/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11291227
No, don't be deluded. It is because abbos are not burning understory plants anymore and everything is exploding eucalyptus firebombs.

>>11291227
It's not but those things you've been reading are wrong.
Some fires are caused by deliberate arso but they're a minority. The reason they're so bad is because:
1. The government has caused one of the worst droughts in history due to letting cotton farmers guzzle out huge quantities of water from the murray river basin
2. The government completely gutted rural firefighter funding
Our gov basically turned this country into a charity box.

>>11291227
No. It's changes in maintaining the bush, the fact that they dammed up various main waterways drying it out further, AND they've been spraying aluminum, barium, and strontium nanoparticles in the upper atmosphere for decades. Yes, chemtrails are conveniently lacing the soil with incendiary material.

Feels like there's nothing you can say. It doesn't matter. They're just going to do this everywhere and people are so trained it cannot be stopped.

By the way, they're also using ground based radar to prevent moisture from moving in from the sea. ie, no rain.

>>11291268

>>11291268
>ground based radar to prevent moisture from moving in from the sea
Anon...

>>11291251
>>11291257
Right, the record heat wave and three winters in a row with no precipitation had nothing to do with it.

>>11291268

>>11291352
You spray nanometals in the upper atmosphere then irradiate them with doppler etc. It heats them up and aligns them with the fields, this creates a high pressure dome, moisture is either diverted or blocked. If needed you spray it with chemical ice nucleation agents to force it to rain / snow at sea.

You people don't know the first thing. We are absolutely fucked.

>>11291362
OK schizo

>>11291362
lmfao

>>11291465
>>11291584
Vaccinated?
Clamped?
Circumcised?

>>11291593
No to all of the above

>>11291649
Well, that's good then. At least something is halfway right with this shithole world..

>>11291227
Bushfires are not unusual in Australia.
But climate change and mistakes in forest management certainly made it worse. Australian Government can be blamed for both.

>>11291693
The smoke plume is the width of South America. It barely fits in the US.

>>11291353
Obviously everything is a factor when it comes to it, but which do you matters more:
A: Slightly higher heat
B: For every 4 firefighters there were only 1 during an extremely dry period

>>11291227
Melted bro.
Melted as, bro.

>>11292628
False dichotomy, it's not "slightly higher heat" it's extremely dry conditions.

>>11292789
Yes, which have been caused primarily by the government's poor management of our water. Climate change has some impact, but the reason the fires are especially bad this year is because our government has created the perfect conditions for bushfires.

>>11292803
LOL no. The government doesn't determine temperature or precipitation. It has nothing to do with water management.

>>11292803
I'm pretty sure that your government has changed very little as far as environmental maintenance since the early 2000s

>>11292985
>The government doesn't determine temperature or precipitation.
Yes they do. See the solar radiation management and geoengineering aspects above.

>It has nothing to do with water management.
Yes it does. They've dammed up and diverted water mains.

Fuck off.

>>11292985
>>11293006
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/31/photos-reveal-queensland-cotton-farms-full-of-water-while-darling-river-runs-dry
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/06/murray-darling-authority-warns-of-dire-summer-of-mass-fish-deaths-and-blue-green-algae
>emptying out the largest reservoir of water has no impact on drought xd

>>11293024
Yeah, and those companies likely emptied just as much out of the basin as last year, and the year before that. Both of those are just looming threats caused by the environment and not by changes in how management is undertaken, like that basin plan was enacted in 2012.

>>11293008
Quiet schizo, the adults are talking.

>>11293024
It really has no impact on drought. Do you think the bushland was being supplied with water from reservoirs? You won't find a single scientist saying any of this was caused by water management, so quit pulling shit out of your ass.

>>11293059
>Quiet schizo, the adults are talking.
You guys are in for a rude and quite unavoidable awakening, very soon. I know there;s nothing I can say, so we'll just leave it at that. Relief, albeit of a rotten form, is finally on the horizon. You have no idea what it's like having to live amidst your fantasies.

>>11293067
>>11293067
>You have no idea what it's like having to live amidst your DELUSIONS

>>11293047
>those companies likely emptied just as much
I'm assuming you're not Australian because you don't remember all the fish dying last year from the murray darling losing far more water than it has before
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/07/hundreds-of-thousands-of-native-fish-dead-in-second-murray-darling-incident

>>11293059
>It really has no impact on drought
Lol

>>11293070
I assume you think you're being witty by flipping around a "no u" unto my statement. You don't live amidst anything, it's close minded golem like you as far as the eye can discern. You like to think you just don't know, then you test and find out you were right, they are that stupid.

>>11293074
>Patrick stressed the irrigators were not doing anything illegal. They were simply doing what they were entitled to do under the plan: taking and storing their water allocations.
Was the plan changed last year? If they haven't been taking more water than normal, then the only explanation is that there's less water available in the first place. Drought is what we call it in America, and that's a major consequence of climate change.

>>11293078

>>11293086
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7XJHiLSKKk

>>11293099

>>11293084
But they have been taking water illegally, our government just won't do anything about it because they're in bed with big corporations.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/08/murray-darling-water-theft-allegations-nsw-to-prosecute-irrigators
>The regulator was today blasted by the state ombudsman for giving him figures on the number of enforcement actions and prosecutions it had initiated over a 15-month period when it had not taken any enforcement actions at all.

I honestly find it quite frustrating when foreigners such as yourself don't understand how terrible our government is with managing the environment, and how they are the main reason the fires are so bad.
Once again, and I can't stress this enough, they completely gutted our firefighters and this is what sets this year apart as being particularly bad.

>>11291268
>chemtrails
>radar somehow prevents rain
Whatever you are taking, you need to stop.

>>11291227
No, faggots laying fires and getting away with prison instead of being burned alive as punishment is the main cause.

>>11291362
>You spray nanometals in the upper atmosphere then irradiate them with doppler etc. It heats them up and aligns them with the fields, this creates a high pressure dome, moisture is either diverted or blocked. If needed you spray it with chemical ice nucleation agents to force it to rain / snow at sea.
Holy fucking shit i lost it

>>11292985
>water management doesnt matter
California routinely enters droughts because people feel the need to water their lawns.

>>11293622
this

>>11293067
We'll leave it at your are a schizo without a shred of evidence and not a single rational thought to your credit. Get out.

>>11293634
HOLY SHIT STOP BEING SO BASED
>>>/pol/ IS THE BASED BOARD

>>11293074
>Lol
So I take it your couldn't find one scientist saying water management is a factor in the wildfires. How sad.

>>11293141
Wait so now it's not water management, it's firefighters?

>>11293632
>California routinely enters droughts because people feel the need to water their lawns.
Where is this bizarre reversal of causality coming from? It seems to be a common misconception. Wasting water during a drought is a problem because the water supply available to humans is limited by the drought, it doesn't cause droughts.

>>11291227
>oz government
what?

>>11293665
>if you take water from the environment then it will become drier
Where am I supposed to find a scientist who will make a statement as self-evident as this?

>>11293676
You won't find any because it's false. The amount of water in the atmosphere is determined by temperature and atmospheric circulation. The entire human water supply is negligible compared to the amount available to the water cycle. The only thing water management effects is how bad the drought is for humans, not moisture levels.

>>11293642
i lol'd

>>11293668
Australian government did everything wrong.
-bad water management
-bad forest management
-cut funding for fire-fighters
-speeding up global warming
-etc.

>>11291227

Yes, Climate change is affecting frequently of Indian ocean dipole.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-climate-change-may-make-australia-wildfires-more-common

>Australia’s fire managers have kept an eye on one culprit that’s behind particularly hot, dry years in eastern Australia and that may be affected by global warming: an oscillating El Niño–like ocean-atmosphere weather pattern that begins in the Indian Ocean.

>“Indian Ocean dipole” pattern has positive, negative and neutral phases, depending on whether eastern or western Indian Ocean waters are warmer than average. The more extreme the temperature difference between the ocean’s eastern and western regions, the stronger the phase. When the Indian Ocean dipole is in a particularly strong positive phase — as it was in 2019 — it correlates to some of Australia’s worst fire seasons, says climate scientist Wenju Cai of CSIRO who is based in Melbourne, Australia.

>Global warming is likely to make such extreme positive phases much more common, Cai says. In a 2014 study in Nature, he and colleagues simulated future sea-surface temperature changes in the Indian Ocean in a world where greenhouse gas emissions continue on a “business-as-usual” track (SN: 1/7/20). The team found that, under that scenario, the frequency of extreme positive-phase events could increase from about once every 17 years to about once every six years.

>All the major bushfires in southeastern Australia are preceded by [a positive] Indian Ocean dipole. For example, in 2009, [such a dipole preceded] a bushfire called Black Saturday that killed 173 people in Melbourne in just a few hours, and destroyed more than 2,000 houses.

>also a [positive] dipole before the 1997 bushfire in Indonesia, which lasted many months and created haze affecting tens of millions of people and really hit the economy there. The 2019 dipole is second [in strength] only to 1997 in the historical record going back to 1870.

>>11293668
The firefighters was always the main thing that seperates this year as particularly bad.
You cut funding by 75% then obviously the bushfires will get out of control very easily.

>>11291362
interesting. very very interesting.

>>11293674
hello esl

>>11291359
>fluoride
Australia is removing fluoride because it is now proven to effect the cognitive development of children when consumed by a pregnant mother.

Fucking moron.

>>11293780
OK but you understand that water management had no causative effect, right?

>>11293807
The main thing was the extremely dry conditions, lack of firefighters did not start this summer. You sure seem desperate to avoid the climate's role.

>>11293825
>Australia is removing fluoride
So not only are you a schizo, you're a liar too.

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/public-health/health-effects-water-fluoridation

Aussie here.

The effects of the fires have been massively overstated and blown way out of proportion, it isn't even the worst fire in the last few decades. In fact, it's about average. It's just more climate change shilling by leftist media. The Earth has been far hotter and having spoken to hundreds of climate scientists (PhD CS myself, so I've helped program some models that are used by top scientists), it's a minor worry at best.

The world just needs to stop being tricked so easily. MUH FIRES. MUH ORANGE CAMERA FILTERS. Fucking lol at retards that actually get tricked by it.

>>11293890
>The effects of the fires have been massively overstated and blown way out of proportion, it isn't even the worst fire in the last few decades. In fact, it's about average.
Source?

>The Earth has been far hotter
When? Hundreds of millions of years ago, before humans existed? Curious how after speaking to "hundreds of climate scientists" you are under the misconception that the issue with global warming is the temperature and not the rate at which the temperature changes.

>>11293825
>effect
Guess your mother consumed fluoride as well.

>>11293990
t. Liberal shill

>>11291227
If the local wildfires are any indication it's retards not cutting dead, dry, burnable trees, because muh ecology and forest.

>>11293620
>>11293624
>>11293634
Not an argument. ;^)

>>11294450
You didn't bring any proof

>>11294554
I told you how it worked. Satellite imagery has shown moisture off the coast just hanging in an arc around the doppler stations. If they can't hold it back or provide a nucleation surface naturally, they treat ice nucleation agents, which is an endothermic reaction that causes it to freeze and fall into the ocean. People don't even read. I said chemical ice nucleation, what the fuck do you think that means? You ever see an instant ice pack in a first aid kit? You ever see those snow makers? You remember when China made it snow?

Sick of this shit, I'm done AND leaving. Not my problem to raise the awareness of the world. Fuck off and die. It's already way too late.

hmmm...

>>11294572
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

>>11294572
HEY GUYS THIS REMINDS ME OF UN AGENDA 21 AND THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY MEGAREGIONS HUMANS ARE ALLOWED TO INHABIT.

BUT THAT'S JUST CONSPIRACY THEORY. NOT AN ACTUAL FUCKING DOCUMENT THE UN PUT OUT.

>>11294314
Great counterargument

>>11294562
Here in the Northeast US we'll have one day where it's 0 F, it snows. the next few days it's back to 30-4's. Snow rapidly melts. It's foggy out right now.

Matches an endothermic reaction. Our winters haven't been fully real the last two or three years. 2013-15 though was the last point I recall that winter was normal, wind chill was bitter and pierced right through you, -10 at night, and so on. No longer.

>>11294572
>>11294575
>>11294576
Don't worry, it won't get built until 2040 thanks to sheer incompetence of AU government

>>11294721
AU government is incompetent deliberately. They're staging for Chinese takeover.

>>11294715
Nevermind. It's also raining now. Does that make sense to people? 0 degrees one day, raining the next?

>>11294737
it does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_temperature_extremes

>>11294767
I wasn't born yesterday and I didn't just start paying attention.

And that link. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11294726
Conspiracy theory with no evidence

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHhhX64-nURpR8BSLVNF_LyiD4IeFfMu

Check out this series.

>>11294776
you have a short attention span man you can't even get through the shorrtest wiki page
GTFO MUH SCI

>>11294787
Hopefully people actually read your link instead of taking your word at face value. There's nothing relevant there. Stop lowering the SNR and piss off.

>>11291353
>thinking in absolutes
bruh of course the heat wave and dry period are big factors, but the MAIN cause is that the liberal Aussie government prohibited the burning of understory plants that used to be burned I think annually. Moreover, like 80 people were arrested for arson

>>11293671
The point is that they are codependent factors, which means the claim that water management has nothing to do with forest fires is patently retarded.

>>11294562
The earth orbits me not the sun.

See I told you how it works therefore it must be true! Go back to reading crank magazine.

>>11291227
>Os climate change the main cause
Yes, we have video evidence of climate change lighting the fires

>>11293848
>lack of firefighters did not start this summer
Yes, it did.
>You sure seem desperate to avoid the climate's role
Well obviously the climate plays an important role. If we were getting constant rain then obviously these fires wouldn't be happening.
But you have to look at this from the perspective of an Australian. We have fires every year, and they've been getting progressively worse. One year the gov cuts funding by 75% and the fires become worse than they've ever been. You'd have to be delusional to think the government isn't responsible.
Does this mean climate change isn't real? Obviously not, it clearly is happening.
Has climate change contributed towards making these fires bad? Yes, of course.
Are these fires especially bad BECAUSE of climate change? No, climate change is a very slow process and isn't noticeable on the human level (yet). Compared to last year the temperature has risen by what, maybe 0.01°C? Whereas the were so few firefighters that many of the remaining ones ended up quitting because they simply couldn't handle all the land they were put in charge of.

While I do agree that over time the fires will be becoming worse due to climate change, it's a slow process and to say these fires are especially this year primarily due to climate change is focusing too much on the long term factors and not enough on the significant short term ones.

Either way our government does a terrible job with prevention of greenhouse gas emissions so whatever way you look at it, it is our governments fault. Unless you're one of those wackjobs who thinks environmentalists are lighting fires (yes, some people actually think that)

>>11294921
You really are retarded.

>implying the climate matters

>>11293141
>multicultural NSW 0.3 million
should be 0.0 and give that 0.3 to fire an rescue

www.geoengineeringwatch.org

>>11294798
nobody is impressed by your 30F temperature swing faggot

>>11295023
why is the kid humping his leg?

>>11295059
he's asserting dominance over his cuck father LOL

>>11294804
>the MAIN cause is that the liberal Aussie government prohibited the burning of understory plants that used to be burned I think annually.
You keep claiming this without evidence. Do you have a source?

>Moreover, like 80 people were arrested for arson
It was 24. And there have been thousands of separate fires so that doesn't explain shit.

>>11294908
No, the point was that somehow negligent water management causes droughts or wildfires, when in fact the opposite is true. Next time you attempt to revise history don't forget to delete your posts.

>>11295002
>Yes, it did
Prove it.

>You'd have to be delusional to think the government isn't responsible.
You'd have to be delusional to not see that this year was particularly dry. It's an empirical fact that directly increases the chance and severity of wildfires. Your claim about firefighters on the other hand isn't even substantiated, let alone causative.

>No, climate change is a very slow process and isn't noticeable on the human level (yet).
The thing about current climate change is that it's very rapid and very noticeable. That's why it's a problem.

>Compared to last year the temperature has risen by what, maybe 0.01°C?
You're comparing averages while ignoring that the range of extremes shifts. Extreme events which were rare are now less rare, and extreme events which never occurred can now occur.

The lack of firefighters allows the burning to continue, it does not stay the fires. The dryness does.

>>11295042
>>>/x/

>>11295193
>Prove it
>>11293141
>The lack of firefighters allows the burning to continue, it does not stay the fires
This is just stupid. So you think if we decided to cut funding by 100% and just let the fire do whatever it wants, it wouldn't get worse?

>>11295198
www.geoengineeringwatch.org

>>11295235
So no proof and no argument for how lack of firefighters causes fires. That's what I thought.

>>11291227
Arsonists cause climate change. Prove me wrong.
>30 people arrested so far

>>11291251
>abbos are not burning understory plants
They actually burned more aggressively than this, thinning out the trees, to the point where it was open country with clumps of trees.

There are more trees in Australia now than in 1788 (first white settlement).

This so-called hazard reduction that leaves the "green oil bombs" (eucalyptus trees) in full number is useless. But that is because they do not go far enough and think the trees.

The causes:

> sacred tree myth

> old growth forest myth

> wilderness myth

>>11295333
Why would I need proof that firefighters prevent fires from getting out of control?
Do I also need proof that water puts out fires?

>>11295512
>Why would I need proof that firefighters prevent fires from getting out of control?
No one asked you for that. You were asked for proof of your claim that a lack of firefighters started this summer. Please keep trying to move the goalposts and failing, it makes it very easy for everyone to see you're a pathetic hack.

>>11295541
>You were asked for proof that a lack of firefighters started this summer
And it did when the government cut funding? I don't understand, are you asking me if the lack of firefighters triggered the fires? Your English is rather poor.

>>11295572
>And it did when the government cut funding?
You still haven't provided proof that it did so, despite multiple chances to do so. Instead you feign illiteracy. Pathetic. Everyone can see you're full of shit.

>>11291227
>Is climate change the main cause of Australia's wildfires?

>family friend lives near Bright(Victorian highlands, high risk bushfire area)
>tree falls over on side of road near his driveway, lots of undergrowth
>not allowed to clear it even thou it looks like a purpose made bonfire
>clears it anyway because he doesn't want a fire to block his driveway
>gets fined $300 by council

Lots of factors but Victoria being ran by inner-city dwelling leftists who think they understand the bush doesn't help

>>11295592
>You still haven't provided proof that it did so
Holy shit, either you're incredibly dense or not reading my posts.
Here I'll quote it again for you >>11293141

>>11291251
Based Abos

>>11291353
>Australia didn’t have droughts
This is what happens when you take no interest in history

>>11293665
>um excuse me do you have a source for that?
>it might be entirely logical and feel to the intelligent like a logical place to go with the discussion but unless you have a source it doesn’t exist
This is why people with an IQ under 125 shouldn’t be allowed near university (or reading)

>>11295610
That comparison is faulty since it compares a revised budget to an initial budget. The revised budget includes emergency expenditures added on while the initial budget doesn't include such emergency expenditures.
See https://www.abc.net.au/article/11747396

I'm sorry you got fooled by political propaganda.

>>11295614
>>Australia didn’t have droughts
Who are you quoting?

>>11295600
Based lefties trying to burn the suburban and rural retards to death and create action on climate change, with the side benefit of turning people away from the libs

>>11295395
>noooooooo you can’t just burn treeserino
This is what happens when you take Germanic forest reverence and apply it to other parts of the world

>>11295617
I already explained why water management is irrelevant here >>11293691 and no one responded. So yes, the discussion did end with the logical conclusion that use of water had no causative effect on the wildfires. I'm glad you agree.

>>11295637
Cringe cope larp
You telling me that water being on the ground or in the vegetation, where it can be evaporated or reduce the dryness of fuel, has nothing to do with fire?
Also you’re retarded

>>11295641
>You telling me that water being on the ground or in the vegetation, where it can be evaporated or reduce the dryness of fuel, has nothing to do with fire?
No, the human water supply has no effect on the dryness of fuel. It's not being used to irrigate the bushland and it's a negligible part of the water cycle determining the dryness of the bushland. Try again.

>>11295641
>sounds vaguely plausible
>so I don't need evidence, you just have to accept it
Good thing we're not on the science board.

>>11295628
>That comparison is faulty
How convenient.
So your entire argument for the rural firefighters not receiving cuts is that some of their funding passes on from the last financial year?
This is absurd especially considering that conditions have been worsening and any idiot would know that the firefighters should be receiving MORE funding, not LESS.

If the funding the firefighters were receiving were accurate we wouldn't be the fucking charity case that we've become, absolutely embarassing ourselves on the international scene because gladys would rather spend tax payer money on a useless stadium than give it to firefighters.

>>11295628
>political propaganda
>posts abc
Literally government funded propaganda.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-01/rise-of-rooftop-solar-power-jeopardising-wa-energy-grid/11731452
Literally "uhhh its renewables fault not the government lol!!" and there are many other articles like this one.

>>11295650
>>11295665
Sorry libs but it’s insane that having more water in an area would lead to no difference in the amount of fire there
Even full rivers being fire breaks would have an effect
Areas being given over to crops rather than left to uncultivated native growth
This is the difference between book smarts and using your brain

>>11295725
>So your entire argument for the rural firefighters not receiving cuts is that some of their funding passes on from the last financial year?
No, where did I say that? You are comparing the initial budget of last year+emergency expenditures in that year to the initial budget of this year. Do you see the difference? You are calling that difference a "cut" when it's merely a difference in how the budgets are calculated.

>This is absurd especially considering that conditions have been worsening and any idiot would know that the firefighters should be receiving MORE funding, not LESS.
You don't know that they've been receiving less funding, that's been my point from the start.

>>11295733
What is wrong in either article?

>>11295745
>Sorry libs but it’s insane that having more water in an area would lead to no difference in the amount of fire there
That's not what I said. I said that water management has no effect on bushland dryness. If you actually knew what you were claiming, you would not need to constantly misrepresent the argument. You don't know it, you have no evidence, no source, and no coherent argument.

The shills in this thread should be hung.

>>11295752
So where's your proof that they haven't been receiving less funding?

>>11295757
I never claimed they weren't receiving less funding, I simply asked you for proof of your claim.

>>11291251
Its literally just the Eucalyptus trees. My grandfather had a ranch in central california surrounded by eucalyptus and I can tell those trees are molitov cocktails waiting to explode.

>>11291268
The absolute state of uneducated autistic plebbitors

>>11295761
I provided proof, then you said that apparently the NSW budget isnt sufficient proof so I think its reasonable that you at least show something that indicates they havent received less funding.

>>11291251
No. Anglos and abos still do controlled burn-offs as they always have. While more could be done, ultimately fires are an unavoidable yearly feature because >>11295395

>>11295778
>I provided proof, then you said that apparently the NSW budget isnt sufficient proof
You provided a faulty comparison that doesn't show what you claim it shows. Get over yourself. You clearly aren't mature enough to have a discussion since you feel the need to misrepresent the argument through equivocation instead of conceding that you made a simple mistake. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one who made the claim. We both know you have none so quit wasting my time.

>>11296229
>We both know you have none
To any normal person, the official budget of the government would be sufficient proof to show that a government service has received less funding.
To you, no proof exists. And on this fact alone you think you've won the argument. You think you're incredibly smart because of this, but you're not. Any idiot can deny proof, it's not difficult. In your universe, can any proof of the firefighters receiving less money even exist?
If official government sources aren't enough then what is?

>>11297096
>To any normal person, the official budget of the government would be sufficient proof to show that a government service has received less funding.
Are you seriously still trying to equivocate? I already explained how what you showed is insufficient. Instead of providing a counterargument or admitting you made a mistake, you are acting as if I never explained the flaw. If you're incapable of arguing honestly then I'll just take your refusal to do so as an admittal that your claim was incorrect.

>To you, no proof exists.
I don't know if proof exists, because you have yet to show it. Whining about it and projecting your inability to argue in good faith onto me doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on you.

>And on this fact alone you think you've won the argument.
No, I won the argument because you refuse to provide one.

>In your universe, can any proof of the firefighters receiving less money even exist?
Are you trying to imply that it's my fault if the claim you made is bullshit? If you don't know how to prove your own claim, why did you make it? You're truly pathetic. Why don't you do some research like I did? The article I posted says that the 2018-2019 budget includes more than $40 million in retrospective reimbursements. So that means the initial budget for that year was around $80 million - $40 million dollars = $40 million. This is less than the initial budget for the 2019-2020 financial year. Now I'll let you use your vast intellect to form the conclusion. Is that a cut?

>If official government sources aren't enough then what is?
It has nothing to do with whether the sources are official, you fucking lying sack of shit. Do you really think constantly misrepresenting the argument is helping you?

>>11297755
>$40 million
>This is less than the initial budget for the 2019-2020 financial year
Are you illiterate? The budget clearly says $16 million.
Or have you confused Fire and Rescue NSW with rural fire service?

>>11297755
Furthermore you said that we can't know that rural firefighter services were cut because you couldn't compare revised and initial budgets.
Well in the article you linked it clearly shows that that initial budget of rural fire service was double in the 2018-2019 financial year than the current.
If a 50% reduction doesn't qualify as a cut for you, I don't know what could.

>>11295395
I wonder if their ceremonies are affected by the total fire bans.

>>11295395
>There are more trees in Australia now than in 1788
LOL