Since this fire is currently only a few miles away from my house I have much interest in it. And I ran into the following comments from this MSNBC article.
First off it seems that it is the namby pamby hippies fault San Francisco gets its water and electricity from the Sierra Nevada.
Note that the fire is threatening a hydroelectric source of power.
But then we get to this comment which is similar to many others I have been seeing on articles about the giant New York City sized wildfire raging in my backyard.
Except that most of the area that is now burning is, in fact, logged on a regular basis. I see them go into these areas all the time to cut down the bigger trees leaving the smaller ones to grow into future lumber sources.
Except most of the area now burning burned in 1987. There are some isolated areas now burning that haven't burned in a long time but they are not representative of most of the devastated region. Furthermore I'm not aware of too many environmentalists being in favor of total fire suppression. I took ecology classes in college and everyone there seemed to understand the benefits of periodic wildfires.
But old growth is not the problem with these wildfires. New growth is the problem. If there were periodic wildfires the new growth would be kept down and large tress would be mostly unaffected. And, again, I'm not aware of anyone arguing against fires for environmental reasons. I live in these forests and the only people I've seen fight against things like prescribed burns are the logging companies. They don't like them because they eliminate the young trees they want to harvest in a few years.
Darn that federal government for funding firefighting efforts in federal forests. And since when does anyone in SF want to live without electricity?
Interesting. So the solution to not having periodic small fires that don't burn hot is to not fight a giant fire that burns everything with so much heat it sterilizes the landscape?
Erm....right. Firefighters are just lazy union softbodies. And a major city potentially losing power is something only liberals would find to be a hardship. I'm so sure that Montgomery, Alabama wouldn't even notice a sudden absence of electricity and water.
This fire was caused by either and arsonist or a neglected campfire. Is that nature taking its course?
Yes, because we all know that what environmentalists really want is for each person to have their own solar generating plant. :rolleyes:
And very large wildfires like this one are not particularly healthy. They burn far hotter than anything that would naturally occur.
I really must keep an eye out for these pro stone age people down in San Francisco next time I am there.
Um....what?
Well I'm sure the fire will make sure to ask us who we voted for if it overtakes my town. I'm sure regretting for rejecting Romney now!
Interesting. :boggled:
Yeah, I mean who does that? Everyone knows that other cities get all their electricity from within.
Yeah, we know how much climatologists hate that! Just piles and piles of papers from them on how ecosystems don't create their own weather. :rolleyes:
And here I'm gonna stop because this is all just too frustrating. The reality is that people with the environment in mind have been trying to get prescribed burns in more areas for years. It is the logging companies that stop it. Not hippies from San Francisco.
Now this wouldn't be that big of a problem if they logged properly but the logging method of choice these days are large clear cuts. And that is the absolute wrong thing if you want to prevent these huge wildfires. Clear cuts leave vast swathes of the forest with trees of the same age that will all go up at once if they are ever in a fire.
But all this is somewhat beside the point here because most of the territory now burning burned in 1987. However that fire burned so hot it left the entire area deforested which meant a massive tree planting campaign had to be done in the aftermath. Those tress are now 25 years old and ripe for burning very hot in the ongoing drought.
First off it seems that it is the namby pamby hippies fault San Francisco gets its water and electricity from the Sierra Nevada.
Quote:
I do not understand. All the tech firms and they depend on somebody else. To receive water and electricity from somebody. Looks like they can make pretty toys and gadgets. But not much else. |
Quote:
Well, now the progressive-liberal, greenie, tree hugging, filthy wannabe hippies can walk their talk! Those whack jobs think we should go back to living like that of the 1850's - so here you go. It's not like you people shower. No power, no water - start pedaling! |
Quote:
If San Francisco loses power, this is the perfect opportunity to show libs what life would be like without carbon emitting power. This is a possible teachable moment |
Note that the fire is threatening a hydroelectric source of power.
But then we get to this comment which is similar to many others I have been seeing on articles about the giant New York City sized wildfire raging in my backyard.
Quote:
Get the welfare bums, the prisoners, off of their collective butts and have them help to clean these forests. If we would allow the Forests to be cleaned, IE: logging, (clean up to be included in contract), you wouldn't see this happening. |
Except that most of the area that is now burning is, in fact, logged on a regular basis. I see them go into these areas all the time to cut down the bigger trees leaving the smaller ones to grow into future lumber sources.
Quote:
The militant environmentalists caused this. Decades and decades of natural fire suppression is the reason wildfires get so out of hand so easily. Take a look at pictures of Yosemite a 100 years ago. There were wide open spaces and meadows. The forest was naturally maintained by wildfires, which in turn created natural fire breaks. Look at it now, dense forest, even on the valley floor. |
Except most of the area now burning burned in 1987. There are some isolated areas now burning that haven't burned in a long time but they are not representative of most of the devastated region. Furthermore I'm not aware of too many environmentalists being in favor of total fire suppression. I took ecology classes in college and everyone there seemed to understand the benefits of periodic wildfires.
Quote:
As for the tree-huggers and hippies, yes, they're a part of the reason we can't have responsible forestry management out west. Old growth is pretty and all but if it is not periodically cleared this is the disaster you invite. |
But old growth is not the problem with these wildfires. New growth is the problem. If there were periodic wildfires the new growth would be kept down and large tress would be mostly unaffected. And, again, I'm not aware of anyone arguing against fires for environmental reasons. I live in these forests and the only people I've seen fight against things like prescribed burns are the logging companies. They don't like them because they eliminate the young trees they want to harvest in a few years.
Quote:
If you're talking about the federal congress, they should not be funding firefighting. It's not a federal authority. That is a local/state issue. Nowhere does el Constitution provide for firefighting, or as AG added, education. If you're talking about California not funding firefighters, that's for the people of Cali to deal with. Hope all the firefighters remain safe. Hope all the SF greens get to live their utopia for a month. No power. |
Darn that federal government for funding firefighting efforts in federal forests. And since when does anyone in SF want to live without electricity?
Quote:
just let it burn. the problem is they keep puting out small fires and than there is more fuel for the next fire. this is the natural way to keep large fires from burnning is that the small fires burn the small amount of fuel and go out but when you keep putting them out large amounts of fuel pile up and when you have a fire it is a disaster. |
Interesting. So the solution to not having periodic small fires that don't burn hot is to not fight a giant fire that burns everything with so much heat it sterilizes the landscape?
Quote:
What happened to the HotShot firefighters (they sure have a great pension plan)? All the resources that go into the fire departments and Parks and Recreation. And the costly restrictive building codes and fire sprinkler systems etc. rules we must follow, yet the city of San Francisco is being threatened by fire. I'm afraid many residents will die if they have power and water services cut. Many of those city folk can't survive without comfortable amenities not to mention, basic resources. I'd hate to see an upset in a vital technology center not to mention the mecca of far left liberal superstructure. I guess, on the bright side, even natural disasters can provide an economic stimulus that has yet to occur. And fire is one thing Mother Nature uses to cleanse herself... |
Erm....right. Firefighters are just lazy union softbodies. And a major city potentially losing power is something only liberals would find to be a hardship. I'm so sure that Montgomery, Alabama wouldn't even notice a sudden absence of electricity and water.
Quote:
Let nature take it's course. Concentrate by using the available man-power on protecting buildings and homes where possible. Nature will always rejuvenate itself. |
This fire was caused by either and arsonist or a neglected campfire. Is that nature taking its course?
Quote:
So where are all of the SF solar power cells. There shouldn't be an issue in SF or with the environmentalists. Forest fires are healthy for the forests, but no so much for humans. |
Yes, because we all know that what environmentalists really want is for each person to have their own solar generating plant. :rolleyes:
And very large wildfires like this one are not particularly healthy. They burn far hotter than anything that would naturally occur.
Quote:
Why should San Francisco worry? They always wanted to go back to the stone age or they thought the rest of us should when it comes to power. |
I really must keep an eye out for these pro stone age people down in San Francisco next time I am there.
Quote:
Finally a good news! Those liberals, progressives, eco-Nazis, socialists, communists, "social sciences" professors, Democrats, and other creeps, bottom-feeders, slime, and scum of our once free and prosperous country in San Francisco can soon enjoy their "green energy" heaven right there! |
Um....what?
Quote:
Best natural way to rid the country of the worst liberals....it's a free Obama fire! |
Well I'm sure the fire will make sure to ask us who we voted for if it overtakes my town. I'm sure regretting for rejecting Romney now!
Quote:
Could not happen to a better place full of greedy, perverted sick progressives. |
Interesting. :boggled:
Quote:
So San Francisco relies on powerlines that travel all the way across the San Joaquin valley from the opposite side of the state? This is ridiculous |
Yeah, I mean who does that? Everyone knows that other cities get all their electricity from within.
Quote:
Better not tell the global warming alarmists that an ecosystem is creating its own weather patterns. |
Yeah, we know how much climatologists hate that! Just piles and piles of papers from them on how ecosystems don't create their own weather. :rolleyes:
Quote:
it's these western states own fault. they will not allow the dead scrub brush to be removed as it will impact the enviroment. without a fire break these fires could rage for weeks. unless you allow the removal of dead scrubs these things will happen yearly. what's funny is when they do, the ones fighting the fires remove the brush themselves to try to stop the spread. to a liberal tree hugger hindsight never matters! |
And here I'm gonna stop because this is all just too frustrating. The reality is that people with the environment in mind have been trying to get prescribed burns in more areas for years. It is the logging companies that stop it. Not hippies from San Francisco.
Now this wouldn't be that big of a problem if they logged properly but the logging method of choice these days are large clear cuts. And that is the absolute wrong thing if you want to prevent these huge wildfires. Clear cuts leave vast swathes of the forest with trees of the same age that will all go up at once if they are ever in a fire.
But all this is somewhat beside the point here because most of the territory now burning burned in 1987. However that fire burned so hot it left the entire area deforested which meant a massive tree planting campaign had to be done in the aftermath. Those tress are now 25 years old and ripe for burning very hot in the ongoing drought.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=264513&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire