‘Climate arson’ and other wildfire nonsense

Real goal is to avoid responsibility for policies, and increase control over energy, lives, property

Paul Driessen

In what has become an annual summer tragedy, wildfires are again destroying western US forests. Millions of acres and millions of animals have been incinerated, hundreds of homes reduced to ash and rubble, dozens of parents and children killed, and many more people left missing, injured or burned.

Air quality across wide regions and entire states is so bad people are told to stay indoors, where many have hibernated for months because of the coronavirus, but indoor air is also contaminated. Acrid smoke and soot have been carried to Chicago and beyond. Firefighters are profiles in courage, as they battle the blazes for days on end, while all too many politicians are displaying profiles in opportunism.

“If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if more of America is ablaze?” Joe Biden thundered. “Mother Earth is angry,” Nancy Pelosi pontificated. “She’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, that the climate crisis is real.”

Despite finally starting to thin out overgrown forests, California Governor Gavin Newsome resorted to the longstanding party line about his state’s wildfires: Manmade “climate change is real. If you don’t believe in science, come to California and observe it with your own eyes.” Washington Governor Jay Inslee agreed. “These are climate fires,” he said. “And we cannot, and we will not, surrender our state and expose people to have their homes burned down and their lives lost because of climate fires,”

It’s ideological nonsense, intended to deflect blame and avoid responsibility for decades of public policy errors and forest mismanagement – and to justify new laws that would multiply government control over energy, industries, jobs, living standards, lives, property, and freedom to choose where and how we live.

One could argue that people shouldn’t have built homes in and near these forests. That they should have been persuaded or compelled to live in crowded urban areas, where crime, riots and Covid run rampant. But they do live in rural areas – and our politicians, land managers and judges have a duty to implement policies and practices that protect their homes, communities and lives, as well indigenous wildlife.

Perhaps slightly warmer or drier summers have made the wildfires slightly more likely or frequent. But decades of laws, lawsuits, fire suppression policies and forest mismanagement practices have guaranteed the buildup of massive amounts of dead and diseased trees, dry brush and grass, and decaying leaves, needles and debris. With every wet spring spurring plant growth that dries up every dry summer, just one lightning strike, careless camper, gender-revealing pyrotechnic or angry arsonist can ignite an inferno.

Because timber harvesting and thinning have been banned for decades, thousands of scrawny trees grow on acreage that should have just a few hundred full-sized mature trees. As of 2017, tens of billions of scrawny trees mix with 6.3 billion dead trees in 11 Western states; state and federal forests in California alone had over 129 million dead trees. Those numbers have most assuredly skyrocketed since 2017, while steadily increasing dry brush and debris now provide even more tinder for super-heated conflagrations.

Flames in average fires along the ground in managed forests might reach several feet in height and temperatures of 1,472° F (800° C), says Wildfire Today. But under conditions now found in western tinderboxes, flame heights can reach 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and crown fires can generate critter-roasting, soil-baking temperatures that exceed 2192 degrees F (1200 C). Wood bursts into flame at 572 F. Aluminum melts at 1220, silver at 1762, and gold at 1943 degrees F (1064 C)! 2192 degrees is hellish.

Most of this heat goes upward, but super-high temperatures incinerate endangered wildlife – as well as organisms and organic matter in thin western soils that for decades afterward can support only weeds, grass and stunted, spindly trees. Western conflagrations jump fire breaks because these ferocious fires are fueled by the unprecedented increase in combustibles that radical environmentalist policies have created.

These monstrous fires generate their own high winds and even mini tornados that carry burning branches high into the air, to be deposited hundreds of feet away, igniting new fires.

None of this has a thing to do with climate change. To say a 0.1, 0.5 or even 1.0 degree change in average global temperatures would alter these forest fire dynamics defies credibility. To say the monumental fuel buildups in our forests are irrelevant is like claiming a minimally furnished home will burn as easily and ferociously as one filled to the brim with furniture, books, old newspapers and cans of gasoline.

The solution is simple, though expensive and time-consuming at this point. Cut the red tape. Remove some of that fuel, so that fires don’t get so big, hot, powerful, and destructive. Clear wider areas around buildings, homes and communities. Create more, wider fire breaks. Build more roads that let people escape the flames. Send the timber to sawmills, to create jobs and tax revenues, and American lumber for affordable homes. Clear out brush and grass under transmission lines – and upgrade the transmission lines. Bolster rapid-response airborne and ground-based firefighting capabilities.

Up to now, all this has been prohibited, litigated and shut down in states that now have horrific fires. Radical Greens have even blocked cattle grazing that would control grass and brush in national forests.

Still not convinced? Look at recent major fires that petered out when they reached managed forests.

For years, San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation foresters chain-sawed overgrown trees, harvested better timber, improved timber stands, and used controlled, prescribed burns, weed killer and other measures to keep their forests healthy, protect sacred sites, and preserve jobs and wildlife. They even turn scrubby trash trees into particle board and sell it for furniture, as part the tribe’s timber business.

In 2017, the Wallow Fire, the most destructive wildfire in Arizona history, burned 538,000 acres – but fizzled out when it reached the reservation’s well-managed forest. A year later, the Rattlesnake Fire torched more than 20,000 acres in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest – but likewise faded out when it reached the neighboring White Mountain Apache timberlands, which had also been managed responsibly and proactively, using the same management practices that guide San Carlos Apache foresters.

Similar success stories can be found in the most unlikely place: California. For decades, the Southern California Edison electric utility employed selective logging, prescribed burns and other management strategies in its Shaver Lake Forest. This year’s Creek Fire raged through treetops and several hundred thousand acres in the Sierra National Forest. But when it reached the SoCalEd timberlands, it dwindled into a low-intensity surface or ground fire – which doesn’t incinerate big trees and wildlife.

Back in August 2013, the monstrous high-intensity Rim Fire immolated 180,000 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest. Thankfully the National Park Service (NPS) had been employing prescribed burning and other proactive management practices for years in Yosemite National Park next door. When the wildfire reached the park, it turned into a far less destructive surface fire.

The ferocious Rough Fire of 2015 roared through California’s Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, totally torching 150,000 acres. But it too became a ground fire when it reached Sequoia National Park, where the NPS had also used prescribed burns and other good management practices for decades.

A final point. The raging fires in our long mismanaged forests are not natural. They are not what used to burn with regularity through America’s forests. A century of fire suppression and fuel accumulation means they turn into superheated infernos. Manage them properly first. Then let nature work again.

The lesson? Regardless of what Earth’s climate may do – regardless of who or what may be responsible for any fluctuations – we must take responsible, appropriate, effective measures now. Doing so will save habitats, wildlife, homes and human lives today, and tomorrow.

We cannot and must let more megafires incinerate forests and people for decades to come, under an hubristic, misguided, ideological belief that we can eventually end global fossil fuel use and control planetary climate and weather conditions, thereby somehow making monster wildfires a dim memory.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John F Hultquist
September 20, 2020 10:44 pm

An immediate partial solution is to restrict ignitions.
The fuel is there, and it will not be gotten rid of easily.
Expect megafires.

I have been working to “fire-wise” our house by getting vegetation cut back, and adding graveled spaces. Fire resistant siding was put on to about half the house; finish next year. Such things cost, a personal burden, or it would have been completed after the Snag Canyon Fire (Aug., 2014). Photos are on the web from our driveway, by others – I was busy.

However, my nearest neighbor likes the seclusion and ambiance of being surrounded closely by vegetation.

_ _ _
Newsome, being from a larger state gets more media attention than Jay Inslee of WA, where we now live. A ranking of all 50 governors on common sense will likely have them tied for last place.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 21, 2020 1:01 am

Kate Brown will be a contender….

george Tetley
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 21, 2020 1:20 am

Democrat ? Lying is what comes naturally, unfortunately ignorance goes hand in hand with lying and Democratic political beliefs..

Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 21, 2020 4:23 am

“However, my nearest neighbor likes the seclusion and ambiance of being surrounded closely by vegetation.”

How close is your neighbor?

John F Hultquist
Reply to  icisil
September 21, 2020 8:17 pm

I’ve a shed between the house and the property line. 70 ft. from the shed.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  John F Hultquist
September 21, 2020 9:33 am

Restrict ignitions? CA fires this year were started by a lightning siege. How in the heck are you going to restrict that? Ban lightning?

Poor dim John found a single stat promoted by Big Brother that says 90% of fires are human caused, But 95% of the acreage burned comes from lightning ignitions. Human caused fires get put out quickly because they are close in where people are prepared.

Unless they are arson fires set by clever arsonists. What are you going to do about that? Make laws against arson? Do you think we don’t already have those?

Some other geniuses blame “fire suppression”. They want to defund firefighting and let lightning fires burn away unchecked. It’s called Let It Burn.

Two Let It Burn fires in Oregon this year were the Lionshead and Beachie Creek Fires. Ignited by lightning in mid-August, they were “allowed to burn” because they were in putative “wilderness areas”.

In September those two fires blew up and burned a combined 400,000 acres, destroyed 735 homes, and k*lled 4 people, including children.

Did the Let It Burners apologize? Heck no. They CYA-ed like typical gummit functionaries. And the liberal know-nothing set immediately blamed fire suppression. Ban firefighting. That’ll work. Not.

Western Hiker
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
September 21, 2020 1:45 pm

Hello Mike,

I just tried to reply on the other thread, but apparently it had already closed.
Anyway, I’m familiar with the area around Mt. Jefferson, not so much the other areas you mentioned. So sad!

My favorite part of the Wilderness, Pamelia Lake (and the trail that leads from there to Hunts Cove), appears to be OK. Could be wrong so keeping my fingers crossed.

“The vaunted spotted owl, for which we sacrificed our economy for 30 years, is nearly extinct. Populations have fallen 80% since listing. Big set-asides led to big fire, and the owl stands are no more.”

You might be right, but realize the wind event was extremely rare. Strongest Easterly ever recorded during summer. And FWIW, they did what they could to slow down the Lionshead and Beachie Creek early on (water drops), so not totally a ‘let it burn’.

Western Hiker
Reply to  Western Hiker
September 21, 2020 2:05 pm

1) Hot, dry forests
2) Record Easterlies
3) Multiple sources of ignition
4) Too much fuel

It wasn’t just one thing. All four came together.

Western Hiker
Reply to  Western Hiker
September 21, 2020 2:29 pm

Paul Driessen,

“None of this has a thing to do with climate change. To say a 0.1, 0.5 or even 1.0 degree change in average global temperatures would alter these forest fire dynamics defies credibility. “

Defies credibility because you haven’t done your homework.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Western Hiker
September 21, 2020 3:16 pm


What blue blazes does “global average temperature” have to do with local or regional temperatures? Can you tell from a “global average temperature” what the temperature profile looks like in CA? In any state? Can you tell me the maximum temperature profile of CA from the “global average temperature”?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Western Hiker
September 21, 2020 2:24 pm

Dear Western,

Beware the propaganda. When the Beachie Ck Fire started, NIMO was called in. They are the SS elite troops of Federal fire and Let It Burn specialists.

It was NIMO who in 2011 carpeted bombed Big Lake from Cache Mtn. to Hoodoo Butte, nearly burning down the ski area. Explosive plastic spheres launched by helicopter on green old-growth. They even bombed the lake.

It was NIMO who sat on their hands while the Chetco burned again in the Chetco Bar Fire (192,000 acres) in 2017. Burned for the third time since 1987.

Some people think if we just let the old-growth burn, it will return in 200 years or so. That’s proved to be a stupid theory. Instead catastrophic fires return when the tick brush grows back in 15-20 years. After the 3rd burn there are no more seedlings or seed trees left. Permanent fire-type brush results. The old-growth is gone forever.

The Mtn. hemlock around Mt. Jeff were 400 years-old. They are gone. They won’t be coming back. Ditto Opal Creek, where 500yo D-firs are now charcoal snags.

Western Hiker
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
September 21, 2020 3:27 pm


Regarding the water drops, I misremembered an article I looked up a few weeks ago (9/4). Here is the quote,

[Fire officials said the blaze was a little under two miles from the Jefferson Wilderness border, but with gusty winds and hot temperatures expected, the fire could move quickly.

“What’s gotten everyone’s attention is the gusty winds we’re expecting,” said Nick Mickel, information officer on the Lionshead Fire. “The fire has been chewing up acres at a slow and steady pace so far, but with these winds it could throw spot fires a half mile, which is why we’re taking this preemptive measure.”

The fire is progressing up the Whitewater River and Milk Creek drainages. Air resources have worked on slowing spread, with multiple heavy tankers dropping retardant, but Mickel noted that there’s little road or even trail access, meaning heavy equipment can’t access the western flank.

“There isn’t much out there,” Mickel said. ]


“Some people think if we just let the old-growth burn, it will return in 200 years or so. That’s proved to be a stupid theory. “

I don’t know if it’s stupid or not, but some of the research came from the tree rings of old growth felled in the 80’s. To your point though, if there had been a truly catastrophic fire, there wouldn’t be any tree rings left to study! Sort of a catch-22 for the researchers.


“Instead catastrophic fires return when the tick brush grows back in 15-20 years. After the 3rd burn there are no more seedlings or seed trees left.”

Yeah, I hiked what was left of the Jefferson Lake Trail a few years ago. The area had been burned to the ground by the B&B, and was covered head high with Ceanothus. Apparently, the stuff has a flammable resin to help promote a big fire. A controlled burn/minor fire doesn’t get hot enough to open the seeds.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
September 21, 2020 6:30 pm

Open the seeds??? There were at least a dozen conifer species within the B&B Fire perimeter before it burned. None of them require a hot fire to “open the seeds”.

There is a common myth that lodgepole pines, with serotinous cones, require some sort of fire to open the cones so that seeds are released. This is a MYTH perpetrated by people who have never investigated lodgepole pine stands or seen the ample regeneration that occurs every year without fire. The obvious facts dispel the myth, but that doesn’t stop the armchair experts from spouting it in every forest fire post ever at WUWT. Some people here think they know it all when they actually know very little.

In any case, the other 11+ conifer species do not have serotinous cones and release their seeds with no problems at all. Life is funny that way; plants reproduce under a variety of conditions. Something to do with survival over 300 million years.

You probably didn’t notice the inch-tall “redstem” seedlings under the brush. They are difficult to see if you don’t know what you’re looking for. But no matter; they are all burned up now.

The seed bank in the soil is also fried, and there are no living conifers to drop new seeds. Plants like ceanothus are rhizomatous; they will resprout from deep roots. Conifers will not. If any conifer seeds are left and do germinate, they will be choked out by the tick brush and then burned in the next fire 15-20 years from now.

Trust me on this. I have been a professional forester in Oregon for nearly 50 years.

Western Hiker
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
September 21, 2020 8:43 pm


Please take another look at what I wrote. The “stuff” I was referring to was Ceanothus, not conifers:

“As a young biologist I quickly noted that Ceanothus was indeed readily consumed by deer and elk. My problems began when I tried to categorize exactly where I could find it. Sometimes I came across it at high elevations. Other times I found it at low elevations. Some areas had it only on east-facing aspects, others only on south-facing aspects. In some locales I couldn’t find it at all except for a few scattered, nearly dead individuals and no sign at all of any young plants.

So what was going on? Why the unpredictable distribution? And what about those places where the only Ceanothus plants to be found were very old and near death?

The answer is that Ceanothus have serotinus seeds, or seeds that only germinate after being exposed to the heat of a wildfire. It’s why Ceanothus has patchy distribution and why I was only finding it in areas that had burned in the not-too-distant past. Ceanothus is abundant in burned areas and not so in areas in which fires had been suppressed for decades.

Ceanothus seeds must lay dormant in the soil for long periods of time for this reproductive strategy to work. Theoretically, then, prescribed burns should result in Ceanothus seedlings, even in areas devoid of living plants. After I moved to Montana in the late ’70s, I started planning prescribed burns on winter ranges that lacked Ceanothus, with the objective of increasing its abundance.

We did increasing numbers of prescribed burns on the Lolo National Forest throughout the late 1970s and early ’80s, and while we got wonderful responses from serviceberry and chokecherry and other succulent forage plants for deer and elk, no Ceanothus! Obviously, there was more to the puzzle than just exposure to fire.

The final clue to Ceanothus distribution came after comparing wildfires to prescribed burns. Simply stated, we found that wildfires resulted in Ceanothus seedlings and low-intensity prescribed burns did not. Apparently, Ceanothus seed needed not just exposure to heat, but prolonged exposure to fairly intense heat.”


Matthew Sykes
September 20, 2020 11:00 pm

They are insane. People like this used to go into religion, now that has died they are in Climate Change.

Gaia is the new God, Nature is the new Garden of Eden, and CO2 came from eating the apple and learning about industry, capitalism, etc all of which must be given up to re-enter some kind of lubby dubby wonderful world of nature where all is love and peace and free.

It is hippy Marxist fruit cakery, they kind of people who dont inoculate their kids, because it ‘isnt natural’. Then wonder why they die.

I saw a program about a couple of such morons who took their toddlers across Africa. They gave their malaria pills to the locals, and their kids got malaria.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 21, 2020 1:49 am

Thank God they gave their pills away; it was probably the deadly hydroxychloroquine that the Bad Orange Man touted! I’m surprised they weren’t killed just by carrying the pill bottle around for a few days before they it away! Since many African nations have fatality rates 50-100 times lower than US rates it goes without saying that HCQ is deadly; especially to anyone dumb enough to believe a politician giving medical advise!

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 21, 2020 5:33 am

“malaria pills”….the same ones that protect people from COVID-19?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Yooper
September 21, 2020 7:56 am

Probably not. The popular prophylactic anti-malarials these days are chemically related to, but are not, hydroxychloroquine.

If you would like to ingest another member of that chemical family that is available without a prescription allow me to suggest:

1 oz Triple Sec
4.5 oz Tanqueray Gin
10 oz Schweppes’s Tonic Water.
Serve over ice

Abolition Man
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 21, 2020 8:19 am

More of a Bombay man myself, but that’s for the prescription!

George Daddis
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 21, 2020 7:32 am

One could also make the argument that “White Privilege” is the new “Original Sin”. You were born guilty and there is nothing you can do about it except beg forgiveness and give penance (reparations).

The difference of course is that Original Sin was a curse on ALL of us, while White Guilt is ethnically selective.

September 20, 2020 11:45 pm

“To say a 0.1, 0.5 or even 1.0 degree change in average global temperatures would alter these forest fire dynamics defies credibility.”

Zero affect according to Driessen? Interesting, I thought that if you increase temperature, you increase entropy.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 1:13 am

Put your right hand over a lit gas stove burner at noon, then put your left hand over the same lit burner at midnight. In each case leave the hand in place for thirty or forty seconds, then compare the burns.
You will likely find the burns are quite similar, despite a difference in ambient air temps of 10-20 degrees or more! This would prove the importance of fuel load to most people! Since I was taught how to build a fire using only one match and available fuels when I was camping at six or seven years old, I feel highly qualified to teach others about burning stuff. Of course, I had learn much earlier to never hold my hand too close to a flame! Apparently many city folk still don’t know spit!

Reply to  Abolition Man
September 21, 2020 4:19 am

If you live in the forests of Australia, you know, every fire-fighter knows, that every extra degree matters, especially on days of extreme fire danger. It not only increases fuel temperature but reduces fuel moisture level, reduces humidity and increases atmospheric instability.

“Arguably, temperature, is the single most important weather factor affecting fire behavior. Some might say that relative humidity is most important but we will learn that temperature drives relative humidity.”

No skepticism about Driessen’s opinions?

David A
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 4:51 am

CO2 increase keeps bio life ( trees) greener in dry hot conditions.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 5:06 am

No , DRYNESS from WEATHER events, and lots of fuel cause fire intensity.

No basis of reality in your comments, as always.

No warming trend in Australia this century

comment image

Two wetter years, followed by two very dry years, meant huge buildup of dry fuel load.

Remain ignorant , Loy, your only redeeming feature.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 5:32 am

If there is no dry fuel there is no fire no matter what the relative humidity is.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 7:06 am

Extra heat may make it harder on fire fighters, but do you really believe that ambient temperatures play much of role when fire temperatures range from 1200 to 2100 F?

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 10:44 am

No, the temp. increase change nothing, not even an what ever “average”

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 2:33 pm


Some might say that relative humidity is most important but we will learn that temperature drives relative humidity.”

Have you ever been in a rain forest ?
Have you ever been in a sauna ?
Try to dry s.th in one of both places.
You know what sultriness is ? You don’t dry in the sun even just coming out of the water.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 1:15 am

Given the ignition temperature of wood is about 250 – 300 degC, we will wait for Loydo to explain how a 1.0 degree increase of ambient air temperature from (say) 30 to 31 degC can affect fires? The ambient air temperature is completely irrelevent to fires, either for their ignition or continued burning at up to 1000 degC.

Inserting the word “entropy” is just to make you sound erudite and sciency. It is of course irrelevant bollocks.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 2:43 am

There are some “scienists”, f.e. the well known Rahmstorf, linking fires to temperature, an absolut nonsense.
Always believing, hot air is always dry. But if it doesn’t rain for several weeks, there is nothing to evaporate, dry hot air or not.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 21, 2020 4:58 am

Deserts are hot because they are dry, not dry because they are hot.

Available water for evaporation is what keeps temperature moderated – see the tropics where the insolation is highest, but temps generally stay 30 – 36 degC compared to deserts outside of tropics where air is dry and temps go very high as a consequence.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 6:24 am

“Deserts are hot because they are dry”
No, there are cold deserts.

Joel Snider
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 7:46 am

Yes, lack of greenhouse gases causes dramatic temperature swings – hot in the day, cold at night.

Rich Davis
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 9:29 am

Oh Loy, if you once could be reasonable you would have said “Yes, and” instead of “No”

In one case the lack of evaporative cooling. In the other case, lack of water vapor to slow radiative cooling.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 10:42 am


No, there are cold deserts.

Yes, because lack of humidty, called drought, imagine…. 😀
Sahara and Sahel are cold deserts, imagine 😀

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 3:03 pm

Deserts don’t burn even if they are hot because there is no fuel there. No catastrophic fires in the Sahara. Sand doesn’t burn.

On the other hand forests burn from the Equator to boreal Canada. The climate makes no difference; the fuel does.

I’ve seen fires in CA when the air temps are in the 60’s (F). Air temps don’t cause fires nor affect them. Big fires make their own weather. Fire storms, fire vortices, fire winds, smoke inversions, and smoke plumes, are all fire-caused weather and can occur in any climate.

It’s the fuels, stupid (I ought to trademark that phrase).

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 21, 2020 10:49 am

/sarc necessary for second point ?? 😀
Loydo will understand 😀

Tim Gorman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
September 21, 2020 3:18 pm


Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 1:45 am

1C of NATURAL warming..

Do you have any evidence it makes any measurable difference to fire-regimes?

NOPE, you are bereft of evidence as you are on warming by atmospheric CO2.

Sorry, dopey, its dryness (WEATHER) and fuel load (not enough load reduction), that cause the severity of fires.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 1:54 am


That probably qualifies as your most stupid comment on here so far.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 1:55 am

Loydo, you probably just made fun or trolled a little.

Take a cigarette lighter, lively high temperature flame, and try to ignite a fresh branch. You are unlikely to succeed before the lighter runs out of gas.
Put the same branch on top of some small dead wood and try igniting it. This time you may succeed in seconds and after a few minute the thick branch is on fire.

PS: Every boy/girl scout knows this.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 2:02 am

Wood starts burning at about 250-300°C.
What do you think happens in case of an increase of temp. to 40° C ?
Nada, rien, nothing.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 3:26 am

Never seen a fire start with a 1.0c change from ambient. Seen plenty start with a bit of petrol and a match, that’s a bit hotter than 1.0c above ambient. But I digress and bow to you higher scientific knowledge.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 4:35 am

Once fires get started they generate their own heat that drives off moisture from nearby wood and brush; the hotter the fire the quicker the drying. The ambient air temp is irrelevant. I just burned off a pile of 10 ft logs of rotten wood that was so saturated with water in spots I could wring it out like a sponge with my hand. The key is to have enough fuel to keep the fire going to drive off the moisture enough so the wood will burn. Ambient air temp of 40F or 100F would have made no difference.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 7:04 am

Care to demonstrate that there is any affect, much less a major one?

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 7:52 am

That is, perhaps, one of the most ignorant statements regarding entropy I have ever heard. You are now marked permanently with a bid “D” on your forehead.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 21, 2020 2:25 pm

Here ya go Kev…you F-head.

Affecting Entropy
Several factors affect the amount of entropy in a system. If you increase temperature, you increase entropy.

(1) More energy put into a system excites the molecules and the amount of random activity.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 3:16 pm

And than burning starts ? By frictional heat of the molecuels, or what will you tell us ?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 3:26 pm

A 1 degree increase in entropy won’t make any difference when it comes to ignition. You *still* have to raise the temperature to the point where it ignites. Going from 39deg to 570deg is a change of 531deg. Going from 40deg to 570deg, a change of 530deg. That’s a 1deg change dividied by 570deg = .0.17% difference. Insignificant in reality!

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 4:05 pm

Loydo really does get upset when people point out his shortcomings.

Curious George
Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 9:17 am

“I thought that if you increase temperature, you increase entropy.” You skipped Thermodynamics 101.

Reply to  Curious George
September 21, 2020 4:06 pm

Like most alarmists, Loydo skipped everything that involved math.

September 21, 2020 1:37 am

Lunatic Leftist Enviro-wackos have prevented 10’s of millions of tons of deadfall and millions of excessive trees/acre from being removed..

Leftists also failed as follows:

1) Leftist refused to build a sufficient number of reservoirs to meet the increasing water needs of a growing population which increased land aridness.

2) Leftists decimated the California lumber industry by 80%, costing 100’s of thousands of jobs and $billions of tax revenues, thus preventing lumber companies from clearing diseased trees, excessive growth, planting new trees and responsibly managing healthy forests.

3) Leftists prevented new forest roads from being constructed.

4) Leftists failed to clear trees alongside power lines, which have caused many fires.

5) Leftist policies created a huge homelessness fiasco in California and many fires have been started by homeless peoples’ cooking/heating fires.

6) Leftist made it extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming for landowners to remove dead trees, deadfall and excessive growth from their private property.

7) Leftists prevented controlled burns that greatly reduce combustible fuel for wildfires.

8) Leftists prevented sufficient firebreaks from being constructed, which would have limited the size of many wildfires.

With all these incredibly stupid and consequential failings by the insane and incompetent Left, Leftists have the audacity to blame everything on, “Orange-man-bad”….

Leftists are insane, stupid and incompetent.

Abolition Man
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 21, 2020 2:00 am

In order to be a Progressive (neo-Marxist) you have to be one or more of the following: ignorant, an idiot or insane!
The modern DemoKKKrat party is insane sociopaths and other ignorant celebs and pols leading the idiot lemmings off the climate cliff with their Green Raw Deal; facts and data are optional!

September 21, 2020 2:12 am

Joe Bastardi is predicting another round of wildfires coming as the Santa Anna winds kick in.

As for Loydo and all the others that claim human caused climate change is a contributing factor? They need to explain why the great fire of August 20-21 of 1910 was the single largest fire in US history burning almost 3 million acres with the majority of area burned over a period of just 6 hours without the climate change they claim is happening now?

Especially since now days NASA claims that 1910 was colder than now in the US at the time?

What say you Loydo?

Reply to  rah
September 21, 2020 4:21 am

We’re entering a very strong La Niña cycle, so naturally arid conditions in California and water shortages will be further exacerbated.

Bastardi is certainly correct that wildfires will become much worse over the next 2 years from the effects of a very strong La Niña cycle, and the gross incompetence of California Leftist hacks over the past 30 years.

It will take many decades to fix decades of forest mismanagement of Leftist enviro-wackoism…

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 21, 2020 4:52 am

Where are you getting “very strong” from? IRI/CPC predict -0.5, weak, barely meeting the threshold.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 6:42 am


Not so much… There is massive ocean cooling taking place in the South Pacific, the South Atlantic, southern Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean:


The La Niña cycle just started and ENSO SST 3.4 is already at -0.78C and will likely hit -2.0C at its peak cold next year.

BTW, please note that all the gray in NOAA’s global SST anomaly map linked above should be blue, but to hide all the cooling, NOAA decided to add a -0.2~+0.2C gray scale in their SST anomaly maps starting from June of this year…

I actually e-mailed NOAA to ask why they started this stupid gray scale BS, and was told “basically -0.2C and +0.2C are the same, so we use a gray scale for these.”

NOAA also said they’ve always used gray scale for -0.2C and +0.2C SST anomalies, which was a lie….

When I e-mailed NOAA screenshots of past NOAA global SST anomalies maps without the new bogus gray scale, I didn’t get a reply…

NOAA has such silly liars working there… Your tax dollars at work…

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 22, 2020 7:16 pm

“…has always been at war with Eastasia.”

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 21, 2020 5:19 am

It should also me pointed out that in the areas burned the threat of mudslides will be greatly enhanced once the rains do come. It’s the California way.

Reply to  rah
September 21, 2020 4:26 am

See my comment above.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 4:37 am

A non answer.

Reply to  Loydo
September 21, 2020 5:09 am

Why bother?

It was a waste of space !… based on overbearing ignorance.

ie a standard loy post.

Reply to  rah
September 21, 2020 8:29 am


The great fire of August 20-21, 1910 occurred just after the long La Nina of 1908 Sept.-1911 Jul, so the vegetation would have been very dry by that time.

I suppose that you could blame it on climate change.

Unless the current La Nina is a short one, it doesn’t bode well for our western states.

Reply to  Burl Henry
September 21, 2020 9:57 am

My understanding is that even the alarmist “scientists” agree that the ENSO is not connected to human activities.

Reply to  Burl Henry
September 21, 2020 10:46 am

Sorry about the typo:

The La Nina ended in July of 1910, not 1911

Ron Long
September 21, 2020 3:15 am

Good report, Paul. I worked one summer while in school on a rapid-response forest fire fighting team in Oregon. Several of us had a crown fire race over us, the speed and noise of it was incredible, but we were able to run side-hill and get away. I wonder which we will see first, in the CO2 monitors of Mauna Loa: a decrease in CO2 due to strangling the economy for the Chicom Virus or an increase in CO2 due to increased (?) recycling of our brother the tree into atmospheric CO2?

Joseph Zorzin
September 21, 2020 3:24 am

The American southeast is the “wood basket” of the nation. The forests are intensely managed. When is the last time we’ve heard of out of control wild fires in that region?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 21, 2020 5:09 am


You are correct. The gorgeous forests in southeast US are in pristine condition and very well managed.

When I was a young lad growing up in Georgia, I hiked over 1,000 miles of the Appalachian Trail and did a lot of bow and rifle hunting in Georgia’s exquisite forests and saw an abundance of healthy: deer, bear, wild turkeys, wild boar, squirrels and a wide variety of birds in the forests.

All the forests were lush with many species of healthy trees with an extensive network of forest roads throughout the mountains.

I’d often see crews cutting down diseased trees, removing deadfall, and marking trees for harvest to keep tree density at optimal levels.

Southerners in general have a deep respect and understanding of nature and realize hunting and logging are essential tools to maintain healthy forests and keep animal populations at optimal population levels.

West-coast enviro-wackos think hunters and loggers are evil… not so much…

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 21, 2020 5:18 am

Couple years ago we did have a large, deadly fire in SE Tennessee. Primarily in the National and State forests of the area. We have our share of eco-nuts whose regulations are driving lumbermen out and making Canadian lumber more competitive.

Reply to  hiskorr
September 21, 2020 7:04 am


Yeah, all my hunting, fishing and hiking in the southeast was in the 1970’s~early 1980’s and a lot of Leftists have moved to the south to escape Leftist tyranny in Northern states..

Unfortunately, many of the escapees ironically brought their Leftist philosophies with them…

C’est la vie…

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  hiskorr
September 21, 2020 3:54 pm

Its hard to believe your eco-nuts are nuttier than ours who are certifiably insane.
In fact, most of them are financed by american money, and while i like lots of american things please quit financing our insane, they cause enough issues as is

David Brewer
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
September 21, 2020 5:28 pm

We wouldn’t mind stopping them, but our problem is presently it’s hard enough for us to stop them from funding themselves. Our government in previous years thought letting them create the current situation was a good idea… so if you come up with good ideas to stop them from having the funding to support your crazies we’d like to hear them.

September 21, 2020 5:24 am

A politician’s job is to get elected or re-elected; anything that benefits us is a distant third. To prove this point, pick any random elected politician from any level of government and try to name 5 things he or she did to make your life better. For almost all of them, I bet you will struggle to name just 1 thing he did to make your life better. Two tricks these selfish politicians use the hide their corruption is fear and anger. Politicians will invent things to keep people scared and angry, thus voting for them.

To actually do things to fix forest fires is not in the job description. Fixing the issue will only happen when it affects the politician’s chance of getting elected or re-elected.

Reply to  Wade
September 21, 2020 6:13 am


It’s actually worse than that…

Leftist policies are deliberately designed to make things worse in order to create more problems, and then Leftists politicians convince Leftists voters that even more of evil-rich people’s money needs to be stolen to “solve” the problems they created…

That’s why only 23% of 8th graders living in DC can read, even though Leftist hacks spend $31,000/student, which is the one of the highest education cost/student in the US…

Of course Leftists say they need more educational spending rather than allowing these poor illiterate kids to go to cheaper and infinitely better charter schools…

Leftists are absolutely destroying the US…

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 21, 2020 7:15 am

“Leftists are absolutely destroying the US…”

Which has been their goal from the beginning.

September 21, 2020 6:18 am

Oh, for Pete’s sake. Am I the only one who sees what is really, really, really going on here? The ecohippies and “Greens” are doing their d- – -dest to return the planet to the Carboniferous epoch, during which (I think it was) D. Middleton pointed out, the atmospheric O2 level was something like 30%, instead of the current (and livestock-appropriate) 20% level.

It wasn’t all that obvious before, but with the notation of the combustibles load in those forested areas with uncontrollable burns, it is now as clear as a bell: they want to put Earth back in the Carboniferous or even the Silurian epoch – one or the other.

They really do hate this planet.

Reply to  Sara
September 21, 2020 6:33 am

One more thing: the clear blue skies over the weekend were a joy, but we were warned that the haze of soot from the western fires would return and it looks as though that’s going on now. It is not a good thing.

We have controlled burns in my county, partly because it is heavily populated and heavily wooded, and partly to get rid of unwanted, noxious weeds like teasel and purple loosestrife, and to give the fire fighters around here needed practice in controlling fires and putting them out. Those burns serve many purposes, including getting rid of invasive plants (weeds and stuff like buckthorn) that don’t belong here at all, adding nutrients to the soil from the burned weeds, and opening up grazing for deer in prairie areas. Thinning out trees opens up more space for trees to get sunlight; when they are so crowded that they are all top and spindly trunk, they are OVERcrowded and need thinning.

I cannot imagine why anyone would be stupid enough to object to that kind of thing, but the ignorance levels of these Greenbeaners and ecohippies is just astonishing.

Reply to  Sara
September 21, 2020 7:39 am


During the Carboniferous period, CO2 was around 7,000ppm or 0.7%… CO2 is currently 400ppm or 0.04%.

The sweet spot for CO2 is around 1,000ppm at which plants and animals thrive, CO2 below 150ppm is an extinction event..

12,000 years ago, CO2 levels hit 170ppm. the lowest levels in 100’s of million years and just 20ppm away from all life going extinct.. We should be ecstatic CO2 levels are returning to healthier levels, but alas…

If we burned all known Fossil fuel deposits, CO2 levels may hit 650ppm… Who the heck cares?…

CO2 forcing is logarithmic, so any additional CO2 has a very negligible warming effect… ECS is likely around 0.6C/CO2 doubling…

You’re right. It would be nice to enjoy higher O2 levels like in the past, but so much O2 and CO2 has been fixed as Calcium carbonate (limestone), I don’t see how this could occur..

Reply to  Sara
September 21, 2020 8:31 am


It’s not he CO2 level that matters; it’s the O2 level. The current level at 20% has been around since the large animal population started up (dinosaurs, etc.). Above that level, at 30% (Carboniferous) you have giant bugs like meganeura (ancestors of dragonflies) and 6-foot long centipedes and gazillions of tons of plant matter, which is now mined as coal. I have some fossils from the Carboniferous, including a shrimp fossil embedded in an iron ore concretion from the Mazon Creek district.

The higher level of 30% O2 is ONLY beneficial to plants and insects such as dragonflies and giant centipedes. Spiders in the Carboniferous were very small, nothing like some of the giant spiders we have now, such as the Madagascar Baboon spider. A 30% O2 level is poisonous to any animal life other than bugs and some fish (and fish don’t really care about it). The CO2 level is less important. Fires burning during the Carboniferous epoch were massive and put loads of CO2 into the atmosphere for plants. It worked for them back then. Now, they are coal seams.

And that’s my point: the current levels of O2 and CO2, which have been like this since critters crawled out of the mud, are suitable for animal life OTHER than bugs. We have an atmosphere balanced for current lifeforms, and those morons are doing everything they can to destroy it.

September 21, 2020 6:55 am

Can’t imagine such stupidity but it seems to abound in everything liberals touch.

John the Econ
September 21, 2020 7:09 am

Climate Change: Simultaneously the contrived excuse for transparently bad Progressive policy failure and the excuse for even bigger bad Progressive policy.

Joel Snider
September 21, 2020 7:49 am

Funny – the ‘eco-warriors’ seem to be the actual arsonists.

Reply to  Joel Snider
September 21, 2020 9:33 am

It’s possible that they are. They seem to know little to nothing about basic biology, at all.

Paul Johnson
September 21, 2020 8:22 am

Paul, what’s keeping the Forest Service from properly managing the National Forests? Is it state regulations, federal regulations, funding, or imbedded stupidity?

Reply to  Paul Johnson
September 22, 2020 7:26 pm

To repeat the wisdom of others, “embrace the healing power of and.”

Thomas Gasloli
September 21, 2020 8:54 am

It is likely to get worse, soon they will want to count all the dead trees and brush as carbon sequestration. Mismanaged forest will become money makers as carbon credits. State & Federal government will get to save money on expensive forest management, collect carbon credit cash, and then blame the resulting wildfires on climate change.

Mike Maguire
September 21, 2020 9:15 am

Wildland fires


“As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by people, according to the U.S. Department of Interior. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, downed power lines, negligently discarded cigarettes and intentional acts of arson. The remaining 10 percent are started by lightning or lava.”

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 21, 2020 10:14 pm

Here we go again. For your information 3.4 million acres in CA just burned from LIGHTNING ignition.

Your stat from the Deep Dark State fails to note that 95% of the acreage burned annually comes from lightning ignited fires.

For 75 years Smoky Bear (Happy Birthday, Smoky!) has been pointing his bear finger at YOU and blaming YOU for forest fires. Did that do any good? Did it?

But what’s the use? There will always be someone who reads a stupid stat off a government website and reaches the Conclusion of the Century which is as wrong as green cheese. Propaganda is insidious.

Michael Jankowski
September 21, 2020 9:39 am

The Climate-Arsonist-in-Chief was Bill Clinton. There were “experts” who predicted his policies and those of his EPA regarding logging, conservation, etc., would lead to this out west.

September 21, 2020 10:06 am

The excess fuel load and unhealthy forest conditions have been in the
making for decades. When the latest pine bark beetle infestation hit
15 yrs ago timber buyers from china offered to buy everything..but
it was regulations put in effect back in the 80’s by Bush 41 that
banned the export of raw logs. As I recall it was timber rafts of
old growth being floated to Japan that started that. Japan
has reportedly something like a 300 yr supply sunk on the bottom
of Toyoko Bay. It was the big timber outfits that laid off the mill
workers and the stripped the old growth off and exported it. That
in turn led to mud flows and anti logging sediment by the public.
Am I the only one who remembers those days??? There is
more to this than climate arson..

September 21, 2020 12:53 pm
September 21, 2020 1:34 pm
September 21, 2020 2:52 pm

Both “climate change” links in the article refer to a local file.

Tom Abbott
September 22, 2020 5:40 am

From the article: “Perhaps slightly warmer or drier summers have made the wildfires slightly more likely or frequent.”

Why pander to the alarmists? There’s no evidence human-caused CO2 has anything to do with forest fires, yet here you are allowing that CO2 might be doing something. Without evidence.

Why not just say that slightly warmer or drier summers have not been demonstrated to have any connection to CO2. There have been slightly warmer and drier summers in the past caused by Mother Nature.

Mother Nature is the cause of Earth’s slightly warmer and drier weather until proven otherwise, and it hasn’t been proven otherwise.

Tom Abbott
September 22, 2020 5:49 am

From the article: “In 2017, the Wallow Fire, the most destructive wildfire in Arizona history, burned 538,000 acres – but fizzled out when it reached the reservation’s well-managed forest. A year later, the Rattlesnake Fire torched more than 20,000 acres in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest – but likewise faded out when it reached the neighboring White Mountain Apache timberlands, which had also been managed responsibly and proactively, using the same management practices that guide San Carlos Apache foresters.”

Excellent examples and argument.

Does Gavin Newsome know about this? Someone ought to tell him that record wildfires can be stopped with proper forest management. It’s not the CO2, Gavin, it’s the human mismanagement of the forest that is the problem. Wake up and smell the coffee.

September 22, 2020 11:15 am

The cause is political climate change. We used to manage our forests well, but the political climate changed.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights