From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
There’s a lot to unpack here.
This was the headline in the Guardian last week:
As usual with the Guardian, they are misinforming you.
Below is the actual data from EFFIS:
https://forest-fire.emergency.copernicus.eu/apps/effis.statistics/seasonaltrend
As you can see, about three quarters of the wildfire area to date occurred in February and March, which as we know were very dry months this year. Clearly however this cannot be blamed on climate change because the Met Office keep telling us that winters are supposed to be getting wetter as a result!
But more to the point, that big spike in the first week of April was accounted for by a series of gigantic fires in the Mountains of Mourne, believed to have been started deliberately:
Since that outbreak, nothing out of the ordinary has occurred.
But behind all of this data, a real problem seems to be emerging, which has been picked up on X:
The Telegraph also have the story:
Labour’s rewilding plans risk sparking a surge in wildfires across Britain, gamekeepers have claimed.
The Government is proposing to ban winter burning – a traditional upland management technique that reduces the amount of fuel for potential fires – from more than half of all peatland in England.
It is claimed the changes will help to “re-wet” Britain’s peat bogs, reduce the risk of wildfires and cut carbon emissions.
Environmentalists want to preserve peat bogs because they soak up vast quantities of carbon. But landowners and gamekeepers have claimed that, far from protecting the environment, the burning restrictions will instead leave Britain’s moors and heaths at the mercy of wildfires that will be “too large to fight”.
Winter burns create firebreaks in upland areas by forming strips where there is less flammable foliage, thereby limiting the speed at which wildfires can spread.
But in 2021, the burns were banned from areas of “deep peat” – where it extends for 40cm or deeper – in conservation areas, totalling 222,000 hectares of land.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now consulting on plans to extend the burning restrictions to 368,000 hectares of peat by lowering the threshold for “deep peat” to 30cm.
The department argues that wetter peat will reduce the chance of wildfires. But gamekeepers have warned the changes would leave swathes of the countryside vulnerable.
Full story here.
The 2030 Agenda is a global framework established by the United Nations to address pressing challenges like poverty, inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation by 2030. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including biodiversity loss.
We can also see a connection here with the recent wildfires in Spain, mostly in Galicia – the Telegraph reported this week;
In Galicia, large stretches of unmanaged vegetation and depopulated villages in forested land have led to the build-up of wildfire fuel, said Adrian Regos, an ecologist at the Biological Mission of Galicia, a research institute.
We also know that exactly the same phenomenon of abandoned plantations in Maui was the reason why the fires got out of hand there a couple of years ago. There the well managed plantations of a few years ago have since been abandoned and overgrown with savanna like invasive grasses, which act as a tinderbox.
As I say, a lot to unpack.
But it is simplistic in the extreme to blame any of these fires on climate change.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to ecological disasters is paved with political activists.
The more government we get, the worse everything gets.
Some masquerading as climate scientists … there fixed it for you
The more government we get, the worse everything gets.
Manifesto
Reality
Industry insiders said there was widespread speculation she will cut the maximum amount people can withdraw from their pension without paying tax.” This was not denied by the Treasury…
There is no problem so big, that more government won’t make it worse.
I agree but I would add that the quality of government is a huge factor. Quality at the top requires quality at the bottom, the elector base. The truth is that in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. Unless there is something wrong with the democracy. It is my belief that the insertion of political parties is all that’s wrong.
Labour…
Has in the short space of one year, completely wrecked the country. And they still have four more years. Not even gardens are exempt
Don’t be scared of rewilding, Monty Don and Alan Titchmarsh: it’s a garden revelation
Rewilding gardens is “puritanical nonsense”, rails Monty Don. Alan Titchmarsh believes gardeners have been “brainwashed”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/rewilding-monty-don-alan-titchmarsh-garden
And just in case you, like Monty and Titch, are not convinced…
Does rewilding sort climate change? Yes!’: UK expert says nature can save planet and not harm farming
…“We’re living in a world of eco-anxiety
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/25/rewilding-climate-change-biodiversity-isabella-tree-nature-planet-farming
It’s a religion, nothing more and nothing less.
Following one of your links resulted in a popup from the Guardian with the invitation to either subscribe or accept their advertising cookies, which included this statement:
“Independent, quality original journalism needs your support.”
I was confused by this. What has “quality original journalism” got to do with the Guardian?
Nothing whatsoever
I’d say a cult is a better description, a kind of greenwashed Branch Davidian Sect with Mad Ed starring in the role as David Koresh, with its mad ideology driving us all towards an economic Waco.
It is a cult. We too are running out of superlatives!
Story tip
Could the one be linked to the other? Is the global fertility crash due, at least in part, to worries over the climate?
“Climate change is making people think twice about having children”, reports CNBC
“Climate ‘apocalypse’ fears stopping people having children,” states the Guardian.
Is the Birth Rate Low Because of Climate Anxiety?
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/08/22/is-the-birth-rate-low-because-of-climate-anxiety/
Extreme Feminism a more likely cause, men don’t approach women for fear of being ridiculed on TikBook or worse being verbally abused in public as well.
It certainly is a factor. Rarely is their a single control knob.
You’re forgetting Ed Miliband
You are talking about a control freak, perhaps a control noob?
Noooo, knob is an English slang word for the male appendage.
Ed Miliband is a knob
Doubt it, I suspect the real reason, across much of the west, is simply cost.
Quite simply, if you can’t afford to buy a house, on one income, how can you afford children?
It certainly is a factor.
However, poor people on welfare had no problem bringing new life into their homes.
People who rent have babies, too.
Rarely is their a single control knob.
Poor people on welfare don’t have to worry about the cost of kids. They know that the more kids they have, the more money government will give them.
Point made and accepted.
The poor get funded by the state, it’s the working/middle classes who are getting taxed and priced out of existence.
I wonder how well that will work out?
The meek (aka poor) shall inherit the earth, which seems to be the real goal of this climate insanity.
My 3 children all decided to have no children due to the alarmist view of the world’s future.
I have no grand children. My kids are fast approaching the end of their child bearing years.
So, on this personal note, I can affirm low birth rate is due to climate anxiety.
How sad for you and mankind in general.
Eh? The spike in June looks pretty ‘out of the ordinary’ too.
Spring (March, April, May) 2025 in the UK, including Northern Ireland where the mountains of Mourne are, was the warmest in a record which starts in 1884.
UK-wide, spring 2025 was the 6th driest in a record which starts in 1836.
Q: What do you get if you combine the warmest spring on record with one of the driest springs on record?
A: (Paul Homewood) “Nothing to see here!”
An arsonist’s paradise.
Right, but we can hardly blame the arsonists for setting the conditions.
We can blame green environmentalism for that. Uncleared dry vegetation burns really well.
How do we ‘clear’ the vegetation of hillsides in the UK, such as the Mournes? It’s 90% grassland and scrub.
The Mournes are grazed by sheep, too. I think some greenies would love to see that practice stopped!
Controlled fires. Deliberate burning under manageable conditions as has been practiced for millennia.
Yes, in forests, etc. How do you do that on hillsides used for sheep grazing?
Once you get the sheep off, just light the match when the wind is blowing in the right direction.
How do we ‘clear’ the vegetation of hillsides in the UK
Controlled burns creating firebreaks so when a fire starts it does not turn into an uncontrollable raging inferno.
How long till TFN starts claiming that nobody has been able to come up with a workable solution.
(Workable defined as one that is acceptable to his religious fanatics.)
Explain the logistics of that specifically with respect to sheep-grazed hillsides in the UK.
The slopes that are grazed by sheep may not need controlled burns. Depends entirely on how many sheep are grazing. If it’s still needed, the shepard leads them off the hill, then everything else proceeds as normal.
We do it the way it’s been done for hundreds of years. Controlled burns.
The Mournes are grazed by sheep, too. I think some greenies would love to see that practice stopped!
Of course they would. Sheep are meat.
Right.
So the greenies would prefer that areas such as the Mournes be cleared of sheep in order to promote natural regrowth.
You can blame arsonists for starting fires. Not the conditions.
“former college professor from San Jose, Gary Maynard, 49, pleaded guilty in February to three counts of arson on federal property, according to U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert.
According to prosecutors, Maynard deliberately set a series of fires in Shasta-Trinity National Forest near the ongoing Dixie Fire in Lassen National Forest. Maynard set some of his fires behind firefighters who were actively fighting the Dixie inferno, effectively surrounding them and in some cases potentially trapping them in.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/professor-sentenced-to-over-5-years-in-prison-for-dixie-fire-arson-spree/
Agreed. Is anyone disputing that?
“What do you get if you combine the warmest spring on record with one of the driest springs on record?”
More arsonists?
It’s not the weather, it’s the fuels.
So record high temperatures and near record-low rainfall in no way contribute to the likelihood or severity of wildfires?
If you would bother to study the subject, you would find out that it doesn’t make much difference. Once the fuel reaches a certain level of dryness, extra drying makes little to no difference. For most grasses, that level of dryness can be reached in a few days. For shrubs, a week or two.
Not if you’ve been keeping up with your controlled burns – which were banned 3 years ago.
Doesn’t follow.
Arsonistic politicians established the conditions: ahistorical fuel loading due to unmanagement. By banning stewardship, termed “rewilding”, they allowed fuels to accumulate to levels unmatched in history. The greenies did it.
We blame the ecological nut jobs for creating the conditions.
Actually, the Mournes and similar areas of the UK are mostly the product of man-made land clearance and livestock farming.
You know, ‘eco-nut jobs’.
It really is sad the way you actually consider yourself to be intelligent.
Everything was fine until you eco-nut jobs decided that controlled burns and otherwise managing the land werer evil and had to be stopped.
Gary Maynard held the position of adjunct sociology professor.
The key word is “adjunct”. The frequent use of “professor” for this man is wrong. Higher education types understand this; most of the public does not.
The conditions are completely natural, they happen every year.
In the past the “conditions” were managed by using controlled burns to remove the fuel. Thanks to religious freaks, that no longer is allowed to happen.
Record warm temperatures and near record low rainfall occur every year?
Who knew?
Stop displaying your ignorance. Those lands dry out every year. Once plants reach a certain level of dryness, they burn. Getting a little dryer has little to no impact.
When it comes to fire, the difference between really dry, and really, really dry, is insignificant.
It gets really dry in those regions every year.
I live in Northern Ireland and I was a retained firefighter for 13 years here, from 2000-2013. I have fought wildfires in the Mournes and was, and am, an avid hillwalker in the area.
I assure you, ‘really dry’ conditions do not occur in that region every year.
Since that outbreak, nothing out of the ordinary has occurred.
Not even a hurricane
The warmest spring in a 142-year record, 2 standard deviations above the most recent 3-decade average, is by any definition “out of the ordinary”.
According to the Met Office?
If so, does that include or exclude the infamous 103 imaginary weather stations?
All infilled by real weather stations near them which cannot be named as the data is now available without ‘vexatious’ amounts of work.
All imaginary and fiddled.
But you did not answer the question, and I suspect TheFinalNail certainly cannot.
It’s been answered here repeatedly. The UKMO set out their methods in the peer reviewed literature and anyone is free to challenge them in the same manner.
No one does. Ever.
What they do is come on blogs like this, fire off half-truths and falsehoods and then get cheered to the rafters by people who think ‘peer-review’ is something to do with the House of Lords!
‘ The UKMO set out their methods in the peer reviewed literature and anyone is free to challenge them in the same manner.’
How do you challenge the way they produce infilled data for non-existent weather stations when they illegally refuse Freedom of Information requests to name the real weather stations they use to do that?
First, you read what they actually do (which, as they point out, is the assimilation method recommended by the WMO), then you establish your objections to this, if you still have any, then you compose and submit a comment or rebuttal for peer review.
That should be easy for any competent person to do.
No one has ever done it.
But if the data is invented – and it is – it’s useless.
False. It was attempted on more than one occasion and blocked.
If it was blocked, it wasn’t successful. If it wasn’t successful then it didn’t happen.
It’s all so easy when you view everything through ideological lenses.
‘Read what they actually do’?
‘ the coverage was increased further to 94% with the inclusion of historic closed stations.’
They include closed stations in their coverage.
A bit like the way mobile phone companies increase coverage of Britain by including masts that are no longer operating…….
The Met Office itself acknowledges that most UK stations fall into WMO Class 3 – 5 due to geographic and urban constraints.
Add in the infilling of ghost weather stations, and it’s easy to see the temperature record is not fit for purpose.
And as usual, the only thing TFN is capable of seeing, is what it wants to see.
No one does, ever? False.
When you decide to lie, you don’t hold back.
Once again, the scientifically ignorant declare that anything that has been “peer reviewed”, is unquestionable. Unless it’s been reviewed by someone they disagree with in which case it isn’t really peer review and doesn’t count.
The Met’s methods and results have been challenged over and over again. To the point that the Met has decided to break the law and refuse to respond to FOIA requests.
Now you are simply LYING as it has been well established that the Met Office is producing bogus data and has at least 103 non existing stations in their crooked database.
Yes, according to the UK Met Office; not some blogger or a bloke down the pub.
If you don’t like the UK-wide data look at CET. It’s core is only 3 stations kept in ‘pristine’ condition.
In a record that begins in 1659, 2025 was the joint-warmest spring in CET, tied with spring 2024.
Homewood has a section of his site dedicated to CET, yet no mention has he made of these two new record warm CET springs, neither this year nor last year.
For someone who’s site motto is Oppenheimer’s “We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”, he sure likes to keep his secrets, doesn’t he?
The Met Office is a propaganda outfit – one that obviously suits your biases.
Massive Cover-up Launched by U.K. Met Office to Hide its 103 Non-Existent Temperature Measuring Stations
does that include or exclude the infamous 103 imaginary weather stations?
Well?
Why don’t these guys ever challenge the UK in the scientific literature where they publish their assimilation methods freely?
Why, if they are so sure there is corruption, do they always shy away from that and instead write articles for blogs?
A skeptical person would ask that question.
Why don’t these guys ever challenge the UK in the scientific literature
Let’s ask an academic…
“” … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail
And have one last go at it…
does that include or exclude the infamous 103 imaginary weather stations?
That’s a guy writing in a private email about 20 years ago, so peer review is no longer valid.
does that include or exclude the infamous 103 imaginary weather stations?
Still no answer. I can see why you feel so attached to the MO.
When you do have an answer get back to me.
Peer review hasn’t been valid for decades, this is just more evidence of the trend.
‘Why don’t these guys ever challenge the UK in the scientific literature where they publish their assimilation methods freely?’
No, they point blank refused to publish their methods.
‘“the specific stations used in regressive analysis each month are not an output from the process”. ‘
The Met Office don’t even know themselves what stations they are using!
No, they point blank refused to publish their methods.
I must be imagining this, then?
2005
Seems to be published 20 years ago. Hmmm.
The abstract does not give specifics.
The paper is behind a pay wall.
Funny, didn’t TFN just declare that something from 20 years ago didn’t count?
??
Memory going too?
20 of years is plenty of time to prepare a rebuttal.
None came.
Imagining what? Yes, you are imagining a link published in 2005 tells us how they deal with data in 2025.
Your link says ‘Monthly and annual long-term average datasets of 13 climate variables are generated for the periods 1961–90 and 1971–2000 using a consistent analysis method.’
So you are basing your claims of Met Office data for 2025 on a report which states how they generated data for 1961 to 1990?
And your link says ‘ This involves first producing a grid of values for each month from the available station data.
But they don’t know what station data they use. They say that is not available and illegally refused a Freedom of Information request to say which stations they were using.
You didn’t read the methods part, did you?
You are really a human being? your close eyed stupidity is astonishing as they didn’t go past year 2000 in the old report.
They do, their complaints are dismissed. After all, good socialists know that correct and incorrect are determined by whether it advances the interests of the party.
You are a pathic liar and that you never address the lack of candor of the Met Office part for requested details.
And all the level 4 and 5 weather stations that are by the Met’s own standards, unfit for purpose?
Records level fuels, contiguous across the landscape, are what burned. It’s the fuels, stupid.
The problem with that claim, are the many, many documented problems with the Met’s methods of gathering temperature data. Pretty much guaranteed to produce results much warmer than reality.
“….2 standard deviations above the most recent 3-decade average, is by any definition “out of the ordinary”.”
2 standard deviations corresponds to a probability of 95%, which implies that values exceeding 2 standard deviations should be expected to occur 5% of the time – i.e. once in every 20 years on average if we’re measuring time in years. Is once in the past 30 years significantly “out of the ordinary” on a statistical basis? I wouldn’t have thought so.
The warmest spring in a 142-year record, 2 standard deviations above the most recent 3-decade average, is by any definition “out of the ordinary”.
142 years is nothing on the time scale. What happened before that? You have no idea if the weather conditions this year ae out of the ordinary or not.
You mean all that CO2 released by the wildfires did not cause rapid intensification of a hurricane or spawn a lot of tropical storms?
Fascinating.
So an increased fire risk means there is now no need for controlled burns?
Who mentioned controlled burns?
I just asked if record warm and dry conditions are more likely to increase wildfire fire risk or are they not even worth mentioning (as Paul Homewood failed to do in his article).
Bernie did above. People have deliberately burned the moors, the forests, the grasslands around the world for millennia. That’s historical fact. You’re trapped in a bubble you can’t see out of. Your obsession is making you blind.
“(as Paul Homewood failed to do in his article)”
False. From the article:
“As you can see, about three quarters of the wildfire area to date occurred in February and March, which as we know were very dry months this year.“
No, I said that Homewood failed to mention in the CET section of his risible blog that CET had set two consecutive record-warmest spring temperatures in both 2024 and 2025.
Record warmest.
Ignored by Homewood on his own blog’s CET section.
Not mentioned by him in his article about 2025 UK wildfires.
A complete phoney.
‘Wildfires’ are caused either naturally by lightning strikes, or by human activity. Nowhere on the planet does the air temperature get high enough to spontaneously combust even the driest blade of grass. In the case of human causes, one is accidental, two is a coincidence, three or more is a JSO and/or XR activist whatsapp group. These unhinged cretins care nothing for wildlife, livestock, people or property. All they care about is their anti-human agenda disguised as ‘concern for the planet’. In 2023, multiple fires broke out within the space of a few hours on the island of Rhodes, where over 100 people were arrested for arson. Did you hear about that on the BBC? No, and you won’t hear it this year either.
https://knews.kathimerini.com.cy/en/news/over-100-arrested-for-starting-rhodes-wildfires
That’s all well and good.
I just pointed out, unlike the author of the above article, that this wildfire season in the UK was preceded by the warmest spring on record and one of the driest springs on record.
That strikes me as relevant, but then I’m not a ‘climate skeptic’.
What does not strike you, but should, is that abandoning land stewardship is the actual cause of landscape fires. Wind turbines and solar panels will not prevent fires. That’s nutty, buddy.
TFN is mentally incapable of criticizing fellow members of the collective.
So record warm and near-record dry conditions are irrelevant to the likelihood of wildland fire conditions?
What “abandoning of stewardship” occurred this year that didn’t occur in all the previous years?
Once a plants reach a certain level of dryness, they burn. Getting a little bit dryer makes little if any difference.
I’m not a ‘climate skeptic’
Correct. You do not ask questions challenging the conclusions, which is a fundamental of science.
You cling to, instead, emotional/religious beliefs.
You fail to address the premise of the paper discussing the reports that the “climate crisis” caused the fires.
As I pointed out above, the article did address how dry it was.
I think it was me who asked the question about why record warm temperatures and near-record warm dry conditions weren’t suggested as possible contributors to high wildland fire season in the UK.
I think it was everyone else here who tried to brush that reasonable question under the carpet.
The idea that record warm and dry conditions have no bearing on wildfire proclivity strikes me as the ‘religious’ belief here.
Even if it actually was the warmest and driest, it still doesn’t make any difference. Once fuel gets dry enough to burn, it doesn’t matter if it continues to not rain. The moors get dry enough to burn every year. A little bit warmer and drier doesn’t make any difference.
One of these days you will bother to learn something besides what you are told to beleive. Assuming your brain doesn’t spontaneously combust from the act.
It’s the fuels, stupid. The CAUSE is the FUELS. No fuel = no fires.Some fuels = little fires. Untended ahistorical biomass accumulations = megafires. Anything can spark, but only fuels can burn. It’s a trifle too cute to blame humans, since there were fires on Earth long before humans arrived.
The Friday funny
Beep if you think Starmer’s a w****r’ sign removed from road after constant honking
The dual carriageway became “the loudest in Britain” after motorists joined a chorus of dissent against the Prime Minister’s migration policies.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2098681/beep-keir-starmer-sign-removed-dual-carriageway-honking
Greetings from the spanish wildfires, and I translate freely:
“more goats roaming free in the mountains and less office dumbasses behind desks”
There wildfire problem solved. Sheep could also do, real sheep, not idiots on government payroll.
I wonder if dumbasses roaming free in the mountains and sheep behind desks would be more effective?
More and bigger wildfires are the goal. That way they can blame global warming.
Upland moorland and lowland heathland are biotic plagioclimax vegetation originally created through woodland clearances and maintained in that state by grazing. So are man made habitats. They are on land that cannot sustain arable agriculture. The UK has a large percentage of the worlds upland moorland and lowland heathland and all the associated species. There is also a legal requirement under The Habitats Directive to manage those habitats for their unique biodiversity. The advent of modern agriculture has meant that livestock are now no longer extensively grazed on moorlands and heathlands and so alternative management strategies are required. About 60% of each years growth needs to be removed in order to maintain it in good health. Without that the plants become woody and senescent after a few decades and begin to collapse and die, allowing seeds of Birch, Pine, oak and gorse to colonise eventually completing the successional process to a woodland climax community which would dry the wetter areas out and destroy the habitat for the moorland and heathland adapted species. Controlled burns remove the woody senescent vegetation and as they just pass over the aerial vegetation very quickly the heather regenerates the early habitat stages within a couple of years.
Some of the best lowland heathland and upland moorland bog communities are to be found on military and ex military firing ranges where tank tracks and shell holes provide the perfect conditions for many of the rare and endangered species of such habitats. Salisbury Plain is a very good example as is the area around where I used to live in Thursley, Surrey. Hankley Common is still used by the MOD and Thursley Common is owned by Natural England but still used by the MOD it is a Grade 1 National Nature Reserve as are the nearby Purbright Ranges. My Garden used to back directly on to Thursley Common and I had an association and worked with the Natural England staff there for over 20 years.
Banning controlled burns in such areas would be a complete disaster and would result in the loss of those valuable habitats through large uncontrolled fires or succession to woodland. During my time working with those managing lowland heathlands it was clear that most fires were deliberately set by arsonists. Indeed, I was evacuated from my house back some 20 years ago when an arsonist set light to and managed to burn about 100 acres of Thursley. For weeks after I was on volunteer fire patrol going round every morning and evening checking for smouldering peat. My first ever such experience of the damage uncontrolled burns can cause was as an undergraduate in 1977 on an ecological field visit to Thursley, which had just been devastated by an uncontrolled fire. So competent management using controlled burns is the only viable way of fulfilling the legal duty to protect such habitats
Sort of like what happened in LA, Maui, etc., etc., etc.
Those landscapes were also burned regularly by the original residents. The modern residents lack cultural memory of past stewardship practices. So they don’t replicate the time honored traditional lifeways. Modern society has amnesia. We reject tradition. And it’s deadly to do so.
Well stated, Bailey. It’s likely the anthropogenic fires on the Salisbury Plain predate Stonehenge. The first residents drove aurochs with fires into pits or past timber exclosures from which they could throw spears safely. People who cook food (everybody for the last million years or more) are also able to burn their landscapes. And they did. As soon as they arrived and regularly thereafter. It’s what people do. We are the Fire Creatures.
A great deal of effort would go into starting any sort of wildfire in England, where ‘the rain it raineth every day’.
And yet humans have been burning English landscapes for thousands of years. We’re clever that way. Fire Creatures. Making fire was the first technology. Don’t underestimate our ancestors.
So what have we learned, collectively, from the above article and conversations?
Simply this: that no matter how obvious the connections are between climate change and real-time event occurring all around us may be, we must deny that connection at all costs.
To do otherwise is to face up to reality.
And we can’t be having reality; not here at WUWT.
So what have we learned?
The Met Office is a bad joke
What have we learned, that you, like most climunists are impervious to any fact that doesn’t fit into the narrative you have come to believe in.
The fact that once a plant dries out, it will burn. Getting more dry makes little to no difference in whether it will burn or not.
If a short drought is enough to dry out plants, then a longer drought doesn’t make fire more likely.
Like most of your co-religionists, you aren’t interested in understanding the world and science, you want a narrative that can be used to re-enforce what you want to believe.