The latest massive fraud from climate scientists is about increasing forest fires “until the trees run out.”
Global warming doubles size of forest fires in US West, study finds | The Independent
They started the study right at the low point of the last century, and ignored the data which shows forest fires are down 80% since the 1930’s.
Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents
Outside of California, the west has been very wet in recent years. The past four years in Colorado we have hardly had any forest fires.
Fire is an essential part of the forest cycle. I used to work as a wilderness ranger in these mountains in New Mexico, which were devastated by fire in the 1890’s.
Spokane Falls Daily Chronicle – Google News Archive Search
Trees don’t “run out” – rather they grow back after fires. This is what the area looks like now. Without fire, the Aspen trees would not exist.
Oyeah? But wee don’t like Aspen trees, we like Cherry trees.
So there.
The trees may as well have run out for the Independent. Pushing stories like this have contributed to its comic rating here in the UK and the printed version has ceased due to lack of demand. They lie and exaggerate about ‘climate change’ for fun at the Indy yet still haven’t joined the dots of their demise: zero credibility = less readers.
Btw the ‘study’ is indeed bordering on fraud. There’s ZERO proof the loss of any trees due to forest fires can explicitly be pinned on ‘climate change’. Propaganda 101.
Pingback: More Spectacular Fraud About Forest Fires - Principia Scientific International
CheshireRed … at 1:37 pm
… There’s ZERO proof the loss of any trees due to forest fires can explicitly be pinned on ‘climate change’. Propaganda 101.
BINGO!
Somebody has to explain to me why a degree or so of warming over the last 150 years is a cause of wild fires.
Especially when the globe, in general has become wetter and greener!!! If anything it is crappy forest management, and if you look at the “increse” it is ridiculously miniscule.. oh yes, and forest fires are essential to the health of forests, that one seems to fly right over their heads..
Needled Lives Matter.
Deciduous Lives Matter too!
I’ve been sending this comment whenever a fire story comes up:
Just want folks to be aware of this: When you see CAGW types jump on news of wildfires, be prepared. It is not really about climate change.
The statement that CO2 helps plants grow and “green the world”, while true, has a dark underside.
We went to a presentation on Thursday evening about wildfire in the Western USA. The term “megafire” is used. Here’s why:
Prior to settlement by Europeans there were two sources of fire on the landscape. Lightening and Natives set fire. Nature could put the fires out. Natives learned to live with this, setting fires in spring and fall when the burn rate was slow. The advantages to fire included helping the growth of food plants and depressing very large hot fires – megafires. Natives lost these lands (to others) in sometimes slow and sometimes fast processes – another story.
White settlers and, then in the early 1900s, the government began to put out fires and learned how to do so.
For about 100 years, especially the last 50 or 60, fire suppression has been very successful. The landscape has been filling with trees and low woody plants. These grow, die, and produce fuel. The extra CO2 helps the growth. Meanwhile the forest products industry has declined.
The presentation we witnessed included a small amount of climate change comments but not enough to destroy the message. That being that the landscape is growing increasingly prone to big hot destructive fires and top political types are ignoring the issue.
A problem, also, is that homes are being built in the wildland – urban interface (the WUI — woo-E) where it is either impossible to protect or very costly to protect from a wildfire.
When you see CAGW types jump on news of wildfires, be prepared. It is not really about climate change.
Is Espanalo anywhere near Espanola?
It is as close as the transposition of two letters. Why? What does that have to do with anything?
At this point, what difference does it make?
I live by Espanola. It was a misprint in the paper. It was an inside joke for Tony who’s from here.Sorry for living.
Thanks for the explanation. No need to be sorry for living.
MAN, how is it, WHY is it, that “WE” on the Southwest of this graphic are “ALWAYS” in the Red, filled with the”RED”, Stuck-in-the-RED ????
Couldn’t once WE have yellow, yellow/green, or just possibly “GREEN” ?
“WE” want Hurricanes???, okay how about a Tropical Storm??, okay how about a Tropical “Wave”? ?
“El Nino”, WHAT HAPPENED TO EL NINO ??? “According” to [Global Warming Crap], “WE” (SoCal) should be “locked” in Non-Stop El Nino’s, NOTHING !!!
El Nino [2015-2016] ? Where, in Alaska ?
Great, now La Nina is building (Say what you will but I do have faith in “La Nina”, it’s been here since ruffly 2000?), now the word “DROUGHT” is stuck in Overdrive !!!!!
“RAIN” (ie “Moisture?) has moved to another place in the World, like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Utah ? ! ? ! ? !
The WEATHER SUCKS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA !!!
Where’s Harry Krishna ?
That “graphic” is FRUSTRATING…
“Seems it never rains in Southern California
Seems I’ve often heard that kind of talk before….”
:)
Well, if Joe Bastardi and the boys at weatherbell are right, it’s going to rain like hell in Northern California, including some of the central part too this weekend. Big storm coming ashore in the NW.
http://www.weatherbell.com/#premium
I was living in San Diego when I enlisted in 1979. What I can’t figure out is why people in southern CA expect to get much rain?
Oops, I forgot, it doesn’t “Rain” in Texas anymore ?
Sorry Ho !
My bad…
Pingback: More Forest Fire Fraud - GraniteGrok — GraniteGrok