Explanations have no obligation to be satisfying (and the more satisfying an explanation is, the more you should question its accuracy). This is a great illustr

Explanations have no obligation to be satisfying (and the more satisfying an explanation is, the more you should question its accuracy). This is a great illustration of the problem. As the population of LA increases: 1. The number of arsonists will increase 2. The probability of a given lightning strike causing a house fire will increase (as the built up area increases) 3. The probability that a wildfire in an unpopulated area will spread to a populated area will increase 4. The potential number of houses destroyed by a single fire increases 5. The dollar value per house destroyed increases So if there were no change at all in the weather patterns, we would still expect to see an increase in fire damage over time when the population of LA increases. That's why you can't just scream "it's global warming!" when the chart goes up and to the right and weather is a contributing factor.