New study quantifies link between climate crisis, wildfires

The UCS is pushing for government investigations into past and ongoing disinformation campaigns by industry aimed at denying climate science that was predicted by the companies’ own internal modeling.

Exactly. So, now we all pay for their past profits, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Very useful study, it is not something unexpected but there is a huge difference between saying "fossil fuels have some contribution to fires" and being able to tell "fossil fuel emissions are responsible for the 37% of the areas affected by forest fires". It holds a very different weight.

This can help convincing people of the need for stronger measures and more personal responsibility, except of course for those that take pride of having an antiscientific bias and will baselessly claim the study is wrong just because they don't want to accept the conclusions, some will even claim this is nothing but "fear mongering".

"so we wanted to better understand the role that fossil fuel industry emissions have had in altering the wildfire landscape,"

Bit of a bias inbuilt from the start then.

Very useful study,

Its a study. Just because it is a "Scientific method" doesnt particularly lend weight to it or improve its accuracy. Such models depend on the assumptions and data put in- garbage in garbage out.

Remember another useful "study" by those fellas at UCL on the Corona deaths in 2020 being 2.2million in the USA alone (and some other ridiculous numbers)?

ie - not agreeing with a particular study, doesnt make one "anti-scientific". The implication that it does, is actually the embodiment of "unscientific".

Bit of a bias inbuilt from the start then.

What bias? this is a well described and characterized factor for climate change, there is no doubt this is one of the causes, the study was not intented to (again) prove this, but to quantify to what degree this influence affected the fires

Its a study. Just because it is a "Scientific method" doesnt particularly lend weight to it or improve its accuracy

Yes it does, that is the whole point of doing things scientifically and publishing them so anybody can examine the data and methods.

Such models depend on the assumptions and data put in- garbage in garbage out.

What scientific criticism do you have about the data and assumptions? unless you have an argument to make against them you have no argument to assume they must be invalid.

Remember another useful "study" by those fellas at UCL on the Corona deaths in 2020 being 2.2million in the USA alone (and some other ridiculous numbers)?

Why would anybody remember something that do not exist? there is no study that said 2.2 million people died of covid in the US in 2020, a study said this was the worst case scenario assuming no action was taken and several theoretical possibilities became reality, that is hugely different, if your only argument is to mischaracterize completely unrelated research that means you are recognizing you have no actual argument against what is being reported here.

Trying to pass on responsibility and guilt to the consumer so they separate their trash has been the marketing message by the Big88.

Industry has been responsible, not grandma.

In a first, U.S. climate scientists have quantified the extent to which greenhouse gasses from the world's top fossil fuel companies have contributed to wildfires.

If the "climate scientists" want to reach such a conclusion then they will!

If the "climate scientists" want to reach such a conclusion then they will!

What conclusion you are talking about? your quote clearly says "quantify", obviously that means they want to know to what degree the greenhouse gasses contribute to the problem, the fact that they do is already stablished beyond any reasonable doubt.

The study also found that emissions from the same companies were responsible for nearly half of the observed increase in VPD since 1901.

Quite a reach they are trying to pull off here.

Quite a reach they are trying to pull off here.

Still not a reach, the data and the methods are there to prove the conclusions are correct.

Can you make an argument against them? if not obviously the claim you make is not relevant.