Despite my desire not to bring politics and science doubting into this discussion, it appears that the writer of the original post is a science denier. That said, if you cherry pick your facts, you can develop a stance that favors your particular beliefs. The accumulated scientific evidence is that we are in a significant climate change period that is unprecedented in history. You can try to deny that, but there are very view credible scientists that disagree with this interpretation of evidence. What proportion is directly related to human activity may be debatable but it is clear that some is.
Scientists have been warning about the implication of this for several decades and there has been little response to their warnings. An worldwide effort to reverse the human causes was agreed upon in the Paris accord. Whether or not you happen to like the geopolitics, it was a concerted effort to attempt to at least prevent further changes, perhaps reverse the trends. The previous US administration agreed to have the US make major efforts to decrease the human-related causes. The current administration, as you know, decided to pull the US out of that agreement. worse, it decided to reverse many of the efforts engineered to help slow the US's human-related addition to climate change.
California has played a rather unique role in environmental controls for decades. It was the first to deal with automobile pollution and the requirements for control of automobile exhaust pollution led to the production of automobiles with decreased production of many harmful substances. Historically, the single greatest influence that lowered the geometric blood lead levels in children throughout the US appears directly related to the removal of lead from gasoline which was actually designed not to protect the children, which happened as a side effect of the action, but to protect the automobile's catalytic convertor which became a requirement to decrease smog-producing hydrocarbons, and also managed to decrease the production of carbon monoxide, a silent killer.
Back to the statistics about forest fires, there are multiple sources of information. The Insurance Information Institute (iii), "publishes its statistics. I've attached 2 of the graphics that the iii has on its Its website declares :
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-wildfires"With more than 60 insurance company members — including regional, super-regional, national and global carriers — we are #1 online source for insurance information. Our website, blog and social media channels offer a wealth of data-driven research studies, white papers, videos, articles, infographics and other resources solely dedicated to explaining insurance and enhancing knowledge.
Unlike other sources, our sole focus is creating and disseminating information to empower consumers. We neither lobby nor sell insurance. We provide objective, fact-based information about insurance – information that is rooted in economic and actuarial soundness."
Let us not editorialize on the problem. We have known about this problem for decades, we know how to work to stabilize and or reverse the trend. Our children and their children, and many generations to come, depend on us making the correct decisions.