subgenius wrote:canpakes wrote:OK, so you got nothin’, except to mindlessly repeat inane Trump tweets and invent strange new words like ‘wludss’.
Let me know when you can begin to answer the basic questions that I posed above, so that you can forever ‘fix’ the problem of forest fires.
nothin' cept facts and common sense. As for a " fix", the first step is admitting you have a problem and you can't even do that. The irony of your position is spreading faster than embers in a California canyon.
The irony here is that you don’t even know what you’re referring to by ‘common sense’.
No one has stated that controlled burns can’t be a part of a coordinated fire suppression plan. You would just like to imagine that someone said so while asserting that the
mere existence of an
undefined number of controlled burns, placed in an
unspecified number of locations, would somehow have prevented
this fire from wreaking the havoc that it has.
But you can’t answer how that would work. You only know how to repeat dumbarse talking points from ignorant people. And along with just regurgitating stupid opinions that California’s forest management policies ‘caused’ this fire, you want to remain ignorant of basic realities, such as:
De Lasaux estimated the risk of the controlled burns running wild and burning homes at less than 2 percent.
But some have turned catastrophic, including a 2000 fire set by U.S. Park Service officials in New Mexico’s Bandelier National Monument. High winds whipped the blaze and flames raced through the community of Los Alamos — home to Los Alamos National Laboratory, a nuclear facility and the birthplace of the atomic bomb. More than 400 families lost their homes.
A 2012 burn set by the Colorado State Forest Service southwest of Denver ignited a 6-square-mile (16-square kilometer) wildfire that killed three people and damaged or destroyed more than two dozen homes. Colorado suspended prescribed burns by state agencies for five years and the ban was lifted in October.
Oh,
damn. Sometimes, the solution is difficult, and becomes the problem.
Or, sometimes, the problem is more widespread than merely existing within a compact little area that you can ‘controllably burn’:
... the U.S. Forest Service and the state fire agency warned that the threat will remain high even after that blaze is put out because of an estimated 129 million trees that died in California over the last year from drought and beetle infestation.
Maybe you think that all of those trees are conveniently located in the same stand so that they can be neatly eliminated in a few controlled burns, right?
Or, sometimes the problem is caused by bad actors that will just find a burnable patch of forest to ignite in spite of your best efforts to eliminate threats with controlled burns:
A study published in 2017 in the journal PNAS found that, at the national level, debris burning is responsible for 29 percent of wildfires and arson causes 21 percent of fires.
Trump’s comment is based on a simpleton’s approach to the situation, and your repetition of stupid ideological BS and the claim that
this fire would somehow not exist if California would just “do more controlled burns” is not an example of ‘common sense’. As for that
irony that you keep mentioning, it manifests as you being unaware of just how moronic your position is.