This is very close to *there's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact*.
Cli scis pushing the climate-fire narrative are out on a limb, hence their inappropriate aggression.
Cli scis pushing the climate-fire narrative are out on a limb, hence their inappropriate aggression.
This is the strength of it... 
Betts believes he is stating 2+2=4.
But where are all the fires, in this "hotter" world?
Narrative precedes their discovery.
But where are all the fires, in this "hotter" world?
Narrative precedes their discovery.
It opens up a new can of worms. If indeed 'several groups are working on it', not only should Richard wait for them to complete their research rather than presuppose discovery, his impatience also implies the commission is directed by political controversy -- need.
I can hear it now... "But you're not a climate scientist! How dare you?!". You don't need to be a scientist to know that Betts' claim precedes the facts: he admits it. You don't need to be a scientist to know that many other factors contribute to fires. Fires happen everywhere.
You also don't need to be a scientist to know that the scientist doesn't know what he is claiming to be fact, and claiming it on the TV, too, and that the government scientist is therefore making political, and ideological statements.
This form of 2+2=5 reasoning is what created the many claims of the decade before last, such as "N thousand people die per year because of climate change". They did it by multiplying assumptions. ...
It turned out that N thousand more people survived per WEEK just a decade after the prediction due to development, than died per year "because of climate change".
The original claims *might* be true, in a model. The scientist will reluctantly admit 'all models are wrong'. But the model cannot then be useful for policy-making, which is what they are built *for*.
What we are left with is not even a meaningful scientific argument for the relationship, 'all other things being equal', between temperature increases and extent of fire damage, we just have a binary claim: higher temps increase risk of fire (because it must be so).
The extent of the scientist's reasoning...
But what if arson, accidents and poor landscape management account for 90% or more of fire extent or damage? Where does that leave the 'other things being equal' caveat? What if green policies in fact contribute to fire risk?
The scientist's answer is a meme.
The scientist's answer is a meme.
This is bizarre, because it would do no harm and nobody would think less of science or scientists if they could state 'we don't really know'.
But that seems very very difficult for 'scientists' to say.
But that seems very very difficult for 'scientists' to say.
