View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
" But, thanks for the constructive criticism anyway."
You're welcome. _________________ The universe is made up of proton, neutrons, electrons, and morons. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | In two short years, things changed just like that, so that's Trump's fire.
What an idiot!
Many people died, we don't even know how many yet, and you couldn't wait to put their blood on his hands.
You're worthless. |
Before the body bags were even being zipped, the belligerent blowhard in chief, who's on a roll since last Tuesday, blamed the State of California for forest mismanagement. He really sets the tone, no somber talks, no emotional visits, just a shoot from the hip , clueless, tasteless tweet when people are dying . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Malibu fire had everything to do with chapparal, and nothing to do with forestry.
With that said, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. We need to do a better job of forest management, and the most constructive person on the field was Diane Feinstein with her efforts at the library group. Greedy timber folks and uncompromising enviros killed progress.
My organization has to clean up after these messes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of our Albuquerque sailors once asked the nearby weather bureau which of two lakes 20 miles apart would get the best wind that day. My buddy Roy, the bureau's wind expert (for purposes of forecasting fire danger), told him their smallest wind forecast pixel is something like 50 miles, so that level of detail was unresolvable.
Even if mac really were smarter than the rest of the world's scientists, what the hell would we do about it? Even William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, who won the 2018 Nobel Economics Prize for their work in integrating climate change and technological innovation into economic analysis, admit that the cost of just carbon efforts alone would far exceed any benefits.
Yet idealogues think they can price the effect of global warming on one infinitesimal piece of the globe? Surely you jest. That's like the egotistical flea floating down the river on his back, beating his meat and yelling, "Raise the bridge! Raise the bridge!" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even for conservatives on this forum, there has been a remarkable number of silly postings on this thread. Of course, Isobars censors what he is exposed to, so he frequently responds to something different than what is posted. And like others, he is always sure of himself--and occasionally correct.
Nobody is arguing that Trump caused climate change--he is just making addressing the issue more difficult. Nobody is arguing that climate change causes wildfires--but the greater heat that is well documented, and the more errative patterns of rainfall make the wildfire season longer and the wildfires more severe. Looking at any of the posted metrics--length of season, acres burned in any given year, or trends makes that clear.
I've made two points assiduously ignored by the stooges and their apprentices. First, many of those who politically support limited government are in fact being supported by government expenses to manage disasters and compensate them for their losses. Second, any level of improvement in preventing the impacts of disasters requires more government, not less.
NW correctly identifies the increase in homes in fire-prone areas as making the costs of wildfire greater. But it is unreasonable to tell someone who owns property in a fire-prone area that he cannot use that property, unless perhaps it is large enough to manage as timberland. Those who are new to these issue don't seem to know that in the Santa Monica Mountains, it was the very conservative Board of Supervisors who allowed subdivision and development of land that put thousands more at risk. That development requires more money to try to protect than it generates in taxes, and requires fire departments to fight fires in many more locations.
Those of you who whine at insults, yet respond to most posts with insults, haven't offered any solutions showing how the free market will solve these problems. Government cannot prevent rebuilding in hazard areas without a compelling public interest or buying the land in question. That is impossible with available resources. Fire risk can be reduced, but not eliminated, by stringent regulations that limit the nature of building materials and requiring clearing of vegetation. There isn't the political will to do those things. Even in cases where it has been attempted--the hurricane building codes adopted in the Carolinas and Florida--it proves difficult. Many of the roofs designed at some stage for hurricane winds, were destroyed by winds that were even greater.
As I've posted here before, the reddest states are often first at the trough, and California pays for their foolishness. Is anyone actually willing to offer and constructive suggestions? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mac wrote: |
As I've posted here before, the reddest states are often first at the trough, and California pays for their foolishness. Is anyone actually willing to offer and constructive suggestions? |
Yes, California being one of the bluest states, really knows how to burn thru money, billions in fact, should face the reality that the safety of people is far more important than wasting billions on pet projects that have nothing to do with people's safety, I speak of the fucking bullet train. Shit can that boondoggle and spend our tax money more wisely.
This is one reason I almost never vote in favor bond issues, those are mostly just begging for more money because Ca. doesn't know how to budget properly, and I'm sick of being asked to pick up their financial slack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cost of building Southland section of bullet train could jump by $11 billion, documents show
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-20181112-story.html
Billions that could be spent on forest management thus improving the public's safety. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You might look at this, and its failure: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_ProjectsPlans/PR_QLG.php
Nothing like suggesting cutting an old conservative bete noir. Not going to happen. I'm not a big fan of the high speed rail--I'd rather see money spent in urban transit systems. But I guess that's NW's idea of a constructive solution. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Damn right it is. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
So let's try a tlittle discipline, and actually discuss costs on the proper thread, and actually use some facts. NW's rants remind me of the "starve the beasters" I've run into in Berkeley. They've never actually read a budget, talked to a councilmember, or made any effort to understand that government is a collective effort, and that getting attention to what we think is a problem requires some accommodation to what other people think is a problem.
Poor comprehension of math and scale makes all of this different. NW is complaining about funding for high speed rail, initiated by a voter approved bond election in 2008. Voters approved about $10 billion in funds, with voter infomation that assumed additional funding would come from the Federal government. More than $2 billion in Federal funding was secured in 2010. The current cost estimate is about $100 billion. It is not readily apparent how much has already been spent--but about 20 separate projects are under way. The current source of funding, and estimates for the future funding are also not clear. Some funding comes from California's climate change legislation. It seems fairly clear that most of this money cannot be spent on fire risk management. It is also clear that Newsom will propose some changes to the program, either in scope or time frame.
Now to give some idea of scale, California is currently working under a $201.r billion budget, which incluides general funds and special funds. All Transportation funding is $14.9 billion, Funding for fightting fires, Cal Fire, is $2.3 billion.
Next to the scope of the fire in Butte County and the problems of forest floor fuel, which is way more complicated than a little raking. Nice little article in the SF Chronicle here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Fixing-state-s-fire-problem-Costly-complex-13406892.php
I'll pull a few quotes that tell the story.
Quote: | the best solution, experts say, lies in a combination of strategies that merely chip away at the risk and soften the blow.
The tool box includes hiring more firefighters, undergrounding spark-producing power lines, equipping homes with fire-resistant building materials, clearing overgrown vegetation and more. All of the tactics are pricey, and even pursued in tandem, there are no guarantees.
the amount of land being cleared or burned for fire prevention in California remains relatively small: about a quarter-million acres this year cumulatively by the U.S. Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The two agencies manage a combined 50 million acres statewide.
|
That's right, way less than 1% of the area is actually being actively managed. California is proposing a major infusion--$1 billion--while Trump proposes only a half billion. It is not clear whether that is for California or the whole country--but the Federl government manages most of the forest land in California, and Trump's initial budget cut funding.
NW--and Trump--are determined to remain ignorant of what things cost. They also seem unwilling to offer any positive suggestions about what they would propose that might help reduce risk. Better to bury your head in the sand and deny that global warming is happening than to actually face up to what adapatation is going to cost. Only one of the reasons that the GOP is dead in California. Failure to do the math. Economic thinking used to be the strength of the GOP--until they let 40 Tea Partiers and anti-immigrant fervor hijack thinking. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14892 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A friend of mine lost his home in Malibu he is down here. Another friend has not replied and from the maps his area on duma road is burnt out. another person from this town lost his there too. real sad. I cannot imagine how devasting this is.
glad to hear someone in Malibu is ok. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|