2019 was Australia's hottest and driest year. These fires may be the most direct evidence yet of the costs of climate change.

For the record.
Could you please point to the meme or memes that were suggesting that "banning asbestos" was the reason. Thanks

imgflip.com/i/3lzpx1#com3941535

Went back in my comment history and dig it up. Okay, looking back at it, this appears to be an instance in which my sarcasm meter was broken.

I have seen so much misinformation on the wildfires that it flew over my head this time.

I used to believe in political sarcasm — but with so much fake news going around and the lack of an agreed-upon set of facts I just don’t think it’s really possible anymore.

Hahaha, yes thats it. I tried to point it out on the meme. The user Ingersol has an entire collection of sarcastic memes on climate which seem to catch many on both sides of the atribution game being played. No worries.

Atribution game is a registered trademark.

Thanks for understanding. Yeah I’m trying to get better at checking a member’s history for clues as to what they mean or even just asking them directly when something seems off, because this has happened a couple times.

I look at hundreds of memes a day and sometimes make mistakes.

I feel sincerity is a more precious commodity than sarcasm these days.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
(not my website)

Arson could still be the cause of the fire itself, but it getting out of control is a different story... When you set forest on fire and rain will come in large amounts of gallons of water, the fire will be easier to control or even go out completely due to that.
When it comes to global warming deniers, we must distinguish between those who deny the entire phenomenon and those who simply deny that it's caused by greenhouse gasses (or who are skeptical about it at least) and say that it's a natural phenomenon causing it (which happened several times before, although according to scientists, not this fast).

One note though, you cannot blame climate change based on one year... Officially you need one entire decade. This because even scientists agree that extreme peaks happen every now and then. The word "accurate" does NOT exist in this discussion but rather "plausible" or "safe to assume", and I think the latter two terms are in order. This is important, as overstating will only strengthen denier's beliefs. Even climate scientists are calling out now to not overstate the situation, and they do so for this very reason, and beside, doing more than is needed is costly and can get less mandate when the next environmental challenge arises (and there will me, count on that).

Yes, nobody can deny climate change itself anymore. What measures are effective to stop it (if that is possible) or keep the consequences as minimal as possible, that should be what the discussion should be about and not about the phenomenon itself...

But why are there deniers? Because of 40 years of measures being overdue now being taken in a matter of months (if not less) which is not possible to do well, and gives people lots of costs and other nasty things and even things that are not possible to do at all in such a short time. The question is why did they delay the inevitable?

Before I start this, my wife and I disagree on Climate Change as a whole. While I personally disagree with the climate change. Movement. I do believe this Earth we live on goes through cyclical changes.
Do I believe we (As Americans) have do our part to minimize the effects of our growth as it affects the environment. Yes.
However, the USA is NOT the most egregious of worldwide polluters in the world. As other countries (namely China and India) strive to build economic conditions similar to the USA and Europe, no matter what we do will not affect them, it only destroys our economy. USA and Europe has no jurisdiction over their country's development

I get where you are going.
And important thing is of course that (as with many big issues) there is more fiction than facts circling around now, and that some activists overstate the facts turning some of them even into fabrication and even a scientist who investigates climate change already stated that they are now claiming things for which there is no scientific evidence, and some things even for which the evidence goes against. It's for a reason I never listen to environmental activists...

While it is true that China and India are big polluters I do not want to rule the USA and the EU out completely. If the USA and the EU can give the right example, other countries, including China and India can follow, otherwise they can say "why should we do cleaner when the US and the EU are not so clean themselves?". And then they do have a point.

But regardless if climate change itself can be prevented by lowering the greenhouse gas emissions or not, measures need to be taken, anyway. I mean if the climate change cannot be prevented, we can't allow the forest fires in Australia (and also in California where they also become more and more of an issue) to go into the extremes over and over and over, meaning that better ways to fight fire will then be needed. And the Netherlands may need stronger dykes to prevent flooding etc. etc. etc. And that too was never put into serious work. High costs is mostly like the reason why, and I guess economy is also the reason why lowering greenhouse gas emissions was never done either. I am only afraid that either it be by stronger dykes and better fire fighting capabilities or by environmental measures, whatever may work best, delaying it may now have caused the costs only to be higher/

It is true that the EU and the US have very little power to move China and India and countries alike into another direction. Is that alone a valid excuse to do nothing between their own borders?

First, thank you for your reasoned response and I agree that "Westernized" economies have the ability to lead in efforts to limit environmental impact. However, has this past willingness (Paris accords, etc.) to provide meaningful change been reciprocated by China, India, and others? No.

This is despite global efforts to exert influence from all the participants in that accord. Should, we, as a nation, destroy our economy via the "Green Deal"? Again, my answer would be No. So where do we go from here?

Sorry, should have referenced the US in my response, I keep forgetting this site is global

Yeah, well I might be from the Netherlands myself, but when I visit sites like these I mostly take things from US point of view, since most people I meet on global sites are from the US and if not I mostly find good indicators to see they are not. So don't worry 😎

The "Green Deal" can both work destructive as even helpful for the economy. Sure oil industries don't have interest in this, but we can also wonder if they couldn't have invested in alternatives to save their business. Kodak neglected this too when photo rolls were taken over by digital photos and we know where that ended...
But indeed to make the "Green Deal" possible to execute companies are needed to operate things, like builders and maintainers of windmills, hyperloops tubes (maybe) and other things, and these companies will provide jobs in the process and will therefore such deals can work work in the economy's benefit. I mean 100 years ago, there were no computer programmers, but today a knife sharpening guy who traveled to all the people to sharpen their knives and scissors no longer exists, since sharpening equipment today is small, light and cheap making a guy doing this for you obsolete. Taken this into mind I think that we just need the nerve to allow the economy to change. New times ask for new kinds of jobs.

So destruction and improvement of the economy is both possible with the Green Deal, it's just a matter of perspective. And I know Trump wants to protect US oil companies, which is understandable, but that can backfire, as when all of the world can produce sustainable energy and the US cannot, and nobody needs oil anymore, do you have any idea how many dollars the US can miss that other countries can "snatch" away?

So when I take this purely from an economical point of view, there are chances. We must only time things right, and not rush things up (as that will be a killer for the economy), and eventually the market can do its work. In Europe electric cars are already gaining popularity, that is a start of a new wind in car manufacturing. Other sectors may soon follow. As long as there are people with a good nose for business willing to see the chances and dangers and know how to play it all well, think economy will not be damaged that much... At least not in the long run...

I agree it is better to look at decades. Example: 2020 will probably not be as hot or as dry as 2019. Because it would actually be surprising for Australia to smash records in both categories for another consecutive year in a row.

Global warming is not tidy, uniform, or consistent. It would therefore be a mistake to assume that if 2020 isn't as catastrophically bad as 2019, then the global warming theory is somehow incorrect.

I agree that caution is warranted in claims surrounding climate change as well. But I disagree most deniers are going to grasp the differences between terms like "accurate," "plausible," and "safe to assume." They just do not pay attention that closely or debate in good faith like that. Frankly, the sorts of people intelligent and informed enough to grasp distinctions like that are not the ones who need convincing at this point.

Given what climate scientists have described about the relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature rises over the past few decades, I believe it is not unjustified to treat this wildfire season in Australia as the canary in the coal mine that it likely is.

Here is the data and the source article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-02/2019-was-australias-hottest-and-driest-year-on-record/11837312

"But I disagree most deniers are going to grasp the differences between terms like "accurate," "plausible," and "safe to assume.""

Yeah, a lot of them belong to a group that deals with absolutes, but even if they do, you must not fall into the same trap. Some deniers are really intelligent (hard to believe, I know) and can use such words against you and the dumber ones will follow. If I look to my own country (the Netherlands) the summer in 2018 was very extremely dry and hot, and a lot of yells about climate change being to blame came, but 2019 was still hot and dry, but not as extreme as 2018 and deniers gained a lot of strength from that, so that's why we must always watch our words here. If Australia Summer 2020/2021 is almost like winters deniers will laugh (although I do NOT deem that likely, but you get the picture).

And a meme being posted saying "The underlying factor is called 'summer'." already shows how people will keep seeking reasons to deny the entire phenomenon (not realizing summers come back every year, but heath records being broken is not that common, and forest fires this fierce, dang!). If people go to harshly into the climate thing, it will be made even easier on them to find more reasons to deny stuff.

There's a lot about the climate discussion to be skeptic about, but denying it... Even without those forest fires I already see it happening by simply looking out of my window. In my country nature is behaving like it's spring (in January already, normally we gotta wait for March or April) summer being hotter and dryer than usual.... No the phenomenon itself is real. About the cause and what measures will work and what measures will not, that is something to debate about, but the phenomenon is happening....

It’s accurate shorthand, just like “flat-eathers.”

Walks/Quacks/Duck

Climate science, whatever its faults, is not a “religion.”

It measures and describes the world.
The scientists who practice it are highly trained and specialized.
It does not speak to spiritual matters.
It does not call itself a religion.

All it does is produce results that jibe uncomfortably with our notions that humanity is the master of its environment and the myth that unlimited growth without consequences is possible.

Every time you call it a “religion,” it only reveals your own biases.

Which is readily apparent seeing as you exempt the opposing side of this issue from any scrutiny, when you could have a field day documenting all the logical errors, faulty, fact-free reasoning, and outright lies that opponents of the consensus theory bring to the table.

That's a lot of uses of the word "religion" in a series of paragraphs that begins that no one claimed climate science was a religion.

The precise definition of "religion" is subject to debate. However, if mere "belief in the absence of evidence" is what you're defining as a religion, then we're going to have to re-classify a whole lot of other beliefs held by people as also being religions. Including a good healthy chunk of what we normally think of as political beliefs -- perhaps all of them. Most things people believe simply are not systematically tested to a degree of scientific certainty.

Furthermore, you are wrong that the theory of anthropogenic climate change "lacks evidence." There is plenty of it.

I often invoke 97%, but I do not subscribe to the theory simply because 97% (or whatever the exact figure is) of climate scientists agree. I subscribe to it because I have read sources like this: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and have found the information contained therein to be sensible. More sensible than anything I've seen offered by skeptics.

Now: Is the theory absolutely verifiable as true, to 100% degree of certainty? No. For reasons I've explained earlier, you cannot run controlled experiments in a system as large as the earth. But: the theory is likely enough to be true and the consequences of being wrong so significant that it is unreasonable at this point not to act.

"Intellectually honest scientists readily admit this..."

You are trying to draw a distinction that does not really exist. Studies tell us that approximately 97% of climate scientists agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. 3% are skeptics, or perhaps simply have not made up their minds yet. You've put forth no real reason to suspect that the 97% who agree are deluded and the 3% who don't are somehow more "intellectually honest."

"..attempt to shift the burden of proof to your opponents..."

No, you don't bear the burden of proof on this, necessarily. But: when the other side puts forth a cogent explanation of natural phenomena that commands a lot of expert agreement and makes sense on its own terms, then in the interests of good-faith debate, you have the *responsibility* to propose an alternative explanation for the phenomena they describe rather than resorting to the rhetorical equivalent of a shoulder shrug.

Bottom-line: This is why, for all of the time you spend debating this issue, you're really not persuasive. You don't engage with the science.

In other words, you are quite happy to agree with what climate scientists say right up until they reach a conclusion that might require people to do something.

Sorry, but science does not become a "religion" just because it happens to produce a theory which implies the need for political action that you disagree with.

"....are you drunk?"

I wish. Maybe I should get drunk sometimes before I read your comments and they'd make more sense.

Whatever "mischaracterization" you wish to accuse me of this time, it's nowhere near as intellectually dishonest as whatever distorted nonsense is in that Jordan Peterson meme. I am only taking your silly talking points to their logical conclusion, which you yourself have already admitted multiple times (including this very comments thread), which is this:

You're motivated by combating "Leftists," who force people to do things "at the barrel of a gun," etc.

Not realizing, apparently, that in order to do unpleasant but necessary things, governments around the world -- including right here in the United States, whether under a Republican or a Democratic administration -- do exactly this.

Most transactions in our society are voluntary. However, when the government needs to, it most certainly does force you to do stuff "at the barrel of a gun." Whether that's paying your taxes, jailing you for engaging in criminal behavior, recruiting manpower to fight a war by means of a draft, or, indeed, imposing environmental regulations.

And what climate science implies is this: it is long past time for the government (and frankly, all the world's governments) to impose some beefy environmental regulations, a carbon tax, redoubled subsidies for green energy (and corresponding elimination of tax breaks and subsidies for coal and other fossil fuels), carbon capture, reverse climate engineering, or something -- anything -- to stop the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and, correspondingly, temperature rise.

Yes, these things will cost money, or impose costs. So be it. Would you rather bury your head in the sand in a misguided effort to save some money in the short run? Fine. But not taking action carries costs too, and we will all pay the cost in the end, one way or another.

Maybe not many of the costs will fall on us. Maybe not even our children so much. But their children and their children and so on? You bet.

I'd rather not go down in history as a Boomer-like generation that horded wealth and opportunities without a thought to our impact on the future.

Off-topic: Wanna join forces and smash some Crusaders? This just might be the one issue we agree on! imgflip.com/i/3m1vuh#com3950435

You: "Because climate science isn't a religion. Anthropogenic Climate Change is."
Me: "You are quite happy to agree with what climate scientists say right up until they reach a conclusion that might require people to do something."

Explain how the second statement does not follow the first.

It is factually incorrect to say that because it was the hottest and driest year that the fire was caused by climate change. Their are are always going to be outlier years. Also you weren’t very specific in what kind of climate change you were referring to which in this case is the warming climate change. Now don’t get me wrong I do believe that the warming climate change does exist and that it has become a problem. I do think that something needs to be done but I have seen a lot of pointing fingers and not a whole lot of realistic solutions.

I thought the asbestos thing was a joke.

Fact noted: People are arrested for arson
Fact ignored: When it was only arson, the fires would have been brought under control soon, but thanks to the extreme heat and drought they went out of control. The latter fact is attributed to climate change.

See how easy it is to spread an untruth without lying by leaving out the most vital fact of all?

It seems you don't READ before you comment.... That SpongeBob meme is brilliant. People use it to denote people are stupid, so the meme is used for which it was inteded. Of course, they never realize that they are more stupid that SpongeBob themselves... Still makes a 100% score.... Wonderful.

I've stated in THIS very page already that you can only speak of climate when this behavior of the weather holds on multiple years. Of course, you only read what you WANT to read, don't you. Of course, the Australian weather has been changing for years now, every year hotter and dryer than the year before, so yeah, this makes the story of climate change more and more plausible to even proven, of course, you can stick your head in the sand. That is what dumb people do. Not to mention I've seen the weather changing since I was a kid, so I know that this is not just one year.... But I know you wanna narrow your mind span, otherwise you cannot deny stuff, eh?

Sounds like denying somebody is trying to shoot you when the bullet is already inside your body..... Dream on... Sweet dreams!

Just watch the (trustworthy) news for starters, and then do your own research. I can do that, but since you will find an excuse to deny it anyway, it would be a waste of time. Stick your head in the sand and don't interfere... Whatever the cause is, that would at least be a good start to get things on the move.

You cannot expect me to get you a list of all the scientists on whom my comment is based... The comment sections of imgflip are too short. Then again, you belong to the kind that you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are required to work in classes when you code in C#. And why wouldn't you believe me. Because I've been coding all my life, so I cannot know anything about programming languages, that's why... You only believe what you want to believe...

I'm short on time now, and you didn't challenge me to anything. And you are not willing to consider the evidence. It was presented, you refuted it with silly argumentation, case closed.

Do you actually know how fire comes to be? And how it ceases to be? Do you know what "cold fire" means? Do you know how fire can spread? Do you know the role of the weather on fire? The biodiversity has on fire? Etc. etc. I think you don't because if you knew you could easily draw your own conclusions without having to ask for evidence, as then you would already have it. Fire needs 3 key elements. Heath, fuel and oxygen. If the 3 are together, fire can only exist. If one is missing, it cannot exist. Much much of the three are needed is depending on many factors. The type of fuel being a pretty important one. No unlike popular belief, water does not put out fire. It can be used to lower the fire's temperature, and if fire gets too cold it goes out. Now here's the rub, the heath in Australia is extreme now. Over 40 deg Celcius. That is not enough to set wood on fire, however is is also very dry, and dry material cannot cool easily, plus oxygen can flow more freely. And then something as trivial as a burning cigarette can cause a small fire, but it's hot enough to set other things on fire, as fire does not spread because there is fire, but because it's provides the heath to make other things burn, and when there is oxygen too, whoosh. Now the climate change also creates more wind. Wind is quite obsure in fire. When blowing out a candle you blow the heath away from the candle and thus, one of the key elements missing, the fire goes out. However, in Australia with tons of dry wood and dry grass, whereever the heath goes, there is fuel, and the wind gives extra oxygen, and whoosh, the fire can expand and the wind makes the heath go to more fuel, giving extra ogygen, and and so on. The high temperature from the weather doesn't allow it to cool off, and so the results of the climate change can easily create the perfect circumstances for fire to go haywire. That is the simplistic version of the science behind it. Of course, you are not gonna believe me. I had to know this stuff for my education, so that makes it bullshit in your point of view.

If the weather was not this dry and hot, and with less wind, the fire would need more time to go haywire, and if the circumstances are not optimal it can even go out on its own, although that is a very lucky shot. All I had to do was THINK!

Well if "paragraph breaks" if the best you can come up with (was not possible due to ImgFlip character limit which I reached precisely, so go whine to imgflip about that one, not me) I know where you stand.

Btw... Why involve Jesus in this matter? What has he to do with climate change and forest fires?

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2020/jan/10/facebook-posts/those-claims-about-nearly-200-arrested-arson-austr/

That’s fake news, the 183 (not 200) weren’t all “arrested “ for arson, and they certainly haven’t all been convicted. If any.

These citations were also just in one territory — New South Wales — while the fires are all over. See: map in OP meme

You’re jumping to conclusions and not ever getting your source data right

[image deleted]

Not all summers caused the extreme situation Australia is now in....
Summers are an annual thing... Forest fires this fierce is not that common (at least it wasn't and the future will tell if it becomes common) and heath records are not broken every year.

Then again, that SpongeBob meme is often used to express one's own stupidity lately.

That's how stupid you sound.

You can't Meme, But you're going to lecture about Memes now. You really are an arrogant libtard.

You are talking to somebody who hates liberalism with passion, so who are you calling a "libtard"?
And I am not the one ignoring facts, either, and acknowledging facts has nothing to do with liberalism (or any other political philosophy either). So technically you confirmed what I said.

Oh, and conservatism has nothing to do with stupidity either, so I can't call you a conservatist either.

And when it comes to arrogance.... The pot's calling the kettle black....

Oh, and I didn't state that CO2 is the reason that Australia is now on fire. I only said that just calling the reason why Australia is on fire "summer" is not good enough, and you fill in the rest of the "facts" (which are in your case "fabrications"). I am skeptical about many things when it comes to the greenhouse effect, but denying global warming itself when all the evidence is piling up and Australia's forest fires getting into the extreme very likely just one of them is like denying the murder on president Kennedy while it happened right before everybody's eyes, and there goes the same kind of story. Being sure Oswald was the killer is open for debate, the murder itself is not. Same goes for global warming.

If "summer" was the true underlying factor, can you explain then, since it's always summer in Australia around this time of the year, why it never led to situations THIS extreme before? Boom! That rules "summer" as core reason out. And then you say I can't meme, and call me a libtard, while the true climate gurus despise liberalism even more than I do... Not that odd, since liberalism is not really that environment-friendly....

But thank you for confirming what I said... I knew you would try to defend an undefendable case!

"This is Chewbacca, that does not make sense!" 😜

"No one seriously claims that the climate doesn't change."

Unfortunately, this is not true.... I have heard MANY people deny the phenomenon itself. And the group is actually growing now that the measures even get more and more clear.

"not true, by the way"
And that proves my point above actually... denying... I got statement from numbers presented to me by people who measure the stuff... Only a fool can name "summer" as the core reason (as that would mean Australia would ALWAYS have these extremes, and they are called "extremes" for a reason)... "Summers getting hotter" can be a be a reason, but what does it mean when summers get hotter? BOOM... There you go...

Please note, I am skeptical about the entire climate discussion myself, but some facts cannot be denied, and what is happening in Australia is not just "summer"... That is a cheap excuse to stick your head in the sand (what you so-called "rightists" blame "leftists" of. That is not a pot calling a kettle black, but a pot calling snow black). I keep myself to the facts I can verify... And what happens in Australia is easy to verify....

You are actually following a religion.... that religion is called "populism". Nothing is true unless it's what you want to hear, and all that you don't want to be true simply isn't, If that is the way you wanna live, well, buy a rock and live under it. Being critical has NOTHING to do at all with denying undeniable facts... But the facts don't suit you... I don't like them either. As a matter of fact I hate them with passion... But I hate the fact that thieves steal stuff too, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening either.

I do not think stopping CO2 emissions is gonna save us, but one way or another something must be done, and that ain't blaming "summer" just to deny the true facts. Global warming is happening, like it or not, and yeah, it's very likely the fires in Australia are the result of that, as a matter of fact, older calculations even predicted this to happen. If the warming itself cannot be stopped than Australia will need an even better way to prevent or fight fires. And Australia is not the only country where something needs to be done. If CO2 emission reduction is the right measure... That can be discussed.... just saying "It's because of summer"... That will definitely guarantee more disasters to happen and get out of control

Thanks for your insight, Without it I don't know how I would survive.😜

I would be impressed if I was convinced you were serious. But I know you're being sarcastic. But then again, you would refuse to accept the truth even if all evidence would be lying right before your eyes without any possibility to refute it, but that tells me more about your intelligence than mine.

What tipped you off?

For starters 😜; and the timing of your comment in the discussion, and how the way you've been posting in this discussion in general. Not to mention the kind of words you picked. I guess you wanted to avoid the cliche "Ok boomer", but the content (or rather lack thereof) of your post has pretty much the same meaning...

I doubt it... I never met Kylie, and I have the feeling Kylie is not even my countryman.
And besides physics was one of my most vital subjects during my education, along with chemistry... I got the basic knowledge required to put climate change and also the working of fire in my own perspective... That's how I drew my conclusions... And where Kylie got their facts from, I don't know....

Don't request me things I've already done.
I've accepted loads of things about myself and the world.
It will be time you do the same...

Don't assume things... Did you really think I was THAT stupid?
You've been missing the point in your own stubbornnes even before this silly discussion began, so be careful with your memes, before you hurt yourself.

Sure... point is, this is not a leftist statement, but just facing the facts, which is neither left nor right.... And actually it's the people who THINK they are right (quite often more on the left side than they want to believe), who is forcing people into a certain direction at the cost of everything. I don't care if you are willing to pay the bill, but I will get the bill to for you STUPIDITY, which has NOTHING TO DO with RIGHT, as well...
So thank you for that. :P

By saying "there is no right only left and those who oppose them" you have demonstrated to me what you know about politics... Which you already did. First of all, climate change is not a left topic... It's a topic of green politics. Although most greens are on the left side, not all of them are, and definitely not all left parties are green orientated.

And you are the believer, or rather the one who decides to believe what he wants to believe. Calvinism has nothing to do with facts or believing against them. Not to mention I am not a fan of Calvin, either...

Your problem is that you want to turn your back on things, and by trying to put those who try to talk some sense into you in the role of "oppressors" and "zealots" and whatever (you don't know what kind of people they are, really, you don't, so don't make those comparisons), you can keep on believing what you want to believe. Does that change reality... No, but hey, being a fantasy author myself I know how tempting fantasy worlds are, and how wonderful alternate realities are... Point is, knowing that fantasy is fantasy and reality is reality is neither left nor right.

You decided to oppose reality, and substitute it with your own.... Too bad, you are not Adam Savage, so don't pretend you are.

Oh, and left parties don't exist in the US (no de Democrats are not left... maybe the closest to left what the US has, but not left enough for me to be called "leftist")... You'll have to come to Europe to find real leftist parties... I'm sure they'll scare the hell out of you. Even those who are not in the green field. Oh, and the leftists are the most fierce opposers of liberalism.... That too you should know... Not that you're gonna believe me, but hey, I've read their political agendas, so how can I possibly know their content? :P

In the definition of religion is that you believe in a supernatural entity otherwise known as a "god".
None of the climate scientists ever mention a "god". Second if it was a religion, I'd be an heretic anyway, as I am still critical on many matters.

Also neither God nor a holy prophet taught me the stuff I needed to know to draw my conclusion. And even after explaining the science behind the forest fires getting out of control you keep insisting it's all "religion" (which cannot be, since no "god" is involved, which is the first requirement for a religion. For that reason Buddhism is not a religion, since Buddha is not a god, but was a mortal human being). That shows that no matter what evidence or proof or whatever is presented, you're gonna keep denying it anyway. Most likely because "saint Trump" says so, if we need to return the favor when it comes to religion.

You behave like a spoiled brat denied a cookie. If you are older than that, act like it. Or take the first plane to Australia and go help those firemen put out the fire, that would at least accomplish more than denying everything from happening.

I only believe in science (and I said SCIENCE... not Scientology), or rather I don't believe in it. There are little things in which here are absolutes, but in this matter, either you know or you don't, there's no believe.... (thanks Yoda). I've explained how climate change is likely the reason of the forest fires getting out of hand, all you came back with was "paragraphs" (nice distraction, as that "allows" you to refrain from reading stuff), so basically you already gave up.

And now regardless if you believe in it, do you actually know the theory of CO2 causing global warming? I doubt you do, and if you do, I don't think you even understand it. Physics and chemistry is definitely not your thing... so don't pretend you know the truth behind it.

I never mentioned religion. True story.

Your entire rant was all for nothing. Did it make you feel better releasing all that pent up frustration? You'll be frustrated all over again as soon as you wake up in the morning.

You're throwing a temper tantrum to the wrong user. You were so enraged, You couldn't focus on the right reply tab.

I know you're triggered by my Memes, But .... Damn, I didn't expect your little head to explode.
Well... That's a lie, You're heads explode over everything. Your deranged rant is proof.

You fools crack me u.

Did I... I am not angry or anything... Perhaps I didn't see a username well, but whatever...
One troll or another, hardly makes a difference... My head exploding? Weak! It's not my fault imgflip has a reply limit so mistakes like these could happen... And cracking you up... Now that cracks ME up... And no I am not ranting, actually... If you read this topic well you'd know that... Or maybe you don't want to know, but that is NOT my mistake.

Yeah, You're not angry. You just typed out a book in a fit of rage to the wrong user.

One liberal using insults as a crutch or another, hardly makes a difference. It wouldn't matter if your head exploded, There's no vital organ in it.

Yeah. It's all Imgflips fault you didn't have the intelligence to reply to the correct user on a earlier reply in the thread.

Keep telling yourself you aren't ranting, You'll believe almost anything.

I don't waste my life being terrified of what if's, I leave that to others struggling to cope with life.

Another liberal too arrogant to admit they made a mistake, Shocker.

I was tired and I didn't look.... And no vital organ in my head? Sure, sure... intelligence test told me otherwise.
And the only people who say I'll believe anything those unable to read or to listen. Unable or unwilling. And calling me a liberal is also a mistake. I said it before and I'll say it again. I hate liberalism. But it's not my fault that you don't know what liberalism is.
And it's also not my fault that when it comes to anger, you don't know how to recognize it.
You don't wanna see me when I am angry.

The fact that you manage to make such a big scene about a wrong reply link, shows that you need it and that you don't have valid argumentation, so my mistake now becomes my masterstroke as it exposes you for the idiot you are, and for that I am eternally grateful! I should make that mistake more often! Dang!

You were tired, From pretending you were smart, You didn't look, At least you admit you send rants to random users without LOOKING.

You took an intelligence test and it said you were smart, But you weren't smart enough to check to see if you were responding to the correct user. Got it.

You agree, You'll believe anything. Since you refuse to believe you were wrong to rant to the wrong user.

I don't want to see you when you're angry? WOW, I'm terrified of what you're like when you get angry, I can barely type. You really are an arrogant ass.

The fact that you ranted to the wrong user, And continue to rant instead of just saying "My bad, I F**ked up" I'm sorry. Shows you are not only stupid, You are pathetic. You can't even man up.

You whine like a liberal, You're arrogant like a liberal, You refuse to take responsibility for your mistakes like a liberal. You pretend you're smart like a liberal, And you're pretending to be a tough guy, While you're hiding behind your keyboard, Just like a liberal.
If it walks, talks, Whines, And pretends like a liberal, It must be a liberal.

Use your super intelligence you pretend you have and respond to the right user, Dumbass.
You don't impress me one little bit.

Just out of curiosity. If you get angry, What happens? Do you keep ranting at me?
Or do you rant at another random user?