JoNova: Aussie ABC Disappearing Evidence They Helped Climate Activists Campaign Against Controlled Burns

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova The government backed Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been caught red handed deleting a facebook post which demonstrates their complicity providing uncritical publicity to a climate activist campaign to disrupt Australia’s bushfire safety controlled burn programme.

The following is a post on an official ABC Facebook page which has been removed from Facebook, but which can still be reached, at least for a short time, via Google Web Cache.

ABC Gippsland Controlled Burn
Screenshot: ABC Gippsland Controlled Burn Climate Campaign (link google cache)

Click the google cache link of the deleted facebook post and see for yourself – the google cache link will likely stop working in the near future.

The regions named in the deleted facebook post have been devastated by huge bushfires, or are under threat.

It is disgusting that the ABC encouraged this murderously irresponsible climate activist campaign by providing them with uncritical publicity. But it is even more outrageous the Australian Government ABC is trying to remove evidence of their involvement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Terry Bixler
January 1, 2020 10:08 pm

The words seem like “An inconvenient truth” but truly a reality. A twisted world indeed.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Terry Bixler
January 2, 2020 2:12 am

This is very much like the do-gooder who wants to keep the fire service in business as a means of showing his caring for the community – but who sets fires so as to justify the cost of the service.
It’s the same with flooding: don’t bother with routine maintenance so that when the floods inundate (tautology?) an area the ptb can claim its all the fault of CC.

January 1, 2020 10:09 pm

The Leftists and MSM will do their normal – blame others for the terrible consequences of their own appauling choices and behaviours. Punish others for doing what they demanded.

Feel like I am living in a country run buy dellusional utopian infantile narcissistic 13 year old girls.

On a related note – most of these are deliverately started it seems. Or just morons:

“2 Jan: 3AW: Alleged arsonist arrested over fire in East Gippsland
Police have arrested and charged a man following reports he allegedly started a fire in East Gippsland last night.
The 36-year-old man, of no fixed address, is accused of starting a fire in Johnsonville, east of Bairnsdale.

He was arrested on Punt Road, Johnsonville, at about 6.45pm.
The man was charged with recklessly causing a bushfire, as well as drug related offences.
He will appear at the Bairnsdale Magistrates’ Court today…

Reply to  Michael
January 2, 2020 4:43 am

“Feel like I am living in a country run buy dellusional utopian infantile narcissistic 13 year old girls.”

Pretty amazing statement given it was three middle aged ultra left wing MEN that initiated this UN nonsense ie Maurice Strong, Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev and that most of the IPCC and UNEP and UN institutions etc pushing this nonsense – including UN GenSec – are actually middle aged men.

Reply to  JillOz
January 2, 2020 6:20 am

And I suppose a 16yr old girl is doing a better job?

Reply to  JillOz
January 2, 2020 6:35 am

I think he was talking about their mentality but yea, point taken. Perhaps “dellusional utopian infantile narcissistic 13 year old children” would have been better.

Reply to  JillOz
January 2, 2020 8:40 am

Why are you implying that i was talking about the autocratic male psychopaths who began all this ? (though there were women too, e.g. Margarett Mead in 1973). Did I say “lived in” or “began”? No. I was referring to the mentality of the magical think now, which i characterised as more feminine magical think than psychopath god-complex control freak males. If you were offended by my sexist projection – fine. But at least please try to respond to what i said, not misrepresent what i am saying.

Somewhat ironically you tangentially reinforce what i implied re feminine emotional 13 year old reflexes – irrational, adhominem character based, misreprentative and lacking self awareness and responding with female in group preference emotionally to perceived group attacks – 13 year old “GIRL” (heck even Jordan Peterson, Camilla Pagliauses this exact characterisation, as it is diagnostically dofferentiated from how the typical 13 year old boy etc thinks and responds e.g. ). Ironic hey – you reinforce feminine stereotypes you object to and i presume was wanting to refute. THIS is the type of pattern recognition that is discouraged these days.

I could have said 13 year old child, but that isn’t as accurate a description of the behaviours I see. If i was referring to the mail cancer in the West – elite psychopath males – then it would be happy to discuss 13 year old psychological characteristics that differ to women on the whole. Feminists are right in my opinion on one main thing – ultimayely it IS all men’s fault, all of it – but i mean it in different ways to them. I meant what I said, so perhaps examine what i said and reply to that, rather than strawman me on what i didnt say. Refute my characterising and feel offended to my sexist comment by all means.

Reply to  JillOz
January 2, 2020 9:04 am

Jill – I believe that Janice Fiamengo is soon publishing a book on the shared origins of Feminism, the female and the Environmental movement. From what I gather from her youtube video they both represent the earth as a fragile Woman, mother Gaia, who are constantly in danger from the lusts of men raping her precious treasures. The eart as fragile sensitive female, not as robust male ‘father earth’. All this was explicit in hundreds of their publications from the 1960s onwards, and she argues is very feminine in how it percieves the world – hence the character and natural affinity between environmentalism and the feminine approach (public shaming and coercion, rather than rational debate, precautionary principle, etc).

Reply to  Olga
January 2, 2020 12:57 pm

Strange, that’s how the Aztecs viewed the earth as well. Sacrificed thousands of people to provide her with sustenance (blood) she needed.

Reply to  Olga
January 2, 2020 1:32 pm

“…feminine approach (public shaming and coercion, rather than rational debate, precautionary principle, punching them in the nose, or other coercion).”

There, fixed.

Reply to  Olga
January 2, 2020 4:10 pm

How DARE you?


Roger Knights
Reply to  Olga
January 2, 2020 4:32 pm

“From what I gather from her youtube video they both represent the earth as a fragile Woman, mother Gaia, who are constantly in danger from the lusts of men raping her precious treasures.”

And polluting her with their emissions.

Patrick MJD
January 1, 2020 10:14 pm

ScoMo (Shouty) the Aussie PM, under extreme pressure to “do something, is now calling for laws to be changed to assist with fuel load burning. Ya think? You mean go back to what Australia did in terms of land/forest management back in the 80’s?

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 2, 2020 2:44 am

Patrick MJD – Did Australia do controlled burn-offs back in the 80s??

That is interesting. In the early 60s I remember walking with a group of friends in a bush area just north east of Melbourne which had been cleared by fire a year before – I do not know whether controlled or natural, though. I was amazed how lush, green and fertile everything was. There were no impediments to walking – you could walk easily for miles. One of us was a bit of a botanist and pointed out numerous species of tiny orchids which, as far as I remember, he said only came out straight after a fire.

I believe the old Australians who were there for 60,000 years did controlled burn-offs. They would know a thing or two about how to manage a climate like Australia’s. I bet they wouldn’t build permanent settlements way out in the bush, leaving lots of combustible stuff on the ground everywhere to make sure they would die during the next drought!!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Andy Espersen
January 2, 2020 3:12 am

I will try this link;

Read this and look at page 4.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Eugene Conlin
January 2, 2020 11:15 am

Yes, looks like it! Interesting graph on page 4.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 2, 2020 5:08 pm

There are 98 pages but no graph on page 4 or on any other page.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AndyHce
January 2, 2020 7:15 pm
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 2, 2020 6:20 pm

That’d best be what land management was like in the 1780s

Robert from oz
January 1, 2020 10:30 pm

That’s what happens when socialists take over taxpayer funded media .

Joel O'Bryan
January 1, 2020 10:37 pm

The Leftists with their CC policies really are arsonist-firefighters in Australia…just like California Democrats.

Their policies provide the very environment in which the crisis/disasters will happen. Then when it inevitably does, then claim to be coming to the rescue by claiming their climate change policy will cure it.

Michael F
January 1, 2020 10:53 pm

The seeds of the Australian fires were sown in 2009, when after major bushfires then the Left-Green community refused to allow any backburning at all. What we have had since then is 10 years of fuel buildup on the forest floor. That and only that is the reason these fires are so intense and so devestating.

Reply to  Michael F
January 2, 2020 2:39 am

“after major bushfires then the Left-Green community refused to allow any backburning at all”
Just not true. No evidence of “Left-Green” opposition is provided (The Greens support prescribed burning). There is no evidence of who might have been in a position to “refuse to allow”. But most of all, there is no evidence that prescribed burning (which is not backburning) was stopped, and it wasn’t.

Here is a report on bushfire management in East central region, which was the area most affected by 2009. Fig 1 shows residual risk, and the amount of prescribed burning. It goes only to 2012, but shows that, contrary to evidence free assertions here, prescribed burning has not stopped, or even diminished. Burning dropped in 2011, which was a wet year. But 2010 and 2012 were not far short of the peak years, which are all since 2000. There was not a halcyon past when burning was done on a larger scale, before the supposed Green protests stopped it.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 3:16 am

If this burning was done we would not have the raging, out of control fires we have now. The bush at the back of my place near Brisbane has not been prescribe burned in the seven years I have been here and the undergrowth is thick and 3 to 5 ft high.

Reply to  CLIVE
January 2, 2020 7:29 am

“If this burning was done…”
It was done, at least in Victoria. 130,444 ha in the most recent year.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:28 am

Try reading your link again

When opportunities did arise, we prioritised for burning areas where we could achieve the greatest risk reduction and for which we had the right conditions for burning. In all, we carried out 31 of 76 high-priority burns.

They only got off half the control priority burns because of conditions, they only just got below the 70% audit as required by the royal commission. Now they do say conditions but an audit of that and how they arrived at that might prove interesting in the washup of this fire season.

I suspect we are going to get laws to take a this out of the hands of public officers who often have enviromental activist backgrounds.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:54 am

Prescribed burning is hard. There is a window of a very few weeks between when it is too summary and dangerous, and too wintry and just won’t burn. And the boundaries keep moving, and of course, it rains. Only a fraction of planned burns can be done in the proposed year. That isn’t Greens, or stroppy residents. They just have to wait until it is possible.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 9:17 am

That is your opinion not a fact and many of us have a different opinion. This likely will all get settled in another royal commission so lets argue about it then.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 9:25 am

Victoria has a total area of 23 million hectares, so, on these figures, less than 1% of the area of Victoria [smallest of the Mainland states] had prescribed burning in ‘the most recent year’.
I calculate that that leaves a tad over 99% of the state without prescribed burning that year.


Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 10:21 am

My brother has worked in the past for the DSE (or whatever they call themselves these days) as a seasonal firefighter in Victoria’s Mallee and has been directly involved in fuel reduction burns in that region. Much of the work was often in remote areas where the only reason it was being done was to help achieve the burn targets as there was virtually no assets that needed to be protected by the burns. He also felt that there was too much greenie/political influence within the organisation and local park rangers who had decades of local knowledge were having their advice and opinions ignored by office bureaucrats.
I am an active CFA member in a rural area who along with other members who are also landholders believe that the best way to protect our own properties is to protect the properties of others. As a kid, (about 60 years ago) I helped my old man and other neighbors that were part of the local CFA brigade, every year burn all the local roadsides and breaks around the houses and sheds on every property within the brigade area, all with private farm trucks, all petrol powered, with a water tank and a pump on the back. Those on foot carried knapsacks and beaters to control the edges of the firebreak and all were under the control of the brigade captain, a local farmer. It was easy to burn long distances along the roads in those days because the roadsides were being used as the stock routes they were designed for, with stock regularly being moved by locals and drovers, or being grazed by local landholders making use of the available feed, especially in the dry years.
Now with all the rules and regulations, roadside grazing is banned without a permit, and even if the local council does issue a permit, then the DSE or Vicroads, as they have done, will step in and force anyone who may be grazing their stock to remove them or face legal action.
The roads now are overgrown with introduced species such as phalaris, and forests of saplings in places up to the road edge, and if the local brigade does organise a burn, after jumping through an increasing amount of red tape, it is almost inevitable that the burnoff will jump into neighbouring paddocks at least once every year which requires the increasingly lesser number of private trucks to not only be on the roadside controlling the burn, but to have trucks inside the paddocks in case the fire jumps the break. Increasingly brigades now have to call on neighbouring brigades to assist with burnoffs whereas in the past they had enough equipement and men available from within their own brigade.
The locals, those with properties to protect, the local knowledge, and who give their time freely, not only to carry out the burnoffs, but turn out when there is a fire seem to be pushed further and further down the chain with the green politicians and the bureaucrats taking control of what was an essentially an all volunteer organisation. Now any burnoffs are largely done after the worst of the fire danger has passed.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 1:22 pm

“Ah yes a Stokes deflection so now we define down the topic to “prescribed burning””
The topic was defined at the head of the thread, and not by me:
“The seeds of the Australian fires were sown in 2009, when after major bushfires then the Left-Green community refused to allow any backburning at all.”
When I try to point out, with facts, that prescribed burning has not only continued but increased, you then say – yes, but not as much as the judge wanted. And so it goes.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 6:44 pm

You leave out two obvious problems

1.) You have not shown us any data or evidence that the right level of prescribed burning is being done. As I stated they finally scraped up to the bare minimum as mandated and then they magically they changed the whole system to “Risk Based” which we have no audit on and reports only to a political/civil servant panel. There are alarm bells going off, so do we have to have another Black Friday before this all gets looked at again?

2.) There is a wider argument about private landowners and there ability to control fire risk which you don’t want to talk about because it isn’t a prescribed burn. You don’t want to talk about it but it is part of the problem.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 4:23 am

of course Gippsland is usually super wet and has well established undergrowth due to that as well as deep litter. and then we had a drought.
the dairy farmers were already struggling or closing n killing the herds
now…if they cant keep em fed and safe we have real issues at lost bloodlines and no production. butter is already at 5 to 7$ a 500gm block
avg decent cheese is at 14 to 19 a kilo.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 4:52 am

The “halcyon past” is visible in the era when Australia made films. Roads where the vegetation was cleared for many metres either side feature in many of these movies, but one example would be Peter Weir’s “The Cars that Ate Paris” (1974). Now we see cars being directed along rural roads where forest is right up to the bitumen and has burnt straight across the road.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 5:32 am

Bullshit Nick!

I was sitting talking just yesterday, with a senior multi-generational farmer and land owner. He still works long hours daily with the next generation of his own family and I know this first hand, because I spent time working with them this past year, helping to set up one of their large pivot irrigators.

He volunteered the comment that he could not use his dozer to clear firebreaks nor could he back-burn these days on his own property because it was now an offence and it was next to impossible to get a permit to do so. The property has large ‘unimproved’ sections of bush that also adjoin vast State forests/Crown lands.

The halcyon days you’re talking about, were before the leftist, nannying, bureaucratic, big government, globalist, totalitarian scum – that you so favour – took over*!

*Slime now “manage” the land with no accountability. And in very truth, they know nothing, see nothing and do nothing!

Reply to  Scott W Bennett
January 2, 2020 7:21 am

As usual, totally fact-free (the farmer anecdote is not about prescribed burning). The data is there. Prescribed burning has increased, not diminished.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:32 am

It has increased because it had after the royal commission it is still barely meeting the requirements. You keep deflecting about what is mandated since 2009 and going oh look burning has increased … YES IT HAD TOO but it still is only scraping the minimum required. That means in a drought and hot year it is not adequate and the 10 year review due on the royal commission will make exactly that finding.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:52 am

I can give you a fact I asked to clear 20% of the trees on my 24 acre property but because clearing outside of the building envelope requires approval I was denied by the local council. In an unfortunate turn of events I decided to have melon plots put near the trees and the Glyphosate weed control had a devastating effect.

I had a similar view the Sheahans who were fined $50K by Mitchell Shire Council for illegal clearing but they had the last laugh when the Black Friday fires occurred.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:56 am

“I can give you a fact”
No, it’s another anecdote which has nothing to do with prescribed burning.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 9:19 am

Ah yes a Stokes deflection so now we define down the topic to “prescribed burning” not land owners being able to minimize fire risk on there own property. It’s all part of the same problem but hey whatever floats your troll boat.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 2:24 pm

Thanks for your input.
My clients keep me in the loop.
RFS volunteers, the ageing workforce, kept telling me how pattern burns were stopped during the last mild winter here in NSW.
These were in the great parks just above Sydney.
The area burned now stretches from Lithgow to Newcastle and Windsor, as a rough boundary.
The fire map for New Year’s Eve has been placed on log in only for RFS so I cannot give it to you.
Its important to tell those who are able to act, after listening, that the situation is grossly inadequate.
Were you to support the present fire plans in our great National Parks, where all the fauna is killed, one may quote this of those plans as you survey the devastation…

‘If you seek their legacy, look about you’.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 7:00 pm

Nick you taking nonsense! Every year only 1% of national parks and conservation areas were treated by back-burning in Australia. I live here in the most fire prone area – Blue Mountains – Wollemi National Parks and saw it first hand. There were only few small areas back burned during last 10 years. And every time there were loud protest from greens idiots about those back burning.

Steve B
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 11:54 pm

Hey Nick

How about you quit massaging the data. The proscribed burns were done in areas that didn’t need doing. I know it is impossible for your left wing green brain accept that you are wrong but you are worse than wrong you are part of the cause of these fires.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 4, 2020 5:48 am

As usual? Now that is a very poor characterisation of my efforts and a particularly insensitive appreciation of my track record! 😉

Even for you Nick, that is very weak.

I’ll spell it out for you… again.

Farmers can not protect their own properties because of leftist policy.

Is that clear enough!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:48 am

Uh, it’s 2020…

Michael F
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 10:52 am

Just check the burn-off permits issued by every Left-Green council issued from 2009 to 2019. You could probably count them on one hand.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 6:22 pm

2019 Wildfires burn 20 times as much land as managed fuel reduction in NSW (so far)

Aboriginals didn’t need a water bomber God to save them from Government nurtured firestorms

Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Ancient Australia
By Geoffrey Blainey Originally published: 1975

Chapter Five 

A Burning Continent

The eagerness with which aboriginals set fires to the country was noticed by the first Europeans who visited the south-east of the continent.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Michael F
January 2, 2020 10:48 am

Michael: “Green Community refused..” How do they have jurisdiction? Why are they obeyed?

Reply to  Michael F
January 2, 2020 2:21 pm

There was less backburning this winter but it wasn’t because of the greens (they aren’t in power). It was because climate change has shrunk the safe window in which backburning can take place (

Ben Vorlich
January 1, 2020 11:14 pm

Well it will be 20 years before any controlled burns are needed it the areas being destroyed in 2019/20. So this misguided pandering to green pressure groups will have given them what they want in a strange bit of karma.

The danger of greens helping nature recover is a real threat now.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 2, 2020 12:20 pm

Not 20 years. The recommended cycle in WA’s Jarrah forests is 6 years. [not the best article but the best I can find quickly]
I suspect that in many Eucalypt forests even 6 years would be too long. In any longer cycke, fuel builds up to the point where no equipment can prevent the fire spreading.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 2, 2020 4:43 pm

“fuel builds up to the point where no equipment can prevent the fire spreading.”

Might goats help?

Denzil O'Hara
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 5, 2020 8:24 pm

Will goats eat dry leaf litter, fallen limbs, twigs and logs?

January 1, 2020 11:25 pm

Warning . . .
Make no mistake Ita Buttrose (ABC Chair) is part of the Josh Frydenberg play-book preparing to succeed ScoMo and introduce carbon trading before 2025.
JF believes he’ll succeed where Malcolm failed.
That’s why Au electricity prices will continue to rise.
That’s why Au is still in Paris.
That’s why Au ABC hasn’t changed one iota under Ita.

Reply to  Warren
January 2, 2020 4:25 am

Itas the token femme
and a lousier choice couldnt be made!
shes full rabid agw and shoulda stuck to womens weekly

January 1, 2020 11:30 pm

What is it that ABC did wrong here?
They reported on a protest, without either supporting or objecting to that protest. Are people saying that ABC should censor news about protests?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  AndyL
January 1, 2020 11:58 pm

Helping activist protests about hazard/fuel load reduction worrying about “carbon emissions” and then watch the whole place burn? Apart from deleting the post to show how they are d1ckheads?

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  AndyL
January 2, 2020 12:42 am

Well, no. The problem is that they decline to give any other view any credibility.
When caught out, they delete.
Others don’t.

Just a taste
“Our crews ignited the burn near Mossiface and then had to call 000 to activate Victoria Police when, contrary to Authorised Officers’ advice members of the public entered the burn zone and refused to leave.

“This is reckless and irresponsible behaviour that puts their own lives and the lives of our firefighters and the community at risk in addition to tying up valuable police resources.’

The ABC coverage of these fires is terrible.
Dour faced reporters showing sadness in the face of catastrophic loss.
Hundreds of poorly built corregated iron and fibro houses in the bush, with no fire clearance around them.
They won’t tell us.
A beautiful house, well built, nestled in the forest near Mollymook got wiped out by euclypt crown jumping firestorm.
Facebook and messenger are better than ABC.
The ABC is preventing the science of controlled burns being disseminated to educate our public.
It is implicated in preventing the very thing they uphold, the preservation of wildlife.
Entire National parks, with their fauna, are being systemically wiped out.

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  AndyL
January 2, 2020 12:56 am

What did the ABC do wrong?
1 Destroying evidence that could be used in a Royal Commission that is sure to be called to investigate the causal factors leading up to the fires. Surely “Mary” would be a valuable witness in such an inquiry.
2 Presenting a one sided of the story without consulting the true experts, the local fire chiefs.

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 3:06 am

“without consulting the true experts, the local fire chiefs.”

They quote:
“Forest Fire Management Victoria Tambo District Manager Brad Fisher says the burns at Nowa Nowa and Mossiface were planned for winter or ealy Spring as part of the fuel reduction program.”

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 4:19 pm

Forest Fire Management Victoria is not part of the Country Fire Authority. The CFA is the body responsible for fighting the fires. CFA are the true experts in my humble opinion.

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 5:15 pm

Forest Fire Management Victoria is the body responsible for the prescribed burning under discussion.

Bruce Clark
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 7:26 pm

And the CFA is the body responsible for putting out the fires. They are the ones with their lives on the line.

January 1, 2020 11:42 pm

This really smells of the work of a California “progressive” PR agency, Fenton Communications which has in recent years set up shop in Australia. We saw these same protests of controlled burns in California and the government stopped doing them in the face of these protests. Fenton will actually pen the articles that it feeds to “sympathetic journalists” who are allowed to publish them under their own byline. I would be willing to bet those postings came from a PR agency. These “environmental groups” and their PR agencies should be charged with accessory to murder and sued for economic damages .

One thing Fenton specializes in is creating “astroturf” protest groups. It is called “astroturf” because it is manufactured “grass roots” activism. Rather than have a single protest group, Fenton will coordinate the creation of several smaller groups in order to make the opposition to whatever they are protesting appear to be more widespread but they make sure that “protests” by the various groups don’t interfere with each other and they coordinate the messaging. One major effort of theirs recently was opposition to the US invasion of Iraq where several groups appeared out of nowhere. Groups such as Veterans For Peace, Win Without War, etc. were all coordinated by Fenton. Even some individuals such as Cindy Sheehan were directed by Fenton. They also keep the messaging consistent, this is why every paper in the US referred to Cindy Sheehan as “peace mom”. That massaging came from Fenton.

People have little clue as to the extent that their opinions are being manipulated. It is time to use the tactics of these groups against them. We need to start hammering these groups with lawsuits for the death and destruction they create.

Reply to  crosspatch
January 2, 2020 9:30 am

Very interesting . Outsourced Agitprop subversion. Marxist activism coopted by Black Propaganda PR Capitalists. Very, very corrosive to the body politic.

Thank you for this insight.

January 2, 2020 12:12 am

There may be a legal requirement for the ABC to preserve its on line content. link Of course, deleting on line content and stuffing it into an archive makes it much much harder to access.

Print content, on paper, can’t be changed and is easily stored in libraries. Broadcast content originated as ephemeral and there was no way to store it. For instance video tape recording didn’t happen for a while after the beginning of TV.

On line content is tricky. The Internet Archive is an attempt to preserve on line content. I’m not sure how it deals with Facebook.

Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 12:18 am

I don’t see it as biased reporting. It is neutral and subjective.

WUWT on occasions compromises its credibility through publishing opinions like this.


Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 12:31 am

If there is no “issue” with the reporting, why delete the post?

Kerry Ackerly
Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 12:41 am

Neutral or not, trying to hide this particular story reeks of some sort of guilt

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 1:00 am

If it is not biased then why do they try to bury the story? if they were proud of it they should be shouting from the rooftops. LOOK AUSTRALIA!!!! WE HAVE FOUND A CAUSE!!!! WE KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE!!!!

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 4:20 am

abc pushing CC and stirring up angst against ScoMo every single report they can manage to fit it into,
saying he should be in more ruined areas
but if he does? hes only in the way and then they’d sledge his expenses.
their outrightbiased reportage and agenda is VERY clear
they want a labor/greens govt and the full climate hysterics carbon taxes, the lot.

Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 1:19 am

Second that. The content shows something very different to Eric’s headline.
Jo Nova’s original article is much better constructed and relevant.
Suggest WUWT withdraws this, or at least revises the message so as not to distort it.

This gives neutrals a great excuse to condemn WUWT.


Reply to  Mothcatcher
January 2, 2020 1:59 am

This is a war. There are no “neutrals” anymore.

Reply to  Mothcatcher
January 2, 2020 4:30 am

Why delete the FB post?

Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 8:26 am

Michael Carter
I have a piece of real estate you might like, once you have cleared the alligators draining the swamp should only take a generation or two.

January 2, 2020 12:19 am

Don’t expect ethics, even from incorruptible ‘journalists’, when so much money, power and control is at stake. The loss of morality and self respect are small prices to pay.

January 2, 2020 12:23 am

In the UK the BBC are relentless uncritical promoters of Green Propaganda, especially in connection with the activities of those awful non-organic and not-carbon/wildlife-obsessed farmers. They help to prevent the river dredging work that used to be done to reduce the impact of floods.

Reply to  climanrecon
January 2, 2020 4:27 am

funny cos ABC aus is pushing the GMO crap and farming with weedicides as being Green and good.

Neil Hampshire
January 2, 2020 12:31 am

Controlled burning to reduce available fuel is clearly an issue
The environmentalists are still saying climate change is the real cause.
Is there no available data on hazard reduction or controlled burning?

Reply to  Neil Hampshire
January 2, 2020 4:13 am

I am in western vic, presently a local fire in a state park about 10k away
so you go to emergency.vic to see
and find the fires posted 11 hrs ago and at 4pm supposedly under control 600hectares or near
well the control is curious cos by 6pm thick smoke rolled over the town visability about 90 feet by sunset
and no updates
I live opposite the DWELP depot, the chaps in charge of burnoffs in parks n ther areas
the locals say they keep burning the same areas and not getting into the real heavy bush in their parks
what seems to happen is the burns are assessed for AREA burnt NOT the actual PLACE burnt
so its easier to go reburn the same spots where its easiest to access and can be timed to a workday
that said, the little desert burnoffs seem to have a tendency to escape every year;-)
and they ALWAYS work good friday n over easter right when we have tourists n campers in the parks theyre targeting.,double/ triple pay.
as local flora reserve support volunteer we asked for a 1/3 are a burn of our bushblock
it took 7 years! to get done and we are on the town fringe
then they came in jackboot style and burnt 2/3 and would have razed the lot except i saw the smoke and went to yell at em, as committee member i had every right to BE there and they failed to notify us
and then tried to kick me off the area,
lets say their pr lacks a bit.

and ps yes Fire orchids only grow fter fires
and many eucy species wont grow without either heat ash or “smokewater” applied to seeds/soils.

January 2, 2020 12:32 am

The climate ACTION of shutting down a coal mine / power station in Victoria worked didn’t it??? Nah – another ABC lie. No change to the climate and more bush fires – perhaps a few coal miners in the area would have been the difference in saving this area of Victoria. You got to worry about the sanity of Victorians putting up with this crap from Dan the greens man!

Alexander Vissers
January 2, 2020 12:47 am

Did you or Jo Nova ask them why they removed the post? That would be a sensible step from a diligent journalism perspective.

Reply to  Alexander Vissers
January 2, 2020 1:33 am

No, it would have been better if ABC didn’t report the burn protest and none of us heard about it./sarc

charles n
January 2, 2020 1:28 am

defund the Australian ABC

Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 1:35 am

To be fair another division of the ABC carries this report supporting controlled burns to reduce fuel loads.

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
January 2, 2020 4:03 am

In fairness? This ABC story you’ve linked here is from a few weeks ago. That’s called coverimg your tracks, as was deleting this earlier post. The tweet says 4 September, but of what year?

Don Andersen
January 2, 2020 1:53 am
Brent Hargreaves
January 2, 2020 2:47 am

Whilst ABC are indeed climate alarmists, this allegation of them supporting the thwartinh of controlled burns doesn’t stack up. For once, I think, the excellent WUWT has screwed up.

January 2, 2020 2:48 am

Here is an ABC report of Gippsland environmentalists congratulating the fire agencies on an improved schedule for prescribed burning in East Gippsland, and calling for an earlier start.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 4:07 am

This article criticizes the controlled burn approach in favor of an approach that clearly targets less burning. Stop flinging distraction on the wall to see what sticks.

Reply to  Merrick
January 2, 2020 7:15 am

They are calling for it to be started earlier. Everyone agrees that a risk-based target is better than just a target in numbers of hectares. Otherwise they just keep doing the easy bits.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 8:57 am

No not everyone, the 5% target was set by the royal commission which you just keep ignoring. So the government has now allowed the royal commission implementation to be wound back which is what the enviromentalists are happy about.

There is a review of the royal commission due and lets just see what they have to say about the new risk based system 🙂

Reply to  LdB
January 2, 2020 2:13 pm

“lets just see what they have to say about the new risk based system”
No need to wait. They initiated it.
From Sec 7.4.2
“Panel members agreed in their summary that a statewide target is useful because it provides a guide to the overall scale of prescribed burning that should be done. The target must, however, take into consideration the fact that each hectare burnt is not of equal ‘value’ and the location of prescribed burns affects the effectiveness of risk reduction.132 Notwithstanding the usefulness of a statewide target, panel members were of the view that conducting prescribed burning strategically would involve placing prescribed burns to maximise risk reduction, assessing the most appropriate prescribed-burning regime for each region or habitat type, and considering the appropriate level of burning in particular regions.”

Reply to  LdB
January 2, 2020 5:49 pm

Which means nothing there is no quantitative test involved in that. In science , engineering and technology you actually test results when you implement changes it is sort of the norm. So do you have any details or data from an actual audit and verification?

Reply to  LdB
January 2, 2020 8:17 pm

“when you implement changes it is sort of the norm”
This isn’t the implementation. It is the report of the Royal Commission that you keep invoking. They set out the risk-based process that you seem to think they would disapprove of.

Reply to  LdB
January 3, 2020 1:02 am

No again you are misleading and it would seem deliberately.
Read recommendation 59 again in full don’t just do a Stokes read … actually read it.

Guess what the first part of the recommendation is
>>> provide a clear statement of objectives, expressed as measurable outcomes <<>> Increased planned burning to 390,000 ha 30/06/2014* DELWP Ongoing <<<

Now again look at the number actually control burnt this year.

If enough people die to get another Royal Commission having some of those involved in all this could prove very interesting.

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 5:24 am

Of course, Nick fails to mention the following quote from Jo Nova’s post.

“Back in September ABC Gippsland put a story on Facebook about how locals were protesting the spring prescribed burns which were “killing baby birds alive”. The East Gippsland locals managed to stop the hazard reduction burns. We note also that the Forest Fire Management Victoria local manager said that the burns were planned “after extensive community consultation”. Which tells us just how impossibly hard it is to get even a small (tiny) cool burn done. We’re only talking about 370 ha.”

Apparently, Heaven and Earth have to be moved to get the authorities to get a 370 ha burn.

Reply to  Ian Wilson
January 2, 2020 7:40 am

“Apparently, Heaven and Earth have to be moved to get the authorities to get a 370 ha burn.”
This wasn’t a problem with authorities. It was a problem with local residents. And while prescribed burning is a benefit overall, it does make real problems for the people who live there. There is smoke, blackened forests, and a definite risk of the fire getting out of hand and causing damage. So not everyone will welcome it.

But it isn’t impossible. 130,444 ha were burnt in the most recent year in Victoria.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 9:10 am

Now Nick go to your link above … this one

Notice something .. here lets help you since you obviously don’t read
====> State fire agencies have set a target of 115,000 hectares for Gippsland’s fuel reduction burning program this autumn.
Now compare to your number above
====> 130,444 ha were burnt in the most recent year in Victoria

They were supposed to burn as much in East Gippsland as was burnt in the entire state of Victoria 🙂

Alan Grey
Reply to  LdB
January 2, 2020 3:51 pm

Nick’s defence seems to be that communism works on paper……

Reply to  LdB
January 2, 2020 5:58 pm

It’s a straight set of numbers which both come from links he provided so it is a little hard for him to do a stokes defense on. So he just ignores and hope no-one notices. Those numbers above highlight a big questions not the least of which is the new Risk Based system actually working?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 2, 2020 11:48 pm

“And while prescribed burning is a benefit overall, it does make real problems for the people who live there. There is smoke, blackened forests, and a definite risk of the fire getting out of hand…”

I wonder if the people gathered on the beach at Mallacoota would agree ?

January 2, 2020 6:36 am

It my be worth a little follow up by you about the proposed ABC/Greens solution for stopping bushfires by having more renewables and cutting CO2 emissions.

The last time I looked, South Australia was having quite a bit of trouble with bushfires, despite having 50% renewables. These cuts in emissions haven’t stopped their bushfires.

January 2, 2020 7:19 am

In a few months, the ABC will no doubt be telling everyone that they have always supported controlled burns.

January 2, 2020 7:25 am

Found this as a retweet by Bishop Hill, lots of swearing by a Australian just fed up by the greens:

Raw emotion

Reply to  polski
January 2, 2020 4:02 pm

I grew up on a property north west of Dubbo, adjacent to the Goonoo State Forest. We used to do winter burns all the time. The argument that it’s too hard to do winter burns is a fallacy. In fact that is the best time.
In 1985, when the property was still leasehold we received a letter from the Lands Department banning us from clearing or burning off the western half of our property adjacent to the forest. The people who sent us this letter were from Sydney and never once set foot on our property to see what was there. After much argument we eventually converted the property to freehold and were able to do our winter burns to clear scrub and encourage grass growth.
The points I am making are these:
1. Winter burns do work and the argument that its too cool to do a controlled burn is WRONG.
2. Even in the 1980s farmers had to deal with city-based public servants with next to no idea of how to manage the Australian bush.
These are not second-hand anecdotes. I saw these with my own eyes and through my own experiences.

January 2, 2020 8:14 am

Whatever happened to the Ozzie farm family taken to task for land clearing to prevent fires? They were reported on Wuwt as I recall. It was a result of Oz including bush areas on private land as CO2 sequestering.

Al Miller
January 2, 2020 8:23 am

It is high time these people started facing criminal charges for their climate lies.

January 2, 2020 8:33 am

Not too little and not too much but just right for some-
although it’s an ill wind as they say for the many-

January 2, 2020 8:43 am

Just think of the cash and materiel that will flow to the firies “due to climate change”.

January 2, 2020 9:56 am

Airbrushing history and statements works most of the time and with almost all Australians.

January 2, 2020 10:20 am

Loss of accountability is a first-order forcing of progress corruption. Our [unplanned] Posterity will not even know what integrity was. Extinction rebellion.

January 2, 2020 10:23 am

This isn’t the first time that environmentalists (e.g. Green lobbyists) have endangered flora, fauna, and people… persons, too. Conservation, not environmentalism.

January 2, 2020 12:12 pm

The notion I saw expressed above a ways back that said the opposition to controlled burning in this specific area came from “the people” and not from the “environmental groups” is horse malarkey. Who do you think spends millions of dollars in order to influence this public opinion? Articles such as those published by the ABC also are designed to influence that opinion in accordance with a particular political agenda. Some of the richest foundations in the US dump millions of dollars annually into Fenton, for example, in order to further a leftist agenda through misinforming and outright disinforming the public. They are probably the most unethical organization there is and will stoop as low as it takes to reach their goals (“no rules, just results” is the progressive mantra) even if it means outright lying to the public. They’re rather disgusting.

Stephen Skinner
January 2, 2020 12:45 pm

Australia is home to Flora that is fire resistant and in some cases that means specific plants and trees will only survive if burnt.
The Australian Plants Society (Victoria) list 32 fire resistant plants and 80 fire tolerant plants (
I have never ever seen plant advice in the UK that considers fire when choosing plants. Therefore, fire must be an integral part of the Australian land.

Stephen Skinner
January 2, 2020 2:01 pm

Better land management is required which includes keeping the land hydrated.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
January 2, 2020 11:55 pm

Many deskbound “land managers” don’t listen to this guy. They should.

Bruce of Newcastle
January 2, 2020 2:36 pm

Click the google cache link of the deleted facebook post and see for yourself – the google cache link will likely stop working in the near future.

I wayback machined the Google cache of the 4 September story some days ago: Link.

I’ve also saved the 22 Oct followup story here: Link.
For some reason part of the second webpage’s text turned into German, but the story itself is still in English.

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  Bruce of Newcastle
January 2, 2020 4:49 pm

370 hectares of an identified and necessary burn was reduced to just 9. So 97% of the planned area was neglected. This was a small burn. How much of the rest of the state has suffered similar neglect I wonder?

Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 2:59 pm

“Why delete the post?”

One reason I can think of is to avoid potentially violent confrontation. Anyone who has lost their home will not take kindly to protests over controlled burning.

This is clearly a very sensitive issue.



Patrick MJD
Reply to  Michael Carter
January 2, 2020 10:43 pm

The media is already blaming Scott Morrison for this years bushfires and losses. No-one ever looks at state policies with regards to hazard burns.

Roger Knights
January 2, 2020 4:37 pm

Would goats help clear the underbrush? They’ve worked in other areas.

Roger Knights
January 2, 2020 6:46 pm

I suspect the ABC is trying to protecting the protesting groups from embarrassment, more than or rather than protecting itself.

January 2, 2020 7:09 pm

Do ya think it might be because the people on the photos received all kinds of threats against their lives? Imagine the tension, even though No Nova goes onto admit the protested burn off would have done zero to help stop the current situation. Talk about an agenda.

January 3, 2020 5:35 am
Steve Keppel-Jones
January 3, 2020 5:58 am

Nick, technically you are correct, prescribed burns were not “stopped”, but they have been reduced more than 50% since the 1950s. I am not guessing that fire management officials recommended this move, so I would blame “conservationists” (uninformed progressive postmodernists) by default. Do you think that change might be related to the increased area of wildfires?
Historical Prescribed Burns

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
January 3, 2020 10:57 am

“but they have been reduced more than 50% since the 1950s”
I don’t believe you. Your graph gives no sources, but is nothing like the history of fire in Eastern Australia. The title suggests that it is data for somewhere in WA. There was no large scale scheme for prescribed burning of forest in the 1950s. I was part of a CSIRO workshop in 1973 at which Phil Cheney was trying to get one started. It was happening gradually.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 3, 2020 11:47 am

That is West Australia data for sure, specifically the southwest. Similar data don’t appear to be available for other areas, possibly because there isn’t any. Is it possible that the lack of controlled burns in the rest of the country (e.g. Eastern Australia) is a major part (if not all) of the current problem? How did the program you tried to start in 1973 get along since then?

Reply to  Steve Keppel-Jones
January 3, 2020 12:37 pm

The question is, what is “prescribed burning” burning. I suspect the WA data is recording burning for land clearance on the fringes of the wheat belt.

I linked here a history of prescribed burning in the E Central region of Victoria, where our most damaging bushfires have occurred (until this year). It has been pretty much a gradual increase, with variation due to wetness of years, among other things.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 3, 2020 4:25 pm

I see that thread. The conclusion appears to be that while prescribed burns in that area have increased, they are still woefully inadequate. Did you advocate for adequate levels of controlled burns at that workshop in 1973? From what the aboriginals used to do, it looks like any given part of the country should have no more than 2-3 years of fuel growth since the last burn (whether from a wildfire or a human-caused one). Certainly that should be the case within several km of any human habitation or farming activity. How close are we to that?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 3, 2020 5:18 pm

The data is for South West WA it’s the title of the graph.

Again you are just making stuff up about things you know nothing about
Here on the map it is the yellow bit … The Green bit is called the South West
comment image

The current annual budget for prescribed burns in the area is 200,000ha, so they met the budget.

The problem is as per the graph that budget has been coming down per year

An interesting map to look at is the sept 2019 fuel load hazzard map

It would be interesting to overlay the areas currently burning .. lets look

Oh gee that is a surprise isn’t it 🙂

Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 4, 2020 12:57 am

“The conclusion appears to be that while prescribed burns in that area have increased”
That may be the conclusion, but that starting point, as said often here, was that prescribed burning had been stopped by Greens.

“Did you advocate for adequate levels of controlled burns at that workshop in 1973?”
I was six months out of my PhD, and was just listening. Phil Cheney was very strong on the subject; he had supporters, and, as I recall, no opposition. But it wasn’t a decision-making body.

“From what the aboriginals used to do”
There is much myth-making about that. But this is armchair stuff. What if the bush just won’t burn (in the brief window where burning is safe)?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 4, 2020 12:24 pm

“…I don’t believe you…”


January 4, 2020 4:07 am

Thanks to Daniel Coughlin for some decent journalistic digging to put things into perspective for us-
You never know perhaps Aunty could do likewise with history instead of deleting it when it doesn’t suit the climate cult storyline-
That’s telling them Tony and about time too.

January 4, 2020 7:46 am

” climate activists sabotaged fire safety forest management by occupying forests scheduled for controlled burns”
The usual myth-making. The linked report says that some Nowa Nowa residents objected to a controlled burn where they lived. There is no evidence that they are climate activists, even if Mary worries about climate change. There is no evidence that there were even any significant numbers. Mary from Nowa Nowa is mentioned, and also two from Mossiface. Conservationists generally have supported controlled burning.

“local regional radio presenters criticising greens for their disastrous campaigns to prevent controlled burns”
Local regional radio presenters are not always reliable sources of unbiased facts. How about some evidence that these “disastrous campaigns” even happened, let alone whether they actually prevented controlled burning?

Alan B'stard M P
January 4, 2020 10:41 pm

Don’t be surprised if some of these arsonists aren’t of the traditional type. I suspect some are climate change activists

January 8, 2020 11:48 am

The Google cache link is now returning 404 error.

So – was this fake news ? Or Google wiping the evidence !!??

January 8, 2020 5:29 pm

The distortions and disinformation in most of these comments is an example of refusing to read science facts and to face these facts. Like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, it is so much easier to blame and insult those who have bothered to read the evidence. Climate change is happening right now, and will continue to happen whether people believe the mass of evidence or not. The research generated by international scientists from all scientific contexts form a very clear and truthful analysis, to ignore it is your choice, eventually the sand will be too hot even for the ostrich to stick his head in.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights