Popular Science declares: ‘Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires’

How does it know?

Apparently Media Matters said so.

Popular Science reports:

Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires, like the blaze in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters this week. But is that connection being made in news reports?

A new Media Matters report examined how frequently recent print and TV reports from major outlets–CNN, NBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and others–mentioned climate change when they reported on wildfires. The answer: not very frequently. Between April and July, just 4 percent of TV reports and 9 percent of print reports mentioned climate change in their fire coverage.

12 thoughts on “Popular Science declares: ‘Climate change is a major contributing factor to wildfires’”

  1. They modify it (not sure whether happily or otherwise) by adding the increasingly more contortionist math to match new data when it becomes conspicuous enough to bother them. Discarding a theory? If that happened recently (within the last 50 years?), I would like to know.

  2. JR, you are right. I remember in school, back in the sixties, where we were taught Mother Nature has a way of fixing problems, such as overgrown forest, over population of animal herds, etc….

    The enviro whacks have done more harm to the Eco system than any other group. The protect species that should be allowed to go extinct as an example. Now they want things like carbon sequester and other ideas that will surely piss off Mother Nature.

  3. The physickers seem to be happy to modify or discard a theory that doesn’t quite work. The warmists don’t seem to be quite that flexible.

  4. Physics grinds on happily with virtual particles, weak forces, strong forces, dark matter, black holes, curved time-space, and all sorts of make-believe stuff you’d be ashamed of dreaming about if it wasn’t physics.

  5. Steve: You ask “How do they know”. Answer: They don’t. In climate “science” believing has replaced knowledge or proof of any kind. Any other discipline of science would perish rapidy if the same kind of moral standards would apply as in climate “science”.

  6. Part of the problem with our forests is that we have mismanaged them so long that whenever a fire starts it is an inferno. This was due to no fire policies started early last century. Now that the underbrush is so thick that any fire is an inferno – the press has decided to change the reason for the infernos from uncleared underbrush to global warming. Add another one to the list.

  7. I am not going to set up an account just to post a quick comment there however, if someone here plans to leave one there you might also include a link to this:

    The forest service has two classifications for sources of ignition of wildfires, lightning and man. Man easily accounts for the most fires but about equals man in acreage consumed since those fires get reported sooner and are thus controlled faster.

  8. Remember the days when “Scientific American” wasn’t preposterous?

    “Popular Science” used to be at least slightly palatable, despite the predictions of “flying cars” etc.

    Low readership of such magazines has for some reason appointed editors to make their bankruptcy prospects inevitable. Ordinary people concluded long ago that global warming is a pile of shit, the message never got through to liberal tainted media

  9. Observation right now does not disprove their point, i.e. global temps and wildfires have not been trending up, so we don’t need to worry about it.
    Oh, that’s not what they meant!
    Gene is right: if the media say it frequently, it must be true, or people wouldn’t vote they way they do, I guess.
    Allen, I want my flying car also. But at least we have the two-way wrist TVs from Dick Tracy a la 1964.

  10. It was Popular Science in the 50’s that boasted science would totally control the weather with in the next few decades. They also boasted that automobiles were a thing of the past as people would fly from place to place using their own personal flight devices. Consider the source.

  11. So if I mention something frequently, it becomes real, and if I don’t mention it at all, I’ll be denying reality. Simples. I guess I don’t need to have a PhD in Romantic Drama to understand so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.