The Australian wasn't content to publish Phil Chapman's silly ice-age article, but also published a news story that treated it like a legitimate scientific paper. Now, instead of publishing a correction to Chapman's falsehoods from a climate scientist they have an article by Christopher Pearson. Even though it was the Australian which published Chapman's piece a few days earlier, almost half of Pearson's article was a quote or paraphrase of Chapman.
Pearson also gives the view of climate science you get from the Australian's bunker:
What a difference the intervening 15 months has made. In recent weeks, articles by NASA's Roy Spencer and Bjorn Lomborg and an interview with the Institute of Public Affairs' Jennifer Marohasy have undermined that confident Anglosphere consensus. On Amazon.com's bestseller list this week, the three top books on climate are by sceptics: Spencer, Lomborg and Fred Singer.
Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, a shrewd cleric who knows a dodgy millennial cult when he sees one, has persisted in his long-held critique despite the climate change alarmism of his brother bishops.
Even Don Aitkin, former vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, whom I'd previously been tempted to write off as a slave to political correctness, outed himself the other day as a thoroughgoing sceptic.
So, if your only source of information about climate science was the Australian rather than scientific publications, you end up thinking that global warming is a theory in crisis.
Pearson generously offers some advice to Prime Minsiter Kevin Rudd:
In Australia, Rudd Labor's political legitimacy is inextricably linked to its stance on climate change. If the Prime Minister wants a second term, he'll probably have to start "nuancing his position", as the spin doctors say, and soon.
A variation on J.M. Keynes's line - "when the facts change, I change my mind" - admitting that the science is far from settled and awaiting further advice, would buy him time without necessarily damaging his credibility.
Taking an early stand in enlightening public opinion would be a more impressive act of leadership. While obviously not without risk and downside, it would make a virtue out of impending necessity and establish him, in Charles de Gaulle's phrase, as a serious man.
Apparently the mark of a serious man is to tear up his election promises and ignore the best scientific evidence. Who knew?
Still on Chapman, a little searching found the first version of his article on Jerry Pournelle's web site. Turns out it was based on a blog post by Anothony Watts
Incidently, Chapman and Pournelle were involved in the push for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and have gone on into AGW denial, just as the George C. Marshal Institute did.
More like this
Let me get this straight...the way we determine whether or not the atmosphere is influenced by human activities is to look at Amazon's best-seller list?
And now on Okhams razor we have another glad bag of misinformation.
SP- thats a very sorry piece indeed. If he was my student, not that I have students, I'd fail him. No research beyond reading newspapers or dodgy websites, all the same debunked lies and misdirections which we are familiar with.
Why, he even says he doesn't have training in the natural sciences (yeah, we'd guessed) but that neither do the people in the federal government! Yes, you fuckwith, they don't need it, because they can ask the experts. You on the other hand don't even seem to have the intelligence to do that!
Is there any reason he is "former" vice-chancellor? Is he just retired, or was he incompetent?
Pournelle's been a global warming denialist since the beginning, and seems to have bitten into the denialist screed hook, line and sinker.
He's got a PhD in physics, supposedly ... hey, maybe he was Lance's academic advisor before he dropped out! Just another libertarian with a doctorate convinced he knows better than thousands of workers in the field.
pournelle's always struck me as the typical "hard nosed clear thinking technical and engineering guru" in his own estimate type guy; the type who was for the vietnam war and nuclear power and so on and so on. like so many "hard SF" writers
Workers in the field, eh? Maybe it was that expression that got HP Jr on his "farmers know global climate better than the people who study global climate" kick.
I call this the Chris Schoneveld methodology.
Chrism, that's okay. They'll just shift over to "Remember back in 2008 when top climate experts were predicting a new ice age?"
You've got to give them credit for shutzpah. The bit that made me choke on my coffee was where he talks about the necessity to start considering measures to prevent the imminent ice age, such as bulldozing vast swaths of Canada and Siberia in order to reduce snow abledo, or to set of nuclear explosions on the continental shelves in order to release the vast amounts of methane bound up in clathrates.
Jerry Pournelle is the one who co-authored a book ("Inferno," with Larry Niven) where all the environmentalists wind up in hell. He's also, apparently, an admirer of Benito Mussolini. Not my favorite SF writer, and that's speaking as an SF writer.
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Now not only did global warming stop in 1998, but we're now headed for a new ice age. Oh dear.
It would appear that neiter Phil Chapman, nor the Oz has a knowledge of basic stats.
I wonder if they see the irony of calling people who warn of the dangers of Cliamte Change "alarmist"?
The one thing that is true and disconcerting in the Australian article is that the top three books on climate on Amazon are indeed by skeptics. Never mind that Inconvenient Truth probably outsold all these together by a large factor, or that there are a lot of books on the environment generally that touch on global warming, and are not included in this count. It is highly disconcerting that when it comes to books specifically on climate, the public seems to have more appetite for the denialist screed than for the more informative things published by the likes of Wally Broecker and others. What does this tell us? Is the count of top sellers distorted by Heartland buying up lots of copies of Unstoppable Hot Air to give away to legislatures? Or is the count of popularity just an artifact of drawing categories too narrowly? Is it that there are far more books that accept the reality of the threat of global warming, so that the market is more dispersed? Are these denialist books all being snapped up by Limbaugh dittoheades, the same folks that rushed out to buy "Unfit for Command" or CoulterTrash (tm)? Or is it that the convinced are depressed enough already and don't feel they need to read any more arguments?
What lesson, if any, is to be drawn from the Amazon sales ranks? It certainly tells us nothing about who is right, but it might (or might not) tell us something about the effectiveness of scientific communication of the true state of the science.
Here's a dull thing to do on a Sunday evening. I've just been through the 'Bestseller' pages of Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk in order to assess whether there is any relationship between the readership of popular Climate Change science spanning the Atlantic.
I have to say that this wasn't carried out particularly carefully, in that I only picked out titles which were clearly about Climate Change (i.e. titles focusing on other forms of anthropogenic environmental degradation or sustainable development were not included e.g. Gorgeously Green: 8 Simple Steps to an Earth-Friendly Life: Uliano).
Caveats: I looked at the Top 50 bestsellers in each category; These pages are updated every hour so there will be rapid changes; My analysis commenced at 17:30 27/04/08
Amazon.com All bestsellers
Amazon.com Earth Science category bestsellers:
Amazon.co.ukAll bestsellers
No relevant titles
Amazon.co.uk Earth Sciences and Geography category bestsellers:
I make that:
Maybe when James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Mike Lockwood, etc. have time to spare, they can start writing a monograph on "What the hell is this `climatology' thing and how does it work?". That is, an introduction to the kind of skills and knowledge -- in physics, statistics, computing, etc. -- that are needed to do climatology.
D'errr, perhaps I should spend more time on my Sundays learning to count to 100!
2 (22%- sceptic) against 7 (78% - consensus) in the UK
I think people have a taste for spectacular claims and maybe we always have had it. Chariots of the Gods was a bestseller; before that, Velikovsky's books sold well. Junk science is like junk food; cheap, easy to get and it tastes better if you don't think about it too much.
Here are a few Amazon US sales ranks, which give you some idea of the relation of sales rank to profundity and enduring value:
Pelican Shakespeare: 77,481
Thomas Mann,Dr. Faustus (Everyman edition, English): 286,864
Thomas Mann, Joseph and his Brothers (Everyman, English): 64,365. (That relatively high rank was a surprise to me; it's one of my favorites, but hard going and long neglected).
Feynmann Lectures on Physics: 10,491
Look Homeward, Angel: 10,576
Hinge of Fate, Winston Churchill (WWII Vol. 4): 285,005
Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold (Mass market paperback edition): 45,804
--------
Try it yourself. Think of important, influential books of enduring value, and see how their sales rank.
"The one thing that is true and disconcerting in the Australian article is that the top three books on climate on Amazon are indeed by skeptics. Never mind that Inconvenient Truth probably outsold all these together by a large factor, or that there are a lot of books on the environment generally that touch on global warming, and are not included in this count."
Here's my take on these figures as a recovering economist now working in the book trade.
Most best-seller lists measure sales over a short period of time - usually a week - and tend to be dominated by new releases and tell you more about the rate of sales rather than the total volume.
Take a look at the Bookscan annual figures for example and some of the top sellers for the year literally never made the bookscan monthly Top 10. They just keep selling steadly through out the year.
So Lawson's book may sell 10,000 copies the first month of release, 5,000 the second and 1,000 a month thereafter. Now assume An Inconvenient Truth sells 3,000 a month all year.
dhogaza,
Pournelle doesn't have any physics degrees. He has PhDs in Psychology and Political Science. He also has some statistics, engineering, and math degrees.
Barton,
Even more relevantly, Pournelle coauthored a book (with Niven and Flynn), Fallen Angels, in which environmentalists cause a new ice age. In the novel, it turns out that greenhouse gases were the only thing staving off global cooling due to a new solar minimum. Of course the U.S. can't recover from this because Luddite environmentalists have taken over the government and banned all high technology. The only hope left is the astronauts on a stranded orbital colony, as well as the clandestine science fiction fandom driven underground by, again, ignorant anti-science "mundane" environmentalists.
Thanks for the info on Pournelle, I'm not sure why I got the idea his PhD was in physics. Maybe it's because of his "hard" sci-fi ("hard to bear" sci-fi for this reader).
Hmmm a PhD in PoliSci? A PhD in Libertariansim must be fairly thin given they don't believe government should exist.
The Auatralian appears to be striving for some semblance of balance, for a change.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.ht…
RE: #13
"The one thing that is true and disconcerting in the Australian article is that the top three books on climate on Amazon are indeed by skeptics".
And just what is wrong with being a skeptic? Or do you want to burn them at the stake with their books as fuel?
Are you saying that these men should not be allowed to write books on their views of climate change, and put these books on the free market, and that the People should not be allowed to choose what to read?
Go read the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution.
Here what the late President Eisenhower had to say about guys like you and your crowd:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Do any of you guys know why he wrote the above. I doubt it!
RE: #13
I'm not yet done with you, raypierre. Go read the Preamble to the US Consitution, The First Admendment to the Bill of Rights, and the Lincoln Gettyburgs Address.
We the People have just about had it with you arrogant, elitist, condensending, patronizing white-coated welfare queens of the academic research ghetto!
Ya know, you guys eat and drink egowaffles and egojuice for breakfest,lunch, dinner and midnight snacks!
I think that someone's brain, such as it is, just exploded and sprayed Conspiracy everywhere.
Again.
And of course, the basement t-test laboratory is far superior to any "academic research ghetto"...
Greasemonkey, come here!
Bernard, I clicked [show comment] to read Harold's latest, as Greasemonkey is a wonderful tool.
Anyway, Harold's reaction signifies his brain's inability to compute the refutation of his identity. The only reaction, therefore, to having one's identity shown to be based on false premises is the reaction just above.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Best,
D
Be gentle with Harold. It's hard being a crank the new Galileo.
Gee, Harold Pierce, where did I say these purveyors of dreck shouldn't be allowed to publish their books? If somebody sets up shop selling vodka made of dried cowflop (and tasting like the real thing), I'd still find it strange if it were outselling Finlandia. Caveat emptor, but sure, I'd find it strange and worthy of remark.
RE: #28 Hello raypierre!
Be advised that on this blog everbody is packin' flame throwers except Tim the Good Host which we leave at the door over at RC, CS, CA, JS, etc. I have the LFG 2000 but never use it since I'm Honest Harold, the Polite Canadian.
Since you guys claim that addition of CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere, I decided to put this hypothesis to the test. Here are some results of a micro analysis of the min temp for the month of Aug at Osooyos, BC, a semi-arid region which we in BC call a pocket desert. I chose Aug since it is mid summertime and Aug 1 is my birthday
Interval Tmin, Deg C
1950-59 13.4 +/- 0.7.
1960-69 14.4 +/- 0.9.
1970-79 14.4 +/- 1.1.
1980-89 13.9 +/- 1.1.
1990-99 13.6 +/- 0.9.
2000-07 13.4 +/- 0.9.
Mean T 13.8
Range 13.4 - 14.4
Mean AD 0.9
Range 0.7-1.1
Note: The error is the classical average deviation, AD.
Since this is an arid area with low humidity and few or no clouds, I argue that the mean min temperature should show a slight but detectable increase that should follow the increase in conc. of CO2 which should trap the out-going long wave IR without competition from water molecules and clouds.
Clearly you can see that there is no change in Tmin for the sample interval. These data show no detectable effect of increasing CO2 conc on surface temp at this site.
Let us report Tmin as 13.9 +/- 0.5. Prior to 1978 Envir. Canada reported temperature measurements to +/- 0.1 deg C and after that date to +/- 0.5 deg C. Thus the slight decrease in mean Tmin after after 1989 is not significant.
Since there is too much variation in the temp data to detect any small effects of CO2, I'm going to re-do this analysis for Aug 1. The problem with using a monthly metric is the amount of sunlight decreases about 80 min during the sample interval.
Another problem with this site is a short temp record. It would really be nice if it started in ca 1900. Since 1950 the conc of CO2 only increased about 19%.
I wanted to do this type of analysis with data from Death Valley. Unfortunately USHCN reports that the data is no longer available. No problem. I'm heading to Alice Springs.
"Micro analysis"?!
Oh, you mean 'cherry-picking'.
Just as
"I performed a series of statistical analyses"
means
"I ran multiple t-test comparisons on a group of small datasets."
Harold Pierce Jr, one could as easily cherry-pick a location that does show 'significant' warming. Would that prove to you that climate change across the globe is real? If not, why not?
If two people here each gave you 'examples' of warming at sites of their choosing, would you accept the conclusion? If "no", what of five? Ten? One hundred??
Alice Springs is your next target, huh?
For idle curiosity I googled "change in minimum daily temperature over time", and randomly clicked through the results. The very first hit was 'next door' to the Northern Territory, in Australian Wide-Brown-Land terms...
Climate Change in Queensland's Grazing Lands says:
I then clicked another random page in my google results and this next hit had:
At this same page Item #d97jan34 said:
Not all sites are completely simple to interpret. Information from Scotland and particularly from Argentina show a variety of temperature trends over time, which would effectively allow you to play your cherry-picking game if you were inclined to so do.
The difference is that my random cherry-picking was overwhelmingly in support of temperature increases. The more I clicked the more 'warming' returns I gathered compared with ambivalent or with 'cooling' returns, and the latter were infrequent indeed. Of course this is not to say that I'd have different results if I did the random-click exercise again, but my point is that one cannot claim a lack of warming by simply choosing several cherry-picked sites.
This is why we have climate scientists, who use multiparameter models to determine what is occuring globally...
One interesting abstract, Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming, said:
I'm sure that Tim Curtin et al would argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 would counter this...
Harold Pierce writes:
I think John Tyndal did that back in 1859.
And the temperature record in one small area of the world proves what, exactly? You are aware that some areas can cool as others warm, aren't you? How about working with the mean global annual surface temperature, like the rest of us?
Once again you miss the point!
What we are trying to detect is a small _change_ in the surface temperature-time record presumably due to a _small_ increase (19%) in the conc of CO2. The last thing we want to do is use a large broad metric suchas the mean global temperature which is not a measured number but an estimate based upon trend analyses of the usual mean annual temperature-time records from a great many weather stations, most of which (i.e., the urban sites) are biased and whose data has been sliced, diced and homogenized (i.e., given adjustments based on various algo's)
Go over to Anthony Watts' blog "What's Up with That" and Steve Mc "ClimateAudit" and read all these bias problems, and the slicing, dicing and homogenizing of temp data.
Go over to Roger Sr blog and read about all the problems with this particular metric. Roger Sr says that the best metric to use is Tmax. However, for this particular analysis, Tmin is the best metric to use because it easier to detect a small change in small number (i.e., Tmin) than a large number (i.e., Tmax).
What I'm try to do is develop a simple empirical method for detecting global warming, if any and how much, by analyses of surface temperature records. Roger Sr rejects this approach and asserts than only ocean heat content should be used to assest global warming.
So far the Argo bouy system shows little change in ocean heat content since 2003. And everybody is keeping a close eye on these little bouys and their data.
Happy May Day Everybody.
Dear Harold,
"Global warming" does not mean every point on the globe's surface has warmed. Until you understand this, you are wasting your time.
HPJr:
>Roger Sr says that the best metric to use is Tmax. However, for this particular analysis, Tmin is the best metric to use because it easier to detect a small change in small number (i.e., Tmin) than a large number (i.e., Tmax).
This is, to put it mildly, wrong.
No, it's not wrong, it's Harold, but then I repeat myself.
Osoyoos is, however, suffering from the beetle kill problem.
Most outside of marginalized fringe "science" think that drought - caused at least partially by man's activities (and warming, caused mostly by man's activities) - is creating the conditions that are allowing the beetles to continue their march northward.
So Harold's selection bias doesn't allow him to find data to make a decent analysis. Shocking, surely. Nonetheless.
Certainly here on CO's Front Range, most folk understand our beetle problem is from man's activities. Maybe Harold needs to take a trip down here and straighten out the misguided Yanks.
Best,
Ã
All those Amazon numbers just prove that The Americans are ahead of the curve while the UK is not. The perception of CO2 as a cause of climate change is changing very rapidly as people sift reality from myth.
Harold.. minus 3.4 C in Rock Creek this morning and it is the first of May.
Tim posted that you were wrong about tmin/tmax but he probably reflexed on it and did not think it through. .1 on a Tmin of 1 is larger than the same .1 on a tmax of 10.
Harold.. minus 3.4 C in Rock Creek this morning and it is the first of May.
kent beats harold in this cherry picking game.
any one else up for this game of using the least number of datapoint you can get by cherrypicking?
Tim posted that you were wrong about tmin/tmax but he probably reflexed on it and did not think it through. .1 on a Tmin of 1 is larger than the same .1 on a tmax of 10.
you definetly should avoid to use Fahrenheit or Kelvin to keep the numbers small....
Kent.
We'll just ignore the simple fact that you still don't understand the difference between weather and climate, and move to:
Re: Osoyoos Temperature Trends
For the record, data are available from Environment Canada for four stations in the Osoyoos area (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html). The most complete record is from the station Osoyoos West (1969 - 2006). Mean annual temperature at this station, over the period of record, shows an increases of just under 0.4 degrees C per decade. A simple linear regression yields a statistically significant trend.
For the southern BC region there is a similar trend. Data available from the Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/) show that over the same period 1969 - 2006, there is a positive trend in temperature (0.4 degrees C per decade).
J Hamilton, excellent links.
OF course, everyone but Harold knows that the reasons for the beetle kill in the area are the warmer temps and the reduced moisture [not enough sufficiently cold temps to kill the beetles and not enough moisture for healthy trees to pitch out the beetles]. Now we have numeric values to further describe the situation on the ground.
Some hope for ignorance in the audience to purvey FUD, most hope for intelligence to overcome it
Best,
Ã
Wow! I thought this thread was dead! This is going to be one lively May Day, and I'm ready to rumble. I have switched my LFG 2000 to Toaster Mode, and I'm going to turn all you evil Warmers into crispy Space Bacon! And then I'll feed each strip to the Dangerous Dingo Dogs in the Outback of the Island of Doubt! Loosen up guys, it's May Day!
I forgot to mention that I chose Aug so that any effects of the ENSO on temp measurements are minimal. I have data from Quatsino that show the mean temp metrics for March are about 2 K lower in La Nina years as compared to EL Nino years. Even though Osooyos is inland and isolated, it is not totally immune from the effects of the ENSO, and I don't want any hassles from it.
Here is the data for Tmax that goes with the above:
Interval Tmax, Deg C.
1950-59 27.2 +/- 1.4.
1960-69 27.8 +/- 2.0.
1970-79 28.0 +/- 1.6.
1980-89 28.8 +/- 2.0.
1990-99 30.0 +/- 1.1.
2000-07 31.3 +/- 1.1.
Mean T 29.0
Range 27.2-31.3
Mean AD 1.5
Range 1.4-2.0
Notice the apparent jump in Tmax for the last two values. This is because I used data from two different locations to get the longest possible temp-time record, but this jump didn't show up in Tmin. Unless one was diligent like JH, you never would have known this.
Rounding off the numbers we get:
Interval Tmax Tmin Deg C.
1950-59 27 13.
1960-69 28 14.
1970-79 28 14.
1980-89 29 14.
1990-99 30 13.
2000-07 31 13.
Why round off the numbers? Because we don't have to worry about accuracy and measurement errors. Besides +/- 1 deg is good enough.
The Bottom Line is this: Constant mean Tmax and Tmin for 57 years at this site for Aug. Hence no empirical evidence for any global warming and climate change.
This is just one cherry, and I have 11 more to pick from this site for a making tasty tort! If you guys mind your manners and be nice, I'll share. Otherwise you all will get crow pies made from Pacific Northwest Crows.
RE: #30 Hello Bernard!
I'm using the same protocol that Andrew Brewster used for his analysis of the CET, which can be found in his paper "Climate Change and Global Warming" at:
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate-change-global-warming.php
Important: Replace "-" with "_" or link won't work.
Go check the table. You will note that there are several months where the mean annual temps have remained constant for over 300 years! However, if he used a different base period for his t-tests, it is very likely all of the astericks would vanish. He picked the warm years 1975-2000 for a base period for t-test comparisons. His analysis shows that there has been essentially no overall change in CE temp's since the beginning of the temp record.
Find me a very remote site (or sites) that meets all of the late John Daly's criteria for an unbiased weather station whose record shows global warming. You can start with the 100 ref stations designated by the ABM.
I wrote:
So Harold writes:
Your little area is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM, Harold! You can't study the effect of one factor when there are twenty other factors involved! Especially since we already know that, due to those twenty other factors, some areas are warming, some are cooling, and some are static, with the balance warming.
ATTN: DANO!
FYI, I worked in Prof John Borden's chemical ecology research group on basic reseach on mountain pine beetles for about 25 years. Prof. Borden is a forest entomologist and is _the_ world expert on mountain pine beetles.
Go over to RC and read my post about MPB's.
My trigger finger is getting very itchy, but the safety of my LFG 2000 is still on. One more dumb comment from your stupid, ignorant mouth and you are charcoal!
Harold, as I understand it and you should know from your background, it's minimum winter temperatures that are at issue, not summer temps. So why did you do something irrelevant?
The dumb, stupid, ignorant comments belong to Harold, DANO.
Harold;
As I understand the pine beetle problem it had two causes. The first was government inaction, ( they just had to study it instead of jumping right on the problem) and the other was our expert ability at putting out forest fires.
As for cold temperatures killing off the beatles,the real killer is the heat of a forest fire.
Kent.
From which university did you obtain your degree in ecology?
Harold Pierce writes:
Harold, repeat after me:
You have to use all the data points.
You have to use all the data points.
You have to use all the data points.
Or, better yet,
The temperature record of one location proves nothing about global climate.
The temperature record of one location proves nothing about global climate.
The temperature record of one location proves nothing about global climate.
Or, better yet than that, take a damn statistics course! You're making a fool out of yourself.
Being at the GFs house, I don't have [kill]. So I see Harold's posts. Ugh.
Congrats, Harold, you studied certain aspects of beetles for 25 years, knowing warmer winter temps helped their survivorship, and that info compartmentalized itself in your brain. So, when you "analyzed" Osoyoos temps, your BS meter didn't go off. Is Osoyoos not representative? Golly, never mind all that.
Well done, sir. Messy knowledge and experience doesn't enter into your conclusions at all, then. Impressive.
And further to above comments, managing fire properly isn't going to control beetle kill. Nothing will except cold winters and sufficient moisture. Colorado and Wyoming are in the same boat, with the beetles in forests that aren't really that fire-prone. Until now, that is.
Best,
Ã
The Australian is a Rupert Murdoch paper. Need we say more?