Deceptive rhetoric at Davos could bring disaster

There is nothing ‘cohesive’ or ‘sustainable’ about ‘solutions’ demanded by WEF ‘stakeholders’

Paul Driessen

The World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland is billed as the globe’s most prestigious annual gathering of movers and shakers. Its mission is to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s theme was “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” Unfortunately, the lofty rhetoric belies the misleading, potentially disastrous realities of agendas supported by many participants.

A primary basis for this year’s theme is the repeated assertion that the world faces a climate cataclysm. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen thus wants to tax carbon-based energy imports into the EU and end humanity’s practice of “taking resources from the environment and generating waste and pollution in the process.” She (and others) insist that “green energy” would do no such thing.

Climate crisis claims in turn are based on computer models that are only as good as the assumptions built into them – and on attempts to blame temperature changes, extreme weather events and future crises on fossil fuel emissions, because the assumptions and models say it’s a cause-effect relationship.

The most cited model is (naturally) the most extreme: RCP8.5, which predicts temperatures way above what we are actually measuring and all manner of future calamities. But it is based on the assumptions that: methane and plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (a tiny 0.0402% of Earth’s atmosphere) are vastly more important than the sun in driving climate change; our planet will have 12 billion people by 2100; there will be no energy innovations over the next 80 years; and therefore coal use will increase tenfold by the end of the century. On that we’re supposed to base restrictive energy policies, and Davos meeting themes.

Who are the stakeholders that Davos attendees will consult? Greta Thunberg was invited, to present her patented tirade that fossil fuels are destroying her future. But no climate realists (alarmism skeptics) were given the podium, nor were representatives of EU or US factory workers or the world’s poorest citizens.

The good news is that several bankers made assurances that they were not going to stop lending funds to fossil fuel companies or “major polluters.” (Will that latter category include the mining companies that will have to provide voluminous raw materials for a US and global “green new deal,” as discussed below?) The bad news is that Davos bankers and politicians allow themselves to be pressured constantly primarily by far-left “stakeholders,” who hold the stakes that they and global ruling elites want to drive through the hearts of developed nation living standards and poor country aspirations for better lives.

Indeed, contrary to its assurances at Davos, despite consultation with indigenous peoples supposedly being a core company business principle, and without consulting with Alaska Native stakeholders who want to drill carefully and ecologically for oil and gas on their own lands, to improve their people’s living standards, Goldman Sachs has decided it will no longer fund such development in the Arctic.

With “mainstream” outlets and social media increasingly controlling news and opinion, and siding with climate alarmists and anti-fossil activists, that pressure will continue to build – to our great detriment.

Will Davos themes, agendas and policies usher in a more “cohesive” world? The opposite is infinitely more likely. Deprive people of abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy, as eco-activists seek to do – and you deprive them of jobs, living standards, food, health and life. People die in droves (itself a goal of more rabid environmentalists panicked about an over-populated world). Implement “green new deal” policies, and the results will be anything but cohesion. The policies will bring rage, protests, violence and anarchy – as France and Chile vividly demonstrated over the past two years.

Turn African, Asian and Latin American countries into vassal states, with enormous mines serving “ecologically responsible, climate-focused” nations that don’t tolerate mining within their own borders – and any cohesion will rapidly disappear. Tell American, European and other families they must accept massive wind and solar installations in their backyards or off their coasts, and the results will be similar.

A “sustainable” world? Yes, fossil fuels are ultimately finite resources – hundreds of years from now, after we run out of huge coal deposits, oil and gas from fracking, methane hydrates and other supplies, assuming policy makers don’t lock them up and “keep them in the ground.” But long before that happens, human innovation will create far better alternatives than wind turbines, if we let creativity flourish.

Meanwhile, just remember: Wind and sunshine are sustainable. But lands and raw materials required for the technologies to harness this intermittent, widely disbursed energy absolutely are not.

Sustainability is a useful concept for assessing hidden costs, risks and fiduciary responsibilities – such as those associated with climate change, as we are constantly reminded. But we must apply those same considerations to wind, solar, battery and biofuel operations; and to impacts on habitats and wildlife, air and water quality, human health and wellbeing in green new deal mining and manufacturing regions, and human welfare in an energy-deprived world of increasing hunger, death, anger, riots and chaos.

As my new Heartland Institute reports and previous articles note, fossil fuels and nuclear currently provide over 8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and electricity-equivalent power annually, to meet America’s industrial, commercial, residential and transportation needs. Using solar to generate all that power – and charge batteries for a week of sunless days – would require 19 billion state-of-the-art sun-tracking photovoltaic panels, completely blanketing an area equal to all of New York and Vermont.

But that assumes the panels are all located where the sun shines with summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365, which will never happen. So we’d probably have to double (perhaps even triple) the number of panels and affected acreage. The impacts on habitats and wildlife would be significant.

Using 1.8-MW wind turbines instead of solar panels would require more than 4 million turbines on farm, wildlife habitat and scenic lands equal to Arizona, Nevada, California, Oregon and part of Washington State combined. But the more we install, the more we have to put turbines in poor wind locations. We’d probably have to double (or even triple) the number of turbines, and acreage impacted. Their rapidly turning blades (200 mph at their tips) would slaughter millions of eagles, falcons, other birds and bats.

Going offshore instead would require hundreds of thousands of 650-foot-tall 10-MW turbines. Their impact on birds, bats, marine mammals, vistas, and ship and aircraft navigation would be intolerable.

Each 1.8-MW turbine requires some 1,200 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other materials. Each ton of materials requires removing thousands of tons of rock and ore – and processing ores with fossil fuels. In fact, wind turbines need some 200 times more material per megawatt than a modern combined-cycle gas turbine!

Storing a week of electricity for windless and sunless periods would require some 2 billion half-ton Tesla car lithium-cobalt battery packs – and more materials; more mining. Connecting wind, solar and battery facilities to distant cities would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines, and more mining.

This doesn’t include materials to replace existing cars, trucks, heating systems and other technologies.

And that’s just for the United States. Imagine how many turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, raw materials, mines, processing plants and factories we’d need for a global transformation!

But green new deal advocates detest mining, at least by western mining companies in western countries. So it’s mostly done in faraway places that have virtually no environmental, health, safety, wage or child labor rules. Places like Inner Mongolia, where rare earth operations have fouled the air, created a huge toxic lake, and poisoned thousands of people. And Africa’s Congo, where 40,000 children labor in mines just for the cobalt needed in today’s cell phones, laptops and electric cars; not for any green new deal.

This eco-imperialism and false sustainability must end. As to all those self-styled stakeholders, You first. Lead by example. Slash your energy use and living standards. Then you can (nicely) ask the rest of us to do likewise. That means you, Greta, Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Emma Thompson and all the other climate scolds. (But of course they won’t. So why should we? And why should the world’s poor?)

Via email




With Straight Face, Yale Says Fracking Causes Sexually-Transmitted Infections

Researchers from the Yale School of Public Health published one of the dumbest papers we've ever seen. They claim that some areas in which fracking takes place (Texas only) have more sexually transmitted diseases. Embarrassingly funny and, yes, "fracking" stupid.

It is difficult to describe how badly I wanted to include the terms "Fracking" and "F#####" in that title. But I had a momentary lapse in poor taste, so I went with a tamer choice. Researchers at the Yale School of Public Health did not. They risked ridicule by putting out one of the dumbest papers I've ever seen:

"A Multi-Region Analysis of Shale Drilling Activity and Rates of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States" N. Deziel, et. al., Sexually Transmitted Diseases, January 9, 2020 doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001

And, ridicule they shall have. Not my fault. They practically begged for it.

A. The claim

Here's the premise: The rates of two sexually transmitted infections, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, were found to be 10% and 15%, respectively, higher in Texas counties where fracking took place compared to other counties where fracking wasn't being done.

Is there anything to this? Let's take a look (Hint: Other than a good laugh, no).

The five most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the US are:

HPV (Human Papillomavirus)
Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Herpes

But the paper links only #s 2 and 3 to fracking. What about 1,4, and 5? This discrepancy can be explained in one of two ways:

Fracking protects people from HPV, syphilis, and herpes.
The results are a bunch of nonsense.

I vote for #2.

B. What's wrong here?

Plenty.

"In Texas, county-years with high drilling activity had 10% increased rates of chlamydia (RR=1.10; 95% CI=1.04-1.17) and 15% increased rates of gonorrhea (RR=1.15; 95% CI = 1.04-1.28), compared to county-years with no drilling."

How did this ever get published? This paper is pure data dredging. And it's not even good data dredging. In retrospective studies, which are essentially useless on a good day, the minimum relative risk (RR) that is even worth paying any attention to is 2.0. In other words, if the people in fracking areas had double (RR 2.0) the risk of those in non-fracking areas it might be worth paying some attention to the paper. When RRs are 1.1 and 1.15 the study is a joke.

"No statistically significant associations were reported for syphilis..."

There ya go. The authors at least admit but do not explain, that one of the other three STIs had nothing to do with whether people lived in fracking counties, non-fracking counties, or on Neptune. This is another red flag - biological plausibility. There isn't any. If there is really an increase in STIs in fracking areas it would be across the board - not just two infections.

By massaging the data the authors were able to come up with an imaginary correlation between fracking and some STDs but not others. But even this supernaturally low bar was still too high to find a "statistically significant" association with syphilis (or anything else)...

C. It gets worse.

"No statistically significant associations were reported for... STIs in Colorado or North Dakota."

As if this weren't a big enough mess it would seem that we may have to consider another ICD-10 diagnosis code...

A56.8-BS - Sexually transmitted chlamydial infection in states with large numbers of electoral votes.

OK, so if I've got this right, there are 21 states that do fracking. The authors chose three of them and found a delusional "association" in one of these states, but for only two of the most common STDs and no association in the other two states. Sounds reasonable, no?

No.

D. This "study" is an anti-fracking screed. And nothing else.

"Associations between shale drilling and chlamydia and gonorrhea in Texas may reflect increased risk in areas with higher drilling activity and a greater number of major metropolitan areas. Inter-state differences highlight the need for local epidemiology to prioritize community health policies."

Please.

SOURCE





Fishy Science: The Environmentally Dangerous Fish Stick?

Fish sticks, for many a dinnertime staple, cast an environmental shadow. Fisheries contribute 4% of agriculture's 10-to-32% contribution to Green House Gases. And given those ranges, it should be no surprise that the “environmental performance” varies between the fisheries under discussion. How bad is a fish stick? It depends on what you count, and over what time horizon.

The studies of GHG created from fishing have focused primarily on fuel usage by ships while fishing, resulting in a “focus on a narrow group of pollutants (e.g., well-mixed GHGs including CO2, CH4, and N2O)…”. Moreover, the use of an extended timeframe, 100 years, does not account for the short-term impacts of other gases, which have short atmospheric lifetimes and can have strong warming or cooling effects. Black carbon is one such pollutant that can result in short term warming while SO2 results in cooling. Finally, in calculating a “sea to table” scenario, one must also consider downstream environmental costs of processing and delivery to the consumer.

The Fishy Study

The researchers followed the sea to table life of this guy, the Alaska Walleye Pollock, whose fishery is the eastern Bering Sea. They are widely distributed for consumption as fillets and surimi. I know that last one threw me too. Surimi is frappe of Pollock used in much the same way as the nugget of the Chicken is used in chicken products. You may have walked by surimi in the dairy case as imitation Crab sticks. And while the fillets and surimi have collective harvesting experience, and share equally in markets, making a fillet has different downstream environmental costs than creating a frappe or an imitation crab part.

"The primary processing phase of the seafood supply chain includes on-board production of intermediary products and storage of the product at a wholesaler."

Here we are talking about fuel, electrical costs including refrigeration, materials, and environmental costs associated with materials and refrigerants. There are so many variables and difficulties in calculating numbers with a large fleet of varying weight, capacity, and catch. As the authors write, "Carbon footprints come with large uncertainty in data and methods.” Since all of the calculations are 1st-order estimations, I did not put a lot of stock in the numbers, instead considering the ratios and interactions as a good initial approximation.

The secondary processing is what happens to those blocks of frozen fillet and surimi - all the environmental impacts in creating that final product in your home. There are transportation costs for sea and land crafts with differing fuel needs and supplies, as well as the costs of refrigeration and coolants. At this point, the researchers made use of cost information about a different white fish that is similarly transformed into battered and breaded fillets. Not the worry, the crab flavored sticks, our friend surimi, was retained for comparison, but again with different costs for processing, packaging, and storage. Finally, there were the costs of retail activity, again those refrigeration units and storage costs.

The Fishy Results

The study considered two different products, sent into five different markets [1], over a “short-term horizon on 20 years and a long-term horizon of 100 years.

For both products, the downstream costs of processing doubled the environmental costs of fishing. Those costs varied by both market and time horizon ranging from 0.55 to 0.66 kg CO2 for each kg of the finished product.

In processing, the majority of environmental impact came from product ingredients and electrical consumption. Slightly over half of the environmental impact comes from product ingredients. And once again, what was being made altered the ratios, ingredient costs were higher for battered fish, while electrical spending was less.

While CO2 is the primary environmental “warming component,” other materials, specifically black carbon (soot), followed by methane, play significant roles. The percentage contribution by black carbon and methane flipped when considering only greenhouse gases versus all the possible air pollutants involved; their share of warming was decreased when considering a long time horizon and varied with markets.

NOx is the primary environmental “cooling component,” followed by SOx. Their contributions too varied with the markets, and time horizon.

Counter-intuitively, the exportation of these products reduced their environmental impact over domestic use – this was due to transoceanic shipping, where the fuel resulted in “higher amounts of cooling species than the domestic products.”

40% of transoceanic shipping occurred in areas where fuel composition was regulated to twenty-four fold lower levels of sulfur. Sulfur, which acts as a cooling agent in the atmosphere, therefore, had less of a positive environmental impact in these regulated areas.

When considering only greenhouse gases, the estimated environmental burden was 1.6 to 2.6 times greater than when all pollutants, including those that cool the atmosphere were considered. And that multiplier was greater over 100 years than 20 years

The numbers should be taken lightly. Look at how many variables could be involved in creating a model for the production of battered fish and imitation crab sticks. And I am only mentioning some of the more pertinent variables. [2] And other, often uncounted variables, produced more variation.

In performing their sensitivity analysis, researchers found that the environmental costs were affected by whether products were shipped on sea or land (differences in fuel composition), as well as storage costs, which varied by a country’s electrical grid. The authors also acknowledge other environmental variables not measured; for example, the relative abundance of pollack and water temperature had an impact on where and how long fishing takes.

Models

All models are simplifications, and all models are wrong. But iterative models can take into account more and more of the factors and their interplay. Not including the content and effect of atmospheric cooling pollutants like NOx and SOx alter conclusions. Not considering the entire range of source to table inputs changes findings, after all, nearly 70% of the environmental effects in this study were from processing, not fishing.

For me, the paper is a cautionary tale about science and policy. Unfortunately, many of our regulators and legislators are not equipped to consider the nuance of studies, and they are rarely presented to them as other than our “best possible” science.

SOURCE





BPA Alarmists Are Beating A Dead Monomer - Enough Already

Bisphenol A – a long-used component of polycarbonate plastics, is one of the most studied chemicals in the world. Even the ultra-cautious FDA has declared it safe for people as used. But some scientists have built a career by screaming about how dangerous it is, so we have another paper. Enough already.

BPA has been studied to death. The FDA says it's safe. Some obsessed academics can't seem to accept this.
One would think that the FDA's issuance of the CLARITY-BPA Core Study, a two-year exhaustive examination of the effects of the plastic component bisphenol-A (BPA) on rats might have finally put an end to the hysteria surrounding a chemical that has been used since the 1950s.

One area that has been of significant consumer interest is the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging. BPA is authorized for use in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins in certain food and beverage can linings. Given this interest, the FDA has routinely considered and evaluated the scientific evidence surrounding the use of BPA and continues to conclude that BPA is safe for the currently authorized uses in food containers and packaging.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration  Feb 23, 2018

One would be wrong.

In a paper entitled "BPA: have flawed analytical techniques compromised risk assessments?" which was published in the December 5th issue of The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, three authors from Washington State University, one of them being Frederick vom Saal (1), try yet another approach to convince us all that BPA, which is primarily used as a sealer/liner in canned food (it keeps you from getting botulism poisoning, etc.) is putting life on earth at risk by "disrupting" our endocrine systems.

The premise of the paper is that BPA has traditionally been measured by an "indirect" assay in which BPA sulfate, and BPA glucuronide, the two major metabolites found in urine, are enzymatically broken down (hydrolyzed) to give free BPA, which is then measured. The authors question the efficiency of the hydrolysis process, saying that this leads to artificially low concentrations.

Instead, the Washington State researches report an analytical method that directly measures both major metabolites in urine without having to go through the enzymatic hydrolysis. The "direct" measurements found that total BPA in urine was 19-44 times higher than measured using older methods. Therefore:

Importantly, because estimates of human exposure have been based almost exclusively on data from indirect methods, these findings provide compelling evidence that human exposure to BPA is far higher than has been assumed previously

Sorry, I don't buy it.

If anything, in my opinion, the paper may actually reinforce the safety of the chemical. This is because both the indirect and direct techniques are measuring BPA in the urine. Because that's how our bodies work. Our livers are exquisitely designed to convert chemicals and drugs to water-soluble metabolites, which are eliminated in the urine. This process is especially efficient with BPA (2).  The authors say just this:

However, rapid metabolism of orally ingested BPA means accurate assessment in humans requires not only measurement of BPA but also of its major conjugated metabolites

So, I would argue that it makes little or no difference whether standard analytical techniques have underestimated. This is because:

Whatever harm BPA is alleged to cause will not occur when its metabolites, BPA sulfate, and BPA glucuronide, are sitting in your bladder waiting to be eliminated. To screw up your endocrine system the chemical needs to be in blood and body tissues. The rapid metabolism ensures that the chemical does not stay in the body for long.
Let's accept that standard analytical methods have indeed been underestimating the concentration of BPA metabolites in urine. So what? This does not mean that we are suddenly ingesting 19-44 times more BPA. No, the exposure hasn't risen. It's just being measured differently. This is conceptually identical to groups like EWG and NRDC reporting the presence of trace amounts of chemicals in the environment or humans and implying that this is something new and dangerous. This is disingenuous and wrong. The chemicals have been there all along. They are now being detected because of the power of modern instrumentation, which can measure chemicals in concentrations that were unimaginable in the past.
The argument that we are somehow at more risk because measurements now show that we have been exposed to more than previously believed is like arguing that if two home runs are awarded every time a batter hits the ball into the seats that hitters are now hitting twice as many home runs as before. If anything, this study says that BPA is 19-44 times safer than we thought. Sound silly?

You bet.

NOTES:

(1) Frederick vom Saal has spent something like seven centuries trying to prove that BPA is a dangerous chemical. Do a Google search of "BPA" and vom Saal and 1940 (!) hits show up. Obsessed much?

(2) Phenols (benzene rings containing a hydroxyl (OH) group) are notoriously poor drug candidates. They are the bane of medicinal chemists doing drug discovery. Why? Because the damn things get turned into glucuronide and sulfates and all your work gets peed away. As the name implies, bisphenol A contains two hydroxyl groups so it is (more or less) twice as bad a drug.

SOURCE






Prominent Australian conservative lets fly during heated debate over coal and bushfires as climate expert tells him Australia faces 'unimaginable' blaze seasons

Michael Mann is a pseudo-scientist.  He is so nervous about the quality of the data underlying his research reports that he opted to lose a court case rather than reveal his data.  Such a breach of basic scientific principles makes all his words unproven nasturtiums

Barnaby is perfectly correct to say that adopting stricter CO2 polcies would do nothing to extinguish the fires.  The fires will burn as long as the fuel to burn is there and dry.  No fuel no fire.  Lots of dry fuel, lots of fire.  That's the essence of it and nothing else much matters.  Control the fuel buildup and you control the fires.  Laws of any kind passed in parliament are irrelevant to that


Barnaby Joyce has gone up against a climatologist in a heated debate about coal, bushfires and Australia's climate change policies.

During a 60 Minutes panel discussion between the Nationals MP and former fire chiefs, renowned US climate expert Professor Michael Mann said the country's bushfires will continue to worsen if the Coalition doesn't step up.

But Joyce hit back, saying that despite recognising the climate is changing, 'we're not going to [put out fires] by having this incredible debate in Canberra'.

Joyce said he believes Prime Minister Scott Morrison thinks Australia 'has got to do its part and is doing its part' to combat climate change and the growing fire threat.

Prof Mann shot down the outspoken MP's views, saying: 'In all fairness Barnaby, Scott Morrison and his government have played a destructive role in global negotiations to act on climate.

'[The Coalition] have literally dismissed the connection between climate change and these unprecedented bushfires that we're experiencing. 'The scientific community has spoken authoritatively on this matter.'

But when asked if he accepted that the fires have been driven by global warming, Joyce admitted climate change had played a role.

'I can absolutely accept that we've had a massive change in the climate. That is not my argument. My argument is one of immediate efficacy,' he said.

'We're going to put back into our fire breaks, we're going to make sure we build central watering points so that no [fire] truck has to travel more than 20km. 'These are the things that I want to concentrate on.'

Prof Mann fired back, saying politicians 'can't solve the problem if they refuse to accept the cause of the problem'.

Mr Joyce argued Australia has complied with international agreements.

'No that's not true,' Prof Mann responded.

Mr Joyce then went on to spruik the importance of exporting coal, and noted it's one of Australia's biggest exports next to iron ore.

'Therefore the money that comes from that - whether you like it or not - supports our hospitals, our schools, our defence force,' he said. '[We aren't going to] say to the Australian people "we're going to get rid of that income stream and you've got to accept that this money is not going to turn up".

'And I'll tell you what happens in politics if you do that - you lose the election.'

60 Minutes host Tara Brown asked Mr Joyce if he was overstating the wealth of coal to Australia, and reminded him the coal industry is just 2.2 per cent of the GDP and only employs 0.4 per cent of the population.

Prof Munn then doubled down on his views: 'How about the hundreds of millions of dollars being lost in tourism, the damage that's been done in these unprecedented bushfires?. 'The cost of climate inaction far outweighs the modest cost of taking action.'

But again, Joyce hit back. 'Are you saying that if Australia changes its domestic policies then the climate will change?.  'This idea that Australia unilaterally will make a decision that is going to change the climate is absurd.'

Prof Mann said there are a number of politicians around the world who are 'basically sabotaging climate action for the entire planet'.

'You can count [these countries] on the fingers of your hand. It's Saudi Arabia, it's Russia, it's the United States and Brazil. Does Australia want to be part of that family?'

But Joyce said Australians will lose their 'dignity' if Australia's economy becomes weakened if it stops exporting coal. 'If you want to sell this program, you have to say to [the Australian people] how you're going to make their lives more affordable and put dignity back into their lives,' he said.

His remarks angered retired Army General Major General Peter Dunn, who then went toe-to-toe with the former deputy prime minister. 'But what dignity have you got, Barnaby, when you are standing in the middle of rubble and saying "how on earth did this fire happen?",' he said.

He said the 'head of the serpent' fuelling bushfires is climate change. 'This country wants politicians to step up. It is the existential issue that the public have raised,' he said.

'It defeats me as to why you won't step up to it. All [scientists'] predictions have, damn it, turned out to be right.'

Prof Mann said the effects of climate change are 'actually worse than we predicted'.  'Here in Australia we are seeing an unimaginable crisis take place,' he said.

'We're not seeing the sort of action we need to be seeing here in Australia and around the world to avert truly catastrophic climate change.'

Former Victorian Fire Commissioner Craig Lapsley advised climate change deniers to 'go to the science'.

Prof Mann, who works at Pennsylvania State University, claimed Australia's future bushfire seasons will be even worse than what the country endured this summer. '(Fires) will become more intense, they become faster spreading, they become more extensive,' he said.

'When you turn the entire continent or large parts of it into a tinderbox, there's really no amount of fire suppression or backburning that's going to get you out of the problem.

'People ask me, is this a new normal for Australia? It's worse than that.'

Maj Gen Dunn, who lives in bushfire-ravaged Conjola on the NSW south coast, echoed Prof Munn's sentiments. 'What happened here? It was like a nuclear explosion. It was terrifying. It's a monster,' he said.

'We've really got to think about these sorts of things; how we manage bushfire fighting. The traditional approach has been well and truly proven to be ineffective.'

So far, 33 people have died in the horror infernos and millions of hectares of land has been destroyed.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************