BTW, reading a good book recommended by Mr O, 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond, it outlines the failures and successes of past civilisations. More importantly it alerts to the dangers our modern society face when dealing with catastrophic issues like climate change.

Paul and Co, I think it prudent to tighten up the parameters of this topic.
One way of looking at it is we have two dimensions.
One is a box of lego's, and the other a box with jig-saw pieces in it.
Let's call the individual pieces of lego and jig-saw, FACTS!
Now the alarmists chose the box of lego's and the denialists chose the box with the jig-saw pieces.
Remember the pieces are "facts".
Now the alarmists can put all these lego pieces (facts) together to make many objects and outcomes.
The denialists on the other hand can only assemble the jig-saw, one way, and the only thing that would stop them from achieving their goal of completing the jig-saw is if any pieces (facts) are missing.
So if you care to acknowledge all the past information supporting the denialists views, you will find there is a picture unfolding.
Information is slowly coming in threatening, even debunking the alarmists position.
If GW or CC was as rock solid as you say, then why are we getting evidence challenging, even removing some claims being held onto for so long.
If these experts are so right, why are things not eventuating, as they predicted?
If it were just one person saying it and they were a nobody, I would understand, but these are people of note, who should know better, Al Gore, just one example.
No I'm sorry, there is an agenda and I wish I was smart enough to work out what it is.
Even if it's not mother Earth doing it's thing, I will never accept that WE, especially here in Australia are responsible for ANYTHING!
People get a life, we are 25 million in a world of 7 BILLION!
You do the math.
So just in case you weren't paying attention the first hundred times;
NO, I DON'T CARE, GO BREAK THE REAL POLLUTERS STONES BEFORE YOU START ON MINE!

Paul,

In answer to your question:

" .... As someone noted, a bushfire needs three things: dryness, fuel load and ignition. There's not much any NP service can do about dryness - drought is [has always been] a pretty common feature of Australia - or ignition, such as lightning strikes and the odd arsonist.

"But surely it can do something about fuel load - not just in cool-burning, etc., but removal and mulching, putting in fire-breaks, and probably much more. Of course, this would mean far more staff doing the grunt work, and fewer in their offices. And far more funding, but what's all this costing ? Thirty lives, thousands of homes lost, and many billions in re-building.

"So yes, Paul, you're right, it's all in part caused by climate change."

So what would you do about the practical realities of dryness, ignition and fuel load ? Apart from waving a placard saying "Stop Climate Change NOW !" at a bushfire ?

Joe

Just on the Montana Glacier National Park....

not only were predictions made in 2002 that all the glaciers would be gone by 2020 but:

It was predicted in 1923 that they'd be gone by 1950.
It was predicted in 1936 that they'd be gone by 1961.
It was predicted in 1952 that they'd be gone by 2002.

Obviously all wrong. But fear not, good folk. They now know with the usual certainty that they'll be gone by 2044!! !!

AND all good alarmists will faithfully accept that new prediction as completely accurate.

AND all good alarmists will completely forget or refuse to acknowledge that the previous predictions were made and proven wrong.

AND all good alarmists will eventually come to deny that the previous predictions were ever made....Deny? where have I heard that word before?

Can you be a denialist and an alarmist at the same time? Yes you can. In fact it absolutely required of all alarmists that they deny past failures of 'the science'.

The Left press is using a new technique to tell people what to think. Without any evidence at all, rags like the Sydney Morning Herald are reporting that a couple of never-heard-of 'researchers' as 'finding' that Australians are changing their minds about climate change and wanting the government to 'lead' by increasing emissions reduction.

They know that 80% of the general public doesn't have a mind of its own and people will be say, 'oh, if that's what's happening, I had better fit in and change my mind'.

The generally still unproven effects of climate change are not driven by facts or science; they are controlled by people with the best propaganda and the best bogey man stories.

Hands up all those in favour of cutting down the gum trees around dwellings and along our country roads.