The number is correct. The relevance is bullshit. Australia will have fires every year, arson or not. It needs to keep them under control either way - which is related to climate and forest management. If arson can create out of control fires, so can lightning.
I don't have any figure or analysis, but I would actually expect arson to be worse, since lightning strikes are more or less random whereas a skilled arsonist can theoretically start the fire in the right place (upwind, etc.)
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Fires are out of control. Have you got someone proving that fire caused by lightning could be controlled easier than fire started by arson?
Basically if you claim they're relevant, it's on you to find an explanation how/why. Not on everyone else to disprove every possible theory. Otherwise we're stuck in gish gallop.
You can't prove a negative. If they're connected and people have proof and it's relevant, they'd present it. And again, arson-related arrests are real and I'm not disputing them.
This would not even be an interesting topic if it wasn't pushed so strongly on social media with a lot of bias. (Wasn't as interesting a decade ago when it was a firefighter starting fires) So let's do a reasonable thing and drop that whole thing until someone comes up with a credible proof, not a theory abused by bots and media.
