[gosub100]

And if you found research contradicting that narrative, it would risk your career and/or would not be published. There is only one way to think, not open discourse.

For instance, wildfires. It's definitely climate change because something bad happened. Not classical phenomena about wind currents drying out vegetation. Or increased human development into wild areas, or a century of PUTTING OUT smaller fires, or environmental regulations against harvesting lumber. No, the only way to think is the way that leads to more regulations, taxes and grants and government waste, criminal charges for the unlucky SOB who starts the fire, higher prices (in energy, cars, buildings, and insurance), and more human suffering that they can sell you their next solution for. For this reason, I don't believe a single thing they say anymore.

[dagmx]

The irony that you are claiming everybody else will not listen to conflicting evidence while not providing any of your own and saying that you won’t believe anything unless it passes your own world view.

[gosub100]

The irony is that if the CA forest were logged and the timber used to build homes, the price of housing would be lower, there would be fewer homeless people, more people with jobs, and few or no devastating fires (less CO2, you know, the big bad "greenhouse gas") . But admitting that would be heretical to the pseudo-religion that is leftism. The party profits when suffering increases.

[dagmx]

I legitimately cannot tell if this is a parody comment or not.

It shows a shocking lack of familiarity with the effects of deforestation, carbon capture, logging rules for sustainability, land ownership for building the houses or even what the bottlenecks for housing currently are.

All to blame the intellectually bereft bogeyman of “leftism” when forests exist in many right wing states, and the right wing currently runs the government and yet even they don’t do what you’re suggesting…

[gosub100]

You didn't address a single thing I said.

[hydrogen7800]

>It's definitely climate change because something bad happened. Not classical phenomena about wind currents drying out vegetation.

>[T]he extent to which this trend is due to weather pattern changes dominated by natural variability versus anthropogenic warming has been unclear... Our results show that for the period 1979 to 2020, variation in the atmospheric circulation explains, on average, only 32% of the observed VPD [vapor pressure deficit] trend of 0.48 ± 0.25 hPa/decade (95% CI) over the WUS during the warm season (May to September). The remaining 68% of the upward VPD trend is likely due to anthropogenic warming.[0]

[0]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2111875118#executive-s...