Max, for the record and the sake of truth, if we are to accept that the planet is warming, you must also accept that we had nothing to do with it.
The planet is too big, and we are too insignificant to make any dent in it's health or well being.
So just accept the fact that this is a warming period or phase of the planets natural lifestyle.
We have not/cannot live long enough to experience these cycles.
The con-men conveniently leave out the bits which hinder their message.
You can change your life on the say of some lying, scheming over-lords, I prefer to stand and fight.
With enough people saying NO, it will send a message to these pigs that we won't be taken for granted, AGAIN!

HIGW sceptics are kooky conspiracy theorists, are we Max? Here is another kooky conspiracy theorist, President Eisenhower. In Eisenhower's farewell speech, he warned his nation about two new threats to the US Republic. He was the first person to coin the term "Military Industrial Complex", which he used in his speech. And as good card carrying lefty, you would have to agree with him on that? Here is what he said about the second threat.

"The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in giving scientific discovery and research the respect that we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific and technological elite."

I think that President Eisenhower was correct about both threats, and he was no kook.

Churchill once lamented that every social organization set up with the highest ideals would eventually turn rotten as insiders figured out how to game the system and use the moral authority of these organizations to further their own ends. The history of the corruption of the Catholic Church, once considered completely beyond reproach, is well known to any amateur historian. Science too is supposed to be beyond reproach, and if you like me have the greatest respect for science, you should be angry about those "scientists" who are trashing the legacy of science.

Michael Manne's laughable "hockey stick graph" which air brushed out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, should have got your antennae up that something was fundamentally wrong with the HIGW argument. I will bet that the IPCC wishes that it had never heard of Michael Manne and his stupid graph. It wasn't just false scientific propaganda, it was bad scientific propaganda. It equated to the "spontaneous confessions" of shot down US pilots in Korea, which were titled, "How My Cruel Capitalist Masters Forced Me To Use Inhuman Germ Warfare on Peace Loving Socialist People."

Max, I had to shake my head in pitying wonder about your "logic" in regards to the Malenkovich cycles. What is self evidently displayed on the graphs (there are more than one)of warming and cooling periods, shows that they happen roughly every ONE thousand years. Malenkovich cycles (depending upon which one it is) occur in cycles of 25,000, 50,000, or 100,000,years.

Look at the damned graph. Makenkovich cycles have little to nothing to do with the regular 1,000 year cycles of warming and cooling. And quite obviously, CO2 has nothing to do with it either. Unless you can come up with some reason why CO2 causes warming periods for 500 years, and then suddenly vanishes which causes cooling periods for 500 years?

The primary suspect in earth's regular warming and cooling periods is different amounts of sunlight being emitted by the sun. Emeritus Professor of Geology, Ian Plimer, claimed in his book "Heaven and Earth" that even small differences in solar radiation can cause very disproportionate effects on the earth's climate.

The earth is warming, probably because the sun is getting warmer. Although if the astrophysicists studying the sun are right, that should end in the next few years and the earth will probably cool. Anthropogenic CO2 may exacerbate that warming period, it may even greatly exacerbate the warming period, but that is speculation. But one thing you can be certain of, is that anthropogenic CO2 did not cause our present warming period.

LEGO, BRAVO, hear hear.
Finally another rendition worthy of reading.
I love it when reason and common sense unite with reality to produce a truth.
I am glad to have been here to read this submission.
It certainly debunks all the theories and opinions to the contrary.
Good work!

Ian Plimer's retarded joke of a book has been reviewed by ACTUAL climatologist David Karoly on national TV, who — wait for the burn — said it belonged with Michael Crichton's books in the Sci-Fi section, but you'd get more science from Michael Crichton!

Hey, one minute you're talking 1000 year cycles, the next minute you're talking about 10,000 year cycles, and you still don't know how to show WHICH ACTUAL graph you're REALLY referring to. When you learn how, I might be interested in continuing this conversation.

Until then, you're not a climatologist, you haven't sufficiently addressed the last umpteen answers I've given linking to actual peer-reviewed or real world Departmental sources like the American Fire data agencies — but of course you just write them off as "in on it" as well! ;-)

Dude, I'm gonna have to buy a tinfoil hat because they're everywhere! That Firey in the shed that refused to shake Scomo's hand is one of them as well, maaaaan, I mean, I think I need another dubey to cool my nerves, maaaaan, because it's the guv-ern-ment, maaaaaaan!

If this whole thing is just your 'discovery' that there are a few subtle perturbations in the 12,000 or so thousand years since the last glacial period, then so what? You think you've discovered something new? You haven't. Grow up! Go on Google Scholar and search each event by name. EG: Roman Warm Period followed by, you guessed it, the Medieval Warm Period, followed by maybe The Little Ice Age, etc. Or just go to the IPCC site and read up on them. Do your own real-scinece reading for once instead of patting yourself on the back like Rainman having an episode because you think you detected some "pattern".

These things are old news, boring, and quite well understood by the climate community. And you're boring me as well.

Max, and yet I find LEGO and CO to be more informative and make more conclusive sense than anything you have mocked and knocked your way through thus far.
Turning to the topic heading for guidance I find that your assertions are not backed by any stretch of reason.
The question at hand has to do with whether or not the bushfires were/are a result of climate warming?
The answer is a very resounding NO!
So that puts paid to this topic, so we can now move on.