Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Pugwash said..FormulaNova said..Pugwash said..
Received an unusual message from another forum user this arvo...
Is this an invite? I'm not sure... anyone else lucky enough to get one of these offers?
What is it about you that attracts the crazies? Is it something you said or someone stalking you from real-life?
I am glad I haven't received one, and only been (poorly) called out in public on this forum 
Its a funny insult, in that if you were really one, you wouldn't be bothered by it, and if you are bothered by it, you are not one. I still don't know why people get so excited about smoked chicken.
There's probably fewer crazies than you might guess... maybe multiple personalities... Adrian-o, Bonomin-ator, ReligiousSmashedAvo, TheTruth couldn't all be the same user... could they... then again, that clever truther has cunningly used log man's favour (non-)insult in the special reach-out...
Yes, as Bono Adriano HolGuac says later, he knows Kato and there is no way he would insult him, so there are at least two personalities in there, unless Kato has been sniffing too many epoxy fumes and comes out as TheTruth. Somehow I doubt that.
I find it curious when people send direct messages. The logic amazes me. You don't agree on a public forum and somehow sending a direct message is going to win someone over? Yeah, its like knocking on someone's front door at midnight and then giving them advice... that'll work!
Is "the Truth" going to come back to you in 5 years with a "we were wrong" email?
Funny. You're almost as paranoid as "pugwash". Lot's of people know kato. He da man.
Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about and the login The Truth has nothing to do with me. The guy writes insulting conflicted rubbish.
You can work the multiple login report option if that floats your boat, soothes your evening...makes you feel complete...
Cheers, HG 
I know The Truth personally and let me assure you of this.
Not only is he a dyed in the wool out and out bastard but he is also a very vey dangerous man and not to be taken lightly.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Meanwhile in the Bubble....
Wow, HG has the same struggles with satirical news and news as bono... amazing...
Select to expand quotejapie said..
I know The Truth personally and let me assure you of this.
Not only is he a dyed in the wool out and out bastard but he is also a very vey dangerous man and not to be taken lightly.
How dare you assume The Truth has a genda...
Select to expand quotePugwash said..japie said..
I know The Truth personally and let me assure you of this.
Not only is he a dyed in the wool out and out bastard but he is also a very vey dangerous man and not to be taken lightly.
How dare you assume The Truth has a genda...
No. He is a dick, so surely that means he is male?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Pugwash said..japie said..
I know The Truth personally and let me assure you of this.
Not only is he a dyed in the wool out and out bastard but he is also a very vey dangerous man and not to be taken lightly.
How dare you assume The Truth has a genda...
No. He is a dick, so surely that means he is male?
Wow!! The Truth hurts...
Most of the fuels burnt now anyway. Politically its been left there to build up. A lot of the wildlife and plantas are dead, the forests will take time to regenerate..Theres no pint in trying to reburn the areas for a while. Politically the fuel was left to build up.. houses were left in dangerous positions, uneducatedly persons fought fires and died. All the warnings were in place for fires to build up.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
This is true for NSW.
However, and not to take anything away from the size and intensity and impact of these fires, they're huge, but we've had some other massive fires too. Bigger and greater loss of life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia
This year's fires have burnt about 9m hectares.
In 1974 fires across NT, WA and SA burned a combined 92m hectares.
This year's fires have killed 25, and destroyed about 2,800 homes.
Black Saturday killed 183, and 2,000 houses.
Ash Wednesday was 75 lives and 2,400 houses.
Black Friday was 71 lives and 3.700 houses.
The 1974 fires were mainly grass fires, which are significantly different.
Black Friday's toll was 1300 homes among 3700 buildings - not 3700 houses. In those days there wasn't even a CFA. Now we are fighting fires with hundreds of trucks far better equipped than those of the 1930s, helicopters, satellites and waterbombers. If we are looking at historical changes we have to factor in the fact that we have far more firefighting equipment than we did before.
Arson was a major cause of deaths and fires on Black Saturday and Black Friday which puts the hype about arson this season in perspective.
Select to expand quoteSilverSurfer69 said..
Most of the fuels burnt now anyway. Politically its been left there to build up. A lot of the wildlife and plantas are dead, the forests will take time to regenerate..Theres no pint in trying to reburn the areas for a while. Politically the fuel was left to build up.. houses were left in dangerous positions, uneducatedly persons fought fires and died. All the warnings were in place for fires to build up.
Who said the fuel was "politically left to build up"??? The fire chiefs say it was not.
Select to expand quoteTheTruth said..kato said..
Oops , looks like I've upset The Truth.
The fires on the coast are near tons of water - a fleet of 747's with a schedule of relentless water bombings back in Sept/October would have put those fires out months ago. To tell us that water bombing make little difference is bollocks.
Where is your evidence that a fleet of 747's water bombing the fires early on would have made no difference?
YOU HAVE NOTHING!
And no, this won't go away. The dead bush and dead reef are now sad reminders of the failings of the previous generation to accept climate change is real.
[ INSERT FAVOURITE PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS HERE ]
Liar. Kato does not "have nothing". He is an experienced, qualified, professional fireman who has actually been out there fighting these fires while you have been crapping on on your computer.
Select to expand quoteRupert said..
The "blame arson" approach ignores the fact that there have always been lots of bushfire arsonists, and yet this bushfire season is far worse than previous ones. From 2001-2006, for example, there were 133 people in court over bushfire arson in NSW, or about 24 per season. This season so far 24 people have been charged and yet the fires are disproportionately worse.
No one is saying that many fires are not caused by arson - several of those around my place were - but when there have always been arsonists, and there is no evidence of any sudden increase in bushfire arson, you can't blame for them for a sudden increase in fire severity.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The police have charged 100's of people with starting bush fires or potentially starting bush fires
Misleading rubbish. There have always been bushfire arsonists. For example in WA in 2015 there were 42 people charged with bushfire arson in WA - more than have been charged in NSW so far this season despite NSW's much higher populations. In fy 2014-15 there were 39 charges in Victoria; in 2019 there were 43 charges and yet the fires have been dramatically worse.
The simple truth is that the current fires cannot be explained by a big jump in arson.
By the way, another way of showing that the poster is a lie is by noting that the implication that climate change was off the agenda is incorrect. Even right wing sources like the Financial Times listed it as an "agenda issue" in the last election.
LTDR version - the poster is dishonest and you are either a liar or careless with the truth.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..log man said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Seriously? C'mon man... call it... the drying pattern associated with GW is a factor...
Yes.....of course it is.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..FormulaNova said..Pugwash said..japie said..
I know The Truth personally and let me assure you of this.
Not only is he a dyed in the wool out and out bastard but he is also a very vey dangerous man and not to be taken lightly.
How dare you assume The Truth has a genda...
No. He is a dick, so surely that means he is male?
Wow!! The Truth hurts...
I don't know how to respond to this?
Jesus Saves?
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..TheTruth said..FormulaNova said..
its not unprecedented.
It is unprecedented, and it's not unique to Australia - it's happening though-out the world - fire seasons are lasting longer and fires are burning with more frequency.
It's a situation that humans have created and humans will have to fix. It is war!
Australia needs to purchase a large fleet of 747 Water Bombers yesterday, and get working on a modernising the fire service by overhauling/replacing the outdated RFS/CFA volunteer model that's been operating largely unchanged since the 1950s.
So what do we do about all the floods we will get up here . Buy big sponges!?
When the Indian dipole disappears the monsoons in Asia will be here. More unprecedented floods .
You could put some pipes in.
When Melbourne got 200mm of rainfall overnight, the affect was almost nil. Most other places, that would cause catastrophic floods
Select to expand quotelog man said..Pugwash said..log man said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Seriously? C'mon man... call it... the drying pattern associated with GW is a factor...
Yes.....of course it is.
And would you agree that humans need to take action to get water back into the environment? And that action may be more than management of water dominantly from (decreasing) rainfall.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Bananabender said..TheTruth said..FormulaNova said..
its not unprecedented.
It is unprecedented, and it's not unique to Australia - it's happening though-out the world - fire seasons are lasting longer and fires are burning with more frequency.
It's a situation that humans have created and humans will have to fix. It is war!
Australia needs to purchase a large fleet of 747 Water Bombers yesterday, and get working on a modernising the fire service by overhauling/replacing the outdated RFS/CFA volunteer model that's been operating largely unchanged since the 1950s.
So what do we do about all the floods we will get up here . Buy big sponges!?
When the Indian dipole disappears the monsoons in Asia will be here. More unprecedented floods .
You could put some pipes in.
When Melbourne got 200mm of rainfall overnight, the affect was almost nil. Most other places, that would cause catastrophic floodsSelect to expand quotepsychojoe said..Bananabender said..TheTruth said..FormulaNova said..
its not unprecedented.
It is unprecedented, and it's not unique to Australia - it's happening though-out the world - fire seasons are lasting longer and fires are burning with more frequency.
It's a situation that humans have created and humans will have to fix. It is war!
Australia needs to purchase a large fleet of 747 Water Bombers yesterday, and get working on a modernising the fire service by overhauling/replacing the outdated RFS/CFA volunteer model that's been operating largely unchanged since the 1950s.
So what do we do about all the floods we will get up here . Buy big sponges!?
When the Indian dipole disappears the monsoons in Asia will be here. More unprecedented floods .
You could put some pipes in.
When Melbourne got 200mm of rainfall overnight, the affect was almost nil. Most other places, that would cause catastrophic floods
What ! I reckon last time Melbourne got 200,mm was back in sixties/ seventies and
Flinders Street was flooded. I was stuck there. Your looking at 400 plus up here.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
You could put some pipes in.
Yep ,that what we could to the best. Once there is some water - divert all as soon as possible to the ocean.
Nothing worse then lack the water in the ocean and god forbid , level drops.To be fair in our Australian conditions , I would build a big dam at the every river by the sea entry and get the last drop back to the land. What happen with all this fresh water from Brisbane river,Yarra and others once falls into sea? I would keep every drop and turn rivers back to outback.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..psychojoe said..
You could put some pipes in.
Yep ,that what we could to the best. Once there is some water - divert all as soon as possible to the ocean.
Nothing worse then lack the water in the ocean and god forbid , level drops.To be fair in our Australian conditions , I would build a big dam at the every river by the sea entry and get the last drop back to the land. What happen with all this fresh water from Brisbane river,Yarra and others once falls into sea? I would keep every drop and turn rivers back to outback.
Why do you want to destroy the outback by lifting the water table so the plants die from the rising saline water?
Why do you want to harm the regions of our rivers where our prawns and fish often reproduce?
Why do you want to do something that has been proven to be impractical?
Please show us, with proper information such as a full set of fluid dynamics calculations, evaporation rate calculations, pipeline and dam costings, allowances for the damage to downstream areas, costings for the destruction of inland ecosystems, how this will work.
Please also show us ANY qualifications and credentials you have to work out whether this will work, and why we should believe that you are so much smarter and better than the many who have pointed out why it won't work.
When you're done with that, can you please show us why you always have such an incredibly high opinion of your own world-beating brilliance? If you are the genius you believe you are, why are you sitting on a drought-ridden farm and falling off in gybes instead of winning multiple Olympic medals while making billions from your inventions?
Maybe you could perhaps stop throwing such vicious contempt at other people, and consider that the reason they say these ideas won't work is because they know vastly more than you do.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
NSW Fire COmmissioner dispels garbage And myths and conspiracy theories from the nutter right wingers about hazard reductions.
www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/nsw-fires-rfs-commissioner-weights-in-on-hazard-reduction-debate/11850862
I guess it's not just the VIC CFA commissioner....
I don't expect any right wing nut bags, conspiracy theorists and armchair buffoons like Barnaby Joyce will get the message....
In these conditions quote "hazard reduction has very little effect at all" end quote.
Who knows what influences a fire chief to say what he says and where he puts the emphasis.
"Hazard reduction burns that are only two years old, we're seeing these fires on these bad days just skip straight through it," he said.
"We're only seeing effective amelioration on fire spread through hazard reduction areas that have been done so in the last 12 months."
It might skip through, at a similar rate, but why didn't he mention the reduction in fire intensity? Or did he assume that was obvious to all, conservation of energy and all that?
Fuel (\6 mm surface and shrub fuels) accumulation curve for dry sclerophyll woodland/open-forest of the study area (from Van Loon (1977); Fuel load = 5.6 ln(Time since fire) ? 2.2; R 2 = 0.89
The accumulation curve starts with a rush following a prescribed burn, scorched leaves fall and not all surface fuel may be consumed. It flattens off when decomposition equals the deposition. But still a fire skipping through 2 yo fuel of 5 tha-1 will do less damage than 10 yo at 15 tha-1. I'd think that despite what the chief has said the firies will still keep a good mental note of where the recently prescribed burnt areas are, just in case things heat up and they need to fall back a bit.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Why
Sometimes good new invention comes to life completely independently in the time and space. Radio is claimed by few, the same with others.
Prof Hawken ( born 1878) , they are saying was well ahead with his ideas.
Look, 100 years passed and the same, my proposal this time is still again at least 100 year ahead.
Nothing changes at the land down under.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hawken
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
making billions?
You need to ask kid like Greta to answer this question.She will tell you why you don't need to have more that you could eat.
Select to expand quotePenisVagina aka Chris said..
like you are.
if you have limitation in comprehending , don't blame me . Could be thousand of reasons , but none of the solution, I am afraid.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Chris 249 said..
Why
Sometimes good new invention comes to life completely independently in the time and space. Radio is claimed by few, the same with others.
Prof Hawken ( born 1878) , they are saying was well ahead with his ideas.
Look, 100 years passed and the same, my proposal this time is still again at least 100 year ahead.
Nothing changes at the land down under.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hawken
Hawken was a scholarship winner; a qualified engineer; and a professor. HE was an expert - the sort of person you keep on putting **** on with your claims that it's easy to do better than they do.
Why not RESPECT people like Hawken and realise that if everything could be fixed with pipedreams, they'd have done it?
Why do you keep on assuming that engineers etc are morons who are too stupid to use these brilliant ideas of yours IF they were practical and possible?
Why not simply respect your fellow humans, instead of assuming that they are far dumber than you?
And why not answer some of the questions about your idea? For example, what are going to happen to the fisheries if you have a dam at the entrance to each river? What is going to happen to the riverbank plants in those areas, like mangroves, which have evolved to suit salt water? Why do you want to kill so many fish? How much power is it going to take to lift water over the Great Dividing Range?
If you are so brilliant and your ideas are so good, you must have already come up with answers to these questions, so why not tell us of them? Or maybe you could consider that there are very good reasons why we have not adopted your scheme and that other people are smart enough to know of them.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..holy guacamole said..
NSW Fire COmmissioner dispels garbage And myths and conspiracy theories from the nutter right wingers about hazard reductions.
www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-08/nsw-fires-rfs-commissioner-weights-in-on-hazard-reduction-debate/11850862
I guess it's not just the VIC CFA commissioner....
I don't expect any right wing nut bags, conspiracy theorists and armchair buffoons like Barnaby Joyce will get the message....
In these conditions quote "hazard reduction has very little effect at all" end quote.
Who knows what influences a fire chief to say what he says and where he puts the emphasis.
"Hazard reduction burns that are only two years old, we're seeing these fires on these bad days just skip straight through it," he said.
"We're only seeing effective amelioration on fire spread through hazard reduction areas that have been done so in the last 12 months."
It might skip through, at a similar rate, but why didn't he mention the reduction in fire intensity? Or did he assume that was obvious to all, conservation of energy and all that?
Fuel (\6 mm surface and shrub fuels) accumulation curve for dry sclerophyll woodland/open-forest of the study area (from Van Loon (1977); Fuel load = 5.6 ln(Time since fire) ? 2.2; R 2 = 0.89
The accumulation curve starts with a rush following a prescribed burn, scorched leaves fall and not all surface fuel may be consumed. It flattens off when decomposition equals the deposition. But still a fire skipping through 2 yo fuel of 5 tha-1 will do less damage than 10 yo at 15 tha-1. I'd think that despite what the chief has said the firies will still keep a good mental note of where the recently prescribed burnt areas are, just in case things heat up and they need to fall back a bit.
Maybe he didn't mention the reduction in fire intensity because it's of little relevance in the conditions we've been having, where even a reduced-intensity fire is still out of control and spotting heavily and therefore of little practical difference to a fire that has not experienced such a reduction? Or maybe he doesn't have 50,000 words in which he can mention every single factor?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..evlPanda said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
This is true for NSW.
However, and not to take anything away from the size and intensity and impact of these fires, they're huge, but we've had some other massive fires too. Bigger and greater loss of life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia
This year's fires have burnt about 9m hectares.
In 1974 fires across NT, WA and SA burned a combined 92m hectares.
This year's fires have killed 25, and destroyed about 2,800 homes.
Black Saturday killed 183, and 2,000 houses.
Ash Wednesday was 75 lives and 2,400 houses.
Black Friday was 71 lives and 3.700 houses.
The 1974 fires were mainly grass fires, which are significantly different.
Black Friday's toll was 1300 homes among 3700 buildings - not 3700 houses. In those days there wasn't even a CFA. Now we are fighting fires with hundreds of trucks far better equipped than those of the 1930s, helicopters, satellites and waterbombers. If we are looking at historical changes we have to factor in the fact that we have far more firefighting equipment than we did before.
Arson was a major cause of deaths and fires on Black Saturday and Black Friday which puts the hype about arson this season in perspective.
I'm not sure what your getting at in above .
A grass fire is as dangerous as a forest fire notwithstanding and can cause many many deaths as we have seen. Eg Lara fires in 1969.
www.blacksaturdaymuseum.com/LaraFire.htm
Forget how many houses / buildings burn ,that is dependant on the levels of communication and the number of buildings in the area. Eg. If your told to evacuate you go and leave your house whereas on years gone by the owners stayed and fought as there was no communication. This also applies to the relative low number of deaths currently in relation the the number of people in the fire area. (I am not downplaying the catastrophe and mounting death toll).
The current fires are so large because they are in national forests ,climate change, etc,etc. but don't downplay what has gone beforehand.
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..Chris 249 said..evlPanda said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
This is true for NSW.
However, and not to take anything away from the size and intensity and impact of these fires, they're huge, but we've had some other massive fires too. Bigger and greater loss of life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia
This year's fires have burnt about 9m hectares.
In 1974 fires across NT, WA and SA burned a combined 92m hectares.
This year's fires have killed 25, and destroyed about 2,800 homes.
Black Saturday killed 183, and 2,000 houses.
Ash Wednesday was 75 lives and 2,400 houses.
Black Friday was 71 lives and 3.700 houses.
The 1974 fires were mainly grass fires, which are significantly different.
Black Friday's toll was 1300 homes among 3700 buildings - not 3700 houses. In those days there wasn't even a CFA. Now we are fighting fires with hundreds of trucks far better equipped than those of the 1930s, helicopters, satellites and waterbombers. If we are looking at historical changes we have to factor in the fact that we have far more firefighting equipment than we did before.
Arson was a major cause of deaths and fires on Black Saturday and Black Friday which puts the hype about arson this season in perspective.
I'm not sure what your getting at in above .
A grass fire is as dangerous as a forest fire notwithstanding and can cause many many deaths as we have seen. Eg Lara fires in 1969.
www.blacksaturdaymuseum.com/LaraFire.htm
Forget how many houses / buildings burn ,that is dependant on the levels of communication and the number of buildings in the area. Eg. If your told to evacuate you go and leave your house whereas on years gone by the owners stayed and fought as there was no communication. This also applies to the relative low number of deaths in relation the the number of people in the fire area.
The current fires are so large because they are in national forests ,climate change, etc,etc. but don't downplay what has gone beforehand.
Sure, grass fires can kill, but they don't kill as many people. As I understand it, in '74 they left many grass fires to burn out because they were far inland and away from settled country and well away from most of the (limited) equipment that was available. Therefore the fact that they were over a great area does not mean that they were as serious as the current fires in many ways.
I completely agree with all you say about the other factors. Today, for example, those motorists in the Lara fire would probably have been kept out of the area or made aware of the fire. I wasn't actually disagreeing with Panda on most points, merely looking from a slightly different angle.
