Climate change conspiracy theorist pleads guilty to starting 14 Canadian fires

submitted by stickdog from (dailymail.co.uk)

all 4 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Climate change denier sets a bunch of fires which burn out of control to prove that climate change doesn't exist.

Denialists: "See? The devastating fires didn't happen because of drought and heat, they happened because somebody set them on fire!"

[–]stickdog[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah. The fires were caused arson. Not climate change. Would you agree or disagree?

Can you explain how the muddled motivations of the deranged arsonist change the fact that the fires were caused by arson?

And personally, I am not a climate change denier.

What I am is a "the threat of climate change makes austerity for average humans beings the highest possible good" denier.

Did you know that our richest oligarchs have been trying to find some way, any way, to sell all of us on the tremendous "benefits" of austerity for all of us serfs since at least the 1970s?

So I am asking you, are will willing to endorse authoritarian austerity on all of us serfs in the name of "combatting climate change" as 77% of the top 1% now insist is necessary?

Put more succinctly, do you demand austerity for the masses because of climate change?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah. The fires were caused arson. Not climate change. Would you agree or disagree?

Can you explain how the muddled motivations of the deranged arsonist change the fact that the fires were caused by arson?

Western civilisation has known for about 4000 years that events can have more than one cause. The Greeks called them proximal and ultimate causes. Shame that in these soft-headed and degenerate times we have forgotten that.

The proximate cause of the fire was a deranged arsonist with a box of matches.

The ultimate cause was that the forests were full of tinder-dry fuel due to draught and heatwaves caused by climate change.

Had the arsonist not existed, the fires still would have occurred, maybe not all at the same time, but eventually there would have been a lightening strike, or a stray spark from machinery, or a car backfiring, or a carelessly discarded cigarette.

Had there been no climate change, even if the arsonist lit the same fires, they would have been smaller, milder, wouldn't have spread as far or as fast, maybe wouldn't have burned at all (no dry tinder, grass too green, etc).

do you demand austerity for the masses because of climate change?

Not austerity as it is used by the politicians and economists, no. And not as the WEF demands.

There will need to be some adjustments to get through the coming decades. More rail travel, fewer $50 flights, fewer private jets. Smaller and more efficient cars. Less consumerism. More suburban green spaces, including backyards. Maybe some places can use "living roofs". Better designed houses so that there's less pressure for people to run air conditioners 24/7 during heatwaves.

I don't have all the answers. Survival will require fairness: the elites must share in the adjustments. Our economies will have to transition away from our "infinite growth" mindset. I fear that the only way that can happen is through terrible shocks -- wars and destruction -- but I still have hope.

We're supposed to be the cleverest animal on the planet. It would be nice if we started acting like responsible adults instead of a four year old in a candy shop.

[–]stickdog[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course, but reducing the overall impact of humans on the environment is a great goal regardless of climate change. There are hundreds of ways to do this that start with the worst offenders before we get to the personal carbon allowance the elites desperately want to foist on everyone except themselves.

The elite's "climate change is the greatest emergency in the history of humanity" is just their newest way to turn the compassionate sentiments and healthy collectivist instincts of us regular people against us.

Every time they bring up any rationing of carbon or curtailing of our rights to travel, our hearty and unanimous reply needs to be "YOU FIRST!"