In a recent CNN interview, Dr. Michael E. Mann attributed the devastating Pacific Palisades Fire primarily to climate change, stating, “15 of the worst 20 wildfires have occurred in the last 15 years.” [emphasis, links added]
A dramatic statement from Dr. Michael Mann… but is it the whole truth?
As California battles yet another inferno, it’s clear that the real accelerants are not atmospheric CO2 but decades of poor planning and policy missteps.
Exhibit A for why people no longer trust “experts.” Mann, who rakes in a massive taxpayer-funded salary at Penn State despite spending much of his day smearing his political opponents on social media, gets invited on CNN to lecture people on climate when he clearly has no grasp… https://t.co/pSEtgqCmiJ
— Mike Bastasch (@MikeBastasch) January 9, 2025
Before diving into the historical perspective, it’s important to acknowledge and summarize the excellent work done by others in analyzing the factors behind the Palisades Fire.
I won’t attempt to rewrite their analyses but instead encourage you to read them directly while offering summaries below.
My focus here will be on expanding the historical context and addressing California’s broader policy failures in dealing with wildfire risks.
Summaries of Key Articles on the Palisades Fire
- Patrick T. Brown’s Analysis: This analysis focuses on meteorological factors, particularly the role of Santa Ana winds, which drive fire behavior. It also discusses fuel conditions and human ignitions, noting that climate change plays a marginal role compared to actionable solutions like fuel management and ignition prevention.
- Chris Martz’s Breakdown: A deep dive into ignition sources, this article highlights that all Santa Ana wind-driven fires in Southern California (1948–2018) were human-caused. It also emphasizes that air temperature and precipitation deficits play a minor role compared to human activity and poor land management.
- Anthony Watts’ Perspective: This piece critiques the media’s tendency to attribute wildfires to climate change while ignoring historical wildfire data, poor land management, and urban sprawl into fire-prone areas. It advocates for practical solutions over alarmist narratives.
For detailed analyses, I encourage you to read these articles directly. Below, I focus on expanding the historical perspective and evaluating California’s response to wildfire risks.
Historical Wildfire Context
Wildfires have long been a natural part of California’s landscape, predating industrialization and the current climate change narrative. Historical records reveal that significant wildfires in the region are nothing new.
For instance, the 1956 Newton Fire in Malibu consumed 26,000 acres, destroyed over 100 homes, and caused one fatality (source).
Similarly, the Santa Monica Mountain Fire in 1938 burned parts of Pacific Palisades (source).
These events occurred decades before climate change became a prominent discussion point, highlighting that fire risks in Southern California are intrinsic to the region’s ecosystem.
Fires in Preindustrial Contexts
Fire has always been integral to California’s ecosystem. California’s Indigenous peoples used fire as a tool to shape ecosystems for thousands of years, maintaining healthy landscapes and preventing catastrophic burns. Modern fire suppression policies have disrupted these cycles, leading to dangerous fuel accumulation.
A study in Forest Ecology and Management (source) examines fire behavior during preindustrial times and finds that large-scale fires were common, even at lower atmospheric CO2 levels.
These fires were part of natural cycles influenced by lightning and Indigenous land management practices.
Approximately 1.8 million ha burned annually in California prehistorically (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is 88% of the total annual wildfire area in the entire US during a decade (1994–2004) characterized as “extreme” regarding wildfires. The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.
In contrast, modern policies of fire suppression have disrupted these cycles, allowing dangerous fuel accumulation.
Historical fire records from Malibu and Pacific Palisade, such as the 1938 and 1956 events, demonstrate that catastrophic fires are not unique to the modern era.
Urbanization in Fire-Prone Areas
The impact of wildfires has grown significantly due to increasing urbanization in fire-prone chaparral environments. The two images below illustrate the dramatic transformation of Pacific Palisades over the decades:
- Historical Image (1929): This photograph shows Pacific Palisades as a sparsely populated region dominated by natural chaparral vegetation. The absence of dense urban development allowed wildfires to burn more freely without endangering significant human structures.
- Modern Image (2024): The satellite imagery highlights extensive urbanization, with homes, roads, and infrastructure now covering much of the area. This development not only increases the risk to life and property but also complicates firefighting efforts by creating more ignition points and reducing access to open spaces for controlled burns.
The expansion of the wildland-urban interface demonstrates that urban planning has not adequately accounted for fire risks. Did we learn from past fires? Judging by the rising population density in these fire-prone areas, the answer appears to be no.
The Role of Santa Ana Winds
Santa Ana winds are a critical driver of wildfires in Southern California. These powerful, dry winds, which can reach hurricane-force speeds, are a well-documented weather phenomenon resulting from high-pressure systems over the Great Basin.
While some have speculated that climate change could influence these winds, studies show mixed results.
For instance, Guzman-Morales & Gershunov (2019) found that a weakening of the southwest pressure gradient driving these winds could decrease their frequency (study).
Regardless, the Santa Ana winds are as natural to Southern California as the Pacific Ocean.
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.
Read rest at Irrational Fear
As an Australian reading this, there are many similarities to what goes on here. There is never enough burning off in winter. Forest areas near housing estates can’t be burnt for numerous (invented) reasons leaving undergrowth to accumulate.
We do not acknowledge that the Australian Gum Tree is really dangerous related to fire. They simply explode beause of eucalyptus oils secretion, causing fires to spread rapidly and along the tops of trees. Gum trees are common in and around highly urbanised areas; many are planted by local governments.
Our fire authorities know where fires are more likely to start, yet they have endless applications and procedures to follow BEFORE anything can be do to remove the risk. It’s as if the system is designed to prevent work being carried out to prevent fires from buring homes and infrastructure.
Separate to this, there is a love of trees in many people who want big gum trees near their homes. Overcoming this is near on impossible because they have supporters in local green movements. The end result, all properties in many areas are put at risk because of the green agenda.
There are laws that “prevent” people from removing trees on their property and this discourages many from taking action to protect their homes. They must apply to local councils for permission to remove a tree on their privately owned land.
The majority of country roads in forest areas are not cleared of trees and undergrowth near the roadsides, which results in traffic being stopped during times of fire risk. This also prevents fire trucks and teams from entering areas to fight fires.
The root cause of Palisades Fire is that the developers own county governments. As such the local governments permit the builders to do anything they want. This includes building in high fire risk areas that should never be development. Oil companies have been sued because of the harmless carbon dioxide that their customers release in using the product. The county and owners of the development companies should be sued for the impact of building in high risk areas. We need suits where real harm has been done.
Mann and CNN – a great pairing…..
They need better Forest Management by the people who know about the area instead of depending upon the Sierra Club Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, EDF and NRDC
The most important point, missed here, is that at least 90% of these fires are manmade. Usually accidents but sometimes arson.
The fact that winters are slightly warmer from CO2 / climate change in the past 50 years could not possibly cause humans to accidentally start more forest fires. There is no logical connection.
Winds do not start fires
Dry fuel does not start fires
Poor forest management does not start fires
People start fires
Plus a few caused by lightening.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
It’s that simple.
“… a few caused by lightning.”
Was in USFS Diamond Lake campground, Oregon, in the ’90’s. Watched a thunder storm come up the Rogue River valley. It passed over the western portion of Crater Lake National Park. In its wake, eleven ‘smokes’ over about two square miles. Helicopters with buckets called in, no ground level access.