Even the LA Times thinks California Governor Brown's latest Climate Claim is Nonsense

Jerry Brown, photo author Neon Tommy, source Wikimedia
Jerry Brown, photo author Neon Tommy, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The LA Times, which frequently expresses strong support for climate alarmist themes, has printed an article expressing skepticism of Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s attempt to link global warming to Californian wildfires.

According to the LA Times;

Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say

The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.

The wilderness fire was “a real wake-up call” to reduce the carbon pollution “that is in many respects driving all of this,” he said.

“The fires are changing…. The way this fire performed, it’s not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds.”

“It’s a new normal,” he said in August. “California is burning.”

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.

But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year’s wildfires and global warming, or support Brown’s assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.

University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in “noble-cause corruption.”

Even in a warmer world, they say, land management policies will have the greatest effect on the prevalence and intensity of fire.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html

I personally think it is disgusting that the Governor appears to be using local tragedies to promote his political agenda. A better use of the Governors time might be listening to and acting on the advice of fire experts, rather than seizing on photogenic disasters as a PR opportunity to promote his scientifically unsupported political agenda.

Last year, Brown made a claim that the Los Angeles Airport would be inundated by sea level rise and need to be moved, a story immediately refuted in WUWT as nonsense, and followed by a retraction story in the Los Angeles Times. If this keeps up, we might have a skeptical newspaper in Los Angeles.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 19, 2015 5:30 am

Obama’s has been doing his best to worsen the wildfire problem.
That sounds like a joke, but it’s not. In the summer of 2011 the Obama Administration abruptly canceled the contract for the U.S. Forest Service’s use of P-3 Orion firefighting planes, “the backbone of the aerial firefighting arsenal.” That irresponsible action gutted the U.S. Forest Service’s aerial firefighting capability.
The Administration’s reasons are mysterious. They claimed it was due to safety concerns, but the planes, though old, had excellent safety records, they were up-to-date on their maintenance and inspections, and they were much cheaper than getting new planes.
The USFS was left with eleven smaller P-2 Neptunes. They went shopping for other planes, mostly BAe-146 jets, but the Orions are still sorely missed.
The company which operated the Orions was Aero Union. The Obama Administration’s action put them out of business. Their six big four-engine P-3 Orion tankers (plus a 7th that was scheduled to enter service on the day the contract was cancelled) were the core of our aerial firefighting capabilities. They were the “big boys,” with about twice the payload of the two-engine P-2 Neptunes, and 1.5x the payload of the new BAe-146 jets. I think the USFS also has access to a few Canadian CV-580s, but they’re smaller yet.
Putting Aero Union out of business not only deprived the USFS of most of the large firefighting planes they used, it also jeopardizes the maintenance of the MAFFS systems that Aero Union built, which are used on other firefighting planes.
The loss of the P-3 Orions drastically reduced the aerial firefighting capability of the USFS, and increased the risks faced by firefighters on the ground. I expected that problems with wildfires out west would worsen as a result. To my surprise, that didn’t happen.

Reply to  daveburton
October 19, 2015 6:26 am

Aero was probably asked for a major “donation” to Obama, and refused. The answer may lie in discovering which crony friend of Obama’s got the business that Aero lost.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  daveburton
October 19, 2015 6:53 am

For the same reason he made the Dutch Skimmers wait ~2 weeks – make things worse if the destruction could be claimed to have been caused by fossil fuel.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 19, 2015 7:00 am

” Never let a good crisis go to waste ” ….. Liberal mantra !!

TG McCoy
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 19, 2015 9:22 am

Well, the P-3/Aero Union thing was political,and exacerbated by Aero Union’s
internal management issues. The USFS has a lot to answer for I wish
someone would really get a congressional committee to look at why we
went from near 45 Tankers (2000gal+) to less than 25 on contract (call when needed not withstanding today.

Julian Williams in Wales
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 19, 2015 10:51 am

@Marcus October 19, 2015 at 7:00 am
In EU superstate speak the term is “a beneficial crisis”.

Charles Lyon
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 20, 2015 9:31 am

The skimmers were delayed a lot more than 2 weeks. I think it was at least 45 days, and hundreds of skimmers were available and not deployed. Some that started to work the government tried to stop so they could inspect their fire extinguishers and life jackets.

Reply to  daveburton
October 20, 2015 9:07 am

Uh, daveburton, you left out:
– the MAFFS tank & nozzle system is heavy and expensive, it’s advantage is minimal modification to the aircraft so can be used without having to modify the entire National Guard fleet. That’s a fleet of C-130s by the way, the P-3s are a different airplane that cannot use MAFFS
– there was disagreement over structural inspections of the P-3s. Aero Union was in the process of moving to another airport where more technical assistance was available, when it went broke. Such aircraft require good non-destructive test equipment to inspect structure. (X-Ray, eddy current, and radioactive imaging are examples.) Recall that a C-130 fell out of the air because cracks behind a doubler were not detected. The airplane the P-3 is based on (the Lockheed Electra) was prone to intergranular corrosion that separated wing stringers from wing skin (machined integral, but rolling the plate created shallow grains).
– the civilian C-130s now operating in the US, which have a more efficient tank system than MAFFS.
– “10 tanker” delivers far more retardant per flight than the P-3, three now operate for CalFire and USFS.
I don’t know how prepared CalFire and USFS were last summer, they certainly dropped the ball on the “Station” fire a few years ago.
Certainly B.C. was unprepared, not having resources like the large Martin Mars flying boat lined up – and with fires in neighbouring areas like AK, SK, and MB mutual-aid agreements weren’t much use. Two provinces and IIRC a US state or two hired ground firefighters from AU (it doesn’t have big airtankers sitting idle, they usually come from Canada in its complementary season, plus the Erickson S-64 helicopters revered in AU for their past successes).
Note someone suggested there were more arson-started fires this year.
In BC last summer, one bad period of fires was caused by more lighting storms than usual. (Prompt attack from the air helps combat that, small aircraft can be used effectively if dispatched early, after that I’d want the Mars or 10 Tanker.

October 19, 2015 5:42 am

Now, if only, the LA Times would apply this same due diligence toward all of the claims regarding man-made global warming/climate change.
Hey, a fellow can dream, can’t he?

Tom O
Reply to  JohnWho
October 19, 2015 5:59 am

Forget it. What can you expect from a state that passes mandatory vaccination for all adults? Doesn’t matter if it is against your beliefs or you don’t trust big pharma, you are going to take the jab or else. I don’t even believe in mandatory vaccination for children, much less newborns, because I absolutely do not trust big pharma.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 6:30 am

Tom, I think you are on the wrong blog.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 6:37 am

So you would rather return to the days of smallpox, diphtheria, measles and polio epidemics? Do yourself and everyone else a favour. Do some historical research on disease epidemics. Check out the death and disfigurement rates. Do some research on the side effects of measles. I have a friend who had measles before she could be vaccinated. She is deaf.

Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 6:47 am

noting in life is free of risk. people fear risk, without considering the risk of the alternative. better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
immunization is one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time. smallpox and polio are all but eradicated from the planet. now some might claim we are interfering with nature, that we have no right to exterminate smallpox and polio, that we should live in harmony with them. like we should live in harmony with neighbors that seek to kill us at any opportunity they get. these people ignore that you cannot live in harmony with something that seeks to kill you, except by dying.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 11:13 am

It’s even worse than you think. Because there is a group component to immunization strategies, people who for one reason or another don’t get immunized are protected by the 95% (or so) who are. Then all the “conscientious objectors” further rationalize their decision by saying that it doesn’t really matter as long as the rest of us idiots are willing to accept the vaccine risks. However, if enough people do this, the group immunization breaks down. Google “measles outbreak in California” for more info. Now their decision puts third parties at risk, who either can’t tolerate some component of the vaccine or are too young to be vaccinated, etc. Selfish does not even begin to describe such execrable excuses for human beings.

Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 1:03 pm

Tom, as a drug rep, seriously man, that sounds ridiculous. Yes, pharma has been irresponsible at times but on the whole, it’s been about the patient. Yes, we profit from sickness but you know what Tom, without us, society would still be living in the dark ages with a mortality and morbidity rate many times higher than what we see today.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Tom O
October 19, 2015 8:13 pm

Excuse me Tom, but we do try at least to be scientific here…

October 19, 2015 5:58 am

Fires burn hotter and faster in a high CO2 atmosphere.
That is why they put it in fire extinguishers…right?

Reply to  menicholas
October 19, 2015 6:28 am

He’ll be banning CO2 Fire Extinguishers, if he hasn’t already.

Reply to  JohnWho
October 19, 2015 6:38 am

Yes, and I believe legislation is in the works that requires every male citizen above the age of 18 to drink 3 liters of water and then respond immediately to any reports of fires.
(Bear in mind I may have misread something, but this is Governor Brown we’re discussing.)

Reply to  JohnWho
October 19, 2015 9:08 am

Pretty toon the only way to fight a fire will be to throw liberals on them and hope their jello-for-brains dowses the fire.

Mike Flynn
Reply to  JohnWho
October 19, 2015 5:52 pm

Thanks for the laugh. Something like fighting fire with fools!

Reply to  menicholas
October 19, 2015 8:22 am

There is supporting evidence for your assertion!
There is always much more CO2 to be detected in the proximity of a fire than where there is no fire.
Post hoc propter hoc.
Also, my linguistic analysis corroborates the extinguisher rationale;
Common expressions; “Fight fire with fire”. That’s just ancient wisdom.
“The fire burnt itself out.” Fire inevitably leads to cessation of fire.

Reply to  mebbe
October 19, 2015 9:22 am

Well, you got me there!

George E. Smith
Reply to  mebbe
October 19, 2015 10:18 am

“””””….. “The fire burnt itself out.” Fire inevitably leads to cessation of fire. …..”””””
And cessation of fuel too !!

October 19, 2015 6:03 am

These wacked out liberals really should be put back in the ” Looney Bin ” where they belong !!

October 19, 2015 6:06 am

I personally think it is disgusting that the Governor appears to be using local tragedies to promote his political agenda.

But that is what all politicians do. Some are not so blatant as Gov. Moonbeam, but they all do it.

Reply to  markstoval
October 19, 2015 9:21 am

That’s not what all politicians do, Mark. Unfortunately, that’s what most of the current crop do.
I remember the great R. Reagan, who didn’t snivel about every temporary, minor crisis as if it was the end of the word. And he didn’t demand gov’t action after every problem.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2015 3:15 am

Yes, that is what all politicians do. R. Reagan was no exception.
I voted for the man two times back when I would still vote in the general election. He may have been the least evil of the American presidents of my long lifetime, but that does not mean he was not evil.
He re-started the American mission to invade other countries by claiming a tragedy was going on in Granada and sent in troops to take over the island. Then there were the secret wars in South America where a good friend’s whole family was killed just because they were in the way.
Reagan also led the way in breaking new ground raising the debt ceiling. The “tax cutter” raised taxes to boot. Reagan talked a good libertarian leaning game — but he rarely walked the talk.
Reagan? Lesser of evils.
Here are a couple of looks at R.R. by people who have been (falsely I think) called “right-wing” by many:
~ Mark

October 19, 2015 6:23 am

Cliff Mass has some words about forest fires in an excellent piece on this year’s Global Warming Stress Test …
[ … ] Over a million acres burned, several people were killed (including 3 firefighters), hundreds of buildings were lost, and substantial economic damage was done, mainly over NE Washington.
Clearly, the massive fires over our rangelands and eastern-side forests showed that this region was not well prepared for a warm summer, the kind of summer that will be typical in 2070. And much of the blame can be laid on poor forest management. As noted by a number of forest experts, our state has allowed the eastern slope forests to degrade terribly. For thousands of years, eastern WA forests were characterized by relatively widely spaced Ponderosa pines with native grasses between them. Fires occurred frequently, helping to maintain this ecology. But during the early part of the 20th century, forest managers, following regionally inappropriate European practices, began suppressing the fires. The result was a dense forest, with understory trees that helped fires reach the crowns of big trees. Dense fuel loads enhanced by slash of occasional timber harvests. Forests ready to explode. Unhealthy forests that encouraged the spread of bark beetles.
Those managing these forests have not been responsible stewards of the land. It it well known what needs to be done: thinning the forest, removing the debris, and initiating controlled burns to bring things back to a natural state. In such a state, the forests burn far less intensely and with less smoke. But, as noted in a recent article in the Seattle Times, our state government, and particularly the Dept of Natural Resources (headed by Peter Goldmark) have dragged their heals on this, irresponsibly delaying forest restoration.


Brian J in UK
Reply to  rovingbroker
October 19, 2015 10:28 am

This is exactly what happened in Eastern Australia about 15 yrs ago. The long practiced successful back burning in winter by local bush fire brigades to keep the forest floor clear of fuel build up was abandoned under Greenie pressure as it was “not a natural process” thus should not be done. Sure enough some years later when the fuel had built up to a high level massive fires broke out killing HUNDREDS of people. One fire in Victoria roared up a gully in just a few minutes and without warning engulfed a small town causing over 120 deaths alone. There was an outcry in the media with the Greenies being blamed for these deaths. So far as I am aware the back burning practice has now resumed and fires are less frequent and not as fierce when they do occur. Please comment further anyone from Oz.

Reply to  Brian J in UK
October 19, 2015 11:43 am

I was visiting OZ when those 500+ folks were killed. It was Australia’s 9/11 week. If what you say is true (that Greens were blamed and back burning has resumed) then we may hope those deaths were not entirely in vain. Would that it also makes voters question the Green’s positions on alleged AGW going forward.

Reply to  Brian J in UK
October 19, 2015 4:47 pm

Back burning has not resumed to levels before policy changes that occurred in the mid-1990’s. It is still a massive risk in fire prone areas. We also have to deal with idiot arsonists who start most of the fires. The fire that raged in Victoria in recent years was started by a downed power line sparking on the ground. I believe a class action has been brought against the power operator (I don’t recall nor can I find any details).
I know many volunteer firefighters. Most of them know and accept the fuel load and fire risk issues nothing to do with global warming, climate change or CO2, but all to do with crazy land management policy changes that started in the mid-1990’s.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Brian J in UK
October 21, 2015 8:03 am

Those managing these forests have not been responsible stewards of the land. It it well known what needs to be done: thinning the forest, removing the debris, and initiating controlled burns to bring things back to a natural state.

Nonsense. “Manage” and “Natural State” are mutually exclusive.

Ken mival
Reply to  Brian J in UK
October 30, 2015 1:48 pm

The fires in Victoria killed 173 people and destroyed over 2000 houses, including mine. They were the result of many variables including fuel load, along drought, very hot weather and high winds, classic firestorm conditions that happen in Victoria every 30 years or so. Fuel load is in there but is not the primary problem. We have just had another fire that destroyed 4 houses as a result of a fuel reduction burn. So that is also not without risks. I am in the class action. It was settled a year ago for our fire for half a billion. Still waiting for any money!

Reply to  rovingbroker
October 20, 2015 6:56 pm

This is also the story of the eco-left interference on the Somerset Levels.
Except where forest management is mentioned, substitute management of the drainage system.
And where fire is the outcome substitute, flood.
But it is the same story, the eco-left interferes by forwarding a philosophy that we should cease all interference with the designs of nature.
And then, when their idiotic policies bring about a catastrophe – they blame the misfortune, that they themselves have wrought, on Global Warming or Extreme Weather.
You could barely make this shit up.

October 19, 2015 6:32 am

The wilderness fire was “a real wake-up call” to reduce the carbon pollution “that is in many respects driving all of this,” he said.

There’s that ‘carbon pollution’ again. In this case, carbon pollution is a result of the fires, not a cause of the fires.
But if we can sequester all the CO2 in the atmosphere, which will kill off all the plants which produce the oxygen we need to breathe and that fires need to burn, then the wildfire problem is solved, eh? I just love a well thought out plan, Governor Brown. Stroke of the pen… make it happen, Guv.
/fed-up-with-twits comment

October 19, 2015 6:53 am

global warming provides the governor an excuse for not taking action to deal with the fires. instead he can do nothing and sit back and claim the problem is caused by people outside kalifornia driving around in cars.
fires will not stop no matter what anyone might do about CO2. you build fire barriers and build with fire resistant technology. and use insurance to deal with the fact that no defense can be perfect. blaming your neighbors for your own failures to act simply ensures that future fires will be worse as a result of your own lack of action.
the scapegoat is a human invention to pin the blame on someone or something else.

October 19, 2015 7:00 am

Ummm….. How about we focus firefighting efforts to ONLY protecting homes and real property. Let the forest burn.
Its a hundred years of US Forest Service prescription of putting out any and every wildfire that pops up that is now causing these massively destructive wildfires. This results in far more than “normal” fuel, especially in climate zones that do not have sufficient rainfall to maintain the moist environment the wood decomposers such as fungi require for decomposition to exceed the rate of buildup.
Manmade climate change? In this sense there is a man made problem, but it certainly has nothing to do with a few more carbon dioxide molecules floating in the air.

Reply to  PRD
October 19, 2015 8:30 am

Land use change -connected to policy changes drive todays fires. Structure protection is the number one priority of Cal fire (StateResponsiblityArea mostly in the grass/brush lower timber areas) – excluding life threat. First 4 hrs. of perimeter control is the tell-tell of fire management limitations. Logistics become the bull in the china closet. Hot fire destroys soil let alone mature trees. Cool burn fires (not found in nature on large scales) have ‘rehab’ potential. Dog hair forest management (ladder fuel) is the evil dog breath currently presented. One exaggerated estimate (called so by critics) 10 years ago would require nearly 1Trillion dollars to bring the National Forests into a management window. An additional annual cost of maintaining these forests of 300Billion per year. Moon Beam beer. A worthy comeline crap shoot – there is not one National Forest supervisor that is competent at ‘timber cruising’ currently serving. There are 154 NF designations, covering about 190 million acres. There is an alternative to most fire management problems of today. Politicians know better.

October 19, 2015 7:03 am

Governor Brown was right. Below is the abstract from a paper in PNAS with no less than 23 climate and fire experts as coauthors. There are hundreds of scientific studies that have confirmed the link between climate change and wildfire behavior. The “poor forest management” argument is a red herring, climate trumps all when it comes to wildfire activity.
Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America
J. R. Marlona,1, P. J. Bartleina, M. K. Walsha, S. P. Harrisonb, K. J. Brownc,d, M. E. Edwardse,f, P. E. Higuerag, M. J. Powerh, R. S. Andersoni, C. Brilesg, A. Brunelleh, C. Carcailletj, M. Danielsk, F. S. Hul, M. Lavoiem, C. Longn, T. Minckleyo, P. J. H. Richardp, A. C. Scottq, D. S. Shaferr, W. Tinners, C. E. Umbanhowar, Jrt and C. Whitlockg
It is widely accepted, based on data from the last few decades and on model simulations, that anthropogenic climate change will cause increased fire activity. However, less attention has been paid to the relationship between abrupt climate changes and heightened fire activity in the paleorecord. We use 35 charcoal and pollen records to assess how fire regimes in North America changed during the last glacial–interglacial transition (15 to 10 ka), a time of large and rapid climate changes. We also test the hypothesis that a comet impact initiated continental-scale wildfires at 12.9 ka; the data do not support this idea, nor are continent-wide fires indicated at any time during deglaciation. There are, however, clear links between large climate changes and fire activity. Biomass burning gradually increased from the glacial period to the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Although there are changes in biomass burning during the Younger Dryas, there is no systematic trend. There is a further increase in biomass burning after the Younger Dryas. Intervals of rapid climate change at 13.9, 13.2, and 11.7 ka are marked by large increases in fire activity. The timing of changes in fire is not coincident with changes in human population density or the timing of the extinction of the megafauna. Although these factors could have contributed to fire-regime changes at individual sites or at specific times, the charcoal data indicate an important role for climate, and particularly rapid climate change, in determining broad-scale levels of fire activity.
Check it out.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 7:26 am

Ah good ole’ ” model simulations ” to the rescue…Yup, we can trust them…NOT !!!

Brad Rich
Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 7:36 am

Gee, thanks Luke. This paper is in perfect context for the last 15,000 years, most of which was a period when North America was uninhabited by humans.
“The timing of changes in fire is not coincident with changes in human population density or the timing of the extinction of the megafauna.”

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 7:55 am

Marcus, Hmmm, in 1944-1945 the Japanese thought the forests would be easy to torch. Of course the fuel load was not near as bad as today. They launched 9,000 arson attacks and only managed to murder a few kids and their teacher. No massive forest fires. No fuel for the incendiary bombs.

Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 8:44 am

Brad Rich October 19, 2015 at 7:36 am
Gee, thanks Luke. This paper is in perfect context for the last 15,000 years, most of which was a period when North America was uninhabited by humans.

You have a typo, it should be “a period when North America was inhabited by humans“.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 7:32 am

Well good. Abrupt natural variation in climate has occurred in the past, and humans were not adversely affected nor did animals go extinct.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 10:12 am

Temperatures have been increasing in California at the rate of about 0.1 degree F per decade for the past 120 years in California- climate change is happening and we are seeing the effects right now.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 10:20 am

Luke, get with the program. You can cherry-pick any particular region that confirms your bias. But the issue is global warming (actually, the lack of it for almost 20 years).
Since global warming has stopped, for every region that has warmed slightly, another region has cooled slightly.
Can you understand that concept? Or am I wasting my time trying to explain it to you?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 10:25 am

Luke, thank you for producing a chart of how the PDO affects temperatures in California.
Steady state, a drop in 1910. Steady state, an increase in 1980, then back to steady state. Soon to be followed by another drop.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 12:27 pm

So basically, no connection to CO2 and no uptrend at all – just a step change in 1973? And the “unprecedented” fires are due to temps which were identical in 1905? Gee, you make such a strong case, Luke. While you’re at it, why do the alarmists project 0.6F/ decade when your (fake) trend is 0.1F and slowing?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 12:45 pm

at Andrew October 19, 2015 at 12:27 pm
“– just a step change in 1973?”
The “step change” (in the Pacific region) is usually dated as ’76-78.
Try either of these links:
via Bob Tisdale
via Global Warming Science

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 3:47 pm

Luke, the Cal temp chart you posted at 10:12 is from the newest NOAA software, bersion NClimDiv, released 2014. The previous version in 2013 showed no change. The data has been fiddled. For statistical detaols plus three irrefutable state illustrations (California, Michigan, Maine) see essay When Data Isn’t in my most recent ebook. You have been duped by ongoing surface temperature fiddles.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 19, 2015 7:24 pm

Eric wrote:
Luke, the link you provided is a study of past climate change. It asserts that rapid climate change can cause fires. I’ve got no problem with that assertion.
The issue I have with Governor Brown’s assertion, is rapid anthropogenic climate change hasn’t occurred yet – at the moment its a figment of climate models imagination. The study in your link suggests that the recent rise in wildfire activity is consistent with their theory, but also suggests that … Such [past] changes are similar in terms of the magnitude and rate of change to those projected for the future … (i.e. they haven’t happened yet).”
That’s beautiful! Great reply, Eric. And right on the money. I like that “it’s a figment of climate models imagination” part.
I would think, the Earth’s temperature is going to have to get at least as hot as the decade of the 1930’s before any of these dire global warming/climate change predictions kick in, since their predictions require “unprecedented” heat in the atmosphere. And it would seem we would have to be at least as hot or hotter than the 1930’s, in order to be experiencing “unprededented” heat, and we are not there yet (ignore that NASA-NOAA chart).
I wonder if there are any studies of how wildfires burned during the decade of the 1930’s, which was the hottest decade of the last 130 years or so. Seems like they ought to be studying what took place during that very hot period of time if they want to know what takes place when the temperatures get real high. Maybe NASA-NOAA’s adulterated charts have blinded them to what’s hot, and what’s not.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 9:27 am

Anthony requests that when having fun like that, you should show you were just being sarcastic, by adding something like “/sarc”.
Please remember that when posting nonsense.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 10:02 am

>>Governor Brown was right.
Got to be the dumbest reponse ever.
Luke. Since there has been no Global Warming for 18 years, how can Global Warming be a problem? Please do tell us how steady world temperatures can cause anything, let alone more fires.
Or are you confusing Global Climate with a very Local Climate effected by El-Nino Nina variations? If so, you and G Brown are fighting the wrong war with the wrong weapons. Kinda dumb, don’t you think….?

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 10:18 am

So the fact that there has been no global warming for almost 20 years has made fires worse.

Reply to  MarkW
October 19, 2015 1:44 pm

When talking about fires in California, it is temperatures in California that are important. In addition, other than the satellite data, which doesn’t measure ground temperatures and has all kinds of questionable adjustments (using those evil things called models), all of the other global temperature records show an increase in global temperatures over the past 20 years. One more thing, the average temperature in California was 62.6 degrees F in 2014, blowing the doors off of all previous annual temperatures (see below). We don’t have all of the data for 2015 but it looks like it will beat 2014 so, yes it is much hotter than normal in California this year, higher temperatures (due to global warming) and lower precipitation have lead to one of the driest years on record, and those two factors together have lead to the unprecedented fire year we are seeing in California.

Reply to  MarkW
October 19, 2015 4:59 pm

Luke, posting again the new and aberrent NClimDiv version of California only strengthens the case that you have been duped by NOAA. Use the Wayback Machine, or read essay When Data Isn’t referred to above, to see what the previous ‘official’ 2013 Drd964x version said–no warming.
Irrefutinle evidence of data fiddles.

Reply to  MarkW
October 20, 2015 10:16 am

Luke, you seem to feel that posting the same discredited chart over and over again will start making it meaningful.

Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2015 8:04 am

All of the analyses I have seen show substantial warming in California over the past 100+ years. If you have data that contradict that, please share them.

Brian J in UK
Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 10:32 am

“Widely accepted” – by whom and on what evidence do you claim widely accepted??

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 11:15 am

Luke, even the IPCC disagrees with the claim that current climate change is affecting wildfires, and your cited paper is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Trying to claim that the current climate change is in any way comparable to the ending of an ice age is just willfull ignorance.
The effects of land management and undergrowth overgrowth on forest fires is so well documented that saying that it’s a “red herring” is about moon-hoax levels of self-delusion. The nightmarish fires of the 70s through 90s was very much the product of overprotection and banning of brush clearing, and California still has significant bans on clearing brush, which has heavily contributed to their wildfire problem.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 19, 2015 2:44 pm

The effects of land use and temperatures on fire activity has been investigated in the literature. Below is the abstract from a paper in Science in 2006. Bottom line, climate effects trump land use effects.
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
A. L. Westerling,1,2* H. G. Hidalgo,1 D. R. Cayan,1,3 T. W. Swetnam4
Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought to have increased in recent decades,
yet neither the extent of recent changes nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional
changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific
discussion of changes in western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th and
20th-century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in
western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data.
Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with
higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest
increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have
relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer
temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Ben of Houston
October 19, 2015 5:22 pm

Since 1970? That’s short term changes based on local drought and land use cycles. That’s a completely different thing than planetary climate change. OF COURSE local microclimate changes will affect forest fires. Regions go through dry years and wet years. We’ve known that since caveman days. We are talking about CO2 induced planetary changes, which on a whole, according to IPCC modeling, will increase precipitation, and the models are self-contradictory on any smaller scale (seriously, look up “Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree distribution support future modeled range contraction”, or the WUWT rebuttal “Mental Sloth and Joshua Trees”). You have shown that drought causes wildfires, but you have not connected this to large scale climate change.
That’s a bait and switch, and I’ve read enough in your posts to know that you know it.
Pulling up studies doesn’t support your thesis if they are only tangentially related to your argument.

Reply to  Luke
October 19, 2015 12:39 pm

While that may or may not be true, since we have NOT had “climate change” in almost 2 decades – actually in a previous century – there can’t be any link to current fires in this century. Unless pixie dust comes with moonbeams.

Reply to  pmhinsc
October 19, 2015 1:59 pm

Well, California has entered another one of it’s multi-year drought cycles, so it definitely has changed. Not related to CO2, but it has changed.

David S
October 19, 2015 7:19 am

The really disturbing thing is that the people of California elected this goofball.

Reply to  David S
October 19, 2015 7:30 am

Well, it is California…land of the fruits and nuts !!!

Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 10:20 am

California is proof that they country is tilted to the west. All the fruits and nuts have rolled to it.

Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 12:38 pm

Don’t forget the flakes.

Mark T
Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 6:40 pm

Nuts are all dying of drought from their fantastic water policies. You go delta smelt!! Yeah!

Reply to  Marcus
October 20, 2015 10:17 am

Flakes don’t roll, the kinda slither.

Reply to  David S
October 19, 2015 9:16 am

But predictable.

James at 48
Reply to  David S
October 19, 2015 10:39 am

To be fair, relatively speaking, he’s an adult in charge, as compared with the previous two clowns.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  David S
October 19, 2015 12:20 pm

“The country is tilted slightly from east to west, and everything loose slides into California.” Dorothy Parker, possibly, or some other denizen of the Algonquin Round Table.

October 19, 2015 7:21 am

And also from the same Times story:
Brown’s senior environmental advisor, Cliff Rechtschaffen, has said the governor believes climate change is not regarded with sufficient urgency and should be addressed “on a World War III footing.”

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Bernie
October 19, 2015 8:19 am

Brown’s senior environmental advisor, Cliff Rechtschaffen, has said the governor believes climate change is not regarded with sufficient urgency and should be addressed “on a World War III footing.”
does he mean like…
Feb 1976 Spartan/Sprint http://www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/sprint-salvo-launch-2/
1964 nike defense missile http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/N-view.html
I could go on, but my point is what were Governor Brown’s views on american defensive and deterrent systems during the “Cold War”? Is he suggesting we follow his philosophy oh how to protect ourselves from the USSR?
I know disarm and surrender to the CO2.

Reply to  Bernie
October 19, 2015 10:17 am

should be addressed “on a World War III footing.”

Good Lord. All out thermonuclear strikes on every city, every military installation, and every significant piece of civilian infrastructure on the planet.
I thought liberals were, in principle, opposed to this sort of thing.
It does seem a bit excessive for a few forest fires, but I am no expert.

Brad Rich
October 19, 2015 7:27 am

He’s an ambulance chaser. Worse: cameras follow him to broadcast his every word.

October 19, 2015 7:39 am

It’s the siren song for more federal money.

Joel O’Bryan
October 19, 2015 7:44 am

Governor Moonbeam Brown is a senile moron.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 19, 2015 9:09 am

I don’t agree. Like Obama, Gov. Brown is a devious, conniving politician of the far Left, intent on destroying American exceptionalism through policies guaranteed to reward failure and punish success.
Brown’s current idiocy is the “bullet” train to nowhere; an unneeded $103 billion (gov’t numbers, so you can at least double them) fiasco that will get riders from San Francisco to LA in ‘only’ 4½ hours. Right now airlines get passengers there in one hour, for a little over $100 advance fare.
Fares on Moonbeam’s “bullet” train will have to be subsidized forever, and the rights of way for tracks, dozens of stations, parkling lots, etc., which now pay property taxes, will no longer pay taxes. As usual, the state’s hard-bitten taxpayers (state taxes ar ≈10%, and sales taxes are almost 10%) will have to make up the difference.
There is no need or demand for Brown’s train. No one has any problem going from one end of the state to the other. There are other trains, there are bus lines, there are cars, and there’s even Uber, Lyft, etc. This is just the governor’s legacy at the expense of everyone else, except for a few self-serving parties like construction companies.
I have a better idea: state taxpayers should construct a 300-foot tall Pyramid. It would have a portal in the side facing the moon, and at every full moon a moonbeam would fall upon a golden table inside, with the word LEGACY
That would cost far less than the gov’s “bullet” train, and it would not require eternal subsidies. Might even pay its own way as a tourist attraction. Win-win!

Reply to  dbstealey
October 19, 2015 10:10 am

Yes, i can see Moonbeam and his team of jesters sitting in a room a few years back trying to answer the question; Bullet train or water, bullet train or water. Which is more important? And Moonbeam shouting, “We’re politicians!” “What do we care if the people have no water to drink?” “Let them drink wine from France!” “We’re going for the LEGACY, the BULLET TRAIN!” “And we’ll have the first segment go from Fresno to Madera . . . . by the way, where is Madera?”

Reply to  dbstealey
October 20, 2015 4:18 am

Bullet trains do not fit into the grid with their slower cousins when it comes to scheduling – and are so expensive to run that they are not attractive travellers’ options. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-are-killing-the-european-railway-network.html

October 19, 2015 7:51 am

Who votes for idiots like Brown?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 19, 2015 7:58 am

Is that a trick question, like who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 19, 2015 7:59 am

Answer: Idiots like Brown.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  JohnWho
October 19, 2015 8:50 am

Yes, they do.

Eric H
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 19, 2015 8:23 am

I can tell you from direct inquiry….college students and <30 year olds. I had multiple conversations with young employees of mine and every single one of them thought he was an excellent choice. Many of them were unaware that he AND his father had been governors of CA before, and they of course had no idea what he had subjected the state to in the past…

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 19, 2015 8:55 am

Zombies edumacated by the government .edu factories voted for Brown. They have succeeded in stupidizing the population in just a few generations. Gov. Moonbeam is the result.comment image
[Note the Science scores]

Reply to  dbstealey
October 19, 2015 4:30 pm

This was foreseen DB:

October 19, 2015 8:01 am

Don’t worry, Moon-beam’s fire stupidity will be forgotten soon as El Nino’s winter wet cycle puts mudslides on the front pages. He’ll blame those on global warming too.

October 19, 2015 8:04 am

It’s a race to the bottom in California.
CARB deceit case……

October 19, 2015 8:22 am

Or it could be a whole lot of arson going on.
Arson suspect linked to 30 fires caught in Northern California
Woman accused of starting 14 roadside fires in Northern California is arrested
‘Heinous Act’: Arson Blamed for One in Five California Wildfires
Arsonists sought in fires along I-5 in Washington state
Boy charged with arson in California wildfire that led to evacuations, cost millions to fight
Officials say Stevens County wildfire is arson

Reply to  Elmer
October 19, 2015 9:09 am

All them were probably Glo.Bull Warming Alarmists trying to prove that they are right….by starting the fires themselves ???? Liberal logic !!!

Reply to  Elmer
October 19, 2015 12:34 pm

I’m no expert but I have observed firefighting in action in these rural places and it seems to me to be largely a scam. Lots of personnel show up driving very expensive rigs and do a lot of driving around without ever getting out of their trucks. A “portable kitchen” is hauled in and serves 2 square hot meals a day and packs lunches for everybody while the crew chief arrives at a name for the fire and sees to it that any bulldosing subcontractors are brought in from as far away as possible. Then they publish a status report daily on where the fire is and which direction it is burning and see that it is disseminated to all the local stores and restaurants which are not getting the business they used to before firefighting got seriously organized in the last 5 years or so. By the time the fire burns itself out they may even settle whose contract crews should be used to try and contain it. This resulted in Bureau of Land Management crews standing down once the fire escaped BLM property last year and got into the “privately held” wheat fields where local volunteers actually put the damn thing out! This year it resulted in combined federal crews standing down and a change in the bulldosing contractors once the fire had transitioned from federal jurisdiction to state controlled zones. It is crazy ridiculous!

Reply to  fossilsage
October 19, 2015 2:10 pm

I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of it wasn’t truly that corrupt and ridiculous. Hower, I will defend inaction when fires occur on public land. We should not actively fight wildfires unless they threaten human habitation.
Routine fires are good for the land and ecosystem. Some plants even require fire to germinate, and a mature tree will live through a decent blaze. However, overzealous firefighting leads to excess undergrowth, which leads to large sustained fires that wipe out the whole area. This was the source of the catastrophic fires of the early 90s.

Reply to  fossilsage
October 19, 2015 2:11 pm

I moved up to Humboldt County back in 1970. The old story about forest fires was that the guy who started the fire was usually about the tenth person in line to sign up for fighting the fire. I remember one major fire centered around the town of Orleans which was named the GO fire, if I remember right. That was a nasty event. It was smoky for around 3 months with sunlight being heavily restricted. I remember how depressing that became. It certainly affected the mood of everyone in the area. Early rains in September helped put that one out.

Reply to  Elmer
October 19, 2015 12:45 pm

I live in central Oregon. Nobody in officialdom thinks it strange that there is a fire on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation EVERY YEAR during fire season usually attributed to lighting but this year to overheated brakes falling apart! Federal firefighting funds always find ready recipients on the res!

October 19, 2015 8:36 am

I have friends in the forestry – and fire fighting areas. Pretty much without dissension they attribute the rise in West Coast forest fires – to the results of environmentalists halting the practice of ‘fire break cutting’ in forests.
Much as with the bulk of California water-woes – the problem is exacerbated by ‘do-gooders’ without the prerequisite brains actually required to ‘do good’.

Reply to  LudicrousSextus
October 19, 2015 9:09 am

The problems are entirely Liberal made !!

James at 48
Reply to  LudicrousSextus
October 19, 2015 10:38 am

Plus the fact PDO went negative some years back and only recently relaxed. This meant that Positive ENSO episodes since the early 00s were duds. Maybe the current one will be better.

Reply to  LudicrousSextus
October 20, 2015 4:25 am

That is what I’ve been hearing – but with almost no public reporting of same. Checking out forums of concerned people usually helps ease the information drought.

Coeur de Lion
October 19, 2015 8:41 am

Wrong place to post this but can’t wait. See Matt Ridley’s op-ed article in today’s London Times!! Something of a breakthrough. I hope there’s a lot of writing-in in support – I have.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
October 19, 2015 8:52 am
Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 8:54 am

Never mind, they want money !!!

Reply to  Marcus
October 19, 2015 1:07 pm
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
October 19, 2015 8:52 am

Only for subscribers?

Reply to  Nylo
October 19, 2015 8:55 am

yea, just saw that…thanks

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
October 19, 2015 8:56 am

Coeur de Lion
I could only get a teaser on the article, but not the full article. From what I could get of it, I agree with you.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
October 19, 2015 10:22 am

You can read the article on the GWPF site. Which is worth reading anyway, as there is lots of good information there.

Dudley Horscroft
October 19, 2015 9:00 am

When I see pictures of houses destroyed in Australian bushfires, I usually see large trees surrounding the houses. We now, in NSW, have legislation permitting homeowners to get rid of trees within 10 metres of their houses and enables them to get rid of undergrowth within 50 m.
“If you live in an area close to the bush, you need to prepare your home. The 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Scheme gives people living near the bush an additional way of being better prepared for bush fires.
The scheme allows people in a designated area to:
Clear trees on their property within 10 metres of a home, without seeking approval; and
Clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs (but not trees) on their property within 50 metres of a home, without seeking approval.”
What is the rule in California? Are you prevented from getting rid of fire hazards like adjacent trees and undergrowth, or are you permitted to clear the land to render the area around a house reasonably safe from fire?

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 19, 2015 9:04 am

In CaliPORNia , Only Tree’s Lives Matter !!!!

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 19, 2015 9:27 am

In many cases, you are actually required by to clear brush from around your property.
However, I believe these are local (not state) ordinances.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 19, 2015 2:20 pm

Property owners in the country have the right to remove individual trees, and cut firewood on their land for personal use without any permitting. As Reg Nelson points out below, it is mandated that property owners keep the area around any buildings clear of brush or tall grasses.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 19, 2015 5:09 pm

In Victoria a property owner cleared more area around his property than was “allowed”. The local council took him to court and he was fined AU$50,000 if I recall. His was the only property not affected by fire a few years ago. I am not sure if the local council eventually backed down from the ridiculous fine but this is the kind of idiotic local govn’t policy infesting councils all over Australia.

James Francisco
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
October 20, 2015 12:04 pm

How sad it is that you have to ask for permission to cut your trees.

October 19, 2015 9:01 am
October 19, 2015 9:11 am

Lived in CA for 28 years and learned much about politics and how politicians function. Number one on the list was the stark difference between conservative and progressive politicians, and if you’re going to follow a political miscreant like “moonbeam” you’d best watch where you step and always carry a gas mask!

October 19, 2015 10:00 am

If we are talking about warming in the USA, there has been none in the past ten years.
Our most reliable temperature measurement series, the USCRN, with its triple redundant aspirated sensors in pristine rural settings shows NO warming in the USA.
The system is so good it need no hokey adjustments that let the warmists advance their agenda.
So any “fire trend” in the past 10 years is NOT from warming !
There are other US temperature records that show no warming that may go longer, but these are subject to the “adjustments” (data tampering)

Reply to  J
October 19, 2015 10:24 am

Satellite measurements need no adjusting either and they show no warming for 18 years

Mike the Morlock
October 19, 2015 10:21 am

I remember when I was a kid in New England, you could run through the forests and never come home with a “tick”. Everywhere there were either controlled burns or burn barrels on the farms and homes.
Go take a walk in the woods now, go home and count the guests. Odd I think CO2 has effected the “ticks”. They have become bigger blood suckers, and Morphed into “Politicians” and “Climate” Scientists.

James at 48
October 19, 2015 10:35 am

They are linked to Pacific cooling.
Thank goodness we stand a chance of breaking the drought this rainy season, owing to a warmer ocean (but for how long?).

Arthur Clapham
October 19, 2015 11:00 am

Governor Brown would have derived excellent advice from one of my school teachers,
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool rather than open it and remove all possible

Tom in Florida
October 19, 2015 11:02 am

Time to downgrade him like they did with Pluto……. Dwarf Governor Brown

October 19, 2015 12:12 pm

Unfortunately, this happens a lot: climate is the last thing politicians worry when they take actions regarding climate change. It’s both ironic and true and it seems this situation happens in most of the fields linked in any way to the climate. Many of them don’t even make the difference between climate and weather and don’t understand what climate change really means. I would suggest them to take a look here and learn a few basic things in this field: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/is-climate-science-a-monster/.

October 19, 2015 12:17 pm

Mr. Worrall:
Are you aware that the LA Times was the first major news outlet to put in place a policy of not publishing letters from “climate deniers?”
If you’re expecting them to be an honest player on the subject, you should probably pull up a chair and get comfortable while you wait…

Reply to  takebackthegreen
October 19, 2015 2:13 pm

That’s why it’s so refreshing. When the alarmists are willing to call out their own side, it shows that they are at least starting to be willing to listen to reason.

Reply to  takebackthegreen
October 19, 2015 8:54 pm

You’re thinking of a time way back in the day before alarmists suffering from the toxic effects of CO2 in their drinking water even coined the term ‘climate deniers’; you know, before they were blown off the edge of the planet by these ever-increasing hurricanes. I think we were mere flat-earthers or deniers before the warmists developed a real appreciation of the threat of a 0.8 C temperature increase since 1880. This is climate psyence; factual accuracy is mandatory.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2015 12:13 am

It is fascinating. There must be some other overriding factor at play. It’s unfortunate newspapers aren’t exemplars of the openness and transparency they demand of others. Then we could just ask how this article squares with their editorial policy…

October 19, 2015 12:58 pm

What does a fire need to start / burn? Remember the ‘fire triangle’. A fire needs Oxygen, fuel and a source of ignition / heat. No Govenor not a fraction of a degree more heat, something really hot, like a lit match.

Reply to  DavidS
October 19, 2015 2:25 pm

Lightning strikes are the number one fire starter mechanism.

Keith Minto
Reply to  DavidS
October 19, 2015 9:40 pm

And very low humidity.

October 19, 2015 1:08 pm

Brown is as DUMB as Biden when it comes to facts

Reply to  Catcracking
October 20, 2015 10:22 am

I hope those two are never in the same building at the same time.
That much stupid in one place at one time could form a rip in the space time continuum.

October 19, 2015 1:33 pm

Much of California is covered in types of trees and plants that only reproduce with fire. Also, in my home town of Santa Barbara, idiots built their houses on the mountains behind the city, then prevented frequent yearly fires to burn the chapparal back. The problem was, these shrubs needed to be burned back at least every couple of years or they would grow so large that when the inevitable fire happed, the fire would have far more fuel than normal and burn at a far higher temperature that would turn the bushes to ash instead of just scorching them, this in turn meant there would be nothing to hold the soil in place, and when it eventually rained, everything came tumbling down the hillside. If you build in areas that have frequent fires naturally, you are screwing with the local ecology when you prevent that from happening because of a goddamn vacation home.
Nothing against vacation houses, but you build in a stupid place, you pay the price, same for fools who park their houses on the edge of loose soil cliffs in Santa Monica or on the sandy beach front property.

Reply to  CFT
October 19, 2015 2:30 pm

Then there is the reality that California has quadrupled in population over the last 65 years. Plus there are drifters all over the state, who make camp where ever they feel like until they are chased out. They seldom obey any rules, and their bad habits reinforce reckless/thoughtless behavior.

Reply to  goldminor
October 19, 2015 7:22 pm


Brett Keane
Reply to  CFT
October 19, 2015 10:16 pm

Dead right, CFT. The practice of building homes within two maximum tree heights is also only done by greenhorns, for reason of leaves, limbs. and whole trees falling on inhabitants etc.; light and wind optimisation. As well as avoiding a roasting.

October 19, 2015 2:55 pm

I thought CO2 was used in fire extinguishers. But apparently Jerry Moonbeam thinks it makes fire juke and dance like Barry Sanders. What a jackass.

October 19, 2015 3:38 pm

This man is a major figure in Democratic politics. A man of respect, not a far out left winger ranting in the wilderness.
Think about that.
Here is what I think: The Democratic party is beyond hope.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 19, 2015 4:52 pm

The LA Times, which frequently expresses strong support for climate alarmist themes, has printed an article expressing skepticism of Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s attempt to link global warming to Californian wildfires.

Will wonders never cease? But Enquiring minds want to know whether this is because the editorial staff of the LA Times actually did some independent research, or because the paper has taken a general dislike to Governor Brown for other reasons? The former would be tremendously encouraging, but I suspect the latter is the more likely scenario.

October 19, 2015 5:20 pm

EPA and Oblama chicken out of attending Senate hearing on Glo.Bull Warming !!!!

Mike Flynn
October 19, 2015 6:04 pm

Many thanks to all.
I actually had tears in my my eyes from laughing at some of the comments. I’m sure a standup comedian could come up with a whole show, based on just some of them.
Even though wildfires can be terrible things, a little humour on the subject of their cause is not out of place.

October 19, 2015 7:20 pm

I truly think Alzheimer’s has come to Moonbeam. He’s losing rationality. Some of his statements/actions are becoming bizarre.

Walt D.
October 19, 2015 7:36 pm

Something Jerry Brown says is nonsense? Wow, I’m shocked, shocked.
It would be more news if Jerry Brown said something that was not nonsense.

October 23, 2015 4:22 pm

%d bloggers like this: