Mentioning this to my son, he retorted that the "fact checkers" said that prior years' burn assessments were in error. That would be their major argument. I mentioned that in the 1930s, there were airplanes, photography, telephones, radio, and every other way to measure burned acreage that we have today except satellites. To parry the argument of inaccuracies, I guess we'll have to resort to the "are the old measurements several orders of magnitude incorrect?" The "inaccuracy" of past data, undoubtedly, is the retort for ANY historical evidence provided, and we sure could use some more arguments to support its use.