Yes, your last sentence is quite valid...and, if I may add, extremely arrogant to think that all one has to do to control mother nature is control CO2 emissions. Good news is the pro green group have focused on only 1.5% of the data ....all of the 1.5% that they have focused on is all negative . The 99% that they have ignored is much  more positive than it is  negative. There are multiple opportunities within the 99% data area that are cheap solutions. Canada for example could reduce forest fire ghg emissions equal to the Paris Accord decrease by spending three to four billion $ per year on forest fires instead of the current one billion $. The $ required could be funded from a carbon stump fee on the lumber industry. That would placate Trump etal re low stump fees on Crown land lumber  Placing a carbon tax on stump using JT's carbon tax $  per tonne of CO2 on 400 million tonnes of forest fire CO2 is a massive $ amount relative the $4 billion .