That’s confusing the issue a bit. Or, if you prefer, you are arguing against a strawman. The claim is not that climate change “causes” fires (how would that ev

That’s confusing the issue a bit. Or, if you prefer, you are arguing against a strawman. The claim is not that climate change “causes” fires (how would that even work, exactly?) The claim is that the conditions that allow these fires to grow explosively and do so much damage are due in part to climate change. Without climate change, we’d still have human-caused fires, but their effect would not be so severe. I take no position on this claim, but this is how it is typically advanced.