Much of the water has been diverted to wild life refuges throughout the state... CNN would never admit to this... Also, being prone to wildfires every year, California officials need to “ thin out “ areas where civilization has become most prevalent....
Slim, I believe the term you're looking for is "queef".
Hey, it's my home state, and I love it, but I gotta keep it real.
Slim, I believe the term you're looking for is "queef".
Hey, it's my home state, and I love it, but I gotta keep it real.
Word Brother ....
Trump supporters are in a cult, and they have been brainwashed to use Hillary as an appropriate defense in any argument....
Trump supporters have the same coping mechanism as small children who want to assume zero responsibility for poor actions or choices.
Blame someone else, distract, rationalize
"I wish they all could be California girls." Not really. There are quality women everywhere. What part of Cali, Slim?
A panel of experts said Wednesday that California’s devastating wildfires were caused primarily by “the way we manage lands and develop our landscape” rather than climate change.
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Council for Science and the Environment in Washington D.C., Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at the University of California, Berkeley, said that perhaps 20 to 25 percent of the wildfire damage resulted from climate change, whereas “75 percent is the way we manage lands and develop our landscape.”
Stephens noted that in past centuries, wildfires were far more widespread than they are today, and played a vital role in California’s ecosystem by helping to thin forests, Thomas Frank reported for E&E News.
In the 18th century, for instance, when California was occupied by indigenous communities, wildfires would burn up some 4.5 million acres a year, said Stephens, whereas from 2013 through 2019, wildfires burned an average of just 935,000 acres annually in California.
Even in 2018, the worst year for California fires, blazes consumed just 2 million acres.
“When you think about what fire used to do in the state, it was so integral to systems. Fire was almost as important as rain to ecosystems,” Stephens said.
Jennifer Montgomery, director of the California Forest Management Task Force, said that climate change did not cause wildfires but “accelerated” them by creating hotter and drier conditions that aggravated naturally occurring blazes.
“Climate change is an amplifier for natural systems and natural occurrences,” Montgomery said.
The comments by Montgomery and Stephens flew in the face of recent assertions by the head of California’s largest power utility who has blamed the wildfires on climate change.
The CEO of PG&E Corp., CEO Bill Johnson, testified at a Senate hearing last month that the wildfires were “a climate-driven experience” caused by extensive drought.
California’s “prolonged, record drought; unprecedented tree mortality; heat waves” and offshore Diablo winds created “a significant and an unforeseen increase in wildfires,” Johnson told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
A December report by California regulators, however, said that PG&E and subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had “failed to maintain an effective inspection and maintenance program to identify and correct hazardous conditions on its transmission lines.”
The utility has acknowledged blame for the massive 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people and burned more than 150,000 acres in Northern California.
Ditto. That's my question. First of all, when you bump 2 year old threads to say, "Looks like Trump is right again." and you don't even say what he was right about, you have issues. Nobody with have a brain needs to post articles about the ecological benefits of fire but things are different when you have populations living near these high fuel areas, which just about the entire state is a high fuel area. This thread wasn't about any of that though. It was simply about how idiotic the statement "diverting the water to the pacific ocean" is. It shows the speaker of said statement either a) doesn't know how a river works, and/or b) doesn't know the definition of 'divert'. Furthermore, anyone who depraved enough to bump a 2 year old thread just to be like, "Fire good. Trump right." is a complete nutjob. Especially an article talking about how many fires burned in the 18th century when the state has a small population of native tribes and spanish missionaries as opposed to now when there is a population of 50 million. Do me a favor. For your next trick find an article about how many hurricanes and subsequent floods the Gulf and eastern seaboard saw in the 18th century. Tell the people from flood torn communities how the flooding is vital in that it deposits nutrients and enriches the soil making farming more viable. It would be a true statement but does it justify Katrina or and of our other devestating hurricanes. I don't know what your endgame was here
Yeah. Didn’t want to start a whole thread just to say he was correct. Doesn’t matter how old the thread is, the point stands. Cannot help if the information takes that long to come out. The article just came out.
I’m sure we can recycle it again this year. More fires will come and activists will blame global warming.
I think the point is that more people live now in a fire-prone area. Hurricanes as well. I’m an expert in meteorology and love the hurricane cycles that the activists love to ignore. You are absolutely correct — justification has nothing to do with it. Way too many people live in hurricane-prone areas now.
No end game. Just this discussion is way better than the back and forth about usual politics in here. Especially, when you have experts that do research and use empirical data — instead of just adhering to a political talking point argument no matter what. I like data and research.
I am pretty sure anyone with half a brain can go back to the beginning of the thread to see what Trump was correct about. Or simply read the article and infer what was said.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
