Yesterday I showed how the National Climate Assessment is committing blatant fraud about heat waves by hiding the data that shows their claims are inverted from reality.
Extreme Fraud In The National Climate Assessment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
In this post, I show how they are doing exactly the same thing with wildfires. They show that U.S. burn acreage rapidly increasing.
The graph was taken from page 38 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment document released in November 2018.
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States
But why did they start their graph in 1983? The US has very detailed burn acreage data going back for more than a century and it was much higher prior to 1970.
Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents
I overlaid the National Climate Assessment Graph on the Forest Service graph, and it becomes clear exactly what they are doing.
Like in the heat-wave graph, they picked the lowest point for their start date, so that they could show an upwards trend – and deceive the public.
They hid essentially all of the essential data, which shows that burn acreage is down 80% in the US over the past 90 years.
Burn acreage was very carefully tracked and reported during the 1930s. People split the atom and built the Golden Gate Bridge during the 1930s.
It is not surprising that they also knew how to do the basic mathematics which climate scientists seem to be incapable of.
The same story in California. Last year had very high burn acreage, but the trend since the 1930s is generally down.
In 1936, forest fires were seen as the greatest threat to prosperity.
05 Dec 1936, Page 7 – Santa Cruz Evening News at Newspapers.com
And as always, the fraudulent work of the National Climate Assessment is backed by many other fraudsters, like the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Is Global Warming Fueling Increased Wildfire Risks? | Union of Concerned Scientists
Read more at Real Climate Science
Related
Trackback from your site.
Recent Comments