Putting Out the Wildfire Myth

These days, pretty much any inconvenient phenomenon is chalked up to “climate change.” What is climate change? Basically, anything you don’t like. So bad things being “caused” by “climate change” is more or less a tautology.

Not long ago, when there was a spike in U.S. wildfires caused mostly, I believe, by lousy forest management practices imposed by California environmentalists, the world was said to be on fire–unprecedented wildfires caused by hot temperatures! Never mind that globally, fewer acres burned last year than in any previous year on record.

Now, U.S. acres burned have declined as well:

The news has been quite good this year with respect to the total number of acres burned on US soil due to wildfire activity. In fact, the total acreage burned this year is under 3 million (through 12/18) which is far below the 10-year average of nearly 7 million from 2013-2022 and the lowest since 1998.

It is striking that even in a down year, there are tens of thousands of wildfires in the U.S. alone, that burn millions of acres.

So with wildfires down, why isn’t this described as a beneficial impact of “climate change?” If climate change was responsible for a brief, local uptick in fires, as liberals assured us, then why isn’t climate change–whatever that means–likewise responsible the larger, benign trend toward fewer wildfires and fewer acres burned?

Simply because, by definition, “climate change” can never be responsible for anything good. Climate change is a political construct, not a scientific concept.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses