Sabine Hossenfelder 
π Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months extra here βΌ https://NordVPN.com/sabine Itβs risk-free with Nordβs 30-day money-back guarantee! β
During the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, the media briefly latched on to a study which apparently blamed climate change for making the blazes more likely to occur and also more intense. But is that really what the study says? Letβs take a look.
π€ Check out my new quiz app β http://quizwithit.com/
π Support me on Donorbox β https://donorbox.org/swtg
π Transcripts and written news on Substack β https://sciencewtg.substack.com/
π Transcript with links to references on Patreon β https://www.patreon.com/Sabine
π© Free weekly science newsletter β https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/
π Audio only podcast β https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC
π Join this channel to get access to perks β
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join
πΌοΈ On instagram β https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/
#science #sciencenews #climate #environment
source
About The Author
If you find this hard to believe I don't blame you, I couldn't believe it myself at first. But you can check for yourself that they indeed did not mention in the press release that the result is not statistically significant and instead say they have "high confidence": https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/
(Link to study is also on this website.)
Sabine asked for an algorithm bump so here is mine!
I appreciate that you treated this as a serious topic rather than just accepting garbage.
Just commenting to help overcome the algorithm mistakenly punishing you for having integrity.
Love the analysis. You're true
Great video, Dr. Thank you for your courage, grit and determination to pursue truth. Grace & Peace
This comment is for my digital buddy, Al Go-Rhythm. Sup Al?
algo comment…
This study and your refuting it does not include other human factors that are far more direct and hugely more significant.
After the fires, investigations and social media posts revealed that at least some fires were being started deliberately (videos of idiots on motorbikes actively starting fires, another of a homeless person starting a fire, he was actually caught).
Then to compound issues there was a major political row as to why a reservoir in the hills above L.A. was drained and left empty during a high risk fire season (predictable yearly event) – the water from which could have gone a LONG way to keeping these fire under control and reducing collateral damage and threat to life.
Then it becomes evident through news reports, that insurance companies we denying new fire insurance and cancelling existing policies leading up to this event – that they had knowledge of an increased risk that they found unacceptable.
The bottom line of all of this is that without the belligerent fire-starters, with adequate water capacity and with the insurance risk assessments being made public and actions taken to mitigate the expected problems, this whole thing could have been a complete NON-EVENT.
Considering these factors, the whole statistical analysis of global warming effects pale into utter insignificance.
Your point about building a city in a volcanic/earthquake/fire zone mind bogglingly with predominately WOODEN structures (and other flammable materials) while a joking aside, is actually far more significant than trying to blame all of this on climate change.
The whole event seems a contrived and deliberate attempt to try to 'demonstrate'' a causal link from fire to climate change at the expense of rich people's property and lives for maximum publicity and political manipulation.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits". (Quote attributed to Einstein)
I prefer :
"Intelligence is limited but stupidity is boundless."
I hope you learned, that it's not a good idea to take down your video, just because someone in the comments says sth.
Next time just pin a / your comment and say, that you will look into it and given, they are right and your video is in fact false, you will post a respond immediately.
This way we get the full science process (making a thesis, fending this thesis and getting it destroyed / reinforced).
Nobody is right all the time and I respect every person who comes clean and says that he was wrong on this or that position and changed his mind.
All the best and thank you for your videos.
The BBC tell me that 98% of scientists agree so you must be the the 2%. 98 is a much bigger number than 2 so you are wrong. Hope that helps!
Rewatching to help promote the video.
I worked in the R&D industry years ago and I assure the viewers that funding can have a significant impact on reporting. I have seen unethical colleagues fake results to continue funding.
Thank you
Thanks
Sabine, thanks for doing the detailed work you do that helps many of us understand and appreciate your topics in a sound and reliable way. Thank you also for the excellent writing of your explanations that walk us sanely through the facts. Your videos adhere to structured thinking that keep us (ADHD people) in the substance and the context of the argument(s) through to conclusion.
Failure to manage wildland made those fires more severe. Satellite video shows that group of fires igniting simultaneously (not long after fire insurance companies cancelled most coverage there) and in an area where Gavin NewScum wants to build his βSmart Cityβ in time for the 2028 Olympics. Currently, Gavinβs pet developers are buying up the land for pennies on the dollar. So you tell me what caused the fires – just follow the money.
This is why every major news outlet needs a few full-time STEM PhDs, preferably one in statistics, to perform this scrutiny w/ every published study.
Our confidence level in your videos has just increased. βΊ
Rewatch+ comment as requested
You do good work keep it up
Triple redundancy post for you
Also one play at .25 speed for a 4x engagement view spifing style
The paper is propaganda disguised as ' science.'
Reproduced for ease of reference? Dark blue (orange) light blue Orange)?
It's already set to fail as a valid finding when the results can be interpreted.
Or… fire the printer
Reporting as instructed to view this algorithmically suppressed video and "SMASH THAT THUMBS UP BUTTON!!!" π€£π€£
Comment for algorithm. Shame on you.
'Studies' like this do incredible damage . The broader public notices something is off, which understandably makes them gravitate more toward outright climate change denial, and politicians will use this
π
I've read some similar in Academia without a shred of mention of significant leadership and political failures which the leaders themselves admitted.
Back here commenting for ya Sabine. It's disheartening to hear climate control is likely even worse under a more critical eye.
Thanks for helping make sense of things and poking the scientific bear. "What the actual f*ck" is right! They've grown complacent in their comfort.
Thank you for doing this hard work, Dr. H.
Science should be a little more rigorous than religion, IMHO.
Keep being a scientist!
In California we used to allow prisoners to earn double time served by working on brush cleanup crews. They built fire breaks and cleared out brush fuel. Now that is considered slave labor and we don't allow that. Hence, fires are much harder to put out.
New sub. Watching it to help Sabine. And commenting for that too. I love honest people. I'm willingly to help the just whenever I can.
Nothing makes anything more or less likely. The universe is deterministic. Likelihood, or probability, is a measure of certainty/uncertainty in a specific agent's mind. No probability or uncertainty exists in reality itself.
something to acknowledge. maybe human factors count……more worrisome to face.
If it will scare people enough to pay climate taxes, then the study is (politically) correct. The best type of correct.
Also, google's United Nations foot note is laughable. UN is the most useless, corrupt and useless entity in the World. During Achoo19 we had a footnote from WHO. It should go into a garbage bin.
Bravo to you for your courage. The report in question is further proof that the fundamental distrust in much of today's climate "science" is well earned. As long as the results fit the current cultural narrative, junk science will always get a free pass from the elite media machine. No shame or censure is ever returned upon authors who twist the facts to fit the accepted dogma. Even more tragic is the complicity of silence from a host of scientific disciplines that have now become wholly subordinate to politics, money, and popular culture. Keep holding the line, Sabine, objective truth has few champions left who are willing to defend her.
Shame the algo is still not working
Fire was discovered thousands of years ago, the southern California winds (called Santa Ana winds IIRC) have been seasonally present possibly as long (I can only speak for last 3 decades). What has changed? Poor planning and prevention. Hopefully an unbiased source will investigate the incompetence involved in having dry water reservoirs and suboptimal building codes and understaffed & underequipped fire fighting resources. The fire chief's early comments said it all until she was told to keep her mouth shut by mayor.
Ewe tube, fix your svkky Al Gore rhythms. Get rid of your ibased, un- Cy N. Tiffick based policies. You made this sweet, intelligent woman swear!
Professor Dave is the most unhinged mentally unstable man I have ever met on Youtube, probably only behind VeganGains
a comment for more reccs π
water this plant to increase sabine's reach π±