2019 with predictable results but see climate change.

4 comments on “How much wood would an alarmist chuck?”

  1. What happens when the world finally wakes up to no Climate Doomsday? It's absolutely amazing that in a supposedly enlightened time, we've gone backwards. The Alarmist deny the first amendment, and they deny science. When will is stop, so we can go back to making the world a better place with freedom and energy for the human race. That time is coming. Keep the faith.

  2. The problem with much of the current climate alarmism, and in fact with alarmism in general, is that the bulk of it either comes directly from academia or is inspired by academia. And the problem with academics is that they confuse their peer-reviewed ivory-tower maunderings with reality. Indeed, most academics I have met wouldn't recognize reality if it hit them in the face, but instead seem to believe that reality is whatever they declare it to be. ("The Arctic is melting, polar bears are becoming extinct" and so on.)
    Another problem with academics is that they are utterly beholden to the givers of research grants. Give me control of all research funding and I will guarantee to have the scientific establishment solemnly declaring that the world is flat.
    Like Victorian children, academics should be seen and not heard, and preferably not seen much either.

  3. As someone who enjoys works of fiction, I'm entertained when I see that forest fires are used as proof of CAGW when many are started by humans. The media, it appears, has no shame.

    As a retired forester, I can say that forest practices that used to be common place in order to minimize risk of insects, fire, and disease became unpopular over thirty years ago as they usually had the temporary appearance of burned slash for a few years. Instant gratification and political/regulatory mandates changed that, confirming that the "public" didn't want to see reality-based forest management and so they no longer had to..... until mother nature reminded us of who is in control. That we aren't going back to what works tells me that the politics of the CAGW narrative trumps enlightened forest management, especially when the "public" still doesn't want to see it.

  4. Historically climate alarmists have sprung up and fizzled out from their own realisation of their stupidity.
    Not now, now there's trillions of dollars to be made in "renewable energy" and having it funded by tax payers for use by corporations, no, now the foolish alarmists suddenly have scientists fuelling their fire (pardon the pun) and corporations/investors backing it all up
    It's the biggest con game of the last 100 years

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

searchtwitterfacebookyoutube-play