The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The latest L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda article tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming as addressed in its flawed articles on this subject that were previously debunked here and here at WUWT.

clip_image002

The latest article also uses anecdotal stories by the writer and a few others saying in essence “its hotter than ever” to make their case for global warming with these false claims being addressed in a previous Times article also debunked at WUWT.

The article then tries to support the proposition that climate model simulation estimates can be relied upon to show “human influences” on global climate with this claim based on the flawed assertions of Lawrence Livermore climate scientist Ben Santer who perpetrated one of the most scandalous and notorious alarmism distortions of climate science that helped politicalize the climate debate thus driving the discussion away from rigorous and open scientific pursuit and instead supporting climate alarmism political advocacy.

The shenanigans of Ben Santer who changed a key UN IPCC report finding by rewriting it to reflect his own bias of “human influence” unsupported by his scientific colleagues is summarized below:

“Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

Only much later were these shenanigans revealed as the WUWT article notes – “Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. According to one source, he later admitted that

“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”

 

The Times article egregiously ignores the key scientific fact that the inherent inadequacy of climate models to reflect global climate outcomes is conclusively supported by the UN IPCC itself as addressed in its numerous climate report reviews conducted over the last 25 years as addressed here.

clip_image004

Hidden by the L A Times is the 2001 UN IPCC AR3 report fully acknowledging the inability to create climate models which represent the behavior of global climate systems.

 

Specifically in Section 14.2.2.2 (Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles) of the AR3 report the bottom line concerning the unresolvable shortcomings of global climate model simulations was articulated and clearly presented as:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles of modal solutions.”

Despite the latest global climate model updates reflected in the UN IPCC AR5 report the limitations clearly articulated in the UN IPCC AR3 report that “the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” applies to the AR5 report assessments and findings.”

Furthermore the UN IPCC AR5 report notes the very clear and significant limitations regarding the climate scenarios underlying its report by noting:

“The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)”

This latest L. A. Times article gives short shrift to the extensive criticisms of climate model limitations by renowned climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry who has detailed these shortcomings in a recent study noted here.

clip_image006

The Times article makes the ridiculous claim that Ca. can make a difference in global emissions behavior.

“The state has long led the way on embracing renewable energy sources and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Then there’s the current legislation demanding better gas mileage in the near future, which is under attack by the Trump administration. But as a single state in a world of major polluters, can going green make a difference?

Alex Hall, a UCLA climate scientist, has no doubt.

“I think what’s happening in California is wonderful,” said Hall, who traded his gas-hungry car for a Chevy Bolt. “It’s a pathway forward.”

Environmentalism isn’t sacrifice, Hall said. It’s change. And in charting a course toward renewable energy and lower greenhouse gas emissions, California is setting an agenda.”

This is complete climate alarmism drivel as noted in a recent article at WUWT.

clip_image008

In the period 1990 to 2016 China’s growth of 7.7 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compares to California’s AB 32 reduction of about 0.052 billion tons of CO2 per year (CO2 emissions represent about 80% of Ca. greenhouse gas emissions). How this huge increase by China can earn the political admiration by climate alarmists here in California that China is “leading the fight against climate change” is preposterous.

The recent L. A. Times articles noted previously have failed to address NOAA temperatures showing measured maximum temperatures and instead have addressed average and minimum measured temperatures since the maximum measured temperatures did not show increases that the alarmist Times wanted to reveal.

Dr. Judith Curry addressed a recent WUWT study which had shown that average and minimum measured temperature data are impacted by inaccuracies driven by improper temperature station siting conditions.

Specifically the WUWT study notes that:

“Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.

Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008. These differences are significant in Tmean, and most pronounced in the minimum temperature data (Tmin). (Figure 3 and Table 1)

The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.

We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.”

 

The temperature inadequacies of improperly sited temperature measurement stations which results in inaccurate and misleading temperature data is a topic unlikely to ever be available to readers of the L. A. Times.

The L. A. Times article also fails to address the fact that drought cycles in Ca. and the Western U.S. are driven by natural climate variation as specifically noted in a recent study here which Times readers are likely to never read about in its pages.

clip_image010

This most recent article by the L.A. Times is a hodgepodge of climate alarmist propaganda claims which are scientifically unsupported and anchored to politically contrived climate science alarmism.

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda

  1. Well of course it does. It doesn’t matter that your argument is nonsense when your playing by the alinsky rules, because the target audience are idiots.

    • don’t worry-

      “Following recent reports of record coffee harvests comes news that Ukraine, Argentina and the U.S. are expecting record corn and soyabean crops. It would appear that record warm years have been exceptionally good for global agriculture as stocks of cereal, rice and coarse grains all reached record levels”

      • On the one hand I agree, on the other I remember that by not electing that stupid bastard, we ended up re-electing someone even worse. On the third hand, it enabled us to elect Trump (for good or ill depending on you POV)

  2. “L. A. Times… tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming”

    No they didn’t. Stop making stuff up.

    • Here’s the headline and part of the lede:

      “Homes incinerated. Families displaced. Lives lost.

      “In the long, hot, smoky California summer of 2018, as we camp under ash-hued sunset skies, the scariest thought is that the future has arrived, and more intense weather extremes will continue to wreak havoc in years to come.”

      Now granted, the exact words “Climate change caused the fires” don’t appear in the article, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that’s not what’s being claimed. Unless, of course, you want to argue that “hot, smoky…sunset skies… more intense weather extremes… wreak havoc” are just referring to next week’s weather.

      • False. The article is saying that climate change will exacerbate conditions California has faced before. “Making something worse and more frequent” is not saying climate change is the sole cause.

        • The trick for them is to imply a falsehood without actually stating that falsehood.

          They will not say that this storm or this wildfire is directly attributable to anthropogenic global warming. That’s too easy to debunk.

          What they will say is something like, “This is what we can expect in the future.”

          • Bob says “The trick for them is to imply a falsehood without actually stating that falsehood.”

            As opposed to just blatently out and stating a falsehood like “L. A. Times… tries to blame”? Thats pretty tricky.

          • As opposed to just blatently …

            Lawrence makes a straight out assertion, and presents evidence. If you have reason to think it’s wrong then you can debunk it by presenting counter evidence.

          • Have you noticed how the alarmists, almost to a man, are limited to screaming “You’re wrong” over and over again. Then expecting you to agree with them.

          • MarkW, it’s whack a mole trying to keep up with the misleading claims made here. You don’t have to agree, you’re a yes man for any climate skeptic posts so I don’t expect you to agree.

          • Again – not a falsehood, because yes, that’s exactly what they did – AND counting on that apologist, rationalist bullshit to justify it.

        • “Making something worse and more frequent” is not saying climate change is the sole cause.’

          No – it’s just implying the hell out of it. Which you know damn well.

          So, NOT false.

        • Chris… The true point of the article is that it’s evil CO2 that is at fault. The facts (I have 33 years of firefighting experience on LA County Fire) are that decades of not being able to properly manage the wildlands, has come back to bite us! Thank you well-meaning but stupid environmentalists… who now stop all attempts at control via lawsuits. If you take the time to check, you will find that American Indians, living in forest areas, regularly burned out the underbrush and low growing fuels in the forests. When europeans took up residences in the US, that was the end of using small fires to prevent major conflagrations! Building your home in the brush or forests, while beautiful locations, meant that the Forest Service could no longer burn out the decades of dead wood that now fuels the fires we’ve seen over the last few decades.

          • Well, more accurately, the American Indians (pre-Columbus) were locked in the Stone Age, with no other energy source but women, dogs, and slaves. An (uncontrollable) wild fires. They had gold, silver mined by slaves, but no other metals of any kind.

            They HAD TO let the forests, hills, plains, and brushlands burn out “naturally” because they had no way of stopping ANY fire from ANY source (man, lightning, meteorite, or whatever) once lit.

          • Gene H, why is it that environmentalists get all the blame for these policies? Do you actually think timber companies support massive burns? Of course not, they want to harvest the trees. Do you think property developers want to stop building homes where people want to live? Both of those groups are conservative, and generally not environmentalists, yet all blame regarding this policy as assigned to environmentalists.

      • This-has-all-happened-before-and-forever. Fact is more people in the way of natures wrath are being affected because of population increases. And fact is MANY of these fires were started due to malfeasance of forest/brush maintenance or otherwise such as power lines, car fires and arson. The LEFTISTs in CA can kiss my white-irish-ass!! And I am not even Irish!

    • I’m guessing that either you didn’t read the article, or weren’t capable of understanding it.

      • Thank you Mark for employing another common alarmist tactic: implying that people who don’t believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are just too stupid to understand the science. it’s the same approach the author of this article took when writing about climate change deniers. I read the article and understood it perfectly. It showed some attempt at balance, but like you it implied that people who disagree with witch doctor climate scientists like Ben Santer are stupid and should not be taken seriously. Thank God those brilliant Californians are leading the charge and taking the proper actions to save the planet. if you don’t already live in San Francisco I recommend that you move there immediately.

        • I should have put that I was replying to Ryan. I thought the indenting would be enough of a clue.

          PS: You haven’t been around these parts long if you think I’m an alarmist.

    • So, RyanS, if the L.A. Times isn’t apportioning some level of blame for the tragic wildfires on global warming, then why are they mentioning global warming/climate change in relation to the wildfires?

    • It really is sad when opinion replaces actual science.
      But then again, the warmists never had any science.

      • PS: Ivanski’s article was shredded here yesterday.

        In short, the examined all the models. Found the ones that came closest to matching today’s conditions, and then assumed that these were the best models and then took the predictions of those models for the next few years.

        Total garbage, but since it was what the alarmists want to hear, the latched on to it.

    • Ivan,

      Before you go on promoting any “science” based on the IPCC models, it should be required of you and anyone else to review the IPCC AR5 Technical Summary report section TS.6 (pages 114-115 which is titled “Key Uncertainties”).

      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

      This is a list of all the levels of uncertainty that the IPCC recognizes on all the critical elements of the global models. Take a look and then tell us all how you can place any level of “certainty” in the output of these models.

      The actual science is so uncertain as it relates to cloud cover, permafrost, cyclones, Antarctic mass balance, carbon cycle feedbacks, drought, ocean temperatures at depth, water cycle changes . . . . . Its stunning how LITTLE we know and understand, which explains why the models are so bad at forecasting. So logically any reports/analysis based on the CMIPs should be pretty much disregarded or at a minimum categorized as speculative forecasting as best.

  3. You sceptics really make me laugh when you talk about ‘climate alarmist propoganda’ and write off all climate modelling because it cannot accurately replicate global climate patterns.

    The truth is that CO2 levels are rising in line with global temperatures. Also as each year passes climate modelling is increasing in its accuracy.

    You still continue to ignore the evidence staring you in the face. Trump and his merry band of sceptics are now becoming an irrelevance as the science underpinning global warming is now a given in every country except the USA.

      • Hilarious. Sometimes satire is more effective than trying to debunk the science (or the lack thereof in this case).

    • ivantheterrible says:
      write off all climate modelling

      If course “models” are written off for “predicting” climate yrs ahead, at least by any reasonable person. The same (essentially) models turn to junk after a week trying to predict weather. The most complex, latest supercomputer models today can just barely model a commercial or military jet (even then the modeled jets must be verified in wind tunnels, etc). Compare the size/complexity of those planes to the surface & atmosphere of the ENTIRE EARTH. It’s comparing a bacteria cell to an elephant. “Models” aren’t ready for climate “predictions”. When they get close, we’ll let you know……

    • The perfidy, writing off climate models merely because they can’t get climate right.

      With every year that passes, the projections of the models drifts ever further from what the real world has been doing.

      There is no evidence.

    • Again, that’s what you warmists imply with that 97% consensus talking point.
      NOT that there’s some effect, but ALL the attached propaganda.

      Of course, that’s what makes you the real denier.

    • When a psychic predicts the future and that predicted future fails to materialize, most logical & sane people realizes that “psychic” is a fraud and doesn’t take seriously their latest “predictions”. Climate Models failed predictions make even the worst psychic look credible, at least the psychics occasionally get some “right” by random chance.

    • ivankinksman:
      Ice core studies show temperature peaks
      lead CO2 level peak by 500 to 1,000 years.

      But never mind that real science,
      … just ignore the evidence contradicting
      the belief that CO2 levels control
      the average temperature.

      Greenhouse gases should warm the
      Arctic and Antarctic the most.

      The Arctic has warmed but
      Antarctica has not (since the 1960’s)
      — just ignore that contrary evidence
      for greenhouse warming.

      CO2 levels increased a lot
      from 1940 to 1975, but there
      was no warming
      … ignore that contrary evidence
      for greenhouse warming

      There was a flat temperature trend
      from 2003 though mid-2015, while
      CO2 levels increased 8% to 10% —
      … just ignore that contrary evidence for
      greenhouse warming.

      Trump may not know much about
      climate science, but then no one does
      — the causes of climate change
      are unproven theories, and the
      future climate can not be predicted.

      If you like wrong predictions,
      97% of climate models have made those,
      for the past 30 years !

      Only a fool would believe that
      climate science is “settled”,
      and, in fact, there is very little
      real science behind the wild guess
      computer game predictions of
      triple the warming that actually happens.

      When 97% of the computer game predictions
      are so far off from reality, the underlying climate physics
      assumptions must be wrong.

      The underlying climate physics assumptions
      are that a doubling of the CO2 level
      will increase the average temperature
      +3 degrees C., and that’s not happening !

    • Ivan,

      CO2 has risen steadily since the end of WWII. During that time, Earth cooled dramatically for 32 years. Then the PDO flipped in 1977, and the planet warmed slightly for about 20 years. Following super El Nino of 1998-99, average global temperature stayed flat until next super El Nino in 2015-16. Now it’s cooling again.

      How are these fluctuations down, up and sideways “in line” with CO2?

  4. “The latest L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda article tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming as addressed in its flawed articles on this subject that were previously debunked here and here at WUWT.”

    err no it didnt.

    • L.A. Times Aug. 11 2018 by Steve Lopez
      “Ignore the climate change deniers, California’s Hellish summer really is a grave warning” !!

      Did you miss that part ??

      • ‘The truth is unliked here it seems.’

        Lucifer’s truth, perhaps – as in the art-form of speaking utter crap, while staying within the boarders of the literal truth.
        Also known as lawyer-speak. The press has mastered it, too.

      • Tell me what the mean temp will be here in Minnesota 3 yrs from now to within 1/10th of a degree. I’m waiting. And then I’ll verify your prediction in 3yrs…

    • So a title that starts “Ignore the climate change deniers” indicates that they aren’t going to talk about climate change at all?

      Is that really the line you want to defend?

    • Mosh, what part of “Ignore the climate change deniers, California’s Hellish summer really is a grave warning” did you fail to understand? Why do you think they’re telling people to ignore “climate change deniers” in relation to “California’s Hellish summer”? and what do you think they’re talking about with the phrase “California’s Hellish summer”? and what do you think they’re claiming that “California’s Hellish summer” is warning about?

  5. There’s an upside to all of this. California is and will be an excellent training area for firefighters worldwide. Neglect of forest management = $$$ for firefighters and for firefighter instructors, and happiness for greenies as they watch the world around them burn.

  6. The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work that has been done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

  7. “The shenanigans of Ben Santer who changed a key UN IPCC report finding by rewriting it to reflect his own bias of “human influence” unsupported by his scientific colleagues”

    In the legal world, that is not “shenanigans”, that is straight out fraudulent” !

    IMHO

  8. I will refrain from replying to IvanK, RyanS, Chris and Mosh. It’s much more fun discussing with Scientologists, at least they have some space ships and aliens in their fairytales.

    • Norwegian, you’d get better discussions w/a kindergarten class. At least they’re usually willing to learn and not yet fully indoctrinated…..

  9. What was that song from the 1970s? Oh, yeah: Albert Hammond’s memorable paean to going to SoCal.

    Seems it never rains in southern California
    Seems I’ve often heard that kind of talk before
    It never rains in California, but girl, don’t they warn ya?
    It pours, man, it pours. (EMI Music Publishing)

    If the ecohippies, including these money-grubbing science dorks, ever face and acknowledge reality, someone please let me know, eh? The cash-grabbers have to justify their existence, which is behind rewriting/reconstructing data to suit this agenda. They hide their real purpose by employing illucid polysyllabic verbiage constructed in a manner meant specifically to confuse the reviewers.

    The more I see of the ignorant nonsense that they come up with, the more convinced I am that they are an invasive species and need to be caught, neutered and spayed, inoculated for distemper, rabies, and FIV, and microchipped, and then given their own reservation in a remote area where they can Enjoy Nature to the end of their days, while someone plays a flute next to a greenwood fire that no one remembers to extinguish.

    • “California dreamin on such a winter’s day
      I’d be safe and warm if I was in LA”
      Mamas and Poppas

      Not so much anymore, particularly in south central LA.

  10. Oh God it was hell.
    Hell I tell you.
    The month of July.
    Hell it was.
    In the UK. In July. Hell.
    Exactly as prejected. Hell.
    Just as the UK Met Office did with their unnervingly accurate projedtions of hell. Hell they prejocted and Oh Ghod, was it hellish?

    As Climate Scientists do all the time and as we see here quite often & on occasion
    Despite the long awaited and prodjicted hell, oh God it was hell, some of us tried to maintain a degree of curiosity and inquisitiveness.
    True confession time but it was more by accident than design that, during the long prejocted hell of settled cyclonic weather, blue skies, warm temperatures, pretty girls in dresses *and* epic sunshine, one of us found himself within 2 miles of Drax Power Station. What hell.

    Only one blot on the landscape – Drax had created its own weather.
    For probably a 2 mile radius around the power station, the weather turned cloudy, and cool and it was gently raining as one, enduring the hell that it was, might have approached the centre where the power station itself was.
    And there was yet another version of hell,, Crowds and crowds and crowds of Climate Scientists all gathered around it to witness the event, take measurements, record data and think.

    We’re in Safe Hands. The Future is Assured.

    Again by accident than design, I’m stood here in a pub drinking coffee (that wasn’t accidental, I did mean to do that) – the accident bit is that I’m right next to a picture-on-the-wall of The Beast of Bolsover. Ooooh they say, what’s that then?

    As we are coming to learn, Google is now full of shyte and ‘proper’ The Beast of Bolsover was actually not the Labour Member of Parliament for Bolsover but an aerial creature of the variety Protodonata. It was/is a dragonfly, had a wingspan of over 20centimetres and flew through forests that existed here some 300 million years ago.
    The Alert Reader will ‘know’ that a coal miner found the now fossilised creature. (2 miners claimed the distinction)

    Now then, are there many/any Protodonata to be found under Southern California?
    Or very much coal?
    If not, why not

    Also, should anyone such as self with inclinations leaning towards Peasantry *and* in Southern California take upon himself to plant a field of wheat – what sort of per acre yield would he get?
    Certainly in the part of the world where one might find Drax Power Station AND Fossilised Flying Beasts, the local peasants can expect to get 5 tonnes per acre of bread-making (high protein) wheat.

    Why the difference. Same wheat varieties. Same tractors, ploughs, fertilisers, pesticides and if required, same irrigation equipment and stuff. Water innit.

    Also in the vicinity of Bolsover and Drax is a thing/place; Name of “Sherwood Forest”. In fact and entirely by design so as to arrive in Bolsover and thus be able to see the picture on the wall of the Beast of Bolsover, I actually did drive my little truck through Sherwood Forest.
    Right through the middle. Ish. Dodging the outrageous arrows of slings and Robins Hood.
    Sherwood Forest did not appear to be on fire. But that was an hour ago, may have changed since.

    Can ANYONE connect the dots, Drax weather, coal, wheat and fire or the lack of it?
    Why is California burning while Notts & Derbyshire are not?
    Both places having just endured Hell.

    It is in fact another variation of hell, at least for many people who are simply gonna say “Oh, its the Climate what did it”
    The Hell being that you have to be truly sceptical, you have to break away from the consensus and actually disregard much of what you were told in Primary School. Especially about what causes what on this Earth.
    Go back and think about the coal, dragonflies, extreme localised weather, what caused that and wheat yields……

    And this goes to EVERYONE here, or especially the ones who repeatedly and blandly assert that ‘Climate is Always Changing’
    That is one Monster Buck Pass.
    You CAN NOT do that without putting forward some solid and reasonable notions about WHY ‘climate is always changing’
    The Cycles Notion falls apart every time someone critically analyses it.

    The answer is in the dots. And blowing in the wind on Planet Mars.
    (Innit it pretty even though very low in the sky in these parts?)

  11. It may be hell in other places but, here in Nebraska, it’s been unusually pleasant. I expect hot August nights with intense thunderstorms and tornadoes galore. What do I get?, mild showers and my window fan running in the morning ejecting the heat from my appliances and exchanging it with cool morning air. Precipitation has been less than average but, most of it soaks in and isn’t runoff. If this pattern continues into winter, I’m scared. Winter may end up being a frozen Hell.

  12. Like every AGW leaning rag and site I read, any evidence to the contrary of their views is outright dismissed and ignored.

    • When you add up the Climate liars, their sheeple congregation and the semi-educated ones who can’t fight off their cognitive dissonance (like the ones posting above), that adds up to a lot of people.

  13. Any natural disaster will result in a claim the cause is climate change. Anyone doubting the connection with a certain disaster, as with the current California wildfires, will be responded to with a plonking lecture on the seriousness of global warming.

    • Found this on the internet:
      “Number of Tornado Reports So Far This Year the Lowest in 13 Years”

      And as Tom Halla says above:
      “Any natural disaster will result in a claim the cause is climate change.”

      I’ll assume that a dearth in tornados is not considered a ‘natural disaster’, so what could be causing it?

  14. You’ve gotta hand it to the Climate Liars: they’ve got the art of lying about climate down to a science.

    • It’s not that they’re even that good at it – it’s more that they control the message.
      AND they appeal to prejudice.

  15. These experts need to explain how about a degree of warming over some arbitrary temperature measurably makes a forest fire worse. The flash point, or the temperature at which wood will burst into flame, is 572°F, according to HowStuffWorks. Somehow raising the air temperature from something less than 100°F to that +1.8 makes combustion easier by more than an infinitesimally amount.

    The explanation attempts I’ve seem to involve long chains of speculative causality and never include studies from the real world that back their theories. That’s not how science works – it is propaganda pure and simple. They are trying to fool the masses with “sciencey” claims. Anyone with a modest education in science can see through their attempts.

  16. Fahrenheit 451.01 – a sequel to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. (Fahrenheit 451.02 coming out next year).
    Those extra hundredth’s of a degree are a killer.

  17. If it was +0.3 tenths of a degree cooler
    in California, they would not have
    any wildfires at all — that pesky global
    warming caused all the wildfires,
    even those from arson (the heat
    makes people irritable, so they start
    fires to cool off).

    Global warming also made
    my knee sore today.

    These are scientific facts,
    unlike what you normally read
    in the mainstaream media

    • “If it was +0.3 tenths of a degree cooler
      in California, they would not have
      any wildfires at all”

      Good one! That made me laugh!

  18. From a book found on Project Gutenberg:

    Sixty Years in Southern California 1853-1913
    Containing the Reminiscences of Harris Newmark

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42680/42680-h/42680-h.htm#Page_310

    It would seem that if one looks at history, drought has very common in California.

    Here are some quotes found by searching for the word ‘drought’ –

    “ In 1854, he returned to Santa Bárbara County, remaining there for several years and suffering great loss, on account of the drought and its effects on his cattle.”

    “In these times of modern irrigation and scientific methods [1916] , it is hard to realize how disastrous were climatic extremes in an earlier day: in 1856, a single electric disturbance, accompanied by intense heat and sandstorms, left tens of thousands of dead cattle to tell the story of drought and destruction.”
    “It was one of those red-hot summer days characteristic of that region and season, and in a couple of hours we began to get very thirsty. Noticing this, Cy told us that no water would be found until we got to the Rancho de la Liebre, and that we could not possibly reach there until evening. ”

    “This year also proved a dry season; and, consequently, times became very bad. With two periods of adversity, even the richest of the cattle-kings felt the pinch, and many began to part with their lands in order to secure the relief needed to tide them over. The effects of drought continued until 1858, although some good influences improved business conditions.

    “I do not recall any important changes in 1862, the declining months of which saw the beginning of the two years’ devastating drought….During the entire winter of 1862-63 no more than four inches of rain had fallen, and in 1864 not until March was there a shower, and even then the earth was scarcely moistened. ”

    “In the winter of 1876-77, a drought almost destroyed the sheep industry in Southern California. As a last resort, the ranchers, seeing the exhausted condition of their ranges, started to drive their sheep to Arizona, New Mexico or Utah; but most of them fell by the way.”

  19. Why give California more federal disaster money from this latest media campaign if they are just going to put the money into a few more miles of high speed rail to nowhere?

  20. The lie is the very heart of the leftist, Democrat, progressive, socialst, communist agenda. It is, and always has been the main weapon in their armory. Look at what they do and the results, not what they say. Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Cambodia and closer to home, Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey and of course, California. Ignorance is their best friend. The media and education systems are their means of distribution.

  21. The writers at the Los Angeles Times have completely ignored the long history of California wildfires in the paper’s coverage of the 2018 fires. In the late 19th Century, the Santiago Canyon Fire burned across three counties in Southern California, burning at least 308,000 acres. During the same week, another fire in San Diego County burned 60,000 acres. Large fires are the historical norm. Since large fires have been documented as occurring over the past 150 years, how can a recent cluster of fires be blamed on man-made Global Warming?

    The effects of CO2 on the temperature of the planet are theorized to have started around the year 1950. If massive wildfires have been common on both sides of the year 1950, how is it logical to claim that the theorized global warming process is involved?

    Massive wildfires are historically normal. The natural forces of draught, lightning and wind have existed for centuries. To claim that a new process, beginning in 1950, is the cause of California wildfires, is simply illogical and inconsistent with the red hot history of California wildfires.

Comments are closed.