Science not there: global warming not fueling Alberta’s wildfire

Fort McMurray wildfire, DarrenRD, WikimediaFort McMurray wildfire, DarrenRD, WikimediaNo “credible scientist” or media outlet should try to link the wildfires in Alberta to global warming, says a growing chorus of voices this week challenging alarmist rhetoric. One individual who said climate change was behind the Fort McMurray wildfires was Marko Princevac, a University of California/Riverside fire expert, who said: “Based on what we know and in which direction the climate is going, yes, we can expect more frequent super fires.” But Canada’s Green Party leader Elizabeth May, and a few climate scientists, are pushing back.

Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta, said: “The warmer it is, the more fires we get.” He clarified his statements by saying that “it’s impossible for scientists to say global warming caused this specific fire.” But the horse was out of the barn and the media, ever eager to spread a good story to further the Obama administration’s agenda, promptly complied.

Flannigan made these dire prediction in a 2012 report seized by the media this week. In the report, Flannigan says this may become the norm if global warming continues unabated. More recently, Flannigan warned of a possible future where we might see the frequency of wildfires increase because of global warming, but the larger problem is that “science cannot make that claim yet.”

Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck told the AP: “The Alberta wildfires are an excellent example of what we’re seeing more and more of: warming means snow melts earlier, soils and vegetation dries out earlier, and the fire season starts earlier. It’s a train wreck.”

Canada’s Green Party leader Elizabeth May has become so concerned by all the misleading attributions to global warming that she released a statement. May criticized these scientists, calling them them irresponsible for simply blaming wildfires on climate change. She said that the government should be focused more on the damage the wildfires have caused.

In her statement, May wrote: “Some reports have suggested that the wildfires are directly caused by climate change. No credible climate scientist would make this claim, and neither do I make this claim.”

She also urged a greater focus on the impact of increased severe weather and what “we can do collectively to respond to these events.” May told the left-leaning Huffington Post/Canada that she “recognizes that legitimate forest fire experts know better than to make such claims.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well said Elizabeth May . Opportunists using a tragedy for political purposes to pump
    climate change propaganda are plain and simple liars .
    MSM is becoming less and less credible
    because they have chosen to be activists pushing their editors beliefs and being to lazy to question .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    So not only are scientific skeptics now labeled as “[b]deniers[/b]”, intentionally compared to the bigots who deny the Nazi holocaust, now we’re also considered to be [b]serial arsonists[/b].

    Lovely.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GESchroeder

    |

    By far the biggest problem is not the climate, but a total lack of pre-emptive steps before a fire starts. All over the North are towns with buildings right up against the forest with no fire break. Wood mulch is commonly used for landscaping around homes. The mulch starts on fire when embers land on them. Preventive steps (such as fire breaks and no mulch for example) could greatly reduce fire losses at a massively lower cost than trying to reduce fires by changing the climate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Added Co2 makes trees grow faster and bigger so that would add more kindling to the fire in Fort McMurray . Does extreme green have a problem with healthier forests ? Another benefit of added Co2 .

    We can expect more such fires because we can put small ones out so efficiently . In the day they used to burn till mother nature stopped them . No longer .

    It is mother natures way of renewal and we stop it … for a while .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Amber”]Well said Elizabeth May . Opportunists using a tragedy for political purposes to pump
    climate change propaganda are plain and simple liars .
    MSM is becoming less and less credible
    because they have chosen to be activists pushing their editors beliefs and being to lazy to question .[/quote]

    http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/05/04/news/fort-mcmurray-fires-related-global-climate-crisis-says-elizabeth-may

    Elizabeth May only changed her tune after the PM critized her earlier statements. And it was strange for Trudeau to take that kind of stance when he too is on the side of the AGW alarmist.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”GESchroeder”]By far the biggest problem is not the climate, but a total lack of pre-emptive steps before a fire starts. All over the North are towns with buildings right up against the forest with no fire break. Wood mulch is commonly used for landscaping around homes. The mulch starts on fire when embers land on them. Preventive steps (such as fire breaks and no mulch for example) could greatly reduce fire losses at a massively lower cost than trying to reduce fires by changing the climate.[/quote]

    This is true but perhaps a greater problem is lack of pre-emptive steps in the forests themselves. There use to be a lot measures to reduce the fuel in a forest available to fires. This effort has been reduced or even eliminated in places, often due to objections by environmentalists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    It’s very simple . What drives climate change ?
    Humans or Mother Nature ?
    If you believe Humans do then we know who the real deniers are .
    Global warming is overall more beneficial than cooling and we all agree climate changes regardless of humans over inflated ego about trying to control it to some arbitrary number .
    Let’s see one scientific body stand up and say a cooling earth is better than a warming one .
    If humans miniscule effect is somehow
    aiding that climate change direction along then congratulations drinks all around !

    Of course we need to work hard at minimizing energy use but we also need to accept that affordable widely available energy is one of the best ways to protect the environment .

    Scary global warming

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Addendum : Scary global warming ? Really ? We have lots of environmental challenges but scary global warming is nothing but a sideshow distraction and waste of valuable scarce resources .
    Scientists are starting to recover the high ground instead of being used to sell misleading political and business propaganda .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”][quote name=”GESchroeder”]By far the biggest problem is not the climate, but a total lack of pre-emptive steps before a fire starts. All over the North are towns with buildings right up against the forest with no fire break. Wood mulch is commonly used for landscaping around homes. The mulch starts on fire when embers land on them. Preventive steps (such as fire breaks and no mulch for example) could greatly reduce fire losses at a massively lower cost than trying to reduce fires by changing the climate.[/quote]

    This is true but perhaps a greater problem is lack of pre-emptive steps in the forests themselves. There use to be a lot measures to reduce the fuel in a forest available to fires. This effort has been reduced or even eliminated in places, often due to objections by environmentalists.[/quote]
    True. Before human influence fires were frequent, but self limiting. Because they happened so often and were so widespread the overall fuel available was limited by nature. Enter the environmentalists who seek unnaturally rare old growth forests above all else, and who shun human forest management and necessary harvest, and you have the formula for disaster.

    Remember Yellowstone?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GESchroeder

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”][quote name=”GESchroeder”]By far the biggest problem is not the climate, but a total lack of pre-emptive steps before a fire starts. All over the North are towns with buildings right up against the forest with no fire break. Wood mulch is commonly used for landscaping around homes. The mulch starts on fire when embers land on them. Preventive steps (such as fire breaks and no mulch for example) could greatly reduce fire losses at a massively lower cost than trying to reduce fires by changing the climate.[/quote]

    This is true but perhaps a greater problem is lack of pre-emptive steps in the forests themselves. There use to be a lot measures to reduce the fuel in a forest available to fires. This effort has been reduced or even eliminated in places, often due to objections by environmentalists.[/quote]

    I believe in the near future, insurance companies will demand pre-emptive steps such as fire breaks and reducing fuel near towns, and the environmentalists won’t have a say.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.