Newsome pushed back against Democracy to achieve his political goals

Postvieww said:

Experts: California drought, fire crisis man-made * WorldNetDaily * by Alex Newman

... Read more

www.wnd.com

Click to expand...

Incorrect. From here: When L.A. fires broke out, the 117-million gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir near Pacific Palisades was empty. Here's what we know.

'In his letter to DWP, Newsom wrote, "While water supplies from local fire hydrants are not designed to extinguish wildfires over large areas, losing supplies from fire hydrants likely impaired the effort to protect some homes and evacuation corridors."

David Freyberg, PhD, a hydrologist and water resources specialist at Stanford University, told CBS News in an email that while a full Santa Ynez would have had benefits, it's not clear how much impact it would have had.

"The reservoirs above Pacific Palisades were not designed to support fire-fighting at the scale of [this] fire," he wrote. "Water supply reservoirs are typically designed to cope with house fires, not wildfires."

And here: Reality check: There was plenty of water in SoCal reservoirs during the LA fires » Yale Climate Connections

But Peter Gleick, cofounder of the nonprofit Pacific Institute, says that the L.A. region did not need more water.

Gleick: “There was plenty of water in reservoirs in Southern California. The reservoirs were actually relatively full for this time of year.”

But the fires were so large and powerful that the city’s water pipes, storage tanks, and fire hydrants could not keep up with the unprecedented needs of firefighters.

Gleick: “Urban water systems are simply not designed to fight massive wildfires. … The real challenge was simply the massive scope of the fire and the massive demand for water that overwhelmed the system.”

And what is the current administration going to do about climate driven disasters like this? Absolutely nothing.

WND, haha

essentialsaltes said:

WND, haha

Click to expand...

Ikr?

In the red zone LOW QUALITY for accuracy - like FOX.

And on bias? Somehow they're just a smidge further right than FOX - and I didn't think that was possible!

When so many Americans choose to watch Fox as a source of "news" - let alone all these other amazingly biased and extremely low brow online sources - is it any wonder that America is struggling to even agree on which reality they live in?

Politics used to be disagreeing about what to do about a crisis. These days it's disagreeing that they're even is a crisis, what the crisis might be, and basically which reality we live in.

According to the Republicans there's no climate change, vaccines are some sort of conspiracy, immigrants are a source of all the crime in America, and Donald Trump won the 2020 election!

WND made me laugh at first - but just 5 minutes later and it's so sad

Pommer said:

Here’s the thing about natural disasters, there’s no one to really “blame”.
Trying to do so, isn’t ultimately profitable, debate-wise.

Click to expand...

However, we can look for blame if the responses to those disasters are woefully inadequate.

Vambram said:

However, we can look for blame if the responses to those disasters are woefully inadequate.

Click to expand...

Sure! Valid rejoinder!

Problem is - only MAGA affiliated sources seem to critique California's response.

SYSTEMS ECOLOGY
What I would need to see is someone writing from a systems-ecology framework, as bushfire management is incredibly complex and involves how fire interacts with the local species of flora and fauna. Indeed - too many 'hazard reduction burns' too fast can change the nature of the landscape to be MORE fire prone! (At least it did in the 1939 Black Friday bushfires in Victoria, Australia. Page 11: https://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leonard_Stretton-1939_Bush_Fires_Royal_Commission_Report.pdf )

WE WANT TO LIVE IN THE WRONG PLACE
Someone I’ve chatted with online knows this stuff. His name is Adjunct Associate Professor Phil Zylstra from Curtin University. In the following interview, he analyses the impact of Aussie planes flying over vast areas of bushland dropping fire starters in ‘hazard reduction burns’. He says “there is not yet any empirical evidence to that large areas of remote prescribed burning have had any effect on reducing house loss” and that the “window of opportunity to do prescribed burning is shrinking as the climate warms and the landscape dries.”

In other words - why do we think burning the guts out of the bush hundreds of kilometres into the wilderness is going to save any homes when there are no homes there to save? He makes the point obvious. There is only one way to live near the bush safely: bulldoze the bush to at least 500 meters away from any homes. That’s it! No government could ever afford to employ enough park rangers and buy enough fire trucks and water tankers to manage the orders of magnitude more burns it would take to do ALL the tiny little burns - delicately managed and supervised - right next to every home and village across the entire Australian bush!
Hazard reduction burns not a silver bullet: expert - ABC listen

I imagine with so many people, California's suburbs stretching across such a vast area near wilderness, and frequently suffering drought, approximates something like Australia's population spread across the bush.