Orogogus wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 18:48:
Can you cite a different fire that wasn't "way less than current" area burnt?

I already did in my first post:
1974-75 almost 106 Million hectares burnt. 10 times the area of the current fire. (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia)

To reiterate, I am not downplaying the current fire.( it's a bad one and it's not done yet. I am fully aware it is ongoing and numbers are only going up)
I am shining a light on the left wing media hysteria.

ventry wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 18:24:

Beamer wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 10:21:
So yes, these fires are unprecedented. They've destroyed thousands of homes, over 50x more than the fire he's claiming makes this fire dull and boring.

As usual.. You totally missed the point.
I was not downplaying the current fires.
The media have been completely off their tits over this one. (especially the far left ABC)

No. They are not unprecedented.

Black Saturday Bushfires: 7th Feb - 14th Mar 2009
450,000 hectares burnt. (way less than current)
2,029+ houses, 2,000 other structures.
and the big one.... 173 people killed.
The current fire 25. (hopefully no more)

Can you cite a different fire that wasn't "way less than current" area burnt? It seems to me that you're citing a fire that burned less than 1/20th the area of the current fires, which are still burning. If the next fire burns an area 20 times larger than this, a quarter of all of Australia, is that also going to be precedented, as long as it doesn't kill as many people?

Like, if Trump points to a number, say a stock market indicator, and calls it unprecedented, is he wrong if someone, say the media, are able to find a different indicator that's below historical records?

Beamer wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 10:21:
So yes, these fires are unprecedented. They've destroyed thousands of homes, over 50x more than the fire he's claiming makes this fire dull and boring.

As usual.. You totally missed the point.
I was not downplaying the current fires.
The media have been completely off their tits over this one. (especially the far left ABC)

No. They are not unprecedented.

Black Saturday Bushfires: 7th Feb - 14th Mar 2009
450,000 hectares burnt. (way less than current)
2,029+ houses, 2,000 other structures.
and the big one.... 173 people killed.

Ash Wednesday Bushfires: Feb 1983
418,000 hectares burnt.
about 2,400 houses.
75 people killed.

The current fire 25. (hopefully no more)

This comment was edited on Jan 10, 2020, 20:09.

The number of homes being destroyed is unprecedented. That said, I'd say the scale of the problem depends on context. And it goes almost without saying that the current nature of media coverage guarantees more coverage than most people need or want.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 22:48:
Alcohol Is Killing More Americans Than Ever

I'll drink to that!

More than opiods!? Wow, talk about going old school!

I get it that we tend to debate based on past dealings with certain individuals. But from where I'm sitting he does have a point. That's not to say that what is happening isn't horrific because it is. I am not a climate change denier by any means, but it seems to me (and I'm not there so I may be speaking out of ignorance) that the only thing truly unprecedented is the coverage these fires are getting. That's not a bad thing, since it is horrible and the unprecedented coverage raises awareness in such a way that more people are willing to help and hopefully more people will focus on fixing the problems going forward.

Prez wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 10:16:

Beamer wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 09:43:

ventry wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 18:02:

Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:52:
Concerning the Australia bushfires, I was skeptical of the arsonist emergency claim to begin with. Regardless, ot seems to me that what started the fires is not nearly as important as what is causing them to propagate. I had always heard that modern day Australia used the same controlled burning technique passed down from the Aborigines. Depending on who you believe, the controlled burns that would have prevented what is currently happening from being as devastating as it is didn't happen because 1) the greens in their increased enviromental fanaticism are preventing too many controlled burns for dubious reasons, or 2) the climate has changed to the point that the excess dryness and wind occur too often to allow the burns to be safely conducted. Pick your poison I guess. Either way what is happening is terrible beyond words.

Also the other irritating part is the left wing media here constantly spouting that these summer bushfires are "unprecedented".
That is absolute bullshit.
Currently the estimate is about 10.7 Million hectares burnt.
Back in the summer of 1974-75 almost 106 Million hectares burnt across 5 states.
If it's "climate change" now, what was it then when it was almost 10 times worse??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

I also love how Wikipedia has grouped all the current fires together to make the scary number while the '74-'75 season are divided into separate states.

Here in Australia during summer we have bushfires EVERY year. Most aren't that big but, every 15 - 20 years we have a couple of big ones.

And yes, in some states farmers are actually fined for clearing combustible undergrowth in forests bordering their property. (The greenies didn't want them disturbing the habitat of insects, snakes, small mammals, etc. Well, they are all burnt up now. congratulations.)

I believe California had a similar issue with their recent wildfires. (unchecked undergrowth I mean. Correct me if I am wrong)

Probably because 40 homes got destroyed in 1874-75, whereas it's 2200 homes and counting now.
Which would lead you to believe there's a difference in how and where these fires are burning, but I dunno, maybe facts care about ventry's feelings?

According to census stats I've found, the population of Australia was around 16 million in the 1970's (you put 1874-5 but I assume you are referring to the same time period Ventry referenced) and over 33 million in 2010. So population density being vastly higher would surely factor into the prompt jump in homes destroyed by the most recent fires. You know, you could try not being so contentious with everyone who posts stuff that you don't agree with. Just saying...

You're right, but he's a guy that has previously admitting to just trolling.

And yes, it's twice as dense. It's still an area 50% larger than Europe, with a population that's about 3% of Europe. It currently has 24.5M people, to Europe's 741.1M. It's the 7th least dense country in the world.

So yes, these fires are unprecedented. They've destroyed thousands of homes, over 50x more than the fire he's claiming makes this fire dull and boring.

Beamer wrote on Jan 10, 2020, 09:43:

ventry wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 18:02:

Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:52:
Concerning the Australia bushfires, I was skeptical of the arsonist emergency claim to begin with. Regardless, ot seems to me that what started the fires is not nearly as important as what is causing them to propagate. I had always heard that modern day Australia used the same controlled burning technique passed down from the Aborigines. Depending on who you believe, the controlled burns that would have prevented what is currently happening from being as devastating as it is didn't happen because 1) the greens in their increased enviromental fanaticism are preventing too many controlled burns for dubious reasons, or 2) the climate has changed to the point that the excess dryness and wind occur too often to allow the burns to be safely conducted. Pick your poison I guess. Either way what is happening is terrible beyond words.

Also the other irritating part is the left wing media here constantly spouting that these summer bushfires are "unprecedented".
That is absolute bullshit.
Currently the estimate is about 10.7 Million hectares burnt.
Back in the summer of 1974-75 almost 106 Million hectares burnt across 5 states.
If it's "climate change" now, what was it then when it was almost 10 times worse??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

I also love how Wikipedia has grouped all the current fires together to make the scary number while the '74-'75 season are divided into separate states.

Here in Australia during summer we have bushfires EVERY year. Most aren't that big but, every 15 - 20 years we have a couple of big ones.

And yes, in some states farmers are actually fined for clearing combustible undergrowth in forests bordering their property. (The greenies didn't want them disturbing the habitat of insects, snakes, small mammals, etc. Well, they are all burnt up now. congratulations.)

I believe California had a similar issue with their recent wildfires. (unchecked undergrowth I mean. Correct me if I am wrong)

Probably because 40 homes got destroyed in 1874-75, whereas it's 2200 homes and counting now.
Which would lead you to believe there's a difference in how and where these fires are burning, but I dunno, maybe facts care about ventry's feelings?

According to census stats I've found, the population of Australia was around 16 million in the 1970's (you put 1874-5 but I assume you are referring to the same time period Ventry referenced) and over 33 million in 2010. So population density being vastly higher would surely factor into the prompt jump in homes destroyed by the most recent fires. You know, you could try not being so contentious with everyone who posts stuff that you don't agree with. Just saying...

ventry wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 18:02:

Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:52:
Concerning the Australia bushfires, I was skeptical of the arsonist emergency claim to begin with. Regardless, ot seems to me that what started the fires is not nearly as important as what is causing them to propagate. I had always heard that modern day Australia used the same controlled burning technique passed down from the Aborigines. Depending on who you believe, the controlled burns that would have prevented what is currently happening from being as devastating as it is didn't happen because 1) the greens in their increased enviromental fanaticism are preventing too many controlled burns for dubious reasons, or 2) the climate has changed to the point that the excess dryness and wind occur too often to allow the burns to be safely conducted. Pick your poison I guess. Either way what is happening is terrible beyond words.

Also the other irritating part is the left wing media here constantly spouting that these summer bushfires are "unprecedented".
That is absolute bullshit.
Currently the estimate is about 10.7 Million hectares burnt.
Back in the summer of 1974-75 almost 106 Million hectares burnt across 5 states.
If it's "climate change" now, what was it then when it was almost 10 times worse??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

I also love how Wikipedia has grouped all the current fires together to make the scary number while the '74-'75 season are divided into separate states.

Here in Australia during summer we have bushfires EVERY year. Most aren't that big but, every 15 - 20 years we have a couple of big ones.

And yes, in some states farmers are actually fined for clearing combustible undergrowth in forests bordering their property. (The greenies didn't want them disturbing the habitat of insects, snakes, small mammals, etc. Well, they are all burnt up now. congratulations.)

I believe California had a similar issue with their recent wildfires. (unchecked undergrowth I mean. Correct me if I am wrong)

Probably because 40 homes got destroyed in 1874-75, whereas it's 2200 homes and counting now.
Which would lead you to believe there's a difference in how and where these fires are burning, but I dunno, maybe facts care about ventry's feelings?

Enormous 'Megafire' In Australia Engulfs 1.5 Million Acres
That single blaze is more than three times as large as any known fire in California.
It is just one of some 135 bushfires in Australia.

Since September, the unprecedented bushfires have swept through an area larger than Massachusetts and New Hampshire combined.

Of course climate change deniers are blaming Australia’s wildfires on arson, but experts say that the exaggerated claims are part of a widespread disinformation campaign and that arson alone cannot explain the unprecedented blazes.
“Arson is a red herring,” The politicization of climate change and the popularity of social media have provided fertile ground for misinformation. On Twitter, established networks of accounts seized on the arson claims, helping them trend on the platform.

The viral false claim that nearly 200 arsonists are behind the Australia fires, explained

Legal action was taken against 183 people since November 8, 2019, for fire-related offenses, including things like improperly discarding cigarettes or not taking enough precautions around machinery, i.e. not arson. Legal action “ranges from cautions through to criminal charges,” according to NSW police, so not everyone is being charged with a crime. And not all of these penalties are for incidents linked to the wildfires.

Only 24 people are currently facing criminal charges for deliberately igniting fires in New South Wales, and even fewer have actually managed to start large fires. Remember that this is the number of people charged over the course of three months.



This comment was edited on Jan 10, 2020, 10:01.

Alcohol Is Killing More Americans Than Ever

I'll drink to that!

Prez wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:52:
Concerning the Australia bushfires, I was skeptical of the arsonist emergency claim to begin with. Regardless, ot seems to me that what started the fires is not nearly as important as what is causing them to propagate. I had always heard that modern day Australia used the same controlled burning technique passed down from the Aborigines. Depending on who you believe, the controlled burns that would have prevented what is currently happening from being as devastating as it is didn't happen because 1) the greens in their increased enviromental fanaticism are preventing too many controlled burns for dubious reasons, or 2) the climate has changed to the point that the excess dryness and wind occur too often to allow the burns to be safely conducted. Pick your poison I guess. Either way what is happening is terrible beyond words.

Also the other irritating part is the left wing media here constantly spouting that these summer bushfires are "unprecedented".
That is absolute bullshit.
Currently the estimate is about 10.7 Million hectares burnt.
Back in the summer of 1974-75 almost 106 Million hectares burnt across 5 states.
If it's "climate change" now, what was it then when it was almost 10 times worse??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia

I also love how Wikipedia has grouped all the current fires together to make the scary number while the '74-'75 season are divided into separate states.

Here in Australia during summer we have bushfires EVERY year. Most aren't that big but, every 15 - 20 years we have a couple of big ones.

And yes, in some states farmers are actually fined for clearing combustible undergrowth in forests bordering their property. (The greenies didn't want them disturbing the habitat of insects, snakes, small mammals, etc. Well, they are all burnt up now. congratulations.)

I believe California had a similar issue with their recent wildfires. (unchecked undergrowth I mean. Correct me if I am wrong)

This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2020, 18:28.

British Nazi set self on fire trying to burn down synagogue.

lol his hat coming off was perfect.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:00:
Bizarre world we live in when alcohol deaths equal fentanyl o.d.'s but one is considered a health crisis and the other is shrugged off.

One has a lobby willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and the other does not. Pretty simple math.

Must be money well spent because alcohol harms the economy and the human body more than any other chemical.

I finally identified the name of the song from the Interstellar trailer. It's called "Dimensions" by Boris Nonte and Gregg Lehrman on the "Shock and Awe" album produced by Killer Tracks. The trailer music begins at 1:14. The entire album is amazing.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:00:
Bizarre world we live in when alcohol deaths equal fentanyl o.d.'s but one is considered a health crisis and the other is shrugged off.

Makes perfect sense, one is legal the other isn't. One has thousands of years of tradition behind it, the other doesn't. These days in the US, sugar is getting more severely abused than alcohol...

10 Core Exercises for Lower Back Pain Relief

Really good list that shows and describes how to do them. I already do about half of them anyway but I'll certainly add the rest into the mix.

Concerning the Australia bushfires, I was skeptical of the arsonist emergency claim to begin with. Regardless, ot seems to me that what started the fires is not nearly as important as what is causing them to propagate. I had always heard that modern day Australia used the same controlled burning technique passed down from the Aborigines. Depending on who you believe, the controlled burns that would have prevented what is currently happening from being as devastating as it is didn't happen because 1) the greens in their increased enviromental fanaticism are preventing too many controlled burns for dubious reasons, or 2) the climate has changed to the point that the excess dryness and wind occur too often to allow the burns to be safely conducted. Pick your poison I guess. Either way what is happening is terrible beyond words.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:16:

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:00:
Bizarre world we live in when alcohol deaths equal fentanyl o.d.'s but one is considered a health crisis and the other is shrugged off.

One has a lobby willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and the other does not. Pretty simple math.

It's more nuanced than that, in part due to there being lobbyists for drug manufacturers.

It's more, though, how the deaths occur and how the product is used. To the latter, you can use alcohol safely. It's quite easy to go out and drink a moderate amount of alcohol. It is much harder for fentanyl ,as limitations are much less clear and a mere 2mg is enough to kill. Alcohol, while addictive, is also much less addictive.

To the former, alcohol deaths are typically in two categories: impaired accidents, and breakdown over time. People die because they do something stupid while drinking, like drive, or they die after decades of drinking. With fentanyl, people essentially die overnight from basic use of the product.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 12:00:
Bizarre world we live in when alcohol deaths equal fentanyl o.d.'s but one is considered a health crisis and the other is shrugged off.

One has a lobby willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and the other does not. Pretty simple math.