Temperatures broke records, with the coldest temperature ever recorded at −30 °F - Greta Thunberg Discussion

[–] zeesha (1780) 5 years ago

Meanwhile, Top Scientists say: https://www.ft.com/content/997d057e-3d6b-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17285) 5 years ago

I dont want to subscribe, what does it say?

reply

[–] zeesha (1780) 5 years ago

"Global warming to give colder winters and hotter summers"

Here is a similar article:
https://www.ecologicalblog.com/new-study-suggests-that-global-warming-to-give-colder-winters-and-hotter-summers/

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Just raise taxes until the planet is saved.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Just raise taxes so the well-off don't relatively have to pay much and the rest of us do and suffer. Meanwhile, climate change is happening and arrogant people don't care because they'd rather ignore it and funnel money to rich folks rather than do something for the rest of us.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

>funnel money to rich folks
ie. taxes

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Global Warming does NOT mean that all the cold areas of the world disappear, you dumb sh-t.

reply

[–] robocat893 (14364) 5 years ago

The OP is just another Trump supporter who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 5 years ago

So then why do you Lefties hastily cite any occasion of aberrant weather to support your #ClimateChangeHoax? Weather is simply the daily manifestation of Climate.

For thousands of years the climate has warmed & cooled in continuous cycles, which has nothing to do with human activity.

As far as actual pollution is concerned, go lecture the countries that are causing 95% of it, like India, China and similar regions.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

weather IS NOT the "early manifestation" of climate. wow man please stop commenting.....

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 5 years ago

I didn't say "early manifestation," I said daily manifestation of climate. And, yes, that's basically what weather is. Only a LIEberal tries to make arguments against obvious facts, like the biological difference of males & females and the fact of two genders.

And why didn't you answer my question: If it's so wrong to cite a case of weather to support a point concerning climate, why do you Lefties readily cite any occasion of aberrant weather if it seems to supports your #ClimateChangeHoax?

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

actually you did say early. you went back and edited your comment. How embarrassing man

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 5 years ago

No I didn't. (If I did I'd readily admit it). Maybe you're mixing my post up with someone else's comment; if not, you're just a liar and, now, a slanderer (publicly accusing me of doing something I didn't do).

And why do you keep avoiding my simple question that illustrates the double standards of Climate crazies?

Also, I'd like to hear your explanation of the following quote from "scientist" Stephen Schneider from Discovery magazine 30 years ago (which gives an inkling of how long wacky Climate alarmists have been around):

"we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

yes you did. your comment is completely different from the last one. Again you are embarrassing man. you clearly don't understand how science works if you think offering a quote form one guy proves anything.

go back to high school and learn the basics of science. once you are done go take philosophy and learn about logic and integrity and morals. you slimy rat. so embarrassing

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

You speak to me of integrity and morals while blatantly lying about what I wrote? Get real.

Like I said, if I had edited my post I would readily admit it; after all everybody makes typos and has to fix 'em. So you're either outright lying or confusing my post with someone else's comment.

My point with quoting that "scientist" from 30 years ago is to show via documentation that climate alarmists screaming "The sky is falling!" have been around for a looong time with the same loony tactics.

Let's go back waaay further:

- In February, 1895, the New York Times reported: "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
- In 1902 the Los Angeles Times reported: “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
- In 1923 the Chicago Tribune reported on the findings of Yale's Professor Gregory: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Need I go on? You guys have been concocting this crap for a looong time and passing it off as "scientific fact" to apprehend funds (from taxpayers) to keep your jobs/make more money, get headlines and the corresponding fame, practice your secular #ClimateChangeHoax religion (lol), or whatever. Right there you have three key human motivations: greed, recognition, religion.

you clearly don't understand how science works

I understand and recognize bulls*** like the #ClimateChangeHoax.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

ohh you are the retard who just spams old newspaper articles like its science. lol.

truly embarrassing man. I suggest begining at elementary school and slowly working your way up.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

You said something earlier about how I need to take a philosophy class, but you're the one who lacks even elementary debating skills. Your posts have no substance and are basically just hollow bluster with the corresponding ad hominem bits.

You deify science as holy scripture and scientists as prophets (with lil' Greta being your messiah, lol). So I've quoted your own prophets from 30-125 years ago and they were saying the same basic crap way back then, not to mention using the same scare tactics that modern Climate alarmists use.

Your only (lame) answer so far is to say that I "don't understand science," lol.

What's to understand? The Climate Change narrative is a crock of sheet.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

"You deify science as holy scripture and scientists as prophets" lol

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

More hollow bluster; no substance.

Laugh all you want, but your "Climate Change" obsession has taken on all the earmarks of religion because that's in essence what it is -- your (secular) religion.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

You don't understand the difference between climate and weather.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 5 years ago

The climate changes, everyone knows this. Its been changing for millions of years. The big question is: are humans causing global warming? Since the Earth has been warming since the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, its hard to say if the Earth is naturally warming or if we are causing the warming. Keep in mind the Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without human interference.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Humans pump massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 warms the planet. CO2 levels have spiked since the industrial revolution. To see a chart of the levels of CO2 in the last 800,000 years is shocking. So yes, quite obviously humans are a big cause of warming.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 5 years ago

Since there is no way to scientifically to measure CO2 800,000 years ago, scientists are just guessing it was lower. The first measurement started in 1958. Since the last ice age just ended, then more than likely we are in a warming phase.

If humans are causing global warming or climate then what You and everyone else doing about it? Good luck getting 7 billion people to help out.

The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.

There have been at least five documented major ice ages during the 4.6 billion years since the Earth was formed — and most likely many more before humans came on the scene about 2.3 million years ago.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

There ARE ways to measure CO2 levels 800,000 years ago you nitwit.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

Well of course, but how accurate is the testing? And why only 800,000 years. What was the CO2 levels before that?

Millions and millions of years ago the CO2 level was even higher. No humans were present.

Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

And then millions of years later, the CO2 level dropped.

The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher.

To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Of course you would attack the process. Typical climate change denier. When you don't like the results you call the process a scam. The fact is 99% of the climate scientist agree that humans are a cause for the warming planet. The science is there. These aren't politicians. They are scientists.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

The fact is 99% of the climate scientist agree

Just a short while ago the claim was 97%. In any case, this "fact" has been disproven.

These aren't politicians. They are scientists.

Yeah, scientists partly funded through the money of taxpayers funneled via Liberal politicians. With more coming through wealthy sponsors/donators that are duped into support via "scientific" propaganda and scare tactics.

Here's an example from "scientist" Stephen Schneider quoted in Discovery magazine 30 years ago (which gives an inkling of how long wacky Climate alarmists have been around screaming "The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!"):

"we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

It goes without saying, the #ClimateChangeHoax is just that.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You're on the wrong side of this argument. You've made it partisan. You're just another "copy and paste" king that will not be swayed by any amount of proof.

It's all a BIG conspiracy!!!!!! Your tinfoil hat is crooked.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

I've quoted your very own "prophets" from decades past and they used the very same propaganda & scare tactics that the current crop of "Climate Change" alarmists are implementing. All their prophecies were proven false. New York City is not under water; the polar ice cap hasn't melted (as Gore said it would by 2014, lol) and the Obamas bought a mansion on an East Coast island. I guess the world isn't going to end in 12 years, huh? (rolling my eyes)

Face it: You've embraced a false religion, my friend.

The climate of the earth goes through cycles and did so well before humans entered the picture. What else is new?

Needless to say, your Climate Change religion is worthless and a waste of time & money. But, by all means, we should all do our part to prevent pollution, but let's go where it's a serious problem, like China, India & similar regions.

By the way, I'm politically Independent, so drop the partisan excuse. True, I (wisely) support Trump, but that's only because he boldly stands up against LIEberal fascism and Leftwing supremacy (the modern version of white supremacy and every other historical form of supremacy across the globe in every culture).

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

GTFO with that "independent" horse shit. You lean right on issues. It's no secret. You vote republican. If not you vote libertarian but whats the difference? Libertarians are just right-winged anarchist.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

I'm Independent in the truest sense because I don't look to "the government" as a god, like Dems/Libs do. If/when I do vote Republican it's mostly an anti-Dem vote. For instance, John McCain & Romney were lame candidates and "conservative" only in pretense.

It's interesting, by the way, that I offer loads of documented data that reveals the dubiousness of your "Climate Change" narrative (religion) and the only thing you can comment on is whether or not you think I'm actually an Independent politically?

That pretty much says it all. It also reveals that you can't legitimately counter the data I've presented. Why not? Because it's documented -- I quoted your very own "prophets" from decades past spewing the very same alarmist crap & scare tactics and proven both them and your current "prophets" false.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

By the way, I thought you said this wasn't a partisan issue, so why would it matter if I'm an Independent, Republican or Libertarian?

In other words, you gave yourself & your cause away. whoops

It's okay, though, everyone with an un-indoctrinated brain knows the #ClimateChangeHoax is decidedly loony Leftwing.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I didn't say that.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

Here's what you said:

You're on the wrong side of this argument. You've made it partisan.

The obvious implication is that there's nothing partisan about the #ClimateChangeHoax, which we both know isn't true. It's a decidedly Dem/Lib/Leftwing cause.

If you truly believed it's not a partisan issue then it's irrelevant if I'm an Independent, Republican, Libertarian or Green.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

It IS a partisan issue with those such as yourself and other climate deniers. Your partisanship has short-circuited your critical thinking.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

What about your critical thinking? I've cited your very own Climate alarmists from decades past (going back 125 years) and you still can't accept that this is a crock of sheet.

Again, here's what one of your own "prophets" (aka profits) said in Discovery magazine over three decades ago:

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

None of this has any impact on you because the #ClimateChangeHoax has become your secular religion and you walk in blind faith. Any one who doesn't believe is automatically denounced as a "denier," a heretic.

Get real.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

I am not attacking the process, just giving you the facts. If you don't like them then thats your problem.

I bet you still drive a car everyday and enjoy taking hot showers too.

Global warming fanatics say they want change but really don't do anything about it.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/02/20/cold-snowy-february-denver-snowiest/

February Currently Ranks 11th Coldest, Snowiest In Denver Climate Record

Oops! Winning? Climate Change strikes again!

reply

[–] jeffreyMT (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

Exactly, liberals act like the Earth has never warmed and cooled for the past billion years.

reply

[–] jeffreyMT (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

This is clearly a partisan issue but you will never get one to admit defeat on this. Then there are people that actually get paid to sow dissent on the subject. In short, don't waste you time, especially with the hack you are engaging now.

reply

[–] sut6432 (2858) 4 years ago

Exactly, just like science and biology says if you have XX chromosomes you are female, and XY chromosomes you are male. It’s science. Why would anyone argue with science just because their party disagrees (liberals?)??? 🤣

Don’t mind me, I just like pointing out political hypocrisy.

reply

[–] jeffreyMT (0) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

Only idiots think you can take a 16 year old with crippling depression and put the weight of the world of her shoulders.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

yes that's how it works..as the world warms up. you will get heat and cold records. record amounts of hurricanes. records amounts of rainfall or drought. thanks you literally offered more evidence it is happening lol like the scientists predicted

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 5 years ago

Scientists can't predict anything, they predicted the Earth was going to cool down in the 1970's. Scientists say we were running out of oil, Scientists used Asbestos as insulation, Scientists created CFC's, Doctors used endorse smoking, Scientists said that Pluto was not a planet, then it was a planet, now its not a planet again. Scientists tested 100's of Atomic bombs in the 50's and 60's. Scientists created and used to spray DDT for mosquitoes and kids used to run and play in the smoke.

So you see that scientists are not really all that intelligent.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

No they didn't. again you contras keep showing you don't know how science.

"scientists invented asbestos"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH. SCIENTISTS INVENTED ASBESTOS, THE NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE?

OMG MAN. please never comment again

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 5 years ago

Typical liberal just laughs and doesn't respond to facts. Well done.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

"is a term used to refer to six naturally occurring silicate minerals." you think asbestos is man made. there's no point responding to someone so dumb.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

"Scientists used Asbestos as insulation"

Everyone knows that, what about the rest of the stuff I said?

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

you aren't worth anyones time to give any sort of full responses. lol "scientists said Pluto was a planet". id say you have an elementary school understanding of how science and the scientific method works. but you don't. even they are more knowledgable than you.

pluto as a planet or not has nothing to do with "science being wrong" (not that you even know what science is. more everything to do with how you classify what is and isn't a planet. and what should and should not be included. again this is really simple stuff that you are too stupid to understand.

I can't believe retards like you actually exist.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.

So you are telling me that Marie Curie is not a Scientist that used science to discover Polonium and Radium, although she had no idea they were highly radioactive.

In this case the science was wrong otherwise she would have known these new substances were radioactive.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

again. you are embarrassing. please go back and redo elementary school and high school. truly sad man

"So you are telling me that Marie Curie is not a Scientist that used science to discover Polonium and Radium, although she had no idea they were highly radioactive."

what does this even mean? ya okay a scientist discovered. ya okay scientists don't know everything. hence why we have science. and? inventions can be used for good and bad? and?

I am convinced you are on the spectrum. I am embarrassed for you

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Yep. Science is the search for truth. It changes as discoveries are made. It's nice to have somebody in this thread that isn't a partisan moron. CHEERS!

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1031) 4 years ago

So your point is a scientist made a significant discovery on radioactivity, therefore science sucks?

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

that's what jowill seems to be saying

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

"ya okay scientists don't know everything"

Thats what I have been trying to explain this entire time.

Things change over time. We find out what we thought was good was actually bad. Its the nature of things.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

and yet your horrible logic is "because they were wrong and changed their view about some thing, means they must be wrong about this one!"

to which you have zero evidence to back that claim up.

the vast vast majority of the community agrees, because the vast majority of studies done back up the theory. This isn't a case of the science being inconclusive, with half the scientific community not believing it, based on only relatively recent and few studies.

that's why when I ask for scientists who disagree. they can only seem to post fringe creationists, non climatologists who get the basics wrong and say dumb things like "its the sun!!" and oil industry lackeys. They worst being willie soon. Who failed to disclose he had received millions from the oil and gas industry. and in correspondences obtained between him and his funders described described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

I provided the evidence you just choosed to ignore it, science changes, its a fact of life. People had no idea what DNA was until the early 90's. Thats how Simpson got acquitted, the jurors thought that DNA could be corrupted if someone stepped in blood.

A hundred years from now people will look back at 2020 and laugh at us.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Retards like him do exist. Sad but true.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 5 years ago

At my house, it was warm yesterday and cold today. Surely that is evidence of Climate Change(Registered Trademark).

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Another idiot that doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather. You guys are pathetic.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8300) 4 years ago

And yet whenever weather can be misconstrued to support the #ClimateChangeHoax you climate alarmists are quick to use it to support your cause (religion) -- plainly a hypocritical double standard.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Wow, Buck! Seriously? You didn't get that TimMC was kidding??

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I suppose not. It's hard to see sarcasm in text at times.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17285) 4 years ago

lolz

self pwnage!

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Is anyone paying attention to what is going on in Australia now, or is this another inconvenient truth?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What is going on in Australia? Wasn't ther some bushfire or something? People should take care when discarding their cigarette

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

A massive drought is feeding the inferno.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It's almost as if the rise in average temperature in Australia over the last 100 years, of which the second 50 years had twice faster temperature growth as the first, could have something to do with that. Total coincidence with the risen carbon emissions in that period of course.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Total coincidence.

reply

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 4 years ago

Its almost as if the normal climate of Australia.... is changing.... weird....

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I've heard that some of climate-warrior tosspots down there deliberately started a lot of those fires, so they could say, "Look, the earth is warming and fires are breaking out everywhere!"

That sort of brain-dead stupidity from them wouldn't surprise me one bit.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Take this conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it dafuq out of here. You guys won't believe REAL news but latch onto these conspiracy theories like a baby to a nipple.

You're even talking like Trump now! "I've heard"! I bet you have heard that bullshit in the echo chambers you hang out in.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You know, it's a sign of psychosis when you imagine you detect your enemys' voice and/or personality in a random stranger's speech.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Enemy? You're not an enemy. Just a misguided person. I hold not ill-will towards you. Every self-absorbed idiot has a caring, smart person inside of them. There is hope.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That's funny, I think you're a misguided person.

But unlike some misguided people, you don't have a "caring smart" person inside of you. If you had, you wouldn't be writing vicious diatribes against strangers on a net forum.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You have not seen a "diatribe" directed at you. I'm being "caring smart" for not doing that and protecting your feelings.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Hah! Maybe not a diatribe by definition, but "Every self-absorbed idiot" is a good start.

And keep your "caring smart" for someone who needs it.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You need it. Those that need the most help are the ones that are least likely to accept it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you're so fond of quoting cliches. For the poorly educated, aphorisms serve as substitutes for genuine critical thinking.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You're so cute in trying to attack me.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

By the way, when I said "your enemy" I was of course referring to President Trump. Read that again.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

or maybe its because of millions of people are draining the aquifers, and not allowing natural fires to occur.

people still dont the difference between weather and climate.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Or maybe a massive drought is to blame.

reply

[–] JoWilli (16903) 4 years ago

is this the first ever drought in Australia?

Historical climatic records are now sufficiently reliable to profile climate variability taking into account expectations for regions.[3] Bureau of Meteorology records since the 1860s show that a 'severe' drought has occurred in Australia, on average, once every 18 years.[4] State Governments are responsible for declaring a region drought affected and the declaration will take into account factors other than rainfall.[1]

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I think Trump was right. They just need to rake more.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You left out the human factor in the fires.... the arson. Sure you can argue about which fires were started by arson, but the fact is in many of the fires you will never know what the initial trigger for it was... but you do know that some were arson as the arsonists have already been caught. But the left won't accept that, they still want to claim its someone in America driving an SUV that was responsible instead of the aussie with a match tossing it on a bunch of dried brush.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Arson is a factor, for sure. But the conditions are ripe for fires to burn fast and hot. Regardless of who/what is to blame, those poor animals and people have my sympathy.

reply