Does it not prove lozens statement that I quoted that fires are the worse they've ever been because of climate change is wrong?


Lol what are the fact? That a carbon tax will stop forest fires that haven't increased as population grows, tree's grow more outdoor activities happen? The last paragraph from the paper:

Nope. You failed to read the article. Here let me quote again: "There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change".

Unfortunately, a distinction between fires in savannahs and forests leads to a statistics that is being - as the authors note - is being "misused" by people like, well, you. All of this is explain in the article.



Yikes. Skill testing question. Do you think there are more or less forests on earth now than, say, 30 years ago?

Being a weasel and continuing saying this doesn't make it true. If you continue read it also says this:

Hardly an omg we need a carbon tax to stop climate change and "half the country burning"

Yikes! What did you just say about having facts. More trees/greener.

Lol. Nobody ITT believes that climate change is the singular clause - just that it is a significant one - so your block quote there disputes nothing. Your original quote of lozen you hilariously failed to dispute said "climate change is a cause". "A cause", not "only cause". As your own source has now established, the increase in fire activity in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. I'm sorry you got all upset with my obvious tongue in cheek hook, but at least you've provided the evidence that firmly links climate change to forest fires. Thank you!

Yikes. I didn't expect you to actually fail that skill testing question. No, Shifty, there are not more (or greener????) trees today because of more CO2. There has been massive deforestation for the last 30 years. Hope that helps. lol.

You are a true devour zealot to continue to just keep doubling down on this.

Wait? So what your saying is there are less trees now?

There should be a ton of trees as Justin Trudeau promised to plant a billion trees ? I'm not sure what the amount is buts it's another goal he will never achieve
Growing trees is hard according to Justin Trudeau

How many of these fires are man made or caused by careless folks

Nope, bro, just quoting from your article. Seriously, I strongly recommend you read it.
See how those are the same thing? Like almost word for word level identical?



Lol, obviously? Buddy, the world loses something on the order of 6 million hectares of forest every year. Amazing that you are just learning this today. And no, more CO(2) hasn't magically counteracted this nor made the trees "greener". Just lol.

The reality is climate change is real and as a result we are seeing more forest fires . The other reality is nothing that Justin Trudeau is doing will reduce this .

We need to adapt with forest management

You are refusing to recognize the other factors in the paper. On a global level fires haven't increased. You are trying to paint a picture that half of the country is on fire due to climate change

Obviously buddy, about those facts you claim behind you.


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...-35-years-ago/

https://www.gotreequotes.com/are-the...%20the%20world.

Lol, do you struggle to follow conversations? I already told you that nobody ITT believes global warming is the only factor - just that it IS a big factor, as your reference establishes. Your reference also breaks out the distinction between savannah fires and forest fires leading to that "global level fires haven't increased" line from you, but if you actually read your own paper (how have you still not done this!) it talks explicitly about how this stat is being misused the way you are misusing it because indeed they cite a climate change link to the increase in the "severity and extent" of these big forest fire events. I know, i know, you want to interpret my obviously tongue-in-check initial statement as something completely literal and ignoring everything you've read since, but conversations don't work that way buddy.
Obviously buddy, about those facts you claim behind you.

Interesting! A good illustration actually of how powerful the effects of climate change are if the massive human deforestation in the tropics is being partially compensated by increased natural reforestation in the north.

Didn't realize you were a fan of the WEF, thanks for sharing!

I've wasted enough time on this with you. You can claim it was "tongue in check" but you were obviously being a mis-leading weasel to try and push your political agenda


It's embarrassing you don't know these simple FACTS while attempting to be a pompous dick. The fact you didn't know this along with the term greening and CO2 being the main cause, while claiming climate change is your biggest political concern is shameful.

Obvious hyperbole apparently not so obvious.

But I can definitely understand your concern, because I'm sure that could fool lots of people into thinking that literally half the country was on fire. I rushed out of the house and headed south. I was in a long line at the border, but after doing some furious Googling while crawling along, I realized that uke weasel was just making **** up. When I told all the others in the line, they were furious. I promised I'd look up uke's info so we could send a mob after him.

As long as you've truly internalized your own source's refutation of your previous nonsense and now understand why climate change is indeed a significant factor in the big forest fires we've been happening I'm totally happy.

David Johnston resigns .
Never should have accepted the role

If only he could have googled conflict of interest

New person will be appointed .
Qualifications:
Friend or family member of Justin Trudeau
Will rule how Justin Trudeau likes

Totally, we need to quadruple the carbon tax yesterday to stop these fires. Honestly I'm just looking forward to your next skills testing question.

What a coincidence, as I am looking forward to your entertaining answers to more of those simple questions!

All the best.

On your standards, Johnston was thus acceptable. He was not a friend or family member of Trudeau, as Johnston noted they hadn’t had a personal engagement in over 40 years since Trudeau was a kid. Indeed, think how bizarre it would have been for Harper to appoint a personal friend of Trudeau!

If one reads his report, it is actually very well reasoned. There remains exactly zero evidence to suggest that Trudeau did anything substantially wrong, and the opposition can huff and puff and hope there is some real scandal there but thankfully there just isn’t.

Missed this post. The reality is that you are wrong.

Sweet, another extreme derpy Twitter source that feeds you info you want to believe in. Be sure to buy one of the many books he pitches at the top of his profile. He earned your support. The titles include 'Best Things First', 'False Alarm', and 'Skeptical Environmentalist' in case his agenda was not apparent, and his multiple degrees in political science (including a PhD in political science) definitely make him an expert on environmental science. After all - both are sciences!

All the best.

But if trudeau do not do it , oil companies polievre complain and they can’t export the amount of oil they want and can …
Catch 22 .

Great article on how Power has changed Justin Trudeau


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...0db975c6&ei=11

That is not a news article, it is an opinion piece. It is literally labeled as an opinion piece. The person writing it as expected has a lot of anti-Trudeau stuff on his Twitter feed, so he will of course create content you want to consume, though he does not seem as derpy as many of your other opinion piece sources, and he is certainly less derpy than the fringy low follower stuff Shifty somehow gets fed. He does have as his title that he is "Most influential person of Canada. Canada moral leader. Beloved Canadian role model" which is probably trying to be funny but usually the people who say that in jest or not are pieces of work. He does not have a large number of followers which is par for the course for most of the stuff you and Shifty post here.

All you have to do in future is call opinion pieces for what they are - opinion pieces. We all know if they say something negative about Trudeau you will enjoy it and call it great or important or whatever, but at least then you are acknowledging the sources you use are biased instead of pretending they are actual unbiased news articles.

All the best.

I didnt know that was a rule here. Go watch your ladies on the view salivate over Trumps indightment