Skip to content

Delingpole: Liberal California Blames Wildfires on Trump

November 13, 2018

By Paul Homewood



Right on cue, Governor Moonbeam blames the latest California fire on global warming and Trump:



Perhaps though he would like to explain why Oregon’s fire history shows no evidence of this whatsoever:


oregon fire history_911-2017[7780]


In fact, as Dellers explains, the real problem lies with Moonbeam and his cronies’ own green agenda:

But Moonbeam’s fury is the rage of Caliban seeing himself reflected in the glass: it is highly unlikely that the fires had anything whatsoever to do with ‘climate change’; it is much more likely that they are at least partly the result of the green religion championed by Moonbeam and most of Hollywood.

As an experienced forester, Bob Zybach, told the Daily Caller earlier this year, many of the wildfires which have ravaged the western U.S. are a consequence of misguided, “eco-friendly” policies introduced in the Clinton era.

While some want to blame global warming for the uptick in catastrophic wildfires, Zybach said a change in forest management policies is the main reason Americans are seeing a return to more intense fires, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and California where millions of acres of protected forests stand.

“We knew exactly what would happen if we just walked away,” Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Zybach spent two decades as a reforestation contractor before heading to graduate school in the 1990s. Then the Clinton administration in 1994 introduced its plan to protect old growth trees and spotted owls by strictly limiting logging.

Less logging also meant government foresters weren’t doing as much active management of forests — thinnings, prescribed burns and other activities to reduce wildfire risk.

There is no evidence that the climate in California has changed in such a way as to make forest fires more likely. According the Fifth (and most recent) Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rainfall is expected to change little as a result of ‘climate change.’ More likely, the answer is that these fires are simply a case of the Californian environment doing what it has always done. It’s just unfortunate that there are now more people living in the area to suffer when things go wrong. As the Daily Caller article noted:

Wildfire experts have also increasingly been pointing to the fact that more people and infrastructure are located in wildfire-prone areas than in the past, increasing the risk of wildfires impacting livelihoods. A recent study found the number of homes at risk of wildfires in the western U.S. increased 1,000 percent since 1940, from about 607,000 in 1940 to 6.7 million. Since most fires are ignited by humans, the more people in fire-prone areas the higher the risk. “This is a people problem,” said U.S. Geological Survey fire expert Jon Keeley. “What’s changing is not the fires themselves but the fact that we have more and more people at risk.”

It’s too early to say what and who, if anyone, can be held to blame for the California fires. But whatever the usual Hollywood suspects may tell you, it’s definitely not Donald Trump.

  1. November 13, 2018 7:44 pm

    The part of this that annoys me the most is the double standard. Trump in his usual way tweeted that “there is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly fires in California.” He said “billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”.

    This provoked outrage from the usual suspects and I have to agree that now is not the best time for such a statement. However when Governor Brown does the same thing as shown here there is no such outrage.

  2. Geoffb permalink
    November 13, 2018 7:49 pm

    Heres a report from USA.
    A woman who lives near the origin of Northern California’s Camp Fire claims Pacific Gas & Electric Co. notified her last week that it planned to work on equipment near her property, fueling further questions about the utility’s role in what has become California’s most destructive wildfire. BetsyAnn Cowley, 31, lives in Pulga, where the deadly Camp Fire started. She said she received an email from PG&E the day before the fire broke out saying it had to do repair work on equipment on or near her property. “They told me they were coming through because of problems with the lines,” Cowley said. Cal Fire officials haven’t said what caused the blaze but power equipment in the area is being investigated as a possible source. PG&E admitted last week a high-voltage power line near the origin point experienced a problem around the time of the fire’s beginning. Shares of PG&E’s parent company fell sharply Monday as investors grew concerned about its link to the Camp Fire. PG&E came under withering criticism last year when its transmission lines and other equipment were linked to 16 Napa Valley wildfires, as well as incidents throughout the region.

    Probable that failure to keep high voltage lines clear of tree growth was source of ignition

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      November 13, 2018 9:18 pm

      Before Napa Valley there were serious warnings that the electrical infrastructure was a clear and present risk of causing fires, ignored by those in power, who are now trying to blame climate change.

      Anthony Watts reported an exploding transformer.

      The Napa Valley report raises the question, in my mind, how did so many fires start from very similar causes. It seems fairly easy to imagine that once a fire starts, it causes a cascading chain reaction effect, of power surges/overload and trees falling into lines and poles.

      • HotScot permalink
        November 13, 2018 11:24 pm


        I would be careful there. I suspect at the first sign of a forest fire, gas and electricity lines would be shut off. The initial ignition may have been enough to precipitate the fire, and there may have been a number of localised failures immediately following it for the reasons you express, but beyond that I’m not sure a utility company can be blamed.

        And whilst it is necessary for them to maintain their power lines and transformers to a safe standard, if people build houses in the middle of forests where the risk of fire is well documented and understood, is it fair to blame a utility entirely for this event?

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        November 13, 2018 11:36 pm

        Utilities were officially blamed for at least 12 major fires.

        It is a failure to update the 3rd world electricity infrastructure that is the problem. Cables in the ground can’t be struck by trees.

    • ellyssen permalink
      November 15, 2018 1:04 am

      The sad thing is that PG&E and another utility company have been pushing a law that just passed that removes the great majority of liability for their equipment problems and reduces the ability to successfully sue them for responsibility of fires caused by their equipment.

  3. November 13, 2018 8:19 pm

    This can’t be true. On the news this evening the BBC was telling us all about fake news and the BBC has this to say about the fires:

    “And then there’s climate change. Recent years have produced record-breaking temperatures, earlier springs, and less reliable rainfall. Citing the role of a warming climate, California Governor Jerry Brown declared: “This is not the new normal, this is the new abnormal.””

    The BBC makes no mention of forest mismanagement resulting from green policies, so it can’t be true; it just has to be all down to climate change.

    • Geoffb permalink
      November 13, 2018 8:35 pm

      its a bit ironic that BBC is running a fake news expose, when they are a major source of “DISTORTED FACTS” news….

    • November 13, 2018 9:12 pm

      The BBC politburo is powerful, but it does make mistakes from time to time, recently allowing Peter Oborne onto the BBC World Service. There was a deafening silence when he had a highly justified go at the BBC for decamping to the US for the recent midterm elections, though of course the other guest commentator strongly disagreed.

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      November 14, 2018 11:51 am

      I recall when in Australia, the government banned all clearance work in the forests and on man was heavily penalised for removing the loose brush from around his house. Then came the fire, I seem to remember that his was the only house to escape, green blob strikes again!

      • Derek Buxton permalink
        November 14, 2018 11:53 am

        Computer problems, should read “one man” was heavily penalised.

      • Rowland P permalink
        November 15, 2018 3:29 pm

        Exactly, as recorded in Ian Wishart’s book “AIR CON, the inconvenient truth about global warming”. Page 143!!
        We see the images of Paradise where the houses were closely surrounded by trees. Apparently the safest place was the wide clearance for the helipad at the hospital.

  4. avro607 permalink
    November 13, 2018 8:24 pm

    Some years ago I read of a similar event in Australia.Rural dwellers always cleared away the brushwood in the area surrounding their homes,until the Greenies decided that insect life was more important than human life.
    during the next wildfire season,their houses burnt down.
    Rather like we don’t drain rivers because of the lesser spotted wotsit is more important than humans,and so we get the Somerset Levels fiasco.

  5. avro607 permalink
    November 13, 2018 8:26 pm

    Sorry.A bit of bad typing,but you get the gist.

    • November 13, 2018 10:14 pm

      Indeed. Courting disaster may lead to disaster, which is horrible when it happens – but peole ought to be more realistic, or get some sound advice, for their own sakes.

  6. Athelstan permalink
    November 13, 2018 8:29 pm

    Forests have to be managed, naturally when they are not managed nature needs to do the clearance and fire is the only way she knows, allowing forests to return to their dishevelled, natural state encourages wild fires. Go figure.

  7. JimW permalink
    November 13, 2018 8:33 pm

    There are a few stats in a piece by Willis on WUWT that show temp and rainfall in California. No abnormal ‘climate’ at all.
    As reported above , power lines and branches aren’t a clever combination with all that dense wood lying around.
    But when did rational thought count these days, its what you ‘feel’ that matters.

  8. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 13, 2018 9:24 pm

    The more renewables you rely on for your power system the more complex the grid needs to be to handle it. Did that have anything to do with it?

  9. TinyCO2 permalink
    November 13, 2018 10:45 pm

    If the fire was started by power lines/system, I wondered if all the renewables were aging the system prematurely.

  10. November 13, 2018 11:29 pm

    The way to defeat this nonsense is to talk about solutions, there would be overwhelming ridicule for anyone who says that the solution is to change the composition of the atmosphere. A focus on real solutions, such as better forest management, would reveal the real causes.

    • HotScot permalink
      November 13, 2018 11:31 pm


      Heh, Heh………You watched Jordan Petersons excellent interview at Cambridge, didn’t you.

  11. HotScot permalink
    November 13, 2018 11:35 pm

    Caliban, AKA mooncalf.

    The irony, it hurts.

  12. M E permalink
    November 14, 2018 12:52 am

    Don’t the usual Hollywood ‘experts ‘all belong to the Actors Union? Can you get a job in film production without belonging to the trade union of your speciality? Unions usually produce an opinion which members have to adhere to… at least they did in the 1950s when I was interested in Hollywood Stars and their lives.

  13. Streetcred permalink
    November 14, 2018 6:16 am

    Like schadenfreude ? Progressives, environmental activists, and half-witted ‘celebrities’ enable policies to not manage the forests and then their homes burn out. Damned shame and I feel desperately sorry for the ordinary people swept up by the dishonest regime.

  14. Adam permalink
    November 14, 2018 8:16 am

    If what we are told is true and the fires are an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Then surely the wise and farsighted governor should prepared for this by clearing fire breaks around the town’s and the main roads to save lives and property. He would also have limited development in fire prone areas and used controlled burns to prevent big and dangerous fires.
    A wise man would have taken action where he could and made sure people were safe rather than raging against things he was powerless to change.

  15. Adam permalink
    November 14, 2018 8:16 am

    If what we are told is true and the fires are an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Then surely the wise and farsighted governor should prepared for this by clearing fire breaks around the town’s and the main roads to save lives and property. He would also have limited development in fire prone areas and used controlled burns to prevent big and dangerous fires.
    A wise man would have taken action where he could and made sure people were safe rather than raging against things he was powerless to change.

  16. November 14, 2018 10:17 am

    What many do not know, is that California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bipartisan wildfire management bill in 2016, despite unanimous passage by the Legislature, 75-0 in the Assembly and 39-0 in the Senate.

    What was he thinking?

  17. November 14, 2018 12:28 pm

    Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was speaking with California forester who related that there were more than 100 million standing dead trees in the state. I just now checked and the figure stated by foresters was “102 million standing dead trees.”

    “We’ve never experienced anything like this in California,” said Jeffrey Moore, an 18 year veteran of the US Forest Service who was quoted in the article I used to check the figures.

    The environmentalists don’t want anything cut–not even dead trees. Their wishes became legislation. Even when some common sense prevailed, Governor Brown squashed it with his veto pen.

    To those who thought President Trump’s tweet untimely and harsh, I would reply: “What better time to point out the obvious truth than when you have everyone’s attention?” The taxpayers of the whole country are footing massive bills for these fires and many states are sending in personnel and equipment to fight the fires. I believe this gives us and President Trump the right to point out their carelessness in hopes it will be heard and acted upon. Many people have lost their lives and more than 6,000 homes are gone.

    Governor Brown is safe and so is HIS home. What else matters?

    • dave permalink
      November 14, 2018 5:33 pm

      Meanwhile – with little real shame or contrition – the authors of the recent, rubbishy little paper about ocean heat uptake being high recently (and so invalidating ‘the pause,’ which was obviously the only reason for doing this piece of hack work) have admitted that they published howlers (peer review let it SWAN THROUGH to the degraded journal Nature, which is now just a subsidiary and brand-name of a shadowy German multi-media empire.)

      was an immediate critique.

      Of course, the lie is now in the ammunition locker of the MSM and so the retraction means nothing – except to remind us again how modern academic science is continually soiling its pants.

    • November 14, 2018 6:03 pm

      Joan, as an ecologist you know that those standing dead trees are a major part of the forest’s biodiversity. Here in the UK we would be pleased to have any standing dead at all in a woodland, & to have a natural forest (not a plantation) of any size. Notwithstanding occasional irruptions by invasive species, those standing dead are quite normal.

      So is fire. It seems that fires in the old growth were more frequent, but flashy and fast, clearing only the undergrowth, not killing the giants, not reaching the crowns and not dancing from crown to crown. Kill the giants by selective logging and you end up with a regrowth that is more susceptible to hotter fires.

      Then you have the policy of putting out the fires wherever they occur, and more and more dead fuel building up, until one day comes the fire you cannot hold.

      And in the meantime you have development in the heart of the wood, a beautiful place to live no doubt. But fire in the forest is only our problem if we live in the forest.

      Everything conspires to maximise destruction: no managed fires, inappropriate development, putting out each fire that starts.

      • November 16, 2018 12:36 pm

        The huge number of trees was somewhat the result of drought coupled with the pine bark beetles which killed those weakened ones and attacked healthy trees. These were conifers. I saw some pictures of the areas and it was pretty grim. We are not talking about a tree here and there. The CA legislature actually passed legislation to remove those trees, but Governor Brown vetoed it.

        There are companies who harvest these dead trees and use them for log structures. Those structures could be used now that more than 8000 homes have been destroyed, not to mention more than 60 lives with some 100 not accounted for.

    • wert permalink
      November 16, 2018 5:14 pm

      Dead trees are unimportant. They ignite too badly. The problem is the total fuel load, fuel ladder from grass and needles to leaves and bush to conifers. The problem is missing clearances, and missing fire emergency lanes. The whole fire was a huge combination of mismanagement and people being struck by surprise when there should have been none.

      Where was the evacuation plan?

      Look at the pictures. Many trees and poles stand. They didn’t burn to ashes. A fire doesn’t easily burn single standing trunk, even if it was bone dry in the beginning.

      • wert permalink
        November 16, 2018 5:15 pm

        A recently dried conifer is a different thing. Dry needles make tree a torch.

      • November 16, 2018 8:03 pm

        Dead trees, especially in deciduous forests can be very important as habitat for birds and animals. HOWEVER, there is a limit to the number.

        Companies came in after the Yellowstone fires in 1988 and harvested the burned trees to make log houses. The fires more or less flashed through.

  18. Bitter@twisted permalink
    November 14, 2018 5:28 pm

    Green policies and unintended consequences (disasters) have “previous”.

  19. ellyssen permalink
    November 14, 2018 9:47 pm

    Last year with the “Thomas” fire, the worst fire in CA history evuh, PG&E equipment is at fault. This year with the “Camp” fire, the now worst and most destructive fire in CA history evuh, PG&E is again, the likely culprit. I saw that some one posted the email story above and it is true. PG&E emailed (not called) this property owner of needing to inspect sparking equipment. She was gone, so they did nothing. Ostensibly because they needed easement permission which is untrue. No matter what, if they had equipment sparking, they should have been onsite immediately to repair it or at least shutdown the power.

  20. dave permalink
    November 14, 2018 10:58 pm

    “…needed easement permission…”

    What a crock. An easement is a RIGHT to enter. Normally, a company would make an appointment, but if there is a danger to anybody or anything it can and should go right in immediately.

  21. Dave Ward permalink
    November 15, 2018 9:59 am

    Several victims have sued PG&E, blaming them for devastating fire that killed 48

    Suit accuses PG&E of failing to properly maintain its equipment, infrastructure

    Lawyer claims that PG&E bypassed preventative measures for company bonuses

    Two days before the fire started, PG&E told customers in nine counties that it might shut off their power on November 8 because of extreme fire danger

    But it never went through with the shut off, saying the weather didn’t warrant it

    Lawyer claims company didn’t go through with it because bonuses are tied to customer complaints

  22. matthew dalby permalink
    November 15, 2018 1:54 pm
    Although the article doesn’t mention California, it talks about temperate forests, which must include California.
    The article talks about past suppression of small fires, and lack of thinning leading to a build up of fuel loads. It was in the guardian, so it must be true. (Excuse the sarcasm)
    Cue 2 years later when Trump says basically the same thing and there are howls of protest from the liberal press including the guardian.
    Got to love the blatant hypocrisy. It seems like a case of it’s true until Trump says it then it has to be false.

    • wert permalink
      November 16, 2018 5:19 pm

      The Guardian got it wrong. It is *missing* forest management.

  23. Daz permalink
    November 18, 2018 5:08 pm

    Amyone remember the howls of protest over the fires in the previous presidency ? No ? Me neither .

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: