Well and given he is right one of those rare times, where I'm almost forced to agree with Hasbeen!

Even so and given climate is real, and one of the consequences are measured and recorded increased average wind speeds!

We witnessed some truly catastrophic unstoppable fire storms, moving with the speed of thundering express steam trains, that took everything including rare and or threatened flora or fauna before them!

Leaving great swathes of completely burnt land, ripe for infestation with extremely problematic feral species. And created erosion.

And completely down to, afterward conveniently ignored by them or their spokespersons; downright dumb and totally irresponsible, lock and leave it, imposed green policies!

Badly burnt and therefore baked land is almost totally impervious to regional rainfall! Which instead of soaking in, simply becomes runoff that and adds injury to insult by ripping away remaining fragile topsoil!

Why, intensive cell grazing with hooved animals and very temporary relocatable fencing, would have saved all that was lost, all while actually improving soil fertility and moisture absorbing capabilities.

The short term and intensive nature of the practice, massively reducing the fuel load, and rather than compacting the soil, breaks it open to improve rainfall penetration, absorption and increased storage as useful soil moisture!
Rhrosty.

There is no doubt that many bushfires are caused by arsonists.
On the West Coast of Tasmania the bushfires were in very remote areas, dry lightening being the cause. Dry lightening is quite unusual for Tasmania.
Rather than take an insular view, check what has been happening in Siberia, Northern Canada, Alaska, other US States, the Amazon Basin in relation to wildfires.

Firemen; the Professional people dealing with fire, very clearly talk about the involvement of climate change.

Off topic, but relevant; prior to retirement I was in a position where with colleagues we interviewed people for Professional positions periodically. Prior to being accepted for an interview, people needed to show through examples in their CVs that they had actual experience and the relevant University Degree. During interviews people were asked about how they would deal with particular scenarios; i.e., give some proof they had the experience and understanding to deal with difficult situations.

In other words, just suggesting that Angela is wrong in a few sentences without any evidence is meaningless.

Reversing climate change is just not that difficult.

First cab off the rank is to replace dirty coal fired power station with something else and not alternative fossil fuel!

Albeit, NG powered ceramic fuel cells are acceptable local solutions, which produces mostly pristine water vapour as the exhaust product.

There are a number of carbon free alternatives, (very large scale solar thermal,cheaper than coal thorium) that we could invest in for the nation the economy and our future, but only if we're not led by Idealogues with a vested interest in the current status quo, or are working hand in glove, with those who have?

Finally there's very broad scale algae production, for the purpose of creating an endlessly sustainable homegrown fuel (ready to use as is) industry.

Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2. Moreover, under optimised conditions, they will literally double that bodyweight, Co2 absorption and oil production capacity every 24 hours!

Only endlessly prevaricating leaders are preventing it from being at least trialled. As it should be, given with its very low water use, (1-2% of traditional irrigation) it could not just save the Murray, but massively prosper all, [including the environment,] who depend on it.

It's not climate change the focuses the minds of the world's leaders, but just the acquisition of or holding onto power, and the devil take the hindmost!?

There'll be another talk fest, lots of empty promises and nice words, but after the conference, not too much will have changed!?

I mean we could reduce our carbon production by at least 40% and just by locating and using less carbon producing local oil and gas.

However the minds of our pollies will be concentrating on how to win the next election or just maximise their numbers in either house!?

Talk about warm and comfortable fogs, only moving when the goose is well and truly cooked!

Lord help,the human race, given our pollies are, like clever wordsmith, Cardinal pell, self evidently are just not genuinely interested the mugs out there in mugsville?
Rhrosty.

Many humans across Australia have become so anthropocentric and as usual, most writers on this topic (as usual) only look at this issue from a human perspective.

Often when the issue of bushfires comes up, there are the predictable references going back to Aboriginal people and the burning of bushland and forests for example, that occurred for long periods of time.

There is also the predictable reference to how Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of this country and the land and this has made such an activity (such as bushfire burning) acceptable. This is despite the fact, that some parts of Australia, only have as little as 2% of native vegetation left in their area - but are still a high bushfire prone region, despite large amounts of land clearance.

The facts are Aboriginal people do not own this land, we call Australia - as they did not create it. The logic of land ownership is akin to a monopoly game board. So some respect for the homes of Australia's native wildlife is not unreasonable.

And no I am not playing the race card - I am related to Aboriginal people myself, but am not Aboriginal.

So when someone suggests or communicates something that some people don't want to hear, (like Angela) they are easily cut to bits, with simplistic arguments, using terms like "Suseonline, it is a well established fact that you are a moron. Go away. You have nothing of value to offer."

Great contribution, to a very serious scientific, planning and environmental issue - involving other matters (let alone animal welfare) and shows a huge lack of respect to the large amount of volunteer hours put in by those involved in native animal assistance after a bushfire, along with those who assist the human victims.

NathanJ,

You take my comment to Suseonline in isolation. The context is far more extensive: as many commenters have noted, Suseonline is impervious to facts or rational arguments. She is an emotional thinker who does not have the faintest clue about the difference between unsubstantiated assertion and verifiable fact.

She believes in "the stolen generation", for example, on the basis that Aboriginal people with sad eyes told her stories of their forebears' being "stolen". Bugger the royal commission, its findings don't count.

According to Suseonline, she is entitled to believe their stories because everybody else is just believing whitey stories.

So, if you don't know the context, best to stay out of it.

I know from experience that any attempt to have a rational conversation with her is doomed to failure because she simply doesn't understand rational thought.

I would not be surprised to find that members of the global-warming cult deliberately light fires in order to "prove" that climate is getting hotter.