Bottom line: Hossenfelder is right to highlight uncertainties but ignores the broader scientific context. The study doesn’t claim absolute certainty—it presents probabilities, which matter for understanding and preparing for future risks.

Hossenfelder applies particle physics standards, where high significance is key. But in climate science, uncertainties are unavoidable. Despite wide intervals, the overall evidence suggests climate change likely made conditions for these fires more extreme.

The real issue: She admits she didn’t fully read the 59-page study. Her criticism is incomplete. Yes, uncertainties are large, but the paper acknowledges them. It’s not about certainty, but probabilities—crucial for risk assessment.

The study presents the 6% intensity increase & 35% probability increase as best estimates. It also cites other evidence, like a 23-day longer dry season. Hossenfelder ignores this and dismisses it as "bla bla bla"—a major flaw in her critique.

In statistics, an interval containing zero often means no significant effect. But in climate science, high significance is rarely achievable. That doesn’t mean there’s no effect—just that the data or signal strength may be too weak to detect it with high certainty.

I watched Hossenfelder’s video and reviewed the WWA study on the 2025 LA wildfires. She argues that the confidence interval (-5.9% to +10.5%) allows for "no effect" and therefore the study is unreliable. Sounds reasonable – but it’s not that simple.

@hossenfelder.bsky.social Since you favour GROK as an AI, I had GROK evaluate your criticism against the background of the study. You seem to be applying the wrong standards and would definitely have been better off reading the whole study. There is not much left of your criticism: