“Iberian Wildfires: Nature, Mismanagement, or Climate Alarmism?”

Firefighters battle a wildfire in Veiga das Meas, northwestern Spain, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Lalo R. Villar, File)

Published September 9, 2025

Introduction: The Narrative of Climate Crisis

In the summer of 2025, Spain and Portugal were engulfed by one of the most extensive wildfire seasons in recent memory. Over 640,000 hectares of land were scorched, thousands of residents were forced to evacuate, and several lives were tragically lost. Media outlets and climate organizations were quick to attribute these devastating fires to climate change, framing the event as a clear warning of humanity’s warming planet. Headlines highlighted record-breaking heat, unusually dry conditions, and erratic winds as proof that global warming had made such fires inevitable.

However, a closer examination reveals that the narrative of climate-driven catastrophe may oversimplify a complex situation. Historical records indicate that the Iberian Peninsula has long experienced extreme heatwaves, droughts, and widespread fires, even centuries before the rise of industrial carbon emissions. Furthermore, decades of rural depopulation and neglect of traditional forest management practices have left vast areas overgrown, creating conditions where even moderate heatwaves can ignite uncontrollable wildfires.

This raises critical questions: Are these fires primarily the product of climate change, or do human land-use decisions, natural weather variability, and ecological factors play a larger role? By examining the evidence with a skeptical lens, it becomes clear that the mainstream narrative may exaggerate the influence of global warming while downplaying the significant impact of local and historical factors. Understanding this nuance is essential for developing effective, practical strategies to prevent future disasters, rather than attributing every extreme event to climate change alone.

Claim: “Climate Change Made the Fires 40 Times More Likely”

Mainstream reports, including AP News, highlight a study by World Weather Attribution (WWA) claiming that climate change made the 2025 wildfires in Spain and Portugal 40 times more likely. This assertion is based on climate models that simulate weather patterns and calculate probabilities, aiming to isolate the role of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in extreme weather events. According to this narrative, the record-breaking heat, prolonged drought, and strong winds that fueled these fires were virtually impossible without the influence of global warming.

The study’s findings have been widely cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying the frequency and severity of wildfires across Europe. Proponents argue that the Iberian fires are a warning sign of a hotter, drier future, with the risk of similar catastrophic fires increasing as global temperatures rise. Climate experts often use such attribution studies to support urgent calls for emissions reductions, framing the fires as a direct consequence of human activity.

However, skeptics point out that this claim relies heavily on models with inherent uncertainties. Attribution studies depend on assumptions about baseline climate conditions, the accuracy of historical data, and the sensitivity of regional climates to global temperature changes. While models can suggest trends, they cannot definitively prove that any specific fire—or even a particular wildfire season—was caused primarily by climate change.

Additionally, historical evidence demonstrates that the Iberian Peninsula has endured extreme heatwaves, droughts, and large-scale fires long before industrial-era emissions. Catastrophic fires in the 16th, 18th, and 19th centuries occurred under natural climate variability, highlighting that severe wildfires are not unique to the modern era.

Counterclaim: Questioning the Attribution Models

• Model Uncertainties: Climate models have inherent uncertainties due to limited data and complex variables. Attributing specific events to climate change using these models can be contentious.

A central pillar of the claim that climate change made the 2025 Iberian wildfires “40 times more likely” is the use of climate models in attribution studies. While these models are useful for understanding long-term global trends, skeptics caution that they have significant limitations when applied to specific, short-term regional events such as a wildfire season in Iberia.

1. Complexity and Assumptions:
   Climate models rely on a vast array of assumptions about atmospheric dynamics, ocean currents, land-surface interactions, and greenhouse gas sensitivity. Even small inaccuracies in these assumptions can produce widely different outcomes, making precise predictions about the likelihood of individual events inherently uncertain.

2. Limited Historical Data:
   Attribution studies often compare current conditions to a “preindustrial baseline” derived from limited historical records. Skeptics argue that these records may not fully capture the natural variability of extreme weather events over centuries, especially in regions like Iberia with a long history of droughts and wildfires.

3. Regional Limitations:
   Most climate models are designed to simulate global or continental-scale phenomena. Downscaling these models to predict local or regional events introduces further uncertainty, particularly when dealing with variables like wind patterns, humidity, and vegetation conditions that can dramatically influence fire behavior.

4. Sensitivity to Inputs:
   The probability figures cited in attribution studies (e.g., “40 times more likely”) are highly sensitive to the specific inputs and assumptions used. Small changes in how baseline temperatures, soil moisture, or historical fire frequency are defined can drastically alter the results.

5. Overreliance on Simulations:
   Skeptics emphasize that models produce simulated probabilities, not observed facts. While simulations can illustrate potential trends, they cannot conclusively prove that climate change directly caused a specific wildfire season.

   ---

• Historical Context: The Iberian Peninsula has a history of wildfires, with significant events occurring long before the industrial era. This suggests that natural variability plays a substantial role.

Skeptics argue that understanding the 2025 Iberian wildfires requires looking beyond contemporary climate narratives and examining the historical record of extreme heat and wildfires in the region. The Iberian Peninsula has a long history of droughts, heatwaves, and large-scale fires that predate the industrial era, demonstrating that such events are not unique to modern climate change.

1. Preindustrial Wildfires: Historical documents and archives show that catastrophic fires occurred in the 16th, 18th, and 19th centuries. These fires happened during periods of significant drought and heat, yet without the influence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. This evidence suggests that extreme fires are a natural feature of Mediterranean climates, influenced by variability in precipitation and temperature cycles.

2. Heatwaves Before Industrialization: Records from Spain and Portugal indicate that summer heatwaves, sometimes exceeding modern temperature extremes, have occurred for centuries. These events occasionally led to widespread crop failure, forest fires, and social disruption, demonstrating that heat and dryness alone are not exclusive indicators of climate change.

3. Natural Climate Variability: Mediterranean climates naturally fluctuate between wet and dry periods. Skeptics argue that these natural cycles—driven by ocean currents, atmospheric pressure systems, and solar variability—play a substantial role in shaping wildfire risk. Attributing all extreme events to anthropogenic climate change ignores these longstanding patterns.

4. Lessons from History: Understanding historical wildfire events highlights the importance of human factors, such as settlement patterns, land use, and fire suppression practices. Many past fires became catastrophic not only because of weather but also due to how people interacted with and managed the landscape.

   ---

• Land Management Practices: Decades of rural depopulation and poor forest management have led to overgrown landscapes, providing ample fuel for wildfires. These human factors may have a more direct impact than climate change.

Skeptics emphasize that human decisions about land use and forest management play a critical role in determining wildfire severity, often more immediately than climate change. The 2025 Iberian wildfires illustrate how decades of neglect, depopulation, and inadequate land practices can turn ordinary heatwaves into catastrophic fires.

1. Rural Depopulation: Many rural areas in Spain and Portugal have experienced significant population decline over the past decades. As residents left, traditional practices such as small-scale farming, grazing, and controlled burns—techniques that naturally limited fuel buildup—were abandoned. The result is forests and shrublands increasingly dense with dry vegetation, providing abundant fuel for fires.

2. Accumulation of Flammable Vegetation: Without grazing animals or regular clearing, deadwood, shrubs, and overgrown underbrush accumulate. Even moderate heat and wind can ignite these areas, turning them into fast-spreading wildfires. In this sense, human land management—or the lack thereof—creates conditions far more decisive than slightly warmer temperatures.

3. Ineffective Fire Suppression Policies: Some fire prevention strategies focus heavily on post-ignition suppression rather than proactive management. While firefighting efforts are crucial, they cannot fully counteract decades of ecological buildup in unmanaged landscapes. Skeptics argue that emphasis on climate change distracts from these practical, actionable solutions.

4. Evidence from Other Regions: Similar patterns have been observed in other Mediterranean and temperate regions: well-managed landscapes experience fewer and less severe wildfires, even under high temperatures. Conversely, poorly managed areas burn more readily, highlighting the decisive role of human land use over broader climate trends.

Forecasts: Are Future Predictions Reliable?

Proponents of climate attribution studies often use the 2025 Iberian wildfires as a basis to predict more frequent and intense future wildfires across Europe. However, skeptics caution that these forecasts should be interpreted carefully, as they often rely on assumptions and models that carry significant uncertainties.

• Overreliance on Models: Future wildfire predictions are heavily based on climate models that simulate long-term trends. While useful for general projections, these models are less reliable at the regional or local scale, where variables such as vegetation type, land management, and localized weather events play a decisive role.

• Ignoring Historical Variability: Skeptics point out that historical data show natural cycles of wet and dry periods in the Mediterranean region. Wildfire activity has fluctuated for centuries due to natural climate variability, not just human influence. Extrapolating future trends from current events risks misrepresenting the natural variability of fire-prone regions.

• Limited Consideration of Adaptation: Forecasts often assume static conditions, ignoring human adaptability and mitigation measures. Improved land management, firefighting techniques, and early warning systems can dramatically reduce wildfire risk, even under hotter or drier conditions.

• Probability vs. Certainty: Predictions citing increased wildfire frequency often convey a sense of inevitability. Skeptics stress that these are probabilistic estimates based on assumptions, not guaranteed outcomes. Small changes in inputs or local conditions can substantially alter forecasted risks.

• Practical Implications: By emphasizing catastrophic future scenarios, policymakers and media may overstate the role of climate change while underemphasizing actionable, local solutions such as fuel management, rural repopulation strategies, and controlled burns.

The 1.5°C Threshold: A Political Benchmark?

Much of mainstream climate discourse emphasizes the 1.5°C global warming limit as a critical threshold for preventing catastrophic climate impacts, including extreme wildfires. However, skeptics question whether this specific benchmark is scientifically rigorous or primarily a political and policy-driven target.

• Origin of the Threshold: The 1.5°C limit was popularized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as part of its framework to motivate international emissions reductions. Skeptics argue that while limiting warming is generally reasonable, the precision of this particular number is arbitrary, as natural climate variability has historically produced much larger regional temperature swings without human influence.

• Natural Temperature Fluctuations: Historical records show that global and regional temperatures have fluctuated by more than 1.5°C over decades and centuries due to natural factors, such as solar cycles, volcanic activity, and ocean currents. Wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves occurred during these periods without any anthropogenic contribution.

• Overemphasis on a Single Metric: Skeptics contend that focusing narrowly on the 1.5°C target can oversimplify complex climate dynamics. Extreme weather events, including wildfires, are influenced by a combination of regional climate patterns, ecological conditions, and human land-use practices—not just global average temperatures.

• Policy vs. Science: The 1.5°C benchmark functions as a politically convenient reference to drive international climate agreements and policy measures. Skeptics caution that treating it as a strict “danger threshold” can exaggerate risk perception and overshadow practical, localized solutions to climate-related problems, such as forest management and infrastructure resilience.

Impacts, Adaptation & Resilience: A Balanced Perspective

While mainstream climate narratives emphasize the catastrophic impacts of events like the 2025 Iberian wildfires, skeptics argue that a balanced perspective must also consider human adaptability and practical solutions.

• Human Resilience: Communities in fire-prone regions have historically adapted to periodic droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Traditional practices—such as controlled burns, grazing, and careful land management—demonstrate that human intervention can significantly mitigate risk, even under challenging environmental conditions.

• Technological Advances: Modern firefighting techniques, early warning systems, and improved infrastructure have enhanced our ability to respond to wildfires. From aerial firefighting to advanced communication networks, these measures reduce the likelihood of widespread devastation regardless of climate trends.

• Focus on Actionable Solutions: Skeptics emphasize that local, practical measures—like clearing vegetation, maintaining firebreaks, and implementing sustainable land management—can have a more immediate and measurable impact than global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Natural Versus Human Influence: While climate change may contribute to warmer, drier conditions, the severity of fires often depends on how humans interact with the landscape. Neglect, poor urban planning, and dense overgrowth create conditions where even minor heatwaves can trigger massive fires.

• Balanced Risk Assessment: A skeptic perspective stresses the importance of nuanced risk evaluation. Extreme events should be understood as the product of multiple interacting factors, including climate, ecology, and human behavior, rather than solely as evidence of catastrophic global warming.

Lesson: Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs

In this segment, Linnea Lueken of the Heartland Institute critically examines prevalent claims about climate change’s impact on wildfires, droughts, sea levels, and coral reefs. She argues that while climate change may contribute to these issues, the extent of its influence is often overstated. Lueken emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between actual trends and alarmist narratives.

Key Claims and Counterpoints

1. Wildfires

Claim: Climate change is causing wildfires to become more frequent and intense.

Counterpoint : While some studies indicate an increase in wildfire activity, Lueken points out that factors such as land management practices, urban expansion into fire-prone areas, and natural climate variability play significant roles. She suggests that focusing solely on climate change may divert attention from these critical factors.

2. Droughts

Claim: Climate change is leading to more severe and prolonged droughts.

Counterpoint : Lueken references data showing that drought patterns are complex and influenced by various factors, including natural climate cycles like El Niño and La Niña. She cautions against attributing all drought events to climate change without considering these natural drivers.

3. Rising Sea Levels

Claim: Rising sea levels are a direct result of climate change and pose a significant threat to coastal areas.

Counterpoint : Lueken acknowledges that sea levels are rising but questions the extent to which human activities contribute to this trend. She highlights that historical data show periods of rising sea levels before significant industrialization, suggesting that natural processes may be at play.

4. Coral Reefs

Claim: Climate change is causing widespread coral bleaching and the decline of coral reefs.

Counterpoint : Lueken discusses how coral reefs have survived various environmental changes throughout history. She argues that while warming oceans can stress coral systems, other factors like pollution, overfishing, and coastal development also contribute significantly to coral reef degradation.

Overall Takeaway: A Complex Web of Factors

The 2025 wildfires in Spain and Portugal were undeniably severe, but attributing them solely to climate change oversimplifies a complex reality. Skeptics emphasize that multiple interacting factors—including historical climate variability, human land management practices, rural depopulation, and ecological conditions—played a significant role in shaping the fires’ scale and intensity.

• Natural Variability Matters: Historical records show that the Iberian Peninsula has experienced catastrophic wildfires and extreme heatwaves long before industrial-era carbon emissions. Natural climate cycles, not just human-driven warming, have shaped these events for centuries.

• Human Influence Is Immediate: Overgrown forests, abandoned agricultural lands, and inadequate fire management created highly flammable conditions. Even a modest heatwave can become disastrous under such circumstances. Focusing exclusively on global warming risks ignoring practical, actionable solutions that address these immediate human factors.

• Models and Probabilities Are Uncertain: Claims such as “climate change made the fires 40 times more likely” rely on attribution models with significant uncertainties. Skeptics caution against treating these simulated probabilities as concrete evidence of causation.

• Balanced Policy Approach: Rather than framing wildfires as inevitable consequences of climate change, policymakers should prioritize resilience, adaptation, and responsible land management. This approach addresses the root causes of catastrophic fires while preparing communities for future challenges.

In summary, a Counterpoint calls for nuanced, evidence-based analysis. Recognizing the interplay of natural, historical, and human factors provides a more accurate understanding of wildfire risks and allows for more effective strategies than alarmist climate narratives alone.

SOURCES: AP NEWS – Climate change made heat and dryness that fueled Iberian wildfires 40 times more likely, study finds

IOWA CLIMATE SCIENCE – Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs