THIS is the what the climate crisis looks like 👇

In the last week alone the world has been gripped by devastating floods and wildfires. People everywhere are suffering the consequences of extreme weather which is becoming more frequent and more deadly.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel companies who are fueling the climate crisis grow richer by the hour. Enough is enough. Extreme weather events like these will only get worse until oil and gas giants like BP & Shell are forced to stop drilling & start paying for THEIR climate damage.

Let's get this straight: in British Columbia, we have paid over $15 billion in carbon taxation over the past 15 years. It is well established that due to cultural issues, we have changed forestry management practices, which now creates a bed of fuel for wildfires. It is also well established that the budget set aside to fight wildfires in British Columbia is shockingly low. So, despite many reported arson attacks across the country and politicians using wildfire news to spark fear campaigns for their re-election bids, they have done absolutely nothing to provide a proper forestry management team and an internationally acclaimed wildfire team with the latest technology and equipment, including water bombers, to tackle any and all wildfires as they arise and require attention. Nothing is done so that the news can be used for fear-mongering every single damn year, while they leave residents to cope with the smog from fires and evacuation notices.

However, they neglect to tell you that CO² has been hundreds of times higher than it is right now with not a single ill effect. The fact is that we need more of it to ensure there's food security with a growing population around the world. It's plant food at the end of the day, and it produces better crops. When they show you fires, they're trying to scare you. People start them, and they don't happen on their own. Those who do that, should be thrown in jail for life in my book. Floods, storms, and natural disasters have always happened, and there's no credible evidence of them happening any more often than they ever have. There's nothing wrong with looking after our environment, and there's a hell of a lot that we can do to ensure it's in a better state for future generations, but scaring children and gullible people just isn't one of the ways I like to see it done. It's got no place in our society, and we can do very well without it. I'll never agree with that approach, and it's not in any way necessary. I'm one of those who grew up watching people like David Attenborough on the television, but I think it's more than sad when you realise he's been made an unwitting liar; he's been conned in exactly the same way all the rest of those who really believe the nonsense have. In fact I can't help thinking it's got a more sinister side to it. There's certainly some sort of hidden agenda surrounding this whole debate. It's getting worse, but people can work together to find a way through things to find the greater truth. And after all, they say the truth will set you free. Don't be one of the sheep who follow the flock. It's time for people to open their eyes and see. There's truth out there that you'll never see when you're blinded by what's put there to fool you. Look at everything. Look around it, through it, under and over it to get at the facts. Start looking now. 👍🏽🤔

Looks like arson or poor forest management to me

Sadly just another Establishment stooge ... sold out. The 'climate crisis' is the biggest con going. The biggest wealth extraction and land grab ever. Focus instead on stopping deforestation, pollution, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss. None of that is 'climate change'.

While the goal of achieving net-zero emissions is widely promoted as a solution to climate change, there are substantial arguments questioning its feasibility and effectiveness. The narrative surrounding net-zero emissions often frames it as a straightforward solution to climate change, yet this oversimplification belies the intricate realities of the climate system. The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which saw an unprecedented 7% reduction in CO2 emissions due to lockdowns, serves as a poignant case study. Despite this significant dip in emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations continued to climb, increasing by 2.6 parts per million. This paradox highlights the complexity and resilience of the natural carbon cycle, suggesting that short-term emission cuts do not immediately translate into reduced atmospheric CO2 levels. The persistence of elevated CO2 concentrations, even amidst reduced human activity, underscores the influence of natural carbon sources and sinks, such as oceanic absorption and vegetation uptake. This complexity challenges the simplistic notion that merely reducing emissions will lead to a rapid stabilization or reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. Furthermore, the climate system's inherent complexity—characterized by its chaotic, coupled, and non-linear nature—renders the attribution of climate change to a singular factor like CO2 contentious. The oft-cited "consensus" on climate change lacks a direct, straightforward correlation and causation between rising CO2 levels and global temperature changes. This nuanced understanding is crucial for any discourse on climate policy, including the pursuit of net-zero emissions. The ambition of net-zero seeks to balance emitted greenhouse gases with equivalent carbon removal, a proposition that, while noble in intent, is fraught with scientific and logistical uncertainties. The long-term impact of such measures and the timeline necessary to effect meaningful change in climate patterns remain subjects of intense debate. Current estimates suggest that achieving noticeable climate stabilization may take millennia, raising questions about the immediacy and practicality of net-zero targets. Moreover, the push for net zero often intersects with political and economic agendas, where climate alarmism can be perceived as a tool for exerting control over populations and maximizing tax revenues. In this light, the pursuit of net zero may be critiqued as more than an environmental imperative—potentially serving as a mechanism for political subjugation under the guise of urgent climate action. While the intention behind net zero is to mitigate adverse climate effects, the path to achieving it is riddled with complexities, uncertainties, and potential socio-political ramifications. This uncertainty calls for a more nuanced understanding and discussion of climate policy, beyond the simplistic allure of net-zero targets with ill-defined metrics

No actually it isn’t what a climate crisis looks like. It looks like one of the many wild fires started by accident or intentional by humans, augmented by poor land and forest management

It's WEATHER. Climate is a long term average (over 30 years) of specific measures of weather conditions; in a particular location.

Looks like arson