scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 5 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Like I said, it's nothing new. It has all happened before. And you can correlate the frequency of high wind events and the time of year they appear with climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, scoobdog said: And you can correlate the frequency of high wind events and the time of year they appear with climate change. And what's anybody going to do about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 27 minutes ago, smiradenius said: And what's anybody going to do about it? Get rid of all the jitneys and make lazy bitches like you walk to their next trick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: Apparently where the trees are. And where is that? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discolé monade Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 34 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Get rid of all the jitneys and make lazy bitches like you walk to their next trick. wut? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, discolé monade said: wut? That was mean of me. She just needs to maybe shave, definitely shower and cut back on the eyeshadow and she’d be a real looker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Metal Alchemist Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 13 hours ago, smiradenius said: Like I said, it's nothing new. It has all happened before. Goddamn its so hard not to use the r-word here, but I started learning about climate change in the fucking 90s when I was in elementary school. How long before that has climate change been known? I don't know. Just because so you're so stupid AND ignorant you think fucking Al Gore came up with the concept doesn't make this anything new. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said: Goddamn its so hard not to use the r-word here, but I started learning about climate change in the fucking 90s when I was in elementary school. How long before that has climate change been known? I don't know. Just because so you're so stupid AND ignorant you think fucking Al Gore came up with the concept doesn't make this anything new. Look at the timeline. 1970's, we had been warned of a new ice age that was supposed to start before 1989. 1980's, the script was flipped and the "greenhouse effect" was supposed to make most of Earth uninhabitably hot before 1999. 1990's, the entire ozone layer was supposed to be depleted before the 2000's. The 2000's, the polar caps were supposed to be completely liquefied before the 2010's. 2010's to now, any deviation whatsoever from the "mean" is climate change. There have been and always will be periodic deviation from the mean, regardless of what man ever says or does or does not do. It's called nature. It can not be controlled or predicted by man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 16 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Look at the timeline. 1970's, we had been warned of a new ice age that was supposed to start before 1989. 1980's, the script was flipped and the "greenhouse effect" was supposed to make most of Earth uninhabitably hot before 1999. 1990's, the entire ozone layer was supposed to be depleted before the 2000's. The 2000's, the polar caps were supposed to be completely liquefied before the 2010's. 2010's to now, any deviation whatsoever from the "mean" is climate change. There have been and always will be periodic deviation from the mean, regardless of what man ever says or does or does not do. It's called nature. It can not be controlled or predicted by man. We stopped using chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer and it was a global effort. That’s why the ozone layer wasn’t depleted. It’s not that no damage had occurred. we did something about it. Just because we’ve had extreme weather events in the past doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. It doesn’t mean humans aren’t a contributing factor to it. It’s the frequency and intensity of said events that’s concerning and most likely a result of climate change 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 10 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: We stopped using chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer and it was a global effort. That’s why the ozone layer wasn’t depleted. It’s not that no damage had occurred. we did something about it. Just because we’ve had extreme weather events in the past doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. It doesn’t mean humans aren’t a contributing factor to it. It’s the frequency and intensity of said events that’s concerning and most likely a result of climate change The United States had stopped using those chemicals. That doesn't speak for the rest of the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 Anyway, this thread has drifted off course. My statement is that regardless of climate change and regardless of whether the foothills have trees, the fault of these fires can be placed on government failures. It failed to maintain the water system, downsized the fire department to an unreasonable low and failed to adequately manage the growth of brush. Every big fire starts as a small one. Had the failures been addressed prior to 2024, the fires would have been contained and extinguished long before growing to the scale we see now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: The United States had stopped using those chemicals. That doesn't speak for the rest of the world. Which part of “global effort” do you not understand? You intentionally act like a moron because only a moron would think “since the worst never happened that means none of what they said was true” instead of “amazing that with global cooperation we actually fixed something” https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 2 hours ago, smiradenius said: Anyway, this thread has drifted off course. This is my thread and I say it hasn't. 2 hours ago, smiradenius said: My statement is that regardless of climate change and regardless of whether the foothills have trees, the fault of these fires can be placed on government failures. It failed to maintain the water system, downsized the fire department to an unreasonable low and failed to adequately manage the growth of brush. You're wrong; let me tell you how. 1. The water system was not designed to handle a fire line - it was built for an intended to supply domestic water (for indoor plumbing, irrigation and drinking water) with enough volume to handle supply for spot fires from local outlets (fire hydrants). It was not intended to supply high volumes of water over multiple outlets as would be needed to man a fire line. It would be impossible to engineer a system that would be able to generate that much water that quickly through an underground conveyance. That is why modern wildfire fighting relies heavily on air drops. 2. The downsizing you refer to was not insignificant and did have an effect on the fire response, however... it was for support staff, not for the firefighters themselves. There was not a shortage of firefighting personnel because of the budget cuts, so it has no bearing on this discussion. 3. Most importantly, you still have no idea what fueled the fire. We are not surrounded by forests - the shrubbery that exists on the undeveloped perimeters of the fire ravaged neighborhoods is a low lying native plants with the solitary tree here and there. All of that is drought tolerant within reason, meaning that none of it requires copious amounts of water to survive. However, it wasn't the native plants that primarily fueled the fire, it was weeds, and this is where climate change poses the problem: When weather patterns change, certain areas get less or more water in any given period against historical averages. While not as dire, winters with excessive amounts of water pose nearly as much of a hazard as winters under drought because the soil is not generally designed to hold that amount of water. In this situation, a bloom of weeds will develop as Mother Nature's way of protecting the soil. Weeds are generally thought of as being bad because they're usually non-native, fast-growing vegetation that can crowd out existing native vegetation. In a health ecosystem, weeds don't take root in appreciable amounts because there isn't room for them. In ecosystems that are under stress, particularly after multiple years of drought, native vegetation doesn't have the resources to maintain its coverage. This leads to large dead spots which are quickly filled in with each breeze and passing bird by non-native seeds. Once water though rain deluges is reintroduced to the soil, those seeds rapidly grow into weeds which offer some short term protection for the soil. However, weeds are not long lasting and require more resources than are typically provided for the region. Particular with non-native grasses, the weeds will die out almost as quickly as the've grown once the rainy season ends, leaving millions of acres of dry vegetation in a very short amount of time (as in days). It would be physically impossible for human intervention to remove all of this dead non-native vegetation in a year, let alone the few months between the end of spring and start of fall (when the fire season tradionally starts). The only way to get rid of the dead vegetation that quickly is though fire, which is also a natural part of our ecosystem. When the ecosystem is stressed by climate change, naturally occurring fires will be pronounced and more intense, making it more difficult to contain those fires to the areas where they are supposed to occur. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 3 hours ago, smiradenius said: Look at the timeline. 1970's, we had been warned of a new ice age that was supposed to start before 1989. 1980's, the script was flipped and the "greenhouse effect" was supposed to make most of Earth uninhabitably hot before 1999. 1990's, the entire ozone layer was supposed to be depleted before the 2000's. The 2000's, the polar caps were supposed to be completely liquefied before the 2010's. 2010's to now, any deviation whatsoever from the "mean" is climate change. There have been and always will be periodic deviation from the mean, regardless of what man ever says or does or does not do. It's called nature. It can not be controlled or predicted by man. You're misrepresenting what was stated at the time to benefit your already bankrupt argument. Climate change has always been about changes in weather patterns, and the engine has always been the warming of our global atmosphere. No one was predicting that something was going to absolutely happen, just that change might appear in the form of any of those predictions. Also, the point isn't whether or not these climate changes are abnormal for the planet or have never happened before - there are plenty of historical records in the planets on makeup (like geological strata and tree rings) that document how the planet will respond to to catastrophic natural events. What's important is that, this time, that catastrophic natural event is human - we can directly tie our emissions to changes in the planet's functioning processes. Droughts occurred long before the industrial age, so did hurricanes, and the record shows that there were periods where the global average temperature was higher and lower in that time. That indicated that the earth can adjust to the situation and adapt to bring the temperature back down. But it doesn't account for how man's intervention with greenhouse emissions will be counteracted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 3 hours ago, 1pooh4u said: Which part of “global effort” do you not understand? You intentionally act like a moron because only a moron would think “since the worst never happened that means none of what they said was true” instead of “amazing that with global cooperation we actually fixed something” https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job Global? No, China is still a huge producer of CFC, and their government blames it on "illegal" production. How convenient. Meanwhile, CFC in the atmosphere has been increasing since 2010. So, the "global effort" has fallen flat. https://essic.umd.edu/five-ozone-depleting-cfcs-increased-globally-from-2010-2020/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, scoobdog said: This is my thread and I say it hasn't. You're wrong; let me tell you how. 1. The water system was not designed to handle a fire line - it was built for an intended to supply domestic water (for indoor plumbing, irrigation and drinking water) with enough volume to handle supply for spot fires from local outlets (fire hydrants). It was not intended to supply high volumes of water over multiple outlets as would be needed to man a fire line. It would be impossible to engineer a system that would be able to generate that much water that quickly through an underground conveyance. That is why modern wildfire fighting relies heavily on air drops. 2. The downsizing you refer to was not insignificant and did have an effect on the fire response, however... it was for support staff, not for the firefighters themselves. There was not a shortage of firefighting personnel because of the budget cuts, so it has no bearing on this discussion. 3. Most importantly, you still have no idea what fueled the fire. We are not surrounded by forests - the shrubbery that exists on the undeveloped perimeters of the fire ravaged neighborhoods is a low lying native plants with the solitary tree here and there. All of that is drought tolerant within reason, meaning that none of it requires copious amounts of water to survive. However, it wasn't the native plants that primarily fueled the fire, it was weeds, and this is where climate change poses the problem: When weather patterns change, certain areas get less or more water in any given period against historical averages. While not as dire, winters with excessive amounts of water pose nearly as much of a hazard as winters under drought because the soil is not generally designed to hold that amount of water. In this situation, a bloom of weeds will develop as Mother Nature's way of protecting the soil. Weeds are generally thought of as being bad because they're usually non-native, fast-growing vegetation that can crowd out existing native vegetation. In a health ecosystem, weeds don't take root in appreciable amounts because there isn't room for them. In ecosystems that are under stress, particularly after multiple years of drought, native vegetation doesn't have the resources to maintain its coverage. This leads to large dead spots which are quickly filled in with each breeze and passing bird by non-native seeds. Once water though rain deluges is reintroduced to the soil, those seeds rapidly grow into weeds which offer some short term protection for the soil. However, weeds are not long lasting and require more resources than are typically provided for the region. Particular with non-native grasses, the weeds will die out almost as quickly as the've grown once the rainy season ends, leaving millions of acres of dry vegetation in a very short amount of time (as in days). It would be physically impossible for human intervention to remove all of this dead non-native vegetation in a year, let alone the few months between the end of spring and start of fall (when the fire season tradionally starts). The only way to get rid of the dead vegetation that quickly is though fire, which is also a natural part of our ecosystem. When the ecosystem is stressed by climate change, naturally occurring fires will be pronounced and more intense, making it more difficult to contain those fires to the areas where they are supposed to occur. Sagebrush is highly combustible, whether live or dead. Try for, controlled burns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: Sagebrush is highly combustible, whether live or dead. Try for, controlled burns. How do you control burn in an urban environment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 22 hours ago, smiradenius said: Like I said, it's nothing new. It has all happened before. Why is there extensive evidence of a large scale information cover-up by the corporations which would benefit the most? Why did it target climate change research? What were they scared of? Boy, I wish I could figure out this difficult 2 piece jigsaw puzzle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 (edited) 57 minutes ago, scoobdog said: How do you control burn in an urban environment? You don't. You go up in the foothills, where the majority of the brush is. Big areas of unoccupied, undeveloped land. Edited January 14 by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Share Posted January 14 50 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Why is there extensive evidence of a large scale information cover-up by the corporations which would benefit the most? Why did it target climate change research? What were they scared of? Boy, I wish I could figure out this difficult 2 piece jigsaw puzzle. Where would this evidence be found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 10 hours ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said: Goddamn its so hard not to use the r-word here 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, smiradenius said: Global? No, China is still a huge producer of CFC, and their government blames it on "illegal" production. How convenient. Meanwhile, CFC in the atmosphere has been increasing since 2010. So, the "global effort" has fallen flat. https://essic.umd.edu/five-ozone-depleting-cfcs-increased-globally-from-2010-2020/ Did you read the article beyond “more CFCs have been released into the atmosphere between 2010-2020”? Had you read the fuckin article you would see that the release isn’t happening from current use. You would also see that it says there “is no natural cause of the release of CFCs into the atmosphere” also where in that article did it say there are more CFCs in the atmosphere than in the 80s and 90s? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Did you read the article beyond “more CFCs have been released into the atmosphere between 2010-2020”? Had you read the fuckin article you would see that the release isn’t happening from current use. You would also see that it says there “is no natural cause of the release of CFCs into the atmosphere” also where in that article did it say there are more CFCs in the atmosphere than in the 80s and 90s? No natural cause, you say? Don't edit that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 23 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Where would this evidence be found? It's been repeatedly punching you in the face for years. You just insist you aren't being punched in the face, and desperately feel the need to let everyone know you are NOT currently being punched in the face despite the fact nobody asked you and your protests did little more than draw attention in the direction of the thing happening to your stupid fucking face. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: It's been repeatedly punching you in the face for years. You just insist you aren't being punched in the face, and desperately feel the need to let everyone know you are NOT currently being punched in the face despite the fact nobody asked you and your protests did little more than draw attention in the direction of the thing happening to your stupid fucking face. Bullshit. There's no such conspiracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, smiradenius said: No natural cause, you say? Don't edit that out. Wtf are you talking about? Are you on crack? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, smiradenius said: Bullshit. There's no such conspiracy. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: Wtf are you talking about? Are you on crack? He just blathered about there being no natural cause for the uptick in CFC. Well, when it's not natural, it must be artificial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ Does it say they're covering anything up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: He just blathered about there being no natural cause for the uptick in CFC. Well, when it's not natural, it must be artificial. That's the point, retard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: Does it say they're covering anything up? Did you click the link, you dumbass bitch? What do these words say, woman? Can you read them or are you too retarded? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: That's the point, retard. Alright then... so there's obviously no "global effort" to stop cfc production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: Did you click the link, you dumbass bitch? What do these words say, woman? Can you read them or are you too retarded? I'm not interested in university sponsored conspiracy theories. (Propaganda, typically consumed by people who beg for simple answers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: Alright then... so there's obviously no "global effort" to stop cfc production. Nobody said global conspiracy. I said widespread cover-up. National. This is heavily centralized in the United States. Most places know better, fuckface. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: Nobody said global conspiracy. I said widespread cover-up. National. This is heavily centralized in the United States. Most places know better, fuckface. The US may have stopped producing or using cfc, that doesn't speak for the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 4 minutes ago, smiradenius said: I'm not interested in university sponsored conspiracy theories. (Propaganda, typically consumed by people who beg for simple answers) Also, you lying shitstain, that wasn't your original grievance, now was it? You implied it didn't say there was a cover up. Can't stick to one argument because you're obviously wrong as a chronic condition. Edited January 15 by naraku360 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: Also, you lying shitstain, that wasn't your original grievance, now was it? You implied it didn’t. Can't stick to one argument because you're obviously wrong as a chronic condition. Why did you even get into this thread? What's the "original grievance" you're mumbling about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 9 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Does it say they're covering anything up? dOeS iT sAy ThEy'Re CoVeRiNg AnYtHiNg Up? I don’t know, can you read? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 7 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Nobody said global conspiracy. I said widespread cover-up. National. This is heavily centralized in the United States. Most places know better, fuckface. Pooh said there's a "global" effort to stop the production and use of cfc. That's obviously incorrect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: dOeS iT sAy ThEy'Re CoVeRiNg AnYtHiNg Up? I don’t know, can you read? And where does NPR get its information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: And where does NPR get its information? Have you heard of clicking the link and looking at their sources yourself? I gave you 2 out of thousands of sources. You're just too much of a coward to face the fact you've been duped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Have you heard of clicking the link and looking at their sources yourself? I gave you 2 out of thousands of sources. You're just too much of a coward to face the fact you've been duped. "Exxon documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal" First off, that rag has zero credibility. Who did the Journal send to obtain said documents? A professional cat burglar? The A Team? Think! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Pooh said there's a "global" effort to stop the production and use of cfc. That's obviously incorrect. I'm not Pooh amd I don't know literally anything about CFCs. I thought this involved fossil fuels, which is very clearly what I linked to. I was mistaken in what I was talking about but dude, you could've cleared this up with half a second to read and point out it was the wrong subject. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 5 hours ago, scoobdog said: This is my thread and I say it hasn't. You're wrong; let me tell you how. 1. The water system was not designed to handle a fire line - it was built for an intended to supply domestic water (for indoor plumbing, irrigation and drinking water) with enough volume to handle supply for spot fires from local outlets (fire hydrants). It was not intended to supply high volumes of water over multiple outlets as would be needed to man a fire line. It would be impossible to engineer a system that would be able to generate that much water that quickly through an underground conveyance. That is why modern wildfire fighting relies heavily on air drops. 2. The downsizing you refer to was not insignificant and did have an effect on the fire response, however... it was for support staff, not for the firefighters themselves. There was not a shortage of firefighting personnel because of the budget cuts, so it has no bearing on this discussion. 3. Most importantly, you still have no idea what fueled the fire. We are not surrounded by forests - the shrubbery that exists on the undeveloped perimeters of the fire ravaged neighborhoods is a low lying native plants with the solitary tree here and there. All of that is drought tolerant within reason, meaning that none of it requires copious amounts of water to survive. However, it wasn't the native plants that primarily fueled the fire, it was weeds, and this is where climate change poses the problem: When weather patterns change, certain areas get less or more water in any given period against historical averages. While not as dire, winters with excessive amounts of water pose nearly as much of a hazard as winters under drought because the soil is not generally designed to hold that amount of water. In this situation, a bloom of weeds will develop as Mother Nature's way of protecting the soil. Weeds are generally thought of as being bad because they're usually non-native, fast-growing vegetation that can crowd out existing native vegetation. In a health ecosystem, weeds don't take root in appreciable amounts because there isn't room for them. In ecosystems that are under stress, particularly after multiple years of drought, native vegetation doesn't have the resources to maintain its coverage. This leads to large dead spots which are quickly filled in with each breeze and passing bird by non-native seeds. Once water though rain deluges is reintroduced to the soil, those seeds rapidly grow into weeds which offer some short term protection for the soil. However, weeds are not long lasting and require more resources than are typically provided for the region. Particular with non-native grasses, the weeds will die out almost as quickly as the've grown once the rainy season ends, leaving millions of acres of dry vegetation in a very short amount of time (as in days). It would be physically impossible for human intervention to remove all of this dead non-native vegetation in a year, let alone the few months between the end of spring and start of fall (when the fire season tradionally starts). The only way to get rid of the dead vegetation that quickly is though fire, which is also a natural part of our ecosystem. When the ecosystem is stressed by climate change, naturally occurring fires will be pronounced and more intense, making it more difficult to contain those fires to the areas where they are supposed to occur. Still doesn't explain why the reservoirs were empty, hydrants didn't work and fire equipment failures abound for lack of maintenance. It doesn't explain why millions of gallons of water got dumped into the Pacific for the sake of a smelt, instead of being properly stored for inevitable fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: "Exxon documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal" First off, that rag has zero credibility. Who did the Journal send to obtain said documents? A professional cat burglar? The A Team? Think! Look it the fuck up yourself. Follow the sources on your own. I'm not your tutor or babysitter just because you choose to be too pedantic for anyone to have a worthwhile conversation with. This is literally why you are nothing but a point of ridicule to everyone here. I did a basic Google search. I gave 2 sources. There are plenty out there. NPR and Harvard are by no means the first to report on scandals of this sort. I've known about them for over a decade. Exxon isn't the only guilty party. Use your fucking brain to do something for yourself. Try to actually engage with the content as opposed to blathering about a global conspiracy to prove climate change is real and for some amorphous, inexplicable reason is lead by Al Gore. What the in everloving shit are you talking about? Why do you trust what Exxon says? How have they proven themselves trustworthy? What are you basing you flimsy, pathetic excuses on? You know Robin Hood is supposed to be the good guy, right? Or was that one too hard for you to grasp? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Look it the fuck up yourself. Follow the sources on your own. I'm not your tutor or babysitter just because you choose to be too pedantic for anyone to have a worthwhile conversation with. This is literally why you are nothing but a point of ridicule to everyone here. I did a basic Google search. I gave 2 sources. There are plenty out there. NPR and Harvard are by no means the first to report on scandals of this sort. I've known about them for over a decade. Exxon isn't the only guilty party. Use your fucking brain to do something for yourself. Try to actually engage with the content as opposed to blathering about a global conspiracy to prove climate change is real and for some amorphous, inexplicable reason is lead by Al Gore. What the in everloving shit are you talking about? Why do you trust what Exxon says? How have they proven themselves trustworthy? What are you basing you flimsy, pathetic excuses on? You know Robin Hood is supposed to be the good guy, right? Or was that one too hard for you to grasp? Okay, so, I'm supposed to believe Exxon gives all of its internal documents to newspapers. WSJ doesn't have any such documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: You don't. Exactly, and do you know why? It's because starting a fire within 50 miles of a large settlement is a recipe for disaster. Prescribed fires are a common occurrence in the Sierra Nevadas, but they're never done near any of the major cities that border it, like Fresno, Carson City or Reno. You can't do controlled burns in the mountains surrounding Los Angeles because the areas are too close to settlements. So what next, genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Exactly, and do you know why? It's because starting a fire within 50 miles of a large settlement is a recipe for disaster. Prescribed fires are a common occurrence in the Sierra Nevadas, but they're never done near any of the major cities that border it, like Fresno, Carson City or Reno. You can't do controlled burns in the mountains surrounding Los Angeles because the areas are too close to settlements. So what next, genius? Nice how you cut my comment short. Do you even know what "controlled" means? If the fire starts spreading too fast, douse it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Okay, so, I'm supposed to believe Exxon gives all of its internal documents to newspapers. WSJ doesn't have any such documents. Exxon didn't do it themselves, you Eldrich level singularity of stupid. There are many, many well documented sources. You're just too lazy and dumb to want to learn. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: Exxon didn't do it themselves, you Eldrich level singularity of stupid. There are many, many well documented sources. You're just too lazy and dumb to want to learn. Sources of internal business documents that just magically appear in university faculty rooms and newspaper editors desks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.