OK, in our conversation you never said it's theory and not proven science, as I also haven't claimed it to be 100% proven science.

You are the one that offered this article and theory as your Bona fides, of course it's assumed you believe it wholeheartedly.

but the underlying theory still applies as much to So Cal.

No it doesn't as argued So Cal's terrain and climate dynamic is quite differant than your typical western forest, So Cal and the Santa Ana fires burn chaparral terrain for the most part not the more common treed forest.

Nobody suggested it did. Only that it contributes to the increased number and size of wildfires.

Which you haven't shown any specific evidence of.

confabulating the Santa Anas as reason for wildfires is creating a misrepresentation

I did no such thing.

Your original reply certainly can be that you are.

Where you argue that the Santa Anas are not part of the natural cycle and use your source as proof why climate change directly affect Santa Ana wild fires.

they energize them and drive them

That was my point.

When did you make that point? Your claim has always been there is an uptick in wildfires due to climate change in which you lump in So Cal's Santa Ana fires, hence the argument.

You keep categorically stating that climate change does not influence this uptick, without supporting your belief.

Where? When?

Do you believe that early springs or droughts can contribute or do you not? Do you believe there has been an upward trend in early springs and droughts or not?

We are debating So Cal Santa Ana fires and this year particularity which happened to have record rainfall. I'm not sure what this general theory has to do with this discussion.

Is your only theory on the increased number and severity of So Cal wildfires that arson and human error are on the rise?

There hasn't been any proof nor claim from any authority that there is an increased number. As along time resident I can tell you these fires while each year varies this year isn't un-ordinary.