Fester: Great idea mate but I wouldn't trust with greenies or a small cohort of cultural firebugs trying to force the stone age land management on us when instead of a few weeks of fuel reduction we could do it 24/7 and 365 days a years using a combination of herd animals and dung beetles to obtain the same outcome and a profit for the outlay!

It's the economy stupid is good and rational advice and all my contributions have had that as their central condition/requirement!

If we need solutions to ameliorate against wildfires and let them also provide profit and potential export incomes.

Alison I'll thank you not to verbal me or claim I've used a term like Satanist in reference to climate change deniers That just blatant bull manure.

Broad-scale irrigation rarely if ever burns and where done lowers the average temp by as much as 10C! And could be done with cost-effective, space-age desalination!

These crops also absorb CO2! And the stubble can be used as mulch to reduce evaporation and control weed infestation And when the ground is resown added in part to the soil as natural carbon! None of these practises create massive CO2 or add it to the atmosphere and some seaweed supplementation can also reduce the methane created by grazing ruminants.

Therefore, one could argue that broad-scale irrigation is part of the climate change solution and part of the way we adapt and reduce our highest per capita carbon footprint!

And if done in arid regions the world over would do a number of things the first would be to actually effectively ameliorate against climate change, allow millions of drought displaced refugees to relocate and feed themselves and families!

Turn vast arid regions into carbon sinks as we also turn them into virtual gardens of Eden!

All that prevents this is the robber baron standing like impassible roadblocks in the way! And the sleepwalking wokes (AJ+ co) who tolerate/admire their BS!
Alan B.

I may have mentioned it before that the great Captain Cook actually mentioned in his log that there was not a day when they did not see smoke on the shore.

On some occasions it actually made the shore hard to see.

Yes that's right, & it is why he named Smoky Cape as he did.

Those damn aboriginals must have been hooning around in their 1770 SUVs generating so much CO2 it set the bush on fire.

A.J. What do you think is the most powerful weapon in the world? A nuclear bomb? And if that's what you think you and millions of idealogues and robber barons around the world would be dead wrong!

The most powerful weapon in the world is the finance bomb and it has been fired. And as the most powerful finance house in the world with literal trillions in investment funds decided they were out of coal!

Only those investment houses that want to commit financial Hari Kari will not follow suit!

And only recalcitrant pollies who don't share a brain between them would still advocate for coal as dispatchable reliable power given the walkaway safer, clearer cheaper nuclear alternative.

And need to understand that that is the only reliable after dark option that we can actually afford!

To date, we've forced manufacturing offshore by making gold plated price gouged foreign controled energy often more expensive than wages!

Tax breaks are the numbskulls short term sugar hit solution. And haven't worked!

Whereas energy whose cost cascades up the supply line would actually reinvigorate the economy in a way no tax breaks ever will if it's rolled out and supplied for less than 3 cents PKWH! MSR thorium and or MSR nuclear waste burners.

And the nuclear option also has the advantage of being carbon-free and therefore our future manufacture will not attract the carbon levy/tariff that's bound to be part of a carbon-constrained future!
Alan B

Dear GrahamY,

Well it looks like I should defend the claim that the author is a virtual snake oil salesperson.

This is a quote from the article;

“Carbon dioxide molecules, if you think that CO2 or greenhouse gases are central to 'climate change', do not wander around causing fires. They can't do it. Do they make things hotter? Maybe a bit. The jury is still out on that one, after forty years.”

So according to him the jury is still out on whether CO2 causes any warming? What recalcitrant rubbish. Anyone who accepts the science accepts the warming impact of CO2. To intimate this is still in question is by any other than the ideologically tainted is patently absurd.

“Snake oil is a euphemism for deceptive marketing.”

Yup.

“When rubbed on the skin at the painful site, snake oil was claimed to bring relief. This claim was ridiculed by 19th-century rival medicine salespeople, who competed with snake oil entrepreneurs in peddling other medicines for pain, often offering more hazardous alternatives such as alcohol or opium.”
Wikpedia

The author is going to extraordinary lengths to deny the bleeding obvious through vigorous misdirection. Apparently we just have to introduce sheep and goats into our national parks and all will be well. Or do extensive clearing to create grassed buffers.

Cont..

Cont..

You said;

“Perhaps the reason that Marohasy and Aitkin did not quote that passage from the Royal Commission is because it is wrong. There's certainly no onus on them to quote passages just because it helps Steele's argument. It is well settled that the Aborigines did burn this land and that is why the landscape was as it was when the first settlers arrived. To think that they didn't touch the land, and were more or less just like fauna is an old Australian racist trope.”

It isn’t wrong at all.

Nowhere did I say Aboriginals didn’t burn the land, it is just that there is little need nor a lot to burn in mature forests with intact overstory. I can take you to my local bit of bushland and show you where a fuel reduction burn killed a bunch of mature yellow gums about a decade ago resulting in a huge fuel load being created. You can’t see 5 meters into the bush. Where the fire hadn’t gone through or had done so without getting too hot you can see over a hundred meters into it.

The 1939 commission acknowledged that water authorities rely “upon the growth of forest canopy to suppress inflammable scrub.” because they are looking to preserve water quality and prevent erosion.

Don Aitken is not a climate science denier, he is even worse-a climate science apologist. A once great mind reminiscing, and wishing that we would all just tidy up the scrub around our houses. I particularly like the suggestion that 1909 was even hotter than 1910, but sadly he has no proof. Riveting stuff.