Jerry Brown: California Wildfires Set To Become The “New Normal” Or Something

The fires burning in California are horrific, so, of course, a leading member of the Cult of Climastrology has to rush in and inject the Cult’s dogma

(Washington Examiner) California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, warned Saturday that climate change could bring more wildfires to the state as firefighters continue battling at least six blazes that have spread throughout Southern California.

“We’re facing a new reality in thee state where fires threaten people’s lives, their property, their neighborhoods, and of course billions and billions of dollars,” Brown said during a press conference in Ventura, Calif., Saturday. “We have to have the resources to combat the fires, and we also invest in managing vegetation and forests and all the ways we dwell in this very wonderful place, but a place that’s getting hotter.”

Brown went on to say the changing climate is “going to exacerbate everything else,” and warned California residents can expect to see droughts returning more often.

“With climate change, some scientists are saying Southern California is literally burning up, and burning up as maybe a metaphor or a description not just to the fires right here, but what we can expect over the next years and decades,” Brown said.

Jerry got one thing correct: they do have to manage the vegetation and forests. California has historically created roadblocks to doing things like controlled burns and clearing out the underbrush. You had a wet winter last year, growth flourished, the hot conditions created more brush, it became a tinder, and woosh.

Of course, they do not really know what started the fires, but the causes are most likely man-made, just not anthropogenic climate change made. Arson is considered a leading cause, as is the possibility of fire from hikers/campers, along with things like “malfunctioning power lines or transformers.”

Jerry has also used the occasion to attack Trump in an interesting manner

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) says President Trump’s stance on climate change demonstrates that he does not appear to fear the “wrath of God” or have any regard for the “existential consequences” of his environmental policies.

“I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility … this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed,” Brown said in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” which is set to air on Sunday.

First, it’s great that a guy, who studied to be a Jesuit priest before politics, is suddenly concerned about God, since he’s a major abortion believer. Second, if he’s saying that climatic changes are due to God, wouldn’t that mean that they are not caused by mankind’s “carbon pollution”?

Does climate change have a hand in the fires? Sure. The climate has become warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age. Just like other Holocene warm periods have followed Holocene cool periods. The debate is not on warming, but causation. Regardless, fires have always burned in California because of the land and climate. Back in the 1990’s, they were viewing “Los Angeles’s fire seasons through the lens of class warfare and overdevelopment.” The NY Times opinion piece where that came from, written by Héctor Tobar, also notes

The fire season after a wet winter is always an especially dangerous time in Southern California. As the brush grows thicker it can feed powerful flames; they sweep down the same routes in the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains that packs of coyotes follow to prey on our dogs and cats. We’ve pushed the landscape to the limits of human habitation.

“The simple formula is fuel plus meteorology plus ignition equals fire,” Bill Patzert, a climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told The Los Angeles Times in October. “The catalyst is people.”

He also writes that the fires occurred prior to people being in the area.

Anyhow, people are scared, people are devastated, people are anxious, and the nutters in the Cult of Climastrology are out pushing their stupidity.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

36 Responses to “Jerry Brown: California Wildfires Set To Become The “New Normal” Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH keeps typing:

    Just like other Holocene warm periods have followed Holocene cool periods.

    Yet he refuses to present evidence to support his claim, although being asked repeatedly.

    a guy, who studied to be a Jesuit priest before politics, is suddenly concerned about God, since he’s a major abortion believer.

    Non sequitur; but more important, do you have evidence that your “god” or “gods” oppose abortion? The fact that as many as 40% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion argues that if an omnipotent being exists, he or she is the most prolific abortionist in history, having killed billions of “babies”. There were at least a million spontaneous abortions in the US last year alone! Do you support research in stabilizing early pregnancies, preventing your “god” from killing babies?

  2. Fargo says:

    Yet he refuses to present evidence to support his claim, although being asked repeatedly.

    I imagine He gets tired of your continual trolling with lies and counter arguments intended to cast dispersions upon the OP of this website.

    It is well documented his claims.

    In fact the very first chart shows exactly what he talks about in rapid cooling followed by rapid warming.

    In fact If you read the information by the University of Arizona, an AGW proponent you will find one interesting fact. At one time the world during this epoch was 2 degrees C hotter than today. The world did not end.

    So from now on everytime you make the claim that he does not substantiate his claims I’m simply going to cut and past this link and let the other people who might read this site understand that YES indeed his claims are true.

    Yours are lies based upon lies, covered up with lies led by liars who were caught lying in order to keep the funding rolling in.

  3. Jeffery says:


    In fact the very first chart shows exactly what he talks about in rapid cooling followed by rapid warming.

    In fact, the first graph shows no such thing. Did you note the abscissa (x-axis)? It spans 800,000 years (did you know that the current CO2 level is the highest during this entire span!?!). The Holocene encompasses only the past 10,000 years or so. The current period of rapid warming (the past century or so) is occurring at a rate 10 times more rapid than when the Earth left the last glacial period (the beginning of the Holocene).

    Neither this graph nor any of the others describe the sources for the “evidence”. Can you point us to the original research that supports these graphs? In any event they do not support TEACHs argument that there have been a number of comparable periods of rapid warming during the Holocene.

    At one time the world during this epoch was 2 degrees C hotter than today. The world did not end.

    Is that claim based on this unsubstantiated quote from a lecturer at AU? “temperatures were perhaps 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today” Certainly more recent evidence shows that the current temperature is “perhaps” greater than that of the Holocene “optimum”. And the Earth is continuing to warm rapidly. In any event, even if one was to accept that the Holocene “optimum” was warmer than today, how does that support TEACHs unsubstantiated claim that there have rapid cooling and warming during the Holocene?

    The world did not end.

    Further, no one is claiming that a 2C increase in the mean global surface temperature will cause the world to end (that’s just a logical fallacy used by deniers). What will happen is disruption of human societies.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Little guy logic.

    • Fargo says:

      Sorry you are unable to read graphs. I said this is an AGW site. The compress 800k years into 2 inches and then expand 18,000 years into four inches. If one actually looks at the second and third charts and creates their own symetrical time line then it is very easy to see that the temperatures during the Holocene did in fact rise and fall rather quickly.

      All without a single car or coal plant in site.

      In fact if you scroll to the bottom of the page you can see where during the Holocene period there was a time where the temperature was 2 degrees C warmer than today. All without a car or coal plant in site.

      I’m pretty sure he grows tired of having to prove every post. When you do not prove any post you make to the contrary other than the odious claim that 97 percent of all scientist, blah, blah, blah.

      • Jeffery says:

        You claimed the first graph proved your point, and TEACHs. It doesn’t. Maybe it was a typo on your part.

        Not sure what you mean by an AGW site, but you saying that doesn’t ensure that the information is reliable. You still didn’t indicate the source of the original data, nor did the “AGW site” you rely on. For all we know the author got the graphs from Tony Wuwt or Load Monckton.

        It’s obvious that TEACH doesn’t bother to prove every post. Is your point that he is passing off his uninformed opinion as fact? I agree with you.

        So you agree that I have proven the 97% claim? Cool. That’s a start.

        You know, a 1C increase in the mean global surface temperature over a century or so is remarkable. What physical factors are causing the rapid warming? Scientists who study such things present evidence that the rapid warming is primarily due to an increase in greenhouse gases. What is your hypothesis, if any?

  4. Fargo says:

    What will happen is disruption of human societies.

    Proof please.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Pro tip:

    When you see a leftist bring God into an argument, you know and they know they are losing.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      House Minority Leader said at her Thursday press briefing that “God is with” congressional Democrats who want to allow illegal aliens who came to the United States when they were 16 or under to be allowed to stay in the United States legally.

  6. Jeffery says:


    We’ve noted that global warming deniers often invoke prior warming periods as proof that the 40% increase in CO2 down cannot be causing the current period of rapid warming. You’ve done the same. It’s like saying cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer since there was lung cancer before cigarettes.

    Large changes in overall global temperatures do not occur randomly but have underlying physical causes. For example, massive volcanic eruptions eject dust and aerosols into the atmosphere that block incoming solar radiation, causing cooling. Changes in the major ocean currents, e.g., from shifting land masses, or rapid massive fresh water flows, can change the distribution of heat. Large asteroid strikes can cause the ejection of dust. Cyclic shifts in the Earth’s orbit and orientation of the sun can cause changes, just as can changes in the solar output.

    So, increases in greenhouse gases are not the only cause of periods of global warming, it just happens to be the cause of this period of rapid warming.

  7. Jl says:

    Where to start with J’s BS assertions? Again, no evidence this warming is anymore rapid than before. We’re using thermometers now, and comparing that to paleo records is useless, especially when talking about .1. Degrees. The 97% crap has been debunked many times. Not that it would matter, as obviously many scientific breakthroughs occur by those scientists bucking the “consensus.” And finally, the “CO2 up 40%.” As said before, percentages, especially in this case, can be highly misleading. CO2 going from 10ppm to 20ppm would be a 100% increase, but would mean nothing. J valiantly tries to obscure the issue using percentages, except that, as we’re told, it’s the concentration that counts, which is why scientists use ppm to describe what’s happening. I’ve said this before, but the best description on what’s happened the last 100yrs (round #) is this: Fill the Rose Bowl with 100,000 ppl. Now, add ten more ppl, and take 100 yrs to do it. That’s how much CO2 has gone up, concentration-wise-which is what counts, in 100yrs.

  8. Jl says:

    “1 degree warming is remarkable…” Here’s at least 60 peer-reviewed papers showing a doubling of CO2 would only cause at the most a .5 degree temp rise, so the rest, if true, would be natural.

    • Jeffery says:

      You didn’t cite any papers, you cited Pierre Gosselin’s Notrickszone. Can you choose the most compelling paper to discuss? “If true”, we can discuss their paper. Thanks.

      This rapid warming period is ten times faster than when the Earth left the last glacial ushering in the human civilization friendly Holocene.

      The 97% has not been debunked. Please, no Tony Wuwt or Pierre Gosselin citations. They are unreliable.

      CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has caused the Earth to warm. Svante Arrhenius proved that CO2 trapped infrared radiation over a century ago. Do you have a better theory of what’s causing this warming period?

      Your Rose Bowl trick fails on arithmetic and logic. Adding 40,000 people to the 100,000 corrects your arithmetic. Adding 10 souls to the Rose Bowl would be like adding 2.8 ppm to the CO2 concentration. You’ve been wrong on this before. From whom did you copy the concept?

  9. Jl says:

    As far as warming, “rapid” or not, it was still as warm, or warmer during the MWP

    • Jeffery says:

      There is no good evidence that the so-called MWP resulted in a mean global surface temperature greater than now. You yourself claim only the thermometer temperatures are reliable.

      And the Earth continues to warm (despite Pierre Gosselin’s implausible claims that we’re entering a new ice age because Greenland).

  10. Fargo says:

    Once again your reading comprehension is quite limited for a CEO of major corporation that bilks millions of dollars from investors to pay your salary, which you then use to allow you to spend 100 hours per week commenting all over the internet about anti-right philosophy.

    Let me remind you what you said that I was responding to:

    Just like other Holocene warm periods have followed Holocene cool periods.

    Yet he refuses to present evidence to support his claim, although being asked repeatedly.

    This was exclusively what I was pointing to, at which point you then go off on a typical cultist rant which turns off even those that would be sympathetic to your cause. But we all know your only purpose is to be divisive and disruptive not to establish a dialouge that might actually solve problems. Which led me to conclude that the OP is most likely tired of trying to prove a statement that is quite clearly correct for the holocene peroid.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Far Gone,

    I’ve never claimed to be CEO. I do not spend hours online. Our investors will stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars (they will make a minimum of 100% return on their investment (don’t you wish you had invested?)). But then why attack me personally when all we asked for you to support your claims with evidence?

    Please just support your claims (a defense of TEACHs lack of research) with evidence. That is what we asked.

    This is why I prefer the “One Lie at a Time Doctrine”. Your initial falsehood was in defense of The TEACHs repeated falsehood.

    Here is what The TEACH typed:

    Just like other Holocene warm periods have followed Holocene cool periods.

    The current period of rapid, extensive and significant warming is not “just like other Holocene warm periods”. That is unless you can point out reliable evidence to the contrary. Your link to some teacher’s syllabus is not reliable evidence.

  12. Jl says:

    J- Now that’s funny. Sorry, it was you proved wrong before. 6th grade math too hard for you? “Adding 40,000 to 100,000 corrects your arithmetic.” Uh, no. CO2 increased from 300ppm to 400ppm. Adding 100 parts to a million parts is the same as adding 10 parts to 100,000 parts, hence the correct Rose Bowl analogy, which correctly shows the concentration increase. Which, we’re told, is the problem. Even for you, an amazingly dumb response. “You didn’t cite any papers..” Over 60 of them were cited, along with the authors name and their findings. But nice try. “Gosselin and WUWT unreliable.” Translated, that means you can’t refute them so instead you label them. And by the way, Gosselin didn’t write any of the papers. The authors listed wrote them.

    • Jeffery says:

      The problem is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has rapidly increased from the approximately 260-280 ppm for the past 1 million years to 400 ppm with no end in sight. You might imagine that that represents a 0.01% (10/100,010) increase in the concentration of CO2 but arithmetic and science disagrees with you.

      Do you disagree with Professor Arrhenius’ conclusion that infrared radiation interacts with CO2 in air? Is that the problem?

      To what physical processes do you attribute the current warming period?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Still there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
        But you’ve been told that many times before, little guy…

  13. Jl says:

    As far as the MWP-it was as warm or warmers, world-wide.

  14. Fargo says:

    Please just support your claims (a defense of TEACHs lack of research) with evidence. That is what we asked.

    support yours. I linked my evidence. Support your claim by calling the owner of this website a LIAR. Support your claims. Your the one claiming hes lying.

  15. Fargo says:

    I’ve never claimed to be CEO.

    Your continual lies are staggering. I have actually read you say this. Am I going back to spend 100’s of hours trying to find where you made this claim?

    However do I wished I had invested in your company? Yes. I do. Im not adverse to making 100’s of millions of dollars. It just takes money to make money. So unfortunately, much to the counter argument of your claim, not all conservatives are rich. Many of us are just working stiffs with out a college education just trying to make ends meet.

    That means we want to protect our jobs, not give them to illegals flooding the country so that you have more government demand for your shitty drug that probably costs a 150k per year to keep 6 people alive an extra 6 months.

    • Jeffery says:

      Much like other commenters here you are either mistaken or lying. Perhaps you mistakenly thought that my co-founding a corporation is the same as being the CEO.

      But we can’t blame you for getting frustrated and changing the subject.

      “Illegals” are easy to blame, but they are not competing for most jobs in the US. Studies show that the impact on wages and employment for citizens is slight at best.

      Since 1980 the US gov’t has been steadily sacrificing the US middle class at the altar of the wealthy. Policies on labor and unions, “trade” and moving jobs overseas, taxes, copyright and patents, fiscal and monetary policy, corporate governance, Citizens United, pensions, and yes, immigration have all been designed to reward the wealthy at the expense of the workers. Drip, drip, drip. After almost 4 decades of trickle down it’s a flood of low wages and bad jobs. Two full time workers can’t even support a family! That’s an outrage. But don’t blame the Mexicans, blame Washington and the Dems and Republicans who have worked full-time against your interests – or more properly they work full-time for the donor/leisure class. Mr. Trump may shake things up but none of his policy recommendations will help – he is one of them. He and the GOP are cutting your taxes $77 and mine $7700 (and the Trump family a cool $billion). But the problem is much bigger than Mr. Trump (and he is horrible), it’s the mindset of the DC elites and the absolute lack of concern for the middle class.

      The rich are getting richer, tapping the productivity of the middle class. It’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon but was designed by the rich for the rich. CEO pay at record high, corporate profits at record high, income and wealth inequality at record high – and we’re still debating how to give them MORE and the middle class LESS.

  16. Jl says:

    “Studies show the impact on wages is slight at best.” Except that they’re costing US tax payers about 113 billion dollars a year. “Slight”? No

  17. Fargo says:

    The rich are getting richer, tapping the productivity of the middle class. It’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon but was designed by the rich for the rich. CEO pay at record high, corporate profits at record high, income and wealth inequality at record high – and we’re still debating how to give them MORE and the middle class LESS.

    So its true then. Your corporation does make 150k dollar pills that save about 6-10 people a year and you have the audacity to gripe about the rich and powerful sticking it too the middle class.

    • Jeffery says:


      Again, like your cesspoolian brethren you attack me personally instead of dealing with issues. I’m sorry this makes you so angry.

      I want you to make more money! I support politicians and policies that would reduce the leverage of corporations, that would reduce the value of copyrights/patents, and that would support citizens paying LESS for drugs. I support politicians who would RAISE my taxes and cut yours!! Even with all the ignorance and hatred directed my way here, I want rural white folks to be more successful. Why don’t you?

      My question is why you support policies to make you pay more for drugs, that give more and more power to corporations and that shifts the tax burden more to you? Why?

      Is your hatred for Blacks, immigrants, gays, liberals, Muslims, Dems, abortion choice and the educated so intense that you’re willing to cut off your nose to spite your face?

  18. Jl says:

    “Arithmetic and science disagree with you.”. I said (round numbers), that in a hundred yrs CO2 went from 300ppm to 400ppm. True. Adding 100 parts to a million parts same as adding 10parts to 100,000 parts. True. Scientists use that measure to describe what’s happening because…..the concentration counts, hence ppm is used to describe it. Why you continue to make a fool of yourself arguing 6th grade math is beyond me, but go ahead, tell me where “arithmetic disagrees with me.” Good luck, you’ll need it.

    • Jeffery says:

      Nuff said. You’re an idiot.

    • Jeffery says:

      We’ve already told you where you were wrong. Recently, and months ago, too. You don’t understand the concept of concentration. Where did you steal your example? We suspect you’ll find further explanations of how wrong you are in the comments there. LOL.

      Here’s another example. Normal serum potassium is about 4 mM/L or 160 mg/L or 160 ppm. If you are unlucky enough for your serum potassium to increase 40% to 5.6 mM/L or 224 ppm, you would be very ill, if not dead.

Pirate's Cove