"Colorado is on fire and Global Warming is real. Deniers are psycho kneejerks"

The long title was supplied by a twit tweet by movie reviewer Roger Ebert. Aren't ad hominems fun?

Roger was referring, of course, to the  forest fires that raged in Colorado in June 2012. Apparently, needlessly.

Roger is making a causal connection between the Colorado forest fires of 2012 and global warming of the human kind. Forest fires in Colorado are nothing new. Some people don't seem to understand that. They have happened before humans were worried about CAGW when levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were lower than now. This fact alone should inform Roger that CO2 concentration has nothing to do with forest fires. It might be interesting for Roger to learn that according to ehow CO2 is often a component in some fire extinguishers. "Carbon dioxide is also used in fire extinguishers, to eliminate oxygen from the flame, causing the fire to decrease and eventually stop. Since carbon dioxide leaves no residue or foam, it's most often used in theaters or rooms with expensive equipment." CO2 is not all bad.

Roger is not the only one who has tried to blame the recent Colorado forest fires on global warming. NASA scientist James Hansen, 1988 global warming announcer, has also made false claims that try to link the fires to global warming alarmism. No James, according to the US Forest Service statistics forest fires are NOT becoming more frequent. Nor is Colorado becoming hotter. Other parts of the world are experiencing a similar decline in forest fires. Reality is the final arbiter of claims and Reality says: forest fires have nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the air.

Another fire guru, Michael Oppenheimer,  has also tried to link this year's forest fires to man-made global warming. Oppenheimer doesn't stop with fires and tries to link all severe weather to CAGW. But this is not supported in the scientific literature either.

If either were familiar with the scientific literature on the subject of forest fires they would know that researchers place the blame for forest fires on ocean cycles. The severity of today's forest fires can be laid at the feet of human interference with small fire burns which stayed on the forest floor and didn't reach the canopy as is often the case with today's fires.

Do advocacy scientists ever stop to check the truth of what comes out of their mouths? They give science a bad name and don't do their reputations as serious scientists any favors either. We can excuse the Roger Eberts of the world but it is more difficult to excuse the errors of people who ought to know better.

Why would a scientist become a policy advocate? Obvious choices include an agenda that conforms to their worldview. A scientist may think that reality supports that worldview and he/she wants to make a difference. 

A scientist should say: this is what we think we know and here is why. Scientists should welcome and examine alternative explanations for their data. When faster than light neutrinos were detected in 2011 the results were so out of the ordinary that scientists made their methods and data available to others for corroboration. Eventually the error was found and the results corrected. This is the way that science is supposed to operate.

Opposing views are acknowledged, addressed and explained by theory. This is how science advances.

We no longer question handwashing as a way to prevent the spread of disease. Such was not always the case. Science is settled not by consensus but by an appeal to reality. That the Earth is round is no longer questioned. Again, reality dictates knowledge.To deny these truths is to ignore reality.

When scientists claim forest fires are more frequent, more extensive, burn hotter and are worse than in the past we should expect data to back up these claims. If the claim is correct then science is served and knowledge is communicated. When the data do not support the claims both the reputation of science and the scientists making the claims suffer. Scientists who are playing the political advocacy game must be certain their claims are true but can be tempted by their worldview to overlook contrary evidence. As with non-scientists with a worldview and an agenda they see what they want to see and their credentials and reputations can be used to mislead others either deliberately or in error.

To return to the forest fire issue we might ask if statistics are available to corroborate the claims. Are forest fires more numerous now than in the past? The US Forest Service maintains such statistics and the answer is no. See above links. Forest fires are less frequent now and also less deadly than in the past. The Colorado fires of 2012 are not particularly extensive compared to previous years.

So, in the case of forest fires, it is not the climate realists who challenge the assertions who are wrong but those who advocate for CAGW and try to use the 2012 fires of Colorado as evidence in support of their worldview. When alarmists denigrate those who question the orthodoxy it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

In the internet age it is possible to consult electronic newspaper archives for examples of fires in the same region and see what was reported to get a sense of whether forest fires are worse now than in the past.

And if there were massive forest fires in the past then it is to be noted that CO2 concentrations were lower in the past than at present which suggests that CO2 has nothing to do with their cause, frequency, extension or death toll. Hyping the hysteria over 2012 forest fires to try and scare people into believing they are due to CAGW (CO2) is both dishonest and based on a delusion. They think we are stupid.

The purveyors of the CAGW message may want it to be true but reality paints a different picture - the true one.  To deny this truth is to mire oneself in delusion.