Skeptics win on fires: ABC quietly flips — suddenly it’s fire management not climate change to blame

Skeptics win on fires: ABC quietly flips — suddenly it’s fire management not climate change to blame. By Joanne Nova.

This is how the paradigm changes. The old activism is quietly dropped down the memory hole…

Buried in a save-the-koala story on ABC News tonight is an ABC journalist saying for the first time that it is “current fire management practices” that are the problem. Rani Hayman didn’t say fuel load, but she might as well have. The reference to “indigenous fire practices” makes it obvious that the ABC means more hazard reduction burns (not that they can say so). She also didn’t say “climate change” — write it in your diary. On November 14th, the same ABC journalist was only interviewing the posterboys who blamed “climate change” for the fires.

UPDATE: Holy smoke — the Sydney Morning Herald also appear to have flipped hours earlier in the morning and in a much stronger and more direct way. Regular SMH reader Dave B sends in the link and says “wow… here’s a huge surprise”. Finally a spot of real journalism. Was this story the last nail in the ABC fuel-load denial? …

Looks like the weight of evidence and reality finally made the ABC retreat from one of its climate change fantasies. The real reason for the intense bushfires — the fuel load because of Green mismanagement — became too obvious, and too well known to too many people. (You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.)

Skeptics have been mocking the ABC and Greens and Fairfax news for years: Jo Nova 2013: ABC plan to stop bushfires with windmills and buckets of your cash

Suddenly on the ABC, the reason for the unprecedented fire situation is described as the way we manage our forests. The moment that marks the flip is when she uses the magical groupthink terms — saying “most agreed” – as if it was never contentious, and as if the ABC hadn’t been blaming climate change for years and wheeling out lame excuses for why we can’t do hazard reduction. Tonight we heard without fanfare that we need to use indigenous fire practices. The ABC reporter interviewed an aboriginal and a koala expert. She didn’t interview the old fire experts (mostly old white men) like the SMH did. They ignore people who’ve said this for years (apart from indigenous elders), nor did Hayman mention that climate skeptics were right, and years ahead of the ABC science unit.

It looks like the ABC are figuring out they were wrong. Shame they don’t have the honesty to say so.

The primetime news item below is no-news for skeptics — what’s interesting is the way the big shift is disguised, and the old agenda morphs to a new-old one. It’s easy for the ABC to swap climate change activism for being an indigenous cheer-squad. But if there is no honesty, there’s also no search for answer they really need to figure out. Why were the best funded journalists in the country, and the flag waving fans for all-things-indigenous also the last ones to figure out what fire specialists and even unpaid bloggers have been saying for years. …

If the ABC were serving the nation they would have interviewed Roger Underwood and the team at the BushFireFront decades ago. They could’ve interviewed the great Bill Gammage who wrote the book on indigenous fire management.

How many houses and lives would have been saved if the ABC had done the job it was supposed to do years ago, but has just barely started?

Looking forward to the lefties saying, about the carbon dioxide theory of global warming, “yeah, I always thought it was not quite right.” It will happen.