the data i posted said 93% of the total area burned was caused by lightning, and only 7% was caused by humans. this is a kind of qualitative stat that has been quantified. i am familiar with the fact that governments have been arguing for years - and i have no reason to think this is incorrect - that the vast majority of fires, when counted irrespective of size or intensity, are caused by humans. i think the gay american fire mascot even told us this, as far back as the 80s. it is probably true.
the issue in front of us is all of this smoke, so i picked the qualitative metric because i realized it was more relevant. the type of wildfires caused by humans tend to be where humans go and are therefore easier to catch and stop. that doesn't mean they aren't serious problems, but they aren't what's causing the wildfire smoke, or these record wildfire seasons. the dramatic spikes in areas burned are directly related to lightning strikes starting fires in remote areas that are hotter and drier than they used to be. it's the change in climate that is causing the increase in smoke, not direct human activity in the forest.
the gay fire mascot is still right. most fires, when added up irrespective of damage and intensity, are caused by humans. you should still be responsible in the forest.
it's just that this isn't the same issue, and thinking it is the same issue is fundamentally not getting it, and it is that point of not getting it that i was trying to address and correct.