3 ms·

> Yes it is and yes it does. (But to find this out you have to read all the way to the end.) I've read both it and the study it refers to. It has nothing to do

> Yes it is and yes it does. (But to find this out you have to read all the way to the end.) I've read both it and the study it refers to. It has nothing to do with desertification (and it's not empirical -- it's simply modelling a possibility). > It's not a fringe theory at all I said 'contested', not 'fringe'. Big, big difference. The appropriate response when something is contested is to reserve judgement. As I do. And as Gammage, Pascoe et al do (it has little relation to their theses). > Point being, primitives didn't necessarily live in Harmony with nature at all. Only hippies ever suggested they did. The mainstream emerging picture of Australian indigenous civilisation has nothing whatsoever to do with 'living in H[sic]armony with nature'. That you choose that phrase, and jump so reactively at straw men, displays only your tribal affiliation to a general thesis, without any knowledge of the specifics.

mythrwy 9y ago
We must be reading entirely different articles. "We showed that the climate responded significantly to reduced vegetation cover in the pre-monsoon season. We found decreases in rainfall, higher surface and ground temperatures and enhanced atmospheric stability" In other words, burning vegetation led to a more arid climate. That is the entire thesis of the article. It's really pretty clear. Not to beat a dead horse still further but one of us is really missing something here. It could be me and if it is I'd like to know what. "Contested" isn't cause to reserve judgment at all. The age of the earth is contested. Man made climate change is contested. But the age of the earth is very likely what geologists claim it is. And it's also very likely aboriginal burning is one of the causes of aridity in Australia. In which case they weren't "managing" so much as ignorantly abusing. Very much as we do today.

mythrwy 9y ago

We must be reading entirely different articles. "We showed that the climate responded significantly to reduced vegetation cover in the pre-monsoon season. We found decreases in rainfall, higher surface and ground temperatures and enhanced atmospheric stability" In other words, burning vegetation led to a more arid climate. That is the entire thesis of the article. It's really pretty clear. Not to beat a dead horse still further but one of us is really missing something here. It could be me and if it is I'd like to know what. "Contested" isn't cause to reserve judgment at all. The age of the earth is contested. Man made climate change is contested. But the age of the earth is very likely what geologists claim it is. And it's also very likely aboriginal burning is one of the causes of aridity in Australia. In which case they weren't "managing" so much as ignorantly abusing. Very much as we do today.