The arsonist claim has been repudiated thoroughly.
Pure BS. I already provided the list of several dozen arrests and/or prosecutions for arson.
Fires rarely simply explode on their own.
In fairness, the TV signal down under prolly told them so. 
Are you claiming spontaneous combustion?
They can sell all their natural resources to China, but they can’t manage a simple layer of foliage.
They should probably start raking their forests as our President suggests.
Not at all.
That would be a good start. Controlled burns and proper Earthen manipulation would be a good followup.
Stone Age people did this. We have the technology.
You do the controlled burns before you have such a buildup of fuel which makes the much more manageable even in dry conditions.
Nature has always had a solution to too much fuel building up and that’s what we see again and again with these massive wildfires.
There are lots of ways to manage it including controlled grazing by herbivores that eat both forbs and grasses and which will denude saplings.
It doesn’t take a real genius to figure out how to cut firebreaks and keep them mowed.
1 Like
Welcome aboard, @Pseudostratified. 
Source of conclusion identified.
Obviously they do not.
It’s almost as if there just isn’t really any prescribed burns going on and that all arsonists are behind it all.
If adequate prescribed burns, mechanical/natural brush and grass management along with proper fire breaks had been in place it would have been impossible for these fires to have gotten so far out of hand.
It takes a buildup of years worth of fuel to feed these fires.
A good article on the subject is found here.
I don’t know where you got the idea I thought otherwise. The fact is, there is almost no proxy temperature data from the vast majority of the planet. Every estimate of global temperature over a few hundred years ago is based on correlating the proxy data with current measurements at the same locations and then extrapolating those correlations to the rest of the world. But the temperature swings shown in the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores correlate well to current temperatures, therefore, there is a high confidence in the estimates of global temperature that based on those cores. You cannot simply reject the notion that the temperature history of that one core compares relatively well to the temperature of the planet of the world.
Each core produces multiple proxy temperature readings going back to the age of the deepest portion of the core. There has been no particular discrepancies found between the proxy temperatures from each of the hundreds of cores that have been taken. That is why scientists have such a high confidence level to use those proxy temperatures when extrapolating to estimate global temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years. You are arguing a straw man to suggest that just because it’s only one core that the proxy temperature produced from it worthless when discussing the historical record of global temperature.
1 Like
More sheep, they need more sheep.
And goats. 
1 Like
What a one dimensional thing to say. It doesn’t mean that we should embrace getting warmer than what we have now.
Noted and rejected.
