Why do people try to blame these Californian super fires on global warming?

Question

The temperature has only increased one degree on average in the last one hundred years and not at all in the last fifty years. One degree is not enough to cause these super fires. Besides, warmer doesn't instantly mean drier. Al Gore's two computer simulations predicted that this area would be either a flood zone or a desert in the future. Isn't that a bit extreme? If they were accurate, wouldn't the two computer simulations came to closer conclusions? Back to my point though, it is the environmentalist policies, which keeps the government from clearing dense underbrush from state forest and public citizens from clearing dense underbrush on their private property that has caused these fires. This would normally occur through natural forest fires, but since we fight these fires, the forest have built up layer on top of layer of fuel to feed these fires. Am I the only one that thinks we should stop instantly believing outlandish environmentalist claims pushed by the media?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for preserving nature, but we have to be more careful in our actions and I feel that to blame this on global warming is nothing more than shirking responsibility. It's time we realize that these environmentalist have an agenda, just like any other group and any policies they get passed into law, should be viewed with scrutiny.

BIRDGIRL

I don't know what the law is concerning the clearing of underbrush in your area, but from what I have read an environmentalist group called the Sierra Club, pushed and got a bill passed that made it illegal for private citizens and state forest workers to clear underbrush. Here is a link to the first article I came across that talks about it. It isn't my original source and I apologize that I cannot find it again. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/29/article_jj.htm
The law passed by these environmentalist to stop logging also stopped or made illegal the clearing of underbrush. I have heard this more than one place, so I don't believe I am wrong about this, but I could be and I apologize if I am. Warmer does not always mean drier, if it did we would have no tropical zones which are hot and humid. This is why I cite Al Gores computer sim, one claimed that in the future this area could be a flood zone, meaning that while it is getting hotter, it would also become more humid.

What are you talking about when you claim that I am desperate to label people. I call them environmentalist, because that is what they call themselves. How is that a desperate attempt at labeling people? Yes, some people are just ordinary people. These are the people like you. I am talking about the hardcore liberal environmentalist. The reason you assume they don't have an agenda is because you assume they are like you. This is not true, and you need to open your eyes to that. This is why they get away with half the stuff they do. People like you have no idea what they are all about, so no one keeps them in check. "Not sure why you are making a fire a political issue all of the sudden?" I can't believe that you even ask this. IT IS POLITICAL. The cause of this fire, was a bill that was pushed onto becoming law by an extremist environmentalist group. We need to take away the lobbying power of these groups, because they should not have this much influence in politics.

DANA1981
You never cease to amaze me with your answers. Most of the ones I have come across are complete lunacy.

You say, "It's not the temperature change directly, it's the climate change the warming has caused which contributed to conditions which were ripe for a large fire."

Consistently warmer temperature over a period of time is climate change. You cannot say temperature didn't cause this and climate change did because, for the sake of this argument, they are the same thing. Your argument makes no sense. You are still saying, temperature over time made it drier and that resulted in a fire. This is untrue, because the climate has only changed one degree on average in the last One hundred and fifty years and not at all in the last fifty. One degree on average will not make it dry enough to cause a super fire. The bottom line is that it became a super fire, because of the abundant amount of fuel that was just lying around, waiting to be consumed.

Answer 1

Your California fires could be considered a natural event Some species as I recall only regenerate after there has been a fire. This would naturally clear the underbrush and reduce the ferocity of future fires. Yes in all their ignorance they made law that would not allow landowners to artificially do this by clearing thick brush stands near the urban sprawl that turn into big humongous tinder piles over time. You ECO Wackos are also ECO idiots nothing new here.
Any computer simulation Algore has was stolen from actual scientist's. He in fact was rather was unremarkable in his science class in school getting by with a D.
People blame everything on either George Bush or Global Warming in current times. Their grasp of actual history and other probabilities is unremarkable. Now they just have to decide if GB is the cause of GW or if GW is the cause of GB

Answer 2

I live in So. Cal and have not even heard this theory. You have some things wrong..you claim environmentalists cause people to not be able to clear brush..sorry but clearing brush is a REQUIREMENT here, and if people do not clear brush from around their property can be heavily fined and even jailed. Also, I live in the Angeles National Forest and the US Forest Service comes in and clears underbrush on a regular basis. Also, the so called "environmentalists" you speak of are the ones that normally perform "controlled burns", that keep these wildfires from happening. Also, you say warmer does not equal drier...of course it does! Drought equals drier too...which is what we are dealing with here in So. Cal. The bottom line is people caused these fires, either directly (some of these fires were arson) as well as indirectly. Not sure why people like you are so desparate to label everybody. Not everyone has some secret agenda..some people are just people. Not sure why you are making a fire a poitical issue all of the sudden?

Answer 3

It's not the temperature change directly, it's the climate change the warming has caused which contributed to conditions which were ripe for a large fire.

It's not that global warming caused the San Diego fire, it's simply that global warming quite possibly helped create conditions which made the fire worse than it would have otherwise been.

Read the article below for further details.

Answer 4

There is no way you can blame the San Diego area on global warming, if you believe the surface station data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722900004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Answer 5

People need to blame something or some body, not to look at themselves to change their own behaviors and habits, which in fact are the real cause.
BeiYin

Answer 6

the fires are the fault of idiot environmentalists who forbid proper forest management, and illegal aliens making camp fires in canyons

Answer 7

How could you scare people if you said it was poor forest management? Blame it on global warming, say your from the gvmt and you're here to help, and people will gladly hand over their money and freedom to you, as long as you promise to fix it.

Answer 8

global warming is now a scapegoat for all of our problems and it is not ture. ice borings of sea ice that are htousands of yrs old show that warm loving organisms lived up in th e arctic, thousands of years ago...global warming is a belief, not a fact, you can believe it or you can deny it. i stand neutral. we are shltting on out planet, and we need to try and help it, or we will mess up