politics

Coming off from the recent Red Menace podcast, the smarter reactionaries are using articles like these to peddle soft climate change denial. Their line of argument is that the fire would've happened anyways due to mismanagement and just unwisely building in places where fires are prone to happen, which means that you can't use the fire as evidence for climate change. You could even see it within the article where only a single paragraph is devoted to climate change under a postscript, presumably because the original article is excerpts from a book published in 1998. If you delete that single paragraph, the entire article is completely compatible with a climate change denier despite being a good article in its own right. It's another one of those cases where something good is being weaponized by reactionaries to serve something bad.