Mr O,

"That's not what I would call much of a scientific explanation"

Well its difficult to fit an entire scientific treatise into 350 words particularly when trying to educate someone who is so ill-educated on the subject that we need to go back to first principles.

Perhaps this will help your education:

http://www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/australian/

"Of course, there was human influence also. There is a widely-accepted theory which states the Australian aborigines contributed to the change in the Australian landscape.

Aborigines are thought to have colonised Australia about 38 000 years ago. Incidentally, the charcoal deposits in the fossil record increase at around this time. It is known that the aboriginals had a régime of burning, which led to the renewing of the Australian bush.

While fire had already restricted the rainforests of Australia, it is thought that the aboriginal fire program in combination with the dry climate may account for the unusually high levels of sclerophyllous vegetation in Australia. It is also though that the high frequency of fires eliminated the Araucarian forests of Australia, and restricted Dacrydium to Tasmania."

If you but look there's a whole plethora of data on this on the internet thingy.

SteeleRedux,

I know that in some circles the government having a target is the same as the government doing something, but elsewhere, others like to actually see the results rather than the targets.

Yes Victoria had a 5% target which was recommended by 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission. But is was never met and is now officially abandoned. The new system was advocated by those who wanted, for environmental reasons, less burning so, even though the current government won't outright say it, the effect is less controlled burning than what was previously done which was in turn less than the recommended 5%.

And then they wonder why there are more fires!

Ahhh but we always have the fall-back position of every government around the world....it wasn't our fault, it was that darned global warming what done it.

"I have a cousin who is a recognised fire expert in a government department in Victoria with a very large area under his responsibility. "

What's his name? I'll look up what he has to say to justify his claims that AGW is the culprit.

'I have a cousin who is a recognised fire expert in a government department in Victoria with a very large area under his responsibility. He recognises climate change and the biggest contributor to the great frequency of wildfires, why don't you?'

did not take long before Steele's blind faith and ignoraqnce of past fires comes gets blurted out. I suspect Steelie all the extra rain that was never suppose to fall around Sydney might add a little more fuel when it dries out Steelie. How gullible can one really be?

Dear runner,

This is a quote from Page 1 of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission;

“It would be a mistake to treat Black Saturday as a ‘one-off’ event. With populations at the rural–urban interface growing and the impact of climate change, the risks associated with bushfire are likely to increase.”

So I can either take the learned opinion of three royal commissioners or the Tourettesque mutterings of a religious nutter like yourself.

Spoilt for choice yet again.

Dear mhaze,

You really are suffering from a disconnect aren't you.

I will bring you back to your claim;

“The issue is why do we have so many more raging, uncontrollable fires as compared to the pre-1950 periods. Reason - the bush is now considered sacred and controlled burn of the undergrowth is now sacrilegious.”

How on earth have we managed to have “many more raging, uncontrollable fires” when the amount of public land that has been control burnt has risen substantially every decade for the last 50 bloody years?

In the first part of the 1990s the average was around 20,000 hectares a year. By the end of the decade it had climbed to over 100,000 hectares per year. In the three years preceding the 2009 fires saw record amounts of burning off averaging nearly 150,000 h/y well above targets. In the years following huge jumps were made. In 2010 it was around 190,000, and by 2012 it had hit over 200,000 h/y, nearly 10 times that of the 1990 average. So has all this scorched earth resulted in less fires? Not according to you.

Perhaps my friend there might be some other factor, would you like to offer your thoughts? The Royal Commissioners felt they knew the reason but possibly your broad expertise might furnish us with a different perspective. The floor is yours.

SteeleRedux,

The Royal Commission 2009 mentions climate change exactly twice in a 42 page report. It makes no attempt to analysis any effects but mentions it in passing as a contributing factor.

It also recommends that "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual
rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land." That equates to about 390000 ha/pa.

"Executive Director of Fire and Emergency Management at DEPI, Lee Miezis said the department is in the process of working up to the five per cent target.'Last year [2013]we achieved 250 000 hectares and this year we are working towards a target of 260 000 hectares.'. So they never got anywhere near the recommendation and have now abandoned the effort.

Incidentally, the 5% was a minimum. Submission to the RC had talked of needing 10% and some experts talked about 33%.

There are really only two possible reasons why these minimums haven't been met or even attempted - funding or opposition to it. But the government keeps saying that they'll spend whatever is needed so logically....

Still waiting for the name of your cousin who has decided that its all down to AGW.

mhaze, "Still waiting for the name of your cousin who has decided that its all down to AGW"

Perhaps the same cousin, the Greens, who claimed that Queensland floods were caused by mining.

"Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown"
http://tinyurl.com/4bqxdtd