I spent most of my lockdown stressing over climate related headlines like the thumbnail. When the wildfires hit my state, all my dread came to life. "This is what the future looks like," I thought.

But then I came across some alternate articles. One such written by Bjorn Lomborg:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/sorry-solar-panels-wont-stop-californias-fires/

I'm not sure about Bjorn Lomborg as a climate skepticist. I wished he had more credentials so his words have more weight. But there was one line in the article that REALLY caught my attention,
>"This past decade, California has seen an average burnt area of 775,000 acres. Before 1800, however, California typically saw between 4.4 and 11.9 million acres burn every year."

Whoa, what the fuck? That changes everything. I googled around to find some scientific literature that supported this claim, and I came across this:

https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-Stephens07.pdf

This seems to back up the claims albeit to a lesser degree. The key quote I pulled out of the about annual California burnage,
>"Approximately 1.8 million
ha burned annually in California prehistorically (pre 1800)."

That's 4.4 million acres a *year*, double the record that has been set in 2020 in modern recordings. All the literature that I've read suggests that modern fire suppression and population increase are the main reasons driving the rise of wildfires. But it took a sketchy, fringe climate skepticist to point out the data that's clear as day.

I can't find this information parroted anywhere else. Every major news outlet is pouncing on my state and proclaiming the wildfires as the poster child of climate change. I don't think climate change is fake, but it also evidently isn't a sole contributor to a much more complex problem.

This really makes me wonder where the politics ends and the science begins. What do I believe?