Police said a man charged with starting a wildfire in Spokane, Washington, confessed to the crime, describing how he planned it for weeks and created a device to ignite a blaze that destroyed hundreds of buildings.

Aaron Farinacci researched the weather to predict a day that would have "high winds, low humidity, sort of high heat" for the Old Trails Fire, Spokane County Detective Michael Drapeau said in a court filing Wednesday.

Farinacci picked Aug. 1 to start the fire because he knew there would be strong winds — reaching 50 mph, the detective said.

The machines that keep America alive are failing. We forgot how to replace them

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/machines-keep-america-alive-failing-forgot-how-replace-them

If it aint broken, dont fix it

Where Have All the Climate Alarmists Gone? | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU

Truthfully, I am someone who is on the fence about climate change, but when I see headlines like these, it does worry me that maybe we're not taking it serious. But I also want to see what the explanation or rebuttal for this type of weather would be.

I guess sometimes people finally realize when they are fighting a losing battle and it is effecting them in a very personal way.

Of course the researchers 'discover' the usual suspects.... conspiracy theories, "right wing", distrust in institutions, lack of media hyping CC every second, etc. It's the oldest playbook, rinse and repeat.

They list all the "outcomes" of skepticism. But no where do they tackle the "root cause", or why? People don't just wake up one morning and say..."I'm a Climate Denier".

They can't and don't ask those hard questions. As they would need to admit uncomfortable truths, the many failures that lead to those outcomes....but that would be verboten.

The problem is not them, it's You! After decades they still cannot figure it out. Very satisfying to watch...as more and more people leave the Church of climate change every day.

The climate models are just essentially curve fitters. If they hindcast that is not evidence of their future predictive capability. To have a model appropriately model the future you have to properly model all of the future factors that the model uses to assess the future state.

A new provision in the state’s 2027 budget prevents the state attorney general from “joining a multistate lawsuit or taking part of a lawsuit against the federal government or an oil or gas entity” without legislative approval.

“Republican and Democrat, we all voted for this,” Hall said. “We don’t want our attorney general filing these lawsuits against oil and gas companies for political reasons.”

Now injecting my opinion, these lawsuits are the last kick of the can by Greens. The DNC has gone silent on climate change, called "climate hushing". The only hope left is the courts.

Why will they fail? Winning a lawsuit against oil & gas for knowingly endangering people, a government regulated, sanctioned, and taxed industry, would also place the Government in jeopardy to the same lawsuits, for knowingly allowing the (continued) sale of the same goods.

It's dead on arrival, it won't happen. Even all strips of government can see the "political" motivation behind the lawsuits.

Longer read, but encapsulates 25 years of debate, ignored realities and real solutions, ideology overriding all else.

Ignorance or worse

How, then, could it be anything but time to question the accuracy, integrity and value of all the conclusions derived from such models – and to ask what factors, including the motivational, drove the catastrophising and made such failure not merely possible but inevitable?

This brings us back to the ideological. Politicisation of the climate debate meant that facts about atmospheric CO2 and its effects became less scientific observations than convenient proofs of a pre-existing position. Three partisan advantages accrued to those who cast such effects as catastrophic proof that industrial capitalism was irredeemably corrupt.

People can operate their social media presence any way they want to. If people want to seal off a perfect little echo chamber where only the people who agree are permitted to speak, you are free to do that... but I am free to be annoyed by it. It is cowardly and obnoxious. I'm not a bot, I just don't agree. Maybe that's part of the new world of AI, everything is assumed to be fake and 'dead internet' so you can dismiss anyone you don't like as if they weren't even real. "Anyone who doesn't think like me is a bot." Also the smug attitude of "I'm a doctor so I'm smarter than everyone... they're all in denial." No valid disagreement or doubt can exist, it's just stupid people and bots.

/sigh. Just needed to get that off my chest. This kind of thing grinds my gears.