You make the claim, it’s up to you to support it.

I wonder whether those who assert that arson was the major driver of the 2019/20 Australia bushfires would continue to do so based on:

In Victoria, where about 1.2 million hectares has burned, only 385 hectares — or 0.03 per cent — have been attributed to suspicious circumstances.

But you have neither identified nor rebutted any of those other alleged “fundamental errors.” All you have done is repeat your bluster over and over.

Is that what you got from my post? It’s no wonder we aren’t communicating. :neutral_face:

Read the article: the errors are there for all to see.

What will I see? How will I know what is in error if you won’t identify the errors?

Anyone with knowledge of Australia will spot the errors very easily. As an alternative maybe you can speak to only 0.03% of the land affected by the bushfires in Victoria was as a result of arson.

It’s been stated over an over again what is in error is the entire arson claim and how it’s been repudiated repeatedly by officials.

Next maybe look behind the breakdown of the arson arrests numbers to show how many have been misled through poor reporting.

I have great expectations as to what argument is put forward in support of the arson claim given of the 1.2 million hectares of land burned in Victoria only 385 hectares has been attributed to suspicious circumstances.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: “Have they been properly indoctrinated?”

The arson fires respect boundaries.

Uh, no. Would you expect them to be educated into the science of global warming?

“Indoctrinated into the one True Faith”

Ok. If you say so.

Anthropogenic sayeth the flock!

That’s nice.

Quit stalling. Put up or shut up.

No, it has only been stated that the article contains errors. He has not identified what specifically is in error.

As I said earlier, arson fires tend to be close to developed areas, thus they present more danger to people and structures so fire fighters put much greater efforts into controlling those fires. That is why the acreage from arson fires is smaller than from natural fires burning out in the bush where they pose little danger to people and structures. We go through the exact same thing here in Alaska every summer. Fires close to people get fought and many remote fires don’t get fought at all but rather are left to burn at will. On the other hand, we very rarely have arson fires.

They also consume more firefighting resources because they are almost always close to civilization … leaving the more remote fires to burn, often unmanned. The reason arson fires burn so little acreage compared to wild fires is quite clear.

1 Like

I will never forget the brown skies and snowing-ash in the late summer. Can’t remember if it was '04 or '05 at this point, but everyone was saying it was a pretty big year for fires.