California IS Dreaming

[_Kevin Graham]

California Professional Firefighters President Brian K. Rice issued the following response to the president's threat. It reads, in part:

"The president’s message attacking California and threatening to withhold aid to the victims of the cataclysmic fires is Ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to those who are suffering as well as the men and women on the front lines.

"At a time when our every effort should be focused on vanquishing the destructive fires and helping the victims, the president has chosen instead to issue an uninformed political threat aimed squarely at the innocent victims of these cataclysmic fires.

Before making the threat, Trump earlier issued an emergency declaration providing federal funds to help firefighters as thousands of them put their lives on the line to save others. Rice reminded the president that wildfires are not unique to forests, and that they're sparked in populated areas and open fields fueled by vegetation, high winds, low humidity and geography.

"Natural disasters are not “red” or “blue” – they destroy regardless of party. Right now, families are in mourning, thousands have lost homes, and a quarter-million Americans have been forced to flee. At this desperate time, we would encourage the president to offer support in word and deed, instead of recrimination and blame."

California Professional Firefighters represents more than 30,000 front line firefighters and paramedics in California. CPF is the state council of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF

[_Dr Exiled]

Is this all about California tending to vote for Democrats?

It seems everything is about partisan politics these days. I blame the flu on the Republicans (it's a story filled full of tortured logic but I choose to believe it, so there). These fires are definitely the Democrats' fault as Trump so hastily yet artfully explained in a tweet. Obviously if one throws enough money at a problem results have to happen and California is run by Democrats, therefore .....

Then there is this https://www.exposingsatanism.org/nasty-nancy-pelosi-is-a-practicing-catholic-witch/

Witches love fire ......

[_Gunnar]

Ok, its no argument that California poorly manages its natural resources and that it heavily suckles at the Fed teet.
So, is there some valid criticism in the following statement? and is his remedy a long time coming?

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” Trump tweeted Saturday from France. “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!”

Well, naturally Trump has to find some way to blame Californians (and Democrats) for the fires, and thereby use that as an excuse to limit federal money money used for disaster relief and remediation. Any money allocated for that means less money available to for fueling the the unlimited avarice and further enrichment of of the wealthiest 1%, like Trump and his wealthiest and most powerful supporters and donors. This is obviously intolerable! There must be no higher priority than making the wealthiest of the wealthy ever richer and richer no matter how much it further impoverishes and disempowers everyone else! Right?

[_subgenius]

This sheds light (rather than tweet) on the thread topic.

Basically:

California has huge amounts of forest - hence more chance of fires.

idiotic assertion you go there...CA is 35th on the list of % of forest....MT is at 33rd...CA is about 160k sq.miles while MT is about 147k sq miles (3rd and 4th largest State areas in the US)...yet CA is only 17% forest while MT is 21%....but similar "chances" of forest fires?
And then face the reality that Alaska (127m acres) , Oregon(28m acres), and Georgia(24m acres) all have more acres of forest than CA(23m acres)...yet the "chances" according to you are similar?

and then there are facts, according to US Census, the 2017 most prone to fire States with number of households at extreme risk from wildfire:
1 California 2,044,800
2 Texas 715,300
3 Colorado 366,200
4 Arizona 234,600
5 Idaho 171,200
6 Washington 154,900
7 Oklahoma 152,900
8 Oregon 148,800
9 Utah 133,100
10 Montana 133,000

[_Gunnar]

Ok, its no argument that California poorly manages its natural resources and that it heavily suckles at the Fed teet.
So, is there some valid criticism in the following statement? and is his remedy a long time coming?

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” Trump tweeted Saturday from France. “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!”

You're obviously regurgitating Trump's idiotic tweet.

As Walter Shaub responded,

"You are a sick, petty little man. Americans are dying and you're using the fires as an opportunity to attack them because you hate the state in which they live. You are unfit for public service. Also, by the way, dummy, the federal govt manages national forest is that state."

And as I already pointed out, 57% of the forest lands in California are owned and managed by the federal government. So they deserve the lion's share of any blame for mismanagement of Caifornia's forests.

[_Kevin Graham]

This sheds light (rather than tweet) on the thread topic.

Basically:

California has huge amounts of forest - hence more chance of fires.

idiotic assertion you go there...CA is 35th on the list of % of forest....MT is at 33rd...CA is about 160k sq.miles while MT is about 147k sq miles (3rd and 4th largest State areas in the US)...yet CA is only 17% forest while MT is 21%....but similar "chances" of forest fires?
And then face the reality that Alaska (127m acres) , Oregon(28m acres), and Georgia(24m acres) all have more acres of forest than CA(23m acres)...yet the "chances" according to you are similar?

and then there are facts, according to US Census, the 2017 most prone to fire States with number of households at extreme risk from wildfire:
1 California 2,044,800
2 Texas 715,300
3 Colorado 366,200
4 Arizona 234,600
5 Idaho 171,200
6 Washington 154,900
7 Oklahoma 152,900
8 Oregon 148,800
9 Utah 133,100
10 Montana 133,000

OMG you're dumb. He listed a half dozen reasons why California is prone to fires and you addressed only one, but only after misrepresenting what he said. He never said California had the most trees.

[_subgenius]

OMG you're dumb. He listed a half dozen reason and you addressed only one, but only after misrepresenting what he said. He never said California had the most trees.

I never said they had the most trees either ya dolt. The point is that his post was idiotic because of assertions like "lots of fores = lots of chances for forest fire"... kinda like walking into a discussion about car wrecks and saying "driving a car increases your chances of having a car wreck"....but, as usual, posts from you and Chap have little concern with the facts; the obvious; or the reasonable. You guys just want to insult, demean, and degrade - all in the name of "discussion" and "convincing argument".

[Guest]

Yup, while having a lot of trees makes it more likely that a forest fire will occur somewhere in a given state in a given year (which is what the news items are about - 'Another blaze in California') it also, as I pointed out, matters how much rain there is in in a given state.

If we look at state by state rainfall ranking, we see:

20. 43.62 inches Oregon
41. 22.97 inches California

Which does rather explain why, despite Oregon and California, having similar forest acreage, there is rather less likelihood of a fire breaking out in Oregon than in California, does it not? And Alaska, despite having much more forest than any other state, still has less fires, because ... well, think about it.

And so on.

Oh, I see this:

The point is that [Chap's] post was idiotic because of assertions like "lots of fores = lots of chances for forest fire"... kinda like walking into a discussion about car wrecks and saying "driving a car increases your chances of having a car wreck"....

Nope, not at all. The issue that hits the news is not "why is there a high chance of a given acre in California being more likely to suffer a forest fire", but "why are there so many forest fires in California". To use subgenius' analogy, I am saying that having more cars in a given town is a factor that increases the likelihood that there will be a car accident in that town on a given day.

[_canpakes]

...but, as usual, posts from you and Chap have little concern with the facts; the obvious; or the reasonable. You guys just want to insult, demean, and degrade - all in the name of "discussion" and "convincing argument".

Oh, my. So much snowflake, and coming from the fellow who started a thread with an insult from a misinformed con man, and who spends all of his time here trying to “insult, demean, and degrade” every poster that he disagrees with.

Seriously, you could try bringing some basic knowledge to your threads to start; it’s a better look than thin-skinned whining at other posters after the fact of your ignorance being exposed.

[_canpakes]

Nope, not at all. The issue that hits the news is not "why is there a high chance of a given acre in California being more likely to suffer a forest fire", but "why are there so many forest fires in California". To use subgenius' analogy, I am saying that having more cars in a given town is a factor that increases the likelihood that there will be a car accident in that town on a given day.

As well, more houses being built in the midst of highly forested areas increases the chances that some of them will end up as tinder during one of those fires.

Perhaps subs is as bothered by the mismanagement of Eastern Seaboard states in allowing so many homes to be destroyed by hurricanes.