CA Wildfires: Trump was right.

[kalm]

And another rocket surgeon.

[Bobcat]

Just admit that you cant do it. We know

[UNI88]

And another rocket surgeon.

Whore who got ahead by fvcking DEI (don jr, eric or ivanka)

[BDKJMU]

Oops..

[Bobcat]

These DEI hires need prison time

[Caribbean Hen]

Oops..

She’s a flight risk

Flew down to Cuba about 6 times in the 70’s so Fidel could put his cigar where the sun don’t shine

[kalm]

Why these fires shouldn’t be a surprise, will continue to occur, and what we should be doing about it….IE brace for impact and take care of each other first…

From a climate scientist who lost his home in Altadena:

Benjamin Hamlington is a research scientist at Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a team lead at Nasa Sea Level Change team

My house is one of many that burned down. I can see that everyone is dealing with it in very different ways and at very different paces. I don’t have a special or unique perspective to share, mostly because the experience of the past 24 hours is not unique or special. These events – often much more devastating in terms of loss of life than this one – are happening everywhere and more often with every passing year. As a climate scientist looking at these events from a distance, there can be a reaction to nod and say: “Yes, this is what we expect to unfold and what our science shows.” That’s true, of course. This event, for me, has destroyed any boundary between my work and the rest of my life, my family, my friends. It causes me to reflect on whether the words we frequently use to talk about climate change are consistent with what I’d want to hear in this moment. I haven’t really had time to sit down and pause until right now, and I just have one reflection to share.

Recently at work, I’ve been working with others to consider updates to an important guidance document for Nasa written in 2017 titled: Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space. It doesn’t really matter what the document is right now, but there have been discussions on how the framing should shift several years on. I feel like I am safe in saying that we are not thriving on our changing planet. And we will not thrive on our changing planet in the coming decades. But I’m not filled with despair or fatigue or ready to give up trying to help.

Even if thriving isn’t possible (which I really don’t think it is), protecting what is most important to us, supporting vulnerable communities across the globe, and ensuring a decent life for our kids can be possible and is worth working towards as best as we can. We can be both realistic and hopeful of finding a positive solution – one that doesn’t accomplish everything, maybe, but one that does enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

[houndawg]

Why these fires shouldn’t be a surprise, will continue to occur, and what we should be doing about it….IE brace for impact and take care of each other first…

From a climate scientist who lost his home in Altadena:

Benjamin Hamlington is a research scientist at Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a team lead at Nasa Sea Level Change team

My house is one of many that burned down. I can see that everyone is dealing with it in very different ways and at very different paces. I don’t have a special or unique perspective to share, mostly because the experience of the past 24 hours is not unique or special. These events – often much more devastating in terms of loss of life than this one – are happening everywhere and more often with every passing year. As a climate scientist looking at these events from a distance, there can be a reaction to nod and say: “Yes, this is what we expect to unfold and what our science shows.” That’s true, of course. This event, for me, has destroyed any boundary between my work and the rest of my life, my family, my friends. It causes me to reflect on whether the words we frequently use to talk about climate change are consistent with what I’d want to hear in this moment. I haven’t really had time to sit down and pause until right now, and I just have one reflection to share.

Recently at work, I’ve been working with others to consider updates to an important guidance document for Nasa written in 2017 titled: Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space. It doesn’t really matter what the document is right now, but there have been discussions on how the framing should shift several years on. I feel like I am safe in saying that we are not thriving on our changing planet. And we will not thrive on our changing planet in the coming decades. But I’m not filled with despair or fatigue or ready to give up trying to help.

Even if thriving isn’t possible (which I really don’t think it is), protecting what is most important to us, supporting vulnerable communities across the globe, and ensuring a decent life for our kids can be possible and is worth working towards as best as we can. We can be both realistic and hopeful of finding a positive solution – one that doesn’t accomplish everything, maybe, but one that does enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other

Democrat hoax.

[Bobcat]

This fire is obviously caused by climate change.

The San Francisco fire in 1906 that killed 3000 people was well before climate change thats why is was so mild compared to the LA fires everyone is using for propaganda and stuff.

[kalm]

This fire is obviously caused by climate change.

The San Francisco fire in 1906 that killed 3000 people was well before climate change thats why is was so mild compared to the LA fires everyone is using for propaganda and stuff.

[BDKJMU]

Throughout most of the 20th century, we took measures to minimize the frequency and severity of wildfires. We created land-management agencies to do some of the gardening ourselves. We removed excess timber, creating resilient, fire-resistant forests, thriving mountain economies and a lucrative source of public revenue. We leased public lands to sheep and cattle ranchers whose stock kept brush from building up. We established competent infrastructure to stop fires from getting out of control. We cut firebreaks into the soil to contain flames.

Prior to 1800, California lost an average of around 4.5 million acres to fires every year. As we introduced scientific land-management and fire-suppression measures, by the end of the 20th century that average dropped to around 250,000 acres.

But in 2020 California suffered a single-year loss of 4.3 million acres to wildfires. Between 2019 and 2023, an average of more than 1.5 million acres burned each year. What happened?

The left blames a changing climate. But that doesn’t explain California’s long history with massive wildfires, or why fires became less threatening throughout most of the 20th century.

We can find a more likely culprit in the states’ recent extreme environmental and social policies.

Environmental studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 now cost millions of dollars and take an average of 5.3 years for forest-thinning projects in California to get approved. Often the cost amounts to more than the value of the timber itself. The amount of timber harvested from public lands has declined around 75% since the 1980s, with a concomitant increase in forest acreage destroyed by wildfire.

Sheep and cattle grazing on public lands, once common in Southern California, has largely been regulated out of use by bureaucratic restrictions and fees designed to discourage the practice. Wilderness restrictions make brush suppression more difficult throughout much of the state.

Environmental leftists promised that laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act would protect and improve the environment. Fifty years later we’re entitled to ask: How’s it going? Between 2012 and 2021, we lost a quarter of California’s forestland to wildfires. A UCLA study estimated that California’s 2020 fires released twice as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as had been prevented by the previous 18 years of primarily government-enforced restrictions.

Resource policy also changed radically. The visionary water projects of the 20th century gave way to increasingly restrictive conservation edicts while leftist officials neglected the region’s basic water infrastructure. Authorities forced utilities to spend billions on wind and solar projects, money that could have otherwise funded such desperate priorities as fireproofing power lines. As a result, one of the states most heavily invested in wind power has to shut down its power lines on windy days. As a consequence of these follies, hydrants failed, and many overextended firefighters reported having no choice but to surrender to the blaze….

…..the city spends almost twice as much as the fire department’s budget on homelessness projects. These projects are strained by the state’s illegal-migrant problem, which is fueled in part by Los Angeles’s designating itself a sanctuary cit…..

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bad-policy- ... ?st=zGPFmW

[Bobcat]

Facts suck. Unless you are in the cult of climate change. Then you are oblivious

[houndawg]

Facts suck. Unless you are in the cult of climate change. Then you are oblivious

Tell us about the cults Bob. I hear they're eating the dogs in Ohio

[Bobcat]

I don't chat with Russian agents, do your own homework

[kalm]

Burr laying down some hard truth.

[UNI88]

This didn't age well ...



Who is chris wright? trump's nominee to be Energy Secretary.

[kalm]

This didn't age well ...



Who is chris wright? trump's nominee to be Energy Secretary.

I am shocked by this. Trump only hires the very best people.

[BDKJMU]

This didn't age well ...



Who is chris wright? trump's nominee to be Energy Secretary.

He’s 100% correct. Unless you are one of the who think ‘climate change’ caused the wildfires.

[UNI88]

This didn't age well ...



Who is chris wright? trump's nominee to be Energy Secretary.

He’s 100% correct. Unless you are one of the who think ‘climate change’ caused the wildfires.

The fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype".

I think climate change played a role in causing the fires and contributed to the severity. Bad government policies/management also played a significant role.

Are you one of the who think humans have no impact on climate change?

[BDKJMU]

He’s 100% correct. Unless you are one of the who think ‘climate change’ caused the wildfires.

The fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype".

I think climate change played a role in causing the fires and contributed to the severity. Bad government policies/management also played a significant role.

Are you one of the who think humans have no impact on climate change?

Clearly you’re one of the the who think the fire are PROOF of there being climate change..

[UNI88]

The fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype".

I think climate change played a role in causing the fires and contributed to the severity. Bad government policies/management also played a significant role.

Are you one of the who think humans have no impact on climate change?

Clearly you’re one of the the who think the fire are PROOF of there being climate change..

The climate is changing. I don't think that's deniable.

Regardless, the fires might not be "proof' of climate change but chris wright was wrong to call them "hype". Maybe we should change his last name from wright to wrong for accuracy.

[BDKJMU]

Clearly you’re one of the the who think the fire are PROOF of there being climate change..

The climate is changing. I don't think that's deniable.

Regardless, the fires might not be "proof' of climate change but chris wright was wrong to call them "hype". Maybe we should change his last name from wright to wrong for accuracy.

Nice backtrack from 2 posts ago when you said they were proof.

That’s your opinion.
Chris Wright was 100% right to call them hype. My opinion.
And you know what they saw about opinions.

[UNI88]

The climate is changing. I don't think that's deniable.

Regardless, the fires might not be "proof' of climate change but chris wright was wrong to call them "hype". Maybe we should change his last name from wright to wrong for accuracy.

Nice backtrack from 2 posts ago when you said they were proof.

That’s your opinion.
Chris Wright was 100% right to call them hype. My opinion.
And you know what they saw about opinions.

Where did I say they were proof?

My first post I said this didn't age well and my second I said "the fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype"."

[BDKJMU]

Nice backtrack from 2 posts ago when you said they were proof.

That’s your opinion.
Chris Wright was 100% right to call them hype. My opinion.
And you know what they saw about opinions.

Where did I say they were proof?

My first post I said this didn't age well and my second I said "the fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype"."

By saying proof that its not hype you are indirectly saying its proof that its real.

[UNI88]

Where did I say they were proof?

My first post I said this didn't age well and my second I said "the fires themselves are proof that he was wrong about it just being "hype"."

By saying proof that its not hype you are indirectly saying its proof that its real.

Saying the fires are hype is saying that hype has killed 27+ people and caused approximately $40 billion in property damage.