First, you have to know that I believe the majority of scientists who are convinced our production of CO2 on the planet has an effect on our climate. In all likelihood that effect has a direct bearing on the severity of the fires going on in California right now but the operative word here is "likelihood".
Science is an inexact process relying on the concept of theory and data and to state any findings as categorically perfect is an exercise in futility that gives detractors the upper edge.
We've been monitoring the weather on the Earth for a very tiny part of its history and yet we know, from analysis of deep ice cores and other physical evidence that there have been some profound weather changes that have occurred in relatively short periods of time throughout the ages. Ice ages developed not over millions of years but often over centuries or even decades. The same goes for periods of heating and drought.
In some of those cases we can pinpoint a specific trigger for the event such as a strike from space or a huge volcanic eruption but not always. It is entirely possible that there are cosmic cycles we're completely unaware of.
My gut feeling about the changes I've seen in the last decade in the weather on our planet is that those alterations are some combination of man's input combined with natural cycles or occurrences. I can see in the posts over the last few days though the notion that the events in California are an opportunity to push for action based on the "fact" that the heat and dryness leading to the severity of the fires is entirely produced by our production of CO2. Even if someday that proves to be completely correct, it is simply a scientific fallacy to make such a pronouncement and will do more harm than good to the cause of minimizing our impact.
Instead our message should be that Global Warming, no matter what the cause, has helped to create conditions which contributes to fires of this intensity and we should base our policy upon the assumption that we in some way contribute. Normally, basing governmental decisions on an assumption would be a bogus way of doing business but in this case, the fixes are such that they benefit our standard of living and our economic future.
Energy conservation reduces our dependence on foreign oil and brings down the costs of running a household and doing business. Intensive research into alternative energy sources creates entrepreneurial opportunities and assurances for future generations. All the steps that are being proposed to cut down our contribution to adverse climate change should be done even if we have not a shred of evidence of any effect at all.
Update: I think what we saw from the responses below was what I feared about this subject that it is extremely polarizing and that it's easy to distort the findings of science to put forth very narrow interpretations of the research and come to definitive answers. True scientists, although human and capable of fiercely defending their research results, know that answers are always fleeting and can change from the next day's load of data.
Believe me, I'm just as passionate about this and other contentious subjects these days but also realize we need to retain power in our public messages and to do so requires respect for the brainstorming of others. I know extremely conservative bloggers that read Kos religiously each day looking for chinks in the armor and fights among the factions and will not hesitate to label the entire group fringe wackos because of the absolute statements of a few passionate individuals or the things said in anger in our debates.
Maybe if we used a bit of the Parlimentary language where all statements are prefaced with "My distinguished colleague..." or the "Honorable Senator most nobly said...." before we called them an idiot it might soften the blow.