You really have to be stupid about wild fires to think that our emissions of CO2 are causing a significant difference in wild fires IMO. At least the LA times got the category right, "politics"

Jerry Brown, like Obama, blames everything on other causes. He wants to justify additional confiscation of money so he blames global warming to try to justify additional money. These hacks never seem to mind propping up children or fires or any other catastrophe to push their socialism and sheeple like Lynlions and Dook swallow it every time while they think they are smart by insulting Fox News.

I would say that it isn't likely that our CO2 emissions have made much difference in the number of severity of wild fires, that this is just the latest excuse by the statists to try to steal more money for their redistribution to their special interests, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to take even more money from the citizens of California. That is obviously what it is all about. If it wasn't about pushing their socialist, Marxists, statists, leftists (or whatever you feel like calling it) agenda, the actual causes for increased fire danger would be discussed and maybe with some honesty involved, it could be solved in a more effective manner.

Dook seems to like Governor Moonbeam. What a shock. The moonbeam vote is the young, idealistic, and uninformed. Moonbeam is an embarrassment and menace to anyone with half a brain.

This is what climate change looks like depending on where on the planet you live. All of the really good places to live are taken. They're 'good places' because they get the right amount of rain on a regular basis...until they don't. California, because of climate change isn't a good place to live anymore, but there's nowhere for their massive population to go.

The question is....how long will this drought last? Indications are that California's climate is not going to return to what was normal over the last 200 years. That means that expensive technology will have to substitute for those conditions. Gov. Brown has suggested that it's time to go forward with these infrastructure changes. Others call him Gov. Moonbeam for suggesting such a thing. The science, data and physics are on Gov. Brown's side, while the deniers are on the other side. If the deniers 'win' what will they do when agriculture in California dries up along with most of the fresh water required by California industry...not to mention the general population. The deniers say, "It ain't gonna' happen! Climate change is a ho-ax! We don't have to do anything."

Science says, there are not many seasons left before the 'drought' wins. Unless this turns around much sooner than later California will run out of fresh water and if that happens a massive part of the US economy crashes. The fallout across the country suggests serious challenges. Is anyone listening and more to the point...who are you listening to?

It may very well be, but it would be difficult to prove statistically. Personally, I have been under mandatory evacuation from my house twice in the last 11 years. In the first instance the largest fire in the modern history of California went through my yard, and burned about 10 feet from my house. The second time the fire "only" burned about 200,000 acres and covered much the same area as the first one.

The global warming regional forecast for California includes warmer temperatures and longer droughts punctuated by some years of heavy rainfall. Combine that with the enhanced growth factor from CO2 that Kano is always telling us about, and it's hard to imagine a more perfect scenario for wildfires.

And say what you want about "Governor Moonbeam", but when he entered office California had a terrible fiscal crisis--now we have an increasing budget surplus.

EDIT: James made the comment

"Gary F - So what you are saying is that what's occurring now is unprecedented and that it has never happened like this before? ROTFL"

Do you really have serious reading comprehension problems James, or are you just a liar?

Another EDIT: Your Update 2 shows that you really don't understand California fires at all. Almost nothing in that article applied to the recent fires.

I believe that climate change is predicted to increase the risk of wildfires in many regions on the world (not sure about California). Also I am not sure if California has had any effects of climate change recently.

Climate change, in many regions, is expected to decrease rainfall (especially over Spring and Summer) and increase the number of extreme hot days. Which both would contribute to providing more volatile conditions for wildfires. In many parts of Australia (where bush fires are a huge risk already) there is also the issue that rainfall in Autumn has increased, and this is one of the optimal times to carry out fuel reduction burns. However, to carry out a burn you need certain conditions and the increased rainfall has decreased the time frame for the burns (similarly increased temperatures and lower rainfall in Spring has resulted in the Spring burn program being scaled back too).

So climate change could be contributing to the intensity, frequency and extent of wildfires in the USA (in particular California, which has very similar climatic conditions to many forested parts of Australia). Probably a better position by the politician would be that climatic conditions have contributed to the wildfires this season, and that California need to manage and mitigate wildfires better in the future as conditions are predicted to deteroriate in the future making the likelihood of these occurrences more common.

Edit: James, that article regarding fires is poorly written and very bias. The author obviously had an agenda and looked for anything that may have supported their pre-determined position. As a professional forester urban residents are far more hindrance to proper forest management (inc. fire management) than environmentalists. Urban sprawl, urban areas close to forests etc. causes a lot more red tape and careful planning than environmental organisations do. Urban areas tend to have greater political pull too ... had fires where the minister has rung the department regarding smoke complaints for residents.

There has never been a drought like this one in the history of the state. Never.

A study published just last month found that the cause of the drought is indeed driven by climate change.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...

The increase in fires in California due to climate change has been known for years. A study in 2006 found that fires were increasing in the spring due to earlier springtime warming. That study controlled for population and underbrush.

Yes California will bear the costs of increased drought and increased fires due to climate change.

I have no idea. That is my point. No one does. We can all notice trends, just as we can all notice the virgin Mary's face on a piece of toast. We can all ascribe a cause to that observation. A statistical analysis accounting for multiplicity is what allows us to be able to show that this is not just some random event.

Without such an analysis we can look at the "Great Fire of 19XX", being the second worst fire in US history, as being a shining example of the effect of human CO2 emissions. But the 19XX was 1910.

Edit:

This is interesting

http://wildland-fires.findthebest.com/

If you sort by number of acres burned the years are more recent.

Whereas if you sort by number of fires, the dates are all later.

Personally I think this shows the effect of our fire suppression efforts. The first question to ask, prior to claiming that AGW is the cause is to look at the methodology of controlling fires over the time period.

http://www.isnie.org/assets/files/papers...

Always liked the Moonbeam nickname even if nowadays it is only used by people clueless about where it came from.

As for this anti-science fake question, it is from Climate Change Denial 101. It would be like a fan listening to the baseball game last weekend between the LA Angels and the Tampa Bay Rays, and asking: "Was Albert Pujol's first inning home run caused by him being the league leader so far this season?"

The question is silly on its face. Even home run champs rarely get them in more than 10% of At Bats and when they do homer, a multiple of hard-to-assess factors are at work; it is never just one reason. Maybe the pitcher wasn't quite warmed up and threw him a too easy pitch. Maybe Pujols swings better on 0-2 pitches, or maybe the wind helped carry further what normally would have been a long caught fly ball.

Nevertheless, even the dumbest baseball fan would not deny that Pujols being one of the greatest home run hitters of the 21st century means that, on any given pitch, he is statistically more likely to hit a homer than the average player. Nor would any sane fan try to pretend that if one cannot say that any particular home run is the result of the batter being top home run hitter, that baseball must therefore be a great hoax designed to suck up the money of spectators so that they have less to spend going to basketball games and tennis matches.

Edit: Needless to say, for roughly the 2888th time, that personal political opinions/delusions/simplifications/ asinine lies (such as JimZ's laughable paranoia about what he ignorantly calls Marxists and Statists) have not the slightest thing to do with science, never did and never will.