The topic is old, worn out and out of date, but there are still climate scientists around and they do come with their reports. Like about the increase in bushfires in Tasmania. These bushfires are somehow caused by humans. Not because there are people who are careless with fire or because of arsonists, but because humans cause climate change. It’s a stretch, but the whole climate change theory is a huge stretch.
“trend that has previously been linked to depletion of the ozone layer.” That story about the ozone layer is an old one and it was popular way before climate change became a big issue. That hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica has largely closed. It appeared that this was a largely natural phenomenon and human behaviour had little to do with it. But obviously the scientists have missed that piece of information.
“My conviction is that the current trend is evidence of anthropogenic forces,” I care little about your conviction. Give me some facts, Mr. Fletcher. The next few sentences try to impress us with information about winds, which of course are a perfectly natural phenomenon. And like all these phenomena the scientists have very little idea about why they happen and what influences them. Weather is extremely complicated and trying to squeeze it into a few simple theories can only lead to a variety of mistakes.
“southerly shift in westerlies was associated with an increase in fire activity” Was associated? Can you please be a bit more precise, Mr. Fletcher? Once you start paying attention to it you quickly start to notice that scientists use a lot of such vague terms, that suggest a lot but say little. An association can be anything.
“The rise and fall in the amount of charcoal closely matched the SAM index” Let’s assume this is correct. Then this still doesn’t mean anything. It just says that certain winds cause more bush fires. That makes sense. Wind can cause all kinds of things, from very dry conditions to thunderstorms. But that still doesn’t say anything about human influence. “since around 1500” That is way before the whites took over Tasmania and it’s way before the industrial revolution, which is said to be at the start of climate change. So this shows that if there are more bushfires now than 1000 years ago this is most probably a completely natural phenomenon. It cannot have anything to do with anthropogenic climate change.
“anything that’s occurred in the last 1,000 years.” Here the fiction clearly kicks in. There is no way of knowing anything with an acceptable level of certainty that long ago. There are no written records, so whatever you know is a matter of interpretation of things you find in nature. And that interpretation must be biased, especially when a climate scientists wants to use it to support his theories.
“If you have a dry autumn, winter, spring you’ve got more fires in summer,” Really? I wouldn’t have thought about that myself. But I’m still waiting for proof that all these things are caused by human behaviour. All I read is a lot of assumptions, but no facts.
“providing “early warning” of bad fire seasons.” For that this information might have some value. But I’m not sure what the use of that is. Australians in certain areas are used to bush fires and are usually quite well prepared. Knowing many months in advace that there is a chance for a bad fire season is hardly relevant. For it’s just a chance. Mr. Fletcher still doesn’t come with any hard data.
“humans are increasing fire frequency” Of course they do. The more humans live in an area the more people make fires and the more people will be reckless. And there seems to be an increase in arsonists. Humans in general are a bush fire risk, but I still fail to see how that has anything to do with climate change.
“There’s evidence we’re seeing anthropogenic climate change.” Funny. The whole story actually doesn’t mention climate change, but seems to be focused on predicting bush fires. But then at the end at once this is all caused by anthropogenic climate change. Why? If you mention climate change as a part of any kind of study you will get a lot more research funds. You leave that part out and you might jeopardize your job. And so this is squeezed in and a link is fabricated. And that makes the whole lot sound particularly silly. If those scientists would just start looking at facts and would use some common sense, then maybe they would actually produce something useful. But I’m afraid that for the time being we are still stuck with the climate change story.