The Heartland Institute is a group of climate change skeptics comprised of scientists and others, many like me simply impressed with their work and willing to contribute. (I tongue-in-cheek give them $33 a month). In 2022 they put out a booklet called Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students that offers up a brief summary of thirty hot topics, so to speak. Each item is referenced so that debate among the public and climate “scientists” can go on intelligently.
The above graph is a 93-year record of forest fires in the lower 48. I recognize that it is somewhat blurry, as I had to scan it out of the book. It is no longer available on public agency websites. The X-axis is years, 1920-2020, and the Y-axis the number of acres burned in the lower 48, 10 million to 60 million. As we can see, the most acreage burned by forest fires was the 1930s and 40s, with 1931 seeing 52 million acres burned. I hesitate to say we “lost” acreage, as it has almost all grown back, and also know that wildfires are a natural component of forest health.
However, it is easy to see what the temperature record (the real one) also says, that the 1930s and 40s were among the hottest decades on record. Climate alarmists do not like it when hard data contradicts their supposed facts, among them their claim that we are now living in the hottest times in our country’s history. Consequently, they have gone back in the official records (NOAA) and lowered past temperatures.
Now read the footnote attached to the graph by Heartland:
“In March 2021, NIFC removed wildfire data from years prior to 1983. The stated justification for the decision was that the data are allegedly “unreliable”, an assertion that should be viewed with great skepticism considering that this supposedly unreliable data had been used in peer-reviewed scientific publications for many years. ”
By disappearing all data prior to 1983, which happens to be the lowest point in the dataset for the number of fires, NIFC data now suggests wildfires are getting much worse and that the number of fires is aligned with global temperature. Without a distorted dataset, these dire claims about wildfires would be impossible to make with any degree of credibility.”
That is the power and reach of the alarmist community on display, to be able to rewrite that past to make their distorted view of the present look more real. The power and money behind their fake science is simply staggering. (Thankfully, the data was recovered from the Wayback Machine. I assume warmists will soon be attempting to get rid of Wayback too.)
I participate on occasion on a local forum called “NextDoor“, where neighbors have a chance to chat and spread gossip. I put this graph up on that site, with the following description:
“Hard to read but the numbers on this graph are 1920 (left)-2020 (right). The red line represents millions of acres burned in forest fires. We can see that 1930 was the peak, 52 million acres, which makes sense, as the 1930s are the hottest decade on record since records were kept. Source: National Interagency Fire Center, which in March of 2021 removed all data for years prior to 1983. Thankfully that data is preserved outside that agency.”
I didn’t think much of it, thinking NextDoor a small site with just a few local readers. I was surprised to get an email advising me that the post had garnered 1,800 views. There was also a string of comments, one of which was as follows:
Bill D: “Except that figure has been identified as presenting data from intentionally set fires by the USFS in the early days of forestry management. So the graph is misleading and in fact the levels of acres burned per year from wildfires from other causes has remained relatively the same.” https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/the-mysterious-wildfire-chart/
I followed the link to an article titled The Mysterious Wildfire Chart on a blog called and Then There’s Physics. In it, Dr. Deanna Conners tracked down the original data to its source, the US Forest Service. She discovered that prior to 1960, actual wildfires had been combined with intentionally set fires, and that after that date, we are looking at naturally occurring fires, so that the NIFC data was correct, and in fact we are looking at a dramatic increase in wildfires.
To which I respond Hokum! Here’s what I wrote:
Sounds a bit trolly, I have to say, to suggest that 50+ million acres of forests were intentionally burned. Does not pass smell test, especially given that prior to warmists going back and adjusting past data to cool it down, the 1930s and 40s were the hottest on record. Still the case. The point of Conners’ research was to establish that forest fires are getting worse in the current era, which they are not. 1988, when 2 million acres burned in Yellowstone alone (I was there for that) barely altered the flat trajectory of the line, and of course the whole point of truncation, which warmists frequently do, is to distort.
Stop and think: In 1931, the US Forest Service deliberately burned what, say 42 million acres of forest? That’s what Conners is telling us, with a straight face I might add. That amount of deliberately set fires would constitute criminal activity of a high order. Especially given that the year when 52 million acres burned was one of the hottest on record!
Oh, wait. That fact has also been consigned to the waste bin. My only question is why NIFC chose the year 1983 to alter the past.
Why not 1984?
Piece of Mindful 
It seems like the US Forest Service in compiling the original data would have considered it noteworthy to distinguish between intentional controlled burns, and natural or accidental forest fires. The revisers would have to address that to convince me. Perhaps there were some other agendas going on back in the day, that would cause them to obfuscate, though that seems unlikely. Whereas today’s players seem highly motivated to obfuscate and hide inconvenient data.
LikeLike
Here’s a rather bizarre article that recently ran on NC. This woman, as best I can make out – her writing kind of muddles around – apparently went into climate science with the goal of being an activist, rather than to do basic research.. And then, instead of realizing she was the idiot for not going into public relations or something, she says their priorities – ie, doing research – are all misguided.
I mean, as much as one can suspect the “idealistic” motives of many climate scientists, at least they do put in a lot of work down in the weeds of basic research, scrutinizing obscure matters and crunching numbers. So ironically, this lady’s attack on her field, almost makes me think more favorably of it…
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/08/the-rat-race-for-research-funding-delays-scientific-progress.html
LikeLike
My next post will be about climate scientists crunching numbers, and the IPCC engaging in science fraud by a simple thing like inserting a minus sign (-) in front of data downloaded from a NASA satellite, thereby turning conclusions topsy-turvy from reality. Stay tuned.
LikeLike
“So ironically, this lady’s attack on her field, almost makes me think more favorably of it…”
Call me paranoid, but I suspect her “bizzare” approach is probably deliberate to make the climate “scientists” look more favorable. Otherwise, if she was capable, she would’ve written a much better article. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
Who can really say, but it doesn’t appear that well written or calculating to me. I think she’s probably a true believer, a dupe, and she’s genuinely brain addled so that she thinks “science” ought to be just spreading the science gospel or something, and cut back on all that tedious and bothersome research.
What surprised me too was that none of the NC commenters tore into her sappy thesis – they usually have one or two – or a dozen – who will spot absurdity, bad logic, etc and rip it apart.
LikeLike
To each their own, I guess. But I wouldn’t put it past them to have deliberately written such junk (i.e., “blackwashing”) for that purpose. They’re certainly not above doing something like that, for one thing.
The absence of scathing commentary where there usually would be is even more suspicious. If there are always critics in their comments sections – even in sparse amounts – why would this be different? It’s not one of the best-written articles in the world and the comments section is not closed, so it doesn’t add up.
Most likely, they’re censoring or deleting criticism to that piece so as to create this false impression that everyone agrees with its commentary. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me at the moment.
LikeLike
HPM-Anything’s possible, but there are factors that cast doubt on your, imo, hasty assumptions.
NC is a heavily pro AGW site (albeit, they’re critical of green tech and prefer extreme reduction of energy consumption.) Two, they “often” have some critical comments on silly pieces, not always. And this piece didn’t get a huge response. So it’s plausible this is just the organic comments it got.
They do heavily moderate comments that argue with their views, though often in open debate.
Also they have their own fringe, unorthodox views, so they aren’t a good representative of “the mainstream,” or mainstream propaganda and manipulation. They’re some breed of alt media, though probably some form of controlled opposition. I would be fascinated to know just how conscious or intentional that is though… Yves & co. may very much believe their own bs, for all I know.
LikeLike
Well, those seem to explain a lot about that website, so far.
Indeed, what we’re seeing with that particular article and the reception it receives could be organic, but my gut feeling tells me different. Either way, it helps to discredit any skeptics of the dubious climate “science” that’s being pushed on society.
My assumptions may be “hasty”, but at least I have good reason to consider “deliberate” on the table. Frankly, there are so many “CoIntelPro” agents online that one can’t be too sure those writing asinine, “sappy” articles aren’t agents, too.
LikeLike
The word fires reminds me of the Rhode Island Station nightclub fire, back in 2003. Seems like it was a fake event, looking at all the hokey video details and interviews that came afterwards. Jack Russell lead singer of the band that played the night club died 8/15/2024 at age 63. Once again they announced within hours, not even a day went by for a statement. He may have faked his death. He faked an event long ago by shooting someone and only went to prison after a reduced sentence of 11 months. The bullet was said to bounce off a womans necklace. Falls into the fake death category.
LikeLike
“The bullet was said to bounce off a womans necklace.”
I wonder what kind of necklace it was? Please don’t tell me it’s one of those shiny, dainty trinkets. I’ll be laughing harder than I am if that’s the case.
LikeLike
Woody Allen said he was walking down a street one day carrying a bullet in his shirt pocket when he came upon a family dispute in an upper floor apartment. Suddenly a bible was launched through the window and struck him in the chest. Said Woody, “That bullet saved my life.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That genuinely made me “lol”.. very witty and clever.
Are you still listening to Conan? Any episodes/ guests you would recommend?
LikeLike
He’s done 518 podcasts now, available at
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conan-obrien-needs-a-friend/id1438054347
His latest is Walton Goggins, whose name you may not know but who has had more screen time on television than just about any other actor I know.
LikeLike
I definitely will.. had never noted him until recently. I researched The Hateful Eight, and then a review discussed his character. (And if anyone wants to help with who the characters in that movie represent, have at it.. been trying to crack that code.)
LikeLike
should be “rewatched”
LikeLike
Looks like it only gets funnier from here. What a load of rubbish the bullet story is.
LikeLike