The Shitgibbon Hates California (again)

[Opoponax]

https://mashable.com/article/donald-trump-blames-california-wildfires-on-california/#hWbwTKVghgqE

There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

78.4K
12:08 AM - Nov 10, 2018

Now, there's a million reasons why he's wrong. I won't go into them except to say it's combination of science, the differences between state and federal management of state and federal land, naturally occurring conditions, and more.

That's not the point though. The point is that during emergencies in California, Trump has heaped nothing but scorn upon us, as has his bottom of the septic tank followers who react with glee when things like this happen here (in California).

This is why we can legitimately say that the's not our president. He despises Californians because we voted so overwhelmingly against him, and because our state government routinely tells him to go fuck himself. So he's glad when our homes burn and our people die.

The thing is, we give more in federal taxes than we get. If we don't get federal funds, then what's the point of being a state in this idiot nation? Sure, Trump has zero fucking power to say that California won't get X federal funding. It's not within the scope of his powers. But merely expressing the sentiments he does is enough for me to put my secessionist hat on and encourage the western halves of Washington and Oregon to come with us.

People are dead, and many more have lost everything they have, and Trump is kicking as much dirt on them as he can. Goddamn pussy. Same with anyone who still supports the slimy piece of shit. They're the slime under the slime holding him up.

 

[barbos]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

 

[poster]

Offer Trump a really good deal to buy the dryest areas and let him deal with the fires.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Offer Trump a really good deal to buy the dryest areas and let him deal with the fires.

After he buys them, he should drop a couple of nukes into the San Andreas fault and turn his newly owned areas into beachfront property.

 

[Opoponax]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Not really. A lot of these fires happen on federal land, which the Bureau of Land Management is in charge of. Also, California has a lot of chaparral land, which, when drought conditions prevail, becomes super fuel for fires. Climate change is part of this too. It's really is a complicated problem. Even a massively funded, ongoing program to prevent these kinds of things would probably be futile. One thing that's talked about is controlled burns to prevent this on both State and BLM land, but either the funding isn't available, or the risk of it going out of control due to conditions is too great.

IOW, it's less problematic than trying to figure out how to prevent a hurricane, but not by much.

But hey, at least it gives Trump the opportunity to fire up his base to take gleeful pleasure that Californians are dying and losing their homes.

 

[Opoponax]

Offer Trump a really good deal to buy the dryest areas and let him deal with the fires.

After he buys them, he should drop a couple of nukes into the San Andreas fault and turn his newly owned areas into beachfront property.

If we have [nuclear weapons], why can't we use them? - Scandolf the Orange

There really is a Trump quote for everything.

 

[barbos]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Not really. A lot of these fires happen on federal land, which the Bureau of Land Management is in charge of. Also, California has a lot of chaparral land, which, when drought conditions prevail, becomes super fuel for fires. Climate change is part of this too. It's really is a complicated problem. Even a massively funded, ongoing program to prevent these kinds of things would probably be futile. One thing that's talked about is controlled burns to prevent this on both State and BLM land, but either the funding isn't available, or the risk of it going out of control due to conditions is too great.

IOW, it's less problematic than trying to figure out how to prevent a hurricane, but not by much.

But hey, at least it gives Trump the opportunity to fire up his base to take gleeful pleasure that Californians are dying and losing their homes.

you said "not really" and then agreed with me. The point is, forest fires are natural in CA and trying to prevent them only makes the ones which eventually happens much worse because there is more stuff to burn.

 

[zorq]

The real irony here is that inland California is mostly Republican, and most of these California fires are happening where Trump voters live. He is just so blinded by partisan animosity for California liberals that he doesn't realize he is really threatening tragedy on his base supporters.

 

[Elixir]

... he doesn't realize he is really threatening tragedy on his base supporters.

But if Cheato keeps pissing on them and telling them it's raining, they'll be convinced that the rain put out the fires.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The SoCal fire is definitely chaparral-fueled. In that ecology, the plants that grow are hardy and resinous, meaning they can survive drought and provide oily fuel that, when dry, can move at astonishing speed, driven by the Santa Ana winds.

I know NoCal suffers the same winds, and also that the pinier ecology still provides rich fuels.

I think the problem could be ameliorated by controlled burns and/or a more passive approach to smaller fires when the foliage is well-watered and more fire-resistant, but for reasons stated above by another poster, those conditions don't always obtain, and the result is massive fuel-loading/acre.

I think the dry easterly winds are the biggest culprit in the expansion of fire-season in California to year-round. Used to be Santa Anas would only strike between August and November, but with AGW they seem more common throughout the year.

It's a shame that we suffer under a President who has no qualms about politicizing any event at all if he thinks such politicization can reap him benefits. It would be great if he could offer support and condolences rather than blame and rhetoric, but just like the winds pushing these fires, he blows nothing but hot air, hoping to spark off something he can use for his own trivial benefit. How I wish someone would have the 'nads to just say, "Mr President, could you please just shut up?" He obviously doesn't know WTF he's on about.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Well, we obviously need yet another wall -- this one on the western borders of AZ and NV and the southern OR border. And, off the top of my head, we can have Sumatra pay for this one.

 

[TSwizzle]

#prayforcaitlyn

Trump is correct on this one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A coworker is using 'wrath of god' in connection to the fires in California.

I thought about that. Think of the Flood. God set out to kill every man, woman, child, fetus and egg out of wrath. But he did make sure to tell everyone who was going to survive the Flood his exact reasons. He made sure that all the survivors came out the other side with no illusions.

Noah didn't argue with Ham about whether God was punishing the homosexuals, or the liberals, or the tax-and-spends, or the invasion-of-other-lands leaders...

And Pharaoh also knew exactly why all his cattle were slaughtered, and slaughtered again, and slaughtered a third time. No confusion about whether there were too many gays in his army, or not enough. No secret punishment against Nile polluters or environmentalists. And when the Jews turned to the golden calf, there wasn't a lot of static on the next message they got from God on the subject.

Adam and Woman knew directly from God what they had done to deserve punishment.

Gotta figure if God's going to inflict his rage and wrath upon us, it will be clear, and distinguishable from natural forces, dumb luck, and coincidence.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

 

[Elixir]

'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

That's obviously the case, since climate change is a Chinese hoax.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There are people on the right who think California is full of communists and they deserve to die from the fires.

 

[jonatha]

There are people on the right who think California is full of communists and they deserve to die from the fires.

You need a different verb...

 

[bilby]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

I do recall seeing an article decades ago in Scientific American about fires in Yellowstone which they hypothesized were due to excessive fuel loads being allowed to build up because of a (then) policy of fighting all accessible fires, no matter how little threat they posed to life or property, and showing that allowing small fires to burn themselves out if they could do so harmlessly would reduce the potential for harm from future fires. I also seem to recall that as a result of that research the Yellowstone Park management strategy was changed, and that the new approach was found to be effective in reducing the incidence of large, dangerous fires.

But that wasn't in California - where conditions are totally different. And it was at least thirty years ago - I doubt that there are many forestry management organizations in the world who are unaware of that particular success. It seems very unlikely that the same fire protection strategy that works in forested mountains with low population density, would be applicable to a more densely populated coastal plain, with chaparral shrub lands subject to adiabatic winds descending from the mountains.

 

[bilby]

There are people on the right who think California is full of communists and they deserve to die from the fires.

Sorry, but I am not sure whether that is:

There are people on the right who think "California is full of communists and they deserve to die from the fires".
or
There are people on the right who think "California is full of communists", and they deserve to die from the fires.

These are not quite identical interpretations for what you wrote.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think I heard a theory that fire problem in CA is actually too much fire protection. Trees are allowed to grow too much and too big and since forest fires are natural in dry places it get really bad when fire do start.

Tell 'whomever you heard that theory from' that they're stupid as shit. I am in the middle of the southern CA fires and we have no 'tall trees' or forests for that matter. That 'theory' is as plausible as the 'they didn't pray for enough rain the last 6 years'.

aa

I do recall seeing an article decades ago in Scientific American about fires in Yellowstone which they hypothesized were due to excessive fuel loads being allowed to build up because of a (then) policy of fighting all accessible fires, no matter how little threat they posed to life or property, and showing that allowing small fires to burn themselves out if they could do so harmlessly would reduce the potential for harm from future fires. I also seem to recall that as a result of that research the Yellowstone Park management strategy was changed, and that the new approach was found to be effective in reducing the incidence of large, dangerous fires.

But that wasn't in California - where conditions are totally different. And it was at least thirty years ago - I doubt that there are many forestry management organizations in the world who are unaware of that particular success. It seems very unlikely that the same fire protection strategy that works in forested mountains with low population density, would be applicable to a more densely populated coastal plain, with chaparral shrub lands subject to adiabatic winds descending from the mountains.

And all of the parklands that burned were properly maintained with firebreaks and fire roads for firefighting access. Everyone knows it can burn. The problem is you can't contain it in 50 mph winds when it is spreading a football field every 2 seconds.

aa