Whos really to blame for the LA wildfire? Donnie or Gavin Newscum who diverts water from its natural path into the ocean and refuses to do any sort of wildfire/forestry management because of faulty woke ideology?

[godzilla]

1 minute ago, User said:

So, not only did they waste money, time, and resources on this... now you think it was a complete failure. 

 

you're confused. you claim deductive reasoning that the following premises:

- the LA fire department has pursued DEI initiatives to expand available work pool
- severe fire damage during unprecedented fire conditions

provides a proof that:

- DEI initiatives in the LA fire department has caused severe fire damage

but you supply no evidence that DEI initiatives affect fire fighting performance in any way. for all we know, fire fighting efforts may have improved. your hypothesis is unsupported.

either way you blame the fire fighters for the damage when the city of LA doesn't even have enough water for these unprecedented conditions.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Well.. and with this, I conclude that you have no idea what I am talking about. I am talking about quantifiable job performance. Feel free to carry on. Someone has to care that you breathe. 

No one has any idea what you are talking about and please cease with the insults. 

 

[User]

22 minutes ago, godzilla said:

you're confused. you claim deductive reasoning that the following premises:

- the LA fire department has pursued DEI initiatives to expand available work pool
- severe fire damage during unprecedented fire conditions

provides a proof that:

- DEI initiatives in the LA fire department has caused severe fire damage

but you supply no evidence that DEI initiatives affect fire fighting performance in any way. for all we know, fire fighting efforts may have improved. your hypothesis is unsupported.

either way you blame the fire fighters for the damage when the city of LA doesn't even have enough water for these unprecedented conditions.

Nope, you are creating a straw man. 

I did not claim they were trying to expand the available work pool with DEI. 

I also made a separate and distinct argument regarding resources, $$$, and time regarding firefighting. That those take away from the primary mission... to fight fires. 

I never blamed firefighters and I have also called out the lack of water as well. 


 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

there is no quantifiable evidence that the DEI hires in the LA fire department came up short on this. The fire hydrants running dry was not their call (and never has been). The decision to only have 3 million gallons available (which is more than enough most of the time) comes from a different place (hint.. it is not the governor). 

Why were there DEI hires in such key roles in the first place? 

Why is it even a possibility that people were put into such critical roles based on their DEI status and not their level of competency? 

[Venandi]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The blame for this inferno has to go to whoever started the fire and the wind.

Here's a bogus headline I just made up that reflects the sort of policy Robo and Herb would defend to the death.... it sounds like another Toronto (tough on gun crime) "this is totally unacceptable" assertion:

Blowtorch arsonist on bail for blowtorch arson re-arrested for arson with a blowtorch while under a life time blowtorch ban for 10 previous arson convictions with a blowtorch. 

Picking a windy day to work your blowtorch magic doesn't sound like a "Blame It On The Wind" country classic to me.

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2025 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Venandi said:

Please explain to a simple soldier why that admission matters to anyone, especially someone who lost a house in LA. 

Leftists firmly believe in the statement: "Never let a good crisis go to waste".

They're blaming this on drought but:

1. It was a normal rainfall year in Cali
2. They've had stronger windstroms

Something bad happened and it's either because of:

• GLOBAL WARMINGCAUSED BY CONSERVATIVES!!!
• The blatant mismanagement of Dems at the federal, state and municipal levels, plus their ridiculous DEI hires in critical roles. "Blue hair>>>>merit."

[SpankyMcFarland]

By all means fire every politician and bureaucrat who screwed up here but that won’t change the underlying problem of an increasingly fire-prone world. Mother Nature has spoken loud and clear. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Something that irks me - the use on news shows of acres or hectares to describe the size of major fires. How many urban Americans know what a thousand acres looks like, let alone 35,000, other than that it’s kinda large? Very approximately, how long would it take a car travelling at 40 miles an hour to travel around it if it were a square (rough answer, I think, 40 minutes?). Far better to express the square mile size and then convert it to a rectangle - so in the 35,000 acre example, divide by 1000 and add 50% to get the square mile size, 52 square miles (really 54.6), or a rectangle 7 miles x 7.5 miles. Or divide by 1000 and multiply by 4 to get the square km size (really 141.6), approx 12 x 12 km. That’s much easier for non-farmers to understand and to properly appreciate the scale of this particular disaster so far. I think the math is correct here - please correct if not. In any case my point remains. Most of us know how big a square with 2 mile sides is far better than 2560 acres. 

Edited January 10, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Venandi said:

Here's a bogus headline I just made up that reflects the sort of policy Robo and Herb would defend to the death.... it sounds like another Toronto (tough on gun crime) "this is totally unacceptable" assertion:

Blowtorch arsonist on bail for blowtorch arson re-arrested for arson with a blowtorch while under a life time blowtorch ban for 10 previous arson convictions with a blowtorch. 

Picking a windy day to work your blowtorch magic doesn't sound like a "Blame It On The Wind" country classic to me.

 

 

 

True. The arsonist is ultimately to blame.

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

True. The arsonist is ultimately to blame.

But we don't have to allow his crime to be devastating by virtue of our own inaction (some might call the inaction negligence). Priorities need to make sense and it only takes casual observation to realize that logical actions went undone to the point that true believers of climate change (as being causal) should literally be horrified by the ground they've lost. 

As a for instance, the California fires of 2020 created about twice as much GHG as were saved between 2003-2020. The reductions achieved in that period were in the order of 60-65 metric tons and the fire season total for that year was somewhere around 130 metric tons if memory serves.

Now granted, statistics like that can easily be packaged in that self serving "look I was right" manner that I've come to despise but if I qualified as a true believer, I sure wouldn't want to see my efforts (over an extended period) wiped in a single year.

I wouldn't want ANY of them wiped out AT ALL. Doesn't that just make sense?

In order to prevent such losses from happening I'd be looking to lock in the gains I worked hard to achieve and the first step in deciding what those actions might be is as simple as looking around (with eyes open) and the motivation to define (and address) those things that might wreck my plans and ruin my efforts.

I can't help but think that any sensible person walking the land with a critical eye could have made a list of tangible things that needed to be addressed. They could have done the same thing with emergency preparedness and funding priorities.  Even a blind monkey could follow that trail... I suspect even Robo could do it if the monkey agreed to hold hands with him. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2025 by Venandi

[Nationalist]

37 minutes ago, Venandi said:

But we don't have to allow his crime to be devastating by virtue of our own inaction (some might call the inaction negligence). Priorities need to make sense and it only takes casual observation to realize that logical actions went undone to the point that true believers of climate change (as being causal) should literally be horrified by the ground they've lost. 

As a for instance, the California fires of 2020 created about twice as much GHG as were saved between 2003-2020. The reductions achieved in that period were in the order of 60-65 metric tons and the fire season total for that year was somewhere around 130 metric tons if memory serves.

Now granted, statistics like that can easily be packaged in that self serving "look I was right" manner that I've come to despise but if I qualified as a true believer, I sure wouldn't want to see my efforts (over an extended period) wiped in a single year.

I wouldn't want ANY of them wiped out AT ALL. Doesn't that just make sense?

In order to prevent such losses from happening I'd be looking to lock in the gains I worked hard to achieve and the first step in deciding what those actions might be is as simple as looking around (with eyes open) and the motivation to define (and address) those things that might wreck my plans and ruin my efforts.

I can't help but think that any sensible person walking the land with a critical eye couldn't have made a list of things that needed to be addressed. Even a blind monkey could follow that trail... I suspect even Robo could do it if the monkey agreed to hold hands with him. 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. But no sensible monkey could stand holding robo's clamy hands.

Obviously those we call "greenies" are caught between their climate concerns and their need to demand government deal with their emergency du jour. 

I attribute this chaotic focus to a rather typical lack of rational behavior. A liberal need to try to address every perceived issue.

[Deluge]

19 hours ago, godzilla said:

except you don't know much about logical proof.

No, that's you, pervert. 

You're trying to tell me that chick is the most qualified person in LA to do that job while the city is STILL on fire. lol

DEI got that b^tch in that position and now Los Angeles is paying for it. 

[User]

17 hours ago, Nationalist said:

True. The arsonist is ultimately to blame.

Sure... but if I start your house on fire and fire fighters take an hour to get there and then when they do there is no water in the fire hydrants, so everyone just stands around and watches your house burn down, but happen to see that you have fallen down inside and need help, but the LGBTQ DEI hire woman can't carry you out and leaves you there to die saying, oh well, you should not have gotten yourself into that position... and then your family finds out that the government cut the budget and instead of training to fight fires, they are out learning about DEI... and they knew the fire hydrants did not have enough water and never improved them...

Yeah, we can certainly blame the arsonist, but that doesn't mean there is not more blame to go around in the failure of a response. 

 

[eyeball]

23 hours ago, User said:

Even IF we accept the climate change alarmism from the left... OK, so what?

That's still a really really BIG if.

By the time you switch to we HAVE accepted it, it'll be far far too late.

[User]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

That's still a really really BIG if.

By the time you switch to we HAVE accepted it, it'll be far far too late.

LOL, far far too late... for what? How?

 

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, far far too late... for what? How?

Adapting, there'll be little left to adapt with.

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Adapting, there'll be little left to adapt with.

Little left of what?

This is not The Day After Tomorrow. 

This isn't even scientific, this is just doomsday porn for the cult believers of climate alarmism. 

[robosmith]

On 1/10/2025 at 9:35 AM, WestCanMan said:

Of course it does.

• The sea levels have dramatically risen and fallen over the past few hundred million years.
• There was an ice age, with a mile-high sheet of ice over Boston, which is south of where I live. 

It's ridiculous to pretend that the climate hasn't gone through mind-boggling changes.

But actual climatologists don't believe Kerry, Gore, Greta and DiCaprio, and neither do I.

Only ^IGNORANT FOOLS can IGNORE that the vast majority of climatologists   KNOW that man is causing the climate to change with GIGA-TONS of fossil fuel CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR.

 

Quote

Yes, according to a vast majority of climate scientists, climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity, with a consensus of around 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agreeing on this point; this is widely accepted within the scientific community as a fact based on extensive research and evidence. 

 

Key points about the consensus on climate change:

• High percentage agreement:

  Studies consistently show that around 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are the main cause of climate change.
• Leading scientific organizations support this view:

  Major scientific bodies like NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) all endorse the consensus on human-caused climate change.
• Peer-reviewed research:

  This consensus is based on a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature

 

[godzilla]

the climate denier echo chamber is all about "alarmist" climate stories. and there are those stories out there but thats not the story that science is telling.

what the science says is that life will still exist on the planet for another billion years. but the next few hundred are going to be much different for humans.

we have built our cities, infrastructure and agriculture to be sustainable given particular weather conditions. but even .5 degrees of energy added to something the size of our atmosphere is a lot of extra energy.

that energy displays itself. everywhere on the plane the earth is experiencing record heat or record cold. we are having once in 50 year weather events every year now whether it be wind, water or lack of both. the amount of money that it costs the US is increasing logarithmically.

mankinds dumping of carbon into the atmosphere is going to be very expensive. a lot of stuff is going to get destroyed. humans will be able to build back in most places but the building will have to be far more resilient and far more costly.

i've lived most of my life in british columbia. this year i am seeing flowers bloom in the middle of winter. i saw a damned dandelion flower a few days ago! unbelievable how quickly this is happening.

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, godzilla said:

the climate denier echo chamber

The blatant hypocrites - who fly in private jets and cruise in mega yachts while punching down on soccer moms for driving minivans - have you blabbering about climate change as yet another massive fire cleared the peons out of waterfront communities, to make room for elites to swoop in and buy up smoking lots, to combine them into luxury estates. 

Do you feel like a useful id10t, because you're wearing the t-shirt and the ball cap, and you have the tattoo on your forehead. Just FYI.

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Adapting, there'll be little left to adapt with.

The fact that you want to adapt is heartening, I won't bother to ask who failed (miserably) to adapt in California or what that failure to adapt cost...  it's sufficient to want to mop up the mess and get on with the grunt.  

When Democrats are ready to stop screaming climate change, role up their sleeves and begin trying to mitigate its effects you'll find no shortage of cooperation. And you may be surprised to see that it comes from people who don't even support the notion of global warming. They simply see piles of dry brush, no water, LAFD budget cuts, the lack of aviation resources, insufficient early detection, and they feel the Santa Anna wind in their face.

They've been saying "hey, let's get on with this" for years.

Up until now they've only gotten a lesson in global climatology from Herb and Robo, and they can't  even find a brush pile when a blind monkey leads them to one.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2025 by Venandi

[User]

10 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i've lived most of my life in british columbia. this year i am seeing flowers bloom in the middle of winter. i saw a damned dandelion flower a few days ago! unbelievable how quickly this is happening.

*GASP*

OMG, you seen a flower bloom! The horror! The devastation! 

[godzilla]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The blatant hypocrites - who fly in private jets and cruise in mega yachts while punching down on soccer moms for driving minivans - have you blabbering about climate change as yet another massive fire cleared the peons out of waterfront communities, to make room for elites to swoop in and buy up smoking lots, to combine them into luxury estates. 

Do you feel like a useful id10t, because you're wearing the t-shirt and the ball cap, and you have the tattoo on your forehead. Just FYI.

what? yeah, i don't get how any of that has anything to do with whether climate change is happening or not or to what degree.

but yeah, the filthy rich are the only ones who are going to win. keep voting for them and their regressive tax regimes!

3 minutes ago, User said:

*GASP*

OMG, you seen a flower bloom! The horror! The devastation! 

what about the rest of what i said?

2024: An active year of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters

Edited January 11, 2025 by godzilla

[User]

4 minutes ago, godzilla said:

what? yeah, i don't get how any of that has anything to do with whether climate change is happening or not or to what degree.

but yeah, the filthy rich are the only ones who are going to win. keep voting for them and their regressive tax regimes!

what about the rest of what i said?

2024: An active year of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters

Yes, there have been weather and climate disasters long before humans poured CO2 into the atmosphere. They increase in damage and costs... well, because guess what, humanity continues to grow and build more costly things. 

What is your point?

[godzilla]

7 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, there have been weather and climate disasters long before humans poured CO2 into the atmosphere. They increase in damage and costs... well, because guess what, humanity continues to grow and build more costly things. 

What is your point?

you really should address the huge blind spot you experience with your cognitive dissonance.

climate disasters are happening at a very pronounced increasing rate. its the rate of change. its coming down our throats hard now and will only worsen. and its because of the greenhouse gasses that we dump into the atmosphere at ever increasing amounts.

read that last paragraph twice if you have to. to get the point.