Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Will_Late_Night_Roast_Newsom_And_Bass_For_Fires=3F_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Don=E2=80=99tHold_Your_Breath=2E?=
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:30:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <vm3t4p$20ufh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vm30nj$1p9bq$5@dont-email.me> <vm3h4k$1s0h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <vm3i8m$1sggi$1@dont-email.me> <vm3rs2$20t9u$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:30:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e4356e61ac97282466e85290c154df3";
	logging-data="2128369"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+c18WnfcWYDp7B1AxLyIZxd3ke/C38Zs4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l270p2VqEgG3c67K1OuVqHV3we0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vm3rs2$20t9u$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13609

On 1/13/2025 3:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2025 at 9:24:37 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/13/2025 12:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>   On Jan 13, 2025 at 1:30:45 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>   
>>>>   We know L.A. Mayor Karen Bass cut $17.6 million from the city's fire
>>>>   department budget. The progressive mayor wasn't even in L.A. when the fires
>>>>   broke out. She was in Ghana on a political junket.
>>>   
>>>   She might have been forgiven for being out of town if it had been just a bad
>>>   coincidence, but the National Weather Service had been issuing warnings of
>>>   "extreme fire danger" to city officials for several days *prior* to her
>>>   departure and she decided to leave anyway. Absolute dereliction of duty. If
>>>   there's a legal mechanism in California for the governor to remove a mayor,
>>>   Newsom should absolutely do so, but he won't because he has too much himself
>>>   to answer for in this mess.
>>>   
>>>>   The optics couldn't get much worse. Remember how SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE and
>>>>   late-night comedians mocked Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas when he was out of state
>>>>   in Cancun during a deadly cold weather front in 2021?  It's hard to forget
>>>>   given the nonstop jokes on the subject.
>>>   
>>>   But notice neither the media nor the late-night jokesters had anything to
>>> say
>>>   when, in the middle of a winter weather emergency in California, with
>>>   thousands of citizens trapped in their homes under 10+ feet of snow (that he
>>>   and his bald-headed lunatic of a predecessor assured us would never be seen
>>>   again due to 'climate change'), Newsom suddenly vanished. He could not be
>>>   located anywhere.
>>>   
>>>   But never fear. It turns out he was just in Baja California, Mexico. Newsom
>>>   was frolicking on the beach in Cabo San Lucas while hundreds of people were
>>>   snowed in with no food or power in the mountains during a winter snow
>>>   emergency.
>>>   
>>>   Other than the choice of Mexican resort destination, it's exactly the same
>>>   thing that Cruz did. But with Newsom it was actually worse. As a matter of
>>>   executive function, it happens to be worse to abandon your constituents in
>>> the
>>>   middle of a weather crisis when you are the governor as opposed to a senator
>>>   who-- unlike a governor-- has no authority or ability to direct personnel
>>> and
>>>   manage resources.
>>>   
>>>   So Cruz couldn't have actually done anything to help had he stayed but
>>> Newsom
>>>   very much could have. Yet Cruz is the one who is vilified by the media while
>>>   Newsom's failure was all but ignored.
>>>   
>>>>   Another possible source of comedy? HBO's REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER. The
>>>>   long-running host has shown a knack for truth-telling regardless of party
>>>>   affiliation. He's been a thorn in the Left's side for several years, mocking
>>>>   progressives for their extreme culture war positions and woke overreach.
>>>>
>>>>   He's based in L.A. and might skewer pols who have made the problem
>>>>   exponentially worse. He's also a Climate Change alarmist and might focus on
>>>>   that angle, even if there's no evidence climate change played a role in the
>>>>   catastrophe.
>>>   
>>>   Of course it didn't. There's only so many ways these fires get started.
>>> Either
>>>   nature starts them-- almost always via lightning strikes-- or humans start
>>>   them. Sometimes it's because humans don't maintain the power lines and they
>>>   fall over during high winds and spark fires, or they're caused by human
>>>   negligence (a tossed cigarette butt) or arson.
>>>   
>>>   There was no lightning when these fires started and they've ruled out downed
>>>   power lines. That leaves only one option left: someone started the fires,
>>>   either accidentally or on purpose. It was not fucking 'climate change'.
>>
>> Afaik, 'climate change' doesn't start fires, it continues them.
> 
> California has been known for massive wildfires since long before the white
> man ever came to North America. The native tribes have stories of wildfires
> spanning what is now the entire West Coast, backed up by scientific data--
> tree rings and the like.
> 
> They make the wildfires we have now look like campfires in comparison but
> Governor HairGel wants you to believe they're some new phenomenon due to
> 'climate change' because that gives him an excuse to control your life and
> take your money.
> 
> The L.A. Basin is an arid semi-desert environment. Dry tinder and underbrush,
> especially in the fall and winter, is the *normal* state of things here. Just
> like years-long droughts are normal here. Wildfires have occurred with
> regularity going back to before European settlers ever arrived. Yes, they're
> more frequent now, but that has nothing to do with 'climate change'. It's
> because there are now 14 million people living in the area instead of just a
> hundred or so. Back then, the fires were started by lightning strikes, not
> people. Now they're caused by stupid people doing stupid shit like smoking in
> the hills or the government allowing vagrants whacked out on drugs to cook
> their food and meth with open flames in the middle of a powder keg or power
> companies negligently failing to maintain their infrastructure. None of which
> has jack-all to do with 'climate change'. If you have millions of people
> living in an area with a lot of them doing stupid things, you're going to get
> a lot of fires.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that if we'd all just install more solar panels and ride our
> bikes to work, that the state wouldn't be on fire every winter is completely
> delusional. And these idiotic media reporters and politicians who keep saying
> that the amount of acreage burned in California (e.g., 2.2 million acres in
> 2020) is 'record-breaking' and 'unprecedented' are bald-faced liars. It's
> factually completely untrue. Before the 1800s, California would see anywhere
> from 5 to 14 million acres burn EVERY YEAR. That's 12% of the state burning
> every year. Before there were any SUVs or 'climate change'. Just as there were
> massive droughts in California long before the era of 'climate change'.
> California had a 500-year drought between 800 and 1300 AD. These are
> documented scientific facts, but that undermines the Agenda, so we get
> flat-out lies from politicians claiming this is 'unprecedented', which goes
> completely unchallenged by their media lackeys.
> 
> Excess timber comes out of a forest in only one of two ways. It's either
> carried out or it burns up. We used to carry it out. It was called logging. We
> had healthy forests and a thriving timber economy. Then in the 70s, we began
> imposing a shit-ton of environmental laws-- both at the state and federal
> level-- that have made it all but impossible and wildly unprofitable to carry
> out that timber and what we've seen over those decades is increasingly severe
> forest fires.
> 
> We've had an 80% decline in timber harvested out of California forests since
> 1980 and we've had 85% increase in acres destroyed by fire over that same
> period. The mismanagement has gotten to the point where you can tell the
> boundary between private forestland that is not affected by these laws and the
> public lands that are. The burn scars follow the property lines almost exactly
> in many cases.
> 
> The climate sure is clever to only change over the public lands and burn them
> while leaving the private lands alone, amirite?
> 
> An untended forest will grow and grow until it chokes itself off. When there
> are too many trees for the land to support, they start dying off, and that
> dead timber becomes thousands of square miles of fuel, just waiting to be set
> ablaze. California currently has four times the timber density that the land
> can support. Even the reliably leftist L.A. Times, which never misses an
> opportunity to blame something bad on 'climate change', noted that there are
> currently more than 150 million dead trees in the Sierra Nevada, just waiting
> to be ignited and that situation is unique to our modern era and the result of
> enviro laws that won't even allow the harvesting of dead timber let alone live
> timber. Nature manages a forest by fire and if we don't want half the state on
> fire, we have to do something other than nature's way.
> 
> That's why we started the Forest Service to begin with-- to scientifically
> manage the forests so that they're both preserved for people's use and to keep
> them healthy and reduce fires to a minimum. And we had healthy forests for
> decades. But then the environmental crowd came along and said "You're
> interfering with nature! Stop it!" and got all sorts of laws passed requiring
> a hands-off approach to forestry and now here we are, with the entire West
> Coast ablaze.
> 
> The Native American tribes understood this and would routinely both clear away
> dead trees and brush and conduct controlled burns to reduce the possibility of
> large out-of-control fires. Then came the environmental activists, who
> dismissed the practices of those they considered ignorant savages, and decided
> they knew better how to do things. Well, we're seeing how well that worked
> out, huh?
> 
> And here we are, still having to deal with idiots like Occasional-Cortex and
> HairGel Newsom who insist that this problem can be solved with carbon caps and
> solar panels and windmills, when the truth is that if the U.S. literally shut
> down all emissions COMPLETELY-- cars, gone; industry, gone; cattle farming,
> gone; airplanes, gone; all of it, gone-- and we lived that way for the next 80
> years, it would only reduce the global mean temperature by 0.3 degrees. That's
> from the U.N. IPCC model itself. You can go run the numbers yourself if you
> don't believe it.
> 
> The wildfires are not a 'climate change' problem. They're a forest management
> problem. Period.
> 
> Another thing the media has been pushing lately: "These fires are more
> destructive than fires in the past." Implying that 'climate change' has
> somehow amped them up or something.
> 
> Well, duh. The fires are more damaging because now there's a lot more to
> damage. Before Europeans settled here, there weren't hundreds of thousands of
> multi-million dollar homes in the path of the wildfires so when one burned
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========