Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In short, the whole World Weather Attribution report is a scam, fabricated to push their agenda, as Dr Friederike Otto, co-lead of World Weather Attribution and senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, made clear
TOPSHOT – Residents flee their home as flames from the Sand Fire close in on July 23 2016 near Santa Clarita, California.
Fueled by temperatures reaching about 108 degrees fahrenheit, the wildfire began yesterday has grown to 11,000 acres. / AFP PHOTO / DAVID MCNEWDAVID MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images ** OUTS – ELSENT, FPG, CM – OUTS * NM, PH, VA if sourced by CT, LA or MoD **
Climate change made devastating LA fires more likely, scientists say
.
That’s the headline that has been doing the rounds this week.
The reporting across the media is suspiciously similar across the media, proof that the message has been carefully choreographed by the climate establishment. You can, for instance, read the articles from The Independent and The Standard here and here.
The headline claim, you will not be surprised to learn, has come from World Weather Attribution, who say that the hot and dry conditions that drove the recent fires were about 35 percent more likely due to warming caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas and coal that releases atmosphere-warming greenhouse gases. The fact that they can calculate the odds so exactly shows how fraudulent the whole exercise is.
This time they have focussed specifically on October to December rainfall,saying that “low rainfall between the months of October and December is now about 2.4 times more likely compared to the preindustrial climate.
Although it was very dry in Los Angeles between October and December 2024, there have been many other years just as dry, notably in the 1950s.
There is clearly no evidence that such droughts are becoming more likely, as the WWA falsely claim. Nor were temperatures in that part of California particularly high.
In short, the whole World Weather Attribution report is a scam, fabricated to push their agenda, as Dr Friederike Otto, co-lead of World Weather Attribution and senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, made clear:
“In 2025, the choices facing world leaders remain the same – to drill and continue to burn oil, gas and coal and experience ever more dangerous weather, or transition to renewable energy for a safer and fairer world”
The Nature Reviews Earth & Environment paper on hydroclimate volatility represents yet another example of speculative science dressed up as crisis-level evidence. Its central claim is that so-called “hydroclimate whiplash”—sharp transitions between wet and dry conditions—will become far more frequent and intense as the planet warms. The authors predict that subseasonal whiplash events (three-month shifts) will increase by 113% under 3°C warming, while interannual whiplash events (year-long shifts) will rise by 52%.
The Nature Reviews Earth & Environment paper on hydroclimate volatility represents yet another example of speculative science dressed up as crisis-level evidence. Its central claim is that so-called “hydroclimate whiplash”—sharp transitions between wet and dry conditions—will become far more frequent and intense as the planet warms. The authors predict that subseasonal whiplash events (three-month shifts) will increase by 113% under 3°C warming, while interannual whiplash events (year-long shifts) will rise by 52%. These figures, dramatic as they may sound, are derived from models riddled with uncertainties and based on poorly defined baselines, making their real-world implications highly suspect.
Hydroclimate volatility refers to sudden, large and/or frequent transitions between very dry and very wet conditions. In this Review, we examine how hydroclimate volatility is anticipated to evolve with anthropogenic warming. Using a metric of ‘hydroclimate whiplash’ based on the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, global-averaged subseasonal (3-month) and interannual (12-month) whiplash have increased by 31–66% and 8–31%, respectively, since the mid-twentieth century. Further increases are anticipated with ongoing warming, including subseasonal increases of 113% and interannual increases of 52% over land areas with 3 °C of warming; these changes are largest at high latitudes and from northern Africa eastward into South Asia. Extensive evidence links these increases primarily to thermodynamics, namely the rising water-vapour-holding capacity and potential evaporative demand of the atmosphere. Increases in hydroclimate volatility will amplify hazards associated with rapid swings between wet and dry states (including flash floods, wildfires, landslides and disease outbreaks), and could accelerate a water management shift towards co-management of drought and flood risks. A clearer understanding of plausible future trajectories of hydroclimate volatility requires expanded focus on the response of atmospheric circulation to regional and global forcings, as well as land–ocean–atmosphere feedbacks, using large ensemble climate model simulations, storm-resolving high-resolution models and emerging machine learning methods.
But the bigger story here isn’t the paper’s shaky science—it’s the timing of its publication.
Released on January 9, 2025, just two days after the Palisades and Eaton Fires broke out in Los Angeles and while they were still raging, the paper appears to have been rushed out to provide the media with a ready-made link between the fires and climate change. The fires, which have already caused 24 fatalities, destroyed thousands of homes, and inflicted $50 billion in economic losses, dominated global headlines.
For the marketing to work blaming climate change for the fires, the media needs some authoritative scientific experts and research papers, preferably with numbers that can easily fool busy readers or at least satisfy a bare minimum standard. pic.twitter.com/KUU5BPtBLc
As if on cue, the media pounced on the paper to frame the LA fires as evidence of escalating climate volatility. It’s hard to imagine the journal’s editors weren’t aware of how perfectly their publication would align with the news cycle. Whether intentional or opportunistic, this timing seems far too convenient to be coincidental.
Let’s examine why this paper’s conclusions are deeply flawed and how its suspicious timing highlights the growing interplay between speculative climate science and media-driven alarmism.
The Los Angeles Fires: A Manufactured Narrative
The Palisades and Eaton Fires, which began on January 7, 2025, have caused destruction on an unprecedented scale. The Palisades Fire has destroyed over 420 homes, while the Eaton Fire has devastated more than 7,000 structures. The fires have claimed at least 24 lives combined, making them some of the deadliest in California’s history. Predictably, the media seized the moment to blame climate change, framing these disasters as yet another example of a warming world spiraling out of control.
The Nature paper on hydroclimate whiplash provided the perfect scientific veneer to reinforce this narrative. Though the paper itself does not explicitly link whiplash events to wildfires, its release during the fires gave journalists just enough material to connect the dots. Headlines proclaimed that increasing “whiplash” was driving extreme weather patterns and fueling events like the LA fires.
However, the reality is far less dramatic. Wildfires in California, including the Palisades and Eaton Fires, are driven by far more immediate and well-understood factors, including:
Fuel Accumulation: Decades of poor forest management have allowed dangerous amounts of dry vegetation to build up. This is a far bigger driver of wildfire risk than climate change.
Ignition Sources: Investigators believe the Eaton Fire may have been started by electrical infrastructure failures—an all-too-common ignition source in California. Human activity (including arson and accidental ignitions) remains the leading cause of wildfires globally.
Weather Variability: California’s Santa Ana winds, with gusts reaching 70 mph during these fires, are a long-standing feature of its climate and have fueled fires for centuries, long before industrial emissions.
While climate change might influence background conditions, such as slightly lengthening fire seasons, it is far from the primary culprit in these disasters. Yet, thanks to the convenient timing of the Nature paper, the media has doubled down on the narrative that climate change is the driving force behind California’s fires.
Hydroclimate Whiplash: A Crisis Built on Speculation
The term “hydroclimate whiplash,” coined by the paper’s authors, refers to abrupt shifts between wet and dry periods. The authors claim that these events will increase dramatically under global warming scenarios, using projections from the CESM2-LE climate model. The numbers they cite are eye-catching:
A 113% increase in subseasonal whiplash events by 2100 under 3°C warming.
A 52% increase in interannual whiplash events over the same period.
But these projections crumble under scrutiny. As Roger Pielke Jr. would say, this is a classic example of the “percent of a percentage problem.” By expressing changes as percentages without providing clear baseline context, the authors obscure the real-world significance of their findings.
If subseasonal whiplash events currently occur, say, once every five years, then doubling their frequency means they would still happen only every 2.5 years. Such increases, while statistically interesting, hardly warrant the apocalyptic tone of the paper.
More importantly, “hydroclimate whiplash” itself is poorly defined and highly dependent on arbitrary thresholds. California’s climate, for instance, has always experienced sharp shifts between wet and dry conditions. Atmospheric rivers bring heavy rains during wet seasons, followed by dry summers. This variability is a natural feature of California’s Mediterranean climate, not a harbinger of climate catastrophe.
Shaky Science: Flaws in the Paper’s Approach
Even if we accept the concept of hydroclimate whiplash, the Nature paper’s conclusions are undermined by significant flaws in its methodology:
Unreliable Models: The CESM2-LE climate model, which the study relies on, struggles to accurately simulate extreme events in today’s climate. If the model can’t capture current conditions, its projections of future trends are little more than guesswork. The authors even admit that the model underestimates extreme events, yet they proceed to base their conclusions on it.
Baseline Ambiguity: The paper provides no clear explanation of how frequently whiplash events occur today. Are they once-in-a-decade events? Once-a-year events? Without a baseline, the dramatic percentage increases cited in the paper are meaningless.
Natural Variability Ignored: The study attributes most of the projected increases in whiplash events to anthropogenic warming while downplaying the role of natural drivers like the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO alone has a massive influence on precipitation variability in regions like California.
Rare Events Amplify Uncertainty: Modeling changes in rare phenomena is inherently difficult. Small errors in the model’s input parameters can lead to massive variability in the results, making the projections highly unreliable.
Taken together, these flaws render the paper’s findings speculative at best. Yet its timing and dramatic conclusions have elevated it to a level of media prominence that far outweighs its actual scientific rigor.
Suspicious Timing: A Case Study in Opportunism
The timing of the Nature paper’s release—just two days after the Palisades and Eaton Fires erupted—raises serious questions about the journal’s motives. Peer-reviewed studies typically spend months, if not years, in review and revision. The decision to publish this paper while the fires were still raging appears calculated to maximize its media impact.
Journals like Nature are well aware of how their publications influence public discourse. By releasing this paper during an ongoing disaster, the editors ensured that it would dominate headlines and reinforce the narrative that climate change is the primary driver of extreme weather and disasters. This isn’t merely a coincidence—it’s opportunism.
The media, predictably, ran with the story. Headlines conflated the fires with hydroclimate whiplash, portraying the LA disaster as an inevitable consequence of climate change. The result is a media-science feedback loop where speculative studies are treated as definitive evidence, fueling public fear and bolstering calls for sweeping, costly policies.
The Danger of Alarmism
The consequences of this kind of alarmism are profound. By framing hydroclimate whiplash as an urgent climate crisis, the Nature paper distracts from more immediate and solvable problems. California’s wildfire risk could be significantly reduced through better forest management, infrastructure upgrades, and targeted fire prevention strategies.
Instead, resources are often diverted to climate mitigation policies that do little to address the root causes of wildfires. The public, meanwhile, is left fearful and misinformed, believing that climate change is solely responsible for disasters like the Palisades and Eaton Fires.
Conclusion: Alarmism Dressed as Science
The Nature Reviews Earth & Environment paper on hydroclimate whiplash is a textbook case of speculative science weaponized for alarmism. Its dramatic projections, built on flawed models and vague baselines, lack the rigor needed to justify its conclusions.
But the timing of its release—just two days after the LA fires began and while they were still raging—casts an even darker shadow. Whether by design or opportunism, the paper was strategically published to align with the media narrative surrounding the fires. This is not science informing policy; it is science feeding fear.
The public deserves better. Policymakers need transparent, robust science—not alarmist studies timed to exploit tragedy. Hydroclimate whiplash may make for a compelling headline, but it’s a poor foundation for sound policy or meaningful action. Let’s focus on solving real problems, not amplifying manufactured crises.
Roger Pielke Jr. and Ryan Maue’s X thread are well worth reading for more information.
Thousands of Californians have been burned out of their homes. The danger is not yet over. It’s hard to breathe. People lie dead in the ashes of their American dream.
Thousands of Californians have been burned out of their homes. The danger is not yet over. It’s hard to breathe. People lie dead in the ashes of their American dream.
For people of good conscience, this is a time for empathy, prayer, and whatever aid is needed to keep survivors safe, help them rebuild, and improve government’s ability to prevent and respond in the future.
For climate kleptocrats and ideologues, every crisis is an opportunity to increase their wealth and power.
Climate campaigners are “weaponizing every weather event,” is how CFACT’s Marc Morano put it on the radio.
Bogus “attribution” has become the woke-climate campaigner’s favorite weapon. Whenever tragic weather strikes, the media parrots campaigners’ claims that climate change makes extreme weather “more likely.”
How much more likely?
If the media was doing its job, reporters would vet these claims by following up with, “how meaningful was the climate change impact on this event?” This would force campaigners to concede that the impact was minimal, or not present. Particularly, if opposing analysis was fairly included.
We posted an explanation by data prodigy Chris Martz at CFACT.org.
“To a hammer,” the saying goes, “everything looks like a nail.” To Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, everything looks like a pretext to expand the power of government.
Sanders, predictably, jumped on X, attributed the fires to climate and demanded that “Donald Trump must treat this like the existential crisis it is,” i.e, submit to the UN climate regime.
“Hi there Colonel Sanders.” Chris tweeted. “Do you like facts? I hope you do, because you’re about to be sacked with some.”
Take a look at the epic sacking that ensued. Chris laid out the hard, historical weather data with detailed support from the high holy peer-reviewed scientific literature on California, fire and climate.
To sum up, the Santa Ana Winds blow hard every year. Past fires have been almost universally attributed to human causes, not how you use energy. Fallen power lines are frequently to blame, along with other accidents, and arson — which is no accident at all.
This current round of fires became a blast furnace when the Santa Ana winds reached hurricane force at the same time the fires burned. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels or electric vehicles could have saved the day.
Better forest, water and emergency management might have minimized them, and certainly would have mitigated their impact.
The Pacific Palisades have burned before. That is historically normal. What is new is the billions of dollars of development that has occurred since the last time they did.
How meaningful would the impact of better, smarter government have been? Very meaningful.
Pray for those whose lives and homes have been lost.
Lend them your helping hand.
Take action to ensure California is better prepared next time.
On Episode #140 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely welcome U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and CFACT’s Chris Martz to cover the LA fires and some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.” There’s been some fascinating news since our two-week hiatus, some of it good. Blackrock and JP Morgan are the latest financial giants to drop out of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, Michael Mann experienced his first-ever setback in his lawfare against climate realists, and Biden tries to tie Trump’s hands on drilling while also trying to ban some tankless water heaters on his way out of the White House.
Historic wildfires have destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Los Angeles County. Many homes of the rich and famous in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Pasadena have been reduced to rubble and ash. Entire neighborhoods were completely destroyed, and the fires have been blamed for at least five deaths. The speed at which the fires spread caught firefighters and residents off guard. Fed by hurricane-strength Santa Ana winds, embers were flying through the air seemingly everywhere and with no let-up. Climate alarmists have pinned the blame on human-caused climate change, but that is not truth.
On Episode #140 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely welcome U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and CFACT’s Chris Martz to cover the LA fires and some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.” There’s been some fascinating news since our two-week hiatus, some of it good. Blackrock and JP Morgan are the latest financial giants to drop out of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, Michael Mann experienced his first-ever setback in his lawfare against climate realists, and Biden tries to tie Trump’s hands on drilling while also trying to ban some tankless water heaters on his way out of the White House.
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET so you can leave your questions and comments for the show in the chat.
You must be logged in to post a comment.