For instance, they state dismissively: "While forest management practices, specifically fire suppression, have increased the fuel load, scientific evidence... [it don't matter cause climate change]"
The question that's not answered is whether or not we would have these fires had the forest management been done aggressively as it has in the past.
This guy (http://www.excelhero.com/blog/2010/04/california-climate.htm...) analyzed NASA weather station data for the last 120 years in California only (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/). The average temperature has increased by 1 degree over that time. He then filtered only to stations that have been in service for 100 years to produce stability in the dataset. That reduced the temperature increase to half a degree.
He then further filtered the set to rural weather stations only to remove the Urban Heat Island Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island). That reduced the number of stations from 114 to 26, but the temperature change actually showed slight cooling.
So given that forests in CA are largely in the rural regions where temperature hasn't changed much, wouldn't it stand to reason that the other change (reduced forest management) is largely responsible?
The guy then drastically restricts the dataset to only include rural weather stations, to less than a quarter of the original set of 100-year+ stations. At the least, there has to be some accounting of geograpical distribution in the analysis. The bigger question, though, is why would he remove the urban heat islands? Does their effect on the climate stop at the city limits, with a partition rising straight up into space? The whole concern about climate change is whether human activity (which certainly includes urban heat islands) will eventually lead to irreversible climate change that will have catastrophic effects.
(If folks feel "catastrophic" is alarmist, I suggest they Google "nine planetary boundaries", of which climate change is but one of the interdependent boundaries, for some truly alarming reading.)
Anyway, someone more knowledgeable than me can perhaps provide a better perspective on whether any climate-/weather-related elements have more of a role than temperature in affecting the initiation and spreading of forest fires. I'm particularly thinking of low humidity and drought caused by climate-change-induced storms, winds, etc. Are forest fires less likely to occur in cooler regions experiencing low humidity and drought?
Aah, starik36 and Excel Hero have gotten me interested in researching further; thank you, sincerely!
To be fair, this was more of an exercise in showcasing what Excel could do than anything else. Climate change data was just used for effect.