1) I'm not sure this is the right metric -- by acres burned, depending on the source, natural fires are comparable to human-ignited fires. 2) Fully natural wil

1) I'm not sure this is the right metric -- by acres burned, depending on the source, natural fires are comparable to human-ignited fires. 2) Fully natural wildfires are typically caused by lightning -- which of course often also means rain, humidity, or other moisture. But the reality is that human fire suppression is actually quite effective most of the time. It does lead to debris buildup. It does lead to more intense fires--as does climate change and the widespread tree death associated with infestations and drought. We don't seem to have a great idea of what these ecosystems were like before people, but it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of land would burn a little bit with quite some regularity, but not as intensively as these human-ignited fires because of the whole thunderstorm thing. It's also not clear that wildfires fuel climate change--after all they're not really carbon reserves: those tries will eventually die and decompose anyway, it's not like oil underground that had been locked away for millions of years. And, crucially, they'll regrow. Lastly: why, again, with the conspirational thinking? "Claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers" as though the people writing these articles are knowingly lying, when almost all are just perpetuating what they hear from scientists/nonprofits/others. Why?