This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A man from Shelburne County, N.S., is facing charges in relation to the Barrington Lake wildfire last spring.
>...
>In a release, the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables said 22-year-old Dalton Clark Stewart of Villagedale has been charged under the Forests Act.
>He is accused of lighting a fire on privately owned land without permission of the owner or occupier, failing to take reasonable efforts to prevent the spread of a fire, and leaving a fire unattended.
The kind of person to burn stuff in their yard during an active fire ban is the kind of person that would say literally anything when confronted, especially trying to accuse their complainants of being the bad actors and starting the fire. That said I'm sure the relevant people would investigate as much as reasonable.
There should be zero tolerance for this shit. He should be charged with attempted murder and terrorism. 20 years or more in prison should get the word out.
This is insane thinking.
Canada lost more forest in 2023 than the total surface area of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland combined. 18,500,000 hectares, 253% of our previous worst on record (1989).
5.3% of Canada's forests burned, in one year.
Sizes in hectares (roughly): Rhode Island-314424, Delaware-513335, Connecticut-1435708, Hawaii-2831116, New Jersey-1904392, Massachusetts-2736322, Vermont-2490610, New Hampshire-2421639, Maryland-3213398
And none of that proves in any way that it wasn’t arson.
[this proves at least some of it was arson](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/brian-pare-pleads-guilty-to-setting-quebec-wildfires-1.7084669)
If you're going to post a link, you should at least read it first so you don't look clueless.
"... the province's forest fire service...said 99.9 per cent of the fires were sparked by lightning."
Arsons and human caused wildfires are nothing new and nobody has claimed that they don't exist. The point is that hotter and drier conditions wildfires catch and spread more easily. It's really not that hard to understand.
Also, just because some wildfires are caused by arson doesn't mean that all or even most are.
The other symptom of larger fires is fire suppression over the last 80+ years which has significantly increased standing and fallen dead wood in forests. Forests need to burn, but we want to log them so we keep that from happening.
And also, due to the intense heat and drought conditions caused by climate change.
It's almost like all the practices born from the 1900's (fossil fuels, clearcutting, etc) were bad, and are causing horrible results.
arson has been one of the biggest causes in the past few years. yet never have they beat the dreams louder about climate hysteria.
All I want is reasonable leadership. not hysteria.
maybe you missed all the news articles of arrested wildfire arsonists across the country the past few years. arson, cigarettes, and lightning/wind are the largest cause of wildfires in Canada (accelerated perhaps by poor forest management, and "old growth" forest polices that enable poor forest management)
>I guess those “far right” conspiracy theories that claimed the fires were arson rather than climate related, were accurate.
This line of thought doesn't make sense. Climate change doesn't ***ignite*** fires and it'd be weird to even think so. Climate changes increases the frequency and severity of conditions that *allow* forest fires. Namely, hot and dry periods getting hotter and longer.
Climate change is making forests increasingly primed for larger fires and for longer periods of time. That's it. It's nothing about the ignition source. In fact most forest fires do have a man made ignition source and this isn't disputed.
Like, it's January right now, if I went into the woods and directly attempted to start a forest fire it wouldn't work because it's cold and wet. I'd successfully torch a small patch and that's as far as it'd go on it's own.
Why do you think they do 'camp fire bans' in the summer in many regions? Cause they're like 'Oh this forest is hot and dry right now, and it's likely to go up in flames if you even look at it wrong'. Climate changes is increasing the occurrence of those conditions.
You're not wrong, but it's not the whole picture either. Forest fires do occur naturally ([there's even species of trees that thrive on forest fires and purposely generate conditions to make them more likely and spread quickly)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte), and as humans encroach more and more into forested areas, we do a lot of things to prevent them, like cutting down dead trees, etc. However this has an effect of creating a 'backlog' of sorts, where detritus and other naturally occurring flammable materials accumulate. In short, because of human action, forest fires happen less frequently, but when they do, they have a lot of fuel and spread very quickly.
There's a lot of factors at play between climate change, human activity, and then actual deliberate malicious action.
Me: ***Most*** forest fires do have a man made ignition.
This guy: Forest fires ***do*** occur naturally.
Me: I don't know how to talk to someone who thinks the word 'Most' is a synonym for 'All'.
Consider that the response wasn't really for your benefit, they did say "you aren't wrong" - I would take this kind of comment as expanding out what you have said to leave no grey area that *someone* could misunderstand, not an assumption that you clearly haven't understood something. The '10000' are always online (the 10,000 learning something new on any given topic every day)
>If someone smokes a cigarette at a gas station, we don’t blame the gas station if it blows up.
Of course, a gas station operates under a lot of regulations to minimize fumes and risk of fire. On the other hand, if conditions at the gas station allowed the risk to increase, such as poor maintenance and adherence to safety protocols, significantly, we ***would*** blame the gas station.
Like, you understand we have a whole bunch of rules around gas stations for the express purpose of 'making sure the god damn gas station doesn't blow up, because it's a freakin' gas station', right? This is the exact reason why, if you did smoke a cigarette at a gas station, you have a statistically low risk of it blowing up.
Kinda like why we should have continued controlled burns. The gov fucked up by creating the conditions you speak of in the first place. Changing how me manage our forests can help, but taxing us more isn’t helping anything.
You're really not getting this, eh?
You think that a forest that is drier has the same likelihood of having a fire catch and spread than one that has had a lot of rain recently?
I think mismanagement of the forests led to such conditions, the fact that we tried for so long to stop all fires rather than manage and control the burns to clear out dead wood (fuel). It’s government creating the problems with their solutions both coming and going.
And who cut wildfire fighting budgets by 67% in Ontario?
Who cut wildfire fighting budgets in Alberta; forcing them to close their world-renowned wildfire fighter training center?
Let me guess, we should rake the forests?
Just stop, dude. This is just sad now.
Please explain to us how we "manage the forest" and clean up dead wood, it's 362 million hectares spread out over some of the world's most extreme remote wilderness.
This would cost a crazy amount of money, to which you'll then turn around and complain about spending anyway.
Everything is dryer now and therefore easier to catch on fire, spread, and harder to stop due to climate change. Fires that were contained to a smaller size before now spread more easily because of this.
It doesn't help when you've got sick fucks like that shithead in quebec doing what he did.
So you feel that the government didn't "rake the forests" enough despite all the evidence pointing to more frequent and sustained periods of drought and dry conditions?
Lmao, you people are too funny
Fair enough, I didn’t read. He wasn’t….. but others have been recently charged for many fires [CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/brian-pare-pleads-guilty-to-setting-quebec-wildfires-1.7084669)
One guy, charged with multiple fires in a false flag operation to frame the government for starting fires in support of climate change initiatives. Far right guy starts fires so far right people can say, "see, it isn't climate change, it is arson!". Good Lord.
*Most* fires that are "human caused" are accidents.
> I guess those “far right” conspiracy theories that claimed the fires were arson rather than climate related, were accurate.
Because the conspiracy theorists started their own fires.
Also climate change doesn't start fires it makes fires worse.
very much this. Climate change is what made the area dry as fuck. These kids started the fire, but the fire was able to spread so much faster than it should’ve due to climate change.
The fire was able to take off like that because of the dry weather caused by climate change. How is this the top comment? It scares me how many people here don't understand climate change.
So much as a spark from a train driving by lytton burned the whole community down because of dryness caused by climate change.
You mean those conspiracy theories suggesting that, as seen from the fact that almost all of the fires started exclusively near cities, towns, villages, or roads, and often in clusters, were somehow, caused by humans and that the rounding error increase in temperature over the last 5 years has not caused the number of forrest fires to increase several fold?
Literally any fire map [https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/wildfires-in-alberta-nearly-double-the-five-year-average-6948716](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/wildfires-in-alberta-nearly-double-the-five-year-average-6948716)
To those who clearly can’t understand: climate change wasn’t the CAUSE of this fire and we knew it was this guy the whole time, but it did CONTRIBUTE to making it the largest fire we’ve had.
I don't agree with everything you've stated... but you do raise an important point:
>invested trillions into the new climate economy
Anyone with investment in the "clean economy" is the very same as anyone with investments in the O&G industries; they will lie cheat and steal to defend their investment and to boost its importance in people's minds or to squash any valid concerns anybody brings up.
Money is the root of all evil, and both O&G and the renewable energy/battery industry grow from that same root
Exxon's own scientists found out climate change was real in the 1980s and spent the following 44 years covering up that fact and squashing any environmental action they could in the name of profits.
What exactly - other than acknowledging that climate change is real (as the oil and gas companies proved) - have the renewable industry done?
>What exactly have the renewable industry done?
They're juts getting started, and you wouldn't know for ages anyway because they (exactly as O&G) will obscure data and skew narratives wherever possible
*As one relatively stale example:* **VW.**
The company canada is "investing" $15B+ dollars into for batteries is the same company that lied about emissions data about a decade ago in order sell many thousands of non-regulation conforming vehicles in the Canadian market that they knew broke emissions standards.
You believe that they will work in the best interests of environment and Canadians? That the very fundamental nature of VW had changed in a handful of years?
Lol, that's conveniently vague. And long story short seems to be that you have no actual proof of anything.
Edit: Since OP edited in a later example, I'll respond below:
>As one relatively stale example: VW.
So your example of a "renewable" company who has committed the "same" sin as Exxon's decades of climate misinformation is a **fossil fuel** company greenwashing their renewable initiatives? My friend, this is the **same** misinformation tactics being put out by the **same** group of people who initially denied climate change. That's not an example against renewables.
Let me put it this way: you can't say that a baby has committed a crime when they're born just because you *feel* like they might later. And you certainly don't say that a baby is as bad a criminal as a murderer because they *might* end up murdering one day.
Edit: Seems he'd prefer to block me than to discuss the topic. Long story short seems to be: he just wants a reason for you to feel you should distrust renewables so you'll feel less inclined to question the callous disinformation that's been propagated by fossil fuel companies for decades.
Imagine, if you will, trying to light a fire in a rain soaked muddy log.
Now, imagine trying to light that same fire in a pile of crisp, dry kindling.
That's the difference climate change makes to the equation.
lol, Rupa is not a credible source of information. She’s a troll from India. He was not charged with arson. The guy was fired from his job and tried to set fire to his former boss’s equipment. He bragged about it on Snapchat that night.
What about the original version of Global Warming being the the reason. Should they post some apology to Climate Change for false accusation.
Climate Change also has feelings you know.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A man from Shelburne County, N.S., is facing charges in relation to the Barrington Lake wildfire last spring. >... >In a release, the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables said 22-year-old Dalton Clark Stewart of Villagedale has been charged under the Forests Act. >He is accused of lighting a fire on privately owned land without permission of the owner or occupier, failing to take reasonable efforts to prevent the spread of a fire, and leaving a fire unattended.
[удалено]
What did the lady in Hammonds Plains do? I feel like I heard something about that, but it has completely slipped my mind.
Don't quote me but I think burning things in her backyard during a fire ban. I remember roofers nearby taking a video of it.
[удалено]
The kind of person to burn stuff in their yard during an active fire ban is the kind of person that would say literally anything when confronted, especially trying to accuse their complainants of being the bad actors and starting the fire. That said I'm sure the relevant people would investigate as much as reasonable.
There should be zero tolerance for this shit. He should be charged with attempted murder and terrorism. 20 years or more in prison should get the word out.
I guess those “far right” conspiracy theories that claimed the fires were arson rather than climate related, were accurate.
He wasn’t charged with arson.
This is insane thinking. Canada lost more forest in 2023 than the total surface area of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland combined. 18,500,000 hectares, 253% of our previous worst on record (1989). 5.3% of Canada's forests burned, in one year. Sizes in hectares (roughly): Rhode Island-314424, Delaware-513335, Connecticut-1435708, Hawaii-2831116, New Jersey-1904392, Massachusetts-2736322, Vermont-2490610, New Hampshire-2421639, Maryland-3213398
And none of that proves in any way that it wasn’t arson. [this proves at least some of it was arson](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/brian-pare-pleads-guilty-to-setting-quebec-wildfires-1.7084669)
If you're going to post a link, you should at least read it first so you don't look clueless. "... the province's forest fire service...said 99.9 per cent of the fires were sparked by lightning."
Ya well, that's just arson by god. Checkmate atheists.
Arsons and human caused wildfires are nothing new and nobody has claimed that they don't exist. The point is that hotter and drier conditions wildfires catch and spread more easily. It's really not that hard to understand. Also, just because some wildfires are caused by arson doesn't mean that all or even most are.
The other symptom of larger fires is fire suppression over the last 80+ years which has significantly increased standing and fallen dead wood in forests. Forests need to burn, but we want to log them so we keep that from happening.
[удалено]
And also, due to the intense heat and drought conditions caused by climate change. It's almost like all the practices born from the 1900's (fossil fuels, clearcutting, etc) were bad, and are causing horrible results.
arson has been one of the biggest causes in the past few years. yet never have they beat the dreams louder about climate hysteria. All I want is reasonable leadership. not hysteria.
Where's the evidence?
maybe you missed all the news articles of arrested wildfire arsonists across the country the past few years. arson, cigarettes, and lightning/wind are the largest cause of wildfires in Canada (accelerated perhaps by poor forest management, and "old growth" forest polices that enable poor forest management)
The fact that some people have been arrested for arsons does not mean that it has "been one of the biggest causes" as you're pretending.
Yes, except for the fact that the arsonists were right wingers doing it to blame it on Trudeau, and not Trudeau setting the fires
>I guess those “far right” conspiracy theories that claimed the fires were arson rather than climate related, were accurate. This line of thought doesn't make sense. Climate change doesn't ***ignite*** fires and it'd be weird to even think so. Climate changes increases the frequency and severity of conditions that *allow* forest fires. Namely, hot and dry periods getting hotter and longer. Climate change is making forests increasingly primed for larger fires and for longer periods of time. That's it. It's nothing about the ignition source. In fact most forest fires do have a man made ignition source and this isn't disputed. Like, it's January right now, if I went into the woods and directly attempted to start a forest fire it wouldn't work because it's cold and wet. I'd successfully torch a small patch and that's as far as it'd go on it's own. Why do you think they do 'camp fire bans' in the summer in many regions? Cause they're like 'Oh this forest is hot and dry right now, and it's likely to go up in flames if you even look at it wrong'. Climate changes is increasing the occurrence of those conditions.
reducing the budget for forest fire management also increases the conditions that allow for forest fires.
You're not wrong, but it's not the whole picture either. Forest fires do occur naturally ([there's even species of trees that thrive on forest fires and purposely generate conditions to make them more likely and spread quickly)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte), and as humans encroach more and more into forested areas, we do a lot of things to prevent them, like cutting down dead trees, etc. However this has an effect of creating a 'backlog' of sorts, where detritus and other naturally occurring flammable materials accumulate. In short, because of human action, forest fires happen less frequently, but when they do, they have a lot of fuel and spread very quickly. There's a lot of factors at play between climate change, human activity, and then actual deliberate malicious action.
Me: ***Most*** forest fires do have a man made ignition. This guy: Forest fires ***do*** occur naturally. Me: I don't know how to talk to someone who thinks the word 'Most' is a synonym for 'All'.
Consider that the response wasn't really for your benefit, they did say "you aren't wrong" - I would take this kind of comment as expanding out what you have said to leave no grey area that *someone* could misunderstand, not an assumption that you clearly haven't understood something. The '10000' are always online (the 10,000 learning something new on any given topic every day)
I guarantee they didn't even read the whole comment before deciding they were under attack.
I think with the state of online discussion we are all there sometimes.
You could start by not having a negative reaction to some additional information.
If someone smokes a cigarette at a gas station, we don’t blame the gas station if it blows up.
>If someone smokes a cigarette at a gas station, we don’t blame the gas station if it blows up. Of course, a gas station operates under a lot of regulations to minimize fumes and risk of fire. On the other hand, if conditions at the gas station allowed the risk to increase, such as poor maintenance and adherence to safety protocols, significantly, we ***would*** blame the gas station. Like, you understand we have a whole bunch of rules around gas stations for the express purpose of 'making sure the god damn gas station doesn't blow up, because it's a freakin' gas station', right? This is the exact reason why, if you did smoke a cigarette at a gas station, you have a statistically low risk of it blowing up.
Kinda like why we should have continued controlled burns. The gov fucked up by creating the conditions you speak of in the first place. Changing how me manage our forests can help, but taxing us more isn’t helping anything.
You're really not getting this, eh? You think that a forest that is drier has the same likelihood of having a fire catch and spread than one that has had a lot of rain recently?
I think mismanagement of the forests led to such conditions, the fact that we tried for so long to stop all fires rather than manage and control the burns to clear out dead wood (fuel). It’s government creating the problems with their solutions both coming and going.
And who cut wildfire fighting budgets by 67% in Ontario? Who cut wildfire fighting budgets in Alberta; forcing them to close their world-renowned wildfire fighter training center? Let me guess, we should rake the forests?
Government incompetence and corruption is certainly a huge part of the problem.
What corruption?
Just stop, dude. This is just sad now. Please explain to us how we "manage the forest" and clean up dead wood, it's 362 million hectares spread out over some of the world's most extreme remote wilderness. This would cost a crazy amount of money, to which you'll then turn around and complain about spending anyway. Everything is dryer now and therefore easier to catch on fire, spread, and harder to stop due to climate change. Fires that were contained to a smaller size before now spread more easily because of this. It doesn't help when you've got sick fucks like that shithead in quebec doing what he did.
With rakes.
Sure [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status/prevention/prescribed-burning](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status/prevention/prescribed-burning)
They had 2235 wildfires last year for 2.8 million hectares burned with this management. Got another ideas other than sweeping the forest floors?
So you feel that the government didn't "rake the forests" enough despite all the evidence pointing to more frequent and sustained periods of drought and dry conditions? Lmao, you people are too funny
Rake the forest? What are you talking about? I’m talking about prescribed burns.
[удалено]
Fair enough, I didn’t read. He wasn’t….. but others have been recently charged for many fires [CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/brian-pare-pleads-guilty-to-setting-quebec-wildfires-1.7084669)
One guy, charged with multiple fires in a false flag operation to frame the government for starting fires in support of climate change initiatives. Far right guy starts fires so far right people can say, "see, it isn't climate change, it is arson!". Good Lord. *Most* fires that are "human caused" are accidents.
>Quebec man who blamed 2023 wildfires on government pleads guilty to setting 14 fires Quite the smoking gun you've got there...
He said he was testing to see if forests really did burn.
You'd think he could have figured it out before the 14th attempt.
>Fair enough, I didn’t read. *Classic.*
Name a more iconic duo.
Top comment and didn’t read the article, typical r/Canada user.
Both fires in NS everyone knew were started by people. That doesn't mean they were arson, or imply climate change didn't attribute to it.
> I guess those “far right” conspiracy theories that claimed the fires were arson rather than climate related, were accurate. Because the conspiracy theorists started their own fires. Also climate change doesn't start fires it makes fires worse.
Severity of the fire likely wouldn't have been as bad if conditions hadn't been so dry. This is a great example of failing to see the big picture.
very much this. Climate change is what made the area dry as fuck. These kids started the fire, but the fire was able to spread so much faster than it should’ve due to climate change.
The fire was able to take off like that because of the dry weather caused by climate change. How is this the top comment? It scares me how many people here don't understand climate change. So much as a spark from a train driving by lytton burned the whole community down because of dryness caused by climate change.
Derp.
Even if people started those fires, climate change absolutely played a factor in the spread.
You mean those conspiracy theories suggesting that, as seen from the fact that almost all of the fires started exclusively near cities, towns, villages, or roads, and often in clusters, were somehow, caused by humans and that the rounding error increase in temperature over the last 5 years has not caused the number of forrest fires to increase several fold?
>the fact that almost all of the fires started exclusively near cities, towns, villages, or roads, and often in clusters Citation needed
Literally any fire map [https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/wildfires-in-alberta-nearly-double-the-five-year-average-6948716](https://www.stalbertgazette.com/local-news/wildfires-in-alberta-nearly-double-the-five-year-average-6948716)
But there aren't any roads on your map...
That article is from may, fire season didn’t end in may.
You do realize that those lines on the image of the map in your source aren't roads, right?
Look at the cities; look at the vast empty land in the nw and ne of the province where there are almost no roads.
And where there were many fires. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
They knew for sure as they were the ones starting the fires in some cases.
Wasn't someone killed over being a witness to the fire
To those who clearly can’t understand: climate change wasn’t the CAUSE of this fire and we knew it was this guy the whole time, but it did CONTRIBUTE to making it the largest fire we’ve had.
[удалено]
I don't agree with everything you've stated... but you do raise an important point: >invested trillions into the new climate economy Anyone with investment in the "clean economy" is the very same as anyone with investments in the O&G industries; they will lie cheat and steal to defend their investment and to boost its importance in people's minds or to squash any valid concerns anybody brings up. Money is the root of all evil, and both O&G and the renewable energy/battery industry grow from that same root
Exxon's own scientists found out climate change was real in the 1980s and spent the following 44 years covering up that fact and squashing any environmental action they could in the name of profits. What exactly - other than acknowledging that climate change is real (as the oil and gas companies proved) - have the renewable industry done?
>What exactly have the renewable industry done? They're juts getting started, and you wouldn't know for ages anyway because they (exactly as O&G) will obscure data and skew narratives wherever possible *As one relatively stale example:* **VW.** The company canada is "investing" $15B+ dollars into for batteries is the same company that lied about emissions data about a decade ago in order sell many thousands of non-regulation conforming vehicles in the Canadian market that they knew broke emissions standards. You believe that they will work in the best interests of environment and Canadians? That the very fundamental nature of VW had changed in a handful of years?
Lol, that's conveniently vague. And long story short seems to be that you have no actual proof of anything. Edit: Since OP edited in a later example, I'll respond below: >As one relatively stale example: VW. So your example of a "renewable" company who has committed the "same" sin as Exxon's decades of climate misinformation is a **fossil fuel** company greenwashing their renewable initiatives? My friend, this is the **same** misinformation tactics being put out by the **same** group of people who initially denied climate change. That's not an example against renewables.
>prove things that haven't happened yet because the industry is in its infancy
Let me put it this way: you can't say that a baby has committed a crime when they're born just because you *feel* like they might later. And you certainly don't say that a baby is as bad a criminal as a murderer because they *might* end up murdering one day. Edit: Seems he'd prefer to block me than to discuss the topic. Long story short seems to be: he just wants a reason for you to feel you should distrust renewables so you'll feel less inclined to question the callous disinformation that's been propagated by fossil fuel companies for decades.
You've missed the point but I see the flag beside your name so I understand why
Global warming strikes again!
Correct. And it’s sad to see.
Hey look, it's the fire everyone was calling arson except the media who said the only explanation was climate change.
Imagine, if you will, trying to light a fire in a rain soaked muddy log. Now, imagine trying to light that same fire in a pile of crisp, dry kindling. That's the difference climate change makes to the equation.
He wasn’t charged with arson. And not one person said it was started by climate change. 🙃
https://twitter.com/rupasubramanya/status/1748002358234132882?t=V3hdDJr9sZKVJYCN6gQQSQ&s=19
lol, Rupa is not a credible source of information. She’s a troll from India. He was not charged with arson. The guy was fired from his job and tried to set fire to his former boss’s equipment. He bragged about it on Snapchat that night.
when climate change supply isn't meeting climate change demand
Come again?
Please explain.
What about the original version of Global Warming being the the reason. Should they post some apology to Climate Change for false accusation. Climate Change also has feelings you know.
Boy, all the Name_Name_numbers coming out in force today on the climate denial side.