• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wildfires Poll

Are the Cal wildfires arson or "climate change"?

  • Total voters
    38
Wonder when President Trump is going to ask Congress for funding to clean up federal lands. He seems to not understand how much federal land need thinning and treatment to improve forest health.

answer: He won't, He hasn't during his term yet.
 
Paradoxical said:
This is another in a very long list of Goebbelsian lies. I am copying and pasting a post I made on another OP that is promoting this LIE.

I happen to live in a brush area on 5 acres and am happy that State Farm insures me. If not, you have to go to the Fair Plan, which costs more money. I know this. I took a risk. This is what is supposed to happen. If you live in a brush area, you take a risk. I also have earthquake insurance. this is what responsible people do. Government should not rebuild someones house if they build or own in these areas and are not insured. Nor should someone get Cadillac health insurance if they don't pay for it.

But, lets look at WHY there are more fires in California and more homes are burned. First off, people (like me) hate the cities and want to get away from the government caused crime and congestion. So, more homes are built in areas that are prone to fires.

Secondly, fires are usually put out now before they get too far. Centuries ago, they would burn tens of thousands of acres because we didn't have planes and helicopters and thousands of fire fighters putting them out. The result is that brush that isn't burned AS NATURE INTENDED grows to extreme heights and when I fire comes, it is like cans of gasoline sitting there waiting to be ignited.

Thirdly, because of environmentalists, we are not thinning out the forests and dead trees are allowed to stay because envirowhackos want nature to be left as is. The forest snow are a tinder box and humans feign surprise and upset and blame it who? You got it.......Humans and climate change.

We live in a world fraught with danger and if we don't allow nature to take its course, we pay the consequences. The same thing with COVID. We want to live like sardines in condos apartments and high rises and subways and then blame Trump when people die from the flu. People are ignorant and lazy and just believe what the Goebbels of the world feed them without doing a stick of research or thinking.
Click to expand...

A climate change denier talking about "allowing nature to take its course" is almost too much irony to handle. Your attempt to dismiss climate change as a serious factor for these fires is rejected.
 
Cassandra said:
It is more complicated then that:

There is a housing shortage in Calif. and Oregon so builders have built into fire prone areas. After a disaster, there is a dilemma. Insurance companies do not want to insure homes in disaster prone areas. Home owners obviously do not want to lose the value of their biggest asset. Towns hesitate to accept buy-out programs because it seriously reduces their tax base. So who should take the hit? The home buyer who unknowingly bought a home in a disaster prone area? The U.S. tax payer who foots the bill to insure those homes? At this point I would guess that a huge % of U.S. homes are located in some kind of disaster prone area. This is not just a Cal. problem.
Click to expand...
I say the homeowner, builder and realtor should take the hit. We the tax payer should say hey if you want to live in a disaster prone area then its on you to pay to fix it. Its not as though there is some huge media silence that California is a wild fire prone area.

What I don't understand is the libertarian response. WE need more regulation, not less!
New homes should be built to be much more fire resistant. ( Metal roofs, I.C.Fs instead of wood construction) Flood prone areas need very different regulations and/or buy-outs).
Click to expand...

I agree that there should be more regulation in how and where homes are built. If you live in a fire prone area there should be fire breaks around.Your home should be made out of brick or concrete0 and your roof made out of metal. If you live in a tornado prone area the you should be required to have a storm shelter and maybe the regulations that apply to some hurrican prone areas should apply to tornado prone areas. If you live in a flood prone area then your home should be elevated above the flood plane.If you live in a hurricane prone area then your home should be made out of concrete and bricks instead of lumber. I get sick of seeing every few years a hurricane hits the same area and we the tax payers have to reimburse these assholes disaster prone areas.

Unfortunately, the sort of forest management that would reduce fire severity is a huge, expensive endeavor which taxpayers have not been willing to pay for and now the states are broke!
Click to expand...

I have found that when the government says they can't afford it its code they simply just don't want it. The fact is California listens to the enviro-wackos instead of enacting common sense laws dealing with forests.

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances. For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense. However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush. During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s. Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires. This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.
 
Cassandra said:
Trump threatened to withhold FEMA funding. In his tweet:

"Every year, as the fire's rage & California burns, it is the same thing-and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more. Get your act together Governor. You don't see close to the level of burn in other states..."

Well, for one thing the Federal government manages over half of Californias forests and 60% of Oregon's forests. And, of course, other states suffer from different kinds disasters. When last did California have a major flood? Has he admonished the states of Texas, Louisiana or Florida for their failure to plan for Hurricanes?


"The Governor of California, @GavinNewsom, has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must 'clean' his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers...."

Actually most of California's fires have not originated in forested areas, only one of the recent fires fit that description. Also, burn suppression was the national strategy for decades. That policy was probably misguided but it occurred under administrations of both parties for obvious reasons. Intentional burns are dangerous.

"Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North. Don't pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!"

Its hard to say what he means by this. Apparently, there should be no streams or rivers in California?

How sad that every tragedy has become some sort of opportunity for him to confuse, misinform and divide the nation.

Meanwhile, those of us in the thick of it hope to smell like something other than charcoal briquettes sometime soon.
Click to expand...

Trump has sent in FEMA and declared an emergency. Don't you feel foolish!
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A climate change denier talking about "allowing nature to take its course" is almost too much irony to handle. Your attempt to dismiss climate change as a serious factor for these fires is rejected.
Click to expand...

Nothing shows that a 0.01% in temperature caused anything - but you are just posting what rich people ordered you to say on one of their propaganda networks - so can't even pretend to explain their orders on what you are to think and say.
 
jamesrage said:
I say the homeowner, builder and realtor should take the hit. We the tax payer should say hey if you want to live in a disaster prone area then its on you to pay to fix it. Its not as though there is some huge media silence that California is a wild fire prone area.



I agree that there should be more regulation in how and where homes are built. If you live in a fire prone area there should be fire breaks around.Your home should be made out of brick or concrete0 and your roof made out of metal. If you live in a tornado prone area the you should be required to have a storm shelter and maybe the regulations that apply to some hurrican prone areas should apply to tornado prone areas. If you live in a flood prone area then your home should be elevated above the flood plane.If you live in a hurricane prone area then your home should be made out of concrete and bricks instead of lumber. I get sick of seeing every few years a hurricane hits the same area and we the tax payers have to reimburse these assholes disaster prone areas.
Click to expand...

Well, frankly, most of the places I have lived, long ago instituted the measures you suggest, but they have proven insufficient for the evolving problem. My mother built a home in coastal Mass. according to the regulations of the time 30 years ago. It was built in an elevated manner which is now inadequate -thanks to climate change. Once again, flood insurance has become exorbitantly expensive for the home. Probably 90% of the coastal homes in Mass. are hurricane bait. It is a BIG problem up and down the East coast. It took Hurrican Andrew to expose the deplorable state of building construction in Fla.

I have found that when the government says they can't afford it its code they simply just don't want it. The fact is California listens to the enviro-wackos instead of enacting common sense laws dealing with forests.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, more than 50% of Calif. forest is managed by the Feds and most fires in Calif. do not start in forested regions.
Have you ever heated with a wood stove? It is not easy to get a fire going with living vegetation. That is why climate change makes fires hotter and more devastating. And , yes, good forestry management means you leave slash on the forest floor to replenish the soil.

I know you would like to hang the problem on libs and environmentalists but it is misdirected. Like most things in this country, it is all about money and who pays. The article you linked makes little sense considering that Calif. would like to do more fire mitigation but for the shortage of $$$

Earlier this year, California announced a new state-federal effort to reduce wildfire risks. The goal is to treat 1 million acres of forest and wildland annually with prescribed fires and forest thinning projects.

Both initiatives address overgrown forests. But fire ecologists say it's going to take a wider range of solutions to protect communities. What works in one place might not in another.

"What people tend to look for is a single bullet solution," Kolden says. "And the reality is that fire is complex. All natural hazards are complex. And there is no single silver bullet solution."

California lawmakers have made several unsuccessful attempts to set aside funding for some other solutions. Earlier this year, $1 billion was canceled for a house retrofit fund due to the state's pandemic-related budget shortfall. State lawmakers tried last month to pass $3 billion for both emergency fire response and community preparedness, but the legislative session ended."



Why Firefighting Alone Won't Stop Western Mega-Fires | Maine Public
 
joko104 said:
Nothing shows that a 0.01% in temperature caused anything - but you are just posting what rich people ordered you to say on one of their propaganda networks - so can't even pretend to explain their orders on what you are to think and say.
Click to expand...

If an increase in temperature is causing an increase in wild fires, then why has only 181,000 acres burned this year in Alaska? Weren't these Marxist Climate Alarmist ranting about how 2020 was the "hottest year on record?" Yet fewer than 200,000 acres have burned in Alaska this year, while 2.5 million acres burned last year, and 5 million acres burned in 2015, and 6.5 million acres burned in 2004. If these leftists were right, shouldn't that trend be going in the exact opposite direction?
 
joko104 said:
Trump has sent in FEMA and declared an emergency. Don't you feel foolish!
Click to expand...


Why would I feel foolish? Thankfully, the idiot POTUS has a big mouth but typically doesn't follow through with his threats.
 
I'm experiencing Oregon fires right now. I'm in a safe home area, but just sickened that our beautiful forests and small communities are being destroyed. The Beechie Creek Fire started by lightening, in a wilderness (National Forest) area. Authorities watched it for weeks. Water was dropped on it, but little was done with crews, because of tough terrain. They believed it would stay small, until October rains came to put it out. That was wrong. California style winds came and "blew that fire up." It became huge and blazed into the populated Santiam Canyon area, destroyed communities and recreation areas. It was then helped by electrical lines blown by wind. Another fire has burned much of our beautiful McKenzie River area. There are big fires in Southern Oregon, and even at the Oregon Coast.

We are experiencing terrible smokey/poor air quality and will be for some time
 
Right

All these fires started in different places and we're supposed to believe it was a natural occurrence

And we all be like stupid
 
Glitch said:
If an increase in temperature is causing an increase in wild fires, then why has only 181,000 acres burned this year in Alaska? Weren't these Marxist Climate Alarmist ranting about how 2020 was the "hottest year on record?" Yet fewer than 200,000 acres have burned in Alaska this year, while 2.5 million acres burned last year, and 5 million acres burned in 2015, and 6.5 million acres burned in 2004. If these leftists were right, shouldn't that trend be going in the exact opposite direction?
Click to expand...

Maybe you are just late to the conversation??? We have already established that human activity and sometimes lightening start fires. Climate change -hot dry conditions- make the fires larger and more devastating.

Lucky you- this year you had fewer lightening strikes and/or careless campers.
 
sKiTzo said:
I'm so sick of the fake news narrative. I can only hope that people see right through it.
Click to expand...

Oh goody, lets have some fun while people and animals are dying. What do we win if we get it right?
 
Cassandra said:
Maybe you are just late to the conversation??? We have already established that human activity and sometimes lightening start fires. Climate change -hot dry conditions- make the fires larger and more devastating.

Lucky you- this year you had fewer lightening strikes and/or careless campers.
Click to expand...

Except, as I have already demonstrated, they don't. The claim of the Marxist Climate Alarmists has been that each and every subsequent year has been getting hotter and hotter. Which means that, according to you, the fires should be getting "larger and more devastating." However, exactly the opposite is occurring. The number and size of the wild fires are getting smaller in Alaska.

  • 2004 = 6.5 million acres burned;
  • 2015 = 5.0 million acres burned;
  • 2019 = 2.5 million acres burned; and
  • 2020 = 0.2 million acres burned.
So much for the utter nonsense about temperature influencing wild fires.
 
I think its both. Dry fire criss and antifa decided they hate America and add to the fire by starting a whole bunch of new ones. Wildfires burn in big giant waves and there was reports of 36 seperated fires in Oregon. Obviously someone is starting fires amid the fire crisis chaos.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
They're often started by arson or even natural causes, but dramatically exacerbated by climate change. Stop having such a simplistic, black and white view of the world.
Click to expand...
So why are you wasting fossil fuel by doing something as inane as posting on an internet forum?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Literally nobody has said you should cut out all electricity from your life. You lie because you're ignorant and have an agenda.
Click to expand...

You are causing global warming by wasting fuel for a needless hobby. Why are you complaining about global warming while you are the one causing it?
 
What an amazingly simplistic and, unfortunately, totally worthless poll.

:doh

Besides, Donny Trump told me the reason for these fires is crappy "forest management" which could be vastly improved if folks would just "rake the floors" and remove those "exploding trees" or we could "just" wait and "watch" until it will "start getting cooler."

Problem solved!

:2wave:
 
PoS said:
Those idiots should be charged with arson.
Click to expand...

They should very well be charged under California Penal Code for Arson, Penal Code Section 452, "reckless "fire starting. They would not likely ever be charged under 451 PC for "malicious" arson.

They should be fully charged under PC 452 for all the charging enhancement additions.

Ayup, fully charged!

I agree.
 
swing_voter said:
Historically, there are a lot of wildfires started by arson.
Click to expand...

Not as many as one might expect, though.

Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires Since 1923: Causes

Power Line(s) = 7
Lightning = 1
Human Related = 3
Rekindled = 1
Electrical = 2
Undetermined = 1
Under Investigation = 2
Arson = 2
Misc. = 1

Of the two still under investigation; one happened this year and one in 2018. The two attributed to arson one was in 1990 and the other in 1992.

Of the Top 20 Largest California Fires, going back to 1932, several were “human related” but none has been attributed to arson. Of the six of these still under investigation one happened in 2018 and the other 5 are from this year alone.

Of the top 20 largest California fires on record only 3 occurred before the year 2003, all the rest have occurred from 2003 to date.

Yes that leaves out all the smaller fires that did not make the top 20 lists with arson no doubt being a key factor in many of those it does look as if arson is a small factor in relation to the 20 most destructive and not a factor in the 20 largest acreage burned.

In 2016, the 5-year average for California Fires of record was 3,103 Per Year, for all causes.
In this same period the 5-year average for California Fires of record caused by arson was 226 Per Year. That means on average only 7.3% of California wildfires per year are attributed to Arson. Yes that is 7.3% that is totally unacceptable but it is not as big an issue as some might think.

Welcome to CAL FIRE
 
Wildfires have always been as common as earthquakes on the west coast. My Aunt and Uncle lost their Topanga Canyon home in 1961 to fire. My Uncle went back to the charred remains and found his collection of dimes, all melted together. Arsonists exist, but aren't required.
 
There are two completely different options here

How the fires start (natural and arson)

And

Why the fires are so intense and dangerous (climate change or forestry management)

Lots of conflicting opinions out there. There are people out there who have.spent their lives in forest management and.fighting forest fires. Rather than being a political football why not ask the people who do it for a living.

Personally I don't think raking up the leaves in the millions of.acres of.national forest.in the mountain west is very practical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom