From NCTCS: "The real salt on the wound to those who wish to have a reasonable discussion about the climate and are prevented from doing so by this outlet is it is publically funded, largely by the ABC, a platinum member of the BBC. "

The BBC members have one thing in common.They, particularly the ABC, do their best to not acknowledge views contrary to AGW. They deliberately set out to fool people by attributing global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as distinct from natural causal factors. Yet, no one has been able to provide any empirical measure of the contribution, if any, of supposed anthropogenic causal factors to global warming.

<< Australian seasonal conditions are just so variable that its not really possible to point to any one set of conditions and say that its due to climate change >>

YES, Curmy!

And it is not possible to assert the opposite either.

So one is left to suspect and speculate!

And yes; a good wet season, or string of seasons, which builds up the fuel load is indeed another important factor to add to those that I have previously mentioned.

.

<< That is only if you believe the 'theory'. >>

Not at all, Raycom. One can hold the views that I hold while not knowing whether climate change is real or not or whether the theory behind it is accurate or not.

As with my inclination to think that the fires are connected to climate change, I have an inclination to believe that AGW is real and significant. But it is only an inclination.

I am a sceptic, not a hardline warmist!

I suspect that anthropogenic climate change is real, and I suspect the fires are connected to it.

There’s nothing unreasonable about that, is there?

.

<< At the moment the ball is in your court to convince us otherwise >>

No no, Mr Agogo. It isn’t at all!

As Curmy said; there is too much inherent variation to know either way.

I have pointed out that, for all her efforts, Jennifer has not indicated at all that there is no connection between the fires and climate change.

When someone does put up apparent evidence, you’ve got to be very careful as to just how real it is.

We don’t know if there is a connection between catastrophic very early-season fires and climate change. There just ain’t anywhere near enough evidence at this point in time.

But it is a very reasonable opinion to suspect, after carefully considering all factors, that there is such a connection.

Ludwig, you are at liberty to hold any opinion you wish.

Climate change is indeed real, as it is a natural process that has been going on since Earth's beginning. No one has been able to produce compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming.

Ludwig.

See if you can pick out something...anything from the same or some other source that matches your...well we can't call it an argument quite yet.

What, it's too complicated? Do we leave it to the Sophists? Plenty of them.

C'mon, here's your stage. Convince me.

<< No one has been able to produce compelling scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of global warming. >>

Correct Raycom.

There is no absolutely compelling evidence.

But there is indeed a whole lot of data that points strongly in that direction.

.

<< C'mon, here's your stage. Convince me >>

Nope.

I’ve got nothing, Hugo.

Not a brass razoo of evidence to support my OPINION!

<< …well we can't call it an argument quite yet. >>

Exactly!

An opinion it is… and nothing more!

My opinion is completely baseless! There’s no foundation whatsoever!

And yet….

Guess what….

It is still a valid opinion!

So are you going to denounce it?

Are you going to say that there is definitely no connection between the fires and climate change?

If so, where’s your data and evidence?

C'mon, be a devil, give us what you’ve got hidden away there.

Or are you just expressing an opinion that my opinion is wrong?

GrahamY, you do know the difference in meaning between the words attributed and link?