I don't see why people are having such a hard time over the connection between global warming and arson, but they are, along the usual predictable political fault lines. While the California fires were still raging, the Democrats were quick to spot the cause as global warming. But then, when it turned out that the proximate cause was arson, the global warming claim died down, a new finger was pointed at Blackwater while Republican commentators brayed about the fire's human origin.

Many sarcastic claims were made that "global warming causes arson." (Which, if you think about it, isn't all that different from saying that global warming causes terrorism, violence or even nightmares in children.)

Both sides are IMO, overlooking a common area of potential agreement. If you rearrange the words, and use a little logic, isn't it obvious that arson causes global warming? Arson equals fire which equals not only the release of heat, but the release of more C02, right? So all who believe in AGW theory ought to be able to agree on arson as a contributory cause, and even the skeptics ought to be able to allow that arson does at least heat up the area where the arson is committed.

In fact if the entire world were set on fire, few would argue that it wouldn't be hotter.

The more I thought about this (and I tried to be very careful and scientific), the more I was drawn to a remarkable conclusion, on which we can all agree. FIRE IS HOT.

The rest is a simple step.

Can we all get along now?