We must be reading entirely different articles. "We showed that the climate responded significantly to reduced vegetation cover in the pre-monsoon season. We f

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.