probably requires a diary or more, and that isn't something I have time to do at the moment, although I plan to get around to it eventually.

Here's the money quote from the article I referenced:

If increased wildfire risks are driven primarily by land-use history, then ecological restoration and fuels management are potential solutions. However, if increased risks are largely due to changes in climate during recent decades, then restoration and fuels treatments may be relatively ineffective in reversing current wildfire trends

It's saying exactly the opposite of what you recognize (and what I agree with) in your first paragraph. The attitude has become "global warming causes fires", which is tenuous at best (global warming might make fires more probable, but climate is only one factor affecting wildfire occurrance and not a 'cause' - although even that isn't completely correct depending on the weather).

It's more correct, IMO, to say that fires cause global warming - are a significant contributor of greenhouse gases - and that suggests a different set of solutions, among which is ecosystem restoration. Reducing atmospheric CO2 doesn't improve forest health of make forests less prone to destructive fires.

As to convincing skeptics, I don't know that I have an answer to that, but I don't think faulty science is likely to be the answer, or that strategies which minimize, ignore, or even perpetuate other environmental problems (and yes, there are other problems besides climate change) are a good choice.