Dear Reader,
As sure as sun-up, as sure as sun-down, as sure as sugar…
I was sure climate alarmists would mount their boxes of soap… and finger climate change for the Los Angeles conflagrations.
I was correct of course. Thus The Washington Post informs us that:
- The world was probably warmer during 2024 than it has been at any point in recorded history. There’s no real question that climate change contributed to what’s happening in Los Angeles.
ABC News reports that:
- Climate change has played a major role in the unprecedented wildfires that are raging through Southern California… Warming temperatures, drier conditions and shifts in precipitation are contributing to an increase in the frequency of large wildfires and acres of land burned in the U.S. each year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Guardian — meantime — insists that:
- The greenhouse gases humans continue to emit are fueling the climate crisis and making big fires more common in California… As the climate crisis escalates, the interdependent atmospheric, oceanic and ecological systems that constrain human civilization will lead to compounding and regime-shifting changes that are difficult to predict in advance.
I could continue. Yet mercy forbids it.
It’s Carbon Dioxide’s Fault!
In the catastrophists’ telling, the devil molecule carbon dioxide is responsible.
They inform us it is cooking Earth. It is responsible for every species of environmental calamity — wildfires among them.
What is their solution? To place the internal combustion engine under excommunication.
Yet does carbon dioxide truly account for the Los Angeles hellscape? I am not half so convinced it does.
I have instructed my understrappers to ransack the scientific literature.
Thus I learn from Climate at a Glance that:
- Data from satellites as well as reconstructed historical terrestrial fire records both show that global wildfire area burned has decreased substantially during recent decades, as well as over the last 120 years…
- NASA found that the global area burned between 1998 and 2015 declined by 24 percent… Just over the past 18 years the area lost to wildfires has fallen by approximately 18 percent.
Evidence
I present Exhibit A in proof thereof:
Source: x.com/bjornlomborg
Exhibit B:
Source: x.com/bjornlomborg
More CO2, Less Fire Devastation
It is true: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen across the decades.
Yet in recent years global wildfire devastation has been heavily in retreat.
Let Exhibit C enter the record:
Source: Wattsupwiththat.com
Where then is evidence of the defendant’s guilt?
This defense counsel concludes that an innocent has been falsely accused of arson.
The evidence overwhelmingly runs the other way.
I believe the charges against him are not justice… but if you will forgive the expression in the present context… a bonfire of justice.
I hereby request that all arson charges be dropped — lest an innocent man be packed off to the gallows.
The Real Culprit
Why not haul the Golden state of California into the dock?
My understrappers inform me that it has terribly neglected forest management. It has failed to clear the underbrush that presently fans the flames.
Meantime, I understand that fire hydrants in many burning districts leak trickles. They should be gushing geysers.
Is carbon dioxide to blame — or the City of Los Angeles and its department of fire?
Here climate investigator Anthony Watts files additional exculpatory evidence on behalf of carbon dioxide:
- A critical factor in the Los Angeles wildfires is the role of the infamous Santa Ana winds, which are neither new nor related to climate change. These dry, gusty winds are a recurring weather phenomenon caused by high-pressure systems over the Great Basin that force hot, dry air down through Southern California’s mountain passes. They’ve been a well-documented driver of wildfires for as long as records exist.
Weather Is Not Climate
In yesterday’s inaugural Evening Vanguard I stated that this publication distinguishes weather from climate.
In the case presently at bar, the weather/climate distinction assumes a literal connotation. Mr. Watts:
- To clarify: Santa Ana winds are a short-term weather event, not a long-term climate trend. Conflating weather with climate — something the media routinely does — misrepresents the science.
- Climate refers to patterns observed over decades or centuries, while weather deals with immediate atmospheric conditions. Ignoring this distinction fuels alarmism at the expense of nuanced understanding.
Yet what climate catastrophist cares for nuanced understanding when he believes Earth is aroast?
Nuanced understanding invites questioning.
And there is no space for questioning within the propagandistic arts.
The Noble Lie
Here my thoughts turn to old Plato’s “noble lie.”
The noble lie is a lie conscripted in the service of a higher good.
And what is a higher good than planetary survival?
Catastrophists insist Earth perches perilously upon the devil’s shovel.
Thus the world no longer confronts “climate change.” It confronts “climate crisis.”
If the public entertained doubt about its authenticity… if it ventured into nuanced understanding… catastrophists fear it would sink their cause.
Imagine a nation at war. Would a government encourage its citizens to pursue nuanced understanding of the enemy’s cause?
“Well, citizen, before you enlist we encourage you to consider precisely why Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor. Pay particular attention to the oil embargo we placed upon it in 1939 — and how it menaced their economic livelihood. And do not forget — Hitler had authentic grievances!”
Can you imagine it? Then you have imagined an ice-bound hell.
They Admit to the Noble Lie
If the climate catastrophists must stretch the facts to keep the public quaking in fear? If they must censor all opposing data that wars with their theories?
Well, then they must stretch the facts to keep the public quaking in fear. They must censor all opposing data that wars with their theories.
Thus the noble lie writes the warrant for mass merchandising of alarm. Stanford climate scientist Stephen Schneider:
- On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method… On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
- So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Upon which side of the scale does the catastrophist place his heavy thumbs — the effective side — or the honest side?
To ask the question is to answer the question.
Thus I do not believe that carbon dioxide has Los Angeles in flames.
I believe the catastrophists are taking us for a sleigh ride.
I believe they are telling us a disnoble lie.
Regards,
Brian Maher
for Freedom Financial News
