California needs bigger fires, not climate hysteria

The NY Times continues to attack Pres. Trump for being anti-Trump, just because he doesn't go along with their leftist agenda:

As Trump Again Rejects Science, Biden Calls Him a ‘Climate Arsonist’ ...

“If we have four more years of Trump’s climate denial, how many suburbs will be burned in wildfires?” Mr. Biden asked. ...

But Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources, pressed Mr. Trump more bluntly. “If we ignore that science and sort of put our head in the sand and think it’s all about vegetation management, we’re not going to succeed together protecting Californians,” he told the president.

This time, Mr. Trump rejected the premise. “It’ll start getting cooler,” he insisted. “You just watch.”

“I wish science agreed with you,” Mr. Crowfoot replied.

“Well, I don’t think science knows, actually,” Mr. Trump retorted, maintaining a tense grin.

Actually, before industrialization and global warming, California had forest fires ten times as big as the worst fires of today. See this:

Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres. The state passed a few new laws in 2018 designed to facilitate more intentional burning. But few are optimistic this, alone, will lead to significant change. We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.

…When I reached Malcolm North, a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service who is based in Mammoth, California, and asked if there was any meaningful scientific dissent to the idea that we need to do more controlled burning, he said, “None that I know of.”

I have pointed out that all of Trump's critics show low intelligence, and this is a good example. Another is how they all cite Bob Woodward's new book.

Bob Woodward has a long record of dishonest journalism, and even sounds as if he is mentally retarded. In interviews, he doesn't even make any sense.

Trump's reported interview comments for the book very closely match his public statement. The anti-Trump pundits keeps trying to tell us that there is some contradiction, but they are never able to show us just what the contradiction is. Fauci and the other experts adamantly insist that Trump was conveying the best medical wisdom at all times, and the experts were saying the same things publicly as well.

I am not sure whether Woodward really is mentally retarded, but I don't think it matters. The anti-Trump pundits are presenting falsehoods to voters, and the voters can readily verify that they are false.