CBS’s Pelley Uses Wildfires to Prove Global Warming

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
By Kyle Drennen | October 23, 2007 - 16:56 ET

With Southern California in the midst of dealing with disastrous wildfires, on Sunday’s "60 Minutes," anchor Scott Pelley used the issue to promote Global Warming ideology. He did a segment on wildfires in the American west and declared in traditional alarmist fashion: "It appears that we're living in a new age of mega-fires, forest infernos ten times bigger than the fires we're used to seeing." It did not take long for Pelley to find the culprit for this crisis as he talked to University of Arizona professor, Tom Swetnam:

Swetnam says that climate change-- global warming-- has increased temperatures in the west about one degree, and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the journal "Science," and the world's leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions.

Earlier in the segment, Pelley talked to head of federal fire operations, Tom Boatner:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

PELLEY: You wouldn't have expected to see this how recently?

BOATNER: We got records going back to 1960 of the acres burned in America, so that's 47 fire seasons. Seven of the ten busiest fire seasons have been since 1999.

Where is Al Gore when you need him? Of course Pelley himself is well on his way to winning his own Nobel Prize given his belief that "There is virtually no disagreement in the scientific community any longer about global warming." This belief was certainly reflected in the segment as Pelley made only brief mention of the real reason for an increase in the frequency and severity of the fires, "It turns out that the Forest Service is partly to blame, with a policy that it started 100 years ago...The policy was to try to putout all fires immediately." As Boatner explained, "Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for 100 years...we've allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods." Following that quick glance at a counter argument, Pelley soon resumed his apocalyptic report.

Pelley described how the doom and gloom correlation between climate change and wildfires was discovered:

Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years. And recently, he and a team of top climate scientists discovered something else: A dramatic increase in fires high in the mountains, where fires were rare.

Perhaps the saddest moment of the segment was when Pelley and Swetnam mourned the loss of the great Ponderosa Pines:

PELLEY: Two mega-fires here killed nearly everything, even the Ponderosa Pines. You know, I was always taught that Ponderosas were big, robust trees that were built to withstand the fire.

SWETNAM: Yeah.

PELLEY: And that, when everything else burned off, the Ponderosas were still standing. But look at them.

SWETNAM: They... the Ponderosas are able to withstand the low severity fires where you get flames of maybe one to two or three feet high. But now, the behavior of these fires is off the scale.

When Swetnam made the dire prediction that "...maybe more than half of the forest land..." could be destroyed in wildfires, a shocked Pelley tried to wrap his mind around it, "Wait a minute. Did you just say that there's a reasonable chance we could lose half of the forests in the west?"

Pelley finally concluded the segment by asking Boatner, "You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change." To which Boatner responded:

You won't find them on the fire line in the American west anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes.

I wonder how Pelley thinks people of Southern California would respond to being told they brought the wildfires on themselves?

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

SCOTT PELLEY: Every year, you can count on forest fires in the west like hurricanes in the east, but recently, there has been an enormous change in western fires. In truth, we've never seen anything like them in recorded history. It appears that we're living in a new age of mega-fires, forest infernos ten times bigger than the fires we're used to seeing. To find out why this is happening, we went out on the fire line to see the burning of the American west. Last fire season was the worst in recorded history. This year is already a close second, with two months to go. More than eight million acres have burned this year already. These are the men and women facing the flames, elite federal firefighters called Hotshots. Nationwide, there are 92 Hotshot crews of 20 members each. We found these New Mexico Hotshots in the Salmon River mountains of Idaho. They'd set up camp in a burned-out patch of forest with fire raging all around. They were hitting the day, exhausted, halfway through a 14-day shift.

UNKNOWN MAN: If you guys want to go down and evaluate...

UNKNOWN MAN B: I'll take myself and a couple scouts and we'll go down there and take a look. I'm anticipating a mess today.

UNKNOWN MAN: Oh, yeah.

UNKNOWN MAN C: Sucks.

PELLEY: They found the mess they expected. The valley was engulfed in smoke. The flames blew through the firebreak lines they dug the day before.

UNKNOWN MAN: We were trying to turn the corner yesterday, and that's when it kind of blew out. I think we got more ground over here that's been taken. Any questions?

PELLEY: No question-- this day, the fire won. It surged across the mountain, forcing the Hotshots to evacuate. All across the west, crews are playing defense, often pulling back to let acres burn, but standing firm to save communities. One stand this season came in August at Ketchum, Idaho. Forecasters said it was 99% certain Ketchum would be lost if nothing was done. Fire crews came from across the nation. Local, state, federal-- 1,700, working around the clock from a mountainside camp.

UNKNOWN MAN D: Remember, as the winds come through, the fire wants to move uphill, downhill, wherever the thunderstorms push. It's going to move.

PELLEY: 300-foot flames headed for these homes. Residents evacuated.

PELLEY: We joined up with Tom Boatner, who, after 30 years on the fire line, is now the chief of fire operations for the federal government.

TOM BOATNER: A fire of this size and this intensity in this country would have been extremely rare 15, 20 years. They're commonplace these days.

PELLEY: Ten years ago, a big fire was what?

BOATNER: Ten years ago, if you had 100,000-acre fire, you were talking about a huge fire. And if we had one or two of those a year, that was probably unusual. Now, we talk about 200,000-acre fires like it's just another day at the office. It's been a huge change.

PELLEY: And the biggest fires are what now?

BOATNER: We've had, I believe, two fires this summer that have been over 500,000 acres, half a million acres, and one of those was over 600,000 acres.

PELLEY: You wouldn't have expected to see this how recently?

BOATNER: We got records going back to 1960 of the acres burned in America, so that's 47 fire seasons. Seven of the ten busiest fire seasons have been since 1999.

PELLEY: You know what? It's hotter than hell right here.

BOATNER: It's... it's getting pretty damn hot.

PELLEY: Whoa, it is amazing.

BOATNER: So, you can imagine the challenge for young men and women with hand tools like this to come up here and try to put out a fire like this. But there's thousands of people down there with multimillion dollar homes that are counting on them to do that and doing that safely is our big challenge. We'll drop down the hill here.

PELLEY: It was 20 years ago that firefighters got their first glimpse of what was to come. This is Yellowstone in 1988, when a third of the national park burned. Since then, fires have broken records in nine states. Several mega-fires, like this one in Arizona, have burned over half a million acres each. Why are there more of these fires? It turns out that the Forest Service is partly to blame, with a policy that it started 100 years ago.

UNKNOWN MAN E: The forest fire firefighter service stops fires, forest, bush and grass fires.

PELLEY: The policy was to try to putout all fires immediately.

BOATNER: Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for 100 years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we've allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there's a lot more to burn than historically you would've seen in a forest like this.

PELLEY: Is it possible that we're going to get to the point where we have these mega-fires and we just can't fight them because they're too large?

BOATNER: Well, we're there already. We have identified numerous fires this summer that we know we can't put out with the resources we have available, because of the severity of the burning conditions and the size of the fires.

PELLEY: The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of Tom Swetnam, one of the world's leading fire ecologists. He wanted to know what's touched off this annual inferno and whether it's truly a historic change.

TOM SWETNAM: Here is the Giant Sequoia collection.

PELLEY: At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile. This is the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His rings go back 9,000 years, and each tree ring captures one year of climate history. And if I'm reading this right, this ring right here is the birth of Christ.

SWETNAM: That's right.

PELLEY: Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years. And recently, he and a team of top climate scientists discovered something else: A dramatic increase in fires high in the mountains, where fires were rare.

SWETNAM: As the spring is arriving earlier because of warming conditions, the snow on these high mountain areas is melting and running off. The logs and the branches and the tree needles all can dry out more quickly and have a longer time period to be dry. And so there's a longer time period and opportunity for fires to start.

PELLEY: The spring comes earlier, so the fire season is just longer.

SWETNAM: That's right. The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole western U.S. so, actually, 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years.

PELLEY: Swetnam says that climate change-- global warming-- has increased temperatures in the west about one degree, and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the Journal of Science, and the world's leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions. But what was news to the scientists, is something that Tom Boatner has noticed for about ten years now.

BOATNER: This kind of low brush would normally be really moist and actually be a fairly good barrier to fire. But as I look at this, I just see wilted leaves everywhere. There's no moisture left in them. They're dead.

PELLEY: And look how easily it's burning.

BOATNER: Yeah.

PELLEY: Straight up the hill.

BOATNER: Even at the end of August at 6,000 feet in the rocky mountains, this fire is just cooking right along.

PELLEY: Professor Swetnam wanted to show us just how much has changed, so he brought us to the top of Arizona's Mount Lemon. Two mega-fires here killed nearly everything, even the Ponderosa Pines. You know, I was always taught that Ponderosas were big, robust trees that were built to withstand the fire.

SWETNAM: Yeah.

PELLEY: And that, when everything else burned off, the Ponderosas were still standing. But look at them.

SWETNAM: They... the Ponderosas are able to withstand the low severity fires where you get flames of maybe one to two or three feet high. But now, the behavior of these fires is off the scale.

PELLEY: How much have things changed?

SWETNAM: Well, we're seeing century-old forests that had never sustained these kinds of fires before being razed to the ground.

PELLEY: Back at the battle to save Ketchum, Idaho, the day shift was coming off; night shift going on. How long does it take to bring afire like this under control?

BOATNER: Well this fire right now, this particular fire is about 45,000 acres, and they've been working on it for about 11 or 12 days and they've got it about 50% contained. And with any luck, they'll finish containing this fire in another four or five or six days.

PELLEY: Containing it meant fighting fire with fire. Using drip torches, they started a controlled burn around the town, creating a barrier so that when the forest fire hit, there would be nothing left to burn. These pre-burns are risky, though. Trees can torch suddenly and explosively, like these, sending embers up to a mile away. By daybreak on the 18th day, the gamble had paid off. The blaze came within 100 feet of some homes, but not one home was lost. It will take years for this forest to recover, but Tom Swetnam told us that, with these new super-hot fires, some forests may never grow back.

SWETNAM: Used to have forest soil here that might have been this deep. But now we're just down to rock.

PELLEY: You're just down to the rocks here.

SWETNAM: Yeah, yeah. So, you're down to mineral and sort of a rock, sort of armored soil. And that is not a good habitat for trees to re-establish.

PELLEY: Where do you think all this is headed?

SWETNAM: As fires continue to burn, these mega-fires continue to burn, we may see, ultimately, a majority-- maybe more than half of the forest land-- converting to other forest... other types of ecosystems.

PELLEY: Wait a minute. Did you just say that there's a reasonable chance we could lose half of the forests in the west?

SWETNAM: Yes, within some decades to a century, as warming continues and we continue to get large-scale fires.

PELLEY: Swetnam says that this is what we have to look forward to. He estimates that, in the southwest alone, nearly two million acres of forest are gone, and won't come back for centuries. The Hotshots are already planning for the next fire season. In 2006, the feds spent $2 billion on fire fighting, seven times more than just ten years ago. You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change.

BOATNER: You won't find them on the fire line in the American west anymore, because we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or 15 years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought, that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They no longer report; they

They no longer report; they tell stories. We should call them story tellers, not reporters.

Just fit the right "facts" into the pre-conceived template, toss out any contradictory evidence, add a nice picture, a quote or two, hit enter and the story comes out.

And they didn't live happily ever after either.

Reporters (story tellers) are like everyone else in other occupations. Some are real good, some are real bad, but most are in between. Time, fatigue, laziness, a desire to put together a "sexy" story, all contribute to the type of tripe mentioned above. For all the talk of reporters challenging us, challenging government, being the canary in the coal mine, most reporters simply want to get through the day, pickup the paycheck, go home and have dinner.

These are the results.

SMG

 

I just googled CA fires and

I just googled CA fires and the two largest fires (this one and the one in 2002) were both caused by MAN. This current fire was caused by malfunctioning electrical equipment. I also recall the recent huge fire in CA that was set by some woman with mental issues.

Toss in some 50mph santa ana winds and voila. Firestorm.

Not Global Warming. Also, the story is contradictory in that they blame global warming in one paragraph and then go on to claim that itis the practices of the Forest Service and how they have managed forests for the last 100 yrs. Make up your minds, moonbats...

Well that settles it

It's hot, and man caused the fires. So it's global warming's fault. I can play to.

Wake me when the Vikings resettle and farm Greenland and the grapes grow in London.

The purpose of the government funded school system is to produce ignorant people who have no idea how to understand or deal with one of the most dangerous forces on the planet ... Government.

Banging head on wall, hey

Banging head on wall, hey duffus's, the fact that wild fires are a natural occurance in California doesn't occur to you?  The fact that pine trees require a fire to open the pine cones for seeds to be distributed doesn't come to your ignorant minds.  The fact that when you un-naturally put out those fires like with Yellowstone over a 100 years allows kindling to build up to unmanageable levels making for intense fires doesn't strike you as absurd!!!  Dolts, the only reason why fires are put out at all is to protect the short term interests of the home owners and business who don't want their properties to go up in flames. 

The problem is manmade alright, but AGW has nothing to do with it, it's a land management fiasco you morons.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Oops, fire the editor.

I'm amazed that they let the REAL reason for large wildfires remain in the piece:

"Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this
ecosystem for 100 years, because we thought that was the right thing to
do, we've allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when
the fires get going, there's a lot more to burn than historically you
would've seen in a forest like this."

Nature likes to burn down forests occasionally. You can stop that for a while, but in the end, nature wins. 

EXACTLY!

My thought exactly as I read the transcript.

I was amazed that the REAL reason for these fires was even allowed mention. The foresters I've known over the years have been well aware of this.

One of my uncles was a Gifford Pinchot Forest Warden years ago. I know he could he could this coming -- I heard it from him several times.

And yet when Bush suggested

And yet when Bush suggested thinning some forests for this exact same reason he was attacked by enviromentalists for wanting to kill trees.

Read the paper.  It was not

Read the paper.  It was not written by idiots.

Clever

Not so clever, little pig.

Keep posting the same thing over and over.

Nice way to get banned here.

We need a better class of trolls, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Remember the fires in

Well, environmentalists fought, for years, against dragging out the fallen trees and brush and other debris on the forest floor. So now that adds to the fuel too, causing hotter, faster-spreading fires.

Another instance of people being the big losers when environmentalists put "preserving the natural state" over safety.

Another instance of people

Another instance of people being the big losers when environmentalists put "preserving the natural state" over safety. 

   Actually.... infrequent burning is the natural state in most eco-systems.  For instance, I live in the Midwest tall grass prairie region and the tall grass prairie eco-system is dependent upon burning.   Without burning, the trees and brush would take over.  Lightning strikes and fires intentionally set by Native Americans created the prairie.

 

I am just waiting for them

I am just waiting for them to outlaw controlled burns for the fields here in the mid-west; it can only be a matter of time....

Field burning

 

Grass seed farmers in the Willamette Valley have been burning their fields for years.

http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/factsheets/07aq019_field.pdf

 Now, the eco-weenies want to put them out of business, to save us from Global Warming.

Read the paper before you

Read the paper before you call someone ignorant.  They specifically compare land use and climate as two mostly-competing hypotheses for why wildfires have increased.  They conclude that while land-use has some effect, the main correlation is with higher temperatures leading to earlier snowmelt and longer drought seasons each year.

These folks study fire ecosystems for a living, they are well aware that certain plants require fire to go to seed.  Hell, I learned that in high school biology!

Im sure the fires has

Im sure the fires has nothingto with the development around the area, the lack of roads to combat such fires due to enviromentalists or teh abundance of fuel caused by enviromentalists stopping all the small fires that burn off the excess brush and dead plant material.

Im sure teh proximity of people and the carelessness of the same people add up to some of it.

How many fires went unchecked when no one was there to prevent them?

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Read the paper.  Land use

Read the paper.  Land use was a factor, climate was a bigger factor.

climate causes fires?

Huh? So the "climate" downs power lines, creates arsonists, causes lightning to strike and careless people with campfires and flying embers to travel 300 yards? Now that's weird.

That settles it then,

That settles it then, right?

What will this egghead say when we have a colder and snowier than normal winter this year...?

The sky is falling...The

The sky is falling...The sky is falling...The sky is falling! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

It will then change from

It will then change from Global Warming to Climate Change!

Regardless, it is all our faults; moreover, maybe it is a vast right-wing conspiracy?...... no?

matt, don't you know global

matt, don't you know global warming causes cold too? The synopis for the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" says that global warming "triggers a new ice age." That's the beauty of it! No matter what, global warming is the culprit!!

What?

Swetnam says that climate change-- global warming-- has increased temperatures in the west about one degree, and that has caused four times more fires.

Yeah, that, downed power lines, and arsonists.

What? Too obvious?

Yup, too obvious. The paper

Yup, too obvious. The paper addressed trends over 47 fire seasons. Yes, each year those are caused by different things, including people, wind lightning. What they are analyzing is the

Pelley

Pelley is the same tool that said Ahmadinejad is just a cuddley harmless professor, to paraphrase. What a loser. Does anybody watch CBS anymore? 

Yes, and both of them

Yes, and they both agree with Pelley.

Mr. K... What's

Mr. K...

What's CBS??? 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

PELLEY: Wait a minute. Did

PELLEY: Wait a minute. Did you just say that there's a reasonable chance we could lose half of the forests in the west?

Pelley is on my top ten sh*tlist of fear mongering, liberal anchors.  His drama laden reporting is way over the top. 

OH, wait a minute!  Mega Fires!  Look, half the forest is GONE!  OH, wait a minute!  Scott, you're a drama queen! 

Twits

SWETNAM: As fires continue to burn, these mega-fires continue to burn,
we may see, ultimately, a majority-- maybe more than half of the forest
land-- converting to other forest... other types of ecosystems.

Notice the self-editing in the statement above. He obviously hasn't memorized the lines yet.

It was a truism 200 years ago that a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi river without ever once touching the ground. The eastern part of the country has lost about 90% of it's forests.

Oh, and temperature has almost nothing to do with forest fires or brush fires. Otherwise there would be far fewer fires in winter then in summer (reality is the exact opposite).

Cause and effect liberal style...the DOW was up over one hundred points today. Fires in California are good for the stock market.



The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com

The trend they are

The trend they are discussing is in Western wildfires.  You have some data showing that there are more of those in winter than in summer?  I'd love to see that!

Haven't environmentalists,

Haven't environmentalists, for years, fought against letting loggers and timber companies go in and clear the debris from the forest floors? And hasn't this been shown to increase the intensity and spread of fires, because of there being so much more easily burnable "fuel" on the forest floor?

But we'll just ignore that............it must be that AGW.

agw

what's agw stand for.

Anthropogenic

Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming

what's agw stand

what's agw stand for?

Al Gore's Wrong

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Our family home was in

Our family home was in Chatsworth, California where back in the day the rocky hills and ravines were used as a back drop to shoot Hollyweirds's western movies.  It consisted of the main house and a separate house with a garage all on multiple levels due to the terrain.  Because of the Santa Ana winds, fire insurance was expensive and rightly so.  Several decades ago there were strong and sustained Santa Ana winds, like this year, and a fire raged through our valley.  It took several of the homes in the area and our second house and garage.  We were able to save the main house mostly because its exterior walls were made of stone and we had watered the roof of the house like it was a lawn for several days before the fire found us. 

The next year, we got together with the other property owners to decide how to prevent the same thing from happening in the future.  What we did was simply clear out the brush on the sides of the hills and along the creek beds and cut additional roads that would support fire trucks. 

The house is still standing to this day although there have been several fires that have come through the valley since then.  None of the other houses have been lost to fire either. 

 

jdhawk... That's how you

jdhawk...

That's how you get things done. Leave the government out of it and you find a much faster, and more common sense solution.

Bravo! People in NO could have used you before Katrina hit. 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Well that's until the

Well that's until the government outlaws building roads into the forests, like they have in a lot of places, and outlaws clearing out the fallent trees and debris. Gotta leave it "natural", you know.

FIRE BUSH'S FAULT!

I just hear that Barbara Boxer is blaming the extent of the damage caused by the CA wildfires on President  Bush.

I SWEAR!!

She is saying that the national guard in CA is at half strength because of the war.  If they were at full strength, the damage would have been controlled.  

I have to go puke.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

I was waiting for this

I was waiting for this "other shoe to drop" the last couple of days; I even searched for it this morning.  Ol' Pelley came through with the B.S. in full fashion.

And here I thought this was

And here I thought this was the age of back to back to back "Category 6" Hurricanes.

Controlled burns

Motherbelt is correct, controlled burns, under growth clearing and brush cutting are illegal. Once again this only proves the enro-morons never consider the end results of their actions.

Controlled burns are not

Controlled burns are not illegal.  We have them in our national parks and I've personally been (minorly) involved in the planning of one on a natural history reserve.  You just aren't allowed to do them yourself because that tends to lead to, well, wildfires!

Won't have to worry about

Won't have to worry about the bark beetle in some of these forests infesting and killing huge sections of forests near homes ect...the greenies have done an excellent job of protecting the little animals, the endangered species and especially the trees...all of them, including the ones that weren't allowed to be thinned out for so many feet or yards to help stop the aid of this exact thing....

Nope...this fixes it all Pelley...

Every year Calif. has fires this time of year especially, but the environ's have aided and abetted into the complete destruction of them...and a lot of those people losing heir homes and property are the exact people who couldn't see the forest for the trees and voted that way.

My cousin lives in Running Springs, the Green Valley/Slide fire... he was evacuated last night...I fear he will lose his precious beautiful home and most in it...

This is all devastating, but he almost lost it before, the pictures they showed on television of the area were destroyed with bark beetle, it is easy to tell if you are around logging, they still were not allowed to do anything about it...the Forest Service and such, because of lawsuits...

So Mr. Pelley and all you leftis take a good hard look at what you wrought and still are helping to contribute to to this day, the repub's have another golden opportunity to use a lot of this as an example for why we need to thin and get rid of years of law-suits, you think we are going to hear any of this from them....much..at....all?

The answer my friend is just blowin' in those 'Devil Winds'...once again. 

Hardly anything new.....

Caly fornia as Arnold calls it has had fires, mud-slides and earthquakes as far back as I can remember. Decades ago I remember them not allowing homeowners to clear underbrush from the property because some kind of mouse lived or may have lived in the area and it would completely upset the delicate balance of nature if the said mouse was denied its natural habitat. Well, it wasn't very long before they had fires similar in size and scope as the current fires and the people lost their homes, the land was scorched and the frigging mice were burned to a fritter all because of environmental wackos getting hysterical and all breathless over a mouse.

Pelley "And if I'm reading

Pelley "And if I'm reading this right, this ring right here is the birth of Christ." 

Color me amazed that he didn't say something like "alleged" or "supposed" birth of Christ.  What next, quotes from Revelation?

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

.7° of Bull$h!t

The earth has warmed .7°F in the last one hundred years. LET
THAT SINK IN FOR A MINUTE! ".7°F
!"

Now, do you think you would notice the change in temperature of a room in
your house if it went from 70°F to 70.7°F? The answer is an
unequivocal "NO." So how does the icecaps freeze at 50.7°F below zero
but melt at 50°F below zero? Or California dried brush and trees burn
at 100.7°F but wouldn't at 100°F? I'm using the absurd to
illustrate the absurd? I know, I know, I not understand the nuances. Bull. This
Global Warming thing is a scam. Stay with me? Keep reading.

The alarmists say the ice caps and the glaciers are melting. They also blame
Global Warming for the wildfires in Southern California. Ceding them the
premise, and for the sake of this argument, lets say they are right. Now explain
to me, in detail, exactly how .7°F of the earths surface temperature
rise causes the aforementioned events.

Take the ice caps and glaciers melting for example: You're tell me that,
say, 50.7°F below zero temperatures can sustain the ice levels but
50°F below zero temperatures can not? I'm not falling for it. You see,
ice freezes at certain level and thaws at a certain level. Those are facts not
opinions. The artic temperature averages below freezing year-round, with an
average annual temperature of only 7°F. That means the
year-round average annual temperature would have to rise 25.1°F before
the ice even reaches it's melting point.

Next, lets take the wildfires in California. Say, for the sake of argument,
the year-round average annual temperature was 100°F before the earth
warmed .7°F, which would make the new year-round average annual
temperature for California 100.7°F. Taking all that into
account, what's the connection to the wildfires? Oh, more nuance. OK

I'm supposed to believe .7°F rise in temperature over the past 100
years is responsible for the ignition and sustanance of California's wildfires? I don't buy
it.

How many times have you heard even Global Warming skeptics say, "the earth is
getting hotter?" All the time. But what does that mean? Does it mean the earth
has heated up noticeably to the point that it's spontaneously igniting wildfires
and scorching the north and south poles? What if .7°F cooling took
place? How would anyone even notice?

Minor point, but the amount

Minor point, but the amount of global warming over the last century is 0.6-0.9 degrees Kelvin, not Fahrenheit, as you quote.  1 degreee C equals 1 degree K.  1 degree F equals 5/9 degree C.  So in F, the increase has been more like 1.1 - 1.6 degrees.

"Temperatures rose by 0.6 ºC over the last century with the 1990’s being the warmest decade and 9 out of the last 10 years being the warmest years since instrumental records began in 1861 (IPCC, 2001; UK Met Office, 2005)."

Man the

Man the lifeboats!! 

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

I stand corrected. But my

I stand corrected. But my point is still valid.

And as to your point:

"...the last century with the 1990’s being the warmest decade and 9 out
of the last 10 years being the warmest years since instrumental records
began in 1861 (IPCC, 2001; UK Met Office, 2005
)."

According to NASA's recently revised data, the warmest year on record is now 1934.
1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second
place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now
all occur before World War II.

coffee

I was thinking the same thing and it's another reason not to trust the biased politically motivated UN

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

Have you noticed the

Have you noticed the concensus, even amongst skeptics of global warming, that the earth is warming. I've always wondered what that meant. I get the feeling they agree the earth is warming just to save face. Don't you think?

i try to think

but darn those headaches!!  The earth has been following cycles of warming and cooling for millenia.  There is a documented rise in mean temperature averaged but, we still haven't reached the warming achieved during the medieval warming period as there are not yet vineyards in Manchester.  I think many people wish to give man a lot more credit than deserved (and by extension themselves)  I can not help but see an image of Shirley McClain repeating "I am God"  

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

Skeptic scientists agree

Skeptic scientists agree that it is getting warmer because the data say it is getting warmer.

The debate is over why.

Warmers claim man is the primary or even sole cause.

Skeptics believe natural forces are responsible for some large part of the observed change and/or man's contributions are well within the range of normal variation and therefore are not a problem. 

Try this logic out ...

The warmer a parcel of air is, the greater it's ability to hold water.  Cold air is dry air.  Warmer air is "wetter" air.  Therefore, global warming *prevents* forest fires!  I have a bachelors degree in meterology.  I wonder what the "expert" CBS found thinks about this!

Drew that is

usually true but during a Santa Ana condition like CA has experienced the last couple of days the air flow is over the desert heating and drying (and expanding thus the winds).  Monday it was 92 with a dew point of -2. 

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

yeah, I should have qualified that ...

"all other things being equal, i.e, pressure, etc, a parcel of warm air has the ability to hold more water than the same parcel of cooler air. 

However, my original argument makes at least as much sense as you'll find reported by the lamestream media!

hey Drew

what happens when the oceans (3/4 of the surface) warm a little?  Do we get more evaporation and thus clouds (reflection-cooling), and rain (cooling)?   Isn't the earth a self balancing system somewhat beyond our capacity to really mess with?

"The more I study science, the more I believe in God."     Einstein

Read the paper and find

Read the paper and find out.  The problem is that the slight rise in temperature leads to earlier snowmelt which decreases the moisture available in the late summer fire season.  Doesn't help you to have hot air if there is no water around for it to hold!

Have to say to be fair, I

Have to say to be fair, I don't consider wanting to put out a fire that threatens your life and porperty to be a "short-term" instance as the effects have have a devestation effect on one''s long term living. And many probably don't know the science of fires and how they can have postive effects on forests.

That said, this is a perfect argument that development can be good. More houses and buildings, less overgrown forests to burn and threaten everyone with a fiery inferno. Having more "pristine" forests and habitats and less industry isn't always good.

And if man is bad for cutting down trees, what does that make lightning and fire?

So. Cal Fires

Solrac7: I have lived in San Diego county all of my life and what is going on right now is normal. The chapparel is meant to burn on  average every 7 years. Some of this brush has not burnt in over 50 years thanks to the NIMBY's (not in my back yard) and liberal anarchist, tree hugging pukes. Wildlife will also prosper from the new vegetation, once the rain comes & in spite of PETA, because they have been chocked off from green browse because of overgrown brush. Additionaly, it will be easier to spot illegal aliens and drug smugglers who come up thru our canyons and actually start several of our fires with thier illegal campfires. It is also great to note that our area of the country still functions and we are NOT blaming the federal government or George Bush. We will also rebuild as a multi-ethnic, diverse region without the acrimony that the MSM would like you to believe. I listen to them and they don't know crap

So if these fires are caused

So if these fires are caused by AGW, how did the forests survive the Medieval Warm Period and survive the even higher temperatures of the 1930`s?

Jack B

what's agw stand for?

Al Gore's Wrong

**

LOL. Excellent.

It was inevitable

It was inevitable that the liberals would blame their favorite devils for this disaster:  global warming and President Bush.

I'll tell you what the problem was in 2003 and what's the problem now.  The Greenie Weenies will not allow dry brush to be cleared.  These residential areas need firebreaks or else this is going to keep happening over and over.

Residential areas do need

Residential areas do need firebreaks, however land use was specifically evaluated in the paper and found to have a small effect, while changes in seasonality do to the slight increase in temperature was found to have a large effect.

blah, blah, blah

So. Cal is a desert. It's dry. Sparks ignite easily and spread quickly.

When someone starts a fire, I don't give a rat's fat ass what the temperature is - there's going to be a big fire. The only thing that could possibly make a difference is more intelligent forest management practices - not that the greens will let the feds do that much.

This is nothing more than a transparent example of  squaring the global warming circle.

 

Pelley isn't the only one

Pelley isn't the only one blaming global warming. Check out Al Gore already throwing this into his routine.

 

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2352047720071023?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true"> 'Either they will ask about us -- What were they doing?
What were they thinking about and how could they let that
catastrophe happen? Didn't they listen to the scientists?
Didn't they see the glaciers and polar caps melting? Didn't
they see the fires?</a>

Sorry about the link. Does

Sorry about the link. Does anybody know what happened there?

RW..Link...I'll try it for you

How's this? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Thanks!

Thanks!

De Nada, RW

And Gore blathers on, apparently.

I have been Clinton & Gore - fatigued for years.

Someone, please....stop the madness! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

RW..if you haven't done it

RW..if you haven't done it before, you copy the URL for the link. Then you highlight a word or several in the post that you want to b the title of the link, like Blonde did with "How's this" and hit the "link" symbol below the box. Then in the little box that pops up, you "paste" the URL you copied, in the top box, and hit "insert."

The words you highlighted should then have a link line under them...the link won't actually "work" tho, until you post it.

Hope this helps

 

 

motherbelt, Thanks I just

motherbelt, Thanks

I just tested it in preview and that worked. It seems like there used to be a link button all the time and now it's only visable if you've highlighted some text. (Or maybe I'm losing my mind!)

 

 

Are experienced fire fighters AGW ideologues?

1. Boatner, the head of federal fire operations, clearly believes that climate change is playing a key part in the extended fire seasons and greater acreage burned. Do the facts support him, or is he simply helping reporters to "promote Global Warming ideology"?

2. While previous fire suppression is no doubt a part of the picture (as Boatner notes), there is another part that he and others involved in fighting fires acknowledge, which is that climate change is also playing an important role - that can be clearly seen in the data for increasing the numbers and intensity of wildfires, higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier snowmelt that are extending the wildfire season, and in new fires in higher elevations where there were no suppression efforts before.

The International Association of Wildland Fire, a non-profit, professional association representing members of the global wildland fire community, recently issued a position paper stating that they:

consider[] the potential impacts of climate change on wildland fire to be a significant scientific and management focus for the 21st century. We anticipate that many key issues of importance to the IAWF – including firefighter and civilian safety, fire management expenses, the wildland urban interface, and our core understanding of fire science and management -- will require greater understanding and recognition of the role of climate change in the years ahead.

http://www.iawfonlin...

Federal fire data is here: http://www.nifc.gov/...
http://www.nifc.gov/...

And here is a good summary of recent scientific analysis:

Since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr (Schoennagel et al., 2004). The forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). ... A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a spring-summer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; McKenzie et al., 2004), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices. Insects and diseases are a natural part of ecosystems. In forests, periodic insect epidemics kill trees over large regions, providing dead, desiccated fuels for large wildfires. These epidemics are related to aspects of insect life cycles that are climate sensitive (Williams and Liebhold, 2002).

http://www.gtp89.dia...

Science magazine published two reports last year (one involving Swetnam):
Westerling, A.L., H.G.Hidalgo, D.R.Cayan and T.W. Swetnam "Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity"
Science, 313, 940-943.
http://www.treesearc...

Steven W. Running
"Is Global Warming Causing More, Larger Wildfires?"
Science, 18 August 2006
http://secure.ntsg.u...

The first article is covered here:
http://www.boston.co...

3. The federal government expects that the problem will worsen as the climate continues to warm:

Although the West would be wetter, Western summers would be hotter than now. With more fuels available, in occasional dry years fires would burn both more area and more biomass than in even recent severe fire seasons.

http://www.fs.fed.us...

4. Climate change presents us both with issues of science and policy. Shall we dismiss or ignore the trends of climate change that relate to wildfires - IOW, ignore the need to ADAPT to climate change - simply because we disagree
with the policies that Gore and others suggest in order to slow down climate change?

Is flying blind, as it were, our best policy option?

5. Kyle, I'm not sure I understand your last question - "how Pelley thinks people of Southern California would respond to being told they brought the wildfires on themselves?" Is anyone telling Californians that they are solely responsible for climate change? However, it seems clear that they accept that they are making a contribution to it, given the popular support for the policies of the AGW ideologue, Republican Gov. Arnold, who is trying to position California to lead the charge on development of cleaner technology.

Sincerely,

Blind but still seeing

"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush

Boatner, the head of

Boatner, the head of federal fire operations

In other words this person is partially responsible for the land management practices that lead to the intense fires.  How convenient to blame AGW...  Doing what liberals do best, blame others for the results of their decisions. 

The Santa Ana winds are a natural occurance, once a fire starts it intensifies due to what is called a positive feedback loop and is only limited by the amount of fuel available to burn.  It matters not one whit how much higher the temperature in the desert becomes.  The California area is a semi-arid area and thus prone to fire.  Poor, i.e. ignorant land management practices based on PC considerations allowed a build up of kindling or dead plant material to an un-natural level.  Nature stepped in and took care of it.  Cite all the studies you wish as they are only a distraction from the central causal issue.

I find it amazing how ignorance breeds arrogance.  The assumption that you can control nature is the height of hubris.  You should never confuse control with influence, we can influence events by our actions, but in no way do we have the power to control them.  Land management is a good example of this.  You can not stop fires from occuring you can only influence the intensity.  By putting out a fire in the wild or undeveloped area you only delay the inevitable with far worse consequences.  Nature is the manager of the land, not man, which is completely different than in a developed area such as a city or suburban area.  If Nature could talk, the message would be BUTT OUT! MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Fire (Relationship to Global

Fire (Relationship to Global Warming): “Have global wildfires been increasing in response to global warming, as climate alarmists vociferously claim they have?” http://www.co2scienc...

I agree that the bureaucrats look for self-serving excuses

and that bureaucratic mismanagement is a huge problem.

There is alot of good stuff on the wildfires and bureaucratic mismanagement at Cato and the Thoreau Institute:

http://www.cato.org/... fire http://ti.org/fire.h...
http://ti.org/fire.h...
http://www.ti.org/an...

However, the fact that bureaucrats can be expected to say what best covers their *sses and increases their budgets doesn`t mean their isn`t a germ of truth buriesd in there somewhere.

1. In fact the famous “CO2 Science” skeptics, the Idsos, have recognized that climate change is an important factor, in this summary of wildfire research in the western US:

A contrary example, where warming does appear to enhance fire occurrence, is provided by Pierce et al. (2004), who dated fire-related sediment deposits in alluvial fans in central Idaho, USA, in a research program designed to reconstruct Holocene fire history in xeric ponderosa pine forests and to look for links to past climate change. ... Pierce et al.'s work revealed, in their words, that "intervals of stand-replacing fires and large debris-flow events are largely coincident in SFP ponderosa pine forests and Yellowstone, most notably during the 'Medieval Climatic Anomaly' (MCA), ~1,050-650 cal. yr BP." What is more, they note that "in the western USA, the MCA included widespread, severe miltidecadal droughts (Stine, 1998; Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998), with increased fire activity across diverse northwestern conifer forests (Meyer et al., 1995; Rollins et al., 2002)."

Following the Medieval Warm Period and its frequent large-event fires was the Little Ice Age, when, as Pierce et al. describe it, "colder conditions maintained high canopy moisture, inhibiting stand-replacing fires in both Yellowstone lodgepole pine forests and SFP ponderosa pine forests (Meyer et al., 1995; Rollins et al., 2002; Whitlock et al., 2003)." Subsequently, however, they report that "over the twentieth century, fire size and severity have increased in most ponderosa pine forests," which they suggest may be largely due to "the rapidity and magnitude of twentieth-century global climate change."

With respect to their central thesis, which appears to be well supported by both the SFP and Yellowstone data, we agree with Pierce et al. that both the size and severity of large-event stand-replacing fires tend to increase with increasing temperature in the part of the world and for the specific forests they studied ….

Also working in the United States, and coming to much the same general conclusion, were Westerling et al. (2006), who compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in western United States forests since 1970 and compared it to hydro-climatic and land-surface data. Their findings are succinctly summarized by Running (2006) in an accompanying Perspective, wherein he writes that "since 1986, longer warmer summers have resulted in a fourfold increase of major wildfires and a sixfold increase in the area of forest burned, compared to the period from 1970 to 1986," noting also that "the length of the active wildfire season in the western United States has increased by 78 days, and that the average burn duration of large fires has increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days." In addition, he notes that "four critical factors - earlier snowmelt [by one to four weeks], higher summer temperatures [by about 0.9ーC], longer fire season, and expanded vulnerable area of high-elevation forests - are combining to produce the observed increase in wildfire activity."

http://www.co2scienc...

2. Of course bureaucrats have screwed things up and compounded the problem by many years of fire suppression. Now that it is exploding in their faces, they are not only pointing fingers elsewhere, but essentially winning the battle to get billions each year to fight fires - many of which should be left to burn while the private sector takes responsibility for mitigating their own risks by landscaping, building flame-resistant houses and using fire retardants.

A good description of the sickness of bureaucratic mismanagement is here, by an economist who has written at Cato:

The Forest Service told Congress that the recent high costs of fire suppression were due to the heavy fuels built up over decades of past fire suppression. Rather than being embarrassed by its mistaken fire suppression policies of the past, the Forest Service turned the fuel build-up into a revenue generator as it insisted that Congress provide it with hundreds of millions of dollars of supplemental appropriations to treat or reduce the fuels.

Yet the truth is that the fuel build-up is not the only reason, or even the main reason, for the high cost of fire suppression in the 1990s. A more important reason is the weather, specifically hot droughty summers over much of the U.S., at least some of which have resulted from El Nino or La Nina events. An even more important reason is the budgetary process, which allows and even encourag